Brexit

Duty281 wrote:So a good day for the Prime Minister, at last. Motion carried and some pesky amendments defeated.

Yes folks a good day for the PM is telling the Country over 50 times in the Commons the UK is leaving on the 29th March and then winning an extension..

What a low bar..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:So a good day for the Prime Minister, at last. Motion carried and some pesky amendments defeated.

Yes folks a good day for the PM is telling the Country over 50 times in the Commons the UK is leaving on the 29th March and then winning an extension..

What a low bar..

Because she's in limbo.

Funny how May can propose the same deal three time to Parliament but the public can't be asked whether they want to leave the EU or not more than once.

Lot's of bizarre things going on. I particularly like the Labour MP (Shadow Cabinet?) whose name I can't recall, the other night when asked by Andrew Neil if Labour would look to try to re-negotiate the agreement with the EU if they were to win a GE. No, he said. So, happy with May's deal then? Idiot
On the subject of idiocy, can someone please explain the Shadow Cabinet not supporting the amendment last night re. a second referendum?

Tories are a mess, but this is the 'opposition'??

Where's Cromwell when you need him?

navyblueshorts wrote:Lot's of bizarre things going on. I particularly like the Labour MP (Shadow Cabinet?) whose name I can't recall, the other night when asked by Andrew Neil if Labour would look to try to re-negotiate the agreement with the EU if they were to win a GE. No, he said. So, happy with May's deal then? Idiot
On the subject of idiocy, can someone please explain the Shadow Cabinet not supporting the amendment last night re. a second referendum?

Tories are a mess, but this is the 'opposition'??

Where's Cromwell when you need him?

Think the idea was that that they (and the People's Vote campaign) thought that they had little chance of winning that vote at this stage and even if they did, the victory would be less meaningful without the Benn Amendment (which would have allowed parliament and not the government to set the agenda) also being successful. However, if the second referendum vote had been successful, the Benn Amendment would have been struck out and not voted on.

The problem was that they lost the Second Referendum Vote (as expected) and also the Benn Amendment (by two votes because 6 labour MP's voted against it).

There seems to be an assumption that the EC / EU will grant the extension and an assumption that the British Government (Parliament?) will accept any preconditions that the EC / EU might attach to the granting of the extension.  

I can't see it happening.   But I think it needs to happen because at the moment there is no agreement in place - I assume everything switches to WTO rules - but nobody seems to be properly trained in preparation for it (border control, supplies, financial transactions etc).

We switch to WTO rules - how is that taking back control? Accepting the rules of some unelected international bureaucratic body.

JuliusHMarx wrote:We switch to WTO rules - how is that taking back control? Accepting the rules of some unelected international bureaucratic body.

You're making a political (partisan) statement.   I am uninterested in political partisanship only the practicalities and details of the process, exactly what is going to happen and how prepared people are for any change.  Political partisanship elsewhere has toxified discussion on Brexit such that the practicalities are undiscussed.

Well, we would be accepting the rules of some unelected international bureaucratic body. I'm not politicising it by saying if we should or shouldn't, just stating that as a fact.

I would imagine that the consequences of that and the state of readiness depends on whether you hear it from a Remainer or a Leaver.

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:Does the EC have powers to give Britain an extension - because if it has to be a unanimous decision by the EU members of state - it is not going to happen.  

If the EC does have powers to grant Britain an extension (without going to the member states) will they then attach demands that British Parliament has already rejected (such as demanding a second referendum)?

It seems to me that a no deal Brexit is going to happen on 29th March by default through lack of agreement on the nature of the extension and unacceptable demands attached to the extension.

From the BBC: "First the request must be made," said a spokeswoman for the European Commission, "and then it is a decision of unanimity from all member states.
"There are a number of avenues for making decisions and it is not specified in Article 50 how the decision should be made."

I believe the decision will be made on either the 21st or 22nd March. It's bizarre leaving the extension request so late in the day because, as you say, a no-deal exit could happen by default if there is a difference of opinion on the terms of extension, or if there is just one member state that takes issue with extension.

Fortunately, we know that we can revoke Article 50 unilaterally. So we're not entirely at the mercy of the remaining 27 EU states, although it might be good therapy if we were.

JuliusHMarx wrote:... I would imagine that the consequences of that and the state of readiness depends on whether you hear it from a Remainer or a Leaver.

I am uninterested in people that label themselves Remainer or Leaver - I am only really interested in those people that have to deal with the reality of the situation Britain & the EU are in - pragmatism - people at the "coal-face" of what is going on - and what British people have to do who are living in Britain who have interests in the EU or British people living in the EU.   Non-British EU citizens living in Britain will likewise need to know what they have to do.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:Does the EC have powers to give Britain an extension - because if it has to be a unanimous decision by the EU members of state - it is not going to happen.  

If the EC does have powers to grant Britain an extension (without going to the member states) will they then attach demands that British Parliament has already rejected (such as demanding a second referendum)?

It seems to me that a no deal Brexit is going to happen on 29th March by default through lack of agreement on the nature of the extension and unacceptable demands attached to the extension.

From the BBC: "First the request must be made," said a spokeswoman for the European Commission, "and then it is a decision of unanimity from all member states.
"There are a number of avenues for making decisions and it is not specified in Article 50 how the decision should be made."

I believe the decision will be made on either the 21st or 22nd March. It's bizarre leaving the extension request so late in the day because, as you say, a no-deal exit could happen by default if there is a difference of opinion on the terms of extension, or if there is just one member state that takes issue with extension.

Fortunately, we know that we can revoke Article 50 unilaterally. So we're not entirely at the mercy of the remaining 27 EU states, although it might be good therapy if we were.

Yes, but article 50 isn't going to be revoked, even if extension is rejected.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote: ... Fortunately, we know that we can revoke Article 50 unilaterally. So we're not entirely at the mercy of the remaining 27 EU states, although it might be good therapy if we were.

That's useful to know.   Can the government revoke it without getting approval of Parliament?

However it seems that politically this cannot be done - because the government would split and fall - surely?  If government (rather than Parliament) had the power to revoke Article 50 - could they say - we will revoke Article 50 because we are not ready for "Brexit" - but next week we will invoke it again giving us two more years to sort something out?

Ps - anyway as mentioned by Duty281 this is a political impossibility - so let's stick with reality.

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:Does the EC have powers to give Britain an extension - because if it has to be a unanimous decision by the EU members of state - it is not going to happen.  

If the EC does have powers to grant Britain an extension (without going to the member states) will they then attach demands that British Parliament has already rejected (such as demanding a second referendum)?

It seems to me that a no deal Brexit is going to happen on 29th March by default through lack of agreement on the nature of the extension and unacceptable demands attached to the extension.

From the BBC: "First the request must be made," said a spokeswoman for the European Commission, "and then it is a decision of unanimity from all member states.
"There are a number of avenues for making decisions and it is not specified in Article 50 how the decision should be made."

I believe the decision will be made on either the 21st or 22nd March. It's bizarre leaving the extension request so late in the day because, as you say, a no-deal exit could happen by default if there is a difference of opinion on the terms of extension, or if there is just one member state that takes issue with extension.

Fortunately, we know that we can revoke Article 50 unilaterally. So we're not entirely at the mercy of the remaining 27 EU states, although it might be good therapy if we were.

Yes, but article 50 isn't going to be revoked, even if extension is rejected.

I'm not sure how helpful it is to say that something won't happen when evidently it's possible that it will happen. It may be unlikely, and it may not be something you want to happen, but it may yet happen.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:Does the EC have powers to give Britain an extension - because if it has to be a unanimous decision by the EU members of state - it is not going to happen.  

If the EC does have powers to grant Britain an extension (without going to the member states) will they then attach demands that British Parliament has already rejected (such as demanding a second referendum)?

It seems to me that a no deal Brexit is going to happen on 29th March by default through lack of agreement on the nature of the extension and unacceptable demands attached to the extension.

From the BBC: "First the request must be made," said a spokeswoman for the European Commission, "and then it is a decision of unanimity from all member states.
"There are a number of avenues for making decisions and it is not specified in Article 50 how the decision should be made."

I believe the decision will be made on either the 21st or 22nd March. It's bizarre leaving the extension request so late in the day because, as you say, a no-deal exit could happen by default if there is a difference of opinion on the terms of extension, or if there is just one member state that takes issue with extension.

Fortunately, we know that we can revoke Article 50 unilaterally. So we're not entirely at the mercy of the remaining 27 EU states, although it might be good therapy if we were.

Yes, but article 50 isn't going to be revoked, even if extension is rejected.

I'm not sure how helpful it is to say that something won't happen when evidently it's possible that it will happen. It may be unlikely, and it may not be something you want to happen, but it may yet happen.

It's possible, yes, with roughly the same likelihood of happening that the Greens win the most seats at the next General Election.

That's not the case either

Luckless Pedestrian wrote: I'm not sure how helpful it is to say that something won't happen when evidently it's possible that it will happen. It may be unlikely, and it may not be something you want to happen, but it may yet happen.

Okay, sticking to practicalities - can the government revoke it unilaterally or does it need approval by parliament?

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/ecj-ruling-article-50

JuliusHMarx wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:So a good day for the Prime Minister, at last. Motion carried and some pesky amendments defeated.

Yes folks a good day for the PM is telling the Country over 50 times in the Commons the UK is leaving on the 29th March and then winning an extension..

What a low bar..

Because she's in limbo.

They don't appreciate you enough in these parts, Jules.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:That's not the case either

About a 1000/1 chance that article 50 gets revoked sounds about right. It's not a course of action that either of the main two parties are interested in pursuing, there's no democratic mandate for it, it would destroy the public's faith in democracy, it would annihilate the credibility of the Tory Party for well over a generation...it's just not going to happen.

No name Bertie wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote: I'm not sure how helpful it is to say that something won't happen when evidently it's possible that it will happen. It may be unlikely, and it may not be something you want to happen, but it may yet happen.

Okay, sticking to practicalities - can the government revoke it unilaterally or does it need approval by parliament?

I think it would have to be approved by a majority in Parliament, like the triggering of Article 50.

Duty281 wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote: I'm not sure how helpful it is to say that something won't happen when evidently it's possible that it will happen. It may be unlikely, and it may not be something you want to happen, but it may yet happen.

Okay, sticking to practicalities - can the government revoke it unilaterally or does it need approval by parliament?

I think it would have to be approved by a majority in Parliament, like the triggering of Article 50.

And I guess Theresa May would have to get some form of approval from the cabinet and her party to even take this possibility to Parliament - otherwise her Government would surely fall - and I don't think anyone wants a situation when March 29th is reached without a standing British Government or a British PM that resigns a few days beforehand.

Parliament dont want Mays deal.
Parliament dont want No deal.
Parliament wont revoke Article 50.

With the EU likely to grant an extension the most likely outcome now is another referendum. If Parliament cant break the deadlock the people should.

Samo wrote:... With the EU likely to grant an extension ...

I can't see this happening unless the EC has some form of "whip" control over its 27 (+1) member states - and then it might add conditions to the extension that the British Government might not be able to accept.

No name Bertie wrote:

Samo wrote:... With the EU likely to grant an extension ...

I can't see this happening unless the EC has some form of "whip" control over its 27 (+1) member states - and then it might add conditions to the extension that the British Government might not be able to accept.

The EU dont want No Deal as much as we dont, although they’re better prepared for it. The only condition is that if they offer us longer than two months we’ll need to take part in EU elections. They’ve been very lenient and accomendating to us so far so I dont see them not agreeing to an extension of some sort.

If May's deal doesn't get through on the 3rd/4th attempts then I suspect they'll look again at indicative votes to get a majority.

Of course it shouldn't be taken for granted that the EU will agree to extension of Article 50. However, there are a couple of reasons why they may be v keen to avoid UK crashing out with no deal on 29th March:

1) They'll get the blame for 'punishing UK' (even though it'd be our government/parliament's fault). Evidently this wouldn't play well in UK media, but it would also play into hands of anti-EU parties standing in European Elections in different countries. So far, the EU have been tough, but fair negotiators in all of this, and their reputation has not suffered, unlike that of UK.
2) It would be a disaster not only for UK economy, but for that of the Republic of Ireland - the EU will clearly want to protect one of its member states who are potentially v vulnerable to a no Deal Brexit in 2 weeks' time.
3) In addition to 2, there will be an economic impact on other EU countries.

If the EU come back with conditions on an Article 50 extension it'll be interesting to see what these include.

The EU elections thing I don't see as insurmountable - it appears there are ways of extending the term of existing European representatives from UK.

MrI

A Belgian MEP on the radio a couple of days ago was suggesting that there would be an almost pre-approved extension of a month or 6 weeks to let the UK work on either getting May's deal approved or on working out what we will do next, with the potential for a longer extension if a viable route forward is forthcoming.

What this won't allow is any more attempts to sugar-coat the existing deal / backstop etc, but it would allow renegotiation of A deal if the UK move on some of their red lines (and perhaps cease to have several that are clearly mutually excusive).

A lot of ERGers saying they will vote for the deal if the DUP are happy voting for it..

How much are the DUP going to cost the taxpayer this time???

While the Peoples Vote march last year brought numbers of anywhere between 250k-700k people (depends who you ask), Nigel Farages March for Leave tour today has 77 people. Including photographers. Note that Nigel isnt one of them.

Samo wrote:While the Peoples Vote march last year brought numbers of anywhere between 250k-700k people (depends who you ask), Nigel Farages March for Leave tour today has 77 people. Including photographers. Note that Nigel isnt one of them.

The weather had a lot to do with that. If it was as sunny as it was for the People’s Vote march he’d have got as many as 85 or even 90 people turning out.

Hmm gets three shots in three months at getting her crap-ridden deal through Westminster but tells Scotland one referendum in 300+ years is enough.

Galted wrote:

Samo wrote:While the Peoples Vote march last year brought numbers of anywhere between 250k-700k people (depends who you ask), Nigel Farages March for Leave tour today has 77 people. Including photographers. Note that Nigel isnt one of them.

The weather had a lot to do with that. If it was as sunny as it was for the People’s Vote march he’d have got as many as 85 or even 90 people turning out.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm gets three shots in three months at getting her crap-ridden deal through Westminster but tells Scotland one referendum in 300+ years is enough.

Or one in five years.

The biggest concern right now in the middle of all this is definitely whether Scotland should add a complication

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm gets three shots in three months at getting her crap-ridden deal through Westminster but tells Scotland one referendum in 300+ years is enough.

Considering you had been trying for independence for decades and when the time came to decide...The SNP couldn't answer basic questions such as what currency they were going to adopt....Think of it as a blessing !!!..

May has a problem with MV3.....The DUP won't sell out (though they want to) unless the deal is assured to go through as they will look like muppets..30 ERG members however seem hellbent on not caving in and 30 Labour mps to replace them with is a big ask...

Bercow has just told parliament that unless there are substantial changes to Theresa Mays deal then it will NOT be put to a vote in the House.

Blows the Frak lid right off this whole thing. What happens now?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm gets three shots in three months at getting her crap-ridden deal through Westminster but tells Scotland one referendum in 300+ years is enough.

Considering you had been trying for independence for decades and when the time came to decide...The SNP couldn't answer basic questions such as what currency they were going to adopt....Think of it as a blessing !!!..

May has a problem with MV3.....The DUP won't sell out (though they want to) unless the deal is assured to go through as they will look like muppets..30 ERG members however seem hellbent on not caving in and 30 Labour mps to replace them with is a big ask...

The Yes Movement shall we call it, as it is not only SNP voters who back and support Independence, said they'd have kept the pound in the interim. Bitter Together tried claiming Scotland could not do that. Well we know now that Bitter Together were again lying as since then the highest up members of the Bank of England said there is no reason whatsoever that Scotland independent could not keep the pound.

Anyway like I said Scotland got one say in 300+ years and May wanted 3 votes in 3 months. Bercow now having blocked attempt three on the grounds that the deal has not changed. Well I would say Scotland's deal in union has changed immeasurably since 2014 since we are being forced to leave the EU despite every constituence in Scoland voting to remain.

Samo wrote:Bercow has just told parliament that unless there are substantial changes to Theresa Mays deal then it will NOT be put to a vote in the House.

Blows the Frak lid right off this whole thing. What happens now?

Leave with no deal on 29th? A50 extension to leave with no deal later?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm gets three shots in three months at getting her crap-ridden deal through Westminster but tells Scotland one referendum in 300+ years is enough.

Considering you had been trying for independence for decades and when the time came to decide...The SNP couldn't answer basic questions such as what currency they were going to adopt....Think of it as a blessing !!!..

May has a problem with MV3.....The DUP won't sell out (though they want to) unless the deal is assured to go through as they will look like muppets..30 ERG members however seem hellbent on not caving in and 30 Labour mps to replace them with is a big ask...

The Yes Movement shall we call it, as it is not only SNP voters who back and support Independence, said they'd have kept the pound in the interim. Bitter Together tried claiming Scotland could not do that. Well we know now that Bitter Together were again lying as since then the highest up members of the Bank of England said there is no reason whatsoever that Scotland independent could not keep the pound.

Anyway like I said Scotland got one say in 300+ years and May wanted 3 votes in 3 months. Bercow now having blocked attempt three on the grounds that the deal has not changed. Well I would say Scotland's deal in union has changed immeasurably since 2014 since we are being forced to leave the EU despite every constituence in Scoland voting to remain.

'Bitter Together'?
Technically, Scotland may have been able to use the pound, but pretty dumb to peg your currency to the economy of another nation. Not sure it's much more intelligent than not having a scooby what currency you'll have. Still, the SNP are the exemplars of perfect Government.

As to the last paragraph, suck it up I'm afraid.

According to the BBC article, Owen Paterson and Bill Cash think it's a good thing, presumably because they think it makes leaving with no deal on the 29th more likely.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Samo wrote:Bercow has just told parliament that unless there are substantial changes to Theresa Mays deal then it will NOT be put to a vote in the House.

Blows the Frak lid right off this whole thing. What happens now?

Leave with no deal on 29th? A50 extension to leave with no deal later?

If the extension is refused by the EU its No Deal or No Brexit. The Kyle-Wilson amendment (accepting the deal conditional to a referendum) could be her last chance of securing her deal so may vote for it. There was also an amendment to Revoke A50 which wasnt put to a vote last week so may creep up again this week, although I think they’ll wait until the extension is granted or not.

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm gets three shots in three months at getting her crap-ridden deal through Westminster but tells Scotland one referendum in 300+ years is enough.

Considering you had been trying for independence for decades and when the time came to decide...The SNP couldn't answer basic questions such as what currency they were going to adopt....Think of it as a blessing !!!..

May has a problem with MV3.....The DUP won't sell out (though they want to) unless the deal is assured to go through as they will look like muppets..30 ERG members however seem hellbent on not caving in and 30 Labour mps to replace them with is a big ask...

The Yes Movement shall we call it, as it is not only SNP voters who back and support Independence, said they'd have kept the pound in the interim. Bitter Together tried claiming Scotland could not do that. Well we know now that Bitter Together were again lying as since then the highest up members of the Bank of England said there is no reason whatsoever that Scotland independent could not keep the pound.

Anyway like I said Scotland got one say in 300+ years and May wanted 3 votes in 3 months. Bercow now having blocked attempt three on the grounds that the deal has not changed. Well I would say Scotland's deal in union has changed immeasurably since 2014 since we are being forced to leave the EU despite every constituence in Scoland voting to remain.

'Bitter Together'?
Technically, Scotland may have been able to use the pound, but pretty dumb to peg your currency to the economy of another nation. Not sure it's much more intelligent than not having a scooby what currency you'll have. Still, the SNP are the exemplars of perfect Government.

As to the last paragraph, suck it up I'm afraid.

If you watch on BBC i-Player there is a documentary going over the 2014 referendum. It explains Cameron as panicking in the last few days when secret polls had Yes with a 4% lead. Why panicked? It is something unionists cannot explain. They love telling the old crap about Scotland being potless, a drain on resources and in debt with the rest of the UK subsidising it. Hmm really? Meanwhile, independence backers are adamant Scotland is rich in resources and would thrive as an independent country. Cameron and other MPs panicking at the thought of independence seems to back up the latters viewpoint rather than the former.

Bercow does as expected, then. I doubt May would have even put it to a vote had she had the chance, because there was such a low chance of winning it and she probably didn't want yet another damaging defeat.

So if the EU accept extension on Thursday/Friday and the UK agree to whatever terms are produced, it'll be another few months before the deal v no deal question is confronted again. Otherwise, it's a no deal exit in 11 days time.

Duty281 wrote:Bercow does as expected, then. I doubt May would have even put it to a vote had she had the chance, because there was such a low chance of winning it and she probably didn't want yet another damaging defeat.

So if the EU accept extension on Thursday/Friday and the UK agree to whatever terms are produced, it'll be another few months before the deal v no deal question is confronted again. Otherwise, it's a no deal exit in 11 days time.

I would not bank on the EU granting an extension. Rumours are afoot that France will vote against it. That being the case it will be a No Deal Brexit.

Or a revocation of Article 50. No deal is economic suicide.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm gets three shots in three months at getting her crap-ridden deal through Westminster but tells Scotland one referendum in 300+ years is enough.

Considering you had been trying for independence for decades and when the time came to decide...The SNP couldn't answer basic questions such as what currency they were going to adopt....Think of it as a blessing !!!..

May has a problem with MV3.....The DUP won't sell out (though they want to) unless the deal is assured to go through as they will look like muppets..30 ERG members however seem hellbent on not caving in and 30 Labour mps to replace them with is a big ask...

The Yes Movement shall we call it, as it is not only SNP voters who back and support Independence, said they'd have kept the pound in the interim. Bitter Together tried claiming Scotland could not do that. Well we know now that Bitter Together were again lying as since then the highest up members of the Bank of England said there is no reason whatsoever that Scotland independent could not keep the pound.

Anyway like I said Scotland got one say in 300+ years and May wanted 3 votes in 3 months. Bercow now having blocked attempt three on the grounds that the deal has not changed. Well I would say Scotland's deal in union has changed immeasurably since 2014 since we are being forced to leave the EU despite every constituence in Scoland voting to remain.

'Bitter Together'?
Technically, Scotland may have been able to use the pound, but pretty dumb to peg your currency to the economy of another nation. Not sure it's much more intelligent than not having a scooby what currency you'll have. Still, the SNP are the exemplars of perfect Government.

As to the last paragraph, suck it up I'm afraid.

If you watch on BBC i-Player there is a documentary going over the 2014 referendum. It explains Cameron as panicking in the last few days when secret polls had Yes with a 4% lead. Why panicked? It is something unionists cannot explain. They love telling the old crap about Scotland being potless, a drain on resources and in debt with the rest of the UK subsidising it. Hmm really? Meanwhile, independence backers are adamant Scotland is rich in resources and would thrive as an independent country. Cameron and other MPs panicking at the thought of independence seems to back up the latters viewpoint rather than the former.

There are other things than money, you know. Of course independence backers would say Scotland is more than capable of going it alone. Ditto Unionists saying the opposite. It's called bias.
What's unavoidable is the SNP's laughable ideas on how it would have worked last time.
TBH, I'm ambivalent about it all now. Scottish independence? Brexit? Who give s a **** any more? May as well all be selfish b*stards.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Bercow does as expected, then. I doubt May would have even put it to a vote had she had the chance, because there was such a low chance of winning it and she probably didn't want yet another damaging defeat.

So if the EU accept extension on Thursday/Friday and the UK agree to whatever terms are produced, it'll be another few months before the deal v no deal question is confronted again. Otherwise, it's a no deal exit in 11 days time.

I would not bank on the EU granting an extension. Rumours are afoot that France will vote against it. That being the case it will be a No Deal Brexit.

Quite. I think Macron is of the "Leave. Sort your schidt out, and then come back maybe." point of view. Can't say I really disagree with him.

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Hmm gets three shots in three months at getting her crap-ridden deal through Westminster but tells Scotland one referendum in 300+ years is enough.

Considering you had been trying for independence for decades and when the time came to decide...The SNP couldn't answer basic questions such as what currency they were going to adopt....Think of it as a blessing !!!..

May has a problem with MV3.....The DUP won't sell out (though they want to) unless the deal is assured to go through as they will look like muppets..30 ERG members however seem hellbent on not caving in and 30 Labour mps to replace them with is a big ask...

The Yes Movement shall we call it, as it is not only SNP voters who back and support Independence, said they'd have kept the pound in the interim. Bitter Together tried claiming Scotland could not do that. Well we know now that Bitter Together were again lying as since then the highest up members of the Bank of England said there is no reason whatsoever that Scotland independent could not keep the pound.

Anyway like I said Scotland got one say in 300+ years and May wanted 3 votes in 3 months. Bercow now having blocked attempt three on the grounds that the deal has not changed. Well I would say Scotland's deal in union has changed immeasurably since 2014 since we are being forced to leave the EU despite every constituence in Scoland voting to remain.

'Bitter Together'?
Technically, Scotland may have been able to use the pound, but pretty dumb to peg your currency to the economy of another nation. Not sure it's much more intelligent than not having a scooby what currency you'll have. Still, the SNP are the exemplars of perfect Government.

As to the last paragraph, suck it up I'm afraid.

If you watch on BBC i-Player there is a documentary going over the 2014 referendum. It explains Cameron as panicking in the last few days when secret polls had Yes with a 4% lead. Why panicked? It is something unionists cannot explain. They love telling the old crap about Scotland being potless, a drain on resources and in debt with the rest of the UK subsidising it. Hmm really? Meanwhile, independence backers are adamant Scotland is rich in resources and would thrive as an independent country. Cameron and other MPs panicking at the thought of independence seems to back up the latters viewpoint rather than the former.

There are other things than money, you know. Of course independence backers would say Scotland is more than capable of going it alone. Ditto Unionists saying the opposite. It's called bias.
What's unavoidable is the SNP's laughable ideas on how it would have worked last time.
TBH, I'm ambivalent about it all now. Scottish independence? Brexit? Who give s a **** any more? May as well all be selfish b*stards.

Not to MP's there aren't. They continue to try to brainwash Scots into believing they are too small, too poor, too weak etc to go it alone and we are subsidised. Next you will be claiming MPs are nostalgic about Scotland being in the UK and that is the whole reason. You are entitled to feel as ambivalent as you want about political matters but likewise there are seven figure numbers of people that care very strongly about Scottish independence and even more so as the Brexit bus hurtles towards the edge of a cliff at breakneck speed with a total disregard for those on board.

navyblueshorts wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Bercow does as expected, then. I doubt May would have even put it to a vote had she had the chance, because there was such a low chance of winning it and she probably didn't want yet another damaging defeat.

So if the EU accept extension on Thursday/Friday and the UK agree to whatever terms are produced, it'll be another few months before the deal v no deal question is confronted again. Otherwise, it's a no deal exit in 11 days time.

I would not bank on the EU granting an extension. Rumours are afoot that France will vote against it. That being the case it will be a No Deal Brexit.

Quite. I think Macron is of the "Leave. Sort your schidt out, and then come back maybe." point of view. Can't say I really disagree with him.

Yep. Brexit was our bright idea, not theirs. They'd be quite within their rights to say, 'no, sorry, this has gone on long enough - and we have no confidence an extension would solve anything'.