Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If ''No Deal Brexit'' passes into law, is it there for good? Even with a new PM in place. Does it confirm once and for all that there can never be a 'No Deal Brexit''

Seth Brundle wrote: »

No deal is the default exit regardless of any votes held in Westminster. This is what the UK are currently sailing towards and *will* happen (despite the recent WM vote) unless they either revoke Art 50, accept the WA or ask and receive an extension.

It is really the ask for an extension law. When it passes it forces Johnson to ask for an extension from the EU until 31st January 2020. So it postpones a possible no deal Brexit (or clean break exit) until that date.

I think we can expect an election during that time. If the Tories gain a clear majority then Johnson has probably enough support to exit at the end of January. If the Tories lose, then Labour will probably try to enter into fresh negotiations with the EU. If the Tories only gain a narrow majority then we'll get something like the repeat of what is happening now with another law to force a request for an extension.

Forty Seven wrote: »

I'm running off years of living here and what real people really think. If you are basing your opinions on headlines and newspaper photos then I would refer you to the chances trump had of winning the election.



And yes. I voted remain but we are leaving so I would rather they get on with it. I don't want to spend 2020 going through anymore of this nonsense. Let the cards fall where they may.

Brexit will roll on for the next ten years.


I'm not sure you've thought this true. Frankly cards falling or not.

Shelga wrote: »

I can see Labour putting in their manifesto that they will enter fabulous new negotiations that will result in a brilliant, unicorny socialist utopia Brexit- the EU need to be very clear ahead of any general election that May’s deal is the only one available. We’re all so fed up of this rubbish.

I think what Labour want is a sort of CU/SM with significant say over the rules (unlike Norway / Iceland) and in addition some form of control over migration. I don't think there's a problem with the CU/SM but I could see a lot of discussion over how much say the UK would have and what level of control they would have over immigration from EU countries. Definitely better from the Irish perspective than no deal.

Although Corbyn has said that he would not rule out a second referendum, I don't think he himself is in favour of one.

Forty Seven wrote: »

The Dutch refused to extradite a major drug dealer as his cell in Liverpool wasn't up to scratch.

Not the point but being in the ECHR didn't make a difference then. I'm sure a country like the UK could come to some arrangement regarding extradition. It does work both ways.

From reading this article, all the British authorities had to do was assure the Dutch Court that he would not be sent to 3 named prisons because the conditions were some of the 'worst conditions inspectors have seen'.

By the way, it is assumed that people are innocent until proven guilty in most jurisdictions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/10/dutch-court-blocks-extradition-of-man-to-inhumane-uk-prisons

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/19/liverpool-prison-worst-conditions-inspectors-report

Shelga wrote: »

A second referendum seems to be politically impossible.

Are the EU going to keep granting extensions just because parliament don’t want to leave without a deal, if they fail to agree an alternative?

I think a 2nd referendum is now more than likely. Anything bar a Conservative majority in the upcoming election will lead to a referendum.

Yes, the EU will keep granting extensions forever, costs very little compared to No Deal disruption, as long as the possibility exists that the UK will someday cop on and agree a deal or bin Brexit. The EU has been known to keep kicking the can down the roads for 25 years when it suits them, like Norway and Switzerland joining, or Sweden adopting the Euro.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, the EU will keep granting extensions forever, costs very little compared to No Deal disruption, as long as the possibility exists that the UK will someday cop on and agree a deal or bin Brexit. The EU has been known to keep kicking the can down the roads for 25 years when it suits them, like Norway and Switzerland joining, or Sweden adopting the Euro.

Or Turkey's application to join the EU. I agree there's never been a fear that the EU would turn down an extension request.

Bit cynical wrote: »

Corbyn has said that he would not rule out a second referendum, I don't think he himself is in favour of one.

Corbyn explicitly said in a speech on the 2nd that in the next election Labour would offer the people the final say on Brexit with realistic options for both sides including an option to remain.

Shelga wrote: »

Actually I think I'm wrong, will the EU reopen the WA if the UK's red lines are removed? I assume if they did, it wouldn't be another 2 year negotiation, no one has the will for that.

Labour do, and the EU won't mind punting for a couple of years.

But Labour are not going to win a majority, so the terms of the referendum will have to be agreed by the Bollocks to Brexit party, who would probably prefer the question to be May's WA vs. remain, since remain is more likely to win that.

CelticRambler wrote: »

You do realise that "getting on with it" means you'll spend all of the "20s" going through this nonsense - especially if the UK leaves without a deal.

I'm not so sure of this. The UK would certainly take an economic hit in the event of a no deal brexit and there would be a period of disruption and adaptation but it would stop being news fairly quickly.

Ireland took on significant debt in the aftermath of the financial crisis. We went from being a comparatively low national debt country to a comparatively high debt one relative to GDP. I don't want to get into whose fault it was but the point is that we are still paying for it now. For example problems in the housing market can be traced back to the financial crisis in Ireland but few are interested in this today because it is not news.

The same thing will happen with no deal in the UK if that occurs. There will be a period of news stories reporting chaos at Dover, business closures, redundancies etc. But these will die down. Economic problems will remain due to Brexit but over time will stop being attributed to brexit. Britain being outside the EU trading on WTO terms will be the accepted norm and problems will be blamed on politicians and policies of the day rather than Brexit. This might seem unfair but it is the way it works.

Good to see British democracy in action today, as the latest Bill will be debated and then voted on by the unelected House of Lords

Bit cynical wrote: »

Ireland took on significant debt in the aftermath of the financial crisis. ...

The same thing will happen with no deal in the UK if that occurs. There will be a period of news stories reporting chaos at Dover, business closures, redundancies etc. But these will die down.

Yes, but those are just the effects of "no deal" - equivalent to Ireland's bail-out. But once Ireland was bailed out, that was the "end" of it (apart from the lingering consquences that you describe). For the UK, though, they'll go through all of that and then arrive back at this same point: having to agree a deal, and having to decide amongst themselves exactly how closely they want to align themselves with the EU to get that deal done. Cue howls of "we didn't fight for Brexit just to hand everything back to Brussels" - and media sensationalist reporting of same.