Westminstenders: Break it or make it.

[RedToothBrush]

We have a deal on the table. In reality it does not answer the question the result of the referendum posed: what type of deal do we want? The progress we have actually made in 2 years is to say, 'we want to leave' but nothing more. Or as its been termed: 'Blind Brexit' in which we exit but without knowing what comes next.

Even this is controversial. There are apparently some 88 Conservative back bench MPs (or half the Conservative back bench MPs) who are intending to vote against approving the deal. Some are remainers and some are hard leavers. Each side believing there is still everything to play for; whether that be no deal or no brexit. We are still as divided as ever.

The stumbling block, as ever, is largely the NI backstop. With many still arguing that it should be time limited. This fails to understand that the backstop is the GFA to all intents and purposes. And this is why Ireland and the EU will never agree to have a time limited backstop.

And once again we have this fundamental misunderstanding that the withdrawal agreement is anything more than merely the mechanism to leave, not the final deal, which is hampering all discussion of the subject.

There is talk that May will try to push the deal through and if she fails she will try for a second time. This might work, if this wasn't being anticipated. The trouble is the element of surprise is gone. This has now been denied by a No10 spokesperson. And has the possibility of a second referendum. Though the door on that, seems to be more open than less, with May's official declaration of a Blind Brexit. The whole effectiveness of a TARP style situation and a second vote on the deal in the HoC is the guilotine effect, where MPs look over the cliff and go 'shiiiiiitttt'. If the hope is alive for another way out for either the ERG or Remainers, then the plan is dead anyway. The a50 ECJ case is also still on; the latest government appeal to kill it was blocked.

Not only this, but there is the first tangable rumblings of discontent within the EU towards the deal. Spain has talked about voting the deal down. Whether this is anymore than talk, remains to be seen. Spain can not veto the deal at this stage anyway - but it might be able to cause trouble further down the line and thats the danger.

Meanwhile Labour are still promising unicorns and a total renegotition of the deal. This still focuses on the backstop.

Sunday's EU summit does still seem to be on though, despite Merkel suggesting that she wouldn't turn up.

And remember, as it stands, on 29th March we will leave the EU without a deal. The power to stop this lies with the Government and EU as far as we know at present, pending the outcome of the ECJ case.

May still has everything to do to make a deal happen and there are so many forces and people working to break it. We have still not made any real progress to Brexit, apart from get closer to it, through the mere ticking of the clock.

The choices are relatively simple:
Crash out/no deal: Will lead to massive instability from the word go. So far NO one has sketched out a path to new prosperity for the UK and for many years it will struggle to even get back to where we were in 2016.
WA 'deal'. It is shit, it is supposed to be shit but what it will do is allow businesses to keep working from 30 March onwards until something else happens. It also means there is no need for a border in NI.
It is purposefully shit and hard on the UK to try and force the UK to actually decide what the heck it really wants. The EU can see that the vote was pretty even and was subject to interference, as indeed have other EU countries.
Remain, could be viewed as 'undemocratic' to take this route as a vote was taken to leave and it should be upheld. Did 17.4 Million voters really vote primarily to stop some more Europeans coming to the UK? the numbers of Europeans coming has fallen, and those already here are leaving. What has the government actually DONE over the last 2 years to improve the lives of UK citizens as there is NO interference by the EU in the ability of the UK sovereign government in making changes. The UK is rolling out Universal Credit, by many accounts it is a mess, it is NOTHING to do with the EU.

If we end up with No Deal, the effects will put our democracy under severe strain

People really won't say " oh, we voted for this and made a mistake"
As now, Leavers almost all blame the govt for betraying them and for deliberately making Brexit as hard as possible.
They don't accept their decision was impossible to carry out

Democracy means very different things to different people:

It's interesting that many well-informed Leavers like the Norths rate "sovereignty" above No Deal, because they regard sovereignty outside the EU as essential to democracy

They, like most Leavers, are also very angry at a 2nd vote, certainly one that includes Remain,
because they say it is just the angry mc not liking the result and making the plebs continue to vote until they got it right

So, a PV might end up with just the 2 choices WA vs No Deal

Maybe BCF and Mistigri could confirm but other European countries have more political discussion programmes on TV. They look boring but the point is the issues are aired. The UK has descended into a pool of dross where 'Bakeoff' and 'Strictly' polarise the country rather than discussions about how people would like to live their life.

In any other normal country, a decision of this magnitude would involve an open debate and a vote to ratify. I’m thinking of countless peace processes and other major constitutional changes.

The problem here is that there isn’t a clear route forward after any vote that doesn’t show overwhelming support for a particular option. (which was also a problem of the original referendum).

What successful examples are you thinking of?

That "blind Brexit" - uses Brexit Ulttra terminology - still enables us to choose Norway (or Canada++, or No Deal)
It is an "all Brexit options still on the table" WA

So in other words a blind brexit! we ve no idea what we'll get or who will be negotiating it.
Starmer is hardly an ultra disaster capitalist! and thats the terminology he is using!

My main objection is that its Brexit and that is worse for the country & our children's future than staying in, once the WA is voted through, its over (some may be relieved at that prospect!)
Is there even a requirement for the final deal to put before the 'commons?

Banks said Leave won, because they campaigned on emotions, while Remain campaigned on facts.

A 2nd PV would be the same
and emotions usually trump facts, especially in culture wars like Brexit

Once the WA is truly signed off and we get to 29 March, unless 'remain' managed to be chosen, the HARD work just BEGINS, for either detaching the UK (Leaving) or deciding the route the UK wants to take, either being a bit closer to Europe (but not necessarily as close as remaining), or to face away.
The WA is only an indication of the general direction and apart from the treatment of citizens and a couple of other basic positions it is just the START.

All the talk of democracy is really people not accepting the Leave result,
despite the fact that Leave opinion has changed very little - such change as we have is mostly due to demographics

If Leave win again by 52:48, or even by 50.05% : 49:95%, are you really going to accept that ?

Do you think Leavers would accept a 50.05 % Remain win, or would they immediately demand another ref ?
How could you justify refusing this ?

In fact, the PM revoking A50 without any PV might actually be less damaging to democracy than making people vote and vote again until they make the "right" decision

It would at least avoid a long campaign and having to beg the EU for an extension

Note:
any EU member can veto extending A50 -many of them are sick of waiting for the UK to decide what it wants, sick of the insults

So, a veto is very possible - say with a public statement that the UK needs much higher consent for membership, or it is unhealthy for both sides.

We have to wait until public opinion is 60-65% Remain, before we can risk a PV
Ideally that would be before Brexit, but if not, then we need 60-65% opinion Rejoin

The EU has said that, during transition especially, the UK could have a Fast Track Remain if it changed its mind

There is a lot of catastrophising that we could never go back
Well we can't if we decide now that it's impossible; otherwise we can.

Remain and leave voters alike are are bored which is an emotion. If another ref was campaigned on No Brexit - we can shut up about it and you will be bored no more. Deal - we'll be talking about this til the end of time, as said above its just the START. No Deal - people die and more importantly to leavers they personally will be inconvenienced, it'll be a faff.

It would be a highly effective campaign for the thick leavers I know who come from a wide variety of backgrounds. They love sound bites and don't want to be seen to be stupid, give em new words to vote on so their pride isnt dented and a promise they don't have to think ever again and they'd be putty in anyone's hand.

The WA is only an indication of the general direction and apart from the treatment of citizens and a couple of other basic positions it is just the START

And what makes you think the following 2-3 years will be better than the past 2? Will the government suddenly start listening to a wide range of views, or will the Tory party continue to argue internally, as they have until now.

I fear that we (the public) will have very little say in the final outcome.

The EU has said that, during transition especially, the UK could have a Fast Track Remain if it changed its mind

This is very interesting, when did they say this? Do you have a link?

MissMoon There hve been more recent statements, but this is what I have to hand:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/britain-could-have-fastrack-back-eu-brexit-says-european-parliament/

The EU has said that, during transition especially, the UK could have a Fast Track Remain if it changed its mind

But would that include keeping the £ and other bespoke parts of the UK’s current membership?

Remain and leave voters alike are are bored which is an emotion. If another ref was campaigned on No Brexit - we can shut up about it and you will be bored no more.

This is very true. On another vote, the diehards would turn out. Would as many voters turn out as before? Significant numbers would not bother citing boredom with politicians and politics.

Fall in the pound, Brexit and fuel costs threaten Flybe.

news.sky.com/story/brexit-and-fuel-costs-force-airline-flybe-to-put-itself-up-for-sale-11553619

MissMoon If public opinion remains split, then the politicians - before and after Brexit - may well coninue to dither.

However, I prefer the possibilities of Rejoin, or Norway++ or NoDeal in the future, to the probability of a disastrous No Deal Brexit.

EU members might veto Rejoin after a No Deal Brexit, a basket case economy with continual civil unrest and extreme parties rising.

Also, a PV with such a split country would be horribly divisive.
A very narrow win by either side would be terrible, with bitterness lasting for decades

We must change public opinion and in the meantime stop trying to fix the result we want.

The PM & the govt should decide what happens next and stop trying to evade responsibility

I suppose the reality is that any future move towards rejoining the EU will be based on whatever situation we are in then, not where we are now or where we were in 2015.

.

the diehards would turn out

Good point. How many passionate no brexit to brexiters are there? Having said that... to make the boredom stop the bored would need to vote. It could be such a comic book style campaign Be a Superhero and Save The UK From Boredom keep it lighthearted and normal as the brexit arms threads on here showed

Nothing elistist about a comic book style campaign.

Merry Some things have already been lost, even if we revoke A50:

The next 7-year budget has been agreed, with all rebates stopped
We've lost some key agencies
We've lost some business

What we retain of the rest, depends on our negotiating strength:

If we are in transition, with things ticking along much like now, then we remain a big asset they will want to have

If we crash out without a WA and return to being the Sick Man of Europe, but on steroids and with civil unrest,
then they may not want us,
or at least, as with the WA, they will want to tie us in and limit our freedom of action to cause harm to them.

re the Euro:
It is likely to be decades before the Uk satisfies the financial criteria, if it ever does - we haven#t so far
Sweden - a much healthier economy - when it joined in 1994 signed up to joining the Euro ... and still hasn't satisfied the criteria
Creative accounting can put that off indefinitely

The future of the EU
Is likely to have the concentric circles, with the outermost ones out of the Euro, Schengen etc
Cameron refused this proposal because he wanted the UK to be "at the top table"
However, the outer ring would be perfect for the UK, imo, probably with the Scandinavian countries

The fact that the polls are showing more support for the WA don’t mean it’s a good thing for the country!

So depressing! I just want an honest debate of the positives and negatives of the WA, some honesty on what we are signing up to, and how it might bind our future choices. Instead pretty much all I’m hearing on here (and from the govt) is rhetoric on why we need to accept this and move on. Why we can’t possibly have an honest debate, and consult the people again (“they might come to the wrong conclusion”). We need to pull the wool over their eyes to get them to do the “right thing”.

In any other normal country, a decision of this magnitude would involve an open debate and a vote to ratify. I’m thinking of countless peace processes and other major constitutional changes.

I totally agree Miss Moon.

I’m disappointed by the some of the analysis on here as I feel it’s airbrushed, unrealistic and slightly naive. I’m not sure why this has become the tune of the thread.

Missmoon
I agree that from 29 March, if the UK takes the WA option it may take many years (you said 2-3) of continued dithering.
I think however that the WA may be sufficiently horrible that significant things will happen very soon after 29 March. Companies such as BMW etc will have most of the answer they need and so will be making their moves. There will be some disruption to food transport, probably not full on bad, but if favourite foods and other items disappear from shelves, or shortages (delays) become commonplace it will certainly ratchet up the discussions.
It would be a gamble of course but at the present it is mostly talk. When real stuff starts to happen things will change.

A very narrow win by either side would be terrible, with bitterness lasting for decades

The bitterness is guaranteed, especially as demographics kick in.

The PM & the govt should decide what happens next and stop trying to evade responsibility

They won't be doing that any time soon, they never have & will just hide behind "the will of the people" whatever happens, be it a JRM brexit or T.Mays version.

The huge problem with what is happening now is that there is no accountability, the politicians can with some justification excuse themselves of responsibility.

The UK could be fast tracked is pie in the sky, is it in the legal text of the WA? no, what an MEP said a year or more ago is meaningless.

Getting a divorce in the vain hope of saving your marriage is not a winning strategy

What is the case for consulting the people again (excluding getting a rubber stamp for a particular option)

How would we be in a better situation after a PV than we are now?

what does it bring to the table? Parliament is split, it is at an impasse with no decisions being made.
Of course, all depends on the WA being voted down as obv once its through, brexit is assured and a PV won't happen.

So assuming a WA is rejected, a PV or a GE is the only way forward.