Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

Deal or No Deal?

  • Voted Leave - May's Deal

  • Voted Leave - No Deal

  • Voted Leave - Second Referendum

  • Did not vote/abstained - May's Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - No Deal

  • Did not vote/abstained - Second Referendum

  • Voted Remain - May's Deal

  • Voted Remain - No Deal

  • Voted Remain - Second Referendum

Results are only viewable after voting.
**** me! This has to be the biggest dogs breakfast in the history of "democracy".
I don't see any alternative to a second referendum. Yes multiple referenda are questionable - we've had them in Canada over Quebec separation - but given that referenda are not a part of the British tradition in the first place ... what the hell?

The vote should be based on a "hard Brexit" or "no Brexit" rather than some fictional, advantageous Brexit "deal" that ain't gonna happen.
 
Biggles
**** me! This has to be the biggest dogs breakfast in the history of "democracy".
Click to expand...
It's a Dog's Brexit... and spare a thought for my mate Malcolm - he told us he's having a big party for his 50th birthday 'the day after Brexit'... so now we have no idea when the party will be.

-

There may well be a last twist next week if Theresa May can, finally, get enough support for her deal - but I'm not holding my breath.

That said, the main obstacle to the deal, the Eurosceptics and Hard Brexiteers in the Conservative Party, are doubtless now starting to realise that they have been defeated, and now face the prospect of an outcome that is the polar opposite to what they desire - far from 'taking back control', the UK could well face a situation where it becomes a rule-taker for the first time in our history.

This is the real reason why the deal is so fraught with difficulty - a large swathe of MPs are (rightly) worried that the deal as it stands will leave the UK as a rule-taker for an indefinite period of time (via the 'Transition Period' and subsequent 'Backstop') - but now, to their absolute horror, they are realising that not voting for the deal could also leave the UK as a rule-taker (Soft Brexit) permanently.

The danger of backing the UK into a corner cannot be overstated.
 
baldgye
...backing itself into a corner by attacking all its allies
Click to expand...

Dad's Army EU.jpg
 
TenEightyOne
We have been in that position before, in varying parts...
Click to expand...
True, I should have said 'modern history' - however, the risks are extremely high for both sides.

BRINO (Brexit in name only) looks increasingly likely and sounds like the perfect outcome for the EU - a total victory in terms of achieving their desired aims. But... it is an untenable situation, and therefore I reckon it is a very dangerous way forward.

The UK has always been a bit more Eurosceptic than other EU member states, but the EU itself is on the verge of drastic change that will inevitably test the appetite for full integration in all member states. This is perhaps the main driver of Euroscepticism, and in the UK's case it is what helped to bring about the referendum in the first place.

But imagine what will happen to Euroscepticism in the UK if all that the Brexit referendum really achieves is for the UK to simply lose its voting rights within the EU. The cost to the UK has already been quite big, but the UK could stand to lose massively (and, worse still, with no power to mitigate those losses) - not to mention the massive price tag of £39 billion for the pleasure of gaining absolutely nothing.

There would, sooner or later, be outrage, political and civil - it's an outcome that really must be avoided at all costs.

Of course, revoking Article 50 would prevent this - and I'd certainly support that ahead of BRINO any day of the week (and I imagine most Remain voters would too). But... staying in the EU also has down sides, not least that it will also cause outrage and has great potential for political upheaval in the UK and in the European Parliament. It will not be pretty. Cancelling Brexit is, sadly, not the silver bullet some people might wish it was.
 
Touring Mars
a total victory in terms of achieving their desired aims.
Click to expand...
This isn't correct. The EU have begged and pleaded with the UK to cancel this whole ridiculous affair. They have (from the outset) made their terms clear and made it clear that they want the UK to stay within the EU. It's a Union.

Touring Mars
This is perhaps the main driver of Euroscepticism, and in the UK's case it is what helped to bring about the referendum in the first place.
Click to expand...
I also don't agree this is the case at all. The drive for Eurosceptism has been ongoing for the past 30 years, almost since we joined. The EU has been the scapegoat for a myriad of things over the years. It's only thanks to the recent rise in power of right-wing extremism (due to the conflict in Syria and the rush of asylum seekers) and Russian backing that has pushed into the mainstream.
If you look at Leave's campaign (across the main leave parties) it isn't based on truthful issues to do with the EU, factual criticism of how it's run, its based on every single Turkish person migrating to the UK, on the incorrect and baseless idea of Turkey joining the EU within a matter of months and racism. Or the droves of migrants from within the EU taking our jobs, using our NHS and generally ruining this country... and of course the fact we waste £350m a week on the EU when that money could go to the NHS...

I don't think it's accurate to say that the main drive of Eurosceptism was valid criticisms of the EU's function.
 
baldgye
This isn't correct. The EU have begged and pleaded with the UK to cancel this whole ridiculous affair.
Click to expand...
Not officially...

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/brexit/

But even if they had, it wouldn't detract from my point which is that BRINO is even better for the EU than revoking Article 50.

With BRINO, the EU lose absolutely nothing and the UK gains nothing, but lose our voting rights within the EU.

baldgye
I also don't agree this is the case at all. The drive for Eurosceptism has been ongoing for the past 30 years, almost since we joined. The EU has been the scapegoat for a myriad of things over the years. It's only thanks to the recent rise in power of right-wing extremism (due to the conflict in Syria and the rush of asylum seekers) and Russian backing that has pushed into the mainstream.
If you look at Leave's campaign (across the main leave parties) it isn't based on truthful issues to do with the EU, factual criticism of how it's run, its based on every single Turkish person migrating to the UK, on the incorrect and baseless idea of Turkey joining the EU within a matter of months. Or the droves of migrants from within the EU taking our jobs, using our NHS and generally ruining this country... and of course the fact we waste £350m a week on the EU when that money could go to the NHS...

I don't think it's accurate to say that the main drive of Eurosceptism was valid criticisms of the EU's function.
Click to expand...
It's a matter of opinion, but again it is kind of irrelevant.

My point is that Euroscepticism in the UK is already high, but this is not likely to improve if BRINO occurs - infact, it will likely make it considerably worse.
 
Touring Mars
Not officially...

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/brexit/

But even if they had, it wouldn't detract from my point which is that BRINO is even better for the EU than revoking Article 50.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but this isn't what the EU have wanted, 'BRINO' is the logical outcome of our approach to these 'negotiations'. Our politicians (officially) where under the impression the EU would simply give us everything we wanted and leave how we liked, but that's not how deals are made. I can't approach my boss and say I want a pay-rise, a new company car and a cash bonus because otherwise I'll quit and become homeless.

Touring Mars
It's a matter of opinion, but again it is kind of irrelevant.
My point is that Euroscepticism in the UK is already high, but this is not likely to improve if BRINO occurs - infact, it will likely make it considerably worse.
Click to expand...
It is relevant though.
The reasoning for the sudden rise of extreme right-wing politics throughout the western world in the last 10 years or so is very relevant. While I agree that simply extending the deal won't improve things, I don't think it'll make matters worse. From my anecdotal experiences the general opinion is that the EU have laid out their terms and our politicians can't agree to anything. The Euroscepticism is fading into the background against anger and dismay at our own political process.




Also, 'BRINO' is by far the worse abbreviation since Brexit, and Brexit was already pretty terrible :lol:
 
BRINO would only happen if that’s what the UK decides that they want. The default state is to leave without a deal, any other path requires an active choice by London. I’m sure people could still find a way to blame Brussels for it though.

I also don’t think the EU is interested in BRINO, because it’s not a stable configuration of the union.
 
Touring Mars
The Speaker has blocked the UK Government from holding another vote on Theresa May's Brexit deal until it has been significantly changed.

So that's Theresa May's plan stuffed then. :lol:
Click to expand...

The technicality is in the same session. The Solicitor General believes that parliament will close for a day and open a new session.
 
TenEightyOne
The technicality is in the same session. The Solicitor General believes that parliament will close for a day and open a new session.
Click to expand...
That would probably cause uproar, and at the very least would involve getting Liz out of her bed, which probably won't go down too well either.

It is, fortunately, something of a moot point anyway though - since, unless the deal is changed, it won't get voted through anyway.
 
Well tbh someone needed to do it. You can't just keep bringing the same thing over and over hoping that eventually people will say yes to shut you up.
 
Lizard
Well tbh someone needed to do it. You can't just keep bringing the same thing over and over hoping that eventually people will say yes to shut you up.
Click to expand...
The second one was different to the first one - with the "legally binding assurances" May got from Strasbourg the night before that were never actually elaborated on.

The third one seems to be - or be going to have been - exactly that same as the second one. She can't unilaterally change anything in it, as it's an agreement between the UK and the EU. To change it, she needs to speak to the EU and negotiate changes.

What has changed is the alternative options. The parliamentary votes last week ruled out a second referendum and also not to accept a no-deal under any circumstances (there were two votes; one on a March 29 no deal, and one on no deal at any time). It voted to extend A50, but it's not up to parliament, it's up to the EU27.

If there is no vote on May's deal, the EU27 is unlikely to accept an extension - it's the EU's contention that an extension would only be granted if there is a clear reason for doing so. Without an extension, the UK leaves on March 29, and if May's deal hasn't been accepted that's a no-deal Brexit - which parliament voted twice not to accept...

Bercow has, in essence, guaranteed a no-deal Brexit against the wishes of parliament - unless it can find a technical or procedural workaround.
 
Famine
The second one was different to the first one - with the "legally binding assurances" May got from Strasbourg the night before that were never actually elaborated on.

The third one seems to be - or be going to have been - exactly that same as the second one. She can't unilaterally change anything in it, as it's an agreement between the UK and the EU. To change it, she needs to speak to the EU and negotiate changes.

What has changed is the alternative options. The parliamentary votes last week ruled out a second referendum and also not to accept a no-deal under any circumstances (there were two votes; one on a March 29 no deal, and one on no deal at any time). It voted to extend A50, but it's not up to parliament, it's up to the EU27.

If there is no vote on May's deal, the EU27 is unlikely to accept an extension - it's the EU's contention that an extension would only be granted if there is a clear reason for doing so. Without an extension, the UK leaves on March 29, and if May's deal hasn't been accepted that's a no-deal Brexit - which parliament voted twice not to accept...

Bercow has, in essence, guaranteed a no-deal Brexit against the wishes of parliament - unless it can find a technical or procedural workaround.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Although the number of people on TV that think no deal is off the table shows how delusional people are getting.

They do have the power to retract Article 50. If the EU doesn't grant a time extension it doesn't inevitably lead to hard brexit.

You just have to get a bunch of people who are elected by public vote to vote for something that goes directly against what the majority of the public voted for.....
 
Tired Tyres
Not quite. Although the number of people on TV that think no deal is off the table shows how delusional people are getting.

They do have the power to retract Article 50. If the EU doesn't grant a time extension it doesn't inevitably lead to hard brexit.

You just have to get a bunch of people who are elected by public vote to vote for something that goes directly against what the majority of the public voted for.....
Click to expand...
And given that, I still think no-Brexit is more likely than hard-Brexit. Not due to the votes, but because hard-Brexit would be so bad, even for the politicians.

And the side benefit of no-Brexit is they can still spin it to blame the eu, thus keeping the EU as a political scapegoat
 
Famine
Bercow has, in essence, guaranteed a no-deal Brexit against the wishes of parliament - unless it can find a technical or procedural workaround.
Click to expand...

In fairness it's our constitution that's done that. Despite the Tory spin that Bercow has somehow acted irrationally it would actually have been the re-presentation of an identical vote that would have been irrational. It would have set a constitutional precedent by overturning a 400 year old convention. Bercow may be a Tory and, by all accounts, a bit of a git behind closed doors but I believe he genuinely acts in the interest of the House's long standing. Allowing a precedent where votes are allowed on the same question n times would patently be ridiculous and he hasn't allowed it. There's a smart People's Vote comment to be had in that idea, of course, and that's where the front bench should be making hay right now.
 
Famine
If there is no vote on May's deal, the EU27 is unlikely to accept an extension - it's the EU's contention that an extension would only be granted if there is a clear reason for doing so. Without an extension, the UK leaves on March 29, and if May's deal hasn't been accepted that's a no-deal Brexit - which parliament voted twice not to accept...
Click to expand...
I don't believe that the EU has the guts for a No Deal Brexit - I reckon they will provisionally accept May's extension on the proviso that her deal is voted through next week, and then that third meaningful vote will be substantially different insomuch as the motion itself will be a straight choice between May's deal (plus a technical extension of A50) or No Deal.*

Ironically, these two options are the only ones that deliver any form of certainty, yet both are still plagued with unknowns. May's deal will plunge the UK into years of more (and much more difficult, if that is believable) negotiations that could yet result in BRINO or Soft Brexit, and also leave the UK at risk of permanent rule-taker status under the dreaded backstop. No Deal, on the other hand, will be a rollercoaster ride.


* Even the provisional offer of an extension could allow May to resubmit her deal for another vote, as the extension itself 'changes' the deal, so it might not even need to be framed in a motion as approving No Deal... but it would be impossible to avoid No Deal if the deal plus a provisional extension was rejected by Parliament.
 
Last edited:
Tired Tyres
No can read. Can you post a summary?
Click to expand...

FT
The leaders of four pro-EU political parties have criticised Jeremy Corbyn’s insistence on seeking a softer Brexit deal as they held their first ever formal meeting in Parliament. Mr Corbyn has blown hot and cold on the idea of a second referendum, in contrast to the SNP, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and Greens — who are seeking to overturn Brexit altogether.

During their meeting in the Commons, Mr Corbyn discussed the idea that Theresa May’s deal should be put to a public vote if she cannot push it through Parliament. But in a statement afterwards, Labour said: “Should there not be a majority in Parliament for May’s deal or a public vote, Corbyn called on the other parties to engage constructively to find a parliamentary majority for a close economic relationship with the EU.”

That prompted a frosty reply from the other leaders, who urged Labour to back a second referendum before the “window of opportunity” closes.
Click to expand...
 
Tired Tyres
that goes directly against what the majority of the public people that voted on the day voted for.
Click to expand...

I know it's semantics, but FTFY*

* 37% of the electorate, 28% of the 'public', and 50% of the Kingdoms Nations ... and since I'm doing stats; According to the GE2017 results, only 50.8% of constituencies are represented by MP's that the majority of voters actually voted for, edit: 55.8% average electorate support for MP's.. Theresa May fronts a party that only 29% of the electorate (21% of the population) voted for, enacting the results of a referendum called by a party that only 24% of the electorate (or 17% of the population) voted for....
 
Last edited:
MatskiMonk
I know it's semantics, but FTFY*

* 37% of the electorate, 28% of the 'public', and 50% of the Kingdoms Nations ... and since I'm doing stats; According to the GE2017 results, only 50.8% of constituencies are represented by MP's that the majority of voters actually voted for, edit: 55.8% average electorate support for MP's.. Theresa May fronts a party that only 29% of the electorate (21% of the population) voted for, enacting the results of a referendum called by a party that only 24% of the electorate (or 17% of the population) voted for....
Click to expand...
You realise your posting what I posted at the time of the result two and a bit years ago?

I posted that 52% over 48% is hardly grounds for making such a dramatic change to the nature of our country and that if you take the people who didn't vote the vote to leave becomes 37% which makes it even more unfair. It was pointed out to me at the time that several governments had won with that kind of number.
 
Tired Tyres
You realise your posting what I posted at the time of the result two and a bit years ago?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. As a matter of protocol when quoting a user, I go back over at least 3 years of their posts, and cross-check anything I might be referencing against their earlier statements - I mean, it's just the obvious thing to do - doesn't everyone do that?

I am of course, also being sarcastic.

So, out of curiosity, why would you post that it was the majority of the people, if you know it was not the majority that voted for it?
 
MatskiMonk
Yes, of course. As a matter of protocol when quoting a user, I go back over at least 3 years of their posts, and cross-check anything I might be referencing against their earlier statements - I mean, it's just the obvious thing to do - doesn't everyone do that?

I am of course, also being sarcastic.

So, out of curiosity, why would you post that it was the majority of the people, if you know it was not the majority that voted for it?
Click to expand...
Possibly semantics. :lol:
 

Latest Posts

Back