Brexit negotiations

[Deleted member 59730]

I am still in favour of no deal in principle, but we would need a PM and govt with qualities of leadership, inspiration, and vision.

How would a No Deal government overcome the Irish border problem?

Any government contemplating No Deal is dishonest in the extreme. Just what will our reputation be like if we are known to break the hard won Good Friday Agreement for the sake of satisfying 58 Tories?

 

[Mr D]

How would a No Deal government overcome the Irish border problem?

Any government contemplating No Deal is dishonest in the extreme. Just what will our reputation be like if we are known to break the hard won Good Friday Agreement for the sake of satisfying 58 Tories?

So satisfying 17 million voters isn't worth a mention?

Pretty sure the people of the island already have a good idea of the UK government reputation regarding communication, agreements, local rule etc.
Bit more to the good Friday agreement than the border. Rather more to the reason the agreement was needed too.

 

[Jeff FV]

Yes, I still think that is true, and remain may be what we have to do, perhaps by means of a 2 year extension to Art 50.

I am still in favour of no deal in principle, but we would need a PM and govt with qualities of leadership, inspiration, and vision. And an opposition with similar qualities to keep the govt on its toes. Sadly all of those qualities are totally absent in both govt and opposition.

@KM-Tiger Although I am completely opposite to you in my hoped for outcome, I just wanted to say I thoroughly respect your approach.

if we have a period of time where we plan for our Brexit, and then decide what should happen, I can support that. What we currently have is still both major political parties trying to please everyone, and there comes a time (now) where that can’t continue.

My suggestion: suspend Brexit for (say) two years, allow all parties (and I don’t mean Tory/Labour etc, more groups) decide what they want, present a coherent plan and then let the country decide on that basis.

 

[Mr D]

@KM-Tiger Although I am completely opposite to you in my hoped for outcome, I just wanted to say I thoroughly respect your approach.

if we have a period of time where we plan for our Brexit, and then decide what should happen, I can support that. What we currently have is still both major political parties trying to please everyone, and there comes a time (now) where that can’t continue.

My suggestion: suspend Brexit for (say) two years, allow all parties (and I don’t mean Tory/Labour etc, more groups) decide what they want, present a coherent plan and then let the country decide on that basis.

Not a bad idea.
Would love to see the Greens come up with a plan. They have some unusual methods not quite the same as older / stronger / more sane parties.
Not the same constraints.

A coherent plan - would the UK voters pick the same one as the EU I wonder?

 

[Cobby]

So satisfying 17 million voters isn't worth a mention?

You are, very deliberately, claiming that the 17.4 million people (51.8%) of the referendum result all want No Deal and/or they do not care about the Irish Border problem.

As your earlier trolling focused on, the question was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" It wasn't related to "No Deal"/Cliff Edge and nobody was directly polled about their views on the Irish Border Problem.

Please stop with these white-noise posts and straw-man arguments, they aren't adding anything valuable to the discussion.

If a 2nd referendum has more than 2 options it risks splitting the vote.

"Preferential Voting".

 

[Cobby]

In other Brexit news, the PM is now just straight up lying and pretending reality is real. The UK has fought against having to raise worker rights almost every step of the way.

 

[Cobby]

Good grief, the BBC, continuing their very pro-Brexit behaviour, have put up a game where you can play as a xenophobic Brexiteer.
https://twitter.com/KirstySNP/status/1104652906060541952

 

[HomeWrking]

It all comes down to genuine willingness to work and suffer - can the UK remain independent as a credit economy where the only value is in depreciated sub-urban semi's? Will we continue to despise the self-employed and small business owners - extracting from them and giving nothing back? Are we going to penalise the young for giving birth to more than 2 children when you have not got enough UK-births to replenish the population let alone support the aging?

 

[Mr D]

You are, very deliberately, claiming that the 17.4 million people (51.8%) of the referendum result all want No Deal and/or they do not care about the Irish Border problem.

As your earlier trolling focused on, the question was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" It wasn't related to "No Deal"/Cliff Edge and nobody was directly polled about their views on the Irish Border Problem.

Please stop with these white-noise posts and straw-man arguments, they aren't adding anything valuable to the discussion.



"Preferential Voting".

No, I am just not blanking out the fact that there was a vote and people chose to vote a particular way.

As you referred to the referendum question, are we at this moment leaving the EU - yes or no?

Annoying you with raising issues and adding stuff is a bonus. As I do not do white noise or straw man arguments I'll leave such things to you.

 

[Mr D]

It all comes down to genuine willingness to work and suffer - can the UK remain independent as a credit economy where the only value is in depreciated sub-urban semi's? Will we continue to despise the self-employed and small business owners - extracting from them and giving nothing back? Are we going to penalise the young for giving birth to more than 2 children when you have not got enough UK-births to replenish the population let alone support the aging?

Pretty sure I have more value than my semi. Was under the impression I had a business too.
Despising the self employed and small business owners? When did we start? Must have missed that memo.

 

[HomeWrking]

Pretty sure I have more value than my semi. Was under the impression I had a business too.
Despising the self employed and small business owners? When did we start? Must have missed that memo.

It starts when the leadership of your country engineer a credit based economy, over tax the lower to middle income earners, allow corps and big business to escape paying pennies, sell of vast public assets, collapse the manufacturing sector create the public sector as one of the biggest employers of people (NHS at number 5 these days)....

 

[Cobby]

No, I am just not blanking out the fact that there was a vote and people chose to vote a particular way.

As you referred to the referendum question, are we at this moment leaving the EU - yes or no

The assertion you just made was only No Deal could "satisfy" 17.4m people (i.e. Leave voters). Please specify where in the question, "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" it says that people prefer "No Deal" to a Norway-style deal.

I've asked you this over a dozen times and each time you avoid the question, preferring to offer up a straw man arguments instead. It's the kind of white-noise we have come to expect from Russian-bot farms. I don't think anyone's going to hold their breath for an answer.

Annoying you with raising issues and adding stuff is a bonus.

I'm sure you think it does, but this is just admitting that you're only trying to troll people rather than contribute to the discussion. We'll see if any mods notice or care.

 

[Mr D]

It starts when the leadership of your country engineer a credit based economy, over tax the lower to middle income earners, allow corps and big business to escape paying pennies, sell of vast public assets, collapse the manufacturing sector create the public sector as one of the biggest employers of people (NHS at number 5 these days)....

So which country did all this and have they published any results yet?

 

[Mr D]

The assertion you just made was only No Deal could "satisfy" 17.4m people (i.e. Leave voters). Please specify where in the question, "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" it says that people prefer "No Deal" to a Norway-style deal.

I've asked you this over a dozen times and each time you avoid the question, preferring to offer up a straw man arguments instead. It's the kind of white-noise we have come to expect from Russian-bot farms. I don't think anyone's going to hold their breath for an answer.



I'm sure you think it does, but this is just admitting that you're only trying to troll people rather than contribute to the discussion. We'll see if any mods notice or care.

So again the vote was on leaving the EU - are we leaving at this point in time yes or no? Simple enough question.

Yes we know you are disappointed that you do not get to decide other people's votes and do not get to vote in parliament. Your problem, not ours.

I do not troll, not worth the effort. Lots of us contribute to the discussion without your say so, and without being required to post only stuff you can agree with. That appears to annoy you. Why is that?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

"The legal risk remains unchanged".

And with that, Cox has sunk any chance of May's deal passing today.

Probably, anyway. I do think many MPs who rejected the deal the first time did so to see what else they could squeeze out of it, even though they've always intended to approve it eventually. But I can't see that swing in numbers being anywhere near enough to make the difference. We'll find out later today.

What we must realise though is very little of this situation is down to personal fault. The reality is a list of objective difficulties, and I doubt anyone, even pro-leave, could have done a better job.

The backstop is a legally binding guarantee to avoid a particular outcome of an extremely difficult objective that we have yet to have an answer for. Many often speak as though it's a one-way street, but it isn't. The EU can stop us exiting, but we can also stop the EU exiting. We'll be handcuffed together, each holding half a key, until we've worked something else out.

If you look at that from the perspective of eliminating any uncertainties over a hard border or the GFA in general, it does a very good job of that.

But provide unilateral powers for either side, and it no longer serves the purpose it's intended for. It becomes a voluntary arrangement. It won't be a backstop. It won't be a guarantee. It will be nothingness.

How do we even include a time limit, either? The border situation is unique in the world. Will it take 2 years? 5 years? 10? 20? More?

As for "good faith", we don't trust the EU at all and are convinced they'll try to lock us into the backstop indefinitely. It's therefore no surprise if they have similar levels of distrust towards us.

Then we have "no deal". An option that doesn't solve this problem and actually makes it ten times worse. We're worried we won't find a border solution in 5 years, never mind a few months. It's not an answer to this problem, and the economic impact of it isn't the only factor. Not by a long shot.

It's a mess on an epic scale. The question now is what MPs consider the lesser of two evils: the withdrawal deal, or the unknown of what happens without it.

 

[Mr D]

"The legal risk remains unchanged".

And with that, Cox has sunk any chance of May's deal passing today.

Probably, anyway. I do think many MPs who rejected the deal the first time did so to see what else they could squeeze out of it, even though they've always intended to approve it eventually. But I can't see that swing in numbers being anywhere near enough to make the difference. We'll find out later today.

What we must realise though is very little of this situation is down to personal fault. The reality is a list of objective difficulties, and I doubt anyone, even pro-leave, could have done a better job.

The backstop is a legally binding guarantee to avoid a particular outcome of an extremely difficult objective that we have yet to have an answer for. Many often speak as though it's a one-way street, but it isn't. The EU can stop us exiting, but we can also stop the EU exiting. We'll be handcuffed together, each holding half a key, until we've worked something else out.

If you look at that from the perspective of eliminating any uncertainties over a hard border or the GFA in general, it does a very good job of that.

But provide unilateral powers for either side, and it no longer serves the purpose it's intended for. It becomes a voluntary arrangement. It won't be a backstop. It won't be a guarantee. It will be nothingness.

How do we even include a time limit, either? The border situation is unique in the world. Will it take 2 years? 5 years? 10? 20? More?

As for "good faith", we don't trust the EU at all and are convinced they'll try to lock us into the backstop indefinitely. It's therefore no surprise if they have similar levels of distrust towards us.

Then we have "no deal". An option that doesn't solve this problem and actually makes it ten times worse. We're worried we won't find a border solution in 5 years, never mind a few months. It's not an answer to this problem, and the economic impact of it isn't the only factor. Not by a long shot.

It's a mess on an epic scale. The question now is what MPs consider the lesser of two evils: the withdrawal deal, or the unknown of what happens without it.

So if rejected today, what happens next?
Leave? Or not leave?

Was somewhat amused by the idea some MPs seem to have pushed for, a temporary backstop with an end date - like they have an idea what would happen at that end date. Still a need for a border deal - I think we can all agree on that? Just disagreement about what.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

As for "good faith", we don't trust the EU at all and are convinced they'll try to lock us into the backstop indefinitely. It's therefore no surprise if they have similar levels of distrust towards us.

Dear Scott

The reason the EU don't trust us is that we have a bunch of untrustworthy liars waiting to take over as leader of the Tory party. They dread the idea of arch liar Johnson being PM.

 

[simon field]

You know there’s going to be a lengthy delay.

Probably at least another year of this guff!
Seems like everyone I speak to now who voted remain has had enough of it all and just wants out. I agree with that. Life will go on, I promise!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

You know there’s going to be a lengthy delay.

People talk about the importance of leaving on the 29th of March, but I think it's likely there will be a delay even if May's deal is approved.

We've pushed it too far back now with too many technical legislative elements still to sort out. It may only be a few weeks, but I think a 29th of March exit is pretty unlikely now whatever happens.

The main hypocrisy in all this is while the thought of asking the public the same question again is so horrifying to some, our government seems intent on doing the exact same thing inside the Commons.

She's just spoke there about the absurdity of wanting a second referendum and maybe even a third, but I can guarantee that if May's deal doesn't lose by much tonight, there will be a third "meaningful vote" for MPs. Maybe even a 4th or 5th with only weeks between each.

People speak as though some politicians are trying to respect the result we've made. I see it more like they're treating us as children. What else could it be? Anything other than "Respect the original result" is off the table for the public to avoid upsetting some of us, but they have no issue repeatedly asking MPs the same question over and over until they get the result they want.

EU referendum result almost 3 years ago = 51.9% leave / 48.1% remain

"You can't ask them again! They've made their mind up!"

Brexit deal vote 2 months ago = 68.1% reject / 31.9% approve

"Ask them again! And again!"

Either the government respects the concept of a one-time original decision, or they don't. Which is it?

 

[KM-Tiger]

Probably, anyway. I do think many MPs who rejected the deal the first time did so to see what else they could squeeze out of it, even though they've always intended to approve it eventually. But I can't see that swing in numbers being anywhere near enough to make the difference. We'll find out later today.

Stands at 13 switchers ATM.

https://order-order.com/2019/03/12/mps-switching-back-deal/

Do agree this is an almighty mess.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Stands at 13 switchers ATM.

https://order-order.com/2019/03/12/mps-switching-back-deal/

Do agree this is an almighty mess.

This defeat might end up being larger than I thought it would be. We're a long, long, long way off the required number of MPs with about four hours to go. May better hope that the vast majority who have decided to switch are keeping their choice under wraps.

On another note, MP Douglas Ross, who rejected the deal last time, won't be voting tonight as his wife has gone into labour. Just imagine if May's deal ends up being approved by a single vote...

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

The main hypocrisy in all this is while the thought of asking the public the same question again is so horrifying to some, our government seems intent on doing the exact same thing inside the Commons.

She's just spoke there about the absurdity of wanting a second referendum and maybe even a third, but I can guarantee that if May's deal doesn't lose by much tonight, there will be a third "meaningful vote" for MPs. Maybe even a 4th or 5th with only weeks between each.

People speak as though some politicians are trying to respect the result we've made. I see it more like they're treating us as children. What else could it be? Anything other than "Respect the original result" is off the table for the public to avoid upsetting some of us, but they have no issue repeatedly asking MPs the same question over and over until they get the result they want.

EU referendum result almost 3 years ago = 51.9% leave / 48.1% remain

"You can't ask them again! They've made their mind up!"

Brexit deal vote 2 months ago = 68.1% reject / 31.9% approve

"Ask them again! And again!"

Either the government respects the concept of a one-time original decision, or they don't. Which is it?

And just like that:

https://twitter.com/AVMikhailova/status/1105487208369262593

Come on now MPs. If you're going to keep asking the same question until you get the result you want, at least wait a few days...

 

[KM-Tiger]

May better hope that the vast majority who have decided to switch are keeping their choice under wraps.

JRM telling BBC that some ERG members will vote for the WA.

Here's hoping that it does get defeated.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

JRM telling BBC that some ERG members will vote for the WA.

Here's hoping that it does get defeated.

I think your comment illustrates the mess we're in when it comes to consensus.

May talks about delivering the deal for the 17.4 million leavers, but now many of them actually want it? How many want no deal? How many want something else?

People can say what they like about the thought of another referendum, but there's no denying that right now, no one knows exactly what the public wants. And more to the point, May's deal could provide a result that a huge majority of the public (including remainers) don't want.

It's really quite remarkable.

 

[KM-Tiger]

May talks about delivering the deal for the 17.4 million leavers

But it's not a deal, it's a surrender. As one commentator put it: the sort of thing you have to sign when you have lost a war.

And doesn't deliver either the question in the referendum, leave the EU, or meet the manifesto pledges of leaving the CU, SM, and jurisdiction of the ECJ.

That's why I don't want MPs to approve it. If May won't resign when it is defeated then hopefully enough tory MPs will vote to bring the govt down in a confidence vote. If there is to be an extension to Art 50, that must be dealt with by a new administration.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Would you trust this man to take decisions for ordinary voters?

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/jacob-rees-mogg-earnings-since-brexit-vote-somerset-capital-management/

But it's not a deal, it's a surrender. As one commentator put it: the sort of thing you have to sign when you have lost a war.

We did lose the war. Leavers won. Get over it!

 

[Mr D]

But it's not a deal, it's a surrender. As one commentator put it: the sort of thing you have to sign when you have lost a war.

And doesn't deliver either the question in the referendum, leave the EU, or meet the manifesto pledges of leaving the CU, SM, and jurisdiction of the ECJ.

That's why I don't want MPs to approve it. If May won't resign when it is defeated then hopefully enough tory MPs will vote to bring the govt down in a confidence vote. If there is to be an extension to Art 50, that must be dealt with by a new administration.

OK just supposing there is a confidence vote again. And the government loses this one.
And we end up with a general election.
Have you thought that we might again end up with most of these MPs back in parliament and May in power for another 5 years?

The new administration may be very similar to the old administration. Only if Labour wins would you get a new administration in power.
The third biggest party in parliament has no chance of British power on their own but may in coalition. So Labour or Conservative, take your choice.

 

[Mr D]

But it's not a deal, it's a surrender. As one commentator put it: the sort of thing you have to sign when you have lost a war.

And doesn't deliver either the question in the referendum, leave the EU, or meet the manifesto pledges of leaving the CU, SM, and jurisdiction of the ECJ.

That's why I don't want MPs to approve it. If May won't resign when it is defeated then hopefully enough tory MPs will vote to bring the govt down in a confidence vote. If there is to be an extension to Art 50, that must be dealt with by a new administration.

Does the deal mean we leave the EU?
Or does it mean we stay in the EU?

 

[KM-Tiger]

And we end up with a general election.

We don't necessarily end up with a GE.

As I understand it the rules are that the tories would have 14 days to form a new govt and win a confidence vote.

 

[Mr D]

We don't necessarily end up with a GE.

As I understand it the rules are that the tories would have 14 days to form a new govt and win a confidence vote.

Yes, presuming a no confidence vote is failed and then failed again when cannot get sufficient support.
Failing then getting sufficient votes to form a new government gives you basically what we had before. There isn't exactly a spare party willing to step forward and ally with the Tories any time soon.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

But it's not a deal, it's a surrender. As one commentator put it: the sort of thing you have to sign when you have lost a war.

And doesn't deliver either the question in the referendum, leave the EU, or meet the manifesto pledges of leaving the CU, SM, and jurisdiction of the ECJ.

That's why I don't want MPs to approve it. If May won't resign when it is defeated then hopefully enough tory MPs will vote to bring the govt down in a confidence vote. If there is to be an extension to Art 50, that must be dealt with by a new administration.

This is square peg in round hole stuff, though.

I see nothing realistic that a new government could achieve differently, no matter which way they align.

Those thinking no deal is acceptable are clearly in a very small minority (remember that most just said it as a bluff for negotiating leverage). And as for an alternative deal, what else could be done?

Maybe we just have to accept that for all practical purposes, the question in the referendum, and those manifesto pledges, are not deliverable and shouldn't have been said in the first place. It certainly wouldn't be the first time politicians have made promises they can't keep, and it won't be the last.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Failing then getting sufficient votes to form a new government gives you basically what we had before.

Err no, it can and should be different people.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Maybe we just have to accept that for all practical purposes, the question in the referendum, and those manifesto pledges, are not deliverable and shouldn't have been said in the first place.

That's very dangerous territory you are entering with that.

You seem to be suggesting that politicians know better than the people. I don't accept that.

 

[Mr D]

Err no, it can and should be different people.

So same party, same PM - and she selects who she wants in what post in cabinet.
Exactly how do you envisage different people unless a different party wins?
A different party win would require a GE.

 

[KM-Tiger]

same PM

No different PM. May is an unmitigated disaster and needs to be replaced.

 

[Mr D]

No different PM. May is an unmitigated disaster and needs to be replaced.

Bad news.
She won a leadership challenge and cannot have another one for a year after that.
And she is the elected leader of her party.

She can resign as leader of her party. She cannot be forced out any time soon.
If she resigns who do you want instead? Boris? Michael? Jacob? Whoever can get support of sufficient party MPs and party members, not the voting public.

Now if there was a GE and by some chance Labour won then she wouldn't be PM. Jeremy would.
That's probably a slim chance but my well be the only way you are going to get a new PM. The parties have their own rules regarding selecting and dealing with leaders and she is the leader of the Conservative party.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Bad news.

Then we are all doomed.

If she loses a confidence vote in the HoC, then surely the pressure on her to resign would be enormous?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

That's very dangerous territory you are entering with that.

You seem to be suggesting that politicians know better than the people. I don't accept that.

Well, sorry, but in some respects, they do.

They have scores of civil servants, lawyers, analysts and other specialists, with access to data we couldn't even fathom. They regularly meet with interest groups, business owners and other politicians across the UK and the world. They debate and question this stuff endlessly. They live and breathe it in politics every day, right inside the operating core of the UK.

That provides a level of insight that the collective knowledge of the electorate sometimes can't compete with, no matter how many voices you add into the mix.

You carry out professional Linux server administration, right? Let's say a client has a selection of server options and they want you to recommend one. But they're also going to put the decision to the population of the UK in a one-vote-one-person setup.

Who's more likely to make the right recommendation? You, obviously. It's your speciality and your expertise. You have huge experience in it. You have insights into it that others will not.

So unless you think that the one-person-one-vote electorate would carry out Linux server administration better than you would, I can't see how you can categorically claim that the people understand the complex nuances of Brexit more than the politicians do.

Call me crazy, but when so many of them are prepared to rule out no deal, particularly when it actually makes their lives much harder and risks them losing their political careers altogether, I think it's reasonable to heed their words.

 

[Mr D]

Then we are all doomed.

If she loses a confidence vote in the HoC, then surely the pressure on her to resign would be enormous?

Possibly.
Is that like leading a party in a general election defeat pressure to resign? That Corbyn ignored?
Or like last time a sitting PM lost votes of no confidence - a while ago?

But can anything force her at this stage? You would have the party going into a GE with no clear leader chosen by the party. Which may well be a disaster.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

242 approved. 391 rejected. Defeat by 149.

That was heavier than I expected. I was thinking perhaps around 100.

What's happened to date has been fairly predictable. Now we truly enter uncharted territory.