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 VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Professor Moriarty

hill16bhoy wrote: »

How could an election fought on such a basis happen, though?

The Tories are split between the softer Brexit of May and the no deal crash out Brexit of the ERG.

Labour reject the softer Brexit of May in favour of the unicorns of "renegotiation".

What other option is there? Norway? That doesn't look realistic.

If there were a change of government and that government were less riven and more Europhile, I think the EU would be very happy to negotiate a softer Brexit deal than the current deal. Remember Corbyn and Labour's policy is for a much softer Brexit - which would suit everyone, especially Ireland.

VinLieger

hill16bhoy wrote: »

How could an election fought on such a basis happen, though?

The Tories are split between the softer Brexit of May and the no deal crash out Brexit of the ERG.

Labour reject the softer Brexit of May in favour of the unicorns of "renegotiation".

What other option is there? Norway? That doesn't look realistic.

Its not, Norway came out the other day and made it pretty clear the UK aren't welcome in their arrangement because they quite simply cannot be trusted to behave like adults.

LuckyLloyd

Bit cynical wrote: »

However what the EU is saying to one of its departing members is that leaving the customs union is unacceptable to the EU and no further negotiations are possible since leaving the customs union can't be done without leaving a hard border (or splitting the country in some way that moves the customs border within the state).

On the face of it - I think most people would agree - this position is not reasonable. It is not consistent with the principle that member states are free to leave the EU and its institutions.

It only seems reasonable to us in Ireland because we very much want to avoid a hard border. But us wanting something strongly does not make it reasonable at the EU level.

If the result is a hard border in Ireland as a result of no deal, then from the EU's perspective, so be it. It is a lesson to other prospective leaving states: "we will find some stumbling block for you to trip over". But the EU as a whole will not suffer much, therefore they can adopt a hardline, inflexible approach. Ireland will face hardship of similar magnitude to the UK, but from the EU's perspective, Ireland is a tiny fraction of the EUs population and economy.

Why is Ireland going along with it? Because politically it is very hard to back down from the earlier posistion when it was believed that the UK would do anything for a deal. The only leverage Ireland has with the EU is that it is threatening not to enforce border infrastructure in the event of no deal.

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure, leaving the single market places an obligation by the EU on remaining EU members to erect border infrastructure. What is not reasonable is for the EU to say 1. You are free to leave the single market and the customs union thereby necessitating a hard border. and 2. By the way, there can't be a hard border.

That's not a reasonable position for the EU, the GFA notwithstanding. Any country leaving the customs union will create a hard border, by requiring as part of a withrdawal agreement, the EU is saying that countries can't leave the customs union in an agreed fashion.

The GFA is there and is the issue. It cannot be ignored. The EU cannot agree to a deal that ignores it or renders it essentially unworkable or invalid. And this explains why Ireland continue to 'go along with it' as you write.

Moreover, Ireland - even in the event of a hard Brexit - will not suffer to a similar magnitude as the UK. The ERSI were clear on this point this week.

But what's the point really? You have held to your position steadfastly since late 2016 and we've had this conversation before. We obviously are not going to agree!

Professor Moriarty

Juncker and Tusk are going to make a joint statement later. Macron and Merkel will also be making statements. Will be interesting to see the tone taken.

hill16bhoy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If there were a change of government and that government were less riven and more Europhile, I think the EU would be very happy to negotiate a softer Brexit deal than the current deal. Remember Corbyn and Labour's policy is for a much softer Brexit - which would suit everyone, especially Ireland.

But Corbyn says there would be no backstop in any hypothetical Labour renegotiation.

That's fantasy.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Juncker and Tusk are going to make a joint statement later. Macron and Merkel will also be making statements. Will be interesting to see the tone taken.

It will be more "we are in unison with the UK, sad to see them leave but want a great future relationship". "TM is incredible, working so hard and enjoys the support of all 27 memebers" blah blah.

Twice the EU have tried this approach of being honest about the situation and talking about reality, and twice TM has lost her sh1t about it.

There is no point trying it again. Say some nice words then let TM off to the disaster she helped create

Professor Moriarty

hill16bhoy wrote: »

But Corbyn says there would be no backstop in any hypothetical Labour renegotiation.

That's fantasy.

Yeah but he's a politician. The reality is that a Labour government renegotiating, without being shackled to the equivalent of Major's bastards, would be better for Ireland

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If there were a change of government and that government were less riven and more Europhile, I think the EU would be very happy to negotiate a softer Brexit deal than the current deal. Remember Corbyn and Labour's policy is for a much softer Brexit - which would suit everyone, especially Ireland.

Can't see it.

The deal is what it is because it's what Europe are happy with it.

To be more accommodating to UK would tell them their nonsense has worked and EU don't want to do that.

Bit cynical

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Okay. So what's your solution?

I honestly don't know at this stage. But the solutions being offered on this forum all involve another country, the UK, doing something to our liking. Something like putting a different PM in charge or changing the ruling party. We forget sometimes that they are a different country with their own interests and objectives. You can't just install the PM that suits us. They are not Italy.

From a certain point of view the EU's position makes sense. Make life tough for countries leaving the EU thereby sending a message to others contemplating leaving. But this is not consistent with the view of the EU as a principled organisation.

If there's no deal, then it may be the case that we in Ireland just have to accept our mistake.

There's a lot of speculation on this forum about the UK political system, Corbyn, the hardline brexiters and so forth along the lines of "Yes, if there's no deal then maybe Corbyin will be ousted and then maybe there will be a general election and then maybe Labour will win and then maybe they will decide to rerun the referendum and then maybe remain will win and then maybe the UK will seek to rejoin the EU" etc. and so on and so forth.

But if that is what it comes down to, then we need to realise that we've already lost and that Irish government policy with regard to Brexit was a mistake. Moreover, the EU will be able to claim that everything was done in accordance with Ireland's wishes and we should be grateful even though, in my view, the EU were using Ireland.

That is what is left out on this forum I think: examination of our Government's statements and actions.

Our position for some time, as expressed by Coveney and Varadkar, is that Ireland expects a deal to be made and therefore are not making contingency plans for a hard border in Ireland. They are maintaining this position in order to put a bit of pressure on the EU to conclude a deal acceptable to the UK parliament. Another country in open defiance of the EU is not wanted in Brussels. I'm not sure this position will be sufficient but at least it is something.

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

Can't see it.

The deal is what it is because it's what Europe are happy with it.

To be more accommodating to UK would tell them their nonsense has worked and EU don't want to do that.

Dunno. Are you saying that if Labour/Corbyn went to the EU in, say February, and said that they wanted to renegotiate a softer Brexit then the EU would tell them to get stuffed?

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure, leaving the single market places an obligation by the EU on remaining EU members to erect border infrastructure. What is not reasonable is for the EU to say 1. You are free to leave the single market and the customs union thereby necessitating a hard border. and 2. By the way, there can't be a hard border.

That's not a reasonable position for the EU, the GFA notwithstanding. Any country leaving the customs union will create a hard border, by requiring as part of a withrdawal agreement, the EU is saying that countries can't leave the customs union in an agreed fashion.

It is not a "position" - it is a statement of reality.

The GFA and the political situation in NI mean a hard border on the island of Ireland is nigh on unworkable. Ireland and the EU knew this before the Brexit vote, no one in the UK appeared to want to listen. This is a situation of their own creation.

Leroy42

Its not asking them to do something to our liking, it is getting them to do the very thing that they agreed to in the first place.

TM and HMG has stated, repeatedly, that they will not have a hard border in NI. They are in that position because of the GFA. So they must choose. Simple break away from the EU and dump the GFA, or complicated leave from the EU and abide by the GFA.

They, at this point, haven;t decided which one. They seemingly want both.

Ireland wants the UK to remain, as does the EU, but the UK don't care about that (nor should they). But they need to care about their international obligations and responsibilities. TM has already agreed to the backstop in December, and her own party has just voted confidence in her. Even in that they are trying to have dual positions.

There is a simple solution to all of this and that means remain. But despite this suiting everyone else the UK have decided they want something different and yet you have the UK claiming they are the ones being made do things they don't want?

quokula

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Labour would be in power only for Corbyn. His personal views are no longer important in the face of Labour MPs, the party, increasingly Labour voters and Momentum. He's decided to play the game now.

It’s worth noting that Corbyn campaigned for Remain, votes Remain, has since advocated the entire UK staying in the customs union (avoiding the need for a backstop) and made some somewhat fuzzy commitments to a single market relationship that would clearly prioritise not harming the economy over the ideological red lines the tories have had - this would pretty much amount to Norway in practice once Labour got to the negotiating table, which is far better than what the Tories are driving for.

He’s not advocating a second referendum yet because he’s rather get in power first, a second referendum puts paid to an election before 2022. But he’s made it pretty clear that if they run out of other options they will campaign for a second referendum.

The idea that he’s got anything in common with the likes of ERG on Brexit is crazy.

Professor Moriarty

Bit cynical wrote: »

I honestly don't know at this stage. But the solutions being offered on this forum all involve another country, the UK, doing something to our liking. Something like putting a different PM in charge or changing the ruling party. We forget sometimes that they are a different country with their own interests and objectives. You can't just install the PM that suits us. They are not Italy.

From a certain point of view the EU's position makes sense. Make life tough for countries leaving the EU thereby sending a message to others contemplating leaving. But this is not consistent with the view of the EU as a principled organisation.

If there's no deal, then it may be the case that we in Ireland just have to accept our mistake.

There's a lot of speculation on this forum about the UK political system, Corbyn, the hardline brexiters and so forth along the lines of "Yes, if there's no deal then maybe Corbyin will be ousted and then maybe there will be a general election and then maybe Labour will win and then maybe they will decide to rerun the referendum and then maybe remain will win and then maybe the UK will seek to rejoin the EU" etc. and so on and so forth.

But if that is what it comes down to, then we need to realise that we've already lost and that Irish government policy with regard to Brexit was a mistake. Moreover, the EU will be able to claim that everything was done in accordance with Ireland's wishes and we should be grateful even though, in my view, the EU were using Ireland.

That is what is left out on this forum I think: examination of our Government's statements and actions.

Our position for some time, as expressed by Coveney and Varadkar, is that Ireland expects a deal to be made and therefore are not making contingency plans for a hard border in Ireland. They are maintaining this position in order to put a bit of pressure on the EU to conclude a deal acceptable to the UK parliament. Another country in open defiance of the EU is not wanted in Brussels. I'm not sure this position will be sufficient but at least it is something.

Fair enough. However, everybody has used the GFA for their own purposes - Britain, the EU and Ireland. Also, Ireland has been making No deal plans for a year now. In fact our plans are much more comprehensive and advanced than Britain's. But no surprise there considering the past year has been all about Tory politics.

Professor Moriarty

quokula wrote: »

It’s worth noting that Corbyn campaigned for Remain, votes Remain, has since advocated the entire UK staying in the customs union (avoiding the need for a backstop) and made some somewhat fuzzy commitments to a single market relationship that would clearly prioritise not harming the economy over the ideological red lines the tories have had - this would pretty much amount to Norway in practice once Labour got to the negotiating table, which is far better than what the Tories are driving for.

He’s not advocating a second referendum yet because he’s rather get in power first, a second referendum puts paid to an election before 2022. But he’s made it pretty clear that if they run out of other options they will campaign for a second referendum.

The idea that he’s got anything in common with the likes of ERG on Brexit is crazy.

Exactly. Which is why a Labour government would probably receive a warm welcome from the EU. Remember they would also probably get the full support of the Lib Dems and the SNP.

VinLieger

Bit cynical wrote: »

I honestly don't know at this stage. But the solutions being offered on this forum all involve another country, the UK, doing something to our liking. Something like putting a different PM in charge or changing the ruling party. We forget sometimes that they are a different country with their own interests and objectives. You can't just install the PM that suits us. They are not Italy.

None of these are solutions being suggested that the EU should be trying to implement...... they are simply potential scenarios as to how any positive progress could be made, either towards a deal being signed or a 2nd ref. The goal of everyone in their right mind should be avoiding a hard brexit.

Bit cynical wrote: »

From a certain point of view the EU's position makes sense. Make life tough for countries leaving the EU thereby sending a message to others contemplating leaving. But this is not consistent with the view of the EU as a principled organisation.

If by making it hard you mean removing the benefits of membership from the EU as they want to leave then yes that is exactly what they are doing because its what the UK asked for.

Bit cynical wrote: »

If there's no deal, then it may be the case that we in Ireland just have to accept our mistake.

What mistake is that exactly?

Bit cynical wrote: »

There's a lot of speculation on this forum about the UK political system, Corbyn, the hardline brexiters and so forth along the lines of "Yes, if there's no deal then maybe Corbyin will be ousted and then maybe there will be a general election and then maybe Labour will win and then maybe they will decide to rerun the referendum and then maybe remain will win and then maybe the UK will seek to rejoin the EU" etc. and so on and so forth.

But if that is what it comes down to, then we need to realise that we've already lost and that Irish government policy with regard to Brexit was a mistake. Moreover, the EU will be able to claim that everything was done in accordance with Ireland's wishes and we should be grateful even though, in my view, the EU were using Ireland.

What have we lost? Brexit is not a win/lose situation which might explain the problem with the UK's negotiating strategy from the beginning. Ireland nor the EU are trying to "win" at brexit. We are simply trying to avoid as much disruption as possible to our own economies. The UK seems not to care for their own.....

Bit cynical wrote: »

That is what is left out on this forum I think: examination of our Government's statements and actions.

Our position for some time, as expressed by Coveney and Varadkar, is that Ireland expects a deal to be made and therefore are not making contingency plans for a hard border in Ireland. They are maintaining this position in order to put a bit of pressure on the EU to conclude a deal acceptable to the UK parliament. Another country in open defiance of the EU is not wanted in Brussels. I'm not sure this position will be sufficient but at least it is something.

I dont even know where to begin with this rambling stream of unconciousness

CelticRambler

VinLieger wrote: »

In fact quite a lot of people tried to tell them exactly this but it was lumped into "project fear" which at this stage would be more correctly called "project fact"

Speaking of Project Fear/Fact, from Bloomberg today ...

The U.K. has yet to leave the European Union, but many stock investors have already said goodbye.

The nation’s equity funds have lost $9.8 billion in 2018, on course for the worst year of redemptions on record, according to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch note, which cited EPFR Global data. In the past week through Dec. 12, U.K. stock funds saw an outflow of $1.7 billion, Jefferies Financial Group Inc. said.

Bit cynical

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is not a "position" - it is a statement of reality.

The GFA and the political situation in NI mean a hard border on the island of Ireland is nigh on unworkable. Ireland and the EU knew this before the Brexit vote, no one in the UK appeared to want to listen. This is a situation of their own creation.

We don't want a hard border and the imposition of one certainly makes the GFA difficult. But the UK still have the right to leave the customs union in their entirity.

Note that our position is not exaclty the same as the EU's.

The EU's posiotn is
1. If there is to be an agreement it must involve no hard border.

Ireland position is:
1. If there is to be an agreement it must involve no hard border.
and 2. There must be an agreement.

We have this second requirement that the EU does not. As I said in a prevous post, in order to put a little pressure on the EU we have said that we are not planning for a border in the event of no deal even though we are planning for other aspects of no deal brexit.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

The EU's posiotn is
1. If there is to be an agreement it must involve no hard border.

Ireland position is:
1. If there is to be an agreement it must involve no hard border.
and 2. There must be an agreement.

You forgot to include the UK's declared postion:
1. There will be no hard border, agreement or not (you can put a border up if you want, but we're taking back control by not having one)

seamus

CelticRambler wrote: »

Speaking of Project Fear/Fact, from Bloomberg today ...

The next major scandal in UK politics will occur when it's revealed how much of that outflow belongs to UK MPs and pro-Brexit tycoons moving their money out of the UK in preparation for Brexit.

josip

Bit cynical wrote: »

From a certain point of view the EU's position makes sense. Make life tough for countries leaving the EU thereby sending a message to others contemplating leaving.

Why do you keep repeating this when it's not true?
The EU doesn't make it tough.

Leaving the EU is tough because you're giving up free access to a fantastic market.
UK's choice, not ours.

joe40

Bit cynical wrote: »

We don't want a hard border and the imposition of one certainly makes the GFA difficult. But the UK still have the right to leave the customs union in their entirity.

Note that our position is not exaclty the same as the EU's.

The EU's posiotn is
1. If there is to be an agreement it must involve no hard border.

Ireland position is:
1. If there is to be an agreement it must involve no hard border.
and 2. There must be an agreement.

We have this second requirement that the EU does not. As I said in a prevous post, in order to put a little pressure on the EU we have said that we are not planning for a border in the event of no deal even though we are planning for other aspects of no deal brexit.

Not sure I understand. How can Ireland insist on an agreement. If the Uk have not signed up to a WA by 29th March or postponed the exit then there will be no agreement. The Irish government can't stop that.

It seems to me that a "time limited backstop" would placate the Tories. They don't seem to realise this is a contradiction in terms.
A time limited guarantee is not a guarantee

Seth Brundle

Bit cynical wrote: »

I honestly don't know at this stage. But the solutions being offered on this forum all involve another country, the UK, doing something to our liking. Something like putting a different PM in charge or changing the ruling party. We forget sometimes that they are a different country with their own interests and objectives. You can't just install the PM that suits us. They are not Italy.

I don't think we forget that we're a different country. In fact we're quite aware.
However, whilst they are a different country with their own interests and objectives, when it comes to Brexit, these objectives have not been disclosed to their EU partners and neighbours.
We will be directly affected by their choices. Those choices appear to be ill-informed and take no account of others (both within their own "kingdom" and other countries such as ourselves).
Furthermore, they are actively trying to renege on the GFA which will concern them (but we shouldn't have to be telling them this).

Bit cynical wrote: »

From a certain point of view the EU's position makes sense. Make life tough for countries leaving the EU thereby sending a message to others contemplating leaving. But this is not consistent with the view of the EU as a principled organisation.

The EU isn't making anything tough. Both the EU and British negotiators have written up an agreement which May approves of. This is the least worst scenario that the UK can have by leaving the union.
However, poor decision making coupled with in-fighting and indecisivness within Westminster led by an extremely poor leader has created a situation whereby the UK still can't agree on what they want.
This has nothing to do with the EU. The EU have offered something to the UK government. They still haven't accepted or rejected it but want to renegotiate it.
The British are currently of the view that they are being hard done by. they are but it is by their own government and media, not the EU!

Bit cynical wrote: »

If there's no deal, then it may be the case that we in Ireland just have to accept our mistake.

What mistake have we made?

Bit cynical wrote: »

There's a lot of speculation on this forum about the UK political system, Corbyn, the hardline brexiters and so forth along the lines of "Yes, if there's no deal then maybe Corbyin will be ousted and then maybe there will be a general election and then maybe Labour will win and then maybe they will decide to rerun the referendum and then maybe remain will win and then maybe the UK will seek to rejoin the EU" etc. and so on and so forth.

But if that is what it comes down to, then we need to realise that we've already lost and that Irish government policy with regard to Brexit was a mistake. Moreover, the EU will be able to claim that everything was done in accordance with Ireland's wishes and we should be grateful even though, in my view, the EU were using Ireland.

That is what is left out on this forum I think: examination of our Government's statements and actions.

The Irish government standing by a legally binding agreement on the peace within NI is a mistake?
Are you for real?

Bit cynical wrote: »

Our position for some time, as expressed by Coveney and Varadkar, is that Ireland expects a deal to be made and therefore are not making contingency plans for a hard border in Ireland. They are maintaining this position in order to put a bit of pressure on the EU to conclude a deal acceptable to the UK parliament. Another country in open defiance of the EU is not wanted in Brussels. I'm not sure this position will be sufficient but at least it is something.

Coveney and Varadkar are hardly going to say that the British are likely to crash out. That hardly leads to constructive negotiations.
As for a hard border, this will be something that may need to be created by all sides - the EU and the British to protect each others interests. However, we're not going to start building it, until we know that the UK finally allowed the clusterf*** to pass March 29th.
Don't assume that there are no contingency plans being put in place though. Revenue aren't renowned for standing by and allowing relevant duties and taxes to go unpaid.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/over-a-thousand-extra-full-time-customs-officers-to-be-hired-for-brexit-contingency-37132714.html

Bit cynical

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont even know where to begin with this rambling stream of unconciousness

That is not acceptable. If yoiu have issues with what I am saying point them out. I have no interest in how you regard my style of writing.

Coveney and Varadkar have been on record saying that they they were not planning foir a hard border in the event of no deal. They are planning for other issues like trade disruptions between Ireland and the UK as a whole but not for a hard border even though this is what no deal would entail.

Why do you think they are saying that? Do you dispute that they are saying it?

And try to answer without castigating my posting style.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

We don't want a hard border and the imposition of one certainly makes the GFA difficult. But the UK still have the right to leave the customs union in their entirity.

Note that our position is not exaclty the same as the EU's.

The EU's posiotn is
1. If there is to be an agreement it must involve no hard border.

Ireland position is:
1. If there is to be an agreement it must involve no hard border.
and 2. There must be an agreement.

We have this second requirement that the EU does not. As I said in a prevous post, in order to put a little pressure on the EU we have said that we are not planning for a border in the event of no deal even though we are planning for other aspects of no deal brexit.

No one is disputing their right to leave the customs union. There is a difference between not recognising their right to do it and simply pointing out the complications that are inherent in it.

Nobody outside of a fringe minority wants a no-deal Brexit so I don't see what on earth you find so unusual about Ireland's position.

The UK's "rights" are not being infringed upon. They can, essentially, do whatever they want. But it has consequences - these consequences exist one way or the other, but somehow pointing them out has been construed as creating them.

Nody

Bit cynical wrote: »

However what the EU is saying to one of its departing members is that leaving the customs union is unacceptable to the EU and no further negotiations are possible since leaving the customs union can't be done without leaving a hard border (or splitting the country in some way that moves the customs border within the state).

No, what EU is saying is IF you want to keep trading with us on more favorable terms as a third party country you need to comply with A, B and C. Leaving the CU and EU was done with a single handwritten letter by Mrs May already. That was all it took to leave; now if UK wants more than third party WTO terms (which they stated before leaving they expected) then yes EU will put up additional requirements.

That's the part that is very important to keep separate here. Leaving EU and CU? One letter from the leader of the country. That's it, you're leaving and gone in two years time.

Getting access to various EU organizations, funds, projects, special access to market, free trade, movement, favorable trade deal to avoid complete crash out for your country etc. = You negotiate with EU and EU has the full flush against your pair of twos and EU will dictate the requirements and you get to bow and accept them basically. That simply comes from the difference in power and need from each side in the negotiation and applies the same way if they negotiate with USA or China.

Laois_Man

Still today May says "further clarity" possible from EU on Irish border backstop!

How has she not bored herself to death by now?

VinLieger

Bit cynical wrote: »

That is not acceptable. If yoiu have issues with what I am saying point them out. I have no interest in how you regard my style of writing.

Coveney and Varadkar have been on record saying that they they were not planning foir a hard border in the event of no deal. They are planning for other issues like trade disruptions between Ireland and the UK as a whole but not for a hard border even though this is what no deal would entail.

Why do you think they are saying that? Do you dispute that they are saying it?

And try to answer without castigating my posting style.

Because unlike the UK and their negotiating team they understand that the best way to negotiate is not show your entire hand to the other side of the table.
If you think there has been no planning done you are childishly naive, of course they aren't going to admit to it as it would give the UK ammunition to use against us.

The UK on the other hand haven't been able to hold their piss this entire time. Their entire parliament and government is so split that as soon as they come up with a new strategy or plan its leaked immediately to the papers by the side that disagrees with it, its then published and critiqued and pulled apart so much that when they come to the table the EU knows exactly whats going to be said and has been preparing their response for days.

Peregrinus

Water John wrote: »

Parliament won't allow a Crash out Brexit. May's Deal gets defeated. LB move a no confidence and lose that. Then we move to a situation where a majority of MPs are in favour of a 2nd Ref. That requires an extension to Art 50.
Main decision is, what is on the ballot paper.

There's a prior step. A simple wish by MPs to have a second referendum, or even a resolution of Parliament calling for one, does not result in a second referendum being held. For that to happen a Referendum Act must be passed, and for that to happen the government has to draft and introduce a Bill. So the government must be persuaded to endorse a second referendum. Which might not happen as long as Teresa May is PM.

tuxy

At one point I had considered people calling her a bot unfair. Not anymore, all she has is these preprogrammed answers.