WA or No Deal?

[bellinisurge]

Asked this on a few Brexit threads and didn't get an answer so asking it separately.
Bored of listening to bad winners whining about Juncker and evil EU and all that tedious bollocks. It's come down to this binary question and which is it.
As someone who voted Remain, I prefer shit deal over no Deal.
No Deal would be a humanitarian catastrophe.
Which is it for you?

Rather WA than No Deal. People will die under No Deal because supplies of key medication cannot be guaranteed. I do not understand why anyone would be ok with that.

I will not be manipulated by May into accepting a shit deal with the threat of No Deal. The WA has every possibility of resulting in No Deal. An FTA will take up to 10 years to negotiate and it cannot produce a frictionless border. It is crucial that the WA does not pass.

I’m disappointed that posters here are being cowed.

If the WA is voted down, Parliament will be forced to debate No Deal for which there is a majority against.

A key way to avoid No Deal now is to apply for more time. The indications are clear that the EU will only give more time for a good reason including a GE or second vote not for renegotiation.

Cross party talks are currently ongoing on how to force a delay if the government does not apply for that itself. Options include an amendment to Brexit legislation if there’s no deal by 21 January.

A ‘senior’ Tory backbencher is quoted as saying:

”I have had these discussions with ministers. They will not say so in public but of course the option of a delay has to be looked at in detail now. If we are determined to avoid a no deal, and the prime minister’s deal fails, we will have to ask to stop the clock, and that will give time for us to decide to go whatever way we decide thereafter.”

Even Liam Fox is putting the chances of Brexit being cancelled at around “50-50” if the WA is voted down.

“If we were not to vote for that, I’m not sure I would give it much more than 50-50,”

Take your point @TatianaLarina but I am not prepared to put myself or my family through the uncertainty or risk if No Deal.
I will cave to her tactics in an instant to protect my family from No Deal.

I’d say no deal if I thought it would shut the Leavers up when it all goes horrible wrong but they’ll just find some way to shift the responsibility to someone else.

I don’t like the WA but I trust the EU more than I trust our Tory government so I’m not too bothered by EU having a say where we don’t.

Bell as i ve said before, May cannot chose a no-deal, her government has explained all the awful consequences of a no-deal, therefore cannot deliberately then go down this path.

By supporting the WA, you are ensuring we leave the EU and will face uncertainty for the next 2 to 4 years, with no guarantee of a good out come at all.

No-deal is an expensive propaganda exercise to bully her deal though Parliament.

@jasjas1973 I don't want to leave but if we have to leave (and we have no evidence to say the public mood is against it in the majority ), then we should leave with the WA. It's shit. It's massively flawed. I don't think we have any other way of leaving that is acceptable and doable.

Agreed Jas.

It’s irresponsible, psychopathic intimidation tactics, but ERG minority aside, Parliament is clear that No Deal is suicide. The one thing that will galvanise Parliament is to be directly faced with it.

Apart from anything else, according to one public law specialist and QC on the Miller case, who happens to be a family friend, the government’s assertions on the role of Parliament are constitutionally incorrect. Here’s an extract from a piece she wrote for Prosepct back in May:

What happens if, as a result of that vote [ie the final vote on the WA] parliament rejects whatever deal is on offer? The government says the only other option is to leave with no deal. That is simply constitutionally wrong. In the absence of parliamentary authority, the prime minister cannot take us out of the EU on any terms at all. That is what the rule of law means

Were the government to attempt to take us out of the EU without a deal approved by parliament, it is likely that this would be subject to a further successful court challenge. As [David] Hope put it, “It is all about respecting the sovereignty of parliament. The law will see to that, whatever the government think, as it always does.”

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/the-governments-brexit-stance-is-riddled-with-legal-confusion

{May cannot chose a no-deal, her government has explained all the awful consequences of a no-deal, therefore cannot deliberately then go down this path.}
The referendum said OUT of the EU, those that voted leave want out so of course it is a valid although almost suicidal process. At some point Leave voters will have to face up to the fact that their vote means than some will die unnecessarily and that there will be massive financial turmoil for several years. While it wasn't specifically on the ballot paper we keep being assured that those who voted leave knew all the facts. Leave voters are not babies that need mollycoddling, they are adults who will stand up for their convictions and take whatever they voted for.

Leave voters are not babies that need mollycoddling, they are adults who will stand up for their convictions and take whatever they voted for

......but they won't, they'll blame anyone but themselves! thats human nature.
imho there are only about 3 or 4m hardline anti eu voters in this country, the rest of the 17m are swing voters and will not like one bit the cost of a no-deal! May/tories will be blamed for it, not the EU, not remainers but her and if May went ahead with a no-deal brexit in spite of all her dire warnings and so called preparations, she'll be slaughtered, of course she knows this, so wont do it, she will do what is best for her beloved party plus what the polls suggest.

Note, though she is very anti a PV, she is less vocal on revocation or an extension.

Parliament is clear that No Deal is suicide. The one thing that will galvanise Parliament is to be directly faced with it.

Well they’re going to need to get their arses in gear pronto, because by automatic operation of law the UK will leave the EU on March 29th, which is only 86 days away.

Hence the cross party talks on forcing a delay...

They need to vote down the WA first.

The WA is the only hint of any further negotiation with the EU.
The only other options are no deal or Revoke.

No Deal is not an option, thus leaving us with Remain.

Personally I want to crash out with no deal.
I’d love that.

Will hold you to that then surferjet. Let's hope that no one in your family loses their job if we crash out or their health suffers because they can't get vital medication. I doubt if they would have much time for your crowing about how you love it all.

That is what the rule of law means

I doubt whether Theresa May comprehends this.

{Hence the cross party talks on forcing a delay...}
I can see some are struggling with the concept, the UK is leaving on 29 March. The 'law' says that unless there is a request for revocation, ALL laws and treaties are null and void at 11pm on 29 March UK time.
At that point the UK will be a 'third country'.
Out of the goodness of their hearts the EU have said that for a limited number of activities, and a limited amount of time, they will allow some things to continue on EU terms and which can be withdrawn whenever the EU see fit to do so.

What they mean by forcing a delay is applying for an extension.

Why on earth would the EU grant an extension? The UK have buggered around for 2 1/2 years and still show no sign of actually agreeing anything. They haven't even decided if they want to be in or out yet.

I’m sure they don’t want to, but they have indicated that they would consider an extension for a GE or a PV but not for renegotiation.

It’s written into art50 that an extension can be applied for.

Applied for and getting are two different things. I am not sure if the EU27 has to be unanimous or majority. There is no point to an extension anyway, the UK has to decide and giving it another couple of weeks to piss about won't solve anything.

I think there will be renegotiation on the backstop so it becomes a more robust incentive to work towards a mutually beneficial trade deal rather than it's current form as a rather large stick to beat each other with at various points down the line.

Once the 'terms' of the backstop are rewritten, parliament will vote through the deal then we'll have a few years of pretending we're not in the EU anymore whilst to all intents and purposes we actually will be. Then, who knows?

Bu the WA will go through, this is the final tussle. You might see a bit more brinkmanship before both sides give the appearance of backing down for the meeja in their respective countries/federations.

A50 extension means MEP elections in May 2019.
Can ANY of us face that? I don't think so.

The backstop has been written to protect the NI border. The EU don't trust the UK to keep it's word and the longer this farce goes on the less they will trust the UK. You have to remember that senior cabinet ministers have expressed the opinion that they would rip up any agreement immediately after the WA is signed.
In terms of negotiating tactics it is almost the most stupid ever.

The WA will not be renegotiated, particularly not the backstop. The EU are clear about that.

If May cannot get the deal that she negotiated through Parliament, that is her problem, not the EU’s.

{The WA will not be renegotiated, particularly not the backstop. The EU are clear about that.
If May cannot get the deal that she negotiated through Parliament, that is her problem, not the EU’s.}

Hear Hear! If only the rest of the government and UK population would get this into their heads and concentrate on a decision, things would go a lot more smoothly and less stressfully.