Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Can the OP change the word "slowly" to "quickly" please. 

[Granny Danger]

Just now, zidane's child said:

Never knew something like that would be taken to court! I thought this decision would be at the discretion of the EU.

The EU are required by law to follow their own rules.  It all comes down to the wording of the Act and the court’s interpretation of that wording.

 

[Guest]

We're basically in a position where we have the current deal on the table which is Brexit in name only but is really Remain but with no benefits and no say on any EU policy from here on in, not to mention open questions on NI etc. (Option 1).

On the other hand we have "no deal" ,which, as most agree , would be a complete disaster for everyone in the country (Option 2).

May and her cohorts are sticking by the narrative of "will of the people", "this is what the people voted for", etc , etc, irrespective of how damaging this will be to our country and of course they're opting for option 1 without any amendments or debate.

Now, surely any competent Government would now try and salvage the situation by acknowledging that the goalposts had changed and that the promised Brexit is completely unachievable and as such just scrap the whole thing.

You see, it's all very well giving people a "choice", however when one of those choices is going to be so detrimental to the future of the country then surely the Government and indeed politicians have a duty and should step in and make the tough decisions required, even if that means pissing off a couple of million morons ??

But of course it's all about self preservation..............

[RedRob72]

Like I say project fear.
An absolutely atrocious deal which puts us in a far worse position than we are at present whilst giving more control to the EU.
The ONLY reason to back it is fear of a No Deal Brexit which Parliament simply won’t vote for.
 

Seems that the CBI are ok with what is being proposed, especially given that a one-off extended Transitional period (of up to 4 years) can be used if necessary to get the final trade agreement right.
The EU 27 (also ok with the deal) say it’s too late to re-start negotiations,with the absence of any other credible option on the table. It appears to be the only workable route to exit, other than a cold hard slamming of the door in March.

[Jacksgranda]

3 minutes ago, RedRob72 said:

Seems that the CBI are ok with what is being proposed, especially given that a one-off extended Transitional period (of up to 4 years) can be used if necessary to get the final trade agreement right.
The EU 27 (also ok with the deal) say it’s too late to re-start negotiations,with the absence of any other credible option on the table. It appears to be the only workable route to exit, other than a cold hard slamming of the door in March.

That's what I thought, too, but obviously we've been suckered in by project fear, as there are any amount of solutions available according to P&B.

At least Granny Danger has set out what he thinks should happen.

Other posters haven't.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Jacksgranda

[zidane's child]

1 minute ago, RedRob72 said:

Seems that the CBI are ok with what is being proposed, especially given that a one-off extended Transitional period (of up to 4 years) can be used if necessary to get the final trade agreement right.

They're not happy with the proposals on immigration though! Which is a major factor.

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, RedRob72 said:

Seems that the CBI are ok with what is being proposed, especially given that a one-off extended Transitional period (of up to 4 years) can be used if necessary to get the final trade agreement right.
 

And it leaves open the possibility of applying for reentry after the 2022 election, or before, with no serious disruption in the meantime.

[welshbairn]

Now you tell us!

[RedRob72]

And it leaves open the possibility of applying for reentry after the 2022 election, or before, with no serious disruption in the meantime.

Seems fair to me, and why Parliament should back this draft of the withdrawal. Surely even those who voted to leave ( well apart from the real hardliners) will agree that we can’t possibly strike a fair deal amidst the current confusion and chaos. A wee bit of breathing space makes perfect sense.

[NotThePars]

49 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

I said really only implying that it's very unlikely given circumstances... You know that GD.
GD is the most vocal against brexit, yet voted for it. Now there's a contradiction!!

 

There's nothing like the zeal of a convert.

[harry94]

47 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

 

The only politicians who will be suckered into this are those who are looking to justify it to the electorate in their constituencies when the eventual implication of what they’ve signed up to becomes clear.

”I didn’t want to accept this but I was told the alternative was worse!”

Any of them with a modicum of sense and guts will realise that if there’s the numbers to defeat May (and there undoubtedly is) then there’s the numbers to seek a suspension to Article 50.

 

We can ask to extend Article 50 but this will only likely be granted with a new referendum (which both parties are shit scared of offering) or a new election (which carries a much higher threshold of 2/3rd majority). 55% of Labour constituencies voted 'Leave' and this is where Labour's leadership are dithering.

There's obviously the court case regarding withdrawing Article 50 but this isn't a sure thing and if it is used, it is likely the case that it can't then just be reapplied legally or without pissing off the EU when it comes to constructing a new withdrawl bill (which surprise surprise, is not going to be better than now).

There simply isn't the path to anything else palatable to anyone if it gets to the vote and one hasn't emerged in either party leadership.

[Jacksgranda]

9 minutes ago, RedRob72 said:

Seems fair to me, and why Parliament should back this draft of the withdrawal. Surely even those who voted to leave ( well apart from the real hardliners) will agree that we can’t possibly strike a fair deal amidst the current confusion and chaos. A wee bit of breathing space makes perfect sense.

We've had 30 months of breathing space - aka "negotiations" - which hasn't got us anywhere, why would more time make any/much difference?

Anyway, see below quote.

 

8 minutes ago, harry94 said:

We can ask to extend Article 50 but this will only likely be granted with a new referendum (which both parties are shit scared of offering) or a new election (which carries a much higher threshold of 2/3rd majority). 55% of Labour constituencies voted 'Leave' and this is where Labour's leadership are dithering.

There's obviously the court case regarding withdrawing Article 50 but this isn't a sure thing and if it is used, it is likely the case that it can't then just be reapplied legally or without pissing off the EU when it comes to constructing a new withdrawl bill (which surprise surprise, is not going to be better than now).

There simply isn't the path to anything else palatable to anyone if it gets to the vote and one hasn't emerged in either party leadership.

 

[RedRob72]

They're not happy with the proposals on immigration though! Which is a major factor.

Here are Carolyn Fairburn’s exact words.

“Government may be listening to business when it comes to immigration, but they still aren’t hearing.
Free movement of people is ending and a new immigration system represents a seismic shift – one that firms across the country need time to adapt to.
A false choice between high and low skilled workers would deny businesses, from house builders to healthcare providers, the vital skills they need to succeed.
The best way to build public confidence is through a migration system based on contribution, not numbers.

She also said businesses needed “frictionless” trade with the EU after Brexit.

“Future prosperity depends on getting the Brexit deal right. The overwhelming message from business is to make progress, don’t go backwards. We need frictionless trade, ambitious access for our world-beating services and a transition period which draws us back from the cliff edge. Anything less than that and jobs and investment could suffer.”

A period of transition would also offer additional time to tweak the Immigration/Labour/Skills Demand gearing ratio, again it makes sense to test these parts of the process before making a long term commitment and mistake.

[Detournement]

The CBI need to be informed about the potential effects of raising wages, improving terms and conditions and investing in training on the UK workforce.

Bleeding poor Eastern Europeans is obviously easier but other options are available.

[RedRob72]

 

Completely agree, you’d think 30 months would have offered plenty of time, but given the current picture it clearly hasn’t? It only reaffirms how completely unprepared the Government was for the Leave vote that was delivered and all of its consequences. Endorse the proposal now at WM, get it passed with the EU then use the final three months to ensure our departure is as smooth as possible. This is the breathing space I refer to; where we consider what remains to be completed in the transitional period. No deal is unthinkable, but it also makes little sense just to cram everything into bin liners and carrier bags before we flit the joint at the last minute?

[Granny Danger]

48 minutes ago, harry94 said:

We can ask to extend Article 50 but this will only likely be granted with a new referendum (which both parties are shit scared of offering) or a new election (which carries a much higher threshold of 2/3rd majority). 55% of Labour constituencies voted 'Leave' and this is where Labour's leadership are dithering.

There's obviously the court case regarding withdrawing Article 50 but this isn't a sure thing and if it is used, it is likely the case that it can't then just be reapplied legally or without pissing off the EU when it comes to constructing a new withdrawl bill (which surprise surprise, is not going to be better than now).

There simply isn't the path to anything else palatable to anyone if it gets to the vote and one hasn't emerged in either party leadership.

There are more than two parties, admittedly only two who can form a government.

There is time to reject May’s deal, advocate a second referendum and seek an extension to Article 50 (or withdraw it).  I agree the EU27 might have to agree but if they saw a genuine possibility of change by the U.K. then they would IMO.

Anyway I feel I’m going round in circles.  Politicians voting for a shit deal because they’re allowing themselves to be convinced that they have no alternative would be a shocking dereliction of duty but probably a fitting end to this mess.

ETA Theresa May appealing to the racists and xenophobia is the last act of a desperate woman.

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Granny Danger

[wastecoatwilly]

I see the franco boys are saying feck you Gibraltar. 

[Jacksgranda]

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

There are more than two parties, admittedly only two who can form a government.

There is time to reject May’s deal, advocate a second referendum and seek an extension to Article 50 (or withdraw it).  I agree the EU27 might have to agree but if they saw a genuine possibility of change by the U.K. then they would IMO.

Anyway I feel I’m going round in circles.  Politicians voting for a shit deal because they’re allowing themselves to be convinced that they have no alternative would be a shocking dereliction of duty but probably a fitting end to this mess.

ETA Theresa May appealing to the racists and xenophobia is the last act of a desperate woman.

 

A lot of "ifs", "buts" and "maybes" in there, imo.

1/ Parliament rejects the deal.

2/ May quits?

3/ New leader. Who he? (Or her.)

4/ Advocates second ref and extending Article 50? Not a hope

so 5/ General election? In December/January?

6/ Minority government relying on DUP/SNP/Lib Dems if they get enough seats (depending which party is the larger minority). Both main parties hopelessly split on Brexit, mind.

7/ Then go to EU? (It only takes one member state to say "No" (Possibly Spain, see wastecoatwilly's post.)

I can't see it, Granny.

 

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, Jacksgranda said:

A lot of "ifs", "buts" and "maybes" in there, imo.

1/ Parliament rejects the deal.

2/ May quits?

3/ New leader. Who he? (Or her.)

4/ Advocates second ref and extending Article 50? Not a hope

so 5/ General election? In December/January?

6/ Minority government relying on DUP/SNP/Lib Dems if they get enough seats (depending which party is the larger minority). Both main parties hopelessly split on Brexit, mind.

7/ Then go to EU? (It only takes one member state to say "No" (Possibly Spain, see wastecoatwilly's post.)

I can't see it, Granny.

 

3/4 if Parliament agrees to this then it doesn’t matter what the PM, whoever he or she is, wants.

7 There is not a single EU country that benefits from the U.K. leaving therefore no reason why they would object.  We are probably the only country who vote against our own interests.

 

 

[Jacksgranda]

Who is going to propose this second referendum/extending Article 50 solution? 

In order for that to be on the table, the current deal will have had to be rejected. Or could an amendment be tacked on to the vote (on the deal) incorporating the second ref/Article 50 scenario? I don't know enough about Parliamentary procedures to answer that.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Jacksgranda