BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

cycleclinic

verylonglegs wrote:

All this talk of deals or Norway style agreements...if Johnson can't control the ERG vote then it's a waste of time isn't it? Or are we counting on Lab/Lib dem MP's to vote it through in spite of that group?

Corbyn has said though he has no opi ion so count on him for anything.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

My solution is to revoke A30. It was an advisory vote and right now is looking like a bloody stupid idea. Yes there will be fallout but there will be fallout with every outcome.

An admirable strategy. Realistically, this will only happen if the Lib Dems gain a working majority in parliament and unfortunately nobody has a spare squadron of pigs on standby.

Which takes us back to hard brexit/no deal. Which is what I predicted over 3 years ago due to my lack of confidence in Westminster.

Not necessarily. There are other possible outcomes, although no deal does have a fairly high probability IMO.

Please do list the alternative realistic possible outcomes at your leisure.
I'm sure BJ would be grateful.

See above, although I ascribe a lower probability to the most likely outcome on that chart.

Stevo_666

Pross wrote:

Why is the Turkey model unacceptable? I lose track of it all. There's be a certain irony if we went on a par with them when the potential of Turkey joining the EU was one of the leave campaign's pet scare tactics.

Who said it was? Although again doesn't solve the Irish problem.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I'm sure BJ would be grateful.

See above, although I ascribe a lower probability to the most likely outcome on that chart.

See above, an election is just another waste of time. Solves nothing.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I'm sure BJ would be grateful.

See above, although I ascribe a lower probability to the most likely outcome on that chart.

See above, an election is just another waste of time. Solves nothing.

It depends on the outcome and what you want solving.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Why is the Turkey model unacceptable? I lose track of it all. There's be a certain irony if we went on a par with them when the potential of Turkey joining the EU was one of the leave campaign's pet scare tactics.

Who said it was? Although again doesn't solve the Irish problem.

Gove said it was ridiculous to suggest that we would have less access to the SM than Turkey so we can put him down as thinking the Turkey model is unacceptable

Pross

It seems all deal options are off the table because of the Irish border issue but no deal will lead to an automatic hard border in Ireland anyway so if that's the main sticking point it makes no sense not accepting a deal that is better for us in other ways.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Why is the Turkey model unacceptable? I lose track of it all. There's be a certain irony if we went on a par with them when the potential of Turkey joining the EU was one of the leave campaign's pet scare tactics.

Who said it was? Although again doesn't solve the Irish problem.

Gove said it was ridiculous to suggest that we would have less access to the SM than Turkey so we can put him down as thinking the Turkey model is unacceptable

I was thinking more of who on here said it, but in any event it's not a likely option regardless of what Gove thinks.

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

It seems all deal options are off the table because of the Irish border issue but no deal will lead to an automatic hard border in Ireland anyway so if that's the main sticking point it makes no sense not accepting a deal that is better for us in other ways.

Norway model solves the problem

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

It seems all deal options are off the table because of the Irish border issue but no deal will lead to an automatic hard border in Ireland anyway so if that's the main sticking point it makes no sense not accepting a deal that is better for us in other ways.

Norway model solves the problem

Thought it was said above it didn't (still needs a hard border on goods)?

Stevo_666

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

It seems all deal options are off the table because of the Irish border issue but no deal will lead to an automatic hard border in Ireland anyway so if that's the main sticking point it makes no sense not accepting a deal that is better for us in other ways.

Norway model solves the problem

Thought it was said above it didn't (still needs a hard border on goods)?

Thats right, Norway is outside the customs union and there are checks for goods at the border with Sweden. Not sure how this solves the Irish issue.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44054594

surrey_commuter

Pross wrote:

It seems all deal options are off the table because of the Irish border issue but no deal will lead to an automatic hard border in Ireland anyway so if that's the main sticking point it makes no sense not accepting a deal that is better for us in other ways.

Very few people care about the Irish border, most are just exploiting it for their own ends.

If you waved a magic wand and disappeared the Irish border problem then the ERG and Corbyn would find another reason to not vote for the WA

mr_goo

Just seen pictures of the march/protests on the front at Brighton where all the socialists (Labour) have gathered. Plenty of banners emblazoned with 'Trust the People - Peoples' vote'.
Wasn't that what happened in June 2016?.... And clearly resulted in the wrong outcome for the government and most on here.

I'm not trying to stir up here but merely want to point out that whatever 'the people' vote for it will be ignored. As clearly a few hundred people in Westminster view the wishes of millions as irrelevant.

cycleclinic

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

It seems all deal options are off the table because of the Irish border issue but no deal will lead to an automatic hard border in Ireland anyway so if that's the main sticking point it makes no sense not accepting a deal that is better for us in other ways.

Norway model solves the problem

Only if people accept it. The Norway model has generally be used with membership.of the customs union. Farage once like eea did then he changed his mind. we live in the grip or remains and nodealia. Nodealia used to be a reaction to a certain TV food chef.

Of customs union and single market to.some is still in. In fact your jot in the single market fully. A sea member can refuse to accept new regulations on toasters and no longer have a single market for toasters. In practice a member accepts all.new regulations to avoid complexity. Not likely something Britain would do. right now we pick tbe most difficult route just because.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I'm sure BJ would be grateful.

See above, although I ascribe a lower probability to the most likely outcome on that chart.

See above, an election is just another waste of time. Solves nothing.

It depends on the outcome and what you want solving.

As above, most likely result will be a coalition, and even more bickering. Brexit really needs solving.
I see two possible outcomes, endless delays with no solution, or hard Brexit/no deal.
Might as well get it over and done with as my preferred option is unlikely. DC has a lot to answer for.

tailwindhome

With reference to the diagram posted above, if the supreme Court decides that the advice to the Queen was deliberately misleading then I don't see a scenario in which Boris can stay as PM.

darkhairedlord

TailWindHome wrote:

With reference to the diagram posted above, if the supreme Court decides that the advice to the Queen was deliberately misleading then I don't see a scenario in which Boris can stay as PM.

Who will get rid?

tailwindhome

Amidst everything else this gem of an interview with the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition may have been overlooked

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49757000

Jeremy Corbyn has said that he got his words wrong when he initially appeared to reject the Brexit backstop.

verylonglegs

TailWindHome wrote:

With reference to the diagram posted above, if the supreme Court decides that the advice to the Queen was deliberately misleading then I don't see a scenario in which Boris can stay as PM.

Are you assuming we are still in a rational logical situation?

Jez mon

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I'm sure BJ would be grateful.

See above, although I ascribe a lower probability to the most likely outcome on that chart.

See above, an election is just another waste of time. Solves nothing.

It depends on the outcome and what you want solving.

As above, most likely result will be a coalition, and even more bickering. Brexit really needs solving.
I see two possible outcomes, endless delays with no solution, or hard Brexit/no deal.
Might as well get it over and done with as my preferred option is unlikely. DC has a lot to answer for.

It's worth pointing out that no deal really doesn't give you an over and done with solution here.

pblakeney

Jez mon wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I'm sure BJ would be grateful.

See above, although I ascribe a lower probability to the most likely outcome on that chart.

See above, an election is just another waste of time. Solves nothing.

It depends on the outcome and what you want solving.

As above, most likely result will be a coalition, and even more bickering. Brexit really needs solving.
I see two possible outcomes, endless delays with no solution, or hard Brexit/no deal.
Might as well get it over and done with as my preferred option is unlikely. DC has a lot to answer for.

It's worth pointing out that no deal really doesn't give you an over and done with solution here.

No, but it eliminates a few other alternatives.
Not what I want under any circumstance but we are in purgatory just now.

briantrumpet

TailWindHome wrote:

Amidst everything else this gem of an interview with the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition may have been overlooked

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49757000

Jeremy Corbyn has said that he got his words wrong when he initially appeared to reject the Brexit backstop.

I thought it would have been impossible for Corbyn to confuse himself (and us) even more than he already is. He's surpassing himself now. It reminds of the time a government minister admitted that one of its educational schemes had failed... so they were going to pursue it even harder. At a time when they've fallen behind the Lib Dems in opinion polls, you'd think that he might... oh no, hang on, it's Corbyn.

antonyfromoz

Mr Goo wrote:

Just seen pictures of the march/protests on the front at Brighton where all the socialists (Labour) have gathered. Plenty of banners emblazoned with 'Trust the People - Peoples' vote'.
Wasn't that what happened in June 2016?.... And clearly resulted in the wrong outcome for the government and most on here.

I'm not trying to stir up here but merely want to point out that whatever 'the people' vote for it will be ignored. As clearly a few hundred people in Westminster view the wishes of millions as irrelevant.

But what did "the people" vote for? The guarantees given by the pollies and lobbyists pushing for leave are a far cry from the reality we are now facing - and many leading leave promoters were saying before the referendum that they would not support a no deal brexit and several publically supported a second referendum after a deal had been negotiated - including Farage and Rees Moggs. Before the referendum Vote Leave stated that Britain would exit the EU with “a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. If there is a belief that the majority voted to get out of the EU with no deal then what is the problem with a second vote, just to confirm that they still feel this way before it's too late? The expense will be minimal compared to the money already spent on trying to retain a tory majority government and the pre-election cash that the government has been promising to throw around recently.

antonyfromoz

Jez mon wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I'm sure BJ would be grateful.

See above, although I ascribe a lower probability to the most likely outcome on that chart.

See above, an election is just another waste of time. Solves nothing.

It depends on the outcome and what you want solving.

As above, most likely result will be a coalition, and even more bickering. Brexit really needs solving.
I see two possible outcomes, endless delays with no solution, or hard Brexit/no deal.
Might as well get it over and done with as my preferred option is unlikely. DC has a lot to answer for.

It's worth pointing out that no deal really doesn't give you an over and done with solution here.

No deal gives us the same problems with the added difficulty of an Irish hard border.

robert88

antonyfromoz wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just seen pictures of the march/protests on the front at Brighton where all the socialists (Labour) have gathered. Plenty of banners emblazoned with 'Trust the People - Peoples' vote'.
Wasn't that what happened in June 2016?.... And clearly resulted in the wrong outcome for the government and most on here.

I'm not trying to stir up here but merely want to point out that whatever 'the people' vote for it will be ignored. As clearly a few hundred people in Westminster view the wishes of millions as irrelevant.

But what did "the people" vote for? The guarantees given by the pollies and lobbyists pushing for leave are a far cry from the reality we are now facing - and many leading leave promoters were saying before the referendum that they would not support a no deal brexit and several publically supported a second referendum after a deal had been negotiated - including Farage and Rees Moggs. Before the referendum Vote Leave stated that Britain would exit the EU with “a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. If there is a belief that the majority voted to get out of the EU with no deal then what is the problem with a second vote, just to confirm that they still feel this way before it's too late? The expense will be minimal compared to the money already spent on trying to retain a tory majority government and the pre-election cash that the government has been promising to throw around recently.

The 'people' voted with their emotions.

Those seeking the Leave vote campaigned accordingly. Unfortunately they can only retain their leadership by continuing along that path because they had no idea how to actually fix things. They can only look for scapegoats to blame for the ongoing failure. Remain supporters included.

Logic and reason go by the board once emotions are stirred up sufficiently.

mr_goo

Robert88 wrote:

antonyfromoz wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just seen pictures of the march/protests on the front at Brighton where all the socialists (Labour) have gathered. Plenty of banners emblazoned with 'Trust the People - Peoples' vote'.
Wasn't that what happened in June 2016?.... And clearly resulted in the wrong outcome for the government and most on here.

I'm not trying to stir up here but merely want to point out that whatever 'the people' vote for it will be ignored. As clearly a few hundred people in Westminster view the wishes of millions as irrelevant.

But what did "the people" vote for? The guarantees given by the pollies and lobbyists pushing for leave are a far cry from the reality we are now facing - and many leading leave promoters were saying before the referendum that they would not support a no deal brexit and several publically supported a second referendum after a deal had been negotiated - including Farage and Rees Moggs. Before the referendum Vote Leave stated that Britain would exit the EU with “a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. If there is a belief that the majority voted to get out of the EU with no deal then what is the problem with a second vote, just to confirm that they still feel this way before it's too late? The expense will be minimal compared to the money already spent on trying to retain a tory majority government and the pre-election cash that the government has been promising to throw around recently.

The 'people' voted with their emotions.

Those seeking the Leave vote campaigned accordingly. Unfortunately they can only retain their leadership by continuing along that path because they had no idea how to actually fix things. They can only look for scapegoats to blame for the ongoing failure. Remain supporters included.

Logic and reason go by the board once emotions are stirred up sufficiently.

I didn't vote Brexit based on some whipped up emotional clap trap. Nor did any of the many people I have met. Not gonna keep taking over this.
What I trying to point out is that MPs genuinely believe they know better than the rest of the population, whatever the subject.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pross wrote:

It seems all deal options are off the table because of the Irish border issue but no deal will lead to an automatic hard border in Ireland anyway so if that's the main sticking point it makes no sense not accepting a deal that is better for us in other ways.

Norway model solves the problem

Thought it was said above it didn't (still needs a hard border on goods)?

Thats right, Norway is outside the customs union and there are checks for goods at the border with Sweden. Not sure how this solves the Irish issue.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44054594

Add in the customs union and you’re golden.

rjsterry

Mr Goo wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

antonyfromoz wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just seen pictures of the march/protests on the front at Brighton where all the socialists (Labour) have gathered. Plenty of banners emblazoned with 'Trust the People - Peoples' vote'.
Wasn't that what happened in June 2016?.... And clearly resulted in the wrong outcome for the government and most on here.

I'm not trying to stir up here but merely want to point out that whatever 'the people' vote for it will be ignored. As clearly a few hundred people in Westminster view the wishes of millions as irrelevant.

But what did "the people" vote for? The guarantees given by the pollies and lobbyists pushing for leave are a far cry from the reality we are now facing - and many leading leave promoters were saying before the referendum that they would not support a no deal brexit and several publically supported a second referendum after a deal had been negotiated - including Farage and Rees Moggs. Before the referendum Vote Leave stated that Britain would exit the EU with “a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. If there is a belief that the majority voted to get out of the EU with no deal then what is the problem with a second vote, just to confirm that they still feel this way before it's too late? The expense will be minimal compared to the money already spent on trying to retain a tory majority government and the pre-election cash that the government has been promising to throw around recently.

The 'people' voted with their emotions.

Those seeking the Leave vote campaigned accordingly. Unfortunately they can only retain their leadership by continuing along that path because they had no idea how to actually fix things. They can only look for scapegoats to blame for the ongoing failure. Remain supporters included.

Logic and reason go by the board once emotions are stirred up sufficiently.

I didn't vote Brexit based on some whipped up emotional clap trap. Nor did any of the many people I have met. Not gonna keep taking over this.
What I trying to point out is that MPs genuinely believe they know better than the rest of the population, whatever the subject.

Yes, that's how a representative democracy works. We elect them: they make decisions. If we don't like those decisions we have the opportunity to elect someone else in 5 years time.

rick_chasey

Mr Goo wrote:

I didn't vote Brexit based on some whipped up emotional clap trap. Nor did any of the many people I have met. Not gonna keep taking over this.
What I trying to point out is that MPs genuinely believe they know better than the rest of the population, whatever the subject.

remind me how representative democracy works.

rolf_f

PBlakeney wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I'm sure BJ would be grateful.

See above, although I ascribe a lower probability to the most likely outcome on that chart.

See above, an election is just another waste of time. Solves nothing.

It depends on the outcome and what you want solving.

As above, most likely result will be a coalition, and even more bickering. Brexit really needs solving.
I see two possible outcomes, endless delays with no solution, or hard Brexit/no deal.
Might as well get it over and done with as my preferred option is unlikely. DC has a lot to answer for.

It's worth pointing out that no deal really doesn't give you an over and done with solution here.

No, but it eliminates a few other alternatives.
Not what I want under any circumstance but we are in purgatory just now.

No Deal will still be purgatory and I suspect that, if it happens, we won't really feel like much has changed from now.

Mr Goo wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

antonyfromoz wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just seen pictures of the march/protests on the front at Brighton where all the socialists (Labour) have gathered. Plenty of banners emblazoned with 'Trust the People - Peoples' vote'.
Wasn't that what happened in June 2016?.... And clearly resulted in the wrong outcome for the government and most on here.

I'm not trying to stir up here but merely want to point out that whatever 'the people' vote for it will be ignored. As clearly a few hundred people in Westminster view the wishes of millions as irrelevant.

But what did "the people" vote for? The guarantees given by the pollies and lobbyists pushing for leave are a far cry from the reality we are now facing - and many leading leave promoters were saying before the referendum that they would not support a no deal brexit and several publically supported a second referendum after a deal had been negotiated - including Farage and Rees Moggs. Before the referendum Vote Leave stated that Britain would exit the EU with “a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. If there is a belief that the majority voted to get out of the EU with no deal then what is the problem with a second vote, just to confirm that they still feel this way before it's too late? The expense will be minimal compared to the money already spent on trying to retain a tory majority government and the pre-election cash that the government has been promising to throw around recently.

The 'people' voted with their emotions.

Those seeking the Leave vote campaigned accordingly. Unfortunately they can only retain their leadership by continuing along that path because they had no idea how to actually fix things. They can only look for scapegoats to blame for the ongoing failure. Remain supporters included.

Logic and reason go by the board once emotions are stirred up sufficiently.

I didn't vote Brexit based on some whipped up emotional clap trap. Nor did any of the many people I have met. Not gonna keep taking over this.
What I trying to point out is that MPs genuinely believe they know better than the rest of the population, whatever the subject.

MP's would be genuinely right then. They may not know much but, on average, they probably know a bit more than the sort of person that complains about bananas, "EU meddling" and "Taking back control".

What sort of clap trap did inspire you to vote Brexit if not the emotional variety?