Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Part of me wants Labour to block any GE attempt and force May to change course
 
Adebesi said:
The way I see it, if there is an option to do something decisive, or an option to give it a bit more time and see what happens, the EU usually takes the latter option.

Anyway, as has been said, we dont know what will happen but we'll know soon enough, things tend to move quite quickly in this particular soap opera.
Click to expand...

That’s a fair point!
 
MikeUpNorth said:
The thing that makes me think it is possible the EU Commission would take the route of saying 'no more extensions' is because they must realise that a no-deal is likely to be temporary. The exit would happen, it would be an economic shitshow and Britain would have to agree the key terms of the Withdrawal Agreement (divorce bill, citizen's rights and Irish border backstop) anyway as a precondition to whatever the future relationship / trade deal is.
Click to expand...
They should force the UK to join the Eurozone (with no rebates) if no deal happens, the economy collapses and the UK wants back in.
 
If this wasn't sad, it would be so funny. May getting repeatedly humiliated in the parliament is absolutely hilarious, and at this stage, it seems that no one has any idea what they want.

What are May's options now? Call a GE? Or just go for fourth voting with 'take it or we leave Brexit without an agreement' which happens automatically in 2 weeks if another delay agreement doesn't happen. Why no one is really mentioning the idea of a second referendum is beyond me!
 
Cal? said:
They should force the UK to join the Eurozone (with no rebates) if no deal happens, the economy collapses and the UK wants back in.
Click to expand...
They wouldn't let the UK back in for at least a generation.
 
Adebesi said:
Well no, if we knew what they were going to do we wouldnt be having a conversation speculating about it.

If you say you havent claimed anything Ill take your word for it.

My claim is that IF the UK calls a GE then the EU will grant an extension to allow it to happen. Im certainly not claiming it SHOULD do that, that it is in the EU's best interests. I just think they will do that.

I dont think a GE is a foregone conclusion though, because the Tories will be shitting themselves that Corbyn will win it.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from, I just put in doubt your initial claim that it came from the EU.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
They wouldn't let the UK back in for at least a generation.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, they clearly do want the UK to stay, and if 1-2 years down the line, they're offered an even better deal, I don't see why they won't bite.
 
JPRouve said:
I understand where you are coming from, I just put in doubt your initial claim that it came from the EU.
Click to expand...
Yes, you might be right. As I said I saw some Euro MEP say it on the news in the last few days, that an extension would be forthcoming if A, B, C or D, one of them being a GE. But it wasnt an official proclamation by any means. I cant even remember who it was.
 
In the event of no deal - oddly enough, the EU will require the UK to guarantee the citizens rights as per the WA to have talks , they also will want their bill paid and will also require the UK to maintain the GFA.

In the event of an alternative version decided on brexit , the UK will still have to sign the WA.
 
Didn't Macron recently say he'd veto any further extensions to the Brexit process, meaning No Deal in April is probably going to happen?
 
Cal? said:
I'm not sure, they clearly do want the UK to stay, and if 1-2 years down the line, they're offered an even better deal, I don't see why they won't bite.
Click to expand...
To join the EU you need a unanimous decision by the EU Council. No chance that happens without a whole host of countries setting unacceptable preconditions on Britain's membership.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Again, not hypocritical. Just pragmatic. Whether they like it or not, any damage to the UK economy also damages their economy. So they don’t want the UK to make stupid decisions which damage its/their economy.

They obviously believe that staying in the EU - while leaving the UK - will be a net benefit for their economy. They could be wrong but that’s not hypocritical.
Click to expand...

They don't believe that though do they, its an ideological movement, not an economical one, just like Brexit.

It is hypocritical because their central purpose is to pursue as policy that will be more economically damaging to Scotland than Brexit will be to the UK. It would be a complex divorce just like Brexit too.
 
esmufc07 said:
Does Parliament have to withdraw A50 or can May do it without its consent?
Click to expand...
As far as I understand, it's an untested legal position that could well end up in court. But my best guess is that, as the government needed parliament to approve triggering A50, it would be reasonable to assume they need parliament to approve revoking it.
 
Klopper76 said:
Didn't Macron recently say he'd veto any further extensions to the Brexit process, meaning No Deal in April is probably going to happen?
Click to expand...
At some point this has to come to an end. Energy and resources need to be focused at something meaningful. If they extend beyond the EU elections, questions need to be asked on the EU leadership side as well.
 
Devil_forever said:
The SNP are slimy cnuts. They argue for UK being part of the European Union whilst they actively pursue leaving our union. They’re a bunch of hypocritical cnuts.
Click to expand...

Yeah, wanting to leave a Union that gives Scotland a Tory Government after Tory Government that couldn’t care less about Scotland is ‘slimy’.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
To join the EU you need a unanimous decision by the EU Council. No chance that happens without a whole host of countries setting unacceptable preconditions on Britain's membership.
Click to expand...
Back to how much influence Germany has over all the member states... anyway, no point discussing this
 
MikeUpNorth said:
As far as I understand, it's an untested legal position that could well end up in court. But my best guess is that, as the government needed parliament to approve triggering A50, it would be reasonable to assume they need parliament to approve revoking it.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

I read (BBC I think) that she could use royal perogative to override the need for Parliamentary consent.

Does seem like a bit of a legal minefield though.
 
Cal? said:
How is no deal a viable option when it clearly violates an international treaty?
Click to expand...
Viable, and being an option are two different things.

Its a genuine possibility, no? Whether it is a violation of an international treaty, or the biggest economic risk in the history of time do not remove it as one of the options the UK may be required to take.
 
NotoriousISSY said:
Viable, and being an option are two different things.

Its a genuine possibility, no? Whether it is a violation of an international treaty, or the biggest economic risk in the history of time do not remove it as one of the options the UK may be required to take.
Click to expand...
But 'no deal' is not a viable long term relationship. It's like saying because we can't agree which restaurant to go for dinner we just won't eat. You have to eat again eventually. Soon actually.
 
NotoriousISSY said:
Viable, and being an option are two different things.

Its a genuine possibility, no? Whether it is a violation of an international treaty, or the biggest economic risk in the history of time do not remove it as one of the options the UK may be required to take.
Click to expand...
But how's that a viable long term position at all?
 
I’d love a Corbyn government but I don’t think a one issue general election as this would be suits them. They’re objectively better than the Tories in just about every area but even more screwed when it comes to Brexit. Any strong stance one way or the other could wipe them off the electoral map.
 
Devil_forever said:
The SNP are slimy cnuts. They argue for UK being part of the European Union whilst they actively pursue leaving our union. They’re a bunch of hypocritical cnuts.
Click to expand...
If they're hypocritical cnuts, what makes Westminster who campaigned for the Union on the basis that Scotland wouldn't be part of the EU without it, only for a Referendum to be called a couple of years later which screwed them out of it anyways, and that too despite Scotland overwhelmingly voting to remain?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
They don't believe that though do they, its an ideological movement, not an economical one, just like Brexit.

It is hypocritical because their central purpose is to pursue as policy that will be more economically damaging to Scotland than Brexit will be to the UK. It would be a complex divorce just like Brexit too.
Click to expand...

Maybe so but the motivation for a formerly colonised country to want independence are obvious, right? And these are very different to the motivations behind the Uk wanting to leave the EU.

And I don’t see why it’s hypocritical to hold on to these motivations while also not wanting the UK government to railroad them down a path which makes their future prosperity even more tenuous than it would be as an EU member. As I said, that’s not hypocritical, just pragmatic.
 
The DUP’s deputy leader, Nigel Dodds, has hinted that the door is not closed on his party supporting Theresa May and her deal.

He confirmed that the party’s position was a “principled” one, centred on the union of the United Kingdom and the threat the backstop posed to that.

But, in a statement, he suggested the problems were not insurmountable, in the DUP’s view. He said:

In our recent discussions with the government good progress has been made on how domestic legislation would assist in ensuring the economic integrity of the UK as a whole and recognising Northern Ireland’s particular situation sharing a land border with the European Union.

We have encouraged the government to, as Dominic Raab has said [see 12.43pm], return to Brussels on these issues and not simply to accept the position of the European Union as being unalterable. The government must use the remaining time to deal with widely held concerns across the House of Commons.
Click to expand...

In other words get out the brown envelopes.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Maybe so but the motivation for a formerly colonised country to want independence are obvious, right? And these are very different to the motivations behind the Uk wanting to leave the EU.

And I don’t see why it’s hypocritical to hold on to these motivations while also not wanting the UK government to railroad them down a path which makes their future prosperity even more tenuous than it would be as an EU member. As I said, that’s not hypocritical, just pragmatic.
Click to expand...

Scotland isn't a 'former colonised country'. It joined the union voluntarily after it found itself in financial dire straits after bodging its own attempts at colonialism in South America. It joined the union in order to escape financial peril and to get back in on the colonising. Joining the union had an economically transformational effect on Scotland and they were key players in many aspects of the Empire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.