Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Peregrinus wrote: »

Brexitref 2 isn't an independent alternative; just a different way of choosing between the alternatives the UK already has.

In theory a Parliament opposed to no deal could (a) rule out no deal, and (b) refer the remaining choice to the people in a referendum putting the question "do you want to ratify May's deal, or would you rather stay in the EU?". In practice I think the political objections to that are enormous, and probably insurmountable. So if Parliament is going to take it on itself to rule out "no deal" I think it's going to have to step up to the plate and do the rest of what is, after all, its job and make a choice between the remaining alternatives.


I think the general expectation is that May's deal will be defeated on 15 Jan; the only question is the margin of defeat.

May's strategy then is to hope that Events will happen which will enable a second vote with a favourable outcome. The Event she wants is for the EU to cave, and offer the UK some significant variation to the WA which will be enough for the government to claim a Famous Victory for Britain, and for MPs to change their minds.

That Event is not going to happen. But, as it becomes apparent that it won't happen, a different Event may happen; currency crisis, stock market meltdown, Tory party funders and influencers beating MPs about the head and neck with broken bottles until they see sense, that kind of thing. This Event, coupled with a token move from the EU involving honeyed words and blandishments about how very, very temporary the backstop really is (which can be hailed as a Famous Victory for Britain) may then be enough to enable a successful seocond vote.

If that doesn't work, it's time to line up the ambulances at the bottom of the cliff, because the UK is coming over the top. I honestly don't see A50 being revoked.

Like I said before, it's hard to predict what the result will be. Expectations are currently also 'idle' speculations. What is certainly to come is what I have highlighted in bold in your post. We've seen it before in the wake of the BrexitRef 2016 when the £ got a bashing on the international financial markets. This lasted for a couple of days, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, things will get worse and include the other reactions you've mentioned.

MPs do have to make up their minds but they are still under the pressure of their own party whips. The opposition is still determined to vote down the deal and the ERG is with them as is the DUP. It'll depend on those MPs who vote against the line of their party and this remains to be seen.

The EU isn't about to give in and make more concessions to the UK and on the matter of the Irish border the stance is clear. The UK would had to provide the facilities for that if it would come to a hard border which is unacceptable for the EU and the govt of the Republic of Ireland. That alone makes the backstop a matter of at least a mid term run, speaking in decades, not years. With no deal, the backstop remains either in the balance or a hard border will occure.

I have been following the first round of the Brexit deal debate in the Commons in December last year, I won't be following this one which is about to start today and to run for five days. That is because I don't expect to get anything much new from it than what already has been said to it. PM May only postponed the vote to gain time for her but unless she gets a majority for her deal by a great deal of luck, it was to no avail. Afterwards she's at the end of the road but as I have learned to know her by her twists and turns, she'll not resign upon a lost vote by herself, she'll be forced to step down. This leaves the question of who's going to replace her, cos a snap GE is also not on the table, though Corbyn wants that more than anything else.

The UK govt and Parliament are running in circles and neither part has the courage to break the circle and give it back to the electorate to decide a second time on the matter. This time on the basis of the facts on what is on offer and the consequences that result from either choice.

What Brexiteers fear most is that an uncertain amount of voters who voted Leave in 2016 (and who are still alive) already had a change of mind and would vote for Remain in a BrexitRef2 which would lead to a majority for Remain and thus making Brexit obsolete. That is what the UK govt wants to avoid at all costs but a BrexitRef2 would be the democratic way to solve that problems because the situation of today has changed in compare to 2016. That is because now the electorate would know on what they would vote in concrete terms and conditions, whereas in 2016 it was all nothing but delusions and wishful thinking (that hasn't changed in the minds of the Brexiteers at all).

A voting down of the deal is still more likely these days, but May has often faced situations that meant to be her political end but with luck and the failure of her opponents, she always survived. She might survive this one as well cos her opponents are all cowards and everybody who considers to replace her as PM is aware that he or she would had to carry the filthy Brexit bucket him- / herself to the end. That is a matter nobody seems to really call for. It is in fact all just hot air talk and theatre by them and also by Corbyn and his far-left Brexit chums. But none of them has the guts to bring this Brexit charade to a final end with as less damage as possible.

Brexiteers and among them also UK govt members are always pretending that after Brexit the whole world outside of the EU is just waiting to negotiate and strike trade deals with the UK. A couple of weeks (or even already months) back last year I noticed that some of them was mentioning that they would have a list with '40 potential countries for new trade agreements'. Which countries they are was still kept secret. Why is that? IMO it is just another Brexiter Propaganda rus like all the other crap they have spouted for years. It lacks much substance and that is because everybody in his right mind who has been following this Brexit Charade for the past 2 1/2 years can clearly presume that the way the UK govt has performed itself during the negotiations period with the EU there isn't much trust and reliability expected from these potential trade deal countries towards the UK.

Brexit has done that much damage to the international reputation of the UK like nothing else had done before. Economical strong CoN countries have already signalled to the UK that their trade bounds are with countries closer to themselves. Like Canada with the USA and now with the EU. Australia has also told that they have closer bounds with countries around the South Pacific and Asia. This Norway ++ idea was already rejected by the Norwegian govt last month, telling the UK that they don't want the Brits back in EFTA and would object such a Norway ++ solution for the UK as alternative to the deal with the EU at hand.

This was more than often in the news and for every politician to take note of it. What were they doing? Sleeping or simply ignoring the response from other countries in regards to the Brexiters ideas of a post-Brexit UK? The MPs in the Commons should consider that more carefully and get a clear view on the reality which isn't that welcoming to them as the wishful thinking of Brexiteers tells.

I think and really assume that these potential trade deal countries are more economically weaker countries than the UK of today. For the big global players like the USA, China and Russia, there is only to say that it will be them who dictate the terms and conditions to the UK and that means take it or leave it. One only has to look at the leaders of those countries to know that they would have the upper hand in any trade deal negotiations. Worst would be with Trump, but not much less worse with Putin and China.

To ignore all that is just as much a folly as Brexit is itself.