nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Rhineshark

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.

1. The EU
2. Remainers
3. Ireland
4. Corbyn

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

10000maniacs

J Mysterio wrote: »

The EU dont want to offer a 'sunset clause' on a 'backstop'.

I never said they did. But that's the minimum that a lot of those 117 Tories and the DUP will accept to vote with the deal.

Infini

J Mysterio wrote: »

The EU dont want to offer a 'sunset clause' on a 'backstop'.

They wont. If they dont accept the backstop before Brexit they will have to after and thats if we don't demand a border poll to try and solve the issue altogether.

Laois_Man

Infini wrote: »

She could also carry out her threat to call off Brexit as well and direct the blame at others for it. That would be the one trump card she has left. I don't think she wants to go down as the PM who brought down Britain no matter how stubborn she might be and she knows noone else will be able to challenge her for a year. If all else fails she could call this whole thing off and end it rather than let a crash happen parliment might be divided but not a majority of then are dense enough to ruin the country over it. If the call to end Brexit is made it will pass considering the alternative.

How can she call off Brexit when it is already enshrined in UK law that they exit the EU on March 28th? Wouldn't it need a new law, passed thru parliament, that supersedes that one?

robinph

10000maniacs wrote: »

She still has to convince 117 Tories and 10 DUP MP's to vote with her to get the meaningful vote through. A legally binding "sunset clause" on the backstop will help, but I don't think it's nearly enough to swing it.

The 200 that voted for her tonight are certainly not all going to be voting for her deal if that eventually makes it up to be voted on. They just don't want to have anyone else in the PM job for now.

[Deleted User]

10000maniacs wrote: »

She still has to convince 117 Tories and 10 DUP MP's to vote with her to get the meaningful vote through. A legally binding "sunset clause" on the backstop will help, but I don't think it's nearly enough to swing it.

Tony Connelly believes the EU is not interested. Their position may have even hardened on the idea once TM's survival odds improved during the day.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1212/1016862-eu-summit-brexit/

10000maniacs

robinph wrote: »

The 200 that voted for her tonight are certainly not all going to be voting for her deal if that eventually makes it up to be voted on. They just don't want to have anyone else in the PM job for now.

Yes, I agree she has a lot more MPs to convince than 127, but one thing is almost certain, those 117 who voted against her in the NCV will vote the same way against the deal in the absence of legally binding concessions from the EU.

bilston

There is no deal that can make it through Parliament. It is impossible.

Britain either leaves with a so called controlled No deal (whatever that means), or it leaves with an uncontrolled no deal, which I assume means grounded flights, empty supermarket shelves, a plummeting pound, patients unable to get their prescriptions, tailbacks at the ports and feck knows what it means for the Irish border, basically the sort of stuff JRM and his ilk seem to actively want.

Or May calls a second referendum or a General Election. Given she has stated she won't lead the Tories into another election, it seems a People's Vote is more likely.

Failing all the above Labour could win a vote of no confidence in the govt and force an election. The outcome of which is anybody's guess.

In short anything could happen. People could take to the streets. Civil Wars have started over less...

Water John

Parliament, except 60 Brexiteers won't countenance a Crash out Brexit. Parliament will extend Art 50.

10000maniacs

Water John wrote: »

Parliament, except 60 Brexiteers won't countenance a Crash out Brexit. Parliament will extend Art 50.

I believe they will have to.

Charles Babbage

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Imagine a train. Imagine that for some reason the line splits and a democratic vote is taken amongst the passengers which way to go and they voted for left.
After a short distance it turns out that going left leads to a straight 100 meter plunge off a cliff, but turning right takes them safely to their destination.
Is it unreasonable to hold a second vote which will yield a different outcome based on new information that wasn't available at the first vote?
I think not.
.

In Britain they would have a vote to make the train fly and carry on towards the cliff.

prawnsambo

Laois_Man wrote: »

How can she call off Brexit when it is already enshrined in UK law that they exit the EU on March 28th? Wouldn't it need a new law, passed thru parliament, that supersedes that one?

Parliament can unilaterally withdraw the A50 notice. The ECJ just ruled on that this week. They'd also have to repeal the EU withdrawal act, but they could do that in the same motion.

Laois_Man

prawnsambo wrote: »

Parliament can unilaterally withdraw the A50 notice. The ECJ just ruled on that this week. They'd also have to repeal the EU withdrawal act, but they could do that in the same motion.

Yes PARLIAMENT can repeal the EU Withdrawal Act. That's precisely my point. The OP seemed to suggest that Teresa May can do it of her own volition!

Laois_Man

bilston wrote: »

Given she has stated she won't lead the Tories into another election

That's if you can believe ANYTHING she says!

And by the way - something not emphasized enough in the reporting and which people seemed to have missed. When she said she will not stand in the next election, she specifically referenced the next scheduled general election which is in 2022. Should their be an election in 2019, this promise is invalid.

McGiver

awec wrote:

Ultimately what I think will happen is things will trundle on for another month or so, then the EU and the UK will come up with some superfluous change of wording that allows May and the EU to sell it as a new agreement, but really contains no substantial change, and will allow MPs who have been so outspoken about not voting for the agreement to vote for the new version and save some face, once it finally sinks in that there is no alternative.

Not at all. I listened to the HoC debates for several hours yesterday when the vote on the deal was cancelled. There are several factions and none will buy any reassurances May may secure from the EU unless the WA is amended.

The factions can be summarised as follows:
SNP - challenging Corbyn to call no confidence vote, Tories are bad, advancing the Scottish cause
Plaid Cymru - pointing out damage to the Wales under any Brexit scenario, asking Labour to call for a no confidence vote
DUP - burn the backstop, conspiracy theories, delusions, calling for a hardest of Brexits, talking about union which no one else mentions
Lib Dems - pointing at the deadlock and impossibility to deliver Brexit, calling for second referendum
Tory A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Tory B - May needs to renegotiate the deal
Tory C - May can't get anything renegotiated, anything she brings back is worthless, solution not offered
Tory D - let's be pragmatic, this is the only deal we will get, so we need to compromise
Tory E - Tory D + threat of Corbyn government
Tory F - let's be pragmatic, the HoC can't agree on anything, let's put the matter back to the people (Grieve)
Labour A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Labour B - Tories are in shambles, let's put Brexit back to the people
Labour C - pointing out poverty, public services cut, May's deal doesn't help with any of the these, solution not offered
Labour D - May's deal is bad for jobs, she needs to renegotiate
Labour E - May's deal is bad jobs, she needs to make way for me to renegotiate (Corbyn)

I was laughing, shaking my head and shouting at times whiles watching that. If it wasn't for real it would have been a spectacular drama. The Parliament is effectively hung and paralysed. There are several opinions and none of of them commands a majority. Labour aren't offering anything, Tories are split into at least three or four factions.

RobMc59

To the average person in the UK the only result that would make a really big difference would be a no deal brexit-the TM deal although crap wouldn't make any difference-if the UK is stuck in some strange limbo neither in or out the EU things stay the same for Mr average-obviously remaining is the best option but if the idiots ruin it the TM deal is the next best thing imo.

Professor Moriarty

McGiver wrote: »

Not at all. I listened to the HoC debates for several hours yesterday when the vote on the deal was cancelled. There are several factions and none will buy any reassurances May may secure from the EU unless the WA is amended.

The factions can be summarised as follows:
SNP - challenging Corbyn to call no confidence vote, Tories are bad, advancing the Scottish cause
Plaid Cymru - pointing out damage to the Wales under any Brexit scenario, asking Labour to call for a no confidence vote
DUP - burn the backstop, conspiracy theories, delusions, calling for a hardest of Brexits, talking about union which no one else mentions
Lib Dems - pointing at the deadlock and impossibility to deliver Brexit, calling for second referendum
Tory A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Tory B - May needs to renegotiate the deal
Tory C - May can't get anything renegotiated, anything she brings back is worthless, solution not offered
Tory D - let's be pragmatic, this is the only deal we will get, so we need to compromise
Tory E - Tory D + threat of Corbyn government
Tory F - let's be pragmatic, the HoC can't agree on anything, let's put the matter back to the people (Grieve)
Labour A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Labour B - Tories are in shambles, let's put Brexit back to the people
Labour C - pointing out poverty, public services cut, May's deal doesn't help with any of the these, solution not offered
Labour D - May's deal is bad for jobs, she needs to renegotiate
Labour E - May's deal is bad jobs, she needs to make way for me to renegotiate (Corbyn)

I was laughing, shaking my head and shouting at times whiles watching that. If it wasn't for real it would have been a spectacular drama. The Parliament is effectively hung and paralysed. There are several opinions and none of of them commands a majority. Labour aren't offering anything, Tories are split into at least three or four factions.

Excellent summation.

judeboy101

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They can be PM but not monarch. Anyway, if Jacob becomes PM it will be time to leave the planet.

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

David109

Thank goodness for PR and Coalitions here.
At least things get thrashed out and (eventually) agreed.

The Lib Dems kept Cameron on the straight and narrow. May needs a long spoon with the DUP.

Professor Moriarty

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

There is no constitutional barrier to a Catholic becoming PM. On the question of such advice, they can delegate or advise under advisement.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Rees-Mogg is spot on.
She needs to go and make way for somebody who might actually get something done.
She's both a lame-duck and a headless chicken imo. Quite a feat eh?

tuxy

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

Rees-Mogg is spot on.
She needs to go and make way for somebody who might actually get something done.
She's both a lame-duck and a headless chicken imo. Quite a feat eh?

The deal has been made with the EU. The only thing a new PM could do now is make better preparations for parliament rejecting that deal.

Tell me how

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

Rees-Mogg is spot on.
She needs to go and make way for somebody who might actually get something done.
She's both a lame-duck and a headless chicken imo. Quite a feat eh?

What's Rees Mogg's big idea if he is so smart?

I'm not sure any other politician could have had things turn out any differently than the way they have so far.

Laois_Man

Tell me how wrote: »

What's Rees Mogg's big idea if he is so smart?

I'm not sure any other politician could have had things turn out any differently than the way they have so far.

Well for starters, a decent PM could have brought home the 20+ point lead they had on the day the 2017 General Election was called which would have translated to an overall parliamentary majority of more than 100 seats.

Or could have had the sense to not call the needless General Election in the first place.

At least that decent PM would have a decent chance of getting a deal through parliament!

Tell me how

Laois_Man wrote: »

Well for starters, a decent PM could have brought home the 20+ point lead they had on the day the 2017 General Election was called which would have translated to an overall parliamentary majority of more than 100 seats.

Or could have had the sense to not call the needless General Election in the first place.

At least that decent PM would have a decent chance of getting a deal through parliament!

That could be a post straight from the Brexiteers playbook.
It sounds closer to a Daily Express Op-ed than the realities of the people and the circumstance involved.

Who do you think could have been that decent politician? Who did Theresa May lock in a box and prevent from getting a fair shot at this.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Laois_Man wrote: »

Well for starters, a decent PM could have brought home the 20+ point lead they had on the day the 2017 General Election was called which would have translated to an overall parliamentary majority of more than 100 seats.

Or could have had the sense to not call the needless General Election in the first place.

At least that decent PM would have a decent chance of getting a deal through parliament!

she clearly is not a leader. it's painful to watch her. that speech after her 'er victory. what was that all about?

tuxy

If May realised she wasn't a leader and never went for leader of her party they would have Andrea Leadsom become PM. How would she have fared in negotiations with the EU?

Wheres Me Jumper?

tenacity, doggedness & focus are fine qualities, but can after time easily become obstinacy, pigheadedness & myopia

Laois_Man

Tell me how wrote: »

That could be a post straight from the Brexiteers playbook.
It sounds closer to a Daily Express Op-ed than the realities of the people and the circumstance involved.

Who do you think could have been that decent politician? Who did Theresa May lock in a box and prevent from getting a fair shot at this.

I was responding to the hypothesis that no other politician could possibly have made things any better. The OP wasn't about names. The fact is, when you're in an election, and starting with a 20-point lead, and the leader of the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, it's very clear that a far better performance cannot at all be regarded as implausible, as was implied.

Wheres Me Jumper?

tuxy wrote: »

If May realised she wasn't a leader and never went for leader of her party they would have Andrea Leadsom become PM. How would she have fared in negotiations with the EU?

well that's a paradox of sorts, as only a leader would have the self-awareness to realise they are not fit for the role. not being a leader she's not aware of her own limitations.

as for Andrea, i have no idea how she might have fared. how could i?

Peregrinus

Obviously, it has to be speculative; you only get to run history once. We can never know whether, e.g., Andrea Leadsom would have secured a better outcome for the UK than May in fact has secured, though we can have the pleasure of arguing about it endlessly.

It's worth noting, though, that those who argue in favour of dumping May are mostly advancing fantasy arguments in support of the view that an outcome they regard as better could be obtained. Essentially, the arguments are some flavour of "May asked for X and the EU refused, but if Raab/Davis/Rees Mogg/Corbyn asks for it with sufficient true belief, the EU will grant it". That's complete balls. Plus, those advancing such arguments conspicuously ignore the repeated statements from the EU side about what could enable a different deal - viz., drop some red lines.

Essentially, much of the opposition to May is driven by wishful thinking. Say what you like about May - and I do - but she has at least brought home sign-up from the EU to a deal which secures some of what Brexiters want (like an end to freedom of movement), and she has got the EU to climb down and grant things which, initially, they were not prepared to grant (like a UK-wide backstop, and a high degree of market access for goods). The positions advanced by her opponents in the Tory party seem likely to produce worse outcomes than this, not better.