Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.  
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.

Yep. I would, until and unless he's convicted. Otherwise it's just hearsay and rumour.

So would Arron Banks

Meaning?

Biggest defeat in modern UK political times. 

Now time for a no confidence vote (likely to be rejected).

This government is in a league of its own for utter and complete incompetence.

DUP have (supposedly) confirmed they will back the government tomorrow, so it looks like the government will survive and avoid a GE. 

And another day of Parliamentary business will be effectively wasted, in such a scenario.

CaledonianCraig wrote:This government is in a league of its own for utter and complete incompetence.

It's a close run thing with the Labour Party.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:This government is in a league of its own for utter and complete incompetence.

It's a close run thing with the Labour Party.

Nah.

Brexit debacle
Project Windrush disgrace
Grenfell Disaster warnings ignored
r*** Clause debacle
Benefits scandal
NHS Crisis
Only government to be found in contempt of Westminster

And yet they remain ahead in the latest polls.
If it weren't for Labour's own scandals over the years and Corbyn having no clue (and being equally poor on Brexit), they'd walk an election.
Yes, the Tories have been incompetent in government, but Labour are equally incompetent in opposition.
Which is why...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxqvwkmTNy8

JuliusHMarx wrote:And yet they remain ahead in the latest polls.
If it weren't for Labour's own scandals over the years and Corbyn having no clue (and being equally poor on Brexit), they'd walk an election.
Yes, the Tories have been incompetent in government, but Labour are equally incompetent in opposition.
Which is why...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxqvwkmTNy8

And that is a bloody damning indictment on the state of Westminster politics. Even if there were a GE you face the option of utterly incompetent Tories staying in power or Labour. As Peter Butterworth said in Carry on Abroad: 'That's choices.'

Fraser from Dad's Army would reply: 'We're all doomed.'

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:And yet they remain ahead in the latest polls.
If it weren't for Labour's own scandals over the years and Corbyn having no clue (and being equally poor on Brexit), they'd walk an election.
Yes, the Tories have been incompetent in government, but Labour are equally incompetent in opposition.
Which is why...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxqvwkmTNy8

And that is a bloody damning indictment on the state of Westminster politics. Even if there were a GE you face the option of utterly incompetent Tories staying in power or Labour. As Peter Butterworth said in Carry on Abroad: 'That's choices.'

Fraser from Dad's Army would reply: 'We're all doomed.'

My link is to Fraser of Dad's Army saying "We're doomed"

JuliusHMarx wrote:And yet they remain ahead in the latest polls.
If it weren't for Labour's own scandals over the years and Corbyn having no clue (and being equally poor on Brexit), they'd walk an election.
Yes, the Tories have been incompetent in government, but Labour are equally incompetent in opposition.
Which is why...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxqvwkmTNy8

Comres.....Lab 39 Con 37
Kantar.......Lab 38 Con 35
Survation..Lab 41 Con 38
Populus....Lab 40 Con 37
BMG........Lab 36 Con 36
Opinium...Lab 39 Con 39
Yougov.....Lab 35 Con 41

Only poll the press comment on is the Yougov one because its mainly Tory......So I will forgive your ignorance..

Anyone with a spine willing to stand up to the morons and campaign for a second referendum has my backing, no matter the colour of the rosette on their chest

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:And yet they remain ahead in the latest polls.
If it weren't for Labour's own scandals over the years and Corbyn having no clue (and being equally poor on Brexit), they'd walk an election.
Yes, the Tories have been incompetent in government, but Labour are equally incompetent in opposition.
Which is why...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxqvwkmTNy8

Comres.....Lab 39 Con 37
Kantar.......Lab 38 Con 35
Survation..Lab 41 Con 38
Populus....Lab 40 Con 37
BMG........Lab 36 Con 36
Opinium...Lab 39 Con 39
Yougov.....Lab 35 Con 41

Only poll the press comment on is the Yougov one because its mainly Tory......So I will forgive your ignorance..

Not just ignorance - also lack of interest. I bet I know more about the Marx Brothers than you.

JuliusHMarx wrote: I bet I know more about the Marx Brothers than you.

Okay smart guy. Name 'em.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:And yet they remain ahead in the latest polls.
If it weren't for Labour's own scandals over the years and Corbyn having no clue (and being equally poor on Brexit), they'd walk an election.
Yes, the Tories have been incompetent in government, but Labour are equally incompetent in opposition.
Which is why...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxqvwkmTNy8

Comres.....Lab 39 Con 37
Kantar.......Lab 38 Con 35
Survation..Lab 41 Con 38
Populus....Lab 40 Con 37
BMG........Lab 36 Con 36
Opinium...Lab 39 Con 39
Yougov.....Lab 35 Con 41

Only poll the press comment on is the Yougov one because its mainly Tory......So I will forgive your ignorance..

Not just ignorance - also lack of interest. I bet I know more about the Marx Brothers than you.

For sure..

SecretFly wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote: I bet I know more about the Marx Brothers than you.

Okay smart guy.  Name 'em.

Well, umm, there's Julius...

There ain't no Julius! There's Mauritz, Hermann and Eduard and the old trouble maker extraordinary himself - Karl.

Karl was funnier than Groucho though, so you're half right

Think the most depressing thing to come out of last night was the realisation we seemingly have a dictator running the Country..

Because if that vote won't get rid what will ??

Think she cleverly cornered Corbyn into VONC her though...Better now than Monday after her 'PlanB' proposals when he might have had a chance..

However any celebration at winning tonight for May will be sobered by the fact she hasn't got a Plan B.

I ask Members on all sides of the House to listen to the British people.

- Well it's funny you should say that, because-

- The people have spoken.

- But I don't think-

- Not now.

- But don't you think you should che-

- WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

Truss is right. In any normal circumstances, a government being defeated by 230 votes (!) on their flagship policy - indeed pretty much the only thing they've been doing for the last two and a half years - would see that government fall. May though won't resign, and she'll likely survive the confidence vote as we're treated to the unedifying spectacle of 117 MPs who voted no confidence in her as a leader of the Conservatives/118 MPs who voted against her flagship policy (probably a fair bit of overlap here), pretend to still have confidence in her as a leader of the country. We'll also see the media mostly pretend this is somehow OK. And people will wonder why journalists and politicians are two of the least trusted professions in the UK...

Anyway, May is nothing if not stubborn, so she will plough on. Worse, she will do much the same as before. She spoke yesterday of reaching out, but already this morning seems to be rowing back on that, sticking to her silly red lines, and refusing to include other party leaders in the so-called cross party discussions. So we will be treated to a little more tinkering around the edges, as the clock ticks ever closer. She'll try yet again to simultaneously tell remainers/soft leavers that this deal is the only alternative to no deal, and hard brexiteers that if they vote down the deal they risk no Brexit at all. A silly strategy that after last night's crushing defeat has no chance of success, but we know May's motto "nothing has changed".

So what happens now? Well, it looks like Parlement has to find new ways of taking control of the process. I suspect there could be a majority for a soft Norway-style Brexit as the least bad option, so if Parlement can somehow grab control of negotiations or force the government's hand in that direction, then that could happen. The first step therefore would be to direct the government to ask for an extension of Article 50 with a view to a renegotiation along those terms. Barnier has spelled out this morning that if May abandons her red lines the EU would be prepared to renegotiate, so this seems to me to be the best, maybe only, way of avoiding crashing out with no deal and still respecting the referendum result.

On the option of a second referendum, I side with Navy. For all the issues with this one (and it's worth remembering that there are issues with every election to a degree), I think the results of the vote have to be implemented before we are asked to vote again. The other problem is that the PV campaign shows very few signs of having learned anything from the previous Remain campaign: its main arguments are that people were lied to (implication being that they are gullible/stupid) followed by talk about economic damage. Still no actual positive campaign for staying in. As such, I'm not at all convinced that a second referendum would yield a remain vote. The latest Survation poll has Remain 51-49. Also, what are the options? Is May's deal still one despite being so overwhelmingly rejected by Parlement? Is it a three way ref between May's deal, no deal and remain? In that case do you have a preferential voting system to avoid (justified IMO) complaints of this splitting the Leave vote? When one of the main arguments for a referendum re-run is that people weren't well enough informed of what leaving the EU meant, can we really pretend people are well versed enough to understand what May's deal, or no deal, entails? Finally, suppose we did have another ref and remain wins by a small margin (less than 55-45 say). What then? Does anyone believe this will settle the question in any way? Sure, we remain for now, but the clamour for yet another vote will become irresistible very quickly I suspect in that case.

Basically, I'm not completely against the idea of a People's Vote, but at the moment it looks too messy and unclear, hence my preference for a Norway-style deal for now. It's then possible that in say 5-10 years time (or whatever), opinion polls suggest a clear majority (say 60-40 or more) of people would like to rejoin the EU, and at that point we could have a referendum on rejoining.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:So what happens now? Well, it looks like Parlement has to find new ways of taking control of the process. I suspect there could be a majority for a soft Norway-style Brexit as the least bad option, so if Parlement can somehow grab control of negotiations or force the government's hand in that direction, then that could happen. The first step therefore would be to direct the government to ask for an extension of Article 50 with a view to a renegotiation along those terms.

More on this: Nick Boles has published a bill to essentially remove the chance of the UK crashing out without a deal on March 29.

The Guardian wrote:Under the bill, if the Commons fails to pass a Brexit deal by 11 February, the Commons liaison committee would be asked to come up with an alternative plan by 5 March, to be put to a vote by 7 March. And if that plan were voted down, the government would then be obliged to ask the EU to extend article 50 until the end of the year.

The bill is also supported by Conservatives Nicky Morgan & Oliver Letwin, Labour MPs Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall & Hillary Benn, and Lib Dem Norman Lamb. Has a decent chance of passing, but no guarantee. Would expect Soubry, Clarke, Grieve and a few others to also back it, but they'll be a few Labour brexiteers who won't...

Mad for Chelsea wrote:On the option of a second referendum, I side with Navy. For all the issues with this one (and it's worth remembering that there are issues with every election to a degree), I think the results of the vote have to be implemented before we are asked to vote again.

I agree with this. As flawed as the referendum campaign was, for better or worse, Leave won. What I object to is stuff like this, from Andrea Leadsom today:

"What we need to do is find a way that that deal, or some part of it, or an alternative deal, that is negotiable, can then be put to the European Union so we can get this Brexit through by 29 March."

If we're going to have Brexit, let's make it as good a Brexit as can be, and to that end, let's apply to extend the deadline, rather than thinking whatever we have when that day comes will just have to do. I think it was Stephen Doughty who said yesterday that the people who voted Leave did so in good faith, and parliament owes it to them to give them a Brexit that isn't any more damaging than it needs to be.

Having said that, I'd be delighted if we ended up remaining, as that's clearly the best deal of the lot.

But what would extending the deadline achieve? The UK and the EU have been negotiating for two years, and the deal was comprehensively, overwhelmingly rejected in the Commons. Key figures in the EU have reiterated time and again that this is the best possible deal. An extension and subsequent renegotiation is going to change very little on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and it would be rejected in the Commons again. 

Extension for another referendum would be pointless. Leave would win again and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Remain won, such a result would have precious little democratic legitimacy. There would be no other options to put on the ballot paper.

Extension for a GE would be pointless, as the Tories would be returned as the largest party and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Corbyn became PM, I somehow doubt he's a master negotiator who will entrance the EU and unite the House.

I hope the UK doesn't make an extension request to the EU and, if they do, I hope the EU reject it. And if that happens what are we left with? 

1) No Deal - the only sensible option. Leave the EU. And years down the line, we can have a vote on rejoining. 
2) EFTA - a half-exit, if you like. Would be dependent on the other members being ok with it. Very unlikely to be supported by the UK government, though.
3) Revoke Article 50 and ignore a democratic vote. The end of democracy in the UK.

I do object in principle to the country being railroaded into such a stupid position because the results of an advisory and controversial referendum was completely mishandled.

I also dislike intensely how the emphasis is always pushed away from the areas which really matter. The referendum is treated as gospel when it was advisory etc.

What should have happened? A commission set up to look at the practicality of leaving and also the reasons for the vote. However gerrymandered and illegally manipulated (and it was) it still highlights problems that need exploring, problems (including immigration) that will only get worse if Brexit goes ahead.

As for Ref no.2. It is not and never has been an ideal solution. It only has 2 things going for it, but they are important given the Poopie in charge
1) It solves an impasse. There is no open majority for any Brexit solution. Remain probably the best chance but is hamstrung by the positions taken by the main leaders (i.e. May and Corbyn)
2) It allows some saving of face all round. Assuming remain wins the full time EUphobes can go back to impotent ranting, the remainder can just say something along the lines of 'trying their best' while quietly sweeping all evidence under the carpet.

Duty281 wrote:But what would extending the deadline achieve? The UK and the EU have been negotiating for two years, and the deal was comprehensively, overwhelmingly rejected in the Commons. Key figures in the EU have reiterated time and again that this is the best possible deal. An extension and subsequent renegotiation is going to change very little on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and it would be rejected in the Commons again. 

Extension for another referendum would be pointless. Leave would win again and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Remain won, such a result would have precious little democratic legitimacy. There would be no other options to put on the ballot paper.

Extension for a GE would be pointless, as the Tories would be returned as the largest party and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Corbyn became PM, I somehow doubt he's a master negotiator who will entrance the EU and unite the House.

I hope the UK doesn't make an extension request to the EU and, if they do, I hope the EU reject it. And if that happens what are we left with? 

1) No Deal - the only sensible option. Leave the EU. And years down the line, we can have a vote on rejoining. 
2) EFTA - a half-exit, if you like. Would be dependent on the other members being ok with it. Very unlikely to be supported by the UK government, though.
3) Revoke Article 50 and ignore a democratic vote. The end of democracy in the UK.

The best possible deal given the government's red lines. That's an important distinction to make.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:But what would extending the deadline achieve? The UK and the EU have been negotiating for two years, and the deal was comprehensively, overwhelmingly rejected in the Commons. Key figures in the EU have reiterated time and again that this is the best possible deal. An extension and subsequent renegotiation is going to change very little on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and it would be rejected in the Commons again. 

Extension for another referendum would be pointless. Leave would win again and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Remain won, such a result would have precious little democratic legitimacy. There would be no other options to put on the ballot paper.

Extension for a GE would be pointless, as the Tories would be returned as the largest party and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Corbyn became PM, I somehow doubt he's a master negotiator who will entrance the EU and unite the House.

I hope the UK doesn't make an extension request to the EU and, if they do, I hope the EU reject it. And if that happens what are we left with? 

1) No Deal - the only sensible option. Leave the EU. And years down the line, we can have a vote on rejoining. 
2) EFTA - a half-exit, if you like. Would be dependent on the other members being ok with it. Very unlikely to be supported by the UK government, though.
3) Revoke Article 50 and ignore a democratic vote. The end of democracy in the UK.

The best possible deal given the government's red lines. That's an important distinction to make.

The government's red lines barely even exist anymore. Concessions by the government over the ECJ, the Single Market, regulatory alignment and monetary matters are woven all over the Withdrawal Agreement. If the government made even more concessions in a supposed renegotiation, and aligned the UK ever closer to the EU after Brexit, they would be further away from getting it through the Commons.

No Deal - the only sensible option.

If you're mentally unstable or simply too immature to appreciate the benefits of nuance and patience.  

The end of democracy in the UK

Or the carrying out of parliamentary and/or executive  powers by people who have been democratically elected to represent what they believe to be the best interests of their constituents and who can then be democratically voted out at the next general election.  Seems pretty democratic to me.

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:But what would extending the deadline achieve? The UK and the EU have been negotiating for two years, and the deal was comprehensively, overwhelmingly rejected in the Commons. Key figures in the EU have reiterated time and again that this is the best possible deal. An extension and subsequent renegotiation is going to change very little on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and it would be rejected in the Commons again. 

Extension for another referendum would be pointless. Leave would win again and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Remain won, such a result would have precious little democratic legitimacy. There would be no other options to put on the ballot paper.

Extension for a GE would be pointless, as the Tories would be returned as the largest party and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Corbyn became PM, I somehow doubt he's a master negotiator who will entrance the EU and unite the House.

I hope the UK doesn't make an extension request to the EU and, if they do, I hope the EU reject it. And if that happens what are we left with? 

1) No Deal - the only sensible option. Leave the EU. And years down the line, we can have a vote on rejoining. 
2) EFTA - a half-exit, if you like. Would be dependent on the other members being ok with it. Very unlikely to be supported by the UK government, though.
3) Revoke Article 50 and ignore a democratic vote. The end of democracy in the UK.

The best possible deal given the government's red lines. That's an important distinction to make.

The government's red lines barely even exist anymore. Concessions by the government over the ECJ, the Single Market, regulatory alignment and monetary matters are woven all over the Withdrawal Agreement. If the government made even more concessions in a supposed renegotiation, and aligned the UK ever closer to the EU after Brexit, they would be further away from getting it through the Commons.

Is that so? The ERG and the DUP might not like it, but I'd hazard a guess that hard Brexiteers are in the minority at Westminster. If Brexit's going to get through the Commons at all, it will need to be a soft Brexit.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:But what would extending the deadline achieve? The UK and the EU have been negotiating for two years, and the deal was comprehensively, overwhelmingly rejected in the Commons. Key figures in the EU have reiterated time and again that this is the best possible deal. An extension and subsequent renegotiation is going to change very little on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and it would be rejected in the Commons again. 

Extension for another referendum would be pointless. Leave would win again and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Remain won, such a result would have precious little democratic legitimacy. There would be no other options to put on the ballot paper.

Extension for a GE would be pointless, as the Tories would be returned as the largest party and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Corbyn became PM, I somehow doubt he's a master negotiator who will entrance the EU and unite the House.

I hope the UK doesn't make an extension request to the EU and, if they do, I hope the EU reject it. And if that happens what are we left with? 

1) No Deal - the only sensible option. Leave the EU. And years down the line, we can have a vote on rejoining. 
2) EFTA - a half-exit, if you like. Would be dependent on the other members being ok with it. Very unlikely to be supported by the UK government, though.
3) Revoke Article 50 and ignore a democratic vote. The end of democracy in the UK.

The best possible deal given the government's red lines. That's an important distinction to make.

The government's red lines barely even exist anymore. Concessions by the government over the ECJ, the Single Market, regulatory alignment and monetary matters are woven all over the Withdrawal Agreement. If the government made even more concessions in a supposed renegotiation, and aligned the UK ever closer to the EU after Brexit, they would be further away from getting it through the Commons.

Is that so?

It is indeed so. If she wins over the Tory rebels and the DUP, she can get her deal through. She has a greater chance of winning them over, than a significant number of Labour MPs.

superflyweight wrote:

No Deal - the only sensible option.

If you're mentally unstable or simply too immature to appreciate the benefits of nuance and patience.  

The end of democracy in the UK

Or the carrying out of parliamentary and/or executive  powers by people who have been democratically elected to represent what they believe to be the best interests of their constituents and who can then be democratically voted out at the next general election.  Seems pretty democratic to me.

Ah the usual insults from someone who isn't capable of having a rational discussion. Best put you on 'ignore'.

I didn't insult you.  

Ignore me if you want, I couldn't care less because there's no sensible discussion to be had with someone who can only think in one way.  Anytime that anyone does try to get you to engage sensibly (and by that I mean whenever anyone asks you to provide any kind of analysis or answers beyond the usual ill-thought out and arrogant little pronouncements) you run away at the first sign of a difficult question and then don't reappear until you think everyone has forgotten.

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:But what would extending the deadline achieve? The UK and the EU have been negotiating for two years, and the deal was comprehensively, overwhelmingly rejected in the Commons. Key figures in the EU have reiterated time and again that this is the best possible deal. An extension and subsequent renegotiation is going to change very little on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and it would be rejected in the Commons again. 

Extension for another referendum would be pointless. Leave would win again and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Remain won, such a result would have precious little democratic legitimacy. There would be no other options to put on the ballot paper.

Extension for a GE would be pointless, as the Tories would be returned as the largest party and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Corbyn became PM, I somehow doubt he's a master negotiator who will entrance the EU and unite the House.

I hope the UK doesn't make an extension request to the EU and, if they do, I hope the EU reject it. And if that happens what are we left with? 

1) No Deal - the only sensible option. Leave the EU. And years down the line, we can have a vote on rejoining. 
2) EFTA - a half-exit, if you like. Would be dependent on the other members being ok with it. Very unlikely to be supported by the UK government, though.
3) Revoke Article 50 and ignore a democratic vote. The end of democracy in the UK.

The best possible deal given the government's red lines. That's an important distinction to make.

The government's red lines barely even exist anymore. Concessions by the government over the ECJ, the Single Market, regulatory alignment and monetary matters are woven all over the Withdrawal Agreement. If the government made even more concessions in a supposed renegotiation, and aligned the UK ever closer to the EU after Brexit, they would be further away from getting it through the Commons.

Is that so?

It is indeed so. If she wins over the Tory rebels and the DUP, she can get her deal through. She has a greater chance of winning them over, than a significant number of Labour MPs.

But she won't be able to do it. As you've said yourself, she'll get nothing more from the EU as long as her red lines are in place. There's nothing of substance she can offer them.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:But what would extending the deadline achieve? The UK and the EU have been negotiating for two years, and the deal was comprehensively, overwhelmingly rejected in the Commons. Key figures in the EU have reiterated time and again that this is the best possible deal. An extension and subsequent renegotiation is going to change very little on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and it would be rejected in the Commons again. 

Extension for another referendum would be pointless. Leave would win again and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Remain won, such a result would have precious little democratic legitimacy. There would be no other options to put on the ballot paper.

Extension for a GE would be pointless, as the Tories would be returned as the largest party and we'd be in the exact same scenario as now, only a few months down the line. And if, very improbably, Corbyn became PM, I somehow doubt he's a master negotiator who will entrance the EU and unite the House.

I hope the UK doesn't make an extension request to the EU and, if they do, I hope the EU reject it. And if that happens what are we left with? 

1) No Deal - the only sensible option. Leave the EU. And years down the line, we can have a vote on rejoining. 
2) EFTA - a half-exit, if you like. Would be dependent on the other members being ok with it. Very unlikely to be supported by the UK government, though.
3) Revoke Article 50 and ignore a democratic vote. The end of democracy in the UK.

The best possible deal given the government's red lines. That's an important distinction to make.

The government's red lines barely even exist anymore. Concessions by the government over the ECJ, the Single Market, regulatory alignment and monetary matters are woven all over the Withdrawal Agreement. If the government made even more concessions in a supposed renegotiation, and aligned the UK ever closer to the EU after Brexit, they would be further away from getting it through the Commons.

Is that so?

It is indeed so. If she wins over the Tory rebels and the DUP, she can get her deal through. She has a greater chance of winning them over, than a significant number of Labour MPs.

But she won't be able to do it. As you've said yourself, she'll get nothing more from the EU as long as her red lines are in place. There's nothing of substance she can offer them.

But that's the point - her red lines aren't in place. She's given ground on so many of them.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/08/not-much-remain-theresa-may-red-lines-brexit-deal

superflyweight wrote:I didn't insult you.  

Ignore me if you want, I couldn't care less because there's no sensible discussion to be had with someone who can only think in one way.  Anytime that anyone does try to get you to engage sensibly (and by that I mean whenever anyone asks you to provide any kind of analysis or answers beyond the usual ill-thought out and arrogant little pronouncements) you run away at the first sign of a difficult question and then don't reappear until you think everyone has forgotten.

True that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

superflyweight wrote:I didn't insult you.  

Ignore me if you want, I couldn't care less because there's no sensible discussion to be had with someone who can only think in one way.  Anytime that anyone does try to get you to engage sensibly (and by that I mean whenever anyone asks you to provide any kind of analysis or answers beyond the usual ill-thought out and arrogant little pronouncements) you run away at the first sign of a difficult question and then don't reappear until you think everyone has forgotten.

True that.

Im still waiting for analysis from an unbiased and impartial media source that uses decades of experience and expertise from experts in the relevant fields that shows that No Deal wont be a disaster. Thats been over a week now surely.

Samo wrote:Im still waiting for analysis from an unbiased and impartial media source that uses decades of experience and expertise from experts in the relevant fields that shows that No Deal wont be a disaster. Thats been over a week now surely.

Depends what you term 'disaster' to be. 

Spoiler:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Im still waiting for analysis from an unbiased and impartial media source that uses decades of experience and expertise from experts in the relevant fields that shows that No Deal wont be a disaster. Thats been over a week now surely.

Depends what you term 'disaster' to be. 

Spoiler:

So best case we would avoid a recession. Well thank christ for that. What about the impact to the manufacturing and agricultural sectors? What about the impact on the NHS? What about the impact on the ‘Just in Time’ supply chain?

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Im still waiting for analysis from an unbiased and impartial media source that uses decades of experience and expertise from experts in the relevant fields that shows that No Deal wont be a disaster. Thats been over a week now surely.

Depends what you term 'disaster' to be. 

Spoiler:

So best case we would avoid a recession. Well thank christ for that. What about the impact to the manufacturing and agricultural sectors? What about the impact on the NHS? What about the impact on the ‘Just in Time’ supply chain?

A case of wait and see? Although I'm sure the government has prepared for these things in their index of contingency plans.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal

Yeah because if anything we've learnt in the past two years is how well organised our government is. There's nothing at all to suggest it won't be a total car crash.

Why is it such a big thing of the deal the closing of free movement when it's actually been an EU rule that after 3 months we could deport EU citizens if they cannot prove they're working yet our government chose not to implement it.

Hero wrote:Why is it such a big thing of the deal the closing of free movement when it's actually been an EU rule that after 3 months we could deport EU citizens if they cannot prove they're working yet our government chose not to implement it.

Because that's not actually true. Job seekers, for instance, are allowed to stay, those who can support themselves are allowed to stay, family members of those working are allowed to stay etc.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDF

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Why is it such a big thing of the deal the closing of free movement when it's actually been an EU rule that after 3 months we could deport EU citizens if they cannot prove they're working yet our government chose not to implement it.

Because that's not actually true. Job seekers, for instance, are allowed to stay, those who can support themselves are allowed to stay, family members of those working are allowed to stay etc.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDF

Aside from Job Seekers (who can only stay if they lost their job via illness or redundancy for example) all you’ve done here is prove Hero’s point. If they’re not a burden why shouldnt they be allowed to stay?

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Hero wrote:Why is it such a big thing of the deal the closing of free movement when it's actually been an EU rule that after 3 months we could deport EU citizens if they cannot prove they're working yet our government chose not to implement it.

Because that's not actually true. Job seekers, for instance, are allowed to stay, those who can support themselves are allowed to stay, family members of those working are allowed to stay etc.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDF

Aside from Job Seekers (who can only stay if they lost their job via illness or redundancy for example) all you’ve done here is prove Hero’s point. If they’re not a burden why shouldnt they be allowed to stay?

I didn't comment either way as to why they should be/should not be allowed to stay. I was only commenting on the latter bit - it's simply untrue to say the UK can 'deport EU citizens after 3 months if they cannot prove they're working yet our government chose not to implement it'.

They can be deported, yes, and the UK government actually does do that, but there are more conditions than unemployment.

Samo wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:Im still waiting for analysis from an unbiased and impartial media source that uses decades of experience and expertise from experts in the relevant fields that shows that No Deal wont be a disaster. Thats been over a week now surely.

Depends what you term 'disaster' to be. 

Spoiler:

So best case we would avoid a recession. Well thank christ for that. What about the impact to the manufacturing and agricultural sectors? What about the impact on the NHS? What about the impact on the ‘Just in Time’ supply chain?

6,000,000 manufacturing jobs gone abroad since Thatcher isn't it? Proper jobs too. Marvelous.
The most de-industrialied nation on the planet apparently. I guess the UK doesn't export as much as it used to. Eagerly awaiting the latest manufacturing output figures. They'll be up no doubt coz unit B on an industrial estate somewhere churned out an extra lorry load of mince pies for chrimbo.

Hero wrote:Why is it such a big thing of the deal the closing of free movement when it's actually been an EU rule that after 3 months we could deport EU citizens if they cannot prove they're working yet our government chose not to implement it.

Cheap labour maybe. Great for businesses. Some with links to rich MPs and their friends/relatives possibly.

@CJAMcMahon
Veritable bombshells from @tconnellyRTE on @morningireland just now
- suggestions that A50 would only be extended if UK accepted principle of the backstop
- also UK would still have to elect MEPs if A50 extended beyond July

Can’t see any of this being accepted by current Commons

It doesn’t look like there is enough time left to build consensus in Parliament before March 29, and the conditions to extend A50 beyond that will be unacceptable also. No Deal odds on

https://twitter.com/CJAMcMahon

Interesting to get a bit of balance. Most of the UK media are talking as though extension is a mere formality if the PM wishes to do so.

Duty281 wrote:@CJAMcMahon
Veritable bombshells from @tconnellyRTE on @morningireland just now
- suggestions that A50 would only be extended if UK accepted principle of the backstop
- also UK would still have to elect MEPs if A50 extended beyond July

Can’t see any of this being accepted by current Commons

It doesn’t look like there is enough time left to build consensus in Parliament before March 29, and the conditions to extend A50 beyond that will be unacceptable also. No Deal odds on

https://twitter.com/CJAMcMahon

Interesting to get a bit of balance. Most of the UK media are talking as though extension is a mere formality if the PM wishes to do so.

Yeah, much as I'm a remainer, far too many people still don't realise which foot the boot is on here. We don't 'rule the waves' anymore I'm afraid and other people realise that, even if Britain doesn't. Laughable, if it wasn't so serious.

It shouldn't really be news that the EU won't agree to extend Article 50 without a commitment that the government's position will change. The prime minister's done little but kick the can down the road for two years, they're not going to indulge her any further. It would be a waste of time and money for them as well as us.

Putting Theresa May to one side (I wish I could!), it's tragic that a government this inept has coincided with a leader of the opposition as godawful as Jeremy Corbyn.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It shouldn't really be news that the EU won't agree to extend Article 50 without a commitment that the government's position will change. The prime minister's done little but kick the can down the road for two years, they're not going to indulge her any further. It would be a waste of time and money for them as well as us.

Putting Theresa May to one side (I wish I could!), it's tragic that a government this inept has coincided with a leader of the opposition as godawful as Jeremy Corbyn.

Yep. Kind of funny, in a gobsmacked way, that Corbyn happy to talk to Hezbollah, IRA etc, but not the PM of HM Government at a time of crisis. Stupid man. Actually, given no-deal is default, May should call their bluffs and say she'll formally remove it as an actual option that the Government might pursue. If no other deal agreed by March 29th, and I can't see how that would be at all possible, it's no-deal anyway.

May's new plan, a cunning and subtle one, will be announced on Monday the 21st and voted on on the 29th. By the time we get to the vote, it'll be just over 8 weeks until leaving day.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It shouldn't really be news that the EU won't agree to extend Article 50 without a commitment that the government's position will change. The prime minister's done little but kick the can down the road for two years, they're not going to indulge her any further. It would be a waste of time and money for them as well as us.

Putting Theresa May to one side (I wish I could!), it's tragic that a government this inept has coincided with a leader of the opposition as godawful as Jeremy Corbyn.

Yep. Kind of funny, in a gobsmacked way, that Corbyn happy to talk to Hezbollah, IRA etc, but not the PM of HM Government at a time of crisis. Stupid man. Actually, given no-deal is default, May should call their bluffs and say she'll formally remove it as an actual option that the Government might pursue. If no other deal agreed by March 29th, and I can't see how that would be at all possible, it's no-deal anyway.

I'd like to know who's advising Corbyn, because he's making a dog's @rse of things at the moment. It's simple PR a lot of it. All he had to do was go and see Theresa May last night, even if they didn't say much. Instead, he's taken some of the heat off her and given her and the right-wing press an easy line of attack.

Labour also need to get rid of this idea of bringing about a general election as a means of solving the crisis. I agreed with Mark Francois for the first time yesterday, when he said of the motion of no confidence, "I know opportunism when I see it". Again, who's advising Corbyn? All yesterday's vote did was unite the Conservatives.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:It shouldn't really be news that the EU won't agree to extend Article 50 without a commitment that the government's position will change. The prime minister's done little but kick the can down the road for two years, they're not going to indulge her any further. It would be a waste of time and money for them as well as us.

Putting Theresa May to one side (I wish I could!), it's tragic that a government this inept has coincided with a leader of the opposition as godawful as Jeremy Corbyn.

Yep. Kind of funny, in a gobsmacked way, that Corbyn happy to talk to Hezbollah, IRA etc, but not the PM of HM Government at a time of crisis. Stupid man. Actually, given no-deal is default, May should call their bluffs and say she'll formally remove it as an actual option that the Government might pursue. If no other deal agreed by March 29th, and I can't see how that would be at all possible, it's no-deal anyway.

I'd like to know who's advising Corbyn, because he's making a dog's @rse of things at the moment. It's simple PR a lot of it. All he had to do was go and see Theresa May last night, even if they didn't say much. Instead, he's taken some of the heat off her and given her and the right-wing press an easy line of attack.

Labour also need to get rid of this idea of bringing about a general election as a means of solving the crisis. I agreed with Mark Francois for the first time yesterday, when he said of the motion of no confidence, "I know opportunism when I see it". Again, who's advising Corbyn? All yesterday's vote did was unite the Conservatives.

And they say this guy is a 'leader'. He's only there because of Unions and Momentum. He's been an MP for ages but never in Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet as far as I know. Why? Obvious answers: either he's schidt when leadership is required or he doesn't want a leadership role. Either way, him as Opposition Leader might give Labour leftists orgasms, but is helpful in no way at all.