Neverending Story 3: The Ongoing Brexit Thread

So anyone knows what is next?

I can not see how there is no general election by March 2019.

Then we start all over but this time with the Labor party playing the part of the bumbling idiot (maybe better than May).

 

Really? I'm not sure that's true.

I remember saying last year that there wasn't a majority for a hard brexit in the commons and that meant any deal would have to be relatively 'soft'... maybe something along the lines of an EEA/EFTA with some changes.

Instead of that she's spent 2+ years essentially NOT coming to a deal and putting us in a position where we're going to spend the next decade, (or more), TRYING to come to a deal. Once that became clear we were always likely to end up here.

For me, as time went on, it was obvious she wasn't going to be able to sort something out. Frankly the only person that didn't realise it, IMO, was HER!!!

The pig-fecker will come out worst, followed by May and minor figures like BoJo and oikey Gove.

We'll have to see how things develop but again, IMO, I suspect Jezza will be seen to have played a blinder in this affair, particularly if we manage to get a GE and gain power.

I mean, what happens then is another matter but so far... good job

The simplest thing to do, (and what I think May and others thought would happen), is that he was going to come out strongly for another referendum and strongly for remain. All that would have done is to allowed the tories to have said we were trying to 'sabotage brexit'. I mean, they did it ANYWAY but, if that were the situation, that would have bee right.

Frankly, it was why Wilson also allowed a free vote back in the day.

Jezza's '6 tests' essentially lead to an EEA/EFTA deal because that 'protects, job, services and investments' regarding Europe and a 'Norway plus'.

BUT, importantly, the people that want this stuff can ALSO say we've left the EU... kinda!

 

No.

We already know what we want and the EU have already said we can have it, more or less. We can negotiate a few small changes and can sort out the few remaining ones during the proposed transition period.

 

That's pretty much my understanding as well. As to which is most likely, I wouldn't like to say. There are problems with ALL of them.

• A50 extended for Refy2

That requires ALL of the EU countries to agree, unlike a simple revocation which I think the commission could do on its own.

• A50 extended for GE

Same problem but with the added matter of what the manifesto's would say because, on brexit, BOTH parties have their own 'wings'. In a sense a referendum at least allows politicians to say, you made the choice.

• revoke A50 completely

Simplest but most damaging to the democracy. We need to sort this out now IMO.

• HoC vote on an EEA/EFTA deal

Next simplest but, similar to the one above, the brexiters will be able to claim, (with some justification), that democracy has failed because... well, it has.

But, regarding your 'one I haven't thought of'... my option would be another referendum with 2 questions,

Q1. Do you want to stay in the EU, y/n. if you answered 'N', go onto Question 2.
Q2. Do you want to join the EEA/EFTA y/n, (with the implication being if you answer 'N' we leave with no deal, have tariffs, a hard border in NI, etc. etc.)

I think presented like that most people would answer 'N' to the first one and 'Y' to the 2nd but on the basis we'd try this for a couple of decades and could then think again.

 

If you answer Yes on #1 (I think question # 1 should not even be an option), can they still answer #2?

I mean you may want to stay in the EU, but if your side loses, you still want to get the best other option.

 

If May somehow gets her deal through, then a January election is on, as the DUP have said they would not back the Tories in a confidence vote.
Regardless of the vote, an early election is still on the cards. It feels like they are on an election footing.

 

Only because of Cameron's incompetance. The referendum was advisory. There was a debate in the commons about adding a 55% ir 60% threshold for Leave to win, as it represented such a significant change. Cameron argued it was non-binding, so it went throguh on a 50%+1 basis. He then declared that whatever the result, they would act on it - completely contradicting his argument previously.
Of course, he then scuttled off to count his cash like the privileged coward that he is.

 

So an order of preference kinda thing? Hmm... yeah. Maybe. That would be similar to the alternative vote, (or instant run-off), system we looked at a few years back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

But I think you'd have to give people that sort of system where they rank the options in order of preference with the smallest one being added to the next. Obviously, people don't HAVE to enter a number if they just don't want that option..

For instance I'd give 'stay in' a '1' and EEA/EFTA a '2' but I wouldn't enter a value for 'leave with no deal' at all. Hardened brexiters would presumably just enter a '1' for 'leave with no deal' and nothing else.

I think you HAVE to include the 'remain' option in some way as otherwise they'll be screaming blue murder saying, 'We weren't given the option', for the next few decades.

 

You can have the leftovers that will be falling down from the grownups table every now and then

 

I agree with you to an extent but I STILL say, the rest of the tory clowns voted for it as well. The only ones that didn't were a few honourable exceptions like Ken Clarke.

They won it with 316 votes so there was no chance of it NOT going through. Most of labour abstained which might seem a bit chicken-shit but, tbh, voting against something you KNOW is going to pass is a bit like the GOP voting to 'repeal Obamacare' 50 times or whatever it was.

Very brave but utterly pointless in the great scheme of things.

The simple truth is that most people thought people would NEVER vote for it in sufficient numbers, (including me I have to admit ). They thought that the great and good turning out in force telling them NOT to do it would get the result they wanted and people thought 'Feck You'!!!

I'll be honest, when I saw Cameron's and Blair's smug fizzoggs I was tempted to wipe the smile off their stupid bloody faces... until I realised the people that would be pleased the other way like Nige and BoJo.

But, also, when I stood there with the pencil in my hand I just couldn't bring myself to do something so bloody daft even if I DID think it would never happen. I just couldn't take the risk. Unfortunately there's not enough like me

 

And Mogg. Never forget who the real enemy is.

 

Indeed!

That was always the problem with the 'You'll only be making this guy happy...' approach for voting one way or the other in the referendum. There were people on BOTH sides that people disliked intensely.

 

Is that the table where the EU and Italy are negotiating the Italian budget?

 

Far better than any retort I'd come up with in my head.

 

LOL the Reich does not negotiate

 

Is it just me or is there a low, boring, droning sort of noise in the background on this thread?

Very strange.

 

The treaty of Versailles would say different, but the Berlin declaration (1945) and the Postdam agreement would say you are right, the Reich did not get to negotiate in those.

 

I have to say I feel a little embarrassed for you thinking at Versailles there a, was any actual negotiating from the German side and b, it was a Reich that exercised it.

 

Thousands join EDL founder Tommy Robinson for 'Brexit Betrayal' march organised by Ukip in central London days before crunch MP vote on May's deal

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...der-Tommy-Robinson-Brexit-Betrayal-march.html

 

I’m reading a book about the aftermath of WW I. This is correct. Only the winners negotiated.

 

lol May

bump

 

Awesome tweet thread. A few samples.

The thing is, the best way to understand Theresa May’s predicament is to imagine that 52 percent of Britain had voted that the government should build a submarine out of cheese.

— Hugo Rifkind (@hugorifkind) December 10, 2018

However, in order to become PM, she had to pretend that she thought building a submarine out of cheese was fine and could totally work.

— Hugo Rifkind (@hugorifkind) December 10, 2018