|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
There are two main positions that appears to be in the conservative party. The first is that hard brexit must occur. If David Davies didn't resign, they very well have a vote of no confidence to replace her with a more pro hard brexit PM. They might still do so, just for shits and giggles, but a hard brexit will still occur no matter what.
The second supports staying in the EU, but for political reasons and for the reason of duty of care to the country, would only support a soft brexit. They too may call for a vote of no confidence, in order to replace the PM and the cabinet with pro soft brexit MP's. They are unlikely to do so, because they beleive that they will not win. However, their tactic is to try to force that a parliamentary vote, will occur over the brexit negotiating position, which Theresa May has repeatedly been unclear about, where they will essentially vote against a hard brexit in conjuction with MP's from the Labour party, in order to force the government to adopt a soft brexit position. Theresa May attempted to bypass this by a strange mishmash negotiation position that she hopes would appeal to the soft brexit MP's, but hopefully would end up as a hard brexit to appease the hard brexiteers of the conservative party (who aren't neccessarily MP's), with the result you see now.
Who knows what the conservative party will do. The conservative party isn't necessarily a monolithic organisation. Has labour too, not ripped itself to shreds in recent history?
Edited, moved from previous post.
|
On July 10 2018 04:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There are two main positions that appears to be in the conservative party. The first is that hard brexit must occur. If David Davies didn't resign, they very well have a vote of no confidence to replace her with a more pro hard brexit PM. They might still do so, just for shits and giggles, but a hard brexit will still occur no matter what.
The second supports staying in the EU, but for political reasons and for the reason of duty of care to the country, would only support a soft brexit. They too may call for a vote of no confidence, in order to replace the PM and the cabinet with pro soft brexit MP's. They are unlikely to do so, because they beleive that they will not win. However, their tactic is to try to force that a parliamentary vote, will occur over the brexit negotiating position, which Theresa May has repeatedly been unclear about, where they will essentially vote against a hard brexit in conjuction with MP's from the Labour party, in order to force the government to adopt a soft brexit position. Theresa May attempted to bypass this by a strange mishmash negotiation position that she hopes would appeal to the soft brexit MP's, but hopefully would end up as a hard brexit to appease the hard brexiteers of the conservative party (who aren't neccessarily MP's), with the result you see now.
Who knows what the conservative party will do. The conservative party isn't necessarily a monolithic organisation. Has labour too, not ripped itself to shreds in recent history?
Edited, moved from previous post.
The final vote on the deal you have got wrong, MPs will be given a choice to accept the deal or not they will not be able to tell the government what to do. If MPs reject the final deal then there will be no deal at all.
|
Well, then we are screwed, no matter what. GG.
|
Looks like Jeremy Hunt is going to be new Foreign Sec LUL
Edit: and confirmed
|
All those years of doing a terrible job and getting shit on for it have finally paid off for him.
Which poor asshole is getting the health job?
|
Is there a difference between a hard brexit and a no-deal brexit?
|
On July 10 2018 04:58 Jockmcplop wrote:All those years of doing a terrible job and getting shit on for it have finally paid off for him. Which poor asshole is getting the health job?
Matt Hancock maybe
|
Jonathan Pie will lose his shit. Expect a video from him ranting about Jeremy C*nt as he likes to call him.
|
|
|
On July 10 2018 04:59 Longshank wrote:
Is there a difference between a hard brexit and a no-deal brexit?
No.
|
On July 10 2018 05:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2018 04:59 Longshank wrote:
Is there a difference between a hard brexit and a no-deal brexit? No.
Yes, Hard brexit would be canada style deal with likely a border in Ireland, with agreements in place on goods,services, flights, travel, visas etc.
No deal is just chaos but WTO terms for trade.
|
On July 10 2018 05:20 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2018 05:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 10 2018 04:59 Longshank wrote:
Is there a difference between a hard brexit and a no-deal brexit? No. Yes, Hard brexit would be canada style deal with likely a border in Ireland, with agreements in place on goods,services, flights, travel, visas etc. No deal is just chaos but WTO terms for trade.
So that deal with Canada took from 2009 until 2016 to work out and it was signed in 2017. So hard Brexit is a pipe dream in this time frame.
|
On July 10 2018 05:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2018 05:20 Zaros wrote:On July 10 2018 05:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 10 2018 04:59 Longshank wrote:
Is there a difference between a hard brexit and a no-deal brexit? No. Yes, Hard brexit would be canada style deal with likely a border in Ireland, with agreements in place on goods,services, flights, travel, visas etc. No deal is just chaos but WTO terms for trade. So that deal with Canada took from 2009 until 2016 to work out and it was signed in 2017. So hard Brexit is a pipe dream in this time frame.
If the deal is made then they don't have to start from scratch do they, they adjust the canada deal to suit Britain and the EU.
|
On July 10 2018 05:20 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2018 05:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 10 2018 04:59 Longshank wrote:
Is there a difference between a hard brexit and a no-deal brexit? No. Yes, Hard brexit would be canada style deal with likely a border in Ireland, with agreements in place on goods,services, flights, travel, visas etc. No deal is just chaos but WTO terms for trade.
But the deal with Canada took years and years to iron out. There's no possible way agreements will be in place in nine months.
Surely a no-deal brexit doesn't mean no deals or agreements ever.
|
On July 10 2018 05:24 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2018 05:23 Plansix wrote:On July 10 2018 05:20 Zaros wrote:On July 10 2018 05:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 10 2018 04:59 Longshank wrote:
Is there a difference between a hard brexit and a no-deal brexit? No. Yes, Hard brexit would be canada style deal with likely a border in Ireland, with agreements in place on goods,services, flights, travel, visas etc. No deal is just chaos but WTO terms for trade. So that deal with Canada took from 2009 until 2016 to work out and it was signed in 2017. So hard Brexit is a pipe dream in this time frame. If the deal is made then they don't have to start from scratch do they, they adjust the canada deal to suit Britain and the EU.
That is absolutely not how these agreements work at all. The UK is a vastly different nation to Canada, with different exports and industries. The UK needs to make its own trade deal with 28 nations that all need to sign off on the terms. You are talking years of negotiation.
|
I think Canada-style deal would absolutely work in the timeframe exactly because you already have that template to begin with.
The thing is that from my understanding a Canada-style deal would be "to have your cake without getting to eat it" for the UK. The hard-brexit people want the parts about it that put it further away from the EU, while at the same time "improving" on it by adding more to it, like expanding on it to include services as that's a kind of important aspect for London and banking.
I'm not sure the hard-brexit people would be willing to sign that as it's not giving them enough they want from the EU.
|
On July 10 2018 05:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2018 05:24 Zaros wrote:On July 10 2018 05:23 Plansix wrote:On July 10 2018 05:20 Zaros wrote:On July 10 2018 05:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 10 2018 04:59 Longshank wrote:
Is there a difference between a hard brexit and a no-deal brexit? No. Yes, Hard brexit would be canada style deal with likely a border in Ireland, with agreements in place on goods,services, flights, travel, visas etc. No deal is just chaos but WTO terms for trade. So that deal with Canada took from 2009 until 2016 to work out and it was signed in 2017. So hard Brexit is a pipe dream in this time frame. If the deal is made then they don't have to start from scratch do they, they adjust the canada deal to suit Britain and the EU. That is absolutely not how these agreements work at all. The UK is a vastly different nation to Canada, with different exports and industries. The UK needs to make its own trade deal with 28 nations that all need to sign off on the terms. You are talking years of negotiation.
Well obviously everything is too late now even Mays deal which is also btw massively complex and unclear will take time. Just if a Brexiteer was in charge from the start the Canada deal is one they would be trying to go for.
On July 10 2018 05:32 Toadesstern wrote:
I think Canada-style deal would absolutely work in the timeframe exactly because you already have that template to begin with.
The thing is that from my understanding a Canada-style deal would be "to have your cake without getting to eat it" for the UK. The hard-brexit people want the parts about it that put it further away from the EU, while at the same time "improving" on it by adding more to it, like expanding on it to include services as that's a kind of important aspect for London and banking.
I'm not sure the hard-brexit people would be willing to sign that as it's not giving them enough they want from the EU.
I think the Hard brexiteers would be fine with no services deal with the EU its the remainers and City that always moaning about that.
|
Hard brexiters wants to keep free movement of goods and services but they absolutely do not want any actual people from the EU. Except maybe as tourists. And it would be nice if brits could still go on vaccation, own property and retire in sunny euro countries so surely letting in tourists would be a good trade for that.
Also collaborations like intelligence, europol, education etc that benefits UK is fine. As long as you dont have to pay for it. Cooperating on annoying things like fishing quotas can go fuck off though.
Overall hard brexit people seem to be the epitome of wanting to have the cake and eating it to and its unlikely that anything except a hard brexit will fix that although many will probably blame the eu.
There are exceptions who have no problem trading increased independence for economic loss which I can respect but I havent seen that many personally.
|
On July 10 2018 05:33 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2018 05:32 Toadesstern wrote:
I think Canada-style deal would absolutely work in the timeframe exactly because you already have that template to begin with.
The thing is that from my understanding a Canada-style deal would be "to have your cake without getting to eat it" for the UK. The hard-brexit people want the parts about it that put it further away from the EU, while at the same time "improving" on it by adding more to it, like expanding on it to include services as that's a kind of important aspect for London and banking.
I'm not sure the hard-brexit people would be willing to sign that as it's not giving them enough they want from the EU. I think the Hard brexiteers would be fine with no services deal with the EU its the remainers and City that always moaning about that.
to me that looks more like a tough-cop play than an actual thing that would happen if push comes to shove. But then again, I forgot about Nigel Farage being in UKIP as well so who knows~
|
On July 10 2018 05:53 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Hard brexiters wants to keep free movement of goods and services but they absolutely do not want any actual people from the EU. Except maybe as tourists. And it would be nice if brits could still go on vaccation, own property and retire in sunny euro countries so surely letting in tourists would be a good trade for that.
Also collaborations like intelligence, europol, education etc that benefits UK is fine. As long as you dont have to pay for it. Cooperating on annoying things like fishing quotas can go fuck off though.
Overall hard brexit people seem to be the epitome of wanting to have the cake and eating it to and its unlikely that anything except a hard brexit will fix that although many will probably blame the eu.
There are exceptions who have no problem trading increased independence for economic loss which I can respect but I havent seen that many personally.
That is a lazy characterization of Brexiteers, and while it may be true of Faragists it does not account for the Vote Leave campaign or the 52% that voted for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
