Brexit or Bust !!

I'm inclined to go with your "preferred choice" except that I think TM may (i.e. will be forced to) speak to the Nation to say that the Government is unable to proceed with Brexit due to Parliament's refusal to back her plans ... and, accordingly, Article 50 will be withdrawn pending a General Election.  This differs from your other similar "option" in that I'm not convinced the Government would lose a vote of No Confidence and thus no GE would be called ... at this stage.

And, by the time the next scheduled GE is due we'll either be in the same paralysed state or the Conservatives/Labour will have an agreed position (either way) which is then put to and supported by the voting public.  I don't suppose anyone votes for a party based on one issue (having to take account of many factors) but this could be such a vote.

I'm not convinced by the argument for a second/People's vote as I'm not sure it would "work" ... I'm more hopeful of the above, notwithstanding the absolute mess we're in.

Mitch

Hi Don,  the problem I see with  Motion to Withdraw Article 50 being approved is how that sits with the UK 'constitution'.  ( Huge please note ' ' around constitution )    The referendum elected to leave;  parliament might not like it & if they do vote to reverse the referendum and/or if it goes back to another peoples vote,  that troubles me.    If parliament do withdraw Article 50 it could be seen as denying the will of the people & also manipulating the politics to suit their own ends,   I fear it will result in the country being even more divided & discontent.        

I see the problem that you outline Mike. Very difficult.

I don't think Parliament can be asked to vote for one of two options (eg Leave with Deal v Leave with no Deal). My understanding (and i'm happy to be corrected on this) is that they can only vote "for" or "against" a Motion.

So what happens if the first motion that TM is pushing (ie vote "for" the Deal - whatever that comprises on the day) is voted down ?

And what sequence of events follows ?

I think May will walk it right up to the finish line, hoping parliament will take it, as opposed to a no deal departure. When they reject it, there will be an extension. Then she'll have another year to essentially waste everybody's time, but at least industry/business will have more of a breathing space to get configured. 

Vote of confidence? Second referendum? I wish. But I know I'm dreaming. The Tories will scorch the earth before they let go of the controls. They need the country in a mess. Only from mass poverty and misery can the wealthy and influential acquire even more of the nation's assets/wealth/land/property/housing at fire sale prices. And they'll dismantle what's left of the welfare state in the process.

Actually, it's a no lose situation for them. If they lost power, Labour and the EU will cop all the problems and the blame. You could even argue that now would be a good time to lose an election. Greed will prevent this from happening.

It's like watching the same car crash - for ever.

Without doubt, the PM will try to use the lack of time to force her remainer version of Brexit through. With most MPs opposed to a no deal departure and with no time left to prepare properly for it (which we should have been preparing for 21 months ago when, after all, TM said that Brexit means Brexit) I wonder if parliament will actually pass her deal, notwithstanding what it means for the constitution.

Clive B posted:

Without doubt, the PM will try to use the lack of time to force her remainer version of Brexit through. With most MPs opposed to a no deal departure and with no time left to prepare properly for it (which we should have been preparing for 21 months ago when, after all, TM said that Brexit means Brexit)I wonder if parliament will actually pass her deal, notwithstanding what it means for the constitution.

Could be on the cards.

It crossed my mind as a possible  outcome, now that MPs have had time to think through the consequences of NOT accepting her deal.

I too reckon Parliament will reject May's Deal but I don't think that will trigger a GE, a Peoples' Vote or an abandonment of Brexit. TM has proved she can beat the Tory dissenters and Corbyn's call for a vote of no confidence looks set be to doomed, so she's on the front foot. 

Losing the vote on the Bill probably isn't as bad as some are making out and lose it she will. Nobody wants a no-deal Brexit including the EU so it'll be back to the table. There are other options such as the arrangement Canada has with the EU which with a few adjustments could be more palatable,so it needn't be WTO rules. I don't really know why Canada's deal isn't a panacea today but perhaps other Forum Members will be kind enough to educate me.

There isn’t a bit of Canada with a land border with the EU.

Don Atkinson posted:

It crossed my mind as a possible  outcome, now that MPs have had time to think through the consequences of NOT accepting her deal.

.............   and that is probably as good a bet as there is on how this will go in the house.     In the cold light of dawn,  & the final realisation by those MP's who are not hanging on to the death to whatever ideology they hold, that the EU is not going to renegotiate anything other than something that leaves the UK semi-attached to the EU.   Its the lady's deal or ???  twist or bust.    

Brexit is an interesting lesson for us all. We humans are, to say the least, a very flawed bunch. Before the fact, who would have thought that a single misguided decision (referendum) by a single human being serving as Prime Minister, could so tear at the very foundations of a strong modern democratic society with a remarkable history of achievement. Boggles the mind. 

Different mechanism but similar problem on my side of the pond. Fingers crossed for both.

rodwsmith posted:

There isn’t a bit of Canada with a land border with the EU.

How do Norway (Sweden) and Switzerland (France, Germany etc) and Lichtenstein Cope ?

The all have land borders with the EU.

(BTW, I don't know, it's purely a polite question)

Do you have a 'just-forget-the-whole-thing' option?

Don Atkinson posted:

rodwsmith posted:

There isn’t a bit of Canada with a land border with the EU.

How do Norway (Sweden) and Switzerland (France, Germany etc) and Lichtenstein Cope ?

The all have land borders with the EU.

(BTW, I don't know, it's purely a polite question)

The trouble is not the land border. It is the GFA peace agreement that is built on both countries (RoI and UK) being EU-members. 

The EU is supporting RoI (a. member)  with a demand of continued peace. And until the UK solve this the EU demands ”status quo” in Northern Ireland. The EU offered a temporary solution so Brexit could go on,  to let NI have this but certain goods would have to be checked between NI and UK in addtition to already existing checks.

The UK goverment needs the support of NI DUP and they refuse this solution and the UK instead  suggested the solution that is currently in the May agreement - that the NI exception gets extended to the whole of UK. This was not popular with the EU and caused some concessions to be made from the UK (this is the extended backstop).

Have I got it wrong?

The norway-variety is not so easy. It is not something sitting there ready to sign up to. EEA/EFTA requires membership in their customs union and that would leave NI no closer to a solution. Also Norway threatens to veto it.

Canada is a FTA and that is in fact what May-deal proposes as future agreement. It does not solve NI.

This ^

Also Norway and Switzerland are members of Shengen (which allows movement of people), and are in a Customs Union with the EU, as part of the EFTA. They both pay for this. 

Although apparently the British people voted against such. I must have had a different ballot paper to these people, because mine made no mention of Customs Unions. 

kuma posted:

Do you have a 'just-forget-the-whole-thing' option?

I think so Kuma.

It's what will happen if we withdraw the Article 50 notice. I think !

Don,

Without any penalty? If so, that's probably most practical.

I mean so far UK government spend enormous amount of energy in what seems to be something no economic advantage and from what I read this Brexit thing all started mainly from a xenophobia/racist paranoia by a minority. 

It seems far more beneficial and helpful to people in the UK if the government spend more energy in improving social issues (NHS or homeless/entitlement etc...) A high death rate amongst homeless I have read in another thread surely an alarming sign which needs to be dealt with.

Don Atkinson posted:

kuma posted:

Do you have a 'just-forget-the-whole-thing' option?

I think so Kuma.

It's what will happen if we withdraw the Article 50 notice. I think !

Simply withdrawing the Article 50 notice would be the easiest and perhaps most appropriate resolve considering the Leave campaign result was only procured by illegal funding, and massive misrepresentations [of which is still continuous]. The referendum result was and remains advisory and completely unbinding, and due to the electoral winning figure of only 34% of the electorate, it is obvious the overwhelming will of the UK people was proven to be not wanting or concerned about leaving the EU. The minority figure of 17.4 million Brexit supporters has also shrunk considerably since June 2016 as details of shocking truth of Brexit's hidden hardships and pitfalls come to light.

jlarsson posted:

The trouble is not the land border. It is the GFA peace agreement that is built on both countries (RoI and UK) being EU-members.

Have I got it wrong?

Have you got it wrong?  Quite spectacularly.

The Good Friday Agreement is absolutely nothing to do with the EU. It played no part in brokering it, and has no power to change it.

It is an agreement between two sovereign nations, the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom, and it is nothing to do with anyone else. All parties involved, apart from the DUP, signed up for it. It largely brought to an end thirty years of bloody strife, and gives the people of Northern Ireland the right to "identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both".

And here's the tricky bit. Brexit should be irrelevant to the GFA, but it's not. Because despite the fact that nobody in the Republic of Ireland; or in Great Britain; or (apart from a few swivel-eyed loons) in Northern Ireland, wants a hard border, the EU , thanks to its demented insistence on its rules being followed to the letter and whatever the cost, does.

Of all the egregious sophistry spouted by EU grandees over the past two and a half years, this interference in the affairs of two sovereign nations is the most disgraceful, and for me demonstrates the kind of organisation we're dealing with. Despite the GFA doing more than anything to bring the north and south together, the EU and its supporters want to tear it up, much to the glee of extremists on both the Unionist and Republican sides.

As far as I am concerned, the border arrangements of both countries are no business of Brussels.

Kevin-W posted:

 

The Good Friday Agreement is absolutely nothing to do with the EU. It played no part in brokering it, and has no power to change it.

It is an agreement between two sovereign nations, the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom, and it is nothing to do with anyone else. As far as I am concerned, the border arrangements of both countries are no business of Brussels.

You’ve just blown out of the water, one of the Brexiteers great urban myths. (The UK has surrendered its sovereignty and is controlled by Brussels).

Your example above obviously proves this isn’t true. What a surprise.

Kevin-W posted:

And here's the tricky bit. Brexit should be irrelevant to the GFA, but it's not. Because despite the fact that nobody in the Republic of Ireland; or in Great Britain; or (apart from a few swivel-eyed loons) in Northern Ireland, wants a hard border, the EU , thanks to its demented insistence on its rules being followed to the letter and whatever the cost, does.

Of all the egregious sophistry spouted by EU grandees over the past two and a half years, this interference in the affairs of two sovereign nations is the most disgraceful, and for me demonstrates the kind of organisation we're dealing with. Despite the GFA doing more than anything to bring the north and south together, the EU and its supporters want to tear it up, much to the glee of extremists on both the Unionist and Republican sides.

As far as I am concerned, the border arrangements of both countries are no business of Brussels.

As you’ve indicated, the EU didn’t interfere with the border arrangement when both countries where in the EU. However, the fact the UK voted to leave the EU, created an EU/Non EU border. That’s a fact that nobody can get away from.

The EU are bending over backwards not to create a hard border, the deal agreed with TM includes for a trade agreement that will maintain the current situation. Other non EU factions are preventing this from happening.

Unfortunately to my mind irrespective of what way people voted we are now a laughing stock and I feel it Must be followed through with. If that means hard and with no deal, so be it. If it went back to a people’s vote and we didn’t end up leaving I would imagine the EU would have as jumping through hoops for many years to come. Parliaments job is to invoke on the behalf of the people irrespective of there own personal opinions and that is democracy.

Ultimately as much havoc that would be brought by a hard brexit with no deal at all and potentially many years of hard times, business will still be done, as it needs to be done. Buyers will buy from sellers and sellers will sell to buyers.

If there does end up another vote I don’t actually know if I will bother either way, as it goes against principle. 

Here we go again 

Drewy posted:

Here we go again 

Well, it is important.

How do you guess things will pan out. Not so much what “should” happen, more what “will” happen.

The original in or out was completely misleading and Ill thought out as I believe that some (like me) wanted out but to continue with loose links with the eu for smooth trading. The voting paper had non of these choices. All it showed was that the government at the time was completely out of touch and totally incompetent. I say this as a generally Conservative voter although not always. Because the original vote choices were so limited I'd like another vote with a couple more choices, such as 1, straight in or out with no trade agreements if out, 2 out but with trade agreements. 

Hi Rich,

I agree with much of what you say, although to be clear, my vote is to Remain.

The ergonomics of voting need to be kept simple. I rather suspect that if we had a three-way vote, eg Straight Out v Out but with the Deal v Remain, the result would be an inconclusive 20% v 32% v 48% .

The 48% “majority” of those who bothered to vote, would be outnumbered (slightly) by those who wanted to leave, but who just couldn’t agree on what basis we should leave. 

I have a feeling this, or something like this, is actually where we are !