Brexit negotiations

[Mr D]

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.

Uncharted territory.

On maps - 'Here be dragons'.

Now if only we had that foreign guy, George...

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://twitter.com/syrpis/status/1103700100424056835

I'm not a major supporter of revocation (I think a peoples' decision should be countered by those same people making a decision on whether they want to change their minds), but this thread makes some good points.

We need to face up to the fact, uncomfortable for some, that if we don't want the deal, we don't want no deal, and we don't want anything else on the table, then we don't leave.

But all is not lost for the Brexiteers. Revocation doesn't mean we're locked into the EU forever. We have a unilateral right to revoke Article 50, and a unilateral right to leave again in the future. Yes, our revocation has to be "unconditional and unequivocal", but to take the wording literally, it would be exactly that, even if we considered leaving again in future.

If we did that, we could essentially stop the clock. No asking for extensions or pandering to the EU in talks. We'd return to the table as a EU member with the pressure off and in a stronger position to influence the EU from within.

Why? Because this whole Brexit debacle isn't about the UK vs the EU. It's about the UK vs itself. And this is clearly a very complicated issue with a lot of emotions where we need to come together, cool off and figure out what we really want.

If we do this, it arguably provides the best chance to figure out a form of Brexit that would gain majority support. We know the EU's position now, so we could have a few years with level heads to work out a solution for the Irish border, amongst other things, that could come into effect immediately.

Then we ask again: does the UK want to stay put now, or does it want the "new" deal on the table? But crucially, it would be a deal that has had a lot of reflection without the pressure, is able to command a Commons majority, and is achievable. Sort that first, and then decide.

Brexit supporters may recoil in horror at the thought of Article 50 revocation, but when you think about the situation today, it actually provides one of the best chances of achieving a workable Brexit, even if it takes a bit longer than expected.

 

[Newchodge]

We do not have a deal. There will be a vote tomorrow on whether we should leave with no deal on 29 March. I predict that will result in no deal being off the table. So there will then be a vote on whether we should ask for an extension.

Just think about that for a minute. If the vote is that we should not ask for an extension, and that we cannot accept no deal, there is only one option - revoke article 50.

If the vote is to ask for an extension, and the question is asked, the EU will want to know - what, exactly, is the extension for? (a) Is it to try and get the deal through for a third time? (b) Is it so a referendum may be held? (c) Is it so a general election may be held? Or (d) is it to start again, scrap everything done so far and try a different approach?

(a) the EU and the rest of the world will die laughing. It is a non-starter.
(b) Referendum could only have 1 of 2 results - stay or leave in some way. If it is leave in some way - either leave immediately with no deal or start again, scrap everything done so far and try a different approach we end up with the same problem.
(c) General election could have the same government who will have the same problem, a different government, who will have the same problem or a hung government who will have the same problem.
(d) We have had 2 years to try and get this sorted. It is one of the biggest shambles in our political history, why should another try have any different result.

So let's just revoke article 50 and get on with our lives.

 

[Mr D]

We do not have a deal. There will be a vote tomorrow on whether we should leave with no deal on 29 March. I predict that will result in no deal being off the table. So there will then be a vote on whether we should ask for an extension.

Just think about that for a minute. If the vote is that we should not ask for an extension, and that we cannot accept no deal, there is only one option - revoke article 50.

If the vote is to ask for an extension, and the question is asked, the EU will want to know - what, exactly, is the extension for? (a) Is it to try and get the deal through for a third time? (b) Is it so a referendum may be held? (c) Is it so a general election may be held? Or (d) is it to start again, scrap everything done so far and try a different approach?

(a) the EU and the rest of the world will die laughing. It is a non-starter.
(b) Referendum could only have 1 of 2 results - stay or leave in some way. If it is leave in some way - either leave immediately with no deal or start again, scrap everything done so far and try a different approach we end up with the same problem.
(c) General election could have the same government who will have the same problem, a different government, who will have the same problem or a hung government who will have the same problem.
(d) We have had 2 years to try and get this sorted. It is one of the biggest shambles in our political history, why should another try have any different result.

So let's just revoke article 50 and get on with our lives.

So if MPs vote to take no deal off the table, we are leaving this month with …. what? It looks like no deal, sounds like no deal but MPs are going to vote on whether to remove no deal as an option.

Sure we can ask for an extension. The EU would be idiots to give us an extension if we are not going to do a deal. What would we do in say a 12 month extension? Bicker as usual - so delaying the exact same problems by a year.
Come up with a method of not needing the backstop? Perhaps - cannot see as yet any method that could be implemented quickly that would be acceptable in London, Belfast and Dublin. But possible some method could be worked out. Only had years to work it out to date.

I agree with cancelling Brexit so as to get things sorted for later. What cannot be done in 2 years may be workable in 20. Or 10 even.
Then we may attempt to leave again with both realistic expectations and solutions to the problems we know exist, solutions acceptable to all parties concerned.

 

[Clinton]

Just think about that for a minute. If the vote is that we should not ask for an extension, and that we cannot accept no deal, there is only one option - revoke article 50.

And you see our spineless MPs on both sides of the house voting to revoke when their constituents voted Leave?

No, there'd be no Parliamentary majority for a revoke.

Or are you suggesting this is not put to the vote in Parliament (despite MPs getting to vote on deal or no deal, extension to A50 etc)?

Slip it through without anyone noticing (and commit political suicide in the process)?

Sorry to all those who are hoping to Remain - this isn't the route that's going to work for you.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Maybe a general election would sort it out one way or another, Traditionally it has always been a two sided fight, but with such unhappiness with both main parties if not all parties, then maybe independents elected for their beliefs rather than party allegiance would give us all a different viewpoint on government regardless of the brexit question.
No doubt there would still be parties with a large influence but coalitions need not be a bad thing to all countries, even if the Mediterranean countries seem to indicate otherwise

 

[Deleted member 59730]

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.

AS Dominic Grieve mentioned in his speech during yesterday's debate, why did no one point out that a referendum was impossible without considering the Irish border?

Not one of our MPs brought up the Irish problem in the referendum debate. Not one.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

If the vote is to ask for an extension, and the question is asked, the EU will want to know - what, exactly, is the extension for? (a) Is it to try and get the deal through for a third time? (b) Is it so a referendum may be held? (c) Is it so a general election may be held? Or (d) is it to start again, scrap everything done so far and try a different approach?

Andrew Adonis has a simple idea. If the EU offered an extension up to the end of 2020 with no firm date for leave being specified. It could then happen at a date when Parliament finally gets its act together.

 

[Clinton]

Not one of our MPs brought up the Irish problem in the referendum debate. Not one.

No, because it's an artificial problem blown out of proportion by the EU as a negotiating tactic. (Avoiding a hard border could have been done in a number of ways if the EU actually wanted to cooperate on that and MPs knew it back in the day ...which is why they didn't raise this point earlier!)

In all the excitement about a free vote today I think people are missing a big point - we are leaving without a deal on March 29th. Today's motion is carefully worded to allow wriggle room. And Leadsom said multiple times yesterday that if MPs vote for No Deal that decision will be implemented. But not if MPs vote against No Deal. In the latter case all the government is promising is a vote tomorrow on requesting an extension.

The government seems intent on not bringing in the legislation (which would be required) to cancel us leaving this month! And unless that's done we leave with No Deal in two weeks.

And the EU loses £39b (or whatever we choose to withhold).

Today's announcement on tariffs will be a big relief to many businesses (unless you're the CBI protecting Mega Corps rather than mums and pops)

 

[KM-Tiger]

we are leaving without a deal on March 29th.

And it's not really without a deal, as all sorts of deals, eg transportation and financial services are already in place.

And our chancellor will have a £39BN fund that could be used to mitigate any other side effects.

 

[Mr D]

Maybe a general election would sort it out one way or another, Traditionally it has always been a two sided fight, but with such unhappiness with both main parties if not all parties, then maybe independents elected for their beliefs rather than party allegiance would give us all a different viewpoint on government regardless of the brexit question.
No doubt there would still be parties with a large influence but coalitions need not be a bad thing to all countries, even if the Mediterranean countries seem to indicate otherwise

And a general election could give us many of the same MPs back in parliament and a good chance the same party in government now is in government then.
In other words effectively no change.

Its only a solution if Labour win and they get a chance to mess things up.
Pretty certain the EU will not agree with Labour policy on Brexit - goes a bit further than members get these days!

 

[Mr D]

And it's not really without a deal, as all sorts of deals, eg transportation and financial services are already in place.

And our chancellor will have a £39BN fund that could be used to mitigate any other side effects.

And if the EU says pay that £39 billion plus interest plus penalties before we will do any kind of other deal?
And if other countries are a bit more wary of doing a deal with someone who negotiates a deal but then backs out of it without paying the bills.... ?

 

[Mr D]

No, because it's an artificial problem blown out of proportion by the EU as a negotiating tactic. (Avoiding a hard border could have been done in a number of ways if the EU actually wanted to cooperate on that and MPs knew it back in the day ...which is why they didn't raise this point earlier!)

In all the excitement about a free vote today I think people are missing a big point - we are leaving without a deal on March 29th. Today's motion is carefully worded to allow wriggle room. And Leadsom said multiple times yesterday that if MPs vote for No Deal that decision will be implemented. But not if MPs vote against No Deal. In the latter case all the government is promising is a vote tomorrow on requesting an extension.

The government seems intent on not bringing in the legislation (which would be required) to cancel us leaving this month! And unless that's done we leave with No Deal in two weeks.

And the EU loses £39b (or whatever we choose to withhold).

Today's announcement on tariffs will be a big relief to many businesses (unless you're the CBI protecting Mega Corps rather than mums and pops)

Yes the news about the tariffs about what we hoped.
Government can make a lot of money on tariffs but it has an impact - zero on some stuff and not others at least means status quo (not the band) for some businesses.

 

[Newchodge]

Andrew Adonis has a simple idea. If the EU offered an extension up to the end of 2020 with no firm date for leave being specified. It could then happen at a date when Parliament finally gets its act together.

That's a good idea, but do you think this lot could get their act together by the end of 2020?

 

[Clinton]

And if other countries are a bit more wary of doing a deal with someone who negotiates a deal but then backs out of it without paying the bills.... ?

Hmm. I think you'll find that other countries will still want to do a deal with one of the largest economies on the planet.

We are not some tinpot, third world micro economy that has a long history of reneging on deals. The UK is major player on the world stage and commands a lot of respect and trust everywhere (despite the appalling things the UK has done in Iraq, Libya, Syria, not to mention even worse things like the UK's treatment of Afgan translators and the still ongoing Chagosian affair).

We are in a unique situation where we are leaving without getting any compensation for all the assets we're leaving behind. Other governments seeking to do a deal with us are unlikely to hold this £39b issue against us.

 

[Mr D]

Hmm. I think you'll find that other countries will still want to do a deal with one of the largest economies on the planet.

We are not some tinpot, third world micro economy that has a long history of reneging on deals. The UK is major player on the world stage and commands a lot of respect and trust everywhere (despite the appalling things the UK has done in Iraq, Libya, Syria, not to mention even worse things like the UK's treatment of Afgan translators and the still ongoing Chaggosian affair).

We are in a unique situation where we are leaving without getting any compensation for all the assets we're leaving behind. Other governments seeking to do a deal with us are unlikely to hold this £39b issues against us.

Instead we will be a desperate, possibly shrinking, xenophobic economy?

 

[Mr D]

That's a good idea, but do you think this lot could get their act together by the end of 2020?

Not a chance.
Politics as usual.

 

[KM-Tiger]

Instead we will be a desperate, possibly shrinking, xenophobic economy?

Why xenophobic?

We are members of the Commonwealth. That's one third of the world's population, that has achieved double the growth of the EU over the last ten years or so. Those countries, which include Australia, Canada, and New Zealand want to trade with us.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

And our chancellor will have a £39BN fund that could be used to mitigate any other side effects.

What on earth makes you think that we will still not owe the 39billion? That is the cost of leaving irrespective of what way we leave. After all you wouldn't want farage to without his pension would you?

 

[KM-Tiger]

What on earth makes you think that we will still not owe the 39billion?

That was the conclusion of the HoL committee that looked into the matter. That no money was due in the event of no deal brexit.

And, as pointed out by @Clinton above, we should be claiming from the EU our share of various assets, eg the European Investment Bank.

 

[Cobby]

And doesn't deliver either the question in the referendum, leave the EU

Yes it would have. The UK would no longer be a member of the European Union.

As has been highlighted over and over in this thread, the question was very basic and very vague. Just because it doesn't qualify what you felt you were voting for, it doesn't mean the question wouldn't be satisfied by that "deal".

 

[Cobby]

Maybe a general election would sort it out one way or another, Traditionally it has always been a two sided fight, but with such unhappiness with both main parties if not all parties, then maybe independents elected for their beliefs rather than party allegiance would give us all a different viewpoint on government regardless of the brexit question.
No doubt there would still be parties with a large influence but coalitions need not be a bad thing to all countries, even if the Mediterranean countries seem to indicate otherwise

FPTP doesn't allow for the type of protest voting you describe here.

The Labour defectors who went independent forced a public shift in Labour's policy even if Labour haven't reflected that in their actions. That's a protest that can indicate a position on Brexit.

Currently we have the government and opposition, both treating the referendum result as completely sound, legitimate and untainted, and both acting very dishonestly in their respective pushes for Brexit.

Under FPTP protest votes on independents are largely wasted and votes for either party will be construed as a vote in support of Brexit.

Vote for the Tories - more chaos, corruption, ineptitude, austerity and a harmful Brexit. Vote for Labour - more chaos, ineptitude and a harmful Brexit. Vote for neither and it's a wasted vote. Any vote sees harm to the economy and UK citizens. FPTP is not fit for purpose.

 

[Cobby]

Hmm. I think you'll find that other countries will still want to do a deal with one of the largest economies on the planet.

Absolutely and as a non-EU, almost completely isolated country desperate for trade arrangements on the back of a contracting economy, we will have much less to offer and since time will be on the side of literally every other party, we will have no leverage. Still at least we'll have recent evidence of our trustworthiness and reliability as negotiating partners!

Other governments seeking to do a deal with us are unlikely to hold this £39b issue against us.

Oh yes, definitely they will not take into account our government's recent dishonesty or unreliability as negotiating partners. Why? Well, stuff, I guess, who knows, this guy seems sure. *shrug*

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

No, because it's an artificial problem blown out of proportion by the EU as a negotiating tactic. (Avoiding a hard border could have been done in a number of ways if the EU actually wanted to cooperate on that and MPs knew it back in the day ...which is why they didn't raise this point earlier!)

Not quite.

Lots of arch-Brexiteers say this, but I still have yet to hear a credible plan other than some vague ideas about technology. We even have the likes of Rees-Mogg suggesting that border checks could be brought back as they were "during the Troubles".

Can a hard border be avoided? Possibly. But how long would it take to not only negotiate, but plan, design and implement? Simpler systems than this take many years.

That's what the backstop is for. It ensure that no matter what happens, there will be something signed-off and ready to replace it before the backstop is revoked, thereby guaranteeing no hard border.

Perhaps the EU got their inspiration for this idea from the UK's negotiations. The last three years have been a lesson in why you should decide what you want to do before you do it, instead of starting the clock and then figuring it out as you go along.

Oh, and as for how easy it would be to find a solution that avoids a hard border, let's just say that it would be a world-first. There are borders between very friendly countries, such as Norway and Sweden, where it's FAR easier to remove all border checks compared to the Irish border, yet they still haven't been able to do it.

 

[Mr D]

Why xenophobic?

We are members of the Commonwealth. That's one third of the world's population, that has achieved double the growth of the EU over the last ten years or so. Those countries, which include Australia, Canada, and New Zealand want to trade with us.

You not noticed an increased racist attitude since the referendum?

Even to native Brits who merely look like they aren't natives.

 

[KM-Tiger]

You not noticed an increased racist attitude since the referendum?

No.

 

[Cobby]

And it's not really without a deal, as all sorts of deals, eg transportation and financial services are already in place.

This is nowhere near as straightforward as you are making out. A lot of this has been mentioned but relatively little has been actually signed off:

https://twitter.com/Raphael_Hogarth/status/1105073880631332864

And our chancellor will have a £39BN fund that could be used to mitigate any other side effects.

Just like the £350m/week lie, this is not how public finances work.

 

[Cobby]

No.

That's not surprising.
Do you think there hasn't been any increase in racist and xenophobic behaviour since the referendum?

 

[Cobby]

That's what the backstop is for. It ensure that no matter what happens, there will be something signed-off and ready to replace it before the backstop is revoked, thereby guaranteeing no hard border.

It's worth remembering that the Withdrawal Agreement is something we negotiated and that the 'Backstop' was actually the UK's idea.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

This is nowhere near as straightforward as you are making out. A lot of this has been mentioned but relatively little has been actually signed off:

https://twitter.com/Raphael_Hogarth/status/1105073880631332864

Absolutely.

What many Brexiteers don't seem to understand is that it's actually remainers who want to keep the UK in a position of strength on the international stage. All these ideas of deals, no deals and cosying up with the US are what will leave us in far weaker positions.

More free? Possibly. But with far less power and influence.

 

[Mr D]

Absolutely and as a non-EU, almost completely isolated country desperate for trade arrangements on the back of a contracting economy, we will have much less to offer and since time will be on the side of literally every other party, we will have no leverage. Still at least we'll have recent evidence of our trustworthiness and reliability as negotiating partners!



Oh yes, definitely they will not take into account our government's recent dishonesty or unreliability as negotiating partners. Why? Well, stuff, I guess, who knows, this guy seems sure. *shrug*

Shock horror, we are in agreement.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

That was the conclusion of the HoL committee that looked into the matter. That no money was due in the event of no deal brexit.

And the EU says there is.

Who do you believe? The debtor or the creditor?

 

[Mr D]

No.

Let me take a wild stab in the dark. You don't have to answer.
White and British.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Those countries, which include Australia, Canada, and New Zealand want to trade with us.

They might want to sell us stuff. They are less keen on buying stuff from us.

Take Australia. They have a policy of buying from the Pacific countries so that they can have influence in the region. Their foreign policy has been determined for years and they aren't likely to change anytime soon.

 

[Mr D]

They might want to sell us stuff. They are less keen on buying stuff from us.

Take Australia. They have a policy of buying from the Pacific countries so that they can have influence in the region. Their foreign policy has been determined for years and they aren't likely to change anytime soon.

Remember those lovely Australia tourism adverts over the past few years?
Perhaps we should start promoting …. British tourism? Can't think why someone would want to come but I'm sure the bright sparks in government service could come up with some winning TV ads....

 

[Clinton]

Today's news

Mr Hammond said the economy had "defied expectations" as wages were expected to keep growing at rates of above 3% over the next five years.

Despite all the uncertainty, I can see why Remainers are very frustrated with how our economy is performing. They, and Hammond no doubt, would have preferred people to see the economy really struggling.

He hinted that the government would have up to an extra £26.6 billion to spend if MPs voted to leave the EU with a deal.

And he'd have £39 billion if we leave without a deal

But he forgot to mention that.

 

[Mr D]

Today's news


Despite all the uncertainty, I can see why Remainers are very frustrated with how our economy is performing. They, and Hammond no doubt, would have preferred people to see the economy really struggling.


And he'd have £39 billion if we leave without a deal

But he forgot to mention that.

He's making a sale.
Not mentioning other options - part of a salesman's presentation.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Despite all the uncertainty, I can see why Remainers are very frustrated with how our economy is performing. They, and Hammond no doubt, would have preferred people to see the economy really struggling.

5,000 sleeping on the streets in winter. Headteachers cleaning school toilets. etc etc etc.....

You and the Tories just don't care about what sort of country austerity is creating.

 

[Clinton]

5,000 sleeping on the streets in winter

I've been homeless, I know what it's like. I now support homeless charities, never pass a Big Issue seller without buying a copy and having a chat, spend Christmas (with my family) at a homeless shelter.

Yeah, I don't give a sh*t.

Headteachers cleaning school toilets

I've been a school governor for a primary and on the PTA for several years and have done various volunteer stuff for the local secondary.

Yeah, I don't give a sh*t.

I suppose the Tories, likewise, don't care either. It has nothing to do with the national finances being screwed up by a combination of the Credit Crunch and 13 years of Labour mismanagement?

 

[Cobby]

Today's news


Despite all the uncertainty, I can see why Remainers are very frustrated with how our economy is performing. They, and Hammond no doubt, would have preferred people to see the economy really struggling.

The economy has been struggling. Swallowing the government's own spin isn't a great way to present a solid argument.

Firstly, the increase we've just seen is an average of 1.1% in real terms for the average worker and is still not back at pre-recession levels.
Secondly, if No Deal or even May's Deal goes ahead, that's very likely to drop.

Take a look at wage growth; you can see where the slight recovery after the recession was stalled by the Brexit vote. An uptick now isn't the redemption you think it is; with NHS staff having had a 3% pay rise already, that's probably a cap on public sector increases for the time being.

And if the rise in food-bank use and homelessness isn't enough of a concern for you, then here's a (well sourced) thread about the latest changes (and harms) that Brexit has brought (and will bring) us:

https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1105160257276440578

And he'd have £39 billion if we leave without a deal

Firstly (and again), that's not how public finances work; it wasn't true for the £350m on the side of the bus and it's not true here.
Secondly, that £26b would also apply if we were to Revoke A50 - in fact the 'dividend' would likely be much higher.