Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:So a good day for the Prime Minister, at last. Motion carried and some pesky amendments defeated.

Yes folks a good day for the PM is telling the Country over 50 times in the Commons the UK is leaving on the 29th March and then winning an extension..

What a low bar..

So now with May's successful extension deal with the EU there are the following two options on the table - both dependent on the UK Parliament:

Option 1) UK Parliament passes May's Deal before Friday 29th March 2019:  Brexit occurs Wednesday 22nd May 2019 with a DEAL.
Option 2) UK Parliament does not pass May's Deal before Friday 29th March 2019: Brexit occurs Friday April 12 2019 with a NO DEAL*.
*The EC/EU will be receptive to a new proposal ONLY if it includes Britain participating in the European MEP Elections of 23rd May 2019.

My own view is that for various reasons Britain won't be participating in the European MEP Elections because:
a) It is unlikely to be sent to Parliament for consideration.
b) It is unlikely to be passed by Parliament if it does go to Parliament.
c) There is no time to prepare for the MEP elections if it is approved by Parliament.

If Theresa May resigns then Britain will be headless until i) The Conservatives elect a new leader or until ii) a New General Election occurs.  All this will take time and result in Britain leaving the EU with NO DEAL on Friday April 12.

Theresa May is unlikely to resign because she has already agreed this is a one way mission for her to ensure Brexit occurs (to carry out the wishes of the people as mandated by the referendum of 2016) and that she will resign the party leadership before the next general election.

Theresa May is unlikely to resign because she's a spineless authoritarian.

Many social media chat sites don't discuss "Brexit" they just shout and scream and whinge and blame - so it is difficult to learn from them what is really going on.

Anyway I stumbled on a conservative site - and the consensus seems to be Theresa May's withdrawal agreement doesn't deliver Brexit (???), that NO DEAL would be better, that Theresa May isolates herself amongst her own non-elected advisers, is not a team player, tends to take the view that it is my way or the highway and has peeved many people off.

Mays deal delivers the result of the referendum. If some Leavers dont like that then, oh well. “You won get over it” springs to mind.

Mays finished. She cant survive this. But forgive my ignorance but how can they oust her when she survived the No Confidence vote last year? I thought that gave her atleast 12 months.

Bullcrap....The referendum was a binary choice...

Leave won so you leave not half stay in !!...If remain had won 52-48 nothing would have changed so how would that have respected it ???...With your methodology..

Enjoy reading your stuff usually... but come on !!

May's deal is crap and serves no one..

Out but in.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bullcrap....The referendum was a binary choice...

Leave won so you leave not half stay in !!...If remain had won 52-48 nothing would have changed so how would that have respected it ???...With your methodology..

Enjoy reading your stuff usually... but come on !!

May's deal is crap and serves no one..

Out but in.

Will we be members of the European Union? No. Therefore it delivers the result of the referendum.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bullcrap....The referendum was a binary choice...

Leave won so you leave not half stay in !!...If remain had won 52-48 nothing would have changed so how would that have respected it ???...With your methodology..

Enjoy reading your stuff usually... but come on !!

May's deal is crap and serves no one..

Out but in.

Surely an out but in would be a better solution to that referendum result than a no-deal because 48% wanted in? So it serves the whole, not the majority?

Granted, it is more than likely to just serve the snides making money out of playing political games, but if we're judging this just on your argument above, out but in seems right.

Samo wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bullcrap....The referendum was a binary choice...

Leave won so you leave not half stay in !!...If remain had won 52-48 nothing would have changed so how would that have respected it ???...With your methodology..

Enjoy reading your stuff usually... but come on !!

May's deal is crap and serves no one..

Out but in.

Will we be members of the European Union?  No.  Therefore it delivers the result of the referendum.

It is half in half out...You can't say it is the Brexit the UK voted for when if Remain had won 52-48 nothing would have changed...

I voted remain..

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bullcrap....The referendum was a binary choice...

Leave won so you leave not half stay in !!...If remain had won 52-48 nothing would have changed so how would that have respected it ???...With your methodology..

Enjoy reading your stuff usually... but come on !!

May's deal is crap and serves no one..

Out but in.

Surely an out but in would be a better solution to that referendum result than a no-deal because 48% wanted in? So it serves the whole, not the majority?

Granted, it is more than likely to just serve the snides making money out of playing political games, but if we're judging this just on your argument above, out but in seems right.

I imagine Remain would have won big if the question was...

Remain..
Half a Brexit..

I think Brexit will be a disaster.....Personally think there will be another referendum soon..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Samo wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Bullcrap....The referendum was a binary choice...

Leave won so you leave not half stay in !!...If remain had won 52-48 nothing would have changed so how would that have respected it ???...With your methodology..

Enjoy reading your stuff usually... but come on !!

May's deal is crap and serves no one..

Out but in.

Will we be members of the European Union?  No.  Therefore it delivers the result of the referendum.

It is half in half out...You can't say it is the Brexit the UK voted for when if Remain had won 52-48 nothing would have changed...

I voted remain..

No one can say what Brexit the country voted for which is exactly why we're in this Frak mess! Its not half in half out if we're not members of the EU anymore which is what was on the ballot. There wasnt an option of 'Leave but remain in the customs union' or 'Leave but stay in the single market' or 'Leave without a deal' or 'Leave but be like Norway' etc etc etc. It was just Leave or Remain, and based on the binary choice we were given, Mays deal fulfills the mandate given to her because it takes us out of the EU.

We can pretty much assume that a half in half out Brexit...That most Brexiteers think is worse than remaining.

Is probably not what the Country voted for..

Yes ??..

From what I understand - I have to agree with Samo - in that May's Deal is delivering Brexit (as does the NO Deal).

It seems many Conservative Leavers believe that May's Deal is appalling - they say it still ties Britain to the EU without being able to influence the EU from within (so saying it is worse than remaining in the EU).

However, other Conservative Leavers say - they will consider taking May's Deal because though they think the deal is appalling it leaves Britain outside of the EU, and will allow them to renegotiate a better deal later on.

Those that support a NO DEAL Brexit - complain that Theresa May never considered this as an option - and so never prepared Britain to leave under WTO terms. So though Britain may get a NO DEAL on April 12th by default - Britain hasn't been prepared for it.

Lots of media noise couple of days ago about a Cabinet coup against Theresa May, but all appears to be a damp squib. I've felt for a long time that the Tory plan was to try and project as much of the Brexit flak onto May as possible so a new leader can emerge relatively untainted by it. However, I would argue that the longer it drags on, the more that May as a zombie prime minister will chip away at the credibility of government and for all her many faults there don't appear to be any other potential Tory leaders who can to a degree avoid alienating either Remainer or Brexiter MPs in the party.

On a different matter, got to admit I'm disturbed at the reports of death threats to the lady who started the Article 50 petition. Anna Soubry was also advised not to return home over the weekend due to specific death threats. Given what happened to Jo Cox, there's no room for complacency, but its a sad state of affairs that this is happening to our country.

No name Bertie wrote:
Those that support a NO DEAL Brexit - complain that Theresa May never considered this as an option - and so never prepared Britain to leave under WTO terms.   So though Britain may get a NO DEAL on April 12th by default - Britain hasn't been prepared for it.

There is no and never has been even a significant minority in favor of exiting the EU on WTO terms. Not in parliament and not in the country.

Not only would this necessitate hard border controls at all the European frontiers, several WTO members have already blocked the UK having continuity agreements with countries that the they trade with using EU negotiated trade deals.

If Brexiteers feel this is a viable option and has support then lets take it to a public vote because it certainly wasn't put forward as an option prior to the 2016 referendum when we were promised unlimited access to the EU single market.

rodders wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:
Those that support a NO DEAL Brexit - complain that Theresa May never considered this as an option - and so never prepared Britain to leave under WTO terms.   So though Britain may get a NO DEAL on April 12th by default - Britain hasn't been prepared for it.

There is no and never has been even a significant minority in favor of exiting the EU on WTO terms. Not in parliament and not in the country.

...

It was made very clear what voting leave could entail - it was the central argument used for remaining in the EU - and this argument was dubbed project fear by those promoting leave.

No name Bertie wrote:

rodders wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:
Those that support a NO DEAL Brexit - complain that Theresa May never considered this as an option - and so never prepared Britain to leave under WTO terms.   So though Britain may get a NO DEAL on April 12th by default - Britain hasn't been prepared for it.

There is no and never has been even a significant minority in favor of exiting the EU on WTO terms. Not in parliament and not in the country.

...

It was made very clear what voting leave could entail -

Yes and it was dismissed by the Leave campaign. Just over 5K people signed a petition to leave the EU on WTO terms on 29th March, so either 17 million people changed their minds or this is not what they voted for.

In any case there is no sign of any political support or mandate for it and if there is then brexiteers have no need to concern themselves about a second referendum.

All this debating of terms and nobody feels fit to mention the events of the weekend and that petition? Way over 5 million names and contrary to the belief of certain commentators it is something like 96% from the UK.

The march at the weekend must be the biggest in UK history. Maybe because it was well behaved the idiots think they can ignore it. Considering May feels that she can keep on asking the same question in the hope of getting the answer she wants (even when it is rejected by record margins), isn't it about time the question went back to the people?

I'm baffled the Murdoch lot and the Mail aren't covering it, aren't you?

They didn't cover the fraud around the vote either.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I'm baffled the Murdoch lot and the Mail aren't covering it, aren't you?

They didn't cover the fraud around the vote either.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6842103/Tens-thousands-streets-London-demand-Peoples-Vote.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8703714/brexit-march-london-2019-peoples-vote-article-50/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/peoples-vote-supporters-take-over-central-london-wqbjg3qjk
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/g00/news/article-6844065/Petition-cancel-Brexit-closes-5m-signatures.html?i10c.ua=4&i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3d&i10c.dv=19
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/8707660/brexit-secretary-threatens-chaos-with-another-election-if-mps-vote-for-a-soft-brexit-this-week/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petition-to-stop-brexit-passes-the-5m-mark-pwqvk93gp

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/brexit-march-peoples-vote-crowd-size?utm_medium=applenews&utm_source=applenews&fbclid=IwAR1LWSe_GH_YBURDXzm_lQBqLaXKGhr1iEDxztyMBMGx75TfwtuL3NAV0DU

Oh, and just like last time, it appears the People's Vote campaign lied about the numbers who turned up (surprise, surprise). It's likely 312,000-400,000 turned out.

@Duty: If you were anywhere near Central London on Saturday you'd have had an appreciation of the numbers. Due to sheer volume of protesters many couldn't get anywhere near the finishing point at Parliament Square. 1 million is a conservative estimate, which most of media have gone with. The demo in October was big enough but this was significantly higher.

MrInvisible wrote:@Duty: If you were anywhere near Central London on Saturday you'd have had an appreciation of the numbers.  Due to sheer volume of protesters many couldn't get anywhere near the finishing point at Parliament Square.  1 million is a conservative estimate, which most of media have gone with.  The demo in October was big enough but this was significantly higher.

1 million is an extreme over estimate, as the article explains.

I have seen estimates of 2 million (alleged unofficial Met figures). I have seen mention of another putting the numbers at 1.5-1.9. As ever none of these figures can be confirmed and we like to follow our own bias.

But it was, undeniably, huge. It was also far far greater than Brexit supporters could ever hope to gather for their cause, and it was, despite Gove's missus' comments, without trouble. I am just wondering at what point the size of the march actually become significant enough for the likes of Duty to take notice rather than just focus on talking it down.

Worthwhile comparing with Farago's little effort which has probably been outnumbered by photographers and counter protesters.

lostinwales wrote:I have seen estimates of 2 million (alleged unofficial Met figures). I have seen mention of another putting the numbers at 1.5-1.9. As ever none of these figures can be confirmed and we like to follow our own bias.

But it was, undeniably, huge. It was also far far greater than Brexit supporters could ever hope to gather for their cause, and it was, despite Gove's missus' comments, without trouble. I am just wondering at what point the size of the march actually become significant enough for the likes of Duty to take notice rather than just focus on talking it down.

Worthwhile comparing with Farago's little effort which has probably been outnumbered by photographers and counter protesters.

Well Brexit supporters managed to gather 17.4 million votes for their cause, whereas Remain supporters mustered up 16.1 million, so I'm not sure about the 'far far greater' claim.

And that 16.1 million is exactly the nub of the matter. We know 16.1 million voted to Remain. We know a number of them still feel passionate about it. So why is it surprising that hundreds of thousands manage to march for Remain, or a few million of them sign a petition for Remain? Answer: it isn't. And it makes no difference to the overall result.

Surprised you're able to type whilst walking down the road with the 40-50 others in Nige's walk for Brexit

Hero wrote:Surprised you're able to type whilst walking down the road with the 40-50 others in Nige's walk for Brexit

It's a great skill, guv'nor!

Putting allegiances aside, as a betting man do you still think it'll end up as a No deal Brexit or has the shift from the EU changed your mind?

Hero wrote:Putting allegiances aside, as a betting man do you still think it'll end up as a No deal Brexit or has the shift from the EU changed your mind?

I'm 100% certain it won't be a no deal Brexit.

There are only 2 prospects that can command any sort of majority, a soft brexit involving a customs union or remaining in the EU.

Given the first doesn't make any sense, economically or politically, ultimately all roads lead to remaining in the EU it just comes down to the sequence of events to get there.

Hero wrote:Putting allegiances aside, as a betting man do you still think it'll end up as a No deal Brexit or has the shift from the EU changed your mind?

A no-deal Brexit is, I think, still the most likely outcome.

The European Commission has, today, released a statement saying that such a scenario on the 12th April is 'increasingly likely'.

Duty281 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I'm baffled the Murdoch lot and the Mail aren't covering it, aren't you?

They didn't cover the fraud around the vote either.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6842103/Tens-thousands-streets-London-demand-Peoples-Vote.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8703714/brexit-march-london-2019-peoples-vote-article-50/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/peoples-vote-supporters-take-over-central-london-wqbjg3qjk
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/g00/news/article-6844065/Petition-cancel-Brexit-closes-5m-signatures.html?i10c.ua=4&i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3d&i10c.dv=19
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/8707660/brexit-secretary-threatens-chaos-with-another-election-if-mps-vote-for-a-soft-brexit-this-week/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petition-to-stop-brexit-passes-the-5m-mark-pwqvk93gp

Yet, as much as you think that their online presence is the same as their actual newspaper intent, front pages on Sunday for 4 of the worst culprits of fuelling racists went with the attached (although I'm sure we all wanted to hear about the cleaning sensation sweeping the nation)



Granted the Express clearly tried to be cute, and get credit for not mentioning Diana.

Interesting to hear two such conflicting perspectives of what is 100% going to/not going to happen, from Rodders and Duty.

Is probably a really accurate reflection of the country.

Myself personally, I'm on the Rodders side of the fence. I think a majority in parliament will want to avoid a no-deal at all costs. even to the extent of revoking article 50. The only ways I can see a no-deal, is either if that majority is not actually there, or we have a second referendum which shows that as the path the public wants to follow

Afro wrote:Interesting to hear two such conflicting perspectives of what is 100% going to/not going to happen, from Rodders and Duty.

Is probably a really accurate reflection of the country.

Myself personally, I'm on the Rodders side of the fence. I think a majority in parliament will want to avoid a no-deal at all costs. even to the extent of revoking article 50. The only ways I can see a no-deal, is either if that majority is not actually there, or we have a second referendum which shows that as the path the public wants to follow

I'm not 100% sure it will be no-deal. I just think that, right now, it remains the most likely scenario.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I'm baffled the Murdoch lot and the Mail aren't covering it, aren't you?

They didn't cover the fraud around the vote either.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6842103/Tens-thousands-streets-London-demand-Peoples-Vote.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8703714/brexit-march-london-2019-peoples-vote-article-50/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/peoples-vote-supporters-take-over-central-london-wqbjg3qjk
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/g00/news/article-6844065/Petition-cancel-Brexit-closes-5m-signatures.html?i10c.ua=4&i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3d&i10c.dv=19
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/8707660/brexit-secretary-threatens-chaos-with-another-election-if-mps-vote-for-a-soft-brexit-this-week/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petition-to-stop-brexit-passes-the-5m-mark-pwqvk93gp

Yet, as much as you think that their online presence is the same as their actual newspaper intent, front pages on Sunday for 4 of the worst culprits of fuelling racists went with the attached (although I'm sure we all wanted to hear about the cleaning sensation sweeping the nation)



Granted the Express clearly tried to be cute, and get credit for not mentioning Diana.

I don't think that not featuring a certain story on their front pages = not covering it.

(And of course the Mail on Sunday supported 'Remain' during the referendum)

Whatever is going to happen in the next three weeks is going to be interesting.

If there is a NO DEAL by default - which is the current state of play - then I can see a campaign of civil disobedience.

If the referendum vote is revoked - which would require some sort of overthrow of Theresa May - then I can see a sizeable proportion of the 17.4 million people that voted out despite "project fear" will create even more civil disobedience. I think the Conservatives will politically go into meltdown.

Politically Corbyn is probably in a good position. Corbyn has filled his shadow cabinet with an assortment of activists with very little practical experience of running things within budget - so having a Corbyn led government is going to be interesting.

In times of upheaval I think the SNP will probably get their dream of an "independent Scotland" - then things can really begin to change in England - because Scotland has often been seen as a counterbalance to English conservatism.

Duty281 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I'm baffled the Murdoch lot and the Mail aren't covering it, aren't you?

They didn't cover the fraud around the vote either.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6842103/Tens-thousands-streets-London-demand-Peoples-Vote.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8703714/brexit-march-london-2019-peoples-vote-article-50/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/peoples-vote-supporters-take-over-central-london-wqbjg3qjk
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/g00/news/article-6844065/Petition-cancel-Brexit-closes-5m-signatures.html?i10c.ua=4&i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8%3d&i10c.dv=19
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/8707660/brexit-secretary-threatens-chaos-with-another-election-if-mps-vote-for-a-soft-brexit-this-week/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/petition-to-stop-brexit-passes-the-5m-mark-pwqvk93gp

Yet, as much as you think that their online presence is the same as their actual newspaper intent, front pages on Sunday for 4 of the worst culprits of fuelling racists went with the attached (although I'm sure we all wanted to hear about the cleaning sensation sweeping the nation)



Granted the Express clearly tried to be cute, and get credit for not mentioning Diana.

I don't think that not featuring a certain story on their front pages = not covering it.

(And of course the Mail on Sunday supported 'Remain' during the referendum)

It was a glib comment to someone who would have been on my line of thinking, but if we are delving into it, their coverage was not proportionate to its worthiness because of an agenda-ridden decision. Further to that, the influence of the front page is still important and it’s a little laughable to think of the press as news when you see such things.

Further to that, online coverage is a completely different beast, especially for the Mail, but they’re essentially different businesses. Granted, I hadn’t expected a throwaway comment to get you googling frantically so hadn’t been quite so specific

There’s also a lot of water under the bridge at the Mail since those days.

Our MPs aren't going to allow us to leave the EU, they never were IMO.

I suggest we all sit back, relax, and enjoy our front row seats to the freak show.

twelve283 wrote:Our MPs aren't going to allow us to leave the EU, they never were IMO.

I suggest we all sit back, relax, and enjoy our front row seats to the freak show.

Without a plan how could they? The last two years have been an utter disaster, and the only thing you can guarantee is that given any choice the government always chooses the worst option.

Did May just say "unless this House agrees to it no deal will not happen”?!

From May's recent comments it looks like May's Deal is not going to be passed by Parliament and also a NO DEAL is not going to be passed by Parliament - so it looks like May is going to have to go back to the EC and ask for a long extension with an agreement to participate in the Euro Elections of 23rd May.   She also said in those circumstances she would not be able to guarantee Brexit for Britain.   With a long extension (a year or two years?) - then it seems anything goes - with the likelihood of a second referendum.

The EC/EU could decline the long extension - but I can't see them doing so - given that Britain will agree to hold the MEP elections.

Not sure what the Tory Brexiters are going to do - I think May is saying alternative Brexit suggestions are not going to be negotiable with the EC/EU at this late stage - its a) MAYS DEAL (22nd May) or b) NO DEAL (12th April) or c) A LONG EXTENSION (with MEP elections 23 May).

Options a or b have to be decided by Thursday 28th March. If there is no agreement (likely) - then Britain will be heading for option b) by default - but Theresa May has by 11th April to suggest an acceptable alternative to the EC/EU - which can only be option c).

House of Commons vote on the 'Letwin amendment', result:

AYES: 329
NOES: 302

This amendment will allow MPs on Wednesday to put forward indicative votes relating to Brexit, effectively taking control away from the government.

That makes some things more likely and some things less likely, but f*ck knows which is which anymore.

lostinwales wrote:All this debating of terms and nobody feels fit to mention the events of the weekend and that petition? Way over 5 million names and contrary to the belief of certain commentators it is something like 96% from the UK.

The march at the weekend must be the biggest in UK history. Maybe because it was well behaved the idiots think they can ignore it. Considering May feels that she can keep on asking the same question in the hope of getting the answer she wants (even when it is rejected by record margins), isn't it about time the question went back to the people?

Pretty irrelevant. Nice walk in the sun on Saturday; that's about all. Five million on a petition not subject to same checks as election/referendum? >17 million voted out. A million or so on march? >17 million voted out. Parliament trashed a motion for a second referendum.

lostinwales wrote:I have seen estimates of 2 million (alleged unofficial Met figures). I have seen mention of another putting the numbers at 1.5-1.9. As ever none of these figures can be confirmed and we like to follow our own bias.

But it was, undeniably, huge. It was also far far greater than Brexit supporters could ever hope to gather for their cause, and it was, despite Gove's missus' comments, without trouble. I am just wondering at what point the size of the march actually become significant enough for the likes of Duty to take notice rather than just focus on talking it down.

Worthwhile comparing with Farago's little effort which has probably been outnumbered by photographers and counter protesters.

Significantly greater than ~17 million I would suggest.

navyblueshorts wrote:Parliament trashed a motion for a second referendum.

Because without the Benn amendment it was pointless. Even the people behind the Peoples Vote campaign said it was the wrong time to have such a vote. Now Parliament have more control I wouldnt be surprised to see a motion like that get significant support - although nothing really matters as these are just indicative votes and May still gets final say.

https://fullfact.org/europe/peoples-vote-march-count/?fbclid=IwAR26fDKGt180RxsSDa_QjrXPQWWHxcFP_YjbLxAKJkJiwyImZX-87nZJJTc

The non-biased Full Fact website confirming from other sources that there was most likely a maximum of 400,000 on the march, and dismissing the laughable two million claim - which I believe originated from the deranged Grayling, who has a habit of making up statistics and telling outright lies.

Duty281 wrote:

Afro wrote:Interesting to hear two such conflicting perspectives of what is 100% going to/not going to happen, from Rodders and Duty.

Is probably a really accurate reflection of the country.

Myself personally, I'm on the Rodders side of the fence. I think a majority in parliament will want to avoid a no-deal at all costs. even to the extent of revoking article 50. The only ways I can see a no-deal, is either if that majority is not actually there, or we have a second referendum which shows that as the path the public wants to follow

I'm not 100% sure it will be no-deal. I just think that, right now, it remains the most likely scenario.

I am confident no deal won't be allowed to happen there is one scenario where it could. If a general election returned a party with a majority on a no deal ticket, and or a referendum result with an explicit option of no deal.

I don't believe no deal can carry any sort of even significant minority of support, it is a politically toxic idea even for the tories given it's rejection by the overwhelming majority of the business community.

In fact I believe many so called advocates of this, outside of the far right, are just using it for political gain and don't seriously believe this is a real option for the UK. Talk of trading on WTO terms and slashing tariffs is so idiotic it beggars belief even by Liam Fox standards.

Canada plus won't work as it involves hard border controls at the frontiers and major disruption to UK business with the complex supply chains and dependencies we have with the EU.  Norway plus is viable but makes no sense, we'd be paying into the EU, accepting the rules with no say and breaks several government red lines particularly ending free movement.

Pretty much every brexit scenario breaks some of the key promises made by leave and the government, except ironically Theresa May's withdrawal deal which everyone seems to hate, even though it delivers on many of the key referendum issues.

That said I don't believe Parliament will revoke article 50 without putting it back to a public vote and/or general election.

Therefore for me by far the most likely scenario is a 1-2 year extension on condition of second referendum, putting whatever option parliament agrees versus remaining in the EU. That doesn't solve the conundrum of electing MEPs but every scenario is a mess at this stage and everything is about damage limitation.

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Parliament trashed a motion for a second referendum.

Because without the Benn amendment it was pointless. Even the people behind the Peoples Vote campaign said it was the wrong time to have such a vote. Now Parliament have more control I wouldnt be surprised to see a motion like that get significant support - although nothing really matters as these are just indicative votes and May still gets final say.

Maybe. Benn amendment was pointless as far as I can see, as no deal was/is the default legal position w/o a deal.

Hope any such future amendment on Ref2 would be substantially different from the first one - wouldn't want Mr. Speaker to prevent it being tabled. Hope the Country's ready for the fallout if this is supported.

rodders wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Afro wrote:Interesting to hear two such conflicting perspectives of what is 100% going to/not going to happen, from Rodders and Duty.

Is probably a really accurate reflection of the country.

Myself personally, I'm on the Rodders side of the fence. I think a majority in parliament will want to avoid a no-deal at all costs. even to the extent of revoking article 50. The only ways I can see a no-deal, is either if that majority is not actually there, or we have a second referendum which shows that as the path the public wants to follow

I'm not 100% sure it will be no-deal. I just think that, right now, it remains the most likely scenario.

I am confident no deal won't be allowed to happen there is one scenario where it could. If a general election returned a party with a majority on a no deal ticket, and or a referendum result with an explicit option of no deal.

I don't believe no deal can carry any sort of even significant minority of support, it is a politically toxic idea even for the tories given it's rejection by the overwhelming majority of the business community.

In fact I believe many so called advocates of this, outside of the far right, are just using it for political gain and don't seriously believe this is a real option for the UK. Talk of trading on WTO terms and slashing tariffs is so idiotic it beggars belief even by Liam Fox standards.  

Canada plus won't work as it involves hard border controls at the frontiers and major disruption to UK business with the complex supply chains and dependencies we have with the EU.  Norway plus is viable but makes no sense, we'd be paying into the EU, accepting the rules with no say and breaks several government red lines particularly ending free movement.

Pretty much every brexit scenario breaks some of the key promises made by leave and the government, except ironically Theresa May's withdrawal deal which everyone seems to hate, even though it delivers on many of the key referendum issues.

That said I don't believe Parliament will revoke article 50 without putting it back to a public vote and/or general election.

Therefore for me by far the most likely scenario is a 1-2 year extension on condition of second referendum, putting whatever option parliament agrees versus remaining in the EU. That doesn't solve the conundrum of electing MEPs but every scenario is a mess at this stage and everything is about damage limitation.

But the reason why no deal is the most likely scenario is because it's the default option. It doesn't need to carry support, or win a majority in Parliament, or be supported in another referendum or another GE. If a deal cannot be agreed, or an alternative plan of action, within the time limit (currently April 12th), we will leave with no deal.

That said, it looks like JRM is switching to back the PM's deal at the next time of asking, which is a massive boost to the PM.

Rees Mogg is voting for May's deal..

Not sure no deal is going to happen buddy.

Duty281 wrote:
But the reason why no deal is the most likely scenario is because it's the default option. It doesn't need to carry support, or win a majority in Parliament, or be supported in another referendum or another GE. If a deal cannot be agreed, or an alternative plan of action, within the time limit (currently April 12th), we will leave with no deal.

That said, it looks like JRM is switching to back the PM's deal at the next time of asking, which is a massive boost to the PM.

Well it is only the default option because it was made so by the government at a time when it had a majority so it can be changed now that it carries no support.

If JRM thought a no deal was possible, he wouldn't even consider backing Mays deal. The DUP definitely won't so can't see anyway she can get a majority.