- 28,535
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
If you want the summer off as well, then yeah maybe.
Brexit - The UK leaves the EU
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 6,863 comments
- 264,435 views
If you want the summer off as well, then yeah maybe.
Count yourself lucky, I only get the 25th and 26th off
- 28,414
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The fact that the EU don't want a No Deal outcome should mean that they will do whatever they can to avoid such an outcome - but it is also politically nigh on impossible that the UK parliament will opt for that route now anyway - the ECJ ruling paved the way for a reversal of the Brexit decision, and the EU will (when push comes to shove) facilitate that, probably by extending Article 50 (with no strings attached) to allow for a second referendum to happen. Assuming that this happens after the 'only possible deal' has been rejected, I would imagine that a second referendum would have to be a simple yes or no to the question 'Do you want the UK government to revoke Article 50 and remain inside the EU?'Ok, so because of the Grieve's Amendment if the deal is voted down by the MPs then the same MPs must come up with a decision on what happens next.
Let's then suppose the deal is indeed voted down. If you discard other consequences (final meltdown of the cabinet; PM's resignation; another Tory for PM or GE), the Brexit clock is still ticking and the current MPs need to meet to decide on what to do. What are the possible decisions?
a) No Deal Brexit - it won't be approved;
b) Revoking Article 50 by Parliament decision - With or without ensuing civil unrest they'd all - regardless - become "Enemies of the People", the stench of "treason" hovering over the politicians would never dissipate in the UK's collective psyche, and the word "traitor" wouldn't leave its political class' vocabulary from that point on (and for a long time).
c) Calling a new referendum on No Deal vs No Brexit (aka revoking Article 50 by the People's decision) - Same "treasonous" rhetoric would ensue, but with less ground to stand on. In any case, would need a plea to the EU for the current article 50 deadline to be postponed (check below)
d) Asking the EU (considering all this would happen with a General Election looming) for the current article 50 deadline to be postponed for a few months more (i.e. kicking the can … again) and hope the EU countries unanimously agree to it.
e) None of the above can be approved in Parliament - Quite possible considering the paralysis that seems to affect the UK's political institutions. The deadline is reached without a deal being signed. No Deal Brexit it is (what you cal the solution "by default").
I said before and I say it again Faced with options that are all harmful to them, politicians are professional can-kickers. And this applies to EU countries also, nobody wants the UK to leave the Common Market and Customs Union (think Portugal, where else will we sell all those Port Wine bottles you guys drink?), so I'm betting on solution d), with a General Election meanwhile, and maybe, with a Labour Government, the acceptance of the "rule-taker" status, meaning no borders for trade or for people from the EU (and vice versa).
You'll be worse off than with full membership, but the politicians will eventually find a way to explain that it's not really worse, just … different. And each time there's a meeting with someone from outside the EU they'll say that they're discussing the many oportunities Brexit allows for a UK opened to the world.
Considering my UK-based family and their interests, this is by far the best outcome I can think of.
The obvious risk with this, however, is that the answer is no. The original Leave/Remain arguments haven't actually changed a great deal - people would now know that an acceptable deal with the EU is not possible, but they will also know that this is never likely to change and that this is the only way the UK will ever be able to leave the EU. In that regard, the question may as well be 'Do you wish to be in the EU forever, and all that might entail?'. I reckon that this is far from the 'certain' option that many opponents of Brexit may wish it was. In that regard, the best way for the EU to avoid a disastrous No Deal outcome is not to bank on the UK choosing to reverse its decision, but to back down on the frankly unacceptable aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement and make the deal acceptable by the UK parliament/people - and that means a legally-binding commitment to agree a trade deal within a finite period of time such that the Backstop, if it ever comes into force, cannot be allowed to persist indefinitely. Anything short of that will never be accepted by any UK parliament.
Last edited:
- 16,431
- United Kingdom
So, genuinely.. if the government were to revoke article 50..
.. what are the consequences for the UK? By which, I mean for our "democracy"...
.. what are the consequences for the UK? By which, I mean for our "democracy"...
- 16,431
- United Kingdom
- 28,414
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Opponents of a second Brexit referendum are warning that allowing such a vote will embolden Scottish Nationalists to push for a second referendum on Scottish independence. But... others are warning that not allowing a second Brexit referendum (on the basis that the deal is terrible) would rule out the possibility of a third Scottish independence referendum that might overturn a possible second Scottish independence referendum that ends up as badly as Brexit 
I'm going to bed.
I'm going to bed.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Opponents of a second Brexit referendum are warning that allowing such a vote will embolden Scottish Nationalists to push for a second referendum on Scottish independence. But... others are warning that not allowing a second Brexit referendum (on the basis that the deal is terrible) would rule out the possibility of a third Scottish independence referendum that might overturn a possible second Scottish independence referendum that ends up as badly as Brexit
The whole bollocks is caused by the Brexit referendum being light on detail other than the simplistic "Leave" or "Remain" which has allowed every voter to adopt their own particular version of their vote as the Gold Standard. The Leave campaign used lies and propaganda (by their own admission to Parliament), the Remain campaign hardly sold the benefits of their cause to anybody... in all it was a car crash. Now we know what "Leave" actually looks like we should have the opportunity to make an informed decision. The result may well be Leave once again, of course. That's why, imo, it's right to take such an important question back to the country with the new benefit of actual known facts.
The problem is that if a Peoples Vote (obviously a re-spun Referendum) is held then every subsequent referendum is arguably subject to being re-run until the "right" decision is reached. The whole thing is such a mess that I'm going to bed too.
I also note that the Government isn't going to allow time for a vote of no confidence in the government. I see what they did there.
- 16,431
- United Kingdom
Maybe it's time we look at how we conduct referenda then.
Anyhow... not paid that much attention to them in the past, but man.. BBC comments section isn't much better than YouTube is it!
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 28,414
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Sadly I'm now resigned to the fact that the UK will not get a fair trade deal with the EU unless we opt for a No Deal Brexit. This is the biggest kicker of the lot as far as I'm concerned... that the Withdrawal Agreement absolutely guarantees that the future trade deal between the UK and the EU will be thoroughly skewed in the EU's favour and essentially kill what most people believe 'leaving the EU' really means, while we end up with no control over EU law at all and puts the UK in a permanently weakened position. The only good thing about No Deal is that it will pretty much free our hands when it comes to any and all future negotiations with the EU, though I don't expect there will be much goodwill on either side if a No Deal Brexit happens.
Much has been said of the fact that Brexit has been a shambles because the UK hasn't been clear about what it wants - I'm quite sympathetic to that point of view, but the counter point is that there will never be a state where any country is totally 'clear' about what it wants, and thus the EU should have/could have taken that into account before signing off on a terrible deal that the UK cannot and will not ever accept (and nor would any other EU member state for that matter). While the UK has blundered through the Brexit process, the EU has purposefully shafted it, and has (somewhat ironically) forced the hand of the UK into pursuing a No Deal outcome that (at the very least) keeps our options open, albeit likely at tremendous cost. But, as I have said before, and has been alluded to by others in this thread, the EU seem strangely ambivalent towards the definite cost to itself... at a time when they can least afford it.
The EU have certainly played hardball and they have won every battle - how ironic if it turns out they lose the war.
Much has been said of the fact that Brexit has been a shambles because the UK hasn't been clear about what it wants - I'm quite sympathetic to that point of view, but the counter point is that there will never be a state where any country is totally 'clear' about what it wants, and thus the EU should have/could have taken that into account before signing off on a terrible deal that the UK cannot and will not ever accept (and nor would any other EU member state for that matter). While the UK has blundered through the Brexit process, the EU has purposefully shafted it, and has (somewhat ironically) forced the hand of the UK into pursuing a No Deal outcome that (at the very least) keeps our options open, albeit likely at tremendous cost. But, as I have said before, and has been alluded to by others in this thread, the EU seem strangely ambivalent towards the definite cost to itself... at a time when they can least afford it.
The EU have certainly played hardball and they have won every battle - how ironic if it turns out they lose the war.
- 528
- United Kingdom
- PD_ApexPredator
There's no war. We're self-harming, they'd rather we didn't.
- 2,616
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Pardon the dumb question form an American here, but why should the EU be accommodating in any way? They want the UK to remain, right? I'm not sure how else they should be expected to act.
- 28,414
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
It's not a dumb question, but the answer is quite simple - the EU may want the UK to stay, but they should be acting in accordance with the fact that we are leaving. Yes, there are questions (in the UK) about the behaviour of the Leave campaign and the veracity of some of their arguments, but that should not concern the EU... we voted to leave and the EU should respect that decision.
After watching this debacle very closely for over two years, I don't believe that the EU are respectful of the UK's decision to leave in any way, and have gone out of their way to frustrate the process, blaming the UK government's 'indecision' at every opportunity, and have ultimately left the UK with a 'deal' that is far, far worse than staying in, yet leaves the EU with unprecedented legal power over what will be a non-member state. It is little wonder then that their 'deal' is likely to be thrown back in their faces (although, unbelievably, it is now looking a lot more likely to be accepted than it was last week...).
Would the EU have behaved differently if the Leave campaign was better behaved and/or the margin of victory far greater? I seriously doubt it. As I said above, I believe the UK have screwed up Brexit partly through utter incompetence, but partly because there is no clear plan for what leaving the EU should involve - but that was always going to be the case, no matter who may choose to leave the EU or why. But, far from making life a bit easier and being flexible, the EU have frustrated the process at nigh on every turn and left the UK with a stark choice between a 'deal' that will wreck the integrity of the UK, and crashing out with no deal whatsoever... both sides could have and should have done much better, but I can't help feeling that the EU's game plan all along has been exactly in line with what you have suggested above, and that is to see the UK stay in the EU. That is not respecting democracy, but deliberately subverting it.
After watching this debacle very closely for over two years, I don't believe that the EU are respectful of the UK's decision to leave in any way, and have gone out of their way to frustrate the process, blaming the UK government's 'indecision' at every opportunity, and have ultimately left the UK with a 'deal' that is far, far worse than staying in, yet leaves the EU with unprecedented legal power over what will be a non-member state. It is little wonder then that their 'deal' is likely to be thrown back in their faces (although, unbelievably, it is now looking a lot more likely to be accepted than it was last week...).
Would the EU have behaved differently if the Leave campaign was better behaved and/or the margin of victory far greater? I seriously doubt it. As I said above, I believe the UK have screwed up Brexit partly through utter incompetence, but partly because there is no clear plan for what leaving the EU should involve - but that was always going to be the case, no matter who may choose to leave the EU or why. But, far from making life a bit easier and being flexible, the EU have frustrated the process at nigh on every turn and left the UK with a stark choice between a 'deal' that will wreck the integrity of the UK, and crashing out with no deal whatsoever... both sides could have and should have done much better, but I can't help feeling that the EU's game plan all along has been exactly in line with what you have suggested above, and that is to see the UK stay in the EU. That is not respecting democracy, but deliberately subverting it.
- 7,113
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
@Touring Mars Fully respecting your opinion, can't agree with you on this.
This end result can be atributed to many factors, but none of them regards the EU's will to wreck Brexit. Not that the EU wouldn't like the UK to reverse its decision, but in all honesty, when looked from the outside, the UK always seemed positively deluded in every step of this sorry process.
This piece from 2016 is a good example (but there are many more out there, from other less evident clueless buffoons, but clueless buffoons nonetheless). It reminds us all the kind of nonsense being spouted by none other than the … UK's Foreign Office Minister, and also what other EU countries' Ministers (not faceless bureacrats from the evil Brussels city, mind you) were saying all along: the same being said everywhere, and relentlessly for two years now, with nobody in the UK (political class) apparently paying attention.
Boris Johnson: Italy will keep UK in single market because of prosecco
And what's happening now, two years later, as we keep typing away in this forum? Well, there is a deal that the EU and the UK's Government have reached. Surprise, surprise, the UK Parliament doesn't seem likely to aprove it (must be EU fault, surely). So, in the typically disfunctional way of British politics, what happened?
a) After being debated ... the deal wasn't voted.
b) Therefore, with 3 months to go, the UK's Parliament will go on Christmas Holidays having neither approved nor rejected the Government's deal.
c) The vote that will decide if the UK's Parliament accepts the UK's Government deal is now scheduled for 2 months before Brexit-Day.
b) The "Ruling Party Rebel MPs Pro-Brexit" (RPRMPPB) say they will vote against the deal, while at the same time saying the PM has regained their full confidence! "Please, PLEASE, don't quit your job Mrs. May, we don't want it" is their motto ...
d) The "Ruling Party Rebel MPs Against -Brexit (RPRMPAB) also say they'll vote against the deal, and they're pushing for a Second Referendum. Alas, they don't have the numbers to achieve anything relevant. Or DO THEY? Apparently so, because in one of those unexplainable moments of this intriguing novel, they managed to obtain the approval of the so-called DOMINIC GRIEVE'S AMENDMENT - And this means that, if the vote in January fails … stay tuned, chaos will be unleashed and last at least 21 days more!
e) Meanwhile, the "Oposition Party Ruled By a Closet Brexiteer" (OPRBCB) is playing Nero and letting Rome (i.e. the Tory Party, but also the increasingly frozen UK's economy ) burn away, in the hope that: (i) without doing anything relevant or risky, they'll walk a General Election to be held sometime in 2019; (ii) No deal Brexit will happen, and it won't be their fault; OR (iii) the EU gives them a lifeline, delays Brexit Day long enough for them to become a Labour Government, and gives them a "rule taker" Norway style deal in a "put up or shut up" kind of flash negotiation.
Of course it can all go horribly wrong. In many more ways than one.
But to blame this on the EU is not reasonable.
Disclaimer: once again, I have to say that I mean no offense to all the British posters here, but I have a vested interest in this debacle, first because I am an european from a country with close and significant commercial ties to the UK, and Brexit is an european issue, not a UK-only one; secondly, because I have family living and working in the UK.
This end result can be atributed to many factors, but none of them regards the EU's will to wreck Brexit. Not that the EU wouldn't like the UK to reverse its decision, but in all honesty, when looked from the outside, the UK always seemed positively deluded in every step of this sorry process.
This piece from 2016 is a good example (but there are many more out there, from other less evident clueless buffoons, but clueless buffoons nonetheless). It reminds us all the kind of nonsense being spouted by none other than the … UK's Foreign Office Minister, and also what other EU countries' Ministers (not faceless bureacrats from the evil Brussels city, mind you) were saying all along: the same being said everywhere, and relentlessly for two years now, with nobody in the UK (political class) apparently paying attention.
Boris Johnson: Italy will keep UK in single market because of prosecco
And what's happening now, two years later, as we keep typing away in this forum? Well, there is a deal that the EU and the UK's Government have reached. Surprise, surprise, the UK Parliament doesn't seem likely to aprove it (must be EU fault, surely). So, in the typically disfunctional way of British politics, what happened?
a) After being debated ... the deal wasn't voted.
b) Therefore, with 3 months to go, the UK's Parliament will go on Christmas Holidays having neither approved nor rejected the Government's deal.
c) The vote that will decide if the UK's Parliament accepts the UK's Government deal is now scheduled for 2 months before Brexit-Day.
b) The "Ruling Party Rebel MPs Pro-Brexit" (RPRMPPB) say they will vote against the deal, while at the same time saying the PM has regained their full confidence! "Please, PLEASE, don't quit your job Mrs. May, we don't want it" is their motto ...
d) The "Ruling Party Rebel MPs Against -Brexit (RPRMPAB) also say they'll vote against the deal, and they're pushing for a Second Referendum. Alas, they don't have the numbers to achieve anything relevant. Or DO THEY? Apparently so, because in one of those unexplainable moments of this intriguing novel, they managed to obtain the approval of the so-called DOMINIC GRIEVE'S AMENDMENT - And this means that, if the vote in January fails … stay tuned, chaos will be unleashed and last at least 21 days more!
e) Meanwhile, the "Oposition Party Ruled By a Closet Brexiteer" (OPRBCB) is playing Nero and letting Rome (i.e. the Tory Party, but also the increasingly frozen UK's economy ) burn away, in the hope that: (i) without doing anything relevant or risky, they'll walk a General Election to be held sometime in 2019; (ii) No deal Brexit will happen, and it won't be their fault; OR (iii) the EU gives them a lifeline, delays Brexit Day long enough for them to become a Labour Government, and gives them a "rule taker" Norway style deal in a "put up or shut up" kind of flash negotiation.
Of course it can all go horribly wrong. In many more ways than one.
But to blame this on the EU is not reasonable.
Disclaimer: once again, I have to say that I mean no offense to all the British posters here, but I have a vested interest in this debacle, first because I am an european from a country with close and significant commercial ties to the UK, and Brexit is an european issue, not a UK-only one; secondly, because I have family living and working in the UK.
- 140
- Melbourne, Australia
And why should we?
WE voted to leave the EU. We can complain about their supposed bullying tactics and their refusal to budge, but the fact is, they're protecting the best interests of their group, and we had (and still have) the opportunity to be part of that group.
They owe us nothing and it's our own fault that we are in this mess. This notion that there was a possible 'good' Brexit was a complete fantasy, and the easy way for Brexiteers to absolve themselves of blame is once again to blame the EU. But the UK is wrecking Brexit, not the EU.
If we end up leaving with a no deal Brexit, the exact same will happen again. Our country will suffer, the Brexiteers will be proven wrong yet again, and again they will divert the attention and no doubt blame immigrants and and the liberals and this endless cycle will continue.
In a way I don't blame the British public, we were sold a vision (which I actually bought into) which was completely and utterly impossible and it was presented as fact. The average person is not very clued up with regards to politics, and when they're promised a more fruitful country with less of those dangerous foreigners (as they're taught) via the lying media which is rarely held accountable and mainly controlled by one group of people, the public didn't stand a bloody chance.
- 16,431
- United Kingdom
I'm not sure it would have changed the EU's position merely by being better behaved, but I think had the Leave campaign and vote been better supported by the electorate, and championed by a government that was better supported by the electorate, we'd have gone into it better prepared, and in a stronger position. The referendum itself was shaky enough but the moment the results of the snap GE came in it was as obvious as it could be that the EU were dealing amateurs with no real power.
I suspect the people that voted to instigate this shambles will mostly put the blame for this shambles on the people that voted against instigating this shambles.
- 140
- Melbourne, Australia
And this is exactly it, it pretty much summarises the situation. We've spent 2 years negotiating, but not actually knowing what we were negotiating for. What did we want from those negotiations? We have absolutely no idea - for all of their faults at least Labour identified exactly what they would be going for with regard to negotiations (access to the single market, etc). Instead we went in, led by a remain politician who suddenly 'saw the light' and changed her mind when the opportunity to become Prime Minister arose, backed up by a bunch of absolute clowns who had no idea what they were doing - as we can see from many of the quotes since.
And why did we have no idea what we wanted from negotiations? Because the referendum was inherently flawed from the beginning. We have 52% who 'won' but all want different things, so when people say they're delivering the result of the referendum and the 'will of the people' it's nonsense. Whatever they deliver, it is going to satisfy only a proportion of that 52% and therefore is not delivering the 'will of the people' in any way whatsoever.
I'm not a huge fan of a second referendum but if I'm honest, it seems like the least bad of all the options out there right now. Something along the lines of Remain/Brexit Deal/Brexit No Deal, etc.
- 6,838
- Europe
- GTP_Slim
- PzR Slim
'We' voted for brexit. 'We' should own it. Trying to blame anybody but the lieing, cheating, criminal brexiteers is nonsense. The government have done an appalling job of trying to get the best out of a terrible situation and the opposition are an absolute joke. 'We' were sold a lie from the very beginning and many, many people lapped it up even though many people had realised the absolute shoot show brexit would be from the start. This whole debacle is of our own making and is a stain on the rich history of this country. We have bowed to the want's of the little Englander who thinks we should still have an empire and rule the waves. Having spent a great deal of my life working and living all over the world with people from all nations I get more and more embarrassed to call myself British everyday.
- 28,414
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The key word here is 'impossible' - the fact is that a good deal with the EU (from a UK point of view) was possible, however it was undoubtedly over-sold by the Leave campaign as being much more likely than it has turned out to be...
.. but, the biggest irony of all is that No Deal will actually put the UK in a far stronger negotiating position with the EU that could actually deliver the kind of future relationship that Brexiteers have been calling for all along. Unfortunately, much of the problem with the current 'deal' lies with the way that the Article 50 process itself has been determined by the EU (to its obvious advantage), such that the UK is left with a legally binding 'Withdrawal Agreement' (that legally guarantees nothing in terms of a future trade deal other than the threat of a permanent annexation of Northern Ireland), and a non-legally binding 'Political Declaration' that is so vague as to be effectively meaningless. The net result of the 'deal' is that the Withdrawal Agreement legally ties our hands before the trade deal negotiations have even started and, despite political reassurances, there is not only no guarantee that the hated Backstop will not become permanent, but avoiding it becoming permanent is legally contingent upon the UK agreeing to whatever the EU decide our future trade relationship should be.
- 140
- Melbourne, Australia
But this is where we fundamentally disagree (respectfully of course 👍). I don't think a good deal for the UK was possible. What does a 'good deal' even look like? What's a good deal for 25% of Brexiteers is a bad deal for another 25% of them. Not only does that make negotiations impossible from the beginning, it ultimately makes the referendum result completely undemocratic because it's actually not feasible to deliver anything which the majority would agree on. So when the likes of Farage are saying 'we voted to leave everything' they're talking complete and utter bollocks.
After years of saying that we could be like Switzerland and Norway and prosper under similar situations, those same people are now saying we don't want those deals and 'leave means leave'. They change their mind like the wind. If they can't agree on what a 'good deal' is, how on earth is an entire country?
