Brexit

[barney]

Folk who are asking for a second referendum are assuming that they will win. Careful what you wish for folks. The only possible question could be leave the EU or remain in the EU and I think leave will win narrowly again should it happen.

[towny44]

PS - it’s time to acknowledge the deal is dead and EU have made it crystal clear there’s nothing else. People need to accept this now, there’s no point in flogging that dead horse anymore.

Gill, I realise that you don't want any deal to leave the EU, but claiming that TM's deal is a dead horse is far from the truth. The backstop and its potential consequences, is the major problem, most of the ERG and DUP would accept the deal if the backstop was time limited. As regards Labour's customs union proposal that would, I understand, prevent us from negotiating any separate free trade deals, according to the BBC website and, I assume, would still tie us to ECJ jurisdiction which for most leavers would not be acceptable; and I imagine that would also need a backstop and, although an EU-UK trade deal should be easier, there would still be the thorny issues of fisheries and the CAP, not to mention Spain's continued claims to Gibraltar which could lead to delays.
However I cannot see a way forward at present, unless the EU do offer a binding legal get out of the backstop, and without that it seems that no amount of A50 extension is likely to lead to the deal getting through parliament. But the resultant fall out can only harm parliament and we will only know who gets hurt most when there is another general election.

[Onelife]

Does it matter if the vote for the removal of a ' No Deal ' is won or lost … it is not binding and only applies for the 29th of March ?

Correct Mob

[Gill W]

So the government has announced that if we leave without a deal we will not impose a border in Ireland. Will the EU? If not why is the backstop necessary in the case of a deal? It is the only thing stopping a deal being done.

The backstop is an insurance policy.

The only deal 'on the table' is the WA , not a deal for our future relationship. If at the end of the transition period ( if WA was agreed) the future relationship is not agreed, the insurance policy would kick in.

The trouble is, are the EU willing to trust what we say, without an insurance policy. I suggest the answer is no (based on our current performance)

It should also be remembered that the backstop was our idea to start off with, and we agreed to have one back in Dec 2017.

[Gill W]

Folk who are asking for a second referendum are assuming that they will win. Careful what you wish for folks. The only possible question could be leave the EU or remain in the EU and I think leave will win narrowly again should it happen.

When you consider that the last referendum was tainted by the illegal activities of the Leave campaigns, and that Leavers are convinced they'd win a new referendum, you'd think they'd be falling over themselves to have another referendum to reinforce and legitimise the Leave vote.

[Gill W]

PS - it’s time to acknowledge the deal is dead and EU have made it crystal clear there’s nothing else. People need to accept this now, there’s no point in flogging that dead horse anymore.

Gill, I realise that you don't want any deal to leave the EU, but claiming that TM's deal is a dead horse is far from the truth. The backstop and its potential consequences, is the major problem, most of the ERG and DUP would accept the deal if the backstop was time limited. As regards Labour's customs union proposal that would, I understand, prevent us from negotiating any separate free trade deals, according to the BBC website and, I assume, would still tie us to ECJ jurisdiction which for most leavers would not be acceptable; and I imagine that would also need a backstop and, although an EU-UK trade deal should be easier, there would still be the thorny issues of fisheries and the CAP, not to mention Spain's continued claims to Gibraltar which could lead to delays.
However I cannot see a way forward at present, unless the EU do offer a binding legal get out of the backstop, and without that it seems that no amount of A50 extension is likely to lead to the deal getting through parliament. But the resultant fall out can only harm parliament and we will only know who gets hurt most when there is another general election.

The way forward is for something to change otherwise we'll leave without a deal on 29th March.

However, what exactly the change is still remains unclear, which is shocking when you consider we are just 16 days away from the 29th

[barney]

Nobody in their right mind would buy an insurance policy that they were unable to get out of.

It should also be remembered that the backstop was not our idea, it was the idea of May and her negotiating team.
What was even going through their minds in thinking that it could ever be acceptable?

'We' didn't agree anything.
The WA was/is a draft agreement to be ratified by both Parliaments.
Well, the EU Parliament doesn't have to bother as it's been soundly rejected by the UK.

The fact that both sides have tried to present it as a deal is ludicrous.
It's not and never has been a deal, but merely a proposal.

When a Union form an agreement with management about say, a pay rise, it has to be put back to their membership to be agreed.
If rejected, it's back to square one in the negotiation.
If they can't agree, then industrial action may be the result.


It looks like the UK will be taking industrial action, taking our ball home and no longer playing nicely.

Leave on the 29th and then start the trade talks !

I'll bet it won't take long to strike a deal as Eurozone countries feel the impact of the trade deficit.
Ireland in particular.

[barney]

Folk who are asking for a second referendum are assuming that they will win. Careful what you wish for folks. The only possible question could be leave the EU or remain in the EU and I think leave will win narrowly again should it happen.

When you consider that the last referendum was tainted by the illegal activities of the Leave campaigns, and that Leavers are convinced they'd win a new referendum, you'd think they'd be falling over themselves to have another referendum to reinforce and legitimise the Leave vote.

I think that if there was another referendum on this issue, it would be even more vicious and tainted than the previous one.
This one would be tainted by foriegn money from George Soros, who is bankrolling the People's Vote at the moment.

I'd personally be ok with another referendum as long as it's not called 'The People's Vote'
Who do they think voted in the previous one, cows ?

If there was another vote, one side or the other would win narrowly and it would just go on and on.

If Remain one, like Jack Staff, I'd refuse to even recognise that it happened and immediately start campaigning for a 'Real People's Vote'

Then, if 'The Real People's Vote' won the next one, you guys could start campaigning for 'The Ultimate People's Vote'

and on …. and on …...

[anniec]

Folk who are asking for a second referendum are assuming that they will win. Careful what you wish for folks. The only possible question could be leave the EU or remain in the EU and I think leave will win narrowly again should it happen.

When you consider that the last referendum was tainted by the illegal activities of the Leave campaigns, and that Leavers are convinced they'd win a new referendum, you'd think they'd be falling over themselves to have another referendum to reinforce and legitimise the Leave vote.

We were promised it was a one-off vote, with no repeat for a generation and we should be able to believe what our politicians promise, even if they make this very difficult sometimes. I think there's a very strong chance that 'leave' would win again, but it won't be a repeat of the in or out vote we had in June 2016, will it?

If a new refendum asks different questions, what would they be? Would no deal Brexit be one of them? Somehow, I doubt it. Trust in our elected leaders has evaporated for many of us.

[barney]

Bearing in mind that May's deal is now dead in the water it cannot seriously be put to a referendum. The question can only be the original one. Leave or Remain in the EU.

[Jack Staff]

If Remain one, like Jack Staff, I'd refuse to even recognise that it happened

Since when has it been ok to make things up about other members of this forum?

[barney]

Nothing made up mate. You've said from day one that you have refused to accept that it's over and campaigned for another vote on the subject. You claim that you turned out in London to support it. Look back at your posts if you don't believe me.

[Jack Staff]

Nothing made up mate. You've said from day one that you have refused to accept that it's over and campaigned for another vote on the subject. You claim that you turned out in London to support it. Look back at your posts if you don't believe me.

Yes I have done all of that, because of that stupid plebiscite.
In no way have I ever...

If Remain one, like Jack Staff, I'd refuse to even recognise that it happened

Why would be doing all I do for something I don't recognise had happened?

[barney]

Pedant.

[Mervyn and Trish]

So the government has announced that if we leave without a deal we will not impose a border in Ireland. Will the EU? If not why is the backstop necessary in the case of a deal? It is the only thing stopping a deal being done.

The backstop is an insurance policy.

The only deal 'on the table' is the WA , not a deal for our future relationship. If at the end of the transition period ( if WA was agreed) the future relationship is not agreed, the insurance policy would kick in.

The trouble is, are the EU willing to trust what we say, without an insurance policy. I suggest the answer is no (based on our current performance)

It should also be remembered that the backstop was our idea to start off with, and we agreed to have one back in Dec 2017.

You miss my point. Why do we need an insurance policy in case there is no deal in two years time but can apparently manage without one if we leave with no deal this month?

[Gill W]

Nobody in their right mind would buy an insurance policy that they were unable to get out of.

It should also be remembered that the backstop was not our idea, it was the idea of May and her negotiating team.
What was even going through their minds in thinking that it could ever be acceptable?

'We' didn't agree anything.
The WA was/is a draft agreement to be ratified by both Parliaments.
Well, the EU Parliament doesn't have to bother as it's been soundly rejected by the UK.

The fact that both sides have tried to present it as a deal is ludicrous.
It's not and never has been a deal, but merely a proposal.

When a Union form an agreement with management about say, a pay rise, it has to be put back to their membership to be agreed.
If rejected, it's back to square one in the negotiation.
If they can't agree, then industrial action may be the result.


It looks like the UK will be taking industrial action, taking our ball home and no longer playing nicely.

Leave on the 29th and then start the trade talks !

I'll bet it won't take long to strike a deal as Eurozone countries feel the impact of the trade deficit.
Ireland in particular.

When I said 'we' I meant the UK. Last time I looked May and her negotiating team were negotiating on behalf of the UK (and making a right pig's ear of it)

Who indeed would buy an insurance policy that they couldn't get out of - that's why the WA sucks, big time, and has been rejected twice.

So, according to you, we're going to take out ball in, and sulk, until they beg us for a trade deal. That's another one of your Brexity dreams !

[Gill W]

Folk who are asking for a second referendum are assuming that they will win. Careful what you wish for folks. The only possible question could be leave the EU or remain in the EU and I think leave will win narrowly again should it happen.

When you consider that the last referendum was tainted by the illegal activities of the Leave campaigns, and that Leavers are convinced they'd win a new referendum, you'd think they'd be falling over themselves to have another referendum to reinforce and legitimise the Leave vote.

I think that if there was another referendum on this issue, it would be even more vicious and tainted than the previous one.
This one would be tainted by foriegn money from George Soros, who is bankrolling the People's Vote at the moment.

I'd personally be ok with another referendum as long as it's not called 'The People's Vote'
Who do they think voted in the previous one, cows ?

If there was another vote, one side or the other would win narrowly and it would just go on and on.

If Remain one, like Jack Staff, I'd refuse to even recognise that it happened and immediately start campaigning for a 'Real People's Vote'

Then, if 'The Real People's Vote' won the next one, you guys could start campaigning for 'The Ultimate People's Vote'

and on …. and on …...

I agree that if there was another referendum there'd be a real risk of it being tainted again, by shady people who's interests are best served by us leaving. I knew you'd bring up George Soros - but as far as I can see (and I've looked) there's nothing to suggest he's doing or done anything illegal.

I also dislike the term People's Vote.

I'm shocked, after everything you've said about democracy, you openly admit you wouldn't recognise the result of a democratic vote if you didn't like the result. . I don't want to be rude, but that is hypocrisy.

[Gill W]

Bearing in mind that May's deal is now dead in the water it cannot seriously be put to a referendum. The question can only be the original one. Leave or Remain in the EU.

At least we agree that May's deal is dead.

[Gill W]

Folk who are asking for a second referendum are assuming that they will win. Careful what you wish for folks. The only possible question could be leave the EU or remain in the EU and I think leave will win narrowly again should it happen.

When you consider that the last referendum was tainted by the illegal activities of the Leave campaigns, and that Leavers are convinced they'd win a new referendum, you'd think they'd be falling over themselves to have another referendum to reinforce and legitimise the Leave vote.

We were promised it was a one-off vote, with no repeat for a generation and we should be able to believe what our politicians promise, even if they make this very difficult sometimes. I think there's a very strong chance that 'leave' would win again, but it won't be a repeat of the in or out vote we had in June 2016, will it?

If a new refendum asks different questions, what would they be? Would no deal Brexit be one of them? Somehow, I doubt it. Trust in our elected leaders has evaporated for many of us.

We should indeed be able to trust our politicians promise, but, at the moment we can't.

It's because the Leave politicians lied and lied before the referendum and people were taken in by them, that we are where we are now. They promised the impossible and it can't be done like they promised.

In normal circumstances, I'd say everyone is wiser now, now that we know what the effects of Brexit will be. But these are not normal circumstances, people are entrenched in their positions, and any warning that some Leavers don't like the sound of are dismissed as Project Fear.

Therefore, if there was a second referendum, the result would probably be another close one. Polls suggest that Remain have crept ahead,but who can say for sure.

I agree with Barney, the WA is dead, so there's not much point in having it on a second referendum.

The question should again be leave or remain. As the deal is dead, it's clear that leaving means no deal, so if people are willing to vote for chaos, delays, food shortages and medicine shortages, then so be it - as a country we'd deserve it for being daft enough to vote for it

[Gill W]

So the government has announced that if we leave without a deal we will not impose a border in Ireland. Will the EU? If not why is the backstop necessary in the case of a deal? It is the only thing stopping a deal being done.

The backstop is an insurance policy.

The only deal 'on the table' is the WA , not a deal for our future relationship. If at the end of the transition period ( if WA was agreed) the future relationship is not agreed, the insurance policy would kick in.

The trouble is, are the EU willing to trust what we say, without an insurance policy. I suggest the answer is no (based on our current performance)

It should also be remembered that the backstop was our idea to start off with, and we agreed to have one back in Dec 2017.

You miss my point. Why do we need an insurance policy in case there is no deal in two years time but can apparently manage without one if we leave with no deal this month?

Well we can't really manage without one. A no deal is reckless and negligent, so we can't guarantee an open border in Ireland and the free flow of trade because we have no 'insurance policy' in place to facilitate this.

It's like not buying your house insurance, it's just tough luck if your house burns down.

[barney]

Ever bought an insurance policy that potentially runs for ever. I never have. All of mine are time limited with both parties having the option to void it if necessary. That is not unreasonable. The point of the Irish back stop in it's current form is clearly to lock the UK, a competitor, in to the EU ad infinitum.

[Mervyn and Trish]

You miss my point. Why do we need an insurance policy in case there is no deal in two years time but can apparently manage without one if we leave with no deal this month?

Well we can't really manage without one. A no deal is reckless and negligent, so we can't guarantee an open border in Ireland and the free flow of trade because we have no 'insurance policy' in place to facilitate this.

The government have made it clear that if we leave this month without a deal they will not impose a hard border. So who will? The Irish? The EU? Because they both insist we can't have one. Which is why we are where we are.

[barney]

Well, according to the EU Merv, they will dictate that Ireland must secure it's border with a third country. I'll be interested to see that happening. Irexit?

[Jack Staff]

Brejoin more like.

[barney]

Well with no deal off the table, there is only one way forward. That is unilaterally revoke article 50. Then 1st of April, invoke article 50 with a two year deadline and start again.