dbd33

I'm still undecided if electing Trump or voting for Brexit will turn out to be the most stupid thing done by people in my lifetime. I'm up to day with the Cheeto but I've rather fallen behind on the Brexit side of things so can someone explain the latest developments, simply and clearly for me?

My understanding is that:

The UK gave notice to leave the EU, the notice expires in less than three months.

May negotiated a deal to cover the administration of the leaving. It requires action to be implemented and that requires a successful vote in Parliament.

The vote on May's deal is set for next Tuesday, the vote is expected to go against it.

The same MPs voting against May's package don't want the leaving notice to just expire so they've introduced legislation objecting to a "no deal Brexit". They've set a timeline of three days after Tuesday for something to happen.

Accepting that no one involved has much of a clue, faced with a need to end an apartment rental agreement or employment contract early, they'd hide in the toilet; what do they think can happen? A new offer from the EU, a national realization that it was all a bad dream, extension of the current limbo for a decade? Are they after something and, if so, do they know what it is?

Almost Canadian

From my understanding of the situation May, who didn't campaign to leave, made a silly mistake by holding an election that she believed would "strengthen her position." Instead, it weakened her position.

As a result of this, the EU bargained far harder than it would have been able to and, from my perspective, is attempting to do everything in its power to make the "withdrawal arrangement" so unpalatable for both sides (Brexiteers and Remainers) that they hope a second referendum will be held which will end up with the UK not leaving.

May has negotiated to a position that the EU is stating is the best the UK can hope for. Neither the Brexiteers or the Remainers are willing to vote for it. Some of the Brexiteers appear somewhat happy to leave without a deal and rely upon WTO rules. The Remainers are arguing against the deal on the basis that a) a better deal can be negotiated (even though the EU have ruled this out) or b) another referendum can be held.

The Remainers appear to wish to use parliamentary procedure to prevent May being able to pass other legislation that will cause minor inconvenience to her government. One assume that, eventually, this will result in a vote of no confidence in her government and the unwholly mess that will result from that.

In the meantime the March deadline continues and I anticipate that, the closer that date gets, the more the EU and the UK will move towards a position whereby a sensible agreement can be reached. I see from the BBC today that Germany appears to be attempting something behind the scenes as a no deal Brexit would be bad for it.

Time will tell.

dbd33

This is a perspective I hadn't considered. I suppose it's too late now to know what a skilled negotiator may have been able to arrange. As always, it's a shame there's no credible opposition to the May government.

Engineer_abroad

In my opinion the deal will not and cannot be accepted because of the border issue in Northern Ireland. Regardless of you opinion on Brexit the UK could never accept a soft border in Northern Ireland as doing so is akin to handing over sovereignty on who controls a nations borders. The deal is a bad deal for all involved (brexiters and remainders) and will be rejected by parliament. What happens next, I suspect Limbo.

Almost Canadian

One cannot leave the EU, without leaving the EU. From my perspective, as soon as the electorate voted for Brexit it was voting for a hard Brexit as the rest of the EU was never going to allow the UK to leave, but also keep its free trade within the EU. If the UK government had been strong enough to say: We are happy with WTO rules, but we hope for something better for both the EU and the UK, it may have been able to achieve something better, but with all sides debating what Brexit really means (in a hard, soft, context) the EU was always going to them the UK to "f*&k off" to such an extent the UK would decide to avoid the result of the referendum.

Almost Canadian

I agree that the EU's proposal for the Irish border cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely, and I suspect that statements will be made by both sides that "confirm" (whatever that means) that the UK can withdraw without first obtaining the EU's consent to do so.

It is making the UK look like the US which is regrettable. Who is ever going to trust that politicians will carry out the result of a referendum in the future?

Corbyn's position is so confusing I don't have a clue what he is actually arguing for.

DeanN

Hopefully the country won't ever hold another and we'll never have to find that out.

Referendums are a truly terrible idea and extremely dangerous for democracy.

dbd33

They work very well in Switzerland. This particular referendum wasn't a good idea, agreed.

Almost Canadian

I have no issue with referenda. I do have an issue when the politicians, having been given the result, try to ignore it.

BEVS

I'd tend to go along with that. It is the way a referendum is conducted that makes it a useful democratic tool. They should be about non-emotional choices.
The problem is that those eligible to vote are rarely , if ever, given the whole open truth with which to make an informed decision. Too far media driven. Not enough fact and figures driven.

BuckinghamshireBoy

It's what one is accustomed to, I suppose.

dbd33 is correct, they work well in CH, they are just part of a 'normal votation'. Held probably three or four times a year, usually with 6 or 7 different 'issues' bundled together so that one doesn't have too many Sunday fondues disrupted. It's part of Swiss fabric.

As to the non-emotional aspect, that wouldn't hold sway in CH. The major votations in my time there included "Should we join the EU?", "Should we buy these crap, overpriced, Swedish fighter jets?", "Should we hike the price of the annual highway tax sticker?", "Should the Federal government nationalise the myriad Health Insurance companies out there and bring them together under one roof?"

All good, legitimate stuff.

But it all depends on the political system "in the chair" in the country in question.

Former Lancastrian

Well from a non sexual masochistic view I want Trump to be re-elected so we have 6 more years of him and I want the UK to leave the EU with either a deal or no deal.

The Muricans have only themselves to blame for allowing the Cheeto to win the Republican nomination and run for President and then elect him even though he didn't have the most votes and for the Dems putting Hilary forward as their nomination.

As for the Brits they held a non binding referendum about Leave or Remain. Apparently both sides told some porkies and based on this the Leave side won the referendum. The Govt triggered the Article 50 mechanism with the UK supposedly leaving the EU on 29 March this year.

So personally I have no sympathy as i live in Canada and could not vote in the referendum or vote in the USA and its not my fault.

TBF Canadians voted in the guy with nice hair and how is he working out for us?

BristolUK

Well we don't appear to have the division currently seen in the UK and USA. Perhaps it's time they removed the united part.

BuckinghamshireBoy

In the queue buddy. Globally there is only room for two at a time, and France is up next.

BristolUK

I thought France led the way didn't they?