So if 1 EU country says no to delay it's over

[Ozzybobgoblin]

So, if just one EU country says no to the delay then that's it right? Out with no deal. Does anyone think that could happen? Any likely suspects?

I wish for revoke but can understand totally the reluctance to go there

If you don't accept WA, with all its flaws, you risk either Revoke or No Brexit

or a crash out with no deal.

or a crash out with no deal.

Realistically that's just not going to happen, I'm convinced of it. It is still technically the default position though.

I suspect the sentence you quoted was meant to read 'Revoke or No Deal' though. 'Revoke' and 'No Brexit' are the same thing.

Thank you @FishesaPlenty , I meant Revoke or no Deal

Thank you @FishesaPlenty , I meant Revoke or no Deal

Yes to delay
No to revoke - we can completely revoke it

Please let's show some sense and revoke.

{Yes to delay
No to revoke}
What would you hope to achieve by delay?
In 2 weeks time, car workers will be sent on holiday (or at least won't be at work) and this has been planned for many months. The companies have planned this and it will have cost them a lot of money.
Delaying not only wastes much of this money, but as no 'resolution' is in sight the chances of more wastage are very high. It is the same as having a taxi with the meter running while you go into your house and have a bath, have a meal etc before going out.
Loss of a day's output of Minis is around £60 Million a day, more than the amount the UK paid into the EU.

Loss of a day's output of Minis is around £60 Million a day, more than the amount the UK paid into the EU

And that’s only one company. Add up all the loses throughout the UK it would be huge. Some have estimated it to be almost £100 million per day. After rebate UK pays about £35 Million per day to the EU.

Spending £100 million per day to save £35 Million per day does not make sense.

I meant yes all eu countries need to agree to a delay we can revoke without any approval

As to what I want think/should happen who knows I was remain and still would be but it’s so divisive I am not sure what the best outcome is anymore

{As to what I want think/should happen who knows I was remain and still would be but it’s so divisive I am not sure what the best outcome is anymore}

I too voted remain but seeing the rapid slide to total collapse it is very obvious that the political aspect of being a member of the EU is simply 'wrong'. UK politicians are (in general) too interested in the UK and not the EU project as a whole. This is of course a tragedy as the UK is up with the best in Europe and the world with technology and innovation and as such works very closely across borders. This is being smashed to pieces by politicians, aided and abetted by elements who are very against cooperation.
The 'Better together' slogan used when Scotland held their independence vote a few years back seems to have been not only forgotten but reversed. Damage to the UK is not coming from the EU, particularly as the EU has similar problems to those behind Brexit.

Italy will not leave the EU
nor will Greece
as they need access to the single market
Orban will jump and shout but he will behave when the EU says
as his country needs access to the single market

only the UK was daft enough to elect MEPs who lined their own pockets rather than turning up to meetings and doing the job they were paid to do

Having watched the enlightening "Inside Europe" programme put out by the BBC recently, there are several examples of EU democracy in action. In every case, France and Germany met to make a decision and the smaller countries were "persuaded" to agree in the bigger meetings. They were quite open about which countries have the power.
Based on that, I don't think there will be public EU opposition to us extending if it suits France and Germany.

They may officially have the power of veto but it's what happens behind the scenes with that that matters. There is a huge amount of political maneouvring (quelled surprise), bargaining between countries, country A saying to country B we'll let you have this one if you let us have this other thing. No country would use a veto without having employed huge political capital first. So it's not down to being "democratic" - in fact the only way they get 27 countries to agree is by largely telling them all how they have to vote. People are so naive about the EU.

MeganBacon
in fact the only way they get 27 countries to agree is by largely telling them all how they have to vote. People are so naive about the EU.
And in the UK we have a three line whip
except in the House of Lords where bishops and hereditary peers get to make the law

@TalkinPeace
I think you'll find that's on a smaller scale and far more transparent - we know every day what the whip's office are up to because we can read it in the papers - I'm informed via work daily (about 3-4 pages of notes) even though I don't work in government. No-one knows the behind the scenes bargaining of the EU unless it is their actual job to be involved in it.

Having watched the enlightening "Inside Europe" programme put out by the BBC recently, there are several examples of EU democracy in action. In every case, France and Germany met to make a decision and the smaller countries were "persuaded" to agree in the bigger meetings. They were quite open about which countries have the power

And until the UK made the suicidal decision to leave, we were one of the big three power wielding countries within the EU. We could leverage that power to get pretty much anything we wanted within the Eu eg No Euro, no Schengen, no commitment to ever closer union etc. We could also leverage that power to get our own way in global trade deals etc.

Let’s see how that all works once we leave.

we know every day what the whip's office are up to because we can read it in the papers
Link please, to what dirt they have on what MPs and what bribes they are offering to whom to force votes.
What about the Bishops?
And how about the lobbyists (who are much more extreme in the US, land of the Free)

Actually that "Inside Europe "programme went back several years and the UK didn't really have much power precisely because we had already opted out of the Schengen agreement and the Euro. We sidelined ourselves from the major issues

Its well worth a watch.

Wielding power isn't about deciding things that we alone didn't want to be a part of. It's about changing something that affects the whole EU to suit us. I doubt we wielded much power at all in those discussions, but it was possibly unrealistic to expect that we would because we were never properly "in". I think to wield that power you had to be both a big contributor and fully "in".

LeClerc I totally agree with you on the UK politicians' self-interest. I'd like to see us stay and play a more assertive role in shaping and developing the EU as a whole.

{ I doubt we wielded much power at all in those discussions, but it was possibly unrealistic to expect that we would because we were never properly "in". I think to wield that power you had to be both a big contributor and fully "in".}

The UK always punched above it's weight, it got greater concessions from the EU than most others and that must rankle.
The fact that the UK was not really a 'team player' or at least not wholly committed to the project is the UK's loss.
There are of course excellent UK MEPs who do a sterling job but when you have the likes of Farage letting the UK down it is very difficult to counter that. No one pretends that the EU is perfect but you have to try. The world has changed immensely since the UK joined the EU project and when the UK steps out into the light in a fortnight's time it may wish it had taken a coat.