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

Thomas_IV

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Corbyn speaking at the moment......

Had a quick look at BBC News. It's the usual talk he has, call for a GE. Looks that he's pondering on on this and when he loses that as well, then he should just pack in and resign as leader of the LP cos the result of a snap GE might not go his way and Labour lose more seats than it has now. Just like May was gambling in 2017 and lost her solid majority provided by Cameron. Maybe the LibDems would win on his expence. Worst would be the Tories getting back to their solid majority.

EdgeCase

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Sure and for assuming that there are plenty of other examples that just prove your point. Just to think about his attitude towards NATO etc..

Well he hates multilateralism and seems to have it in for the EU and particularly Germany for some reason. Also, I would suspect he may attempt to roast us on our trade balance with the US, which is distorted as we're a gateway into the single EU market. It would be like the EU taking aim at a particular US gateway state.

However, I think there's a huge problem as the GFA came from an era when the UK had very pragmatic domestic politics under Major and then Blair and when the US was still sane and it's an example of where US diplomacy and foreign policy actually played a very strongly positive role.

It's in a very precarious place right now as the GFA effectively used modern multilateralism to resolve the NI situation by making the differences in identity not matter.

bob mcbob

This is whole Brexit fiasco is looking more and more like Liar's Poker.

I still think the only possible option that will pass the HoC is a Norway option and I think everyone knows it but..

Theresa May will not adopt it because it will split the Tory Party
Brexiteers are only interested in replacing TM so they all need to show who has the biggest cojones about leaving the EU
Corbin wants to split the Tory party and / or does not want to alienate his pro-Brexit Northern working class base.

So what do I think will happen next - the senior parliamentarians / grown-ups (Dominic Grieve, Yvette Cooper, etc) will take control. First they will take no-deal off the table then progress a Norway option.

Thomas_IV

EdgeCase wrote: »

What worries me about the GFA is that a lot of its moral authority over the UK Government is in the sensible side of politics in the US. The Dems in particular (due to the Clinton direct involvement) but also the centre of the Republican party, had a major weight to bear on the UK.

I would suspect Trump won't give a flying fiddlers what happens as it's 'overseas'.

Sure and for assuming that there are plenty of other examples that just prove your point. Just to think about his attitude towards NATO etc..

Adamcp898

Corbyn speaking at the moment......

_Puma_

seamus wrote: »

I think it's quite the opposite tbh.

The UK are trying to insist on having no backstop and instead just an agreement about what next with the border. We know the Brits too well, their insistence on no backstop is so that they can have the freedom to renege on any border agreement without consequence.

The argument over the backstop is essentially the UK looking to be let off the hook over their GFA obligations, and Ireland and the EU insisting that it can't be permitted.

If they leave with no deal, then they will (eventually) be in breach of the GFA. There's not a whole lot we can do to prevent that, but there are machinations available to respond to it.

I agree 100%. A reset of A50 doesn't change any of the EU stances regarding the withdrawal agreement regarding N Ireland. I fully expect the UK to renege on their GFA commitments. Let them do it plain sight outside this "Red Line" withdrawal nonsense. Letting them leave on March 29th is just handing them a ready made excuse to pull down the GFA prematurely and in the short term will be more harmful to both countries. Not that the DUP care, they just want out and out now to the determent of event the minority of the population they represent now.

Shelga

The more I think about it, the more I think it’s going to be No Deal.

What is the point of an extension? They’ll never agree on anything.

Let them crash out, let them feel the effects of it, it is at least a definitive result. May can also claim a form of success, as the result of the referendum will have been upheld.

EdgeCase

What worries me about the GFA is that a lot of its moral authority over the UK Government is in the sensible side of politics in the US. The Dems in particular (due to the Clinton direct involvement) but also the centre of the Republican party, had a major weight to bear on the UK.

I would suspect Trump won't give a flying fiddlers what happens as it's 'overseas'.

Thomas_IV

_Puma_ wrote: »

It truly is a terrifying prospect but as of now, the way I see it is we are letting the British government off the hook regarding their obligations to the GFA. If they are not going to hold up their end then let them impose their will which is contrary to the wishes of the majority of people of these Islands and all that comes with it. The DUP's day in the sun will eventually come to an end, reality will set in for the administration. There are no bright prospects for Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom in the immediate future in any of the current scenarios.

This is playing with fire to me. There have to be other ways to hold them on their commitment to the GFA. As you know when looking at this present UK govt, the DUP has indirectly their hands on the leavers of power by May being dependent on them to back up her minority govt. Plenty examples from the past 1 1/2 years how the DUP has used that to hold that UK govt in ransom and the longer this continues the more damage the DUP will do which is quite in the sense of your post.

seamus

_Puma_ wrote: »

It truly is a terrifying prospect but as of now, the way I see it is we are letting the British government off the hook regarding their obligations to the GFA.

I think it's quite the opposite tbh.

The UK are trying to insist on having no backstop and instead just an agreement about what next with the border. We know the Brits too well, their insistence on no backstop is so that they can have the freedom to renege on any border agreement without consequence.

The argument over the backstop is essentially the UK looking to be let off the hook over their GFA obligations, and Ireland and the EU insisting that it can't be permitted.

If they leave with no deal, then they will (eventually) be in breach of the GFA. There's not a whole lot we can do to prevent that, but there are machinations available to respond to it.

EdgeCase

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Back in the 80's people were smuggling 21 inch tv's across the border...

https://www.rte.ie/archives/2018/1206/1015520-smuggling-electrical-goods/

That could end up going either way too - depending on what happens in the UK.

murphaph

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The timetable for a second referendum is almost certainly very long. The legal minimum would be at least 4 months. Even this would require a large and cross-party majority willing to immediately vote it through. In addition, there would have to be no amendments, it would have to be binary i.e. not multi-option, and no legal challenges to the regulatory framework and conduct rules.

Considering the disparate and bitter nature of today's parliament, there is zero chance of a referendum within that time framework. At best, maybe next September. However, with EU elections in May, the EU isn't going to allow an extension to Article 50 without some cast iron guarantees as the last thing they will want is their elections muddied by Brexit infighting. So, a referendum isn't a panacea for all Brexit ills.

I think a 2nd ref seems really unlikely given the EUPARL elections would appear to prevent A50 being extended beyond that date.

BRINO seems the likeliest to me as once May caves in on SM & CU the vast majority of the Labour party MPs can be on board with that.

If she doesn't cave then even several of her own ministers will vote to withdraw A50 rather than crash out, including the Chancellor.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The timetable for a second referendum is almost certainly very long. The legal minimum would be at least 4 months. Even this would require a large and cross-party majority willing to immediately vote it through. In addition, there would have to be no amendments, it would have to be binary i.e. not multi-option, and no legal challenges to the regulatory framework and conduct rules.

Considering the disparate and bitter nature of today's parliament, there is zero chance of a referendum within that time framework. At best, maybe next September. However, with EU elections in May, the EU isn't going to allow an extension to Article 50 without some cast iron guarantees as the last thing they will want is their elections muddied by Brexit infighting. So, a referendum isn't a panacea for all Brexit ills.

I'm convinced that the EU27 will have no problem extending Article 50 to accommodate an informed referendum with Remain on the table.

The issue is with Parliament, as it always was given that most of what the EU gets blamed for is down to elected governments. I think the chances of a referendum on the deal just increased due to the present stalemate. The EU have no incentive to go back to negotiating. All it would take is a few more prominent political figures to back it. Perhaps the leader of the opposition...

_Puma_

Thomas_IV wrote: »

I agree with you on all the paragraphs in your post except the one I have put in bold regarding the GFA. That is too dangerous unless they drop NI altogether and with it the DUP MPs as well.

Maybe the DUP would put pressure on May after Brexit to bring back direct rule on NI to please the DUP who never liked to share power with SF anyway. That because May is depending on the back up of her govt by the 10 DUP MPs until 2022. That's no bright prospect for the future, but with Brexit it is bleak anyway.

It truly is a terrifying prospect but as of now, the way I see it is we are letting the British government off the hook regarding their obligations to the GFA. If they are not going to hold up their end then let them impose their will which is contrary to the wishes of the majority of people of these Islands and all that comes with it. The DUP's day in the sun will eventually come to an end, reality will set in for the administration. There are no bright prospects for Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom in the immediate future in any of the current scenarios.

Enzokk

I am wondering, has Corbyn even once mentioned a second referendum or has he always talked about all the options on the table. I am also waiting with anticipation for him to move on to the next options as was agreed at the Labour conference.

Atlantic Dawn

Back in the 80's people were smuggling 21 inch tv's across the border...

https://www.rte.ie/archives/2018/1206/1015520-smuggling-electrical-goods/

Thomas_IV

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Both sides of the House, maybe.

Both sides of the actual negotiation - the UK and EU, no way. Let them crash out on March 29th, and let's see how long it takes them to face up to reality.

Yes, I see it that way too by now as I also have had enough of this circus. They surely have to learn it the hard way to realise that they aren't that 'great nation' anymore and that this BE2.0 dream is nothing but a pipedream.

If this Brexit disaster will lead to an independent Scotland, I'd welcome it. If it leads to a UI, I wouldn't be that enthusiastic cos this UI would had to deal with the sort of the DUPers who always like to hold the country back and it would be a great deal of work to change their attitudes.

Zubeneschamali

_Puma_ wrote: »

Some sort of "reset" of the A50 notice would be a solution I could see working for both sides at this point.

Both sides of the House, maybe.

Both sides of the actual negotiation - the UK and EU, no way. Let them crash out on March 29th, and let's see how long it takes them to face up to reality.

Thomas_IV

_Puma_ wrote: »

Another way of looking at this is the House of Commons currently has a majority that will never allow a Labour government until 2022 at the earliest. Talk of Corbyns leadership of the Labour party, a second ref, an early General Election, Brexit in essence is all secondary to this fact.

The Tory/DUP coalition will never relinquish power in any way (An early General Election, 2nd Referendum, no confidence votes) no matter what, so people are seriously barking up the wrong tree regarding this narrative been spun out by the British press regarding Corbyn. The fact there were no Tory "rebels" in the no confidence in May merely reflects the reality that there never was any. It's party before country and will be until the bitter end. A second ref in the current political climate over there will likely lead to a greater majority for leave as I see May now increasingly beholden to the ERG/DUP/Hard Brexiters.

The only hope I can see at this stage to avoid catastrophe (worse for the Brits in the long run)is some sort of pragmatism on both sides. Some sort of "reset" of the A50 notice would be a solution I could see working for both sides at this point. I would still fully expect to end this extension at the same juncture as where we are today but we at the very least now know exactly what we are dealing with with the current Tory/DUP government and can prepare accordingly.

It will make the British government make a decision on their position of the GFA/Stormont rather than this fence sitting we see now. Let them pull down the GFA if that is really their wish but let them do it in a way for all the world to see, not this rubbish about "Red lines" in some fantasy withdrawal agreement.

Who knows in this time maybe even the remain movement over in there can crystallize into a political movement with some clout. But as I see it 40 years of misinformation regarding the EU from the British establishment has led to this juncture, the Brits want out and the only cure for Brexit is Brexit. Giving them another chance to get their house in order is a win win for both sides.

I agree with you on all the paragraphs in your post except the one I have put in bold regarding the GFA. That is too dangerous unless they drop NI altogether and with it the DUP MPs as well.

Maybe the DUP would put pressure on May after Brexit to bring back direct rule on NI to please the DUP who never liked to share power with SF anyway. That because May is depending on the back up of her govt by the 10 DUP MPs until 2022. That's no bright prospect for the future, but with Brexit it is bleak anyway.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

I just think that a 2Ref is based on the assumption that Remain would win and everything can simply go back to normal. I doubt that very much.

If remain somehow does win, straight off the ERG and others will, claim that that vote was flawed and create chaos. It would only ingrain deep unrest and distrust of the EU.
If leaves wins, then all that has happened is that even more time has been wasted for nothing.

Sure you can argue that the 2ref would be more direct, Remain or Deal/No deal with details of what that actually means, but my sense is that many people in the UK have simply given up listening. The fact that a 2nd Ref have been sold as anti-democratic and against the will of the people for so long buy both main parties, coupled with the fact that no matter what it will be seen as TM bending to the demands of the EU, that many people will vote Leave (of whatever colour) out of frustration and stubborness.

So even if Remain wins, it will be seen a stroke pulled by the EU. So in effect the EU still loses

Do you think the ERG would have been quiet if remain had won 52%-48%? Do you think they would have remained quiet if they had lost 60%-40%? Did those that lost the recent referendum on abortion stay quiet after they lost by 67%-32%? And finally, do you think there would be more chaos than we find ourselves in now if there is a second referendum?

At the very least it would allow the UK to get back what is important, their struggling NHS and social services, their crumbling judicial services all due to austerity. While they have been wasting more than 2 years trying to sort out Brexit the rest of their problems has not gotten better. Foodbank usage has not decreased and will only increase. There are more chance of people getting violent because they cannot afford to live any longer than a few white men throwing a hissy about Brexit.

In other news it seems that Hammond has privately assured businesses that there will not be a no-deal Brexit. Thei absolute stupidity of that is May is refusing to meet with Corbyn because she doesn't want to rule it out. So the PM is not ruling out what her Chancellor has done.

_Puma_

Another way of looking at this is the House of Commons currently has a majority that will never allow a Labour government until 2022 at the earliest. Talk of Corbyns leadership of the Labour party, a second ref, an early General Election, Brexit in essence is all secondary to this fact.

The Tory/DUP coalition will never relinquish power in any way (An early General Election, 2nd Referendum, no confidence votes) no matter what, so people are seriously barking up the wrong tree regarding this narrative been spun out by the British press regarding Corbyn. The fact there were no Tory "rebels" in the no confidence in May merely reflects the reality that there never was any. It's party before country and will be until the bitter end. A second ref in the current political climate over there will likely lead to a greater majority for leave as I see May now increasingly beholden to the ERG/DUP/Hard Brexiters.

The only hope I can see at this stage to avoid catastrophe (worse for the Brits in the long run)is some sort of pragmatism on both sides. Some sort of "reset" of the A50 notice would be a solution I could see working for both sides at this point. I would still fully expect to end this extension at the same juncture as where we are today but we at the very least now know exactly what we are dealing with with the current Tory/DUP government and can prepare accordingly.

It will make the British government make a decision on their position of the GFA/Stormont rather than this fence sitting we see now. Let them pull down the GFA if that is really their wish but let them do it in a way for all the world to see, not this rubbish about "Red lines" in some fantasy withdrawal agreement.

Who knows in this time maybe even the remain movement over in there can crystallize into a political movement with some clout. But as I see it 40 years of misinformation regarding the EU from the British establishment has led to this juncture, the Brits want out and the only cure for Brexit is Brexit. Giving them another chance to get their house in order is a win win for both sides.

Macy0161

As they love first past the post, could it not be Deal/ No Deal/ Remain? Given the original "leave" vote meant so many different things to so many different people, the option that actually had the most votes was "Remain". It was a binary question, but the answer on the Leave side wasn't.

Tacitus Kilgore

Leroy42 wrote: »

I just think that a 2Ref is based on the assumption that Remain would win and everything can simply go back to normal. I doubt that very much.

If remain somehow does win, straight off the ERG and others will, claim that that vote was flawed and create chaos. It would only ingrain deep unrest and distrust of the EU.
If leaves wins, then all that has happened is that even more time has been wasted for nothing.

Sure you can argue that the 2ref would be more direct, Remain or Deal/No deal with details of what that actually means, but my sense is that many people in the UK have simply given up listening. The fact that a 2nd Ref have been sold as anti-democratic and against the will of the people for so long buy both main parties, coupled with the fact that no matter what it will be seen as TM bending to the demands of the EU, that many people will vote Leave (of whatever colour) out of frustration and stubborness.

So even if Remain wins, it will be seen a stroke pulled by the EU. So in effect the EU still loses

I completely agree with this, to use idioms - The horse has bolted, we are too far down the rabbit hole, we are through the looking glass, we're not in Kansas anymore...

Irreversible things have been set in motion - the biggest being the psyche of the people of the UK being built up for the last 40 years by a disgusting domestic media. Remaining will not fix the issues, only leaving will show the UK who's fault their problems really are - and to be honest, they'll most likely still blame the EU.

It's a horrible disaster, a disaster that we don't even get a say in, all we can do is watch

Thomas_IV

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A few points:

1. If Brexit wins again then it's done. There's no amount of venality, deceit and farce that can shake people's desire for this so it must be done.

2. Most Conservative MP's are remainers:

Source.

They might be that, but they didn't had the means to stop the radicals within their party from doing all the damage caused.

These are wealthy individuals with investments and business interests. They're not going to be happy at all about shredding their investment portfolios.

They also know how and when to transfer their wealth to other places and I think that many of them already have done it and don't wait until the ultimate hard Brexit kicks in.

3. Momentum and Labour members overwhelmingly favor a second referendum. Labour voters on the whole are a more diverse coalition but Momentum are going to have Corbyn's ear and will exert pressure on him to accede to their wishes on this.

It might as well turn out at the end that his Momentum chums were just good enough for him to have him elected as leader of the LP but not have much influence on himself. I wouldn't underestimate him.

4. There isn't really another way forward. A general election is off the table as is the deal. The EU will refuse to negotiate unless they can extract further concessions from May. A referendum would enable her to abdicate responsibility as presently she is on course to be remembered as a thoroughly inept PM with little in the way of ideology save for "Hostile environment" and "Dementia Tax".

That is all quite right just I wouldn't let Corbyn get away scot-free cos he has let the Remain camp down and refused to co-operate with the other opposition parties in the Commons. This is his and his alone responsibility and for that as well as his own long standing anti-EU record he is a proven Brexiter himself to me. 'Soft Brexiter' doesn't make much of a difference to me, in fact none at all.

Leroy42

I just think that a 2Ref is based on the assumption that Remain would win and everything can simply go back to normal. I doubt that very much.

If remain somehow does win, straight off the ERG and others will, claim that that vote was flawed and create chaos. It would only ingrain deep unrest and distrust of the EU.
If leaves wins, then all that has happened is that even more time has been wasted for nothing.

Sure you can argue that the 2ref would be more direct, Remain or Deal/No deal with details of what that actually means, but my sense is that many people in the UK have simply given up listening. The fact that a 2nd Ref have been sold as anti-democratic and against the will of the people for so long buy both main parties, coupled with the fact that no matter what it will be seen as TM bending to the demands of the EU, that many people will vote Leave (of whatever colour) out of frustration and stubborness.

So even if Remain wins, it will be seen a stroke pulled by the EU. So in effect the EU still loses

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A few points:

1. If Brexit wins again then it's done. There's no amount of venality, deceit and farce that can shake people's desire for this so it must be done.

2. Most Conservative MP's are remainers:

Source.

These are wealthy individuals with investments and business interests. They're not going to be happy at all about shredding their investment portfolios.

3. Momentum and Labour members overwhelmingly favor a second referendum. Labour voters on the whole are a more diverse coalition but Momentum are going to have Corbyn's ear and will exert pressure on him to accede to their wishes on this.

4. There isn't really another way forward. A general election is off the table as is the deal. The EU will refuse to negotiate unless they can extract further concessions from May. A referendum would enable her to abdicate responsibility as presently she is on course to be remembered as a thoroughly inept PM with little in the way of ideology save for "Hostile environment" and "Dementia Tax".

The timetable for a second referendum is almost certainly very long. The legal minimum would be at least 4 months. Even this would require a large and cross-party majority willing to immediately vote it through. In addition, there would have to be no amendments, it would have to be binary i.e. not multi-option, and no legal challenges to the regulatory framework and conduct rules.

Considering the disparate and bitter nature of today's parliament, there is zero chance of a referendum within that time framework. At best, maybe next September. However, with EU elections in May, the EU isn't going to allow an extension to Article 50 without some cast iron guarantees as the last thing they will want is their elections muddied by Brexit infighting. So, a referendum isn't a panacea for all Brexit ills.

Thomas_IV

Leroy42 wrote: »

The idea about Ref2 all seem to be based on the assumption that Remain wins. What if Leave wins again. It would have been another waste of time. And I think there is a very big chance of leave winning. Both main parties want Brexit, the polls haven't shifted that much and it is likely to be quite a degree of pushback on the notion of being asked to vote again as it has never been raised by either main leader as the way forward and will be sold by the leave side as a demand from the EU, trying to push the UK into voting the 'right' way. It is a strength, and sometimes a weakness, of the British, that they are very stubborn and no not like being told what to do.

There is no certainty which side will win in a BrexitRef2. There is some consideration that not less of those who voted Leave in 2016 might now already had or might have a change of mind and would vote Remain as it has become more clear in the past 2 1/2 years what leaving without a deal would bring in consequences. There is of course the odd Chance that Leave might win again, but for that it would had to go the same way it went in 2016 when some Remainers trusted that Remain would win anyway and didn't go to the polling stations to cast their vote. Those in favour of Remain shouldn't repeat this mistake from 2016 and get up their chairs and go to the polling stations to cast their vote.

If Leave would win again, then the Remainers would have lost the whole plot themselves probably for the very reasons I mentioned before. There is no guarantee for either side to win, but the least would be to have it done by all the facts now clearly in front of the electorate. But I am also Aware of the high emotions this matter is still stiring among People and the hate still spread by the tabloids is contributing to that.

As for the stubbornness of the Brits, well, this time they are utterly wrong and they should look at themselves in the mirrow and reflect on their own half-hearted commitment in the past decades as EU members. There is much in all that which is of their own making, their own reluctance and their own crude view on Europe as a whole. Those member states who are more committed to the European Project which is the EU have more influence in it and can do more to convince other member states to make progress and determin the direction of the future. The Brits were more often sitting at the fence, watching them and criticising them but with less of no alternative suggestions which would benefit the whole of the club members.

The Brits were always seen by myself as sitting between two chairs. On the one side their EU Membership from which they benefitted themselves and on the other the 'special relationship' with the USA. In the first they were always seen as equal partners, in the second they often came across like the 'poodle' of Uncle Sam. Now they have lost a big deal of reputation internationally and of course among the EU member states as well. This Brexit Charade has brought up the picture of a political weak UK and Trump as the big egotistical Egoist had no problem to exploit that for himself. The way he treated May on various occasions speaks for itself. For me he was just doing his show but also showed some contempt towards her.

Brexiteers, like Farage at the top of them equal with Boris Johnson who both creeped up on Trump (the first already before the BrexitRef and the second right from the start of it) know how this 'MAGA' Trump looks at them. But for the many Brexiteers it doesn't matter cos they put all their 'bright future' on that special relationship card and in fact would rather become the poodle of Trump (more than in the past with other US Presidents) than to think again and drop Brexit.

This stubbornness has proved itself to be in fact real helpless stupidity and worse to that deliberate ignorance on the consequences of a hard Brexit. This suits Trump and it also suits Putin, the Chinese might also welcome that for their own interests. But it doesn't serve the Brits in the way they dream of by Brexit.

So rather than waste time on a Ref2, which may well simply waste time, surely it would be best to advocate for the softest Brexit possible.

Yet the HoC emphatically turned down what was essentially a version of soft Brexit by way of TM deal. The only realistic options, IMO, is an even softer deal (Norway etc) or a hard deal. The rest is merely time wasting for all involved.

Norway has already stated last month that they don't want to have the Brits coming into EFTA once again and they would veto such a solution. You see by that announcement from the Norwegian govt how much the reputation of the UK has been damaged. Due to this Brexit charade and the way the UK govt was performing in this Brexit negotiation period, it has made the Brits look like unreliable, untrustworthy and a bunch of unrealistic selfish egotistical dreamers. A country one can't take as reliable is not worthy to strike trade deals with. But because the Brexiteers are all inward looking and staunch ignorants on what comes from the outside of their own bubble, they don't realise the damage this Brexit idiocy has already done and how the UK is not just seen but also rated in the international community.

The Brits are by now seen as trouble makers. This of course applies for all the Brexiteers, but unfortunately the whole reputation of the Brits as a nation is already suffering from that.

I think that the voting down of this WA was the last straw the Brits could have redeemed their damaged reputation if a majority had voted for it. But this is gone by now and the no-confidence vote of yesterday which May only one cos nobody likes to see Corbyn getting into No 10 as PM did the rest to show the world that the UK remains an uncertain and unreliable country. That by now negative reputation will last for a long time and it will make the Brexiteers bubble burst as soon as the UK exits the EU without a deal. I can't really believe that after all this there will be many economical strong countries lining up to strike trade Agreements with them. In case of the USA under Trump, the Brits will be the ones who either have to take it or leave it what is on offer and the content of such an offer will be dictated by the Americans. One can forget about equal partnership with a character like Trump in the WH.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

The idea about Ref2 all seem to be based on the assumption that Remain wins. What if Leave wins again. It would have been another waste of time. And I think there is a very big chance of leave winning. Both main parties want Brexit, the polls haven't shifted that much and it is likely to be quite a degree of pushback on the notion of being asked to vote again as it has never been raised by either main leader as the way forward and will be sold by the leave side as a demand from the EU, trying to push the UK into voting the 'right' way. It is a strength, and sometimes a weakness, of the British, that they are very stubborn and no not like being told what to do.

So rather than waste time on a Ref2, which may well simply waste time, surely it would be best to advocate for the softest Brexit possible.

Yet the HoC emphatically turned down what was essentially a version of soft Brexit by way of TM deal. The only realistic options, IMO, is an even softer deal (Norway etc) or a hard deal. The rest is merely time wasting for all involved.

A few points:

1. If Brexit wins again then it's done. There's no amount of venality, deceit and farce that can shake people's desire for this so it must be done.

2. Most Conservative MP's are remainers:

All Conservative MPs (total: 317)
Remain — 176
Leave — 138
Not disclosed — 3

New intake (total: 32)
Remain — 18
Leave — 13
Not disclosed — 1

Source.

These are wealthy individuals with investments and business interests. They're not going to be happy at all about shredding their investment portfolios.

3. Momentum and Labour members overwhelmingly favor a second referendum. Labour voters on the whole are a more diverse coalition but Momentum are going to have Corbyn's ear and will exert pressure on him to accede to their wishes on this.

4. There isn't really another way forward. A general election is off the table as is the deal. The EU will refuse to negotiate unless they can extract further concessions from May. A referendum would enable her to abdicate responsibility as presently she is on course to be remembered as a thoroughly inept PM with little in the way of ideology save for "Hostile environment" and "Dementia Tax".

robinph

Leroy42 wrote: »

The idea about Ref2 all seem to be based on the assumption that Remain wins. What if Leave wins again. It would have been another waste of time. And I think there is a very big chance of leave winning. Both main parties want Brexit, the polls haven't shifted that much and it is likely to be quite a degree of pushback on the notion of being asked to vote again as it has never been raised by either main leader as the way forward and will be sold by the leave side as a demand from the EU, trying to push the UK into voting the 'right' way. It is a strength, and sometimes a weakness, of the British, that they are very stubborn and no not like being told what to do.

So rather than waste time on a Ref2, which may well simply waste time, surely it would be best to advocate for the softest Brexit possible.

Yet the HoC emphatically turned down what was essentially a version of soft Brexit by way of TM deal. The only realistic options, IMO, is an even softer deal (Norway etc) or a hard deal. The rest is merely time wasting for all involved.

They have all boxed themselves into a corner by continually stating the lines about will of the people and respecting the referendum that it would now be difficult to get the idea of a referendum sold to the people.

As long as the question isn't "remain or leave" again, but is more specific for the leave option and states exactly what that means. Then despite still thinking the rest of the country are idiots if they vote the leave option again, I could at least accept they they were voting for an actual thing, rather than just a vague notion of getting away from the bad EU but without any idea of how or why.

Thomas_IV

EdgeCase wrote: »

The problem is that the US is a superpower. The UK absolutely is not but has never really accepted or understood that. It's living in a fantasy about how it was a century ago.

Whatever happens with Trump, the US has enormous momentum in terms of the scale of its economy and global influence. He can do damage, but he's unlikely to sink the ship.

The UK however could sink. It's a very much smaller, more narrowly focused economy that's hugely dependent on being a hub of trade. It's cutting off it's biggest and deepest trading relationship due to nationalist politics and isolationism being rebranded as globalism.

The politics may be similar but it's like comparing a nuclear powered massive scale aircraft carrier and a car ferry. You possibly don't want to arrogantly take on China in a car ferry.

Agreed.