Brexit and the Consequences

[Atilla]

Hi Sig',
Where you are on the political spectrum is determined by where the person making that judgement about you sees themselves on said spectrum. In their eyes, that's what determines whether you are a lefty, centre fence sitter or right wing nut job. So, for someone on the (far) left - which would appear to be large chunks of mainstream media, anyone marginally right of centre is perceived to be 'far right'. I've been accused of being on the far right when posting YouTube comments about Brexit, while here on T2W, hhiusa once accused me of being a Marxist. Take your pick!

I'm not sure of my ground here (so someone please correct me if I'm wrong), but my understanding of identity politics is that anyone who voted remain in the referendum is classed as being on the left and those of us that voted leave are viewed as being on the right. This is complete bollox IMO, as I'm pretty sure that I have political views traditionally associated with the left (e.g. I'm a NHS evangelist) whilst, simultaneously, holding traditional right wing views (e.g. I believe in a free market economy).
Tim.

It was always Tories the right who were in favour of EU. The left in Labour were predominantly against the EU. So when you speak of identity politics, politicians and parties in them selves are mixed up as well wrt what they stand for.

It is difficult to pick out a leader from this scenario to lead us to the promised land.


Mikey,

wrt to that program last night, I take completely the opposite view from having watched it with great interest. David Cameron came across weak and rudderless with no backbone or conviction about where UK's position or what his vision on Europe was or is. I saw a belligerent UK government towards EU appeasing eurosceptics and failing ultimately. Hague I always thought of as a spotty kid, not much cop and he, other than getting old, hasn't seem to have gotten any wiser. These etonite yobs have a belief in entitlement without much leadership qualities. They talk fine, dress fine and think they deserve their dues but all a waste of space.

So there was Europe fighting to resolve issues over the financial crises and UK playing daft silly politics. Sarkozy was right. Cameron was an absolute idiot with no political wit or appreciation of the situation. Great opportunity missed I think. On the contrary it felt as if UK wanted EU to fail whilst asking for help and concessions. There was no, you scratch my back I'll scratch yours. It was all about me me me. He then talks about fighting for or defending UK national interests. OMG! What a laughable comment. He has effectively skewed UK national interest for years to come at great cost.

Usually I'd be hurling expletives at this point but I think Danny Dyer says it better than I can.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating and so sooner or later we'll all get to taste one or the other.

 

[mike.]

Apologies, was getting Mitterrand and sarkozy mixed up, I thought he came across as extremely arrogant.

Anyway, good night for the Brexiteers in the HoC tonight... Hope it puts a sock in the mouth of Grieve and Cooper for a bit.

 

[counter_violent]

So let me get this straight.

May wins a conditional vote so she can go back to the EU and get the backstop scrapped, which the EU won't agree to, which means we are precisely no further on. Meanwhile, 59 days to go and we are out and business can get on with adapting to No Deal. Right then.

 

[barjon]

So let me get this straight.

May wins a conditional vote so she can go back to the EU and get the backstop scrapped, which the EU won't agree to, which means we are precisely no further on. Meanwhile, 59 days to go and we are out and business can get on with adapting to No Deal. Right then.

Sounds like a fair summary, cv (aside from the thumbs up, of course )

 

[timsk]

. . . Meanwhile, 59 days to go and we are out and business can get on with adapting to No Deal. Right then.

Whoa, hold on c_v - that's wishful thinking on your part - and Jon needn't worry!
Last night's amendment regarding not leaving without a deal received Parliamentary backing. I realise that unlike Article 50 this isn't legally binding but, nonetheless, it is a clear indication that MPs will do whatever is necessary to avoid leaving on March 29th without one. They'll vote for pretty much anything that ensures that doesn't happen, including extending the Article 50 deadline if necessary, a second referendum or, even, agreeing to Mrs. May's BRINO deal that they voted down two weeks ago. In the eyes of the majority of MPs - all three of the above are preferable to leaving without a deal. So, a long, long way to go yet.
Tim.

 

[barjon]

Whoa, hold on c_v - that's wishful thinking on your part - and Jon needn't worry!
Last night's amendment regarding not leaving without a deal received Parliamentary backing. I realise that unlike Article 50 this isn't legally binding but, nonetheless, it is a clear indication that MPs will do whatever is necessary to avoid leaving on March 29th without one. They'll vote for pretty much anything that ensures that doesn't happen, including extending the Article 50 deadline if necessary, a second referendum or, even, agreeing to Mrs. May's BRINO deal that they voted down two weeks ago. In the eyes of the majority of MPs - all three of the above are preferable to leaving without a deal. So, a long, long way to go yet.
Tim.

So what’s a “none legally binding” result, then? How about toothless, or waste of time. Like much of the Brexit fiasco people want it both ways. To have “no deal” they have vote for a deal and they won’t vote for the only deal (so far) in town.

Is there another? I doubt it from the the EU side, but I can see some sort of revision in the backstop wording that can be seen to mean one thing to them and another to us. A political fudge in other words.

 

[counter_violent]

Whoa, hold on c_v - that's wishful thinking on your part - and Jon needn't worry!
Last night's amendment regarding not leaving without a deal received Parliamentary backing. I realise that unlike Article 50 this isn't legally binding but, nonetheless, it is a clear indication that MPs will do whatever is necessary to avoid leaving on March 29th without one. They'll vote for pretty much anything that ensures that doesn't happen, including extending the Article 50 deadline if necessary, a second referendum or, even, agreeing to Mrs. May's BRINO deal that they voted down two weeks ago. In the eyes of the majority of MPs - all three of the above are preferable to leaving without a deal. So, a long, long way to go yet.
Tim.

Seems a pretty pointless amendment given that the legal position is leave with no deal on the 29th March unless a withdrawal deal is agreed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46959545

 

[0007]

As I understand it Parliament didn't actually vote against "No Deal" last night, but instead gave the PM their backing to go back and have another go with the EU. And it's not realistic to say that the EU position is solid against renegotiation – that's what they say but do remember they took the same stance with no assistance (under any circumstances) for a bailout for Greece during the financial crisis. So what do they do? - they coughed up 310 billion Euro even though that was illegal under their rules. So in my opinion, the game is on and there is all to play for. Unfortunately there is one "slight" snag: – our negotiator who has a history of not getting her handbag out, and agreeing to conditions that won't get any support. Remember Chequers? As far as renegotiation is concerned I think we can expect little and will probably receive even less.

So where have we got to? Last July she railroaded the Chequers agreement through Cabinet despite some resignations and went on to let the EU think they'd got a very fine deal. A few weeks ago that proposal was unsurprisingly (well, to most rational people) soundly defeated. The "nothing has changed" PM now seemingly agrees that to have an agreement without the Backstop is now a perfectly sound idea despite it not being so last July, and is off to Brussels to get it sorted. I may be looking at it too simply but it seems to me that we are back where we were last July but slightly worse off now, because we've previously showed the EU that we could be persuaded to accept any rotten deal. So we've got form on this and the EU know it.

I don't know for sure, but I reckon your average used car salesman knows a bit more about negotiation than this lot at Westminster. Arthur Daley – your time has come.

 

[mike.]

March 29th.
The EU stop the clock
say we are close to a deal
negotiations are stepped up
deal with time limiting or no backstop is signed off
photos with everyone smiling handshakes in-front of EU building...

 

[Signalcalc]

March 29th.
The EU stop the clock
say we are close to a deal
negotiations are stepped up
deal with time limiting or no backstop is signed off
photos with everyone smiling handshakes in-front of EU building...

The end of one process and the beginnings of another.

 

[timsk]

"So what’s a “none legally binding” result, then?" . . .
. . . "Seems a pretty pointless amendment given that the legal position is leave with no deal on the 29th March unless a withdrawal deal is agreed." . . .
. . . "As I understand it Parliament didn't actually vote against "No Deal" last night"

. . . Apologies if I didn't explain my point clearly. I was referring to Dame Caroline Spelman's (Conservative) and Jack Dromey's (Labour) amendment that sought to prevent a no-deal Brexit by adding to the PM's motion that Parliament 'rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship'. This passed (just) by 318 votes to 310: MPs order Theresa May to prevent a no-deal Brexit

It's non binding in that it doesn't overturn the current law which (as I understand it) says we leave on 29th March with - or without - a deal. However, the point I was making is that it's a powerful statement of intent by MPs: they'll do whatever it takes to stop no-deal. If Mrs. May fails to get the EU to ditch the backstop and the current impasse ensues, then MPs will vote to change the law (to pretty much anything) that ensures no-deal is ruled out. Ergo, as a consequence of last night's amendment, the odds against us leaving on 29th March with no-deal are now longer than a very long long thing.
Tim.

 

[barjon]

"So what’s a “none legally binding” result, then?" . . .
. . . "Seems a pretty pointless amendment given that the legal position is leave with no deal on the 29th March unless a withdrawal deal is agreed." . . .
. . . "As I understand it Parliament didn't actually vote against "No Deal" last night"

. . . Apologies if I didn't explain my point clearly. I was referring to Dame Caroline Spelman's (Conservative) and Jack Dromey's (Labour) amendment that sought to prevent a no-deal Brexit by adding to the PM's motion that Parliament 'rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship'. This passed (just) by 318 votes to 310: MPs order Theresa May to prevent a no-deal Brexit

It's non binding in that it doesn't overturn the current law which (as I understand it) says we leave on 29th March with - or without - a deal. However, the point I was making is that it's a powerful statement of intent by MPs: they'll do whatever it takes to stop no-deal. If Mrs. May fails to get the EU to ditch the backstop and the current impasse ensues, then MPs will vote to change the law (to pretty much anything) that ensures no-deal is ruled out. Ergo, as a consequence of last night's amendment, the odds against us leaving on 29th March with no-deal are now longer than a very long long thing.
Tim.

I understood your point, Tim. However, to reject the UK leaving the EU without a deal carries with it implication that there must be a deal. There is, but they won’t vote for it, so unless the EU move - which they show no sign of doing - then all that’s left is no-deal or not going at all and I can’t see the latter as a runner. As I said earlier, a bit of tinkering with the backstop wording to allow differing interpretations will likely provide the political fudge in the end.

 

[Atilla]

Had a hair cut today. My barber, says we should just show a bit of backbone and get on with it. He admits he doesn't understand it all but so what. How hard can it be? There is always WTO, so his heard. His tired of it all. I don't blame him.

 

[0007]

Had a hair cut today. My barber, says we should just show a bit of backbone and get on with it. He admits he doesn't understand it all but so what. How hard can it be? There is always WTO, so his heard. His tired of it all. I don't blame him.

Apparently, you won't be able to get a haircut after 29th March. All my friends are stocking up now.

 

[timsk]

I understood your point, Tim. However, to reject the UK leaving the EU without a deal carries with it implication that there must be a deal. There is, but they won’t vote for it, so unless the EU move - which they show no sign of doing - then all that’s left is no-deal or not going at all and I can’t see the latter as a runner. As I said earlier, a bit of tinkering with the backstop wording to allow differing interpretations will likely provide the political fudge in the end.

Ok, okay, very good Jon - glad I made my point clearly. It seems then that we disagree on the idea that there are just two available options: a deal or no-deal. As a result of the Spelman/Dromey amendment, I believe most MPs will vote for any of the three alternatives that I mentioned to avoid no-deal and, as things stand, ditto for Mrs. May's deal.
Tim.

 

[barjon]

Ok, okay, very good Jon - glad I made my point clearly. It seems then that we disagree on the idea that there are just two available options: a deal or no-deal. As a result of the Spelman/Dromey amendment, I believe most MPs will vote for any of the three alternatives that I mentioned to avoid no-deal and, as things stand, ditto for Mrs. May's deal.
Tim.

Ok. As I see it if we are going to go - and all except me and Atilla think we should - then it can only be with a deal or without one. Anything else the MPs get up to can only be delaying tactics.

 

[counter_violent]

Had a hair cut today. My barber, says we should just show a bit of backbone and get on with it. He admits he doesn't understand it all but so what. How hard can it be? There is always WTO, so his heard. His tired of it all. I don't blame him.

Oh dear, I hope you didn't try to clarify the position for him. He might be a jibbering wreck next time you visit.

 

[Signalcalc]

Had a hair cut today. My barber, says we should just show a bit of backbone and get on with it. He admits he doesn't understand it all but so what. How hard can it be? There is always WTO, so his heard. His tired of it all. I don't blame him.

 

[Oscar Reed]

Had a hair cut today. My barber, says we should just show a bit of backbone and get on with it. He admits he doesn't understand it all but so what. How hard can it be? There is always WTO, so his heard. His tired of it all. I don't blame him.

Before and after

 

[timsk]

Ok. As I see it if we are going to go - and all except me and Atilla think we should - then it can only be with a deal or without one. Anything else the MPs get up to can only be delaying tactics.

Hi Jon,
Delaying tactics that could well lead to all sorts of outcomes besides a deal or no-deal.

I'm concerned about the meeting that Mrs. May had with Jeremy Corbyn yesterday which sounds as if it was much more cordial and productive than anyone expected. Mrs. May is completely untrustworthy and, on top of that, is determined to get her deal through no matter what. Bu88er the country and her own party - it's now personal for her. So, if necessary, she'll have no issues about 'buying' Corbyn's/Labour support. She then gets her lousy deal through and Labour get concessions. That doesn't necessarily mean agreeing to the latter's demands viz a viz Brexit - it could be something else that they badly want. For example - a general election the minute her deal is approved. That could work well for both party leaders.
Tim.