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

[Timbertop]

Everyone I speak to now prefer a hard Brexit. Must be mixing in the wrong circles !

[wendun]

Everyone I speak to now prefer a hard Brexit. Must be mixing in the wrong circles !

A very fair point. I can only speak from my experience and accept completely that your experience is different. I am quite old, quite wealthy and have dual citizenship. Brexit or no Brexit is an irrelevance to me on a personal level. I actually welcome a hard Brexit in a perverse way merely to see how some of its advocates handle the reality. I do know that a an employer or two of my acquaintance are fully up for it BUT they see the new UK Utopia as one based on lower wages, longer hours, less Health and Safety and fewer Environmental Protections. I think Farage and Moggy share that view. Best of luck lads.

[Exiletyke]

This is what I meant in my comment about certainty. Noone has suggested the "world will end" but it is at least a realistic possibility that we will be poorer by an unspecified percentage which will in turn have ramifications for public spending etc. I must inhabit a different universe: 90% of my friends voted to Leave and yet they all now see merit in a reconsideration. Not one feels affronted and not one is about to take to the streets if Brexit is reversed. How giving the people another say can be considered the death of democracy escapes me.

When you place your vote in a General Election & you do so as a result of a party's manifesto your choice may not win
In the 2017 election the result wasn't exactly ovewhelming was it
No arguments were put forward to run the election again even though some manifesto promises were not fulfilled
We were told in no uncertain terms in that infamous leaflet that the vote was a once in a generation decision & despite the Gov'ts biased & dishonest advice the nation voted to leave
I think that if you voted for a politcal party which won but was then told that your vote was going to be overturned I think you may quite rightly be a tad miffed would you not? That is why the greater consideration of a democratic principle is fundamental & should never be in doubt, otherwise you're on a much rockier road than the one now facing us
You cannot be democratic now & then so I honestly can't see why it is beyond you

[rolymiller]

I think we are deluding ourselves anyway if we trust most politicians. When manifestos came out at the last election saying what would happen regarding Brexit we should have automatically thought oh yeah..

[ragingpup]

When you place your vote in a General Election & you do so as a result of a party's manifesto your choice may not win
In the 2017 election the result wasn't exactly ovewhelming was it
No arguments were put forward to run the election again even though some manifesto promises were not fulfilled
We were told in no uncertain terms in that infamous leaflet that the vote was a once in a generation decision & despite the Gov'ts biased & dishonest advice the nation voted to leave
I think that if you voted for a politcal party which won but was then told that your vote was going to be overturned I think you may quite rightly be a tad miffed would you not? That is why the greater consideration of a democratic principle is fundamental & should never be in doubt, otherwise you're on a much rockier road than the one now facing us
You cannot be democratic now & then so I honestly can't see why it is beyond you

I don't think there is support for a 2nd vote in the house or in public. Likewise no deal. Its the other options that we need to consider

[KerrAvon]

The EU have already provided time for an alternative way forward if May's deal goes down:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...of-brexit-date


After her deal fails, MPs will have to vote on way forward and they won't vote for no deal. What other alternatives do you envisage?

I think you may be confused. The EU unconditionally extended the date upon which we leave until 12th April and to 22nd May if the May deal is agreed. They did that to try to avoid the UK crashing out without a deal and for no other reason. They have indicated a willingness to extend beyond the 12th April, if the UK has an alternative plan. What you need to understand is that all 27 EU nations would need to agree that further extension which would one assume, only happen if they thought that there was value in negotiating upon the UK’s new proposal. Several of the options that have been dicussed have no prospect of passing that test.

What you also need to understand is that the only withdrawal agreement that is on the table is the May deal. The other proposals that are being bandied around are future relationship deals, which the EU will not consider before we leave. In other words, the current position is an orderly exit under May’s deal or no deal.

A significant number of MPs will vote for no deal, but they will not secure a majority. The point is that it is doubtful whether any other arrangement will – there is little prospect of the consensus that you believe in. Even if indicative votes are framed in such a manner that the ‘favourite’ option becomes government policy, it would still require Parliament to reach a majority to actually put that option into effect.

I would prefer to remain or to leave without a deal than to enter into any of the half in half out car crashes that are put forward as alternatives.

[KerrAvon]

Tend to agree. I think it is clear that as long as there is change, the EU will push back time enough for a new idea to come forward from MPs. I don't think MPs are going to swallow the No Deal threat. Otherwise the EU would have said leave next week with no deal if May's deal doesn't pass.

The real threat is if the MPs still can't unite behind an alternative, with even still splits being between Common Market 2.0 and 2nd vote. This could still hinder a consensus - either could be even less popular than May;'s vote. Hence the real frustration that we didn't have indicative votes when we should have done. A failure of both of these options to gain a better consensus than May's shold have left to us reasonably leaving with May's deal. But we didn't so it's all ****ed up!

The EU are simply trying to avoid a no deal - that's the only reason why they have not locked the door. They are fed up and want to move on. If a single country from the 27 (perhaps one that does very little trade with us) becomes sufficiently fed up then a further extension will be stopped in its tracks.

Lets drop the euphemism and call Common Market 2.0 a Norway arrangement. Changing its name doesn’t stop the catastrophe that it represents. I suspect there may be more support for no deal than for it.

[KerrAvon]

I'll say from the outset that I'm not sure if I've got this right but I'll put it out there anyway.
As I understand it, the decision to leave the EU on 29th March 2019 was enshrined in law and it will now require a series of legal manoeuvres to allow the date to be delayed.
Is it not possible that a separate legal challenge could be raised to prevent the proposed delay from happening and what what would be the situation if this occurred?

There are two issues - one created by EU law and one by UK law.

The EU set the date upon which we leave the EU as the 29th March, but extended that until 12th April. The position at which UK legislation says that we leave is 29th March unless and until the government introduces secondary legislation to change it and both houses of Parliament passes it. On that last point, bear in mind that the motion that authorised May to seek an extension only just got across the line.

If Parliament changes UK law then there can be no legal challenge to that.

[ragingpup]

The EU are simply trying to avoid a no deal - that's the only reason why they have not locked the door. They are fed up and want to move on. If a single country from the 27 (perhaps one that does very little trade with us) becomes sufficiently fed up then a further extension will be stopped in its tracks.

Lets drop the euphemism and call Common Market 2.0 a Norway arrangement. Changing its name doesn’t stop the catastrophe that it represents. I suspect there may be more support for no deal than for it.

You may be right. But what is the problem with taking time to find out? As I said, if May's deal has the most votes, happy to move with that. If another option gets a bigger consensus, we move as we must to make that happen

[KerrAvon]

I refer to it as a threat, as May is using it as a threat to force MPs to back her deal. It was a mistake to set up No Deal as a default position in my opinion – how the majority of MPs must regret how that decision was taken/worded now. But it isn’t inevitable – there is a majority against No Deal in the house, as there is in the country. We just have to find the approach to a deal that gains the most consensus and agree with the EU to work towards that. You’re very right that the EU will give us time for that as they would be financially reckless not to. But they won’t put up with May or any replacement maintaining a deal that cannot secure a consensus.

A way forward is to delay Brexit, put forward the indicative votes, see which one gains the biggest consensus and agree to leave with that. That may be May’s deal. I’d be happy with that.

How do propose that something other than no deal could be the default position? How would that work?

We can’t agree to leave with whatever the indicative vote comes up with unless the favoured (i.e. least unpopular) option is no deal or a further referendum.

With the exception of no deal or a further referendum the options on the table are all future relationship arrangements and we can’t leave on them, because the EU will not agree a future relationship until we have left. The best you can hope for is that the least unpopular option put before Parliament becomes incorporated in the (non-binding) wish list that is the Political Declaration Furthermore, whatever the indicative votes come up with, parliamentary majorities would be required to enact the legislation required to put any future relationship into effect.