Brexit - the next steps

[jeremyp]

You said 'mainly to do with internal Tory politics' it was not, it was due to the entire political establishment being scared of the rise of UKIP, they won the 2014 EU election, they got more votes than any other party.

The Tory Party has been on a knife edge internally since the late 80's with respect to the EU. Arguably the split brought down John Major's government in 1997. UKIP just added more stress to the division.

Their plans are being made into a clusterfuck because Parliament is doing everything it can to not leave.

No, the plans are a clusterfuck because the leaders of the Leave campaign had no common view on how to proceed after winning, so much so that they let a Remainer take charge of the government. And they also had totally unrealistic expectations of what they could get out of the EU.

Do not put this mess on the Remainers - we have a simple solution to the problem. It's all on your boys.

[SteveH]

Which effectively makes it Turkey - I wonder why no-one is 'marketing' Turkey as an option.

Especially at this time of year!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Apparently May is announcing a ramping up of preparations for no deal. These should have been completed by now and complete.

[SteveH]

Apparently May is announcing a ramping up of preparations for no deal. These should have been completed by now and complete.

If completed, they would probably be complete, certainly.

[wigginhall]

She is also delaying the vote on her deal for a month, no doubt hoping to increase pressure on MPs to support her deal.   This is called democracy, by the way.

[Nearly Sane]

Seen a number of people who thought that No Deal meant that we didn't leave.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seen a number of people who thought that No Deal meant that we didn't leave.

It's just getting worse and worse. Do we need any more evidence of a failing BBC or are a huge number of British people inveterately so fucking thick?

[Gordon]

It's just getting worse and worse. Do we need any more evidence of a failing BBC or are a huge number of British people inveterately so fucking thick?

What have the BBC done to annoy you so, Vlad?

[Roses]

It's just getting worse and worse. Do we need any more evidence of a failing BBC or are a huge number of British people inveterately so fucking thick?

What on earth has that got to do with the BBC, I think their reports are very clear?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

William announces 3500 troops to assist in no deal Brexit.
What good is that?

[jakswan]

Freedom of movement theoretically can be agreed by the government and the EU, but is against one of the Government's red lines.

So it could be Norway + then.

EFTA membership cannot be agreed by the government and the EU as membership is in the gift of four countries who aren't a current EU member state.

Never claimed that i twas anything, just that it is possible.

Your notion that the government can unilaterally decide to be a member of EFTA is both naive and arrogant.

Never claimed that they could, sheesh bit naive and arrogant of you there.

[Udayana]

So it could be Norway + then.

How could it be - especially without the WA?

Never claimed that i twas anything, just that it is possible.

Never claimed that they could, sheesh bit naive and arrogant of you there.

What exactly are you claiming then? Which outcome do you want?

[ProfessorDavey]

So it could be Norway + then.

No because Norway+ (i.e. plus customs union) breeches the following red lines (assuming you are thinking permanent arrangement:

1. Would involve Single Market/EEA membership which would require adherence to all 4 freedoms exactly as we have now, no exactly the same freedom of movement.
2. Would involve Schengen (as Norway is in Schengen)
3. Would not allow UK to sign trade deals due to the customs union.
4. Would involve permanent contributions to EU
5. Would involve permanent jurisdiction of ECJ over the UK

Now I'm not arguing that these red lines are sensible, but those are the red lines of the government.

But in a broader sense, why on earth would anyone opt for Norway+ rather than retaining EU membership, which would effectively have exactly the same benefits and obligations except that we'd actually have a say in deciding things as an EU member.

[ProfessorDavey]

Never claimed that they could, sheesh bit naive and arrogant of you there.

I beg to differ - you have regularly opined that the government/parliament should opt for EFTA when EFTA membership isn't in their gift.

I could opt for House of Lords membership - but that would be a pointless thing to say, because whether or not I'm invited to join the House of Lords isn't my decision.

[jakswan]

I beg to differ - you have regularly opined that the government/parliament should opt for EFTA when EFTA membership isn't in their gift.

I could opt for House of Lords membership - but that would be a pointless thing to say, because whether or not I'm invited to join the House of Lords isn't my decision.

Oh I see so we can only argue for something that the government is offering, if those are the rules....

May's deal or no deal are your only options, which one do you choose?

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh I see so we can only argue for something that the government is offering, if those are the rules....

Nope we are discussing options that it is in the gift of the government to delivery as part of negotiations with the EU. The UK and the EU can want EFTA membership for the UK all they like - it matters not one jot, because that decision lies with 4 countries that are neither the UK nor members of the EU.

Once we propose undeliverable options we are smack back into the 'fantasy brexit' world of the 2016 referendum.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh I see so we can only argue for something that the government is offering, if those are the rules....

May's deal or no deal are your only options, which one do you choose?

The government isn't offering no-deal, although they could deliver it - the only thing that the government is offering is May's deal.

However there are three (and only three) options that the government can deliver - May's deal, no deal or remain, noting that a deal cannot be delivered unilaterally, it also requires agreement from the EU. No deal and remain can be unilaterally delivered by the UK government.

[jakswan]

Nope we are discussing options that it is in the gift of the government to delivery as part of negotiations with the EU. The UK and the EU can want EFTA membership for the UK all they like - it matters not one jot, because that decision lies with 4 countries that are neither the UK nor members of the EU.

Once we propose undeliverable options we are smack back into the 'fantasy brexit' world of the 2016 referendum.

As I've stated Norway is deliverable, not unilaterally, and is being discussed by many MPs, Stephen Kinnock is one example. It is mentioned every day by Newsnight, Question Time, Politics Live, Sky News.

[ProfessorDavey]

As I've stated Norway is deliverable, not unilaterally, and is being discussed by many MPs, Stephen Kinnock is one example. It is mentioned every day by Newsnight, Question Time, Politics Live, Sky News.

Norway isn't deliverable unilaterally, nor bilaterally with the EU.

Norway is also fundamentally unacceptable to both the UK and the EU as it cannot (without revision) deal with the Irish border issue.

But were it to be agreed, multilaterally, between the UK, EU and the four EFTA members, and amended to add the customs union and removed Schengen then why would anyone prefer it to being a full member of the EU - where we'd actually have a say in the rules, regulations and costs that would apply to us, and would have a say in trade deals that the EU might strike.

[jakswan]

The government isn't offering no-deal, although they could deliver it - the only thing that the government is offering is May's deal.

However there are three (and only three) options that the government can deliver - May's deal, no deal or remain, noting that a deal cannot be delivered unilaterally, it also requires agreement from the EU. No deal and remain can be unilaterally delivered by the UK government.

The government is going to have to close off options. They might take the view that another referendum would be more damaging than no deal, Norway lacks enough support,  so you might be right we will get into a position of May's deal or no deal.

Again we can game this, me you and Farage, representing the three voting blocks in HoP.

Me and Farage will veto referendum, you and me will veto no deal, Farage and you will veto Norway,  you and Farage will veto May's deal.

The default no deal wins if I take the view that a referendum will be worse than no deal, which I do.

Play the game yourself, you can't win, I'll bet push comes to shove you will go for May's deal, I'm prepared to bet no deal, call my bluff if you like.

[Gordon]

Unless of course someone has the good sense the rescind Article 50 and consign Brexit to the dustbin that way - but probably not since it is the sensible option, and to use a Glasgow expression our politicians are now so polarised they probably couldn't agree on the colour of shite, so a referendum might well be the last option standing, and hopefully that would see off Brexit for good. I don't buy the argument about a 2nd referendum being divisive: we're already there for crying out loud, and if Brexit goes ahead under any arrangement, or it gets canned, the divisiveness will continue no matter what.

It is hard to imagine, despite all the 'get behind the country' bollocks, a more disruptive political adventure that has fragmented rather than united and all because some people were attracted to an idea that was offered without supporting substance because it was the obsession of the lunatic fringe of the Tory party.


   
 

[ProfessorDavey]

The government is going to have to close off options. They might take the view that another referendum would be more damaging than no deal, Norway lacks enough support,  so you might be right we will get into a position of May's deal or no deal.

Again we can game this, me you and Farage, representing the three voting blocks in HoP.

Me and Farage will veto referendum, you and me will veto no deal, Farage and you will veto Norway,  you and Farage will veto May's deal.

The default no deal wins if I take the view that a referendum will be worse than no deal, which I do.

Play the game yourself, you can't win, I'll bet push comes to shove you will go for May's deal, I'm prepared to bet no deal, call my bluff if you like.

It doesn't matter what you, Farage or I think (or 'veto') as none of us are MPs so we aren't in a position to 'veto' anything.

Problem with your argument is that there is a strong majority in parliament that opposes no deal, so were that to look to be a serious possibility parliament would take steps to prevent it.

Interesting take on parliamentary votes on various options, as being suggested currently, on Politicalbetting - goes as follows:

1. Substitute Canada+ Ayes 100 Noes 540 [NI problem]
2. Substitute Norway+ Ayes 200 Noes 440 [Not Brexit]
3. Substitute Labour plan Ayes 220 Noes 420 [Labour support only]
4. Support bill subject to referendum no Deal versus Deal Ayes 250 Noes 390 [risks no deal]
5. Support bill subject to 3 way referendum Ayes 300 Noes 340 [too complex and risky]
6. Support bill subject to referendum Deal versus Remain Ayes 321 Noes 319 [or Ayes 319 Noes 321 and her deal is passed without amendment]

4-6 may well require extension to article 50, or if that looks problematic to get all EU27 to agree, then to rescind article 50 on the basis that once the referendum is complete article 50 would be re-enacted and deal/no deal implemented soon after in the event that leave of either flavour won.

Sounds about right to me - and problem with 1-3 is that they are simply not on the table, and cannot be without the EU's agreement (or in the case of 2, with agreement from both EU and EFTA).

[Aruntraveller]

Again we can game this,

And therein lies the problem.

[ProfessorDavey]

As I've stated Norway is deliverable, not unilaterally, and is being discussed by many MPs, Stephen Kinnock is one example. It is mentioned every day by Newsnight, Question Time, Politics Live, Sky News.

You do realise that Norway's net contribution to the EU per person is greater than the UK's, don't you.

[jakswan]

It doesn't matter what you, Farage or I think (or 'veto') as none of us are MPs so we aren't in a position to 'veto' anything.

Problem with your argument is that there is a strong majority in parliament that opposes no deal, so were that to look to be a serious possibility parliament would take steps to prevent it.

Sensing a bit of evasion there, if the choice is no deal or Mays deal, you vote May's deal right?

I really don't understand the referendum arguement. Let's say it happens and you have leave and remain again, how on earth that gets through Parliament I have no idea.

Result remain wins let's say Remain win 52%, general election 2022 UKIP win, with leave on manifesto, since the 48% turnout in massive numbers.

Only the government can bring forward anything binding that stops Brexit, only vote of no confidence stops that, that isn't going to get majority.