The Brexit Arms

[BrexitArmsLandLady]

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
🍻🍺🎉🍾🍹🍷🥂🍻🍺🎉🍾🍹🍷🥂

Hold the line Brexiters!!

Nearly there...

Only 53 days to go!

🍻🍺🎉🍾🍹🍷🥂🍻🍺🎉🍾🍹🍷🥂
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

I saw that mystery. Light and tunnels indeed.

Are you going to answer my question about medicines Mummmy?

Tbh I think it's been named wrong 'yellow hammer' doesn't have good ring to it.
Operation yellow tit, or operation Robin would have sounded softer...

Do you want No Deal? @mummmy2017 do you want all the things that are set out as possible in the Yellowhammer document?

Goodness me bellini we had exactly this conversation yesterday with mummmy

Why on earth do you think you can ask exactly the same question today and the answer will be different?

You might not agree but mummmy does not give a shit about the consequences of no deal - she never has.

I saw that mystery. Light and tunnels indeed.

I’m beginning to think Leavers have their own news channel where something completely different is reported - it would explain a lot

@Parker231

Was in the DM. Not the most reliable source though.

I am a leave with a deal. The NI only backstop or special economic zone seems to be the best way out of the impasse

Yellowhammer was the worse case if nothing had been done or planed.

No it’s not - it’s the base case of what WILL happen because we’ve done sod all to prepare for it

Yet you think it is a Bible of what will happen.

Yes - because that’s what the government called it

Was in the DM

Yo be fair I was nearly right - the DM pretty much is Keavers own source of alternative facts

Posters here conveniently missed the fact that even that article says the DUP don’t want NI to stay in the CU which is a bit of a problem.

This is an interesting Irish Times interview with Richard Dawkins about Brexit. I don't generally agree with him, but I really do on this.

With regards polls, they show that most leavers would prefer a deal. However, if the choice was between remain and no deal, a small majority would prefer no deal.

Not all leavers = no dealers. Some leavers are horrified at the prospect of no deal as it isn't what they thought they would get (and why would they, as the leave literature said that we wouldn't leave without a deal, which would be easy to get).

Trying to prevent no deal does not equal trying to prevent Brexit. If you'd listened to the debate in the HoC on the night that they voted on the Benn Bill, you'd have seen passionate speeches from people like Ken Clarke and Nick Boles who said that they wanted to honour the result of the referendum, but not by leaving with the catastrophic no deal. Anna Soubry said that she simply wants the chosen deal to go back to the public, to sense check the 2016 vote and make sure that people are happy to leave with the proposed deal. These are not unreasonable view points. Why don't people want a chance to say that, yes, we still want to leave and we're happy with the negotiated deal? Why is a confirmation vote so hideous a concept?

It's pretty clear that not every one of the 17.4m voters was voting for the same version of leave. Confirming that they are all still happy to leave, with the deal on the table, is sensible.

The whole reason we are in this mess is because of trying to honour the vote. The problem is that it's really rather complicated to extricate ourselves and there is the potential of harm to our citizens if we go down one of the leaving routes. Our MPs have to act in our best interests, and leaving without a deal really isn't in our best interests at all.

And the only reason BoJo hasn't thrown the DUP under the bloody bus yet is in case he needs their C&S agreement after the next election if he fails to get a majority. Otherwise their opinion on the backstop wouldn't even be holding him back. Because right now, the agreement is worthless.

The government have been caught out over the Project Yellowhammer report. When it was leaked to the press in August it was headed - Base Scenario. I read this as what is likely to happen?

When forced to release the same report, the government titled it - Reasonable Worst Case Planning Assumptions. They also redacted the section on fuel shortages and refinery closures.

Why did government amend the report title when nothing has changed?

fluffy the problem with a people’s vote is there would have to be 3 options

Leave - no deal
Leave - WA
Revoke

Anything else is pissing one group off from the start.

So the winner only needs just over a third, meaning nearly two thirds don’t get what they want

And this whole process has divided the country so much that it won’t just go quiet if that’s the case

No, you're wrong. You absolutely do not have to put no deal on there. You tell them that they get to leave with the deal or they stay. End of.

They were voting to leave with a deal last time. The literature told them that. So now they get to vote on that deal.

Ultimately, if parliament had voted the WA through, that's the deal they would have got, whether they liked it or not so, no, they don't get to vote on no deal.

No, you're wrong. You absolutely do not have to put no deal on there. You tell them that they get to leave with the deal or they stay. End of.

Then it’s conpletely pointless

You might not like the fact the are no dealers out there but there are and, no matter how much you try to ignore them, they’re not going anywhere

They’d argue that Remain shouldn’t be an option as we’ve already made the choice to leave and any further vote should just be on how we leave ie deal or no deal

No deal doesn't even really exist. As there would HAVE to then be a deal done. Which would look remarkably the 'the deal' on the table now. So they'd just get what they apparently didn't want anyway. The only difference is landing with a faulty parachute and crashing headlong into the ground, or having a working parachute and having a relatively smooth landing. So, the option is deal or stay!

Trying to prevent no deal does not equal trying to prevent Brexit.

To many MPs it does.
And I'm fresh out of any trust for those MPs who have been pushing their own agenda (Labour, SNP, Lib Dem, the Change lot etc)

Anna Soubry said that she simply wants the chosen deal to go back to the public, to sense check the 2016 vote and make sure that people are happy to leave with the proposed deal.

I am sick and tired of people saying in an oh so reasonable tone "but we just want to check" blah blah.
Keep checking til they get the answer they want is what they mean.
If MPs were honest about the 'just check the public are happy with proposed deal' spin, then they'd take Remain off the table.
Deal or no deal.
That they don't betrays their true motivation.

fluffy it really isn’t

One thing that is really frustrating me with all this is the insistence of a lot of Remainers that we can just ignore no dealers

We can’t - get over it and deal with it

No matter how much you might disagree with them, they disagree with Remainjng just as much

And it doesn’t matter what the ‘facts’ say

Too many Remainers haven’t understood that after 3 years and are still in their echo chamber where only the options they approve of are possible

Difficulty with WA as presently drafted is seen by many as remain.

Adding more options allows the final decision to be voted through without a majority. For example, 36% vote remain and the total to leave, deal or no deal, gets 64%.

That’s a worse situation than at present

No, you're wrong. You absolutely do not have to put no deal on there. You tell them that they get to leave with the deal or they stay. End of

Bollocks.

If the Brexit blocking MPs finally get their way after 3 years of tantrums & disgusting behaviour & a 2nd ref is held with a Remain option, then it should only be classed as valid if the turnout is at least equal to the 2016 ref.

Yy dusty.

Sense check.

Urgh. Is this the new lingo.
Anna s seems to me to be in more need of a sense check than anybody.

YY September - she's deranged.

Of course we can - and should - ignore people who want no deal. The fact is, they voted to leave with a deal on the referendum. So here's your deal, do you want it or not? If you don't, we stay.

Or, if you must give a choice, it's leave with WA as it stands or the NI-only backstop. They're your leaving options. But it's not a three way vote. It's remain or leave, then you put a cross in your choice of leave. If leave wins, you then look at the clarifying section and see what the preferred method of leaving is.

A friend at the gym last night gave me a good analogy of the problems there will be at the ports and the impact onto supply chain. It shows the differences between being in the EU or outside.

You own a gym. It’s in a good location and very successful. You have lots of members who pay a monthly fee to use everything at your gym. It’s a good commercial rate and it works well.

You also have visitors to your gym who aren’t members. They could be if they wanted but they prefer not to. Their monthly fee is higher and they can’t use all the facilities. When they arrive at the gym they have to go to reception to get signed in and their paperwork checked. Those who are gym members can just go straight through and start their gym classes . The non members often have to join a long queue as it can take some time to check their paperwork and this can mean they are late to their gym classes.

Moral of the story - better to be member than not!

Of course we can - and should - ignore people who want no deal.

Fine.

Then we should also ignore people who want to remain.

So, deal it is then!

There is only outcome that was explicitly rejected in the ref: Remain

Deal, no deal, etc were explicitly mentioned throughout the campaign.

@DustyDiamond, having a different opinion to you does not make somebody deranged. Are you a bloke? I'm assuming so, as I attributing sexism and misogyny to your opinion on Ms Soubry.

Why do the vocal minority think they speak for all 17.4m leavers? Why are they so sure that EVERY leaver is thinking the same as them? Why shouldn't those 17.4m (or however many are still alive, as some - on both sides - will have died) get the chance to now clarify their previous vote?