Brexit (Old)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

The intention of the EU is to demonstrate to the rest of the member states that leaving isn’t viable. That could be achieved through the UK remaining, a bad deal, or no deal. All three options currently on the table satisfy the EU position somewhat.

The EU, like any Union, has to satisfy it’s own interests first and foremost. Despite our delusions of grandeur, the consequences for us were always going to be far greater than for them.

Negotiators for Greece in the 2015 financial crisis look back and lament that their mistake was believing the EU were negotiating at all. The EU had mapped out all of the options suitable to them and it was “take it or leave it”.

Varoufakis warned us 2 years ago that what you said would happen (it having occurred right in front of us).

The UK ignored that and made no no deal preparations. That was gross neglect.

I’m sure that the EU is only sincere in its arrogance and your assessment is correct. Hence I am in favour standing up to them even now, especially if it tips the Irish government into panic.

[jfman]

I’m not sure how it causes panic in the Irish Government. If there’s no border it’ll allow the EU to establish de facto standards and controls for the island of Ireland and countries trading with the UK will complain to the WTO about having to compete with uncontrollable movement of goods from the EU into the UK.

The Irish Government have simply offered rhetoric in line with what the EU expects of them to create pressure on us.

The reality is the Article 50 process is designed to favour the EU. Leaving the EU in a controlled and stable manner would probably take a decade of preparation and include a transition within the EEA/SM/CU.

[ianch99]

The Daily Mail, in the return from the "dark side" to the centre (ish) political ground are now presenting the, previously ignored, 3rd choice as a viable option:

[djfunkdup]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The Daily Mail, in the return from the "dark side" to the centre (ish) political ground are now presenting the, previously ignored, 3rd choice as a viable option:

132-Days 8-Hrs 38-Min and 10 seconds

[jfman]

Originally Posted by djfunkdup

132-Days 8-Hrs 38-Min and 10 seconds

It'll never get that far. Even a minister at the Foreign Office today on Twitter has as much as said there's no parliamentary majority for no deal.

It's Theresa's deal or Remain.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The Daily Mail, in the return from the "dark side" to the centre (ish) political ground are now presenting the, previously ignored, 3rd choice as a viable option:

The Express was putting its weight behind Theresa's deal. It too knows that no-deal is a no-goer and would harm the country, its allies...and the Conservative Party's electoral prospects.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The Daily Mail, in the return from the "dark side" to the centre (ish) political ground are now presenting the, previously ignored, 3rd choice as a viable option:

The new owners obviously did not like the Dacre editorial tone.

[Sephiroth]

I don't think there are new owners of the Daily Mail. Just a change of Editor whose position on Brexit is in line with that of the owner.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I don't think there are new owners of the Daily Mail. Just a change of Editor whose position on Brexit is in line with that of the owner.

Strange how this lot hated it with a passion, but now it's holy scripture .

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Strange how this lot hated it with a passion, but now it's holy scripture .

Not for me old bean as the best place for that newspaper is in a cesspit.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Strange how this lot hated it with a passion, but now it's holy scripture .

One can despise the Daily Mail and equally recognise it's importance in managing the debate in the coming months as the dream is lost and the country remains within the EU.

Recognition that there is no other deal but the one Theresa May has negotiated and that remain is a genuine option are two significant steps at the beginning of that journey. It's an admission that there's no silver bullet, no magic Brexit and that none of the main protagonists (Johnson, Gove, Davis, Raab, Farage) have any answers to this problem.

The Daily Mail wasn't obliged to make these concessions.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The Express was putting its weight behind Theresa's deal. It too knows that no-deal is a no-goer and would harm the country, its allies...and the Conservative Party's electoral prospects.

It's just a quote from what Theresa May herself said. I don't think it is significant that the Mail repeated it. However, Theresa May has actually ruled out the no Brexit option.

---------- Post added at 17:59 ---------- Previous post was at 17:54 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

It'll never get that far. Even a minister at the Foreign Office today on Twitter has as much as said there's no parliamentary majority for no deal.

It's Theresa's deal or Remain.

Er, no it's not! If Parliament votes down the deal with the EU, she doesn't actually need to put anything else to the vote. Article 50 has already been triggered and we will simply arrive in our brave new world at the end of March 2019.

TM has said many times now that we are leaving the EU. I don't know why you and others continue to clutch at straws like this.

It may be that we can get a change in the wording about the backstop, so that the UK can trigger a mechanism to bring it to an end, with the understanding that this may have consequences (eg no trade deal). But if anyone seriously thinks that the EUNwill give any further concessions beyond this, they are mistaken. Theresa May has negotiated the best deal possible and the EU will not give us any more.

[jfman]

I do think it's significant - they could have been selective but chose not to.

Alistair Burt, a junior minister at the Foreign Office tweeted today:
"Be very clear. If an agreed deal on leaving between the Govt and the EU is voted down by purist Brexiteers, do not be surprised if consensus on accepting the result of the Referendum by Remain voting MPs breaks down. Parliament will not support no deal."

Remain is entering the public discourse from people who last week would not have mentioned it. There's four and a half months to go, a lot of mudslinging and a bad deal on the table.

When it comes to staring down the barrel MPs will vote to delay, at minimum, leaving the European Union.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I do think it's significant - they could have been selective but chose not to.

Alistair Burt, a junior minister at the Foreign Office tweeted today:
"Be very clear. If an agreed deal on leaving between the Govt and the EU is voted down by purist Brexiteers, do not be surprised if consensus on accepting the result of the Referendum by Remain voting MPs breaks down. Parliament will not support no deal."

Remain is entering the public discourse from people who last week would not have mentioned it. There's four and a half months to go, a lot of mudslinging and a bad deal on the table.

When it comes to staring down the barrel MPs will vote to delay, at minimum, leaving the European Union.

Whatever Alistair Burt may think, TM is not obliged to do anything on Brexit if Parliament reject the deal (except prepare for the no-deal Brexit).

As for the Daily Mail, I still say that was insignificant, given that they were using TM's own words. And she only even mentioned that to make the hard line Brexiteers think before they voted. However, despite that, she has said on numerous occasions that we are leaving in 2019.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's just a quote from what Theresa May herself said. I don't think it is significant that the Mail repeated it. However, Theresa May has actually ruled out the no Brexit option.

---------- Post added at 17:59 ---------- Previous post was at 17:54 ----------



Er, no it's not! If Parliament votes down the deal with the EU, she doesn't actually need to put anything else to the vote. Article 50 has already been triggered and we will simply arrive in our brave new world at the end of March 2019.

TM has said many times now that we are leaving the EU. I don't know why you and others continue to clutch at straws like this.

It may be that we can get a change in the wording about the backstop, so that the UK can trigger a mechanism to bring it to an end, with the understanding that this may have consequences (eg no trade deal).

29th March can change- ways and means if all parties want. No deal just won't be allowed to happen. More likely is an extension/renegotiation, or another referendum. It would certainly be the end of TM/ possibly the Govt., so Brexit will have achieved something positive