O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

[animallittle3]

I get the point about future governments and what they might do. But I (and presumably the country) are not really thinking about future governments. We're thinking about your government and what the possibilities are in the future trade negotiations.

So, narrowing it down somewhat - in plain English - if May succeeds next week (made more likely by the Grieve amendment if the hard Brexiters swallow the 'No Brexit' government line of the week, but that's another issue!) and proceeds into the future trade negotiations, then if the EU play hardball on an issue of concern to them - along the lines Macron suggests, although if we start trying to negotiate towards comprehensive tariff free trade, they may hardball over other issues too, can the Hard Brexiters on this board, and in this country, rest assured that May will not back down and bargain off your crown jewels of FoM, ECJ etc despite your assurances that May has bagged these for us?

These are not antagonistic questions - if I'm confused that you seem to be saying one thing and three questers of our MPs are saying something else, then I'm sure others on here are as thick as I am...

Two things seem pretty clear to me , the EU won't renegotiate on the deal and May won't get it through parliament .

What happens next is anyone's guess , the divisions in the Labour Party are far more widespread than the media have picked up on .

Starmer is driving towards another referendum , Corbyn is onboard but hardly enthusiastic , McCluskey's met with a good number of Labour MP's tonight and warned them of the consequences of another referendum and that it will be viewed as betrayal in the labour brexit heartlands , like him or loathe him but he carries some clout .

Whatever options are on the table following May's defeat next week they are all going to struggle to attain enough votes to see those options put in to practice it would appear .

Nothing at this stage or the weeks ahead as we head towards March 29 looks capable of breaking the deadlock .

If something had jumped off the page and attracted value from the EU and parliament collectively than you'd think we'd have heard of it by now and two years down the line .

Where this ship sails after next week is anyone's guess mate , totally unprecedented situation .

[ragingpup]

Two things seem pretty clear to me , the EU won't renegotiate on the deal and May won't get it through parliament .

What happens next is anyone's guess , the divisions in the Labour Party are far more widespread than the media have picked up on .

Starmer is driving towards another referendum , Corbyn is onboard but hardly enthusiastic , McCluskey's met with a good number of Labour MP's tonight and warned them of the consequences of another referendum and that it will be viewed as betrayal in the labour brexit heartlands , like him or loathe him but he carries some clout .

Whatever options are on the table following May's defeat next week they are all going to struggle to attain enough votes to see those options put in to practice it would appear .

Nothing at this stage or the weeks ahead as we head towards March 29 looks capable of breaking the deadlock .

If something had jumped off the page and attracted value from the EU and parliament collectively than you'd think we'd have heard of it by now and two years down the line .

Where this ship sails after next week is anyone's guess mate , totally unprecedented situation .

What makes you so certain that the EU won't re-negotiate further if May's deal is voted down? I don't think that they would negotiate further towards a harder Brexit (although many on the Mogg side are convinced that they have been told in person by the EU that Canada +x billion is still on the table) but it would I think be in their interests to negotiate further towards us prioritising future r=trade angle towards us remaining more single market aligned.

You're right, it's very open how it will play out but my guess is that the deal will be voted down, but with a smaller margin than anticipated due to the Grieve amendment and May will stay but go back to the EU wish amendment requests more in alignment with the single market/CU access, but with some concessions that will not please harder Brexiters in the UK. I'm happier with that personally as my priority is friction less trade and travel, but I know that many won't be. Whether that will come to pass, who knows. Strange days, but fascinating.

[KerrAvon]

I get the point about future governments and what they might do. But I (and presumably the country) are not really thinking about future governments. We're thinking about your government and what the possibilities are in the future trade negotiations.

So, narrowing it down somewhat - in plain English - if May succeeds next week (made more likely by the Grieve amendment if the hard Brexiters swallow the 'No Brexit' government line of the week, but that's another issue!) and proceeds into the future trade negotiations, then if the EU play hardball on an issue of concern to them - along the lines Macron suggests, although if we start trying to negotiate towards comprehensive tariff free trade, they may hardball over other issues too, can the Hard Brexiters on this board, and in this country, rest assured that May will not back down and bargain off your crown jewels of FoM, ECJ etc despite your assurances that May has bagged these for us?

These are not antagonistic questions - if I'm confused that you seem to be saying one thing and three questers of our MPs are saying something else, then I'm sure others on here are as thick as I am...

It's our government. That's another reality that has to be accepted whether people like it not.

The future trading arrangement will be as free as it is possible to get within the reality created by us no longer being a member of the EU. Both the EU and UK want that, because it's in both our interests.

I think Macron has said that he is going to play hardball over fishing (which was specifically excluded from the withdrawal agreement as being a matter for the UK alone to determine). There are good reasons to do a deal on that - our trawlermen sell the majority of their catch within the EU - much of it to France - and the industry would be damaged by EU imposed tarrifs, whilst the French fleet catches much of their fish in UK waters and would be damaged by total exclusion. It's not hard to see the basis for a deal there. Beyond that, what cards do you think Macron has to play?

You aren't thick, but you are looking at this from a party political perspective, which is what three quarters of MPs are doing. There are also a lot of personal agendas at play from hard brexiteers and remainers. As for MPs not being thick, I know a number of current and former MPs from my work and could give the names of both Tory and Labour examples who I would not trust to sit the right way round on the toilet without instructions.

[Shark27]

During the referendum everyone who I spoke to who was voting leave assumed it would be tough but would be willing to take the rough to be out of the EU. On this very board people said they were voting for the future and expected tough times.

The remainers are now telling everyone what the leavers were thinking at the time and that they were expecting a free trade deal straight away.

Our politicians have done their best to try and stop brexit.

Let the deals get rejected and let's go down the No deal route. We voted out of the EU, that means we should start by not having a deal and working on one from there.

During the referendum everyone was banging on about how it took Canada 20 years to get a deal. So we did know that it wouldn't be done over a matter of months. I was aware of that when I voted.

[great_fire]

It takes forever for the EU to do any deals because there are so many countries.

The fact that all of the EU have so easily got behind this deal is highly suspicious in light of that fact and suggest that it is a deal highly beneficial to them but not to us.

The likelihood is that this is what May and Robbins actually wanted, it's a deal from two Remainers on behalf of the EU and yet for some reason this is not seen as treason.

[animallittle3]

What makes you so certain that the EU won't re-negotiate further if May's deal is voted down? I don't think that they would negotiate further towards a harder Brexit (although many on the Mogg side are convinced that they have been told in person by the EU that Canada +x billion is still on the table) but it would I think be in their interests to negotiate further towards us prioritising future r=trade angle towards us remaining more single market aligned.

You're right, it's very open how it will play out but my guess is that the deal will be voted down, but with a smaller margin than anticipated due to the Grieve amendment and May will stay but go back to the EU wish amendment requests more in alignment with the single market/CU access, but with some concessions that will not please harder Brexiters in the UK. I'm happier with that personally as my priority is friction less trade and travel, but I know that many won't be. Whether that will come to pass, who knows. Strange days, but fascinating.

I just don't believe a softer brexit would be politically welcome mate , once you start to factor in single market then the four freedoms have to be accepted too , that's political dynamite .

[ragingpup]

I just don't believe a softer brexit would be politically welcome mate , once you start to factor in single market then the four freedoms have to be accepted too , that's political dynamite .

Yep, I totally get why it wouldn't be welcome by many of the 52% but what I was asking is why you think the EU wouldn't welcome it? If May's deal doesn't go through then we either walk away with no deal (which I think has the least mandate from both MPs and the country at large) or go back with an amended deal, if the EU will be willing to negotiate. The question is (for me anyway) what kind of deal can we do that has a chance of getting through the commons? Some are still pushing for Canada +++ but that would still leave the backstop issue. The other is to what extent can a single market focused deal be put through whilst making concessions on the 4 freedoms? I'd have totally agreed with you that this is not possible but Kerr has convinced me that the EU have accepted great suffering (for some mysterious reason?!) for this current deal, so why not try negotiating along those lines to get a deal that would solve the backstop issue and actually get through parliament? I can't see any other way forward at the moment.

[ragingpup]

It's our government. That's another reality that has to be accepted whether people like it not.

The future trading arrangement will be as free as it is possible to get within the reality created by us no longer being a member of the EU. Both the EU and UK want that, because it's in both our interests.

I think Macron has said that he is going to play hardball over fishing (which was specifically excluded from the withdrawal agreement as being a matter for the UK alone to determine). There are good reasons to do a deal on that - our trawlermen sell the majority of their catch within the EU - much of it to France - and the industry would be damaged by EU imposed tarrifs, whilst the French fleet catches much of their fish in UK waters and would be damaged by total exclusion. It's not hard to see the basis for a deal there. Beyond that, what cards do you think Macron has to play?

You aren't thick, but you are looking at this from a party political perspective, which is what three quarters of MPs are doing. There are also a lot of personal agendas at play from hard brexiteers and remainers. As for MPs not being thick, I know a number of current and former MPs from my work and could give the names of both Tory and Labour examples who I would not trust to sit the right way round on the toilet without instructions.

I'm not looking at it from a party perspective. I'm looking at it from the point of view of a punter that wants to leave the EU but with a friction less trade and travel focus, but recognise that we won't be able to get all of the 'freedoms' we wanted if we negotiated towards that. But, as you have argued, the EU are making some painful (for them) concessions, how do we know what we might get from negotiating along these lines until we try?

Assuming May's deal is rejected, can you see another way forward that will get through the commons?

[KerrAvon]

During the referendum everyone who I spoke to who was voting leave assumed it would be tough but would be willing to take the rough to be out of the EU. On this very board people said they were voting for the future and expected tough times.

The remainers are now telling everyone what the leavers were thinking at the time and that they were expecting a free trade deal straight away.

Our politicians have done their best to try and stop brexit.

Let the deals get rejected and let's go down the No deal route. We voted out of the EU, that means we should start by not having a deal and working on one from there.

During the referendum everyone was banging on about how it took Canada 20 years to get a deal. So we did know that it wouldn't be done over a matter of months. I was aware of that when I voted.

I think a lot of people understood that leaving the EU would be difficult and economically painful, but many others dismissed or minimised the risks under the 'Project Fear' tag.

Maybe we are a more sophisticated group on here, but there were posters on Tykes Mad who thought that on the day after the Referendum we could stop the budget payments, rip up the regulations but otherwise carry on as normal.

Whatever anyone might think about her politics, May has the almost impossible task of steering a course between the requirement of the referendum result that we leave and the likely hardships that will flow from that (an act of national self harm as an MP put it last week). The withdrawal deal is clearly not perfect, but no deal that flowed from such difficult and protracted negotiations could be.

[KerrAvon]

I'm not looking at it from a party perspective. I'm looking at it from the point of view of a punter that wants to leave the EU but with a friction less trade and travel focus, but recognise that we won't be able to get all of the 'freedoms' we wanted if we negotiated towards that. But, as you have argued, the EU are making some painful (for them) concessions, how do we know what we might get from negotiating along these lines until we try?

Assuming May's deal is rejected, can you see another way forward that will get through the commons?

The pain the EU us feeling is primarily ideological at the moment, but they know that the EU and national European economies will suffer as a consequence of Brexit, which is why they have been willing to make concessions in the hope of achieving a close and positive relationship with us in the future.

I don't think the electorate will forgive a party that gives ground on budget contributions and free movement. You have tacitly acknowledged that by confirming that the Labour Party is concealing that a natural consequence of a deal based on it's six bullet points 'plan' would involve accepting free movement. The party wouldn't be able to conceal that if it got into power and implemented that policy and the electorate is not forgiving, as the Lib Dems discovered in 2015.

If the May deal is rejected and assuming that she doesn't resign in consequence, I expect that May will go back to Europe to try to secure the change of a few words that will allow the DUP to back down and a few more Tory and Labour MP to come on board.

I don't believe Parliament could produce a majority on any outcome at the moment, but a further referendum is probably the least unpopular outcome. I see that as an affront to democracy, an abrogation of responsibility and a likely disaster for the reasons I set out earlier in the thread.