kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
MrMusician18 wrote: » Oh please, there have been several referendums in Ireland where the result has not been interpreted as a pure rejection of the proposal, but where the electorate has used it as a stick to beat the government: Nice 1 and Lisbon 1 are cases in point. We need to get off our high horse here and quit fooling ourselves that the Irish electorate is any more sophisticated than the UK. It isn't. I'm not sure how effective the referendum commission is in getting people to engage with the facts tbh, especially in a disinterested and complacent population.
ilovesmybrick wrote: » Honestly, the idea that the British Government could 'reset the negotiations' as on the telegraph front page is utterly delusional. The UK doesn't control these negotiations, they never have (due to serious failures in how they approached them), and article 50 started a timer that is due to expire very shortly and will expire unless they get agreement with the entire EU. You might understand when this process (which was never undertaken before) has a learning curve at the beginning, but at this stage it's frankly mad that they haven't even pretended to have come to terms with what it entails or what it involves.
Imreoir2 wrote: » If May's only hope of getting a deal through is relying on Labour rebels, then I think we are facing no deal. How many Labour rebels would she need? Without the DUP she would need 6, even if every ERG Tory voted for the deal. For every member of the ERG who votes against her deal, she needs either a Labour rebel or some other MP, perhaps she has convinced some of the Lib Dems to support a deal? Even so, there are over 60 in the ERG, if they all vote a deal down, then it is likely that the deal is dead unless you see a massive number of Labour MPs breaking ranks. The deal is looking ever more unlikely.
Tell me how wrote: » Would they rather put their name to a No Deal scenario? Maybe they would given that they are not negotiating but I wouldn't be sure. Surely they might try to make the best of a bad situation at that point. Time is rapidly running out.
Tell me how wrote: » It seems that many members of the public in the uK are simply of the view that the delay in a deal is the fault of the EU. They don't understand why they don't just leave. If someone tells them that there is a deal but their local Labour mp is going against the will of the people in the 2016 referendum, they won't stop to query why. They will see them as obstructing Brexit. Time is running out. They do not now have time to replace May and/or have a GE before the 29th of March. (maybe they could do the former but given that the purpose of getting rid of her would be to replace the deal which she is negotiating, they would still run out of time) They cannot just say "Sorry lads, we're not wuite ready, give us another 6 months." They either sign up to a deal with a transition period or they go with none.
MrMusician18 wrote: » We need to get off our high horse here and quit fooling ourselves that the Irish electorate is any more sophisticated than the UK. It isn't. I'm not sure how effective the referendum commission is in getting people to engage with the facts tbh, especially in a disinterested and complacent population.
Enzokk wrote: » I get that this means no deal is more likely, but that is out of our control when the other party is the one steering towards the cliff edge.
ilovesmybrick wrote: » We have a lot of failings in our political system, a hell of a lot, but there is something to be said about the almost reverence we take to handling the constitution properly.
MrMusician18 wrote: » We need to get off our high horse here and quit fooling ourselves that the Irish electorate is any more sophisticated than the UK. It isn't.
McGiver wrote: » On Jo Johnson's letter. He seems to indicate that three options would be put on the ballot: 1. No deal 2. May's deal 3. Remain Now, as I said repeatedly in the past, I don't think any sensible government would put the no deal option on the ballot knowing what kind of damage it would cause. No deal simply isn't an option. How would they explain this to the UK electorate? "If you vote for no deal, the medicines may run out in a month, food availability will be reduced, 1M jobs will be lost, Dover will come to a halt in a week, Kent will transform into a lorry car park, taxes will be raised substantially, public services will be cut." I mean seriously? And given the state of the UK electorate (brainwashed by Daily Mail for 30 years) many would still ignore this and say that it's Project Fear, We've had enough of the experts, Leave means Leave, Rule Britainia and everything will be grand. There are 30% people like this in UK based on polls, ladies and gentlemen. This realisation is deeply concerning. The scale of Trumpism in the UK we could call it. It is very possible that Brexiteers would rally behind the "No deal" option given that May's deal is as toxic for them probably as much as Remain.
Akrasia wrote: » "No deal for Britain is better than a bad deal" Theresa May 2017. Her own stupid words will haunt her
RobMc59 wrote: » Wouldn't the same statement apply to the EU?-No deal is better than a bad deal?
McGiver wrote: » On Jo Johnson's letter. He seems to indicate that three options would be put on the ballot: 1. No deal 2. May's deal 3. Remain
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » None of those will get over 50% So most of the voters will be dissatisfied Also needs clarification on exactly what May's deal is. There are some calling for another option. 4. Resume negotiations Completely missing the points that Article 50 only allows an extension if everyone agrees, and why would the EU even consider this until the deal with the UK is almost complete. And it not nearly complete as the UK still doesn't look like it can past it's own red lines.
CelticRambler wrote: » It was pointed out some time ago (can't remember where) that there isn't any "no deal" option. The UK cannot continue to function beyond Brexit-day without deals on just about everything, and it doesn't suit the EU to not be able to do business with the UK (e.g. fly EU planes through UK airspace, or take UK money for EU produce) - so "no deal" in fact means hundreds of micro-deals will have to be arranged for humanitarian reasons if no other. For the EU, that would be worse than the current mess of arrangements they have with Switzerland and which they vowed never to repeat, so "no deal" wouldn't be better than a bad deal, but as the UK has shown itself incapable of negotiating any kind of deal, the EU probably won't have any choice in the matter.
Akrasia wrote: » The referendum would have have two questions, not a single question with 3 options The first question would be "Should Britain leave the EU under the terms negotiated in the withdrawal agreement?" Yes/No The 2nd question should be something like: In the event of the withdrawal agreement being rejected in the preceding ballot, should the UK continue to leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement? Yes/No
prawnsambo wrote: » I honestly don't think there should be another referendum. Firstly because yet again, it can only be advisory. Secondlly because there is still no independent commission set up to oversee such a referendum and it will just result in the same old lies being regurgitated with no oversight and thirdly because the time to run one with the requisite time for campaigning and then to run the result through parliament and act upon it is vanishingly small. The onus is on the government and westminster to actually govern, make the hard decisions and stop playing power games with each other. The nonsense of Labour standing clear of their obligations as an opposition is just one of the many manifestations of these games.
Muscles Schultz wrote: » Needs to be a PR type referendum if more than 2 options
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » That is probably the way they'd do it alright, but it's very unsatisfactory. It potentially disenfranchises both the 'Remain' option and the 'Crash Out' option, either of which could potentially have 50%+ support. So someone whose actual preferred choice would be 1) 'Remain' and 2) 'accept deal on offer' has a hobsons choice in the first question. Vote Yes and this potentially leads to their preferred choice never being counted, or Vote No and risk their least favoured option being chosen. Ditto someone whose preferred choice is 1) Crash Out 2) Accept Deal. The same obviously applies to every combination of 'Ask initital Yes/No question, then split 2 ways for second question'. Very flawed and I'm not sure the UK courts would uphold it as being a valid format of question to set the public.
Anthracite wrote: » I'm not quite sure that your logic here is correct. The proposal would be to have two independent votes on the two questions, not one vote for a combination of two choices.
"It's completely out of sync to how we normally are... We're turning businesses away every day, every single day," Mr Rattenbury said. The Cardiff warehouse has been full to capacity for four months, he said. The company has now bought a 12-acre former wrapping paper factory in Aberbargoed and is converting it into another cold storage centre, which will cost £1.7m, with £500,000 over five years coming from the Welsh Government. It aims to employ 120 people within 18 months. ... "They're worried about the raw ingredients to be able to make ready meals, they're concerned about flour, they're concerned about juices. Everything you can think of that we use for food. Everybody is looking to stockpile."
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » No they aren't independent (in Akrasias post/suggestion #3367), as the second vote only becomes relevant/counted in the event that the first ballot is rejected. In order to get your first choice counted (whether that's Remain or Crash Out) you have to initially reject your likely second preference of 'accept deal'. Thats the opposite of independent.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » they're concerned about flour, wow, that stuff is cheap and available worldwide. And can easily be made from grain that can be stored for years.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » The backstop is the WTO. The UK can unilaterally allow EU planes to land and EU truck drivers to arrive. There'll be more paperwork and tariffs until the micro deals are done. One huge political decision is how much if any of the cost will be absorbed by the UK government. Irish citizens have an advantage here thanks to travel rights recognised by all sides. Be interesting to see how many UK transport firms place ads here.A cold storage firm says it has run out of room because the food industry is stockpiling in the run-up to Brexit. they're concerned about flour, wow, that stuff is cheap and available worldwide. And can easily be made from grain that can be stored for years.
