Brexit (Old)

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Missing from your analysis is the possibility of an extension, which doesn’t require approval of Parliament and buys the time for the rest.

Indeed but the extension is with the gift of the EU, and therefore out of our hands.

As the EU have stated that as far as they are concerned this deal is the only deal.

They could, and probably will, let the pressure build right up until March.

If we get to March and the U.K. parliament have not agreed to the deal, there would need to be compelling reason for the EU to grant an extension.

To grant an extension would have to be on he proviso that a re-negotiation or amendment of the deal was possible, otherwise why bother?

This then weakens the EU position, possibly for the first time.

Still looking forward to seeing it play out.

---------- Post added at 19:35 ---------- Previous post was at 19:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

As mentioned before though if Parliament wants to do so it can rush a bill though.

Only if a majority agrees?

I think the final option is May's deal comes back as is or ever-so-slightly changed. Ahead of that you'll have Parliament pushing first for an election which, with the backing the DUP, might be possible. Alternatively you could have Parliament pushing for another vote, again who knows how that would go. That probably would require the EU allowing us to delay Article 50 and a quick bill to update the existing Parliamentary law to delay it should the EU have agreed. You also have the 'Norway for Now' option some Conservatives are pushing.

I think they will come to May's deal eventually unless the Tories backing 'Norway for Now' get some tractions....

I honestly think, if the May deal is voted down, the only viable way this thing continues is a second referendum.

I think, as per my previous post, the only reason the EU would extend A50, if is there was another referendum, which in all likelihood, remain would wn.

It removes lots on issues, like Parliament having to revoke A50 without a mandate.

That is the most probable outcome, in my humble opinion.

[jfman]

Nothing weakens the EU position at any point. The EU has default positions it can interchange between regardless of what we do.

If a meaningful Bill is introduced to Parliament , then the EU would be foolish to not allow an extension to allow it to play out. The one thing we know from these negotiations is the EU are not foolish. So your assertion that Parliament will run out of time in the “chaos” is flawed. It suits the EU to allow an extension for a deal, no deal or even remain, which is all within the prerogative of our Parliament that Oliver Cromwell fought so hard against the Crown for.

[Mr K]

This vote isn't going to happen. If you can't win the game, get it postponed !

Originally Posted by Pierre

Only if a majority agrees?

Hence why the agreement is harder than the actual bill procedure.

I honestly think, if the May deal is voted down, the only viable way this thing continues is a second referendum.

I think, as per my previous post, the only reason the EU would extend A50, if is there was another referendum, which in all likelihood, remain would wn.

I dunno, I am skeptical of a second referendum. I think it will only strengthen division and unleash nasty forces. I think Remain would just about win simply because the demographics have slightly changed since 2016 and also the young people who sat out last time would probably come out this time. But I think to have any legitimacy to close down the debate the win would need to be a blow-out for Remain, i.e 60%+, which won't happen. 52-48 the other way would be a nightmare.

I would rather the last two years were spent working out a Brexit that works with the 48% too. Ending free movement and the social charter stuff from Europe which were Brexiters biggest concern whilst keeping economically close to the EU. May only went in that direction after losing the election.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

Missing from your analysis is the possibility of an extension, which doesn’t require approval of Parliament and buys the time for the rest.

From what I've heard, the EU 27 wouldn't rush to grant this. What's in it for them?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Nothing weakens the EU position at any point. The EU has default positions it can interchange between regardless of what we do.

If the U.K. parliament is intransigent to this deal, why would the EU offer an extension of A50.

To do so would imply they were willing to move their position.

If a meaningful Bill is introduced to Parliament

Big .IF.

then the EU would be foolish to not allow an extension to allow it to play out.

If such a bill failed to materialise, then my earlier analysis would be correct as no extension to A50 would be offered?

It suits the EU to allow an extension for a deal,

if one is on the table.

no deal

. No need for an extension in that scenario, we will have taken the gift away from the EU iand just leave.

or even remain,

in which case A50 would be withdrawn by us, we don’t need EU agreement for that

No, i’m afraid my interpretation is correct. If the EU offer an extension of A50 it would only be to renegotiate elements of the Withdrawal agreement. They may do it, but they have been intransigent so far, so if they did it would be the first sign of them wilting.

Or they may think that no deal is worth the display of EU unity.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Damien

Hence why the agreement is harder than the actual bill procedure.



I dunno, I am skeptical of a second referendum. I think it will only strengthen division and unleash nasty forces. I think Remain would just about win simply because the demographics have slightly changed since 2016 and also the young people who sat out last time would probably come out this time. But I think to have any legitimacy to close down the debate the win would need to be a blow-out for Remain, i.e 60%+, which won't happen. 52-48 the other way would be a nightmare.

I would rather the last two years were spent working out a Brexit that works with the 48% too. Ending free movement and the social charter stuff from Europe which were Brexiters biggest concern whilst keeping economically close to the EU. May only went in that direction after losing the election.

So even though you think no the majority are now against Brexit, you think we should press ahead anyway. ?

Divisive another vote maybe, but no less so than the original vote. This is going to affect generations to come, we can put up with the whining oaps for a few weeks. They may post some vitriol on the DT comments, but that will be the limit of their militant action !

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mr K

So even though you think no the majority are now against Brexit, you think we should press ahead anyway. ?

Divisive another vote maybe, but no less so than the original vote. This is going to affect generations to come, we can put up with the whining oaps for a few weeks. They may post some vitriol on the DT comments, but that will be the limit of their militant action !

One day you might be an OAP in which case, when/if you read your crass and disrespectful remark, you'll cringe.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Mr K

So even though you think no the majority are now against Brexit, you think we should press ahead anyway. ?

Divisive another vote maybe, but no less so than the original vote. This is going to affect generations to come, we can put up with the whining oaps for a few weeks. They may post some vitriol on the DT comments, but that will be the limit of their militant action !

Although indications are remain would now win, it is far from a certainty. As we found out at the last referendum and numerous elections the majority are usually the silent ones.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

One day you might be an OAP in which case, when/if you read your crass and disrespectful remark, you'll cringe.

Looking forward to it, triple locked pension, free TV licence, heating allowance, free bus pass. The young of today will get all these things they are currently funding won't they ? Or will we have spent it all on the Brexit bill ??

---------- Post added at 20:28 ---------- Previous post was at 20:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Although indications are remain would now win, it is far from a certainty. As we found out at the last referendum and numerous elections the majority are usually the silent ones.

Well why all the hysteria about another vote then ? No one could argue if people vote for the deal on offer...

[Dave42]

more worries for PM

Labour and DUP team up with four other parties to threaten 'contempt' over Brexit legal advice

https://news.sky.com/story/labour-an...dvice-11571059

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Looking at the furore this agreement has caused, it does seem that a lot of people have forgotten that the deal on the table is an interim agreement until a full trade agreement can be reached. [SEPH]: Er - see Macron for bullying details as to the difficulties we'll have reaching a trade deal with 27 countries of which France is but the first.

Here's a nice summary from some trade experts on the current status and what might happen next and what needs to happen next - https://uktradeforum.net/2018/11/30/...l-with-the-eu/ [SEPH]: Not a 'nice summary' at all because it completely downplays the likelihood or even the possibility of being trapped in the CU at the EU's whim.

I hope this isn't the 'easiest deal in history' or we could have trouble going forward.

The summary in that link simply lists the options available from the agreements to date. It's very high level and doesn't really touch on the positions of both sides so I am sorry it didn't float your boat.

Originally Posted by Mr K

So even though you think no the majority are now against Brexit, you think we should press ahead anyway. ?

Divisive another vote maybe, but no less so than the original vote. This is going to affect generations to come, we can put up with the whining oaps for a few weeks. They may post some vitriol on the DT comments, but that will be the limit of their militant action !

I don't think close referendums are sufficient grounds for radical changes to the country when the majority could easily switch back the other way. I think major changes should require supermajorities so that the country is behind that change, this process is evidence of why that is important. I thought that for Scottish Independence and for Brexit.

But then I also think it's stupid for governments to hold referendums in which they don't agree with the change option. The Government implementing a policy which it thinks is a bad idea is also not ideal.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't think close referendums are sufficient grounds for radical changes to the country when the majority could easily switch back the other way. I think major changes should require supermajorities so that the country is behind that change, this process is evidence of why that is important. I thought that for Scottish Independence and for Brexit.

But then I also think it's stupid for governments to hold referendums in which they don't agree with the change option. The Government implementing a policy which it thinks is a bad idea is also not ideal.

A great and well-considered post.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

A great and well-considered post.

Well the referendum was only called by Dave to save his own job and win the 2015 election. No other reason. Unfortunately for him and the future of the country it didn't go to plan. Still he's doing ok I hear, so that's alright