Brexit Discussion Thread VI

robinph wrote: »

If the UK parliament is stupid enough to try to amend the backstop, and the EU is then stupid enough to agree to any changes then one point about the EU that Brexiteers have been parroting will become true. The EU would be finished.

Exactly. The EU would be seen as weak and open to exploitation from within and without.

Hurrache wrote: »

May in the commons has said she wants to go back to Brussels to negotiate a deal based on what the house want. Eh, you already done that, over almost 2 years.

She said she'll bring back a revised deal for a second meaningful vote as soon as she can.

Be some craic if Brussels just announce don’t bother flying over love, the deal is not gonna be reopened

Adamcp898 wrote: »

A lot of this thread is people trying to have a go for the sake of it. Some of it in the age old United Ireland, Republican vs. Unionist tired format. Only unfortunately a lot of it reads like they're painfully unaware of how indiscriminate the fallout from this is going to be, no matter where they feel they stand.

.

Beggars belief how this cannot be seen as one of the fundamental problems with the partition of this island.

It may have happened 100 years ago but it's effects are still with us and still profound.
We found a way to take the 'conflict and violence' out of it, but now we have Westminster and a belligerent single party, toying with it in the crazy belief that it will do no harm.

Of course any genuine Irish person is going to be angry about that.

Unfortunately it's May's plan now, she has said in parliament she's going to go back to the EU to ask them to reopen the negotiations.

So we have the hilarious situation of May, Rabb, Davis and whoever else were on the team voting against a deal that they bloody negotiated in the first place.

Who the hell will want to negotiate with, and trust, these clowns in their brave new world of trade agreements?

Hurrache wrote: »

Unfortunately it's May's plan now, she has said in parliament she's going to go back to the EU to ask them to reopen the negotiations.

So we have the hilarious situation of May, Rabb, Davis and whoever else were on the team voting against a deal that they bloody negotiated in the first place.

Well it's just as surreal as the Tories voting to retain May before Christmas shortly after voting against her deal and calling for a no confidence vote.

She's currently suggesting a "significant and legally binding change", which will then be debated in commons, despite everyone telling them repeatedly that it won't happen. The sheer amount of time wasted in commons on changes they know won't pass over the past two years is staggering.

WomanSkirtFan8 wrote: »

Why the hell would she ever bother when she already knows the EU are going to say no to whatever she proposes? The deal that's already been agreed is the only deal the eu will agree to and must include the backstop (if it's ever actually needed) and that's it.



TM going back to brussels is absolutely pointless.:rolleyes:

Always look at this in the context of Tory unity. That is the core motivation in everything May is doing.

An extremely important question asked by Tory MP Peter Bone. Essentially, he asked that if he backs the Brady amendment, does that mean he is committed to voting for any new deal that May brings back? She answers "No". So, this means that what May brings to Europe over the next few days MIGHT be what parliament wants. It's actually becoming insulting to the EU at this stage.

Thought this was worth posting from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/jan/29/brexit-vote-commons-latest-news-developments-liam-fox-says-may-now-saying-withdrawal-deal-text-must-be-rewritten-politics-live

Basically, if in the hypothetical situation that the EU were to accept the Brady amendment (which we already know they won't) and they were to renegotiate the deal, Brexiter MPs (or MPs of any persuasion) don't have to vote on any hypothetical final deal.

I mean, you really couldn't make this nonsense up.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

An extremely important question asked by Tory MP Peter Bone. Essentially, he asked that if he backs the Brady amendment, does that mean he is committed to voting for any new deal that May brings back? She answers "No". So, this means that what May brings to Europe over the next few days MIGHT be what parliament wants. It's actually becoming insulting to the EU at this stage.

The best thing the EU can do is simply keep out of this. What goes on in the UK Parliament is no concern of theirs : they have already signed off on the agreement.

EdgeCase wrote: »

I get the impression the UK side is completely out of it depth and negotiating with itself in the Westminster and tabloid newspaper bubble again.

Hurrache wrote: »

Who the hell will want to negotiate with, and trust, these clowns in their brave new world of trade agreements?

Back in the mists of time, shortly after the ref result was announced, it was pointed out that because of 40 years of EEC/EU membership, Britain had no recent experience of serious solo negotiations on the world stage. We're seeing that point illustrated now in glorious Technicolor and Dolby surround sound. While it makes for a wonderful spectacle, it doesn't bode well for the many similar negotiations ahead.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

They also seem to be utterly oblivious to damage being done to their image as a stable country with a stable democracy. Any potential investor looking at Britain over the past two years will simply throw their eyes to heaven and move on - especially any European investor.

Indeed and I don't see any obvious way they can undo the huge PR damage of Brexit. Every Brexit outcome looks a terrible one......they're nearly three years after that blasted referendum and have burned a lot of bridges.

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

And this is the easy part. Never mind trying to negotiate free trade deals with the EU after whatever happens on March 29th, imagine this government trying to negotiate with the US or China?

if I understand correctly the USA would not be allowed by its own Senate to negotiate with the UK if it breaks the Good Friday Agreement.

Winters wrote: »

if I understand correctly the USA would not be allowed by its own Senate to negotiate with the UK if it breaks the Good Friday Agreement.

I'm not sure about that, but Tony Connolly was making the point on Brexit Republic last week that any semblance of a border would cause Irish American senators to have serious problems with negotiating with the UK.

Enzokk wrote: »

I guess there goes the notion of working together with other parties in the HoC. Did she take one thing on board from any of the opposition parties other than the DUP?

Nothing at all. At this stage, she is the DUP/ERG's glove puppet. They couldn't be having Labour ideas about the place. Nevermind that dreadful Sturgeon woman.