Off Topic UK / EU Future

I am surprised, or am I, that you are still lost in your beliefs that you would get what you hoped for SH. Two thirds of MPs voted against the deal that the Tories were promoting, and that is very similar to the numbers in the country at large who rejected it. Now people know what is involved they are against the referendum result.
Now you are in a difficult place with no one suggesting that leaving without a deal is even slightly viable, just what are you proposing as your solution?

 

At the moment parliament has already decided that leaving without a deal is the default position unless it can back the government's chosen deal it has with the EU. The problem you have is persuading the EU to move substantially from its present position to gain enough support amongst MPs to reverse the vote in parliament.
Staying in the EU is against the policies of both major political parties so that can be ruled out quite easily.

 

Let's see if we can agree some form of the way forward. I agree that the current default position is to leave, but no one in Westminster will allow that to happen. Even the messages coming out of government saying that will not happen, it would be a disaster.
The EU will not quite rightly change something that the UK government agreed to. They have said that under certain circumstances they could put a hold on the article 50 discussions.
Labour have said that they want something that means staying in the CU and single market if I understand them. That is a very short step away from remaining in the EU, or moving to something like the deal that Norway has.
So where do you go from here?

 

Labour are not in government so they can keep their multiple positions alive. The present government may agree to a delay but will not ultimately disrespect the referendum result. I maintain the most likely outcome is to leave without a deal.

 

The present government have a choice SH. They are not in a position to agree a delay, that it is the hands of the EU. It could be agreed to if there were to be a second referendum or election. They could also cancel article 50 without the agreement of the EU, but could not then six months later change their mind. To leave without a deal would end the Tory party, as their reputation as being for business would be shot forever.

 

Another dodgy prediction!!

I think you have basically agreed that leaving on no deal terms is the most likely option.

 

What are you talking about SH? Just take a look at what all the business leaders are saying tonight. After such a historic defeat the government is finished, maybe not immediately, but before long. No PM has had to deal with such a revolt in modern history.

 

You don't seem to have learnt much about failed predictions.

May needs to resign to allow a more able leader emerge from the influential ERG group.

 

Why do you keep retreating into this strange world that you seem to inhabit? May has just been reelected by your party for the next twelve months. Your party has just suffered a historic defeat on a scale that no one predicted. Even the French press that rarely comments on an internal UK dispute is amazed that you wish to look so foolish. Still it is now back in the hands of the UK government, and it will be interesting to see what they come up with next. Can they be seen to be asking the opposition to help them out of the mess they have talked themselves into? Maybe they will, but there will be a price to pay.

 

May has not been reelected at all, she is just safe from a challenge for that period within the party. Most leaders faced with such a large rejection of their personal policy would resign, this is still possible in the coming weeks. Leaving without a deal is still the default position.

With the current mess in France the French press should be concentrating on the deepening crisis over there.

 

Boys calm down

For sure things are much clearer now. The EU has the power, as does HM Government, to go for a hard Brexit on the 29th. Either side can force that. And as superhorns says there is an interesting scenario where the default hard brexit simply happens.

The only alternative seems an extension. According to the EU that is something they can consider, but only if something changes. Again if the EU do not see that change then we are in default land.

So as I see it May easily survives today and then she has a brief time to come up with a plan. I don't think she can reach out to the opposition as I think they haven't got a clue what they want. So I think she'll try an extension and the promotion of a known plan (e.g. Norway, Canada, .......). That is unlikely to be successful I think but keeps the balls in the air.

The EU on the otherhand now knows their preferred exit option is a non-runner and not even worth amending (if they had the will to do so). The problem they have as I see it is that if they in any way are seen to encourage the UK to stay in the EU there will be a negative backlash. Playing hard ball is great if you win but is not easy to repeat if you lose.

The interesting times continue

 

The problem was remainer May allowed herself to be over compliant to the EU's preferred position by rabid remainers such as Hammond and the senior civil servants who always detested Brexit. Her desire to show some progress in the negotiations led her to agree to the awful backstop over a year ago. She must have known the terms were unacceptable to anybody who wished the UK to remain intact. Separating NI from the rest of the UK without the agreement of the people of that region is undemocratic and impossible to pull off.

The EU had previously been keen on a Canada ++ kind of deal, it was a mistake by Robbins and May to not fully explore this option. I see a return to this as the only possible alternative to an extended period without any formal deal.

 

And it didn't take long. Tusk has opened his mouth. But to be fair most other EU and European leaders have been tactful. Many pointing out the damage of hardbrexit not only to the UK but to the EU - and not trying to tell the UK what to do.

And interesting question is: If there is a general election and the conservatives have a new leader, would that at last force Labour to put forward a policy? I noted yesterday in the debate Corbyn actually said "the opposition must not only criticise the government but put forward alternative ways forward" (Jeers from Tory ranks among others). But he then offered nothing wittering on about a general election I don't think he can win.

So as the EU rightly say "The UK must tell us what they want" and they see that that is not going to happen, what can they do? They can let Article 50 run until 29/3 (the default). They cannot cancel Article 50, and they can only extend it if the UK make such a request. The ball is still in the UK court.

Looking at the betting odds (often more reliable than polls) Brexit in 2019 is 5 to 2 on. And Boris is favourite for next conservative leader.

 

I never claimed everyone would die and the country would be in ruins. I just said my future is jeopardised, don't you agree? Apart from a handful of fruitloops there are no economists that predict a positive outcome from any form of Brexit, even the softest Brexit possible. Of course it's impossible to predict the future, and saying anything negative about Brexit instantly gets you a 'PROJECT FEAR' response.

How would the UK be better off out of the EU in any of those scenarios? The EU are our biggest trading partners, if they suffer we suffer. The initial economic hit we'll take from Brexit would just make an EU crisis affect our economy even more. Anti-EU people have been predicting the fall of the EU for decades now, superhorns has a weekly update about it, all I know is that the EU will outlive all of us.

And how, for example, would the parts needed for these cars be imported? Have you not read about all the concerned car manufacturers saying it would be a terrible idea and would serious affect their production lines? The current government can't even organise a traffic jam in Kent, do you think they would be able to oversee the complete rebuilding of our manufacturing sector in a couple of months? The reason we trade so much with the EU is that they're our neighbours, it makes sense to trade with them. We already import food from all over the world, from fruit to meat, the EU doesn't stop us doing so. Unless you think we're going to be signing free trade deals with Morocco to get 20p off the price of a box of strawberries.

Sorry, which queue is this? All I've heard is Liam Fox talking about wonderful trade deals, I've not seen any proof of this so far. Any trade deals we make will also involve negative sides to it, good luck appeasing the Leavers with a free movement agreement with India. Also we'd lose our EU services passport, the City, whose taxes keep this country afloat, will be seriously affected. Also this 'trade deal' stuff is misunderstood nonsense. The negative consequences of leaving the EU will outweigh any potential benefits we would see from these fantastical free trade deals. Unless you mean the US, which would spell the end for the NHS and our food quality standards, thus stopping us from trading food with the EU.

And the highest level of personal debt in all the EU and most of the western world (if not all of it, can't remember the exact stats). With wage stagnation, an exorbitant cost of living and unaffordable housing.

The first line is peanuts, and we'll be losing EU grants for science and research. Good luck getting this government to match that when all they're thinking about is slashing corporation taxes.

The second line is completely irrelevant to the discussion

The third line hasn't happened yet and will probably not happen in a no deal scenario.

Oh the fish!!! Let's not forget the fish!!! Farage's favourite line pre-referendum. UK fisherman already sell their fishing rights, they don't use their allocated quotas. The fishing stocks are depleted and the industry is worth peanuts. Finance or fishing? I think Finance might be slightly more important to keep rather than a few hundred fisherman.

Who is stopping non-EU migration at the moment? We don't use the current systems in place to stop EU migration for people without employment. Our population is lazy and not qualified enough to fill the current jobs on the market.

You live in Spain, having enjoyed your right of free movement. I'm losing that now, you have to live in France for 5 years prior to applying for residency. Both my little brothers will be affected also. Your last line is pathetic. Crying? Leavers have been whingeing for the last few decades about it, yet being against leaving the EU makes me a crying loser? Cheers.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

Toby you clearly believe that the EU is wonderful and we under all circumstances would be better off within it. I see little point responding to your points because you see one scenario in each case.

But this last paragraph is just unreal. First I'm not in Spain under any free movement offered by the EU. The health, expat, Gibraltar and tax deals are all independent of the EU and will continue after Brexit (if that happens). Secondly I support three long term unemployed in Spain. And others in the family work as slaves with no security and less than minimum wage. The EU is not a paradise club for many. And bear in mind when the Euro finishes someone will pick up the bill for the Med defaults.

As for your free movement on what basis? Will Spain stop you coming here? No. I have a friend here who arrived before Spain entered the EU. He worked. So what are you suggesting? That Brexit will stop Brits coming to Spain and taking Spanish jobs?

Sorry Toby but you have to look at yourself when millions (maybe not a majority) see benefits and you see none. The idea it is all black and white I find bizarre.

 

The leader of the House has just confirmed the government will not be seeking an extension to article 50. If they stick to that position the odds on a no deal exit will only increase.

 

It looks that way Superhorns but please treat those of a different persusion with respect .

I also think the EU at the last minute will negotiate a change over period. For a start the admin.systems will not be in place. And as for the Irish border the UK will not erect one so over to the EU.

But as we have seen nothing is certain. There could be a total about face at any moment.

Must admit I'm still not sure what is best (although I see issues and opportunities in all cases) but I just hope whatever the result we see afterwards reconciliation between all parties. Life is too short to keep fighting lost battles. And whether in or out no one will know what might have happened in the alternative scenario.

 

Before the UK can tell the EU what it wants they need to have open dialogue across party lines in Westminster - something which TM has avoided up to now. In 2 years she has not once telephoned Corbyn, or met with him privately. You say 'what does Labour want' - the answer is that it wants open debate, where all possibilities are open to discussion, is that so very hard to fathom ? The options are - accepting an adapted version of TM's deal, going for a Norway type solution whereby we remain in the customs union, a hard Brexit by default, a second referendum, or cancelling Brexit altogether. In the event of there being a majority for any of these then there will be a hard Brexit by default - so they have to find which of these is the least obnoxious for the most people. There is a majority in parliament (and amongst the population) against a hard Brexit - they need to find out if there is the same majority against all of the other possibilities.

I do not think that the numbers are there to topple the government today (though it would be the best solution) although the result will be close - it only needs a few Tory remainers to either abstain or vote for Corbyn's motion. There still are some Tories prepared to put the interests of the country before those of their party - because, a hard Brexit would destroy their party completely. Can anyone really explain to me why a second referendum would be undemocratic ? Other than by repeating the same old mantra's. Are the people not allowed to change their minds under democracy ? Are those countries which have had second referendums eg. Denmark, Ireland, Norway etc. any less democratic as a result ?

 

I went through all the so-called benefits you named and proved them to not be beneficial. Stopping EU immigration in its current state is the only 'benefit' I can see, but we already had the power to stop most of it anyway, like most other EU countries already do. I never claimed leaving the EU will stop people from being able to work abroad, I will probably have to apply for a visa/green card (or a carte de sejour as my parents needed when they moved there).

I've never claimed the EU is perfect, it obviously isn't. Which organisation in the world is? Should we pull out of Fifa and all future World Cups because they're corrupt?

I've been brought up as a citizen of Europe, born in London and spent my formative years in France. I embrace people from all cultures and want our country to be open and accessible to anyone that wants to come here to work. The main motivation behind the Leave vote was to stop immigration, I can show you hundreds of examples of people thinking that voting Leave would stop Muslims coming over here, or just foreigners in general. The vile lies spouted by the Leave campaign were disgusting, the funding behind it was dodgy, the people pushing it were doing so for their own financial gain and it had the groups I would most like to distance myself from on their side, the ERG, the EDL, the NF, the Tommy Robinson lot, etc...

 

Reconciliation ? Has any Brexiteer ever stopped to think about the effects of their actions on ex pats such as us ? Have they ever expressed any understanding, or remorse, or apologies to us ? The whole thing happened over our heads, and without our being asked for our opinions - yet it changed our status, forcibly. So why should I waste time trying to understand them and their motives ?