Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

Deal or No Deal?

  • Voted Leave - May's Deal

  • Voted Leave - No Deal

  • Voted Leave - Second Referendum

  • Did not vote/abstained - May's Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - No Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - Second Referendum

  • Voted Remain - May's Deal

  • Voted Remain - No Deal

  • Voted Remain - Second Referendum

Results are only viewable after voting.
Sick Cylinder
my point was that the Irish situation received little or no publicity during the referendum campaign, by which I meant the campaign to get the public to vote in the referendum.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I see what you mean. I think it got little/no coverage in "mainland" campaigning but I believe it was an issue that much was made of in NI.
 
PzR Slim
And May offering to meet with all parties leaders to discuss the way forward. Why not do that two years ago before negotiations started?
Click to expand...
Too many cooks?

Why seek the support of someone (like Corbyn) who has even less of a clue than the government has?

And even now, Corbyn has refused to enter into talks with May unless his conditions are met - specifically that No Deal is categorically ruled out. Others, like the SNP and the Lib Dems, will also demand similar pre-conditions for any possible support, such as not ruling out a second referendum.

Little wonder then that the government are banking on being able to force through a deal with the support of their own party and the DUP alone.
 
Touring Mars
Too many cooks?

Why seek the support of someone (like Corbyn) who has even less of a clue than the government has?

And even now, Corbyn has refused to enter into talks with May unless his conditions are met - specifically that No Deal is categorically ruled out. Others, like the SNP and the Lib Dems, will also demand similar pre-conditions for any possible support, such as not ruling out a second referendum.

Little wonder then that the government are banking on being able to force through a deal with the support of their own party and the DUP alone.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, all of that is still true now. So maybe I should have asked a different question. Why now? Nothing more than a PR exercise by May and her advisers. That's what I was driving at.
 
Touring Mars
Too many cooks?

Why seek the support of someone (like Corbyn) who has even less of a clue than the government has?

And even now, Corbyn has refused to enter into talks with May unless his conditions are met - specifically that No Deal is categorically ruled out. Others, like the SNP and the Lib Dems, will also demand similar pre-conditions for any possible support, such as not ruling out a second referendum.

Little wonder then that the government are banking on being able to force through a deal with the support of their own party and the DUP alone.
Click to expand...

Corbyn offered to help as far back as September, and between him and the SNP, Lib Dems, etc they have at least outlined their vision for Brexit to include no prospect of a No Deal, to protect the Irish border and to stay in the Customs Union. They have prioritised based on protecting the future of the country.

The Tories have bumbled their way through for 2 years, causing delays (an intentional 1 month delay on the deal vote was unforgivable by May), and have come out with an even worse deal than anyone envisioned. May also invited other leaders for talks last night, but by all accounts she read from a script and made it clear she would not move on any of the major issues. So basically it's her way or no way.

I'm by no means a massive fan, but how that equates to Corbyn having even less clue than quite possibly the worst Government in living memory is beyond me.
 
EamerRed
Corbyn offered to help as far back as September, and between him and the SNP, Lib Dems, etc they have at least outlined their vision for Brexit to include no prospect of a No Deal, to protect the Irish border and to stay in the Customs Union. They have prioritised based on protecting the future of the country.
Click to expand...
I watched Corbyn's speech this morning and still he cannot describe Labour's position in any better detail than 'we'll wait and see'...

The biggest problem with Labour's (supposed) position on Brexit is that it has already been ruled out categorically by the EU - one of Labour's infamous 'six tests' is that whatever form Brexit takes, the UK must be able to enjoy the same benefits of Single Market access as EU membership.... and, according to the EU, that requires either staying in the EU or a Norway-style deal that guarantees the freedom of movement of people into the UK post-Brexit. BUT, Labour's 2017 election manifesto clearly states that 'Free movement of people will end after Brexit', and Corbyn has repeatedly said as much too... which makes any and all of Labour's Brexit plans impossible to achieve.
 
EamerRed
Corbyn offered to help as far back as September, and between him and the SNP, Lib Dems, etc they have at least outlined their vision for Brexit to include no prospect of a No Deal, to protect the Irish border and to stay in the Customs Union. They have prioritised based on protecting the future of the country.
Click to expand...

The problem is that they've volunteered very little substance beyond that. I'm not sure what they could have suggested but the fact remains that unless they bring viable alternatives to the table (for viable read 'acceptable to the 27 countries who are staying in the EU') then simply saying No to No Deal doesn't butter many parsnips.

EamerRed
The Tories have bumbled their way through for 2 years
Click to expand...

Quite.

EamerRed
May also invited other leaders for talks last night, but by all accounts she read from a script and made it clear she would not move on any of the major issues.
Click to expand...

If you watch most Parliamentary sittings you'll see that the bulk of what is said is scripted by each speaker beforehand. Corbyn's movement for No Confidence was also scripted. It isn't hard to have a few scripts based on the possible outcomes of any given division and last night's only had two possible results - it was clear to most people that the division would be along party lines and so it was.

EamerRed
So basically it's her way or no way.
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of the Tories but I really don't see what else the EU could reasonably be asked to give. We either go back to a military border at the south end of part of the UK or we maintain a customs union. The backstop has become the backbone of the deal. Immigration was always in the hands of the government (not the EU) so there's little for them to give on that. May has presented quite possibly the only deal that the EU would accept. Personally I think it's better than we would be prepared to give the French if the chapeau was on the other tete.

EamerRed
I'm by no means a massive fan, but how that equates to Corbyn having even less clue than quite possibly the worst Government in living memory is beyond me.
Click to expand...

For me it's not just about policy, it's about how the opposition show their teeth when the governing party is on its knees. Corbyn has consistently failed to give the Tories a kicking during one of their weakest ever governments. That's a thorough political failing, imo. He leads a party that's (purportedly) against Brexit but cannot bring himself to speak out against it. That's another serious political failing and really he should have stepped down from the leadership at the point where it was evident that he did not represent his party's majoritative view.

Touring Mars
The biggest problem with Labour's (supposed) position on Brexit is that it has already been ruled out categorically by the EU - one of Labour's infamous 'six tests' is that whatever form Brexit takes, the UK must be able to enjoy the same benefits of Single Market access as EU membership.... and, according to the EU, that requires either staying in the EU or a Norway-style deal that guarantees the freedom of movement of people into the UK post-Brexit. BUT, Labour's 2017 election manifesto clearly states that 'Free movement of people will end after Brexit', and Corbyn has repeatedly said as much too... which makes any and all of Labour's Brexit plans impossible to achieve.
Click to expand...

I sometimes feel that Corbyn is terrified of actually being handed the chalice. He seems to position himself and his party in such a way that it remains logically impossible for there to be progress on their manifesto or proposals. As a lifelong Labour supporter (with a few years in the Liberal wilderness) I'm horrified at how ineffectual the party seems to have become. It's like immature student politics on a national budget.
 
Call me an old cynic here, but does anyone else suspect that the UK Government/Parliament will somehow thrash out a deal at the last minute (well, 29th January by the looks of it) that the EU has pretty much already ruled out (e.g. Single Market access/Customs Union but with controls over free movement of people), but the EU will have little choice but to ratify it in order to avoid No Deal?

The EU are (very) obviously putting the ball in the UK court and saying that it is 'entirely up to the UK' to find a solution (i.e. to abandon its 'red lines')... (though this is disingenious, since the EU also have very clear 'red lines', and it is not entirely up to the UK at all...)

...so the UK calls the EU's bluff at the last possible opportunity, and agrees to abandoning a key red line (staying in the single market and customs union) but only if the EU abandon its own red line of demanding free movement.

If the EU don't agree, then the UK exit on WTO terms and the game ends with the ball in the EU court (i.e. the UK will have a very public vote to 'ratify' a deal, and the EU will very publicly vote it down).

No Deal/WTO terms would be bad for all involved, but in that circumstance it becomes extremely important who gets the final blame for it...

This might sound crazy, but it does at least explain Labour (and the SNP's) odd position... the outcome stated above (practically the definition of 'Soft Brexit') is what has been ruled out since Day 1 by the EU, but it may turn their own argument against them. The EU have told the UK that the deal voted down this week was 'the only deal possible' - but if the UK can agree to a Soft Brexit deal without accepting Free Movement of People (or something to that effect), then the UK can turn around to the EU and say the exact same to them.
 
Touring Mars
Call me an old cynic here, but does anyone else suspect that the UK Government/Parliament will somehow thrash out a deal at the last minute (well, 29th January by the looks of it) that the EU has pretty much already ruled out (e.g. Single Market access/Customs Union but with controls over free movement of people), but the EU will have little choice but to ratify it in order to avoid No Deal?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that's been the UK's plan since the beginning. There's no other reasonable way that they'd have been so mindbendingly crap at it for such a prolonged period of time to then present a clearly hopeless deal (out in name and not paying for it or making laws and regulations, but still subject to all laws and regulations) that was obviously not going to pass the Commons.

Aside from being actually unfeasibly crap. Which is pretty much the default position of any government, but one would expect the field of politics and law to be the exception for all these PPE/law graduates...
 
It also might explain why No Deal hasn't been ruled out (and won't be), because otherwise there is no pressure exerted on the EU.
 
Famine
One person didn't get that memo though. Guess who?
Click to expand...

It is highly ironic that Corbyn is a noted Eurosceptic but has so much faith in their generosity when it comes to negotiations.

In his own words, the Withdrawal Agreement is a terrible deal - and in the EU's own words, that's the best (and only) deal possible. What does that tell us about how the negotiations thus far have gone? And yet, Corbyn believes that the UK can (and must) 'do better' - quite how you do that by throwing away the only negotiating power you still have is anyone's guess.
 
Last edited:
Touring Mars
Call me an old cynic here, but does anyone else suspect that the UK Government/Parliament will somehow thrash out a deal at the last minute (well, 29th January by the looks of it) that the EU has pretty much already ruled out (e.g. Single Market access/Customs Union but with controls over free movement of people), but the EU will have little choice but to ratify it in order to avoid No Deal?

The EU are (very) obviously putting the ball in the UK court and saying that it is 'entirely up to the UK' to find a solution (i.e. to abandon its 'red lines')... (though this is disingenious, since the EU also have very clear 'red lines', and it is not entirely up to the UK at all...)

...so the UK calls the EU's bluff at the last possible opportunity, and agrees to abandoning a key red line (staying in the single market and customs union) but only if the EU abandon its own red line of demanding free movement.

If the EU don't agree, then the UK exit on WTO terms and the game ends with the ball in the EU court (i.e. the UK will have a very public vote to 'ratify' a deal, and the EU will very publicly vote it down).

No Deal/WTO terms would be bad for all involved, but in that circumstance it becomes extremely important who gets the final blame for it...

This might sound crazy, but it does at least explain Labour (and the SNP's) odd position... the outcome stated above (practically the definition of 'Soft Brexit') is what has been ruled out since Day 1 by the EU, but it may turn their own argument against them. The EU have told the UK that the deal voted down this week was 'the only deal possible' - but if the UK can agree to a Soft Brexit deal without accepting Free Movement of People (or something to that effect), then the UK can turn around to the EU and say the exact same to them.
Click to expand...
How did you find out the exact tactic I would have used? They'd need very big brass ones to try it though and I don't see anyone like that in that set of 650.
 
UK BREXIT; THE STORY SO FAR. (written by Toby Lewis)

David Cameron made a promise he didn't think he'd have to keep to have a referendum he didn't think he would lose. Boris Johnson decided to back the side he didn't believe in because he didn't think it would win. Then Gove, who said he wouldn't run, did, and Boris who said he would run, didn’t, and Theresa May who didn't vote for Brexit got the job of making it happen.

She called the election she said she wouldn't and lost the majority David Cameron hadn't expected to win in the first place. She stayed in power by paying the DUP to agree with her. The DUP wanted to leave the EU but the people of NI wanted to remain. She triggered Article 50 when we didn't need to and said we would talk about trade at the same time as the divorce deal and the EU said they wouldn't so we didn't.

People thought she wouldn't get the divorce settled but she did, but only by agreeing to things she had promised the DUP she wouldn't. Then the Cabinet agreed a deal but they hadn't, and David Davis who was Brexit Secretary but wasn't, said it wasn't what people had voted for and he couldn't support what he had just supported and left. Boris Johnson who hadn't left then wished that he had and did, but it was a bit late for that. Dominic Raab become the new Brexit secretary. People thought Theresa May wouldn't get a withdrawal agreement negotiated, but once she had they wished that she hadn't, because hardly anybody liked it whether they wanted to leave or not.

Jacob Rees-Mogg kept threatening a vote of no confidence in her but not enough people were confident enough people would not have confidence in her to confidently call a no confidence vote. Dominic Raab said he hadn't really been Brexit Secretary either and resigned, and somebody else took the job but it probably isn't worth remembering who they are as they're not really doing the job either as Olly Robbins is.

Then she said she would call a vote and didn't, that she wouldn't release some legal advice but had to, that she would get some concessions but didn't, and got cross that Juncker was calling her nebulous when he wasn't but probably should have been.

At some point Jacob Rees Mogg and others called a vote of no confidence in her, which she won by promising to leave, so she can stay. But they said she had really lost it and should go, at the same time as saying that people who voted Leave knew what they were voting for which they couldn't possibly have because we still don't know now, and that we should leave the vote to Leave vote alone but have no confidence in the no confidence vote which won by more.

The government also argued in court against us being able to say we didn't want to leave after all but it turned out we could. She named a date for the vote on her agreement which nobody expected to pass, while pretending that no deal which nobody wants is still possible (even though we know we can just say we are not leaving), and that we can't have a second referendum because having a democratic vote is undemocratic.And of course as expected she lost.

Some people are talking about a managed no-deal which is not a deal but is not managed either. When asked, our MP’s voted that they had confidence in her when they haven’t and said that we can’t have a Corbyn government because it would be chaotic and be bad for the country.

Corbyn complained that May hadn’t asked for his views but when she did he said he wouldn’t talk because she is intransigent. There are 10 weeks left before it will all be sorted at the last minute.

Or not......
 
Touring Mars
Call me an old cynic here, but does anyone else suspect that the UK Government/Parliament will somehow thrash out a deal at the last minute (well, 29th January by the looks of it) that the EU has pretty much already ruled out (e.g. Single Market access/Customs Union but with controls over free movement of people), but the EU will have little choice but to ratify it in order to avoid No Deal?

The EU are (very) obviously putting the ball in the UK court and saying that it is 'entirely up to the UK' to find a solution (i.e. to abandon its 'red lines')... (though this is disingenious, since the EU also have very clear 'red lines', and it is not entirely up to the UK at all...)

...so the UK calls the EU's bluff at the last possible opportunity, and agrees to abandoning a key red line (staying in the single market and customs union) but only if the EU abandon its own red line of demanding free movement.

If the EU don't agree, then the UK exit on WTO terms and the game ends with the ball in the EU court (i.e. the UK will have a very public vote to 'ratify' a deal, and the EU will very publicly vote it down).

No Deal/WTO terms would be bad for all involved, but in that circumstance it becomes extremely important who gets the final blame for it...

This might sound crazy, but it does at least explain Labour (and the SNP's) odd position... the outcome stated above (practically the definition of 'Soft Brexit') is what has been ruled out since Day 1 by the EU, but it may turn their own argument against them. The EU have told the UK that the deal voted down this week was 'the only deal possible' - but if the UK can agree to a Soft Brexit deal without accepting Free Movement of People (or something to that effect), then the UK can turn around to the EU and say the exact same to them.
Click to expand...

I've disagreed with a fair bit that you've posted in here so I feel obliged to reply when the opposite occurs! Credit where credit's due that could be a very interesting scenario. And in all honesty, that wouldn't be that terrible a deal right?

The 2 sticking points for me there are:
- What about our ability to make trade deals with the rest of the world? Would that be inhibited?
- This is assuming some very good negotiating from a country that has thus far been absolutely hopeless.

So wishful thinking is my assumption, but you never know.
 
EamerRed
I've disagreed with a fair bit that you've posted in here so I feel obliged to reply when the opposite occurs! Credit where credit's due that could be a very interesting scenario. And in all honesty, that wouldn't be that terrible a deal right?
Click to expand...
I reckon it would be fine, but I can see why (most) Leave voters would oppose it...

EamerRed
What about our ability to make trade deals with the rest of the world? Would that be inhibited?
Click to expand...
Definitely. A Customs Union, by definition, would prevent any one member of it from making separate trade deals with anyone else.

EamerRed
This is assuming some very good negotiating from a country that has thus far been absolutely hopeless.
Click to expand...
IMO it is almost the opposite of 'good negotiating'.... it's simply creating a set of circumstances that are so bad for everyone that the other side are practically forced to concede. That is what Hard Brexiteers have been banking on the whole time, of course.
 

Similar threads

TenEightyOne
Reddit "Include" Question
Replies
1
Views
554
Jordan
Jordan
DK
Brexit and motorsport
Replies
8
Views
1K
mustafur
mustafur
KSaiyu
The EU
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Hun200kmh
Hun200kmh
Pebb
Honda could be axing its UK car factory in 2022
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Scaff
Scaff
Jimbo221992
Untitled racing league, Monday night UK time.
Replies
3
Views
2K
Bowtner
Bowtner

Latest Posts

Back