Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lothian said:
Except it will tie the UK to the EU for another 2 years. A new funding cycle will start in 2020. That could cost the Uk a lot more as they will be signatories to a 5 year funding cycle.
Click to expand...

Lol... the Brexiteers could/would suddenly turn into ardent no no-deal supporters overnight if that outcome became likely.
 
angrysoba said:
Okay, how about this?

UK Gov: Can we delay Article 50?
EU27: No
UK Gov: Okay, we will revoke it
EU27: Um...okay
UK Gov: Now, we will start it up again.

It amounts to the same thing.
Click to expand...

It would restart a new 2 year cycle and lose the UK any remaining good faith in negotiations but it would certainly be possible.
 
Amazer said:
I would hope that the UK government wouldn't stoop to such an infantile approach... which most likely means that they totally would :(
Click to expand...

Lothian said:
Except it will tie the UK to the EU for another 2 years. A new funding cycle will start in 2020. That could cost the Uk a lot more as they will be signatories to a 5 year funding cycle.
Click to expand...

Amazer said:
Lol... the Brexiteers could/would suddenly turn into ardent no no-deal supporters overnight if that outcome became likely.
Click to expand...

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
It would restart a new 2 year cycle and lose the UK any remaining good faith in negotiations but it would certainly be possible.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that Brexiters already are for no deal. There is nothing else that they can really get that would satisfy their main demands, it seems to me.

Of course, this has not always been the case. Plenty of them believed it was perfectly possible to stay in the single market and customs union, but simply have no free movement of people. They assured everyone that the EU would be mad not to give the UK everything the Brexiters wanted. When it turned out not to be the case they claimed to have been against the single market from the start and quickly enough it was argued that that was what the referendum was about.

To be honest, I think the only reason for "extending negotiations" is to basically prevent Brexit, which means Brexit supporters in Parliament are already against it. So, revoking article 50 with an eye to restarting the process later, is really about doing the first part and hoping nobody gets round to the second.
 
angrysoba said:
Okay, how about this?



UK Gov: Can we delay Article 50?

EU27: No

UK Gov: Okay, we will revoke it

EU27: Um...okay

UK Gov: Now, we will start it up again.



It amounts to the same thing.
Click to expand...
I made this point earlier, the UK (and any other EU country) can switch leaving on and off as often as they like so it would be rather pointless for other EU countries to object to an extention.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
It would restart a new 2 year cycle and lose the UK any remaining good faith in negotiations but it would certainly be possible.
Click to expand...
Really not sure about the practical value of "good faith", our internal machinations are viewable to the EU it isn't as if we were trying to pull the wool over their eyes or something. They know - as we do - that the country is all over the place and that there is no deal that will ever please even a large minority of the country. All I think we can ask for and should expect from the EU is honest negotiations. And from all accounts that's what we've had from them.
 
Lothian said:
Except it will tie the UK to the EU for another 2 years. A new funding cycle will start in 2020. That could cost the Uk a lot more as they will be signatories to a 5 year funding cycle.
Click to expand...
For the extremists like Mogg and the political careerists like Johnson such things are less than incidentals. For Mogg he simply would say we don't pay anything, for Johnson we are here to pay whatever it costs for him to be PM.
 
angrysoba said:
It seems to me that Brexiters already are for no deal. There is nothing else that they can really get that would satisfy their main demands, it seems to me.
Click to expand...
My point was that if it seemed very likely that the government would revoke article 50 (with or without intent to restart the 2 year process once more) that a lot of Brexiteers might actually start supporting May's current deal as that does get them out of the EU almost immediately.
 
angrysoba said:
Plenty of them believed it was perfectly possible to stay in the single market and customs union, but simply have no free movement of people.
Click to expand...

This comes back to the old dilemma of whether they were lying or stupid. I'm inclined to go with lying - I think they merely said and are continuing to say whatever they thought/think was/is expedient to say.
 
Darat said:
Really not sure about the practical value of "good faith", our internal machinations are viewable to the EU it isn't as if we were trying to pull the wool over their eyes or something. They know - as we do - that the country is all over the place and that there is no deal that will ever please even a large minority of the country. All I think we can ask for and should expect from the EU is honest negotiations. And from all accounts that's what we've had from them.
Click to expand...

I think 'good faith' has a huge value in any negotiations. And I think the UK has been doing its best to erode it over the past 2 years.

I think there is a big difference between going to them cap in hand and saying 'look we don't have a way forward on this but we have a plan to resolve it and we need another 6 months' than 'look this is a shambles, can you give us another 6 months to get our **** together hopefully'. I also think there is a big difference between revoking A50 and even saying 'we will come back when we have a firm plan' and revoking it at lunchtime and re-submitting it before dinner.

If this ******** has taught us anything surely it is that we should know what we are doing BEFORE we trigger A50. Not set a ticking timebomb in motion of our own accord then start working on a plan.
 
Amazer said:
My point was that if it seemed very likely that the government would revoke article 50 (with or without intent to restart the 2 year process once more) that a lot of Brexiteers might actually start supporting May's current deal as that does get them out of the EU almost immediately.
Click to expand...

But if you look at TM's rhetoric she doesn't even talk about no-brexit anymore. If I was giving her credit for sense I would say she probably weighed up that no-deal is a bigger threat to remainers than no brexit is to leavers.

I think the one clear thing from the way this has played out is that both Labour and Tory are not in the least bit concerned about what is in the interests of the country but merely what is in the best interests of their respective parties from their perspectives.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Why?

The repeated idea that 'they should just not apply the rules everyone signed up to' is what got us partly into this mess in the first place.
Click to expand...

I thought that quadraginta meant that the EU should just table the agreement that has already been negotiated again.... gives the UK 2 years to decide whether they want to accept it this time around.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
This comes back to the old dilemma of whether they were lying or stupid. I'm inclined to go with lying - I think they merely said and are continuing to say whatever they thought/think was/is expedient to say.
Click to expand...

I don't think Rees Mogg is a fool - he's certainly made a very sensible set of decisions regarding his personal wealth. Ditto Redwood.

David Davis and Chris Grayling, however, whilst I am certain as to their competence, I have an open mind as to whether they knew/know they were/are peddling something impossible...
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
But if you look at TM's rhetoric she doesn't even talk about no-brexit anymore. If I was giving her credit for sense I would say she probably weighed up that no-deal is a bigger threat to remainers than no brexit is to leavers.

I think the one clear thing from the way this has played out is that both Labour and Tory are not in the least bit concerned about what is in the interests of the country but merely what is in the best interests of their respective parties from their perspectives.
Click to expand...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1071369/brexit-latest-news-withdrawal-agreement-meaningful-vote-prime-minister-theresa-may

From that article of today

Writing in today’s Sunday Express, the Prime Minister begged the Commons to back her deal arguing not doing so would be “catastrophic.” In a last minute plea to win over MPs before the meaningful vote in just two days, Mrs May says if her deal is not passed on Tuesday then the UK risks crashing out of the EU without a deal or cancelling Brexit altogether. Mrs May added the 2016 referendum gave Parliament a “clear verdict” which it must follow through on.
Click to expand...

So it would seem she doesn't rule out cancelling Brexit... I just think she needs to push that line a little harder than she has.
 
The problem is the referendum did not give Parliament a "clear verdict". It gave it the equivalent of an instruction to buy a takeaway without specifying whether it meant Chinese, Indian, fish & chips or a pizza. There never was a majority for any specific kind of Brexit, and there still isn't.
 
One of the things I worry about with TM is who has her ear. She seems to repeat Leaver BS like the above nonsense about a 'clear verdict' without engaging her brain to consider that a margin requiring a 2% swing that's already been achieved by demographics maybe isn't as clear as her Brexiteer puppetmasters might insist.
 
Pixel42 said:
The problem is the referendum did not give Parliament a "clear verdict". It gave it the equivalent of an instruction to buy a takeaway without specifying whether it meant Chinese, Indian, fish & chips or a pizza.
Click to expand...


Well, at least Seaborne might be able to deliver it.
 
Pixel42 said:
The problem is the referendum did not give Parliament a "clear verdict". It gave it the equivalent of an instruction to buy a takeaway without specifying whether it meant Chinese, Indian, fish & chips or a pizza. There never was a majority for any specific kind of Brexit, and there still isn't.
Click to expand...

And TM is trying to convince everyone they want 'hoose rice' ;)
 
Pixel42 said:
The problem is the referendum did not give Parliament a "clear verdict". It gave it the equivalent of an instruction to buy a takeaway without specifying whether it meant Chinese, Indian, fish & chips or a pizza. There never was a majority for any specific kind of Brexit, and there still isn't.
Click to expand...


May as good as conceded that there was no clear verdict with the “Brexit means Brexit” nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom