Shard

It's an irony that those most vocal about upholding democratic convention are adamant that current public opinion is not considered. Boris and his team of Brexit fanatics see no urgency as delays only favour the railroading of a No Deal Brexit. A very sad state of affairs in a mature democracy.

Almost Canadian

I don't believe that that is the case at all. Parliament has not been able to agree upon what it wants and has rejected that which the EU has put forward. No deal is inevitable unless one side blinks first.

Time will tell whether those in the EU that are going to be massively affected by no deal will put pressure on others to change the EU's position, or whether those MPs in the UK that support remaining in the EU will be able to use the Parliamentary process to avoid that which Parliament has already agreed upon. Like it or not, the UK is going to leave without an agreement unless a Parliamentary process is used to prevent that.

Don't also forget that the Withdrawal Agreement is simply a means to move towards another agreement at a later date. It is not the final state of affairs.

From this side of the pond it looks like the Irish backstop is the sticking point (but I accept I may be wrong). I will be interested to see if the Irish border issue will be allowed to tank everything else.

dave_j

To put the argument in it's most basic term is that the EU must not allow the UK to benefit for leaving and is unwilling to amend any of it's own rules to allow this.
The backstop wouldn't be necessary at all if the EU had decided to allow itself to have agreed to a future trade framework before the UK left but this would have been interpreted as benefiting the UK so it simply could not do it.
On the face of it, agreeing a future arrangement negates the need for a backstop and May's deal could have been passed without problem.
May, from the outset surrendered whatever leverage she had by agreeing the financial settlement outright and setting aside the no-deal as not possible. The EU had the strongest of strong hands and overplayed it to the extent that even remainers could see the flaws in the deal. The Irish see themselves as guardians of the single market and like the EU see no reason to bend to the UK will and history no doubt was front and center in their decision making.
But we are where we are.
Given the way the EU have negotiated I see no reason to believe that the EU would'nt seek to use the backstop to punish the UK and to hold the UK hostage to the backstop refusing to allow the UK to leave unless it agreed to whatever trade arrangement it desired.

Almost Canadian

From the UK perspective, I would like to see them hold their ground and simply leave, and leave it for the EU to realise that the EU will come off worse, in the short term, in a no deal situation. That won't happen though as there appear to be too many MPs that wish to attempt to overturn the result of the referendum and, essentially, the EU's tactic all along appears to have been to do everything possible to overturn the result too.

Jingsamichty

Remember - MPs are not in Westminster simply to parrot the views of their loudest constituents, but to represent the best interests of ALL of their constituents.

MPs cannot help it if their constituents are ill-informed, they still have to do the best for ALL of them. No deal is NOT in anyone's best interests. Correction - it IS in a few people's best interests, but they're not even a fraction of the morons who are demanding it. It is certainly not in the country's best interest.

If no-deal happens, as I think it might, Scotland IndyRef#2 will happen as soon as day follows night, Scotland will vote to leave, then we will have the same backstop argument about a hard EU border with England. Suddenly England v Ireland & the EU will become England v Ireland, Scotland and the EU. And let's not forget Gibraltar, who certainly don't want a hard or an economic border with the EU.

Former Lancastrian

Probably do less damage if on holiday rather than sitting in the house

Shard

Since Parliament has not been able to agree what it wants, why should Boris & Co use procedure to enact a massive shift in economic and political direction that suits their personal opinions. We face a decade of trade and legal negotiations should we exit, with a likely outcome of inferior terms, so why the rush to commence when neither Parliament nor the public are certain. It does seem that a renegotiated deal is a non-starter, so at this impasse why not call a general election or a referendum to make a final decision? Reason: because the Brexit fanatics would lose.

dave_j

It's characteristic of those who've come second in this particular referendum seek to classify those who've disagreed with them as ill-informed. They must be the case because surely the well informed would never have voted as they did. So having lost, they seek to find other methods by which to impose their will.
In this case we have many MPs who may vote against the expressed will of their constituents because they think they know better thinking that a no-deal will be worse than perpetual subjugation to a corrupt and vindictive EU. The world is full of those who think they know better than the rest of us because they see that it could be worse for them personally... but those who voted to leave maybe don't see it that way.
If a no-deal comes to pass and the scots decide to endorse indyref2 and if the Northern Irish decide to unite with Eire, then so be it, it'll at least be the will of the majority who voted Remain in the referendum, and who knows, it may be the instrument whereby old disputes become resolved to the benefit of all.
Given the track record for predictions of doom by Project Fear immediately following the referendum, none of which have come to pass, I'd be tempted to toss claims of further doom straight into the bin where they belong.
I don't doubt that the EU will do their best to make life hard for the UK but in doing so they'll only make the case for leaving that much more well informed.

Almost Canadian

So what is the answer then? I don't believe that there has been any single "solution" that has the backing of the majority of MPs. As I have said before, the whole "hard Brexit" "soft Brexit" is a fallacy. The UK voted to leave and leave it should do. What happens with the EU and the UK thereafter will be left to be determined. The EU is imposing all the rules "you cannot do this, you cannot do that" to such an extent that Parliament has not been able to agree upon a solution that commands a majority. Until that happens, what will happen has already been determined by Parliament thanks, in part, to Ms. Miller's trip to the highest Court in the land.

It isn't the UK v Ireland & the EU, it is the UK v the EU )Ireland being part, and not separate, from the EU). The Irish question could be resolved easily, if the EU wanted to. The simple fact of the matter is it doesn't, I would bet everything I own that, if the UK maintains its position, the EU will change its position on the backstop as the balance of trade with a country such as Germany and the UK is too big for Germany to allow a pathetic spat over a border non-issue to derail its trade with the UK (which, let's face it is simply another attempt by the EU to keep the UK in the EU).

The Scottish referendum, if it occurs in the next 25 years, will not be resolved prior to the end of October of 2019 and, as you are likely aware, if Scotland leaves the UK, it automatically leaves the EU too, irrespective of Brexit. It will then have to reapply to join the EU and, once it does, the border issue will remain. We all know that the border issue really is a non-issue.

Almost Canadian

When are you going to accept that Ms. Miller involved the Supreme Court to ensure that Parliament had its say. Parliament had its say and Article 50 was invoked. The date to leave has been extended (for reasons I have to admit I can't really understand) and the end of October is the new date. If the EU and the UK cannot agree upon its withdrawal terms (which, as you likely know, is a precursor to discussing a deal) the UK leaves. This should come as no surprise to those that don't wish to respect the result of the referendum. A referendum to confirm the referendum is pie in the sky.

There is little point to blame Boris and Co. Parliament has ****ed this up.

Shard

There's plenty of evidence that many voters were and are ill informed. You only need ask them to explain their rationale and the misconceptions come flying. As for "Project Fear" it's a clever but insidious catch phrase to further manipulate the ill informed, a bit like Trump's "fake news" rhetoric. How about "Project Poorer" or "Project Worse Off" that's a more realistic moniker.

Almost Canadian

I would argue that one or two posters on here appear to be ill informed too!

As an Irish passport holder, I wish you well.

Oink

Not all the Tories who voted for Boris Johnson were racist homophobes, some of them were just c***s.

Jingsamichty

I don't disagree. It's a ludicrous decision but it is (was) a democratic decision. It is (was) based on what WAS known over 3 years ago. We have come a long way in terms of information and understanding of the actualities of leaving now, so ask yourself this... for such a momentous decision, which will have profound impacts for generations to come, probably including the breakup of the United Kingdom, is it worth taking an extra 10 weeks or so to hold a confirmatory referendum that asks the same question based on what we know now?

It's a reasonable suggestion, and surely it's only Leave zealots who's be against it.

Almost Canadian

Maybe, but I don't believe that there will be a change in the result from the last one. Those that wished to remain are unlikely to have changed their minds and I doubt there will be much of a change from those that wished to leave. If, as alleged above, they were ill informed, they are likely to be just as ill informed this time. If, as has also been alleged, they were racist, xenophobes, they are likely to be just as racist and xenophobic now. There is also the argument that the debacle that has ensued with those MPs that didn't like the decision attempting to all they can to prevent the actual exit, will ensure that that fact alone will galvanise people to vote to leave.

In any event, a second referendum is so unlikely I suggest it is not worth talking about.

Other than politicians, do most people in the UK really give a shit if it is broken up? They are all separate countries but what effect will residents of England really feel on a day to day basis if Scotland, NI and Wales left the union? It appears to me that, Brexit aside, NI and Wales have far more to lose, than gain, by no longer being part of the union. I am not going to argue with a Scot as to how Scotland will fare post union but I suggest that they would then have to take responsibility for the decisions they make rather than being able to blame everything on those bastards in Westminster!

As an aside, once I had been medically discharged from the Army, the only thing that prevented me from living in Scotland was the fact that, from a legal perspective, transferring my credentials from England & Wales to Scotland was far easier than doing the opposite and I didn't want to have to obtain 2 law degrees.