Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[MatskiMonk]

But I'm talking about the negotiations before the referenfum the ones finished before Cameron went ahead and called for a.referendum.

Why didn't he first hold a referendum and then based on those results negotiate either to leave or to stay.

No what he did was wast the eu's time with negotiations for a deal he then throws out the window because people voted to leave for all the wrong reason?

Why first negotiate tot then ask wheter to stay or not? He should have known this put him at a disadvantage entering the leave negotiations?

Well, as has been said, he didn't believe the electorate would actually vote to leave (probably given our stronger position in the EU), and the timing possibly wouldn't have allowed for any other sequence of events - dragging these things past general election dates could be fatal since our leaders grip on power have been pretty tenuous for quite a while.

 

[Touring Mars]

Context that was needless added. I stated that the PM had pushed us down the path of economic ruin, that this was predictable and preventable. You then stated that you cannot predict what would possibly have agreed in a future deal. This isn't what I was stating or even mentioned, by adding this stipulation you seem to be suggesting that this situation we find ourselves in is not wholly of our own making, which is false.

Sorry, but it is not possible to make an accurate estimate of where the UK might be economically in the future without taking into consideration what our future trading relationship will be with our largest trading partner, the EU.

As you well know, the outcome of Brexit depends not simply on what the UK (or anyone associated with the Leave campaign) might have said or even promised - it depends on the outcome of negotiations between the UK and the EU. I accept that the UK elected to put itself in this position, but it is entirely false to say that the outcome of the Brexit negotiations is 'wholly of our own making' - if only it were. It is the very fact that it is not entirely up to the UK that is the problem.

 

[baldgye]

it is entirely false to say that the outcome of the Brexit negotiations is 'wholly of our own making'

The negotiating position we are in, are entirely of our own making. When you go into negotiations, you go in trying to get the best possible deal. You do not go in blindly without knowing what you want or don't want. The government could have postponed Art.50 until there was a plan, they could have said, hold on we're going to do some work and figure out what we want and what we'll sacrifice to get Brexit. They didn't. They simply got a new PM and then pushed through enacting Art.50 and then tried to figure out what they wanted while negotiating.

This caused the situation we are in now, where we have no meaningful position on anything.


The EU have the best hand and they always will, but they approached it with well defined parameters. So while it takes two to Tango, you can't put together a proper dance if one partner can't decide if they want to Tango, Line dance or Break dance...

 

[MatskiMonk]

one partner can't decide if they want to Tango, Line dance or Break dance...

We just wants to do 'the May'

 

[Touring Mars]

The negotiating position we are in, are entirely of our own making.

No, it isn't. You are conflating strategy and process - the UK has not handled negotiations well, but the cards were stacked against us from the outset due to the way the EU has controlled how the negotiations should take place - the process itself has been defined at almost every juncture by the EU, and therefore they are largely responsible for whether the process is a success or not. Part of the problem is that the UK accepted the idea that both sides are working towards a mutually beneficial outcome, but this simply isn't the case. As has been pointed out here many times, the EU are not interested in mutual benefit - they seek only to benefit themselves, and thus have virtually ensured that the UK cannot be offered an acceptable deal.

This article provides a good explainer on some of the reasons why the UK's negotiating position has failed - but warns that the EU's approach could (and likely will) spectacularly backfire by producing the result that the UK will simply not accept the negotiated outcome, and thus leave without a deal. It's the classic 'Prisoner's Dilemma' whereby both sides lose; my point, however, is that it has never been the case that the EU bear no responsibility for the failure of the Article 50 process.

 

[baldgye]

...but the cards were stacked against us from the outset due to the way the EU has controlled how the negotiations should take place - the process itself has been defined at almost every juncture by the EU, and therefore they are largely responsible for whether the process is a success or not.

Yes! That is because the EU had a plan going into these negotiations, they knew exactly what they wanted and what they were willing to give up to get there.

As has been pointed out here many times, the EU are not interested in mutual benefit - they seek only to benefit themselves, and thus have virtually ensured that the UK cannot be offered an acceptable deal.

Ridiculous. The EU has negatived the best deal it can for its own members who are not leaving. They want the UK to remain a member of the EU and have given countless speeches imploring common sense to prevail and for us to not leave. However they would be failing there members if they didn't work to get the best possible deal for them. The UK cannot be offered an acceptable deal, because no one in the UK can agree what an acceptable deal is!

 

[Scaff]

No, it isn't. You are conflating strategy and process - the UK has not handled negotiations well, but the cards were stacked against us from the outset due to the way the EU has controlled how the negotiations should take place - the process itself has been defined at almost every juncture by the EU, and therefore they are largely responsible for whether the process is a success or not. Part of the problem is that the UK accepted the idea that both sides are working towards a mutually beneficial outcome, but this simply isn't the case. As has been pointed out here many times, the EU are not interested in mutual benefit - they seek only to benefit themselves, and thus have virtually ensured that the UK cannot be offered an acceptable deal.

This article provides a good explainer on some of the reasons why the UK's negotiating position has failed - but warns that the EU's approach could (and likely will) spectacularly backfire by producing the result that the UK will simply not accept the negotiated outcome, and thus leave without a deal. It's the classic 'Prisoner's Dilemma' whereby both sides lose; my point, however, is that it has never been the case that the EU bear no responsibility for the failure of the Article 50 process.

The issue is that can be turned around and be just as accurate.

'As has been pointed out here many times, the UK are not interested in mutual benefit - they seek only to benefit themselves, and thus have virtually ensured that the EU cannot be offered an acceptable deal.'

The UK and EU's respective red lines have ensured for day one (well actually from before the referendum was even held) no overlap to allow for an settled deal have ever existed. The UK wants the free trade elements (without limits - unlike other FTAs) without any of the free movement side, the EU seems they are utterly linked and not able to be separated.

None of which was helped by the UK having one of the most advantageous deals with the EU of any member state, and with the concept of 'cake and eat it' sold to many who voted leave setting a precedent that could never be reached, the current situation was more (in my view) inevitable, rather than a deliberate move on both sides.

The main point I however still disagree with it that either side has any responsibility to do anything other than ensure a resulting deal was the best for their side, and certainly nothing of substance from the UK has ever shown to me that the UK "accepted the idea that both sides are working towards a mutually beneficial outcome". Quite the opposite, with numerous cabinet members and Brexit secretaries indicating quite the opposite.

My view on why the EU comes across as the more assertive side in this is simply down to how prepared and experienced at negotiation the two sides were, the EU had quite clearly spent far longer getting ready for this and brought an 'A team' in terms of people, the UK couldn't agree on a damn thing and brought along the janitor and the team cat, as even the reserve squad had gone AWOL due to infighting and dissent.

 

[Touring Mars]

Yes! That is because the EU had a plan going into these negotiations, they knew exactly what they wanted and what they were willing to give up to get there.

Again, you are conflating strategy and process - the EU had a better strategy, but it also completely controls the process, which they have used to thwart the UK Government's aims (such as they are) at nearly every juncture. If you look at what's happening now, the EU are practically telling the UK what it needs to say in order to avoid no deal.

Ridiculous. The EU has negatived the best deal it can for its own members who are not leaving.

They may have negotiated a deal that makes them happy, but we haven't signed it yet. And that's the problem - if the deal is bad enough for the UK to not agree to it, the EU loses big time.

However they would be failing there members if they didn't work to get the best possible deal for them.

No - they need to get a good deal, and avoid a catastrophic no deal outcome.

The UK cannot be offered an acceptable deal, because no one in the UK can agree what an acceptable deal is!

Did you miss that vote in the Commons where they voted in favour of Theresa May's deal without the Irish backstop?? In truth, there are any number of possible deals/outcomes that would be acceptable (just) to the UK, but a combination of UK uncertainty/infighting, EU inflexibility and (as I've been arguing here) a cockeyed Article 50 process that has been controlled at every turn by one side of the negotiations (the EU), as resulted in a massively higher likelihood of no deal, and a catastrophic loss for both sides.

 

[Scaff]

They may have negotiated a deal that makes them happy, but we haven't signed it yet. And that's the problem - if the deal is bad enough for the UK to not agree to it, the EU loses big time.


No - they need to get a good deal, and avoid a catastrophic no deal outcome.

The EU does loose out in a no-deal, with Ireland taking the hardest hit of the EU27 (I think I posted the data a while ago), however the rest of the EU gets off reasonably lightly in comparison to the UK.

Its not an idea outcome (no-deal) for the EU, but I suspect that it terms of contingencies it may be considered less of a risk than allowing its red lines to be broken.

Sadly of the two sides, one seems far better prepared for a no-deal than the other.

 

[baldgye]

No - they need to get a good deal, and avoid a catastrophic no deal outcome.

Sorry, didn't you say that it wouldn't be that bad?

The fact is that there has been some dire predictions made that have already been proven wrong. Let me be clear here and state that I'm talking about the predictions of doom and gloom as a result of the referendum result itself. Even HM Treasury predicted that a vote to leave would 'represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy' and cost anywhere between 500,000-800,000 jobs losses and a drop in GDP of up to 6%. They could hardly have been more wrong.

...Or will it just be the UK that'll be fairly alright after No-Deal, but the worlds largest economy will suffer a catastrophic loss? I'm confused.

Did you miss that vote in the Commons where they voted in favour of Theresa May's deal without the Irish backstop??

Oh yes, I remember now! They voted on this just after enacting Art.50 didn't they? ....oh no, that's right, they agreed they wanted a deal that our PM hasn't been able to even put forward, let alone agree, thanks for reminding me.



So, again, to reiterate. The PM and the government have failed, at a catastrophic level. They ignorantly marched forward with no plan, no foresight, no strategy. They refused to do any actual assessments and ignored all warnings. So here we are, less than a month away from Judgement day Brexit, with no agreement, no contingency nothing. It didn't have to be this way, but it is. Our PM and the government will be remembered in history as one of the single worst in British history.

 

[Touring Mars]

The EU does loose out in a no-deal, with Ireland taking the hardest hit of the EU27 (I think I posted the data a while ago), however the rest of the EU gets off reasonably lightly in comparison to the UK.

Its not an idea outcome (no-deal) for the EU, but I suspect that it terms of contingencies it may be considered less of a risk than allowing its red lines to be broken.

What I don't get, however, is how May's deal without the backstop would involve any of the EU's fundamental red lines being broken. I can perfectly understand why the EU are opposed to the UK having full access to the Single Market but without any of the costs of such access (e.g. free movement of people), but that's not what is on offer. It seems like a crazy gamble to allow a deal to slip through their hands just because they are unwilling to allow Northern Ireland to leave the Single Market.

The Guardian published an interesting article yesterday where a spokesman for the Irish Farmers' Association made this statement:

"We are very clear that the backstop is not for moving. The idea of the backstop is to maintain the trading relationship that already exists with the EU

They are quite right, of course - that's what the backstop is really about. But it shows that Ireland and the EU still have the mindset that the backstop not only needs to be there, but will likely have to be permanent. The idea that it can or should eventually be replaced (as the UK demands) doesn't appear to be a consideration.

@baldgye I wouldn't make the error of describing the EU as 'the world's largest economy' as if it were a single nation state that has common policies on everything from taxation to debt sharing - it doesn't. As has already been covered here, different EU member states will be affected by Brexit very differently... but, thanks to the Eurozone being the way it is, the effects of Brexit could be very hard to predict and non-linear.

A No Deal outcome will be very bad for German business - hitting Germany harder than most, if not all, other EU member states except Ireland. But Germany can/probably will handle it. Italy, however, cannot stand even a small hit, but it could take the entire Eurozone down with it if and when it goes down. Even Ireland could pose a serious risk to the Eurozone project if it were to be badly hit by Brexit.

Italy, and thus the Eurozone as a whole, is on the brink of a major financial crisis even before we consider any possible ramifications of Brexit.

It is not a question of whether the UK or the EU loses or wins the most, it's a question of both taking reasonable steps to avoid their own calamities.

 

[Scaff]

What I don't get, however, is how May's deal without the backstop would involve any of the EU's fundamental red lines being broken. I can perfectly understand why the EU are opposed to the UK having full access to the Single Market but without any of the costs of such access (e.g. free movement of people), but that's not what is on offer. It seems like a crazy gamble to allow a deal to slip through their hands just because they are unwilling to allow Northern Ireland to leave the Single Market.

The Guardian published an interesting article yesterday where a spokesman for the Irish Farmers' Association made this statement:

The most obvious answer being that the UK is unable to explain exactly how it would handle the border situation to ensure that its not a hard border.

They are quite right, of course - that's what the backstop is really about. But it shows that Ireland and the EU still have the mindset that the backstop not only needs to be there, but will likely have to be permanent. The idea that it can or should eventually be replaced (as the UK demands) doesn't appear to be a consideration.

@baldgye I wouldn't make the error of describing the EU as 'the world's largest economy' as if it were a single nation state that has common policies on everything from taxation to debt sharing - it doesn't. As has already been covered here, different EU member states will be affected by Brexit very differently... but, thanks to the Eurozone being the way it is, the effects of Brexit could be very hard to predict and non-linear.

A No Deal outcome will be very bad for German business - hitting Germany harder than most, if not all, other EU member states except Ireland. But Germany can/probably will handle it. Italy, however, cannot stand even a small hit, but it could take the entire Eurozone down with it if and when it goes down. Even Ireland could pose a serious risk to the Eurozone project if it were to be badly hit by Brexit.

Italy, and thus the Eurozone as a whole, is on the brink of a major financial crisis even before we consider any possible ramifications of Brexit.

It is not a question of whether the UK or the EU loses or wins the most, it's a question of both taking reasonable steps to avoid their own calamities.

Sorry, but I've already provided info to show that Germany is well down the list of EU countries hit the hardest by a no-deal. Italy is even further down that list, and I seriously doubt that the Irish are going to blame the EU for the situation. They might of done so, if the UK government hadn't made some seriously stupid moves and statements about Ireland in the last year (the UK threatening to starve the Irish over the backstop was never a smart move).

Don't underestimate just how bad the governments deal with the DUP presents the UK to Irish eyes, or how history will be used to paint this as the British screwing the Irish over (again), regardless of any reality. This will be seen as damage done to the Irish by the UK because the UK doesn't understand or care about Ireland (while the EU will help support a battered Ireland and be seen as a balm to the wounds. Its a political game that the UK doesn't have the hand to win, and isn't good enough to play the bad hand successfully (not even close).

Its also important to remember that the current EU strategy behind the backstop and the border has it origins in Ireland, its what the Irish pushed for.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-12-14/how-ireland-outmaneuvered-britain-on-brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...t-would-harm-all-european-countries-warns-imf

 

[Touring Mars]

The most obvious answer being that the UK is unable to explain exactly how it would handle the border situation to ensure that its not a hard border.

Yes, but that is precisely why the transition period was negotiated and agreed by both sides - the transition period would allow for a grace period of continued frictionless trade until such a time as an invisible Customs border could be made workable.

The point is that once the entire UK has left the Single Market, there must either be a way for the UK to trade with Ireland across a porous border, or there must be a hard border. Ireland and the UK have ruled out the latter, so that means something else needs to be done.

Sorry, but I've already provided info to show that Germany is well down the list of EU countries hit the hardest by a no-deal.

Yes, I know. I'm not disagreeing with that - but how Germany fares after Brexit is not the biggest problem the EU ought to be worrying about.

Italy is even further down that list, and I seriously doubt that the Irish are going to blame the EU for the situation.

I'm not sure that I'm making my point clearly enough here - the issue is not who gets the blame or which EU member state will be hit the worst (although no doubt it will be Ireland)... it's the fact that the EU is teetering on financial catastrophe already and should be taking extraordinary measures to avoid any hits right now, and especially to vulnerable Eurozone members like Italy whose economic outlook is extremely shaky already.

But the effect on the EU as a whole will be disastrous if (or when) Italy goes under - Brexit could not be blamed for that directly, but there is little doubt that the Italian people will wonder why the EU allowed a No Deal outcome to happen at such a critical time, and throw a few more straws on the camel's back.

They might of done so, if the UK government hadn't made some seriously stupid moves and statements about Ireland in the last year (the UK threatening to starve the Irish over the backstop was never a smart move).

Silly words from a silly woman, but EU officials are not above stupid rhetoric or unhelpful behaviour too... quoting from yesterday's Financial Times:

But some in Brussels see Britain having few options but to lower trade barriers if it wants to avoid food shortages. “The UK has no incentive whatsoever unless they want empty shelves,” said one official, who predicted some EU states would make fishing rights in UK waters a condition for granting market access* to UK farmers.

Don't underestimate just how bad the governments deal with the DUP presents the UK to Irish eyes, or how history will be used to paint this as the British screwing the Irish over (again), regardless of any reality. This will be seen as damage done to the Irish by the UK because the UK doesn't understand or care about Ireland (while the EU will help support a battered Ireland and be seen as a balm to the wounds. Its a political game that the UK doesn't have the hand to win, and isn't good enough to play the bad hand successfully (not even close).

What this says to me is that the UK-Irish relationship should be dealt with between London, Belfast and Dublin - not London and Brussels.

This is probably more likely than it sounds, as a No Deal Brexit essentially short-circuits the (failed) Brexit negotiations and would put the entire Irish border issue back into the hands of the two nations whose border it is.

The Irish have, thus far, hidden behind the EU's (vastly superior) negotiating position in order to achieve the outcome it thinks is best for itself - but, as the graph you posted proves, it is a high stakes gamble that is now looking very likely to backfire and cause Ireland just as much damage (if not more) than the UK!... so it kind of begs the question, why on Earth are Ireland not negotiating directly with the UK in order to avoid a disaster? My guess is that a No Deal Brexit will force Ireland and the UK to resolve the situation bilaterally - a good idea, since (as we can all agree) the UK cannot negotiate successfully with the EU, despite vigorous attempts for over two years.


*The wider context being that the EU may even refuse to grant the UK 'third country' status (which it still hasn't done to this point) unless it gets what it wants, by virtue of effectively banning agri-food exports from the UK.

 

[Scaff]

Yes, but that is precisely why the transition period was negotiated and agreed by both sides - the transition period would allow for a grace period of continued frictionless trade until such a time as an invisible Customs border could be made workable.

The point is that once the entire UK has left the Single Market, there must either be a way for the UK to trade with Ireland across a porous border, or there must be a hard border. Ireland and the UK have ruled out the latter, so that means something else needs to be done.

Indeed. One the UK has promised they have a solution for and repeatedly not delivered on (or in the case of some MP's lied about the Swiss border in regard to)

Yes, I know. I'm not disagreeing with that - but how Germany fares after Brexit is not the biggest problem the EU ought to be worrying about.


I'm not sure that I'm making my point clearly enough here - the issue is not who gets the blame or which EU member state will be hit the worst (although no doubt it will be Ireland)... it's the fact that the EU is teetering on financial catastrophe already and should be taking extraordinary measures to avoid any hits right now, and especially to vulnerable Eurozone members like Italy whose economic outlook is extremely shaky already.

But the effect on the EU as a whole will be disastrous if (or when) Italy goes under - Brexit could not be blamed for that directly, but there is little doubt that the Italian people will wonder why the EU allowed a No Deal outcome to happen at such a critical time, and throw a few more straws on the camel's back.

Its certainly a risk and one that is a factor in all of this, however I repeat my belief that the EU is in a better situation in terms of preparedness to weather this than the UK is, something that the new EU Japan FTA will have actually helped them in regard to.

The impact on the UK and its possible affect on the union is arguably a much more significant factor.

Silly words from a silly woman, but EU officials are not above stupid rhetoric or unhelpful behaviour too... quoting from yesterday's Financial Times:

Similar, yet quite different. I don;t recall the EU in the past ever having forced the UK into a famine that caused the death of a million people.

What this says to me is that the UK-Irish relationship should be dealt with between London, Belfast and Dublin - not London and Brussels.

This is probably more likely than it sounds, as a No Deal Brexit essentially short-circuits the (failed) Brexit negotiations and would put the entire Irish border issue back into the hands of the two nations whose border it is.

The Irish have, thus far, hidden behind the EU's (vastly superior) negotiating position in order to achieve the outcome it thinks is best for itself - but, as the graph you posted proves, it is a high stakes gamble that is now looking very likely to backfire and cause Ireland just as much damage (if not more) than the UK!... so it kind of begs the question, why on Earth are Ireland not negotiating directly with the UK in order to avoid a disaster? My guess is that a No Deal Brexit will force Ireland and the UK to resolve the situation bilaterally - a good idea, since (as we can all agree) the UK cannot negotiate successfully with the EU, despite vigorous attempts for over two years.


*The wider context being that the EU may even refuse to grant the UK 'third country' status (which it still hasn't done to this point) unless it gets what it wants, by virtue of effectively banning agri-food exports from the UK.

Which aspect of it are the UK and Ireland going to negotiate bilaterally? And why on earth would the Irish give that vastly superior negotiating position (hiding behind is an interesting turn of phrase to use however)?

Its also once again nonsense to say the UK can negotiate with the EU, we still have (for around 30 days) what is arguably the best deal in the EU, we managed to negotiate that rather well for a good few decades. This has little to do with the ability of the UK to negotiate with the EU, and a lot to do with the UK's ability to negotiate and agree with itself.

 

[Touring Mars]

Which aspect of it are the UK and Ireland going to negotiate bilaterally?

Cross-border trade, specifically. The reason Ireland may wish to negotiate directly with the UK on this is because, as things stand, the UK may not be able to accept the Withdrawal Agreement and that would result in a catastrophic blow to the Irish economy. It is not necessarily the case that the EU's self-interest is entirely aligned with Ireland's interests - indeed, it is becoming pretty clear that the EU will prioritise their interests over those of Ireland in the event of No Deal.

Its also once again nonsense to say the UK can negotiate with the EU, we still have (for around 30 days) what is arguably the best deal in the EU, we managed to negotiate that rather well for a good few decades. This has little to do with the ability of the UK to negotiate with the EU, and a lot to do with the UK's ability to negotiate and agree with itself.

I assume you mean 'can't' and not can... the thing is, our special arrangements with the EU have been painstakingly crafted over decades, and are still (and never were) written in stone. The fact that the Euro has changed the political dynamic within the EU has meant that a day of reckoning for the UK's future in Europe was pretty much inevitable, but the Brexit referendum has merely hastened that day. I think it is now painfully apparent that the UK has failed to negotiate a deal with the EU, but it doesn't really matter how that has happened - the fact is it has happened. That said, we may have to agree to disagree that both parties share responsibility for the failure of the negotiations, but since they have failed already, I don't see why it shouldn't now fall on Dublin and London to decide what happens on the island of Ireland.

 

[Scaff]

Cross-border trade, specifically. The reason Ireland may wish to negotiate directly with the UK on this is because, as things stand, the UK may not be able to accept the Withdrawal Agreement and that would result in a catastrophic blow to the Irish economy. It is not necessarily the case that the EU's self-interest is entirely aligned with Ireland's interests - indeed, it is becoming pretty clear that the EU will prioritise their interests over those of Ireland in the event of No Deal.


I assume you mean 'can't' and not can... the thing is, our special arrangements with the EU have been painstakingly crafted over decades, and are still (and never were) written in stone. The fact that the Euro has changed the political dynamic within the EU has meant that a day of reckoning for the UK's future in Europe was pretty much inevitable, but the Brexit referendum has merely hastened that day. I think it is now painfully apparent that the UK has failed to negotiate a deal with the EU, but it doesn't really matter how that has happened - the fact is it has happened. That said, we may have to agree to disagree that both parties share responsibility for the failure of the negotiations, but since they have failed already, I don't see why it shouldn't now fall on Dublin and London to decide what happens on the island of Ireland.

I can think of one rather important one.

That it would require Ireland to leave the EU to be able to do so.

 

[Touring Mars]

I can think of one rather important one.

That it would require Ireland to leave the EU to be able to do so.

Not quite - it would require the EU to expel Ireland, and that will never happen. Ergo, it will require an agreement that a) keeps Ireland safe, b) keeps the EU intact and c) keeps the UK intact as well. Nothing the EU has offered thus far does all of those things. It is pretty obvious that the EU want a and b, but don't care about c. The UK want a and c, but don't really care about b. The people of Ireland and Northern Ireland, however, need all three.

 

[mustafur]

Considering Italy is in Recession and Germany is dangeriously close to being in one, The EU has alot to lose rather then just Ireland's GDP.

 

[Touring Mars]

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has been warned by her own cabinet that she must avoid a No Deal Brexit or face a rebellion and resignations - she has also been told by her own cabinet that she must step down as Prime Minister within three months! But - the prominent pro-Brexit faction within her party, the ERG, have told her that any delay to Brexit will result in mass resignations from within their ranks... in other words, it now looks impossible for the Government to avoid collapse, no matter what happens next.

Worryingly, this would leave the UK with no functioning government - and no functioning opposition. Labour is also in the process of collapsing, albeit for different reasons (great timing, folks!), but Brexit is obviously a key concern with many Labour MPs, and more resignations are likely.

All of this means that the chances of Theresa May securing a majority for her deal are virtually zero.

Next week, a motion is expected to be tabled in the House of Commons to force the Government to request an extension to Article 50, and also to formally oppose a No Deal exit. This will, essentially, remove the UK's negotiating power and guarantee that Brexit is either cancelled entirely, or that the UK ends up leaving 'in name only', meaning that the UK will still be subject to all EU law, but will no longer have any representation or influence within the EU. This latter outcome should be avoided at all costs, as I reckon it is likely to result in the rise of the far right in the UK and see massive civil unrest/protests.

This being the case, the only wise option IMO would be not to extend Article 50, but to revoke it. The Government faces almost certain defeat and almost certain collapse, but crucially the Labour party (opposition) are also facing collapse. Under these circumstances, it makes no sense to press ahead with Brexit of any type, but least of all a potentially disastrous No Deal Brexit that will require a functioning government, which may be a long time coming if a General Election is called while the two main parties are literally falling apart.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Where did it all go wrong? The people voted for Strong and stable leadership at the last general election!!!

 

[Dotini]

Where did it all go wrong? The people voted for Strong and stable leadership at the last general election!!!

During her long Imperial era, your nation was indeed strong and stable. Misadventures in Crimea, Afghanistan, WWI, WWII, Suez, etc., frittered away the bulk of your wealth, power, strength and stability. Today, holding on for dear life is doing well.

 

[Touring Mars]

A formal request to delay to Brexit is now looking like the most likely option, with the EU apparently favouring a long extension (21 months), comparable to the original 'transition' period' The UK Government are said to be looking at a 2 month extension.

The dangers of both are great for the UK Government - a short delay will be a much tougher sell for the EU, as they are afraid that the UK will request several extensions (and let's face it, what difference is 2 months going to make unless someone gives some ground?), but a long delay will anger a large group of Conservatives who could threaten to block government motions in retaliation for any delay to Brexit, not to mention threats of resignations and a possible General Election.

On the face of it, a long delay could solve many of the biggest problems with Brexit - it could provide a method to formally re-open negotiations, and it could also provide an opportunity to rethink the disastrous idea that trade deal negotiations cannot begin until after exit - a 21-month period of new negotiations, including trade deal talks, could stave off the threat of No Deal, and it could (if a trade deal were to be proposed and fleshed out) also render the Irish backstop redundant. Arguably, this is the way that Article 50 should have been implemented in the first place - let's hope that it doesn't come too late to stop a No Deal exit.

 

[Tired Tyres]

It is a totally stupid thing to ask for. There would NEVER be any sort of progress after that. Every time they hit a roadblock they'd add another extension. No one would have a clue what was going to happen next and investment would become impossible. Hard out, bad as that would be, would be better than that.

 

[Touring Mars]

BBC are reporting that Labour are officially now supporting a second referendum...

Labour will table their own Brexit plan in the Commons next week which will almost certainly be voted down, but they have now said that if their plans are voted down, then they will call for a second referendum.

 

[Famine]

BBC are reporting that Labour are officially now supporting a second referendum...

Labour will table their own Brexit plan in the Commons next week which will almost certainly be voted down, but they have now said that if their plans are voted down, then they will call for a second referendum.

I guess Jeremy Corbyn figures that since his coffin is entirely made out of nails already, there's no harm in smashing a few more into the lid for good measure.

Insane.

 

[PzR Slim]

 

[Touring Mars]

The Labour MP who is apparently set to table the crucial motion has said that a secon vote would not actually be a referendum, but a 'confirmatory vote' - the difference being that such a vote would be legally binding and 'will settle the debate once and for all'.... and as @PzR Slim indicates, it would be a straight choice between accepting Theresa May's (rejected) deal, or revoking Article 50... and that's kind of a problem.

-

I reckon it is not a coincidence that Tusk's announcement that the EU will extend Article 50 happened just hours before Corbyn made his move - the two having met just a few days ago...

Of course, it is going to be a close vote as to whether a second referendum (or, more accurately, a 'confirmatory vote') is called, but it does seem like Theresa May will have little choice but to extend Article 50, no matter what happens - unless, by some miracle, she can garner enough support for her deal.

No options thus far have commanded a majority in the Commons (except for a variant of May's deal but without the Irish backstop, and the EU have rejected that out of hand), but, ironically, the more options there are, the more unlikely it becomes that any one option can command an absolute majority.

Interesting to note, too, that a low turnout in a second referendum/confirmatory vote would call into question the legitimacy of the result - and also beg the question, why wasn't the first referendum legally binding?

 

[Robin]

I guess Jeremy Corbyn figures that since his coffin is entirely made out of nails already, there's no harm in smashing a few more into the lid for good measure.

Insane.

Especially as Labour's official line is that they respect the result of the referendum and back Brexit, but of course Corbyn's personal opinion on it has blown like the wind. I could see even more party resignations because of this, but this time Labour leavers not remainers! There'll be no one left!

 

[Moglet]

Did she really say "simples"? That ad campaign launched 10 years ago. Even her references are out of date.

 

[Touring Mars]

Corbyn has been played like a fiddle by the EU, and it will likely cost him his leadership of the Labour party.

Theresa May has responded today by detailing the sequence of events in the House of Commons;

• A second meaningful vote on her deal (March 12th)
  
• If her deal is rejected, then there will be a vote on leaving on WTO terms the next day (i.e. no deal)
• If WTO/No Deal is rejected, a vote will be held the next day on extending Article 50
• If that vote is passed, the UK Government will ask the EU for a short extension to Article 50

Presumably if that last vote does not pass or if an extension is not granted by the EU (both unlikely), then the UK leaves without a deal.

The EU seem to be in favour of granting an extension to Article 50, but they will be decidely less inclined to agree if the reason given for an extension is simply to keep negotiating about the backstop. The EU will, however, grant any extension necessary if the reason for that extension is to allow time either for ratification of a deal (unlikely, since even if the deal is voted for, an extension won't even be required - but it is more likely a deal will not be voted for by the UK anyway) or to allow time for the UK to hold another public vote in order to reverse the entire Brexit decision.

Did she really say "simples"?

I thought it was rather funny!