![]() |
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12623277)
I'm not sure about the detail of Grieve's amendment, but the hard Brexiters like JRM are contending that it isn't an impediment to withdrawal on 29 March? If the EU will only grant an A50 extension on a substantive issue like, a potential second referendum, there's a risk that Parliament can't agree a substantive issue and we fall into Brexit. That seems consistent with Corbyn's insistence that No Deal is formally removed from the process, if it wasn't a risk, he wouldn't be insisting on it?
|
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 12623289)
Fair point. I reckon, though, that with the return of sovereignty to parliament (rather than the Government) the first amendment to the Bill when it's debated next week will be to rule out a no-deal exit - if it's not already explicit in what May presents to the House. That is the point I was trying to make about Grieve's procedural motion: it allows the House to amend the Government bill during the course of the debate. May is no longer in control of the process.
|
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12623251)
The EU is not doing "all it can" to prevent Brexit, utter bollocks. It is acting in its own interests as an economic bloc, and applying its well established trade rules (many of which were drawn up with the UK as a member). The only thing the EU is doing is refusing to let the UK have its cake and eat it too. It's funny how Brexiters are never far from bringing some emotional or conspiracy argument to bear on the situation.
I didn't vote for Brexit and, had I been able to, I would not have voted to leave. However, that does not prevent me from being able to work out the EU's tactics. |
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 12623289)
Fair point. I reckon, though, that with the return of sovereignty to parliament (rather than the Government) the first amendment to the Bill when it's debated next week will be to rule out a no-deal exit - if it's not already explicit in what May presents to the House. That is the point I was trying to make about Grieve's procedural motion: it allows the House to amend the Government bill during the course of the debate. May is no longer in control of the process.
The only threat the UK can make to persuade the EU is negotiate or we leave with no deal which hurts you too, particularly Germany. |
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12623315)
It appears to me that the deal voted on earlier this week would have passed but for the Irish border issue. The EU ruled that out for no real justifiable reason that I can see. I believe it did so as it knew that the deal would not go through which would give further ammunition to those that want a second referendum.
I didn't vote for Brexit and, had I been able to, I would not have voted to leave. However, that does not prevent me from being able to work out the EU's tactics. Despite the very real complications of the Irish border (hardly mentioned during the first referendum) May's deal would not necessarily have passed had there been no backstop issue. |
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12623357)
What's tactical about wanting an external border? The EU made a large and reasonable compromise by offering a border in the Irish Sea, which would enable NI, as a very small part of the UK, to enjoy EU trading parameters, but the DUP rejected it out of hand.
Despite the very real complications of the Irish border (hardly mentioned during the first referendum) May's deal would not necessarily have passed had there been no backstop issue. What would it take to get enough opposition MP's onboard to jettison NI? |
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Pizzawheel
(Post 12623559)
The Irish border question has been an interesting one that not many outside of NI saw from the start (in NI the DUP were telling their peeps to go get their Eire passports 2 years back...). The solidarity from the EU behind Eire and the British behind the DUP has been telling. As is the Scottish point that if a deal is struck with the border in the Irish Sea, that's unfair on Scotland...
What would it take to get enough opposition MP's onboard to jettison NI? |
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Pizzawheel
(Post 12623559)
The Irish border question has been an interesting one that not many outside of NI saw from the start (in NI the DUP were telling their peeps to go get their Eire passports 2 years back...). The solidarity from the EU behind Eire and the British behind the DUP has been telling. As is the Scottish point that if a deal is struck with the border in the Irish Sea, that's unfair on Scotland...
What would it take to get enough opposition MP's onboard to jettison NI? |
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Annetje
(Post 12623580)
The only reason May is behind the DUP is because of the ''confidence and supply arrangement''. Without them she's got nothing.
|
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12623357)
What's tactical about wanting an external border? The EU made a large and reasonable compromise by offering a border in the Irish Sea, which would enable NI, as a very small part of the UK, to enjoy EU trading parameters, but the DUP rejected it out of hand.
Despite the very real complications of the Irish border (hardly mentioned during the first referendum) May's deal would not necessarily have passed had there been no backstop issue. |
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12623318)
How will that not hinder the UK's negotiating position?
The only threat the UK can make to persuade the EU is negotiate or we leave with no deal which hurts you too, particularly Germany. I'll acknowledge that the EU probably doesn't want to see a no-deal Brexit either, as that would do medium-term damage to the whole EU economy and particularly the economies of EU member states that do significant amounts of trade with the UK (the Netherlands and Germany are the two that have been repeatedly raised in news articles). But even less helpful to the EU, in both the immediate tactical sense and in the much longer term as other nations might look at the UK's example, is the current prevarication and lack of ability to make a decision that the UK is exhibiting right now. The EU negotiating team have nothing further to add - they are just sitting back, commenting from the sidelines, and watching the mess unfold. Although I see that France has very publicly started "no-deal Brexit preparations" - which is presumably costing the French government a fair bit, but is a very concise way of making a point to the UK that (a) there are implications beyond the UK's borders of the whole Brexit thing, and (b) the UK is woefully, catastrophically, under-prepared for a no-deal Brexit. |
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 12623582)
Indeed. May and probably a majority of parliament have very little genuine interest in NI.
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 12623583)
The EU could have stated, in a legally binding way, that it would only be temporary and that either party could have unilaterally withdrawn from it. The EU would have been in no worse a position that it would have faced with a no deal Brexit.
|
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 12623586)
The UK has no need of a negotiating position with the EU. The EU has negotiated - and struck a deal - with the May government. That deal has been rejected by the UK parliament.
I'll acknowledge that the EU probably doesn't want to see a no-deal Brexit either, as that would do medium-term damage to the whole EU economy and particularly the economies of EU member states that do significant amounts of trade with the UK (the Netherlands and Germany are the two that have been repeatedly raised in news articles). But even less helpful to the EU, in both the immediate tactical sense and in the much longer term as other nations might look at the UK's example, is the current prevarication and lack of ability to make a decision that the UK is exhibiting right now. The EU negotiating team have nothing further to add - they are just sitting back, commenting from the sidelines, and watching the mess unfold. Although I see that France has very publicly started "no-deal Brexit preparations" - which is presumably costing the French government a fair bit, but is a very concise way of making a point to the UK that (a) there are implications beyond the UK's borders of the whole Brexit thing, and (b) the UK is woefully, catastrophically, under-prepared for a no-deal Brexit. |
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 12623586)
The UK has no need of a negotiating position with the EU. The EU has negotiated - and struck a deal - with the May government. That deal has been rejected by the UK parliament.
I'll acknowledge that the EU probably doesn't want to see a no-deal Brexit either, as that would do medium-term damage to the whole EU economy and particularly the economies of EU member states that do significant amounts of trade with the UK (the Netherlands and Germany are the two that have been repeatedly raised in news articles). But even less helpful to the EU, in both the immediate tactical sense and in the much longer term as other nations might look at the UK's example, is the current prevarication and lack of ability to make a decision that the UK is exhibiting right now. The EU negotiating team have nothing further to add - they are just sitting back, commenting from the sidelines, and watching the mess unfold. Although I see that France has very publicly started "no-deal Brexit preparations" - which is presumably costing the French government a fair bit, but is a very concise way of making a point to the UK that (a) there are implications beyond the UK's borders of the whole Brexit thing, and (b) the UK is woefully, catastrophically, under-prepared for a no-deal Brexit. I have never been able to understand the "soft-Brexit" "hard-Brexit discussion. Once you leave a club, you leave it and you can't stay half in/half out unless the club allows you to do so, something that the EU has rejected (in the sense that you cannot have freedom of movement of goods and services, with out freedom of movement of people too). That is clear. That being the case, it appears to me that the UK either has no deal with the EU, or it looks for something similar to the deal with the EU and Canada where free movement of people doesn't happen. The EU has, up to this point, done a very good job of keeping their disagreements behind closed doors and presenting a unified front to the UK. The UK has done the exact opposite, allowing the EU to have full access to their squabbles and revealing its entire hand. One can blame May all one wants to. I don't believe that she has done any better, or worse, than any other UK politician could have done in her situation. |
Re: Three Days to Plan B
Originally Posted by Pizzawheel
(Post 12623608)
This is why I wonder whether courting elsewhere and binning NI is the way to go- as I said above, throw the SNP an independence bone, and that gets May enough votes. If brexit is the final spark that splits Britain, maybe it's about time...
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 6:28 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.