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.
To me it feels like a sketch being played out. Jeremy Corbyn still dreams about a labour deal with the European union which could only somehow become reality after a general election for which the European union would need to grant an extension to article 50. And there would need to be a vote of no confidence in the first place.
All amendments which would have allowed the House to come to a conclusion to what it actually wants were voted down today. Hillary Benn's marginally 312-314.
On March 15 2019 03:44 Gorsameth wrote: So now the UK will ask for an extension, but no one knows why or for what because the needle hasn't moved.
Hopefully one of the 27 will deny it because its pointless without a clear line to an actual deal both sides can agree on.
No deal or cancel art 50. The choice is yours Britain.
No deal, they will never outright cancel Brexit
But "No deal" was voted down as well. So the only choice they really have left is to revoke art 50, probably as a temporary measure which will end up permanent as no one wants to go through it again.
On March 15 2019 03:44 Gorsameth wrote: So now the UK will ask for an extension, but no one knows why or for what because the needle hasn't moved.
Hopefully one of the 27 will deny it because its pointless without a clear line to an actual deal both sides can agree on.
No deal or cancel art 50. The choice is yours Britain.
No deal, they will never outright cancel Brexit
But "No deal" was voted down as well. So the only choice they really have left is to revoke art 50, probably as a temporary measure which will end up permanent as no one wants to go through it again.
In a situation where the EU told us to go away and MPs had to cancel brexit or no deal, im pretty sure they would narrowly go for no deal rather than risk the backlash that would follow it would be like UKIP on steroids and likely destroy one if not both of the main parties.
What is wanted now is May will go back to the house with her deal AGAIN on the 20th and if they shut that down again, they will then go and ask what they want the day after xD
Aka more time wasting and shithousery as they will say your deal bad, then want an extension and May will go back to Europe with nothing but a "please sir, can we have longer" for Tusk to respond with a no.
On March 14 2019 22:08 Pandemona wrote: Yes because the EU will say you cannot extend past this point, already the ERG seem to at the position of they are going to vote with her deal, that is the thing that is being spoken around at the moment.
They "voted" for a Brexit without no deal the government, if the only deal they can get is the one on the table then what because the EU already said it will NOT NEGOTIATE anymore, 2nd time was more than enough. So there will be nothing to change as no way labour can get this customs trade union fairtyle he wants as it does not exist which he has been told numerous times.
So all that will happen is, the extension will be granted as final deal until 30th June 2019, the second referendum vote will not go through in April, May's deal will be back on the table for "dissection" for nothing to change as nothing can as the EU will say, so it will be May's deal or leave with no deal which 60% of the MPs do not want to happen...
Aka the whole thing is a waste of money and time.
It was May's deal or no deal 2 days ago and they voted it down again.
No-deal being acceptable lost by a mere 4 votes in the first voting yesterday.
Without strong signs that the UK parliament is going to actually do something there is a good chance one of the 27 EU nations votes No to extend because there is no point in creating yet more market instability for months to have the exact same shit happen again and then its over. No deal or withdraw art 50.
This is what Hilary Benn's amendment (i) today is about. Holding a series of indicative votes to see what Parliament could theoretically pass, and then asking for a delay to sort out the details. Unfortunately all of that should have been done 2 years ago. The other problem is that the amendment is on dodgy ground constitutionally as it necessarily pauses pretty much all government business to deal with one issue and puts Parliament, rather than the government, in control of the agenda.
It doesn't matter what Parliament could theoretically pass. There is only 1 thing to pass and that is May's deal.
How more simple can the EU state it. There will be no more negotiation on the deal. This is it. This has been it for 3 months.
This isn't it at all. That's what you are stating. The EU have also looked favourably on other types of deal that May has been so far unwilling to approach them with. Theresa May has her 'red lines' and the EU have theirs. With all of those restrictions in place, the current deal is the only deal. If May were suddenly to have a change of heart and start looking at Labour policy, there's every chance the EU would at least be interested in negotiating it.
I'm at work right now but I'll go find the relevant quotes for you later.
Here's a quikc example though:
If, as you suggest 'this deal is it', why would Tusk advocate a long delay in Brexit for the UK to 'rethink strategy'. Surely if this is all there is you can't rethink your strategy.
But in an intervention on Thursday morning, Tusk tweeted: “During my consultations ahead of [the leaders’ summit next week], I will appeal to the EU27 to be open to a long extension if the UK finds it necessary to rethink its Brexit strategy and build consensus around it.”
Unless Tusk is more talking about 'rethink into not having a Brexit' and not 'a different deal'.
Not to mention any other deal would turn into 'not leaving but giving up your vote' which is going to be a damn hard sell. Its basically Corbyn's letter to May which I believe got a lot of criticism from even his own party. The suggestions from Parliament sofar have repeatedly crossed the EU's red lines, most notably by trying to separate the 4 freedoms.
Plus I wouldn't confuse Tusks hopes to an EU assurance. Needing a unanimous decision rather then a majority makes it a lot more difficult. Not to mention a deadline of 2 weeks.
The easiest thing for the UK would be to cancel the Brexit. Write up what they actually want and what the EU is likely to accept during the next EU parliament term and then trigger the leave clause with an actual idea again (if they still want to).
Doesnt article 50 contain some clause so you cant revoke and invoke it with the purpose of delaying?
On March 14 2019 22:08 Pandemona wrote: Yes because the EU will say you cannot extend past this point, already the ERG seem to at the position of they are going to vote with her deal, that is the thing that is being spoken around at the moment.
They "voted" for a Brexit without no deal the government, if the only deal they can get is the one on the table then what because the EU already said it will NOT NEGOTIATE anymore, 2nd time was more than enough. So there will be nothing to change as no way labour can get this customs trade union fairtyle he wants as it does not exist which he has been told numerous times.
So all that will happen is, the extension will be granted as final deal until 30th June 2019, the second referendum vote will not go through in April, May's deal will be back on the table for "dissection" for nothing to change as nothing can as the EU will say, so it will be May's deal or leave with no deal which 60% of the MPs do not want to happen...
Aka the whole thing is a waste of money and time.
It was May's deal or no deal 2 days ago and they voted it down again.
No-deal being acceptable lost by a mere 4 votes in the first voting yesterday.
Without strong signs that the UK parliament is going to actually do something there is a good chance one of the 27 EU nations votes No to extend because there is no point in creating yet more market instability for months to have the exact same shit happen again and then its over. No deal or withdraw art 50.
This is what Hilary Benn's amendment (i) today is about. Holding a series of indicative votes to see what Parliament could theoretically pass, and then asking for a delay to sort out the details. Unfortunately all of that should have been done 2 years ago. The other problem is that the amendment is on dodgy ground constitutionally as it necessarily pauses pretty much all government business to deal with one issue and puts Parliament, rather than the government, in control of the agenda.
It doesn't matter what Parliament could theoretically pass. There is only 1 thing to pass and that is May's deal.
How more simple can the EU state it. There will be no more negotiation on the deal. This is it. This has been it for 3 months.
This isn't it at all. That's what you are stating. The EU have also looked favourably on other types of deal that May has been so far unwilling to approach them with. Theresa May has her 'red lines' and the EU have theirs. With all of those restrictions in place, the current deal is the only deal. If May were suddenly to have a change of heart and start looking at Labour policy, there's every chance the EU would at least be interested in negotiating it.
I'm at work right now but I'll go find the relevant quotes for you later.
Here's a quikc example though:
If, as you suggest 'this deal is it', why would Tusk advocate a long delay in Brexit for the UK to 'rethink strategy'. Surely if this is all there is you can't rethink your strategy.
But in an intervention on Thursday morning, Tusk tweeted: “During my consultations ahead of [the leaders’ summit next week], I will appeal to the EU27 to be open to a long extension if the UK finds it necessary to rethink its Brexit strategy and build consensus around it.”
Unless Tusk is more talking about 'rethink into not having a Brexit' and not 'a different deal'.
Not to mention any other deal would turn into 'not leaving but giving up your vote' which is going to be a damn hard sell. Its basically Corbyn's letter to May which I believe got a lot of criticism from even his own party. The suggestions from Parliament sofar have repeatedly crossed the EU's red lines, most notably by trying to separate the 4 freedoms.
Plus I wouldn't confuse Tusks hopes to an EU assurance. Needing a unanimous decision rather then a majority makes it a lot more difficult. Not to mention a deadline of 2 weeks.
The easiest thing for the UK would be to cancel the Brexit. Write up what they actually want and what the EU is likely to accept during the next EU parliament term and then trigger the leave clause with an actual idea again (if they still want to).
Doesnt article 50 contain some clause so you cant revoke and invoke it with the purpose of delaying?
That holds no force. The EU can not stop a nation from withdrawing if it really wants to. The court saying they can revoke it, then they invoke it again at any point they want. If somebody keeps doing it they would pass a resolution throwing them out of the EU anyway but doing it once shouldn't really have any consequences except people laughing at the UK.
On March 15 2019 04:58 Pandemona wrote: What is wanted now is May will go back to the house with her deal AGAIN on the 20th and if they shut that down again, they will then go and ask what they want the day after xD
Aka more time wasting and shithousery as they will say your deal bad, then want an extension and May will go back to Europe with nothing but a "please sir, can we have longer" for Tusk to respond with a no.
SPIEGELonline had a wonderful caricature by Thomas Plaßmann today on the topic:
On March 14 2019 22:08 Pandemona wrote: Yes because the EU will say you cannot extend past this point, already the ERG seem to at the position of they are going to vote with her deal, that is the thing that is being spoken around at the moment.
They "voted" for a Brexit without no deal the government, if the only deal they can get is the one on the table then what because the EU already said it will NOT NEGOTIATE anymore, 2nd time was more than enough. So there will be nothing to change as no way labour can get this customs trade union fairtyle he wants as it does not exist which he has been told numerous times.
So all that will happen is, the extension will be granted as final deal until 30th June 2019, the second referendum vote will not go through in April, May's deal will be back on the table for "dissection" for nothing to change as nothing can as the EU will say, so it will be May's deal or leave with no deal which 60% of the MPs do not want to happen...
Aka the whole thing is a waste of money and time.
It was May's deal or no deal 2 days ago and they voted it down again.
No-deal being acceptable lost by a mere 4 votes in the first voting yesterday.
Without strong signs that the UK parliament is going to actually do something there is a good chance one of the 27 EU nations votes No to extend because there is no point in creating yet more market instability for months to have the exact same shit happen again and then its over. No deal or withdraw art 50.
This is what Hilary Benn's amendment (i) today is about. Holding a series of indicative votes to see what Parliament could theoretically pass, and then asking for a delay to sort out the details. Unfortunately all of that should have been done 2 years ago. The other problem is that the amendment is on dodgy ground constitutionally as it necessarily pauses pretty much all government business to deal with one issue and puts Parliament, rather than the government, in control of the agenda.
It doesn't matter what Parliament could theoretically pass. There is only 1 thing to pass and that is May's deal.
How more simple can the EU state it. There will be no more negotiation on the deal. This is it. This has been it for 3 months.
This isn't it at all. That's what you are stating. The EU have also looked favourably on other types of deal that May has been so far unwilling to approach them with. Theresa May has her 'red lines' and the EU have theirs. With all of those restrictions in place, the current deal is the only deal. If May were suddenly to have a change of heart and start looking at Labour policy, there's every chance the EU would at least be interested in negotiating it.
I'm at work right now but I'll go find the relevant quotes for you later.
Here's a quikc example though:
If, as you suggest 'this deal is it', why would Tusk advocate a long delay in Brexit for the UK to 'rethink strategy'. Surely if this is all there is you can't rethink your strategy.
But in an intervention on Thursday morning, Tusk tweeted: “During my consultations ahead of [the leaders’ summit next week], I will appeal to the EU27 to be open to a long extension if the UK finds it necessary to rethink its Brexit strategy and build consensus around it.”
Unless Tusk is more talking about 'rethink into not having a Brexit' and not 'a different deal'.
Not to mention any other deal would turn into 'not leaving but giving up your vote' which is going to be a damn hard sell. Its basically Corbyn's letter to May which I believe got a lot of criticism from even his own party. The suggestions from Parliament sofar have repeatedly crossed the EU's red lines, most notably by trying to separate the 4 freedoms.
Plus I wouldn't confuse Tusks hopes to an EU assurance. Needing a unanimous decision rather then a majority makes it a lot more difficult. Not to mention a deadline of 2 weeks.
The easiest thing for the UK would be to cancel the Brexit. Write up what they actually want and what the EU is likely to accept during the next EU parliament term and then trigger the leave clause with an actual idea again (if they still want to).
Doesnt article 50 contain some clause so you cant revoke and invoke it with the purpose of delaying?
That holds no force. The EU can not stop a nation from withdrawing if it really wants to. The court saying they can revoke it, then they invoke it again at any point they want. If somebody keeps doing it they would pass a resolution throwing them out of the EU anyway but doing it once shouldn't really have any consequences except people laughing at the UK.
Well there's been plenty of that already so nothing stopping the UK I guess.
EU to UK: "That's a shame, OK what's your proposals?"
UK to EU: "We don't have any, we are leaving."
EU to UK: "Yes, but what about the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Irish border?"
UK to EU: "Eh?"
EU to UK: "It's an international treaty you signed, remember? Look, tell you what why doesn't NI stay in the Customs Union, job done."
UK to EU: "NEVER! You are not splitting the UK up."
EU to UK: "OK what do you propose?"
UK to EU: "Why are you being intransigent?"
EU to UK: "What? OK look, we need to sort this and you haven’t proposed anything, what about the whole of the UK staying in the Customs Union?"
UK to EU: "NEVER!
EU to UK: "FFS what then? This is your mess, tell us what you actually want."
UK to EU: "Why are you being intransigent?"
EU to UK: "Will you please just tell us what you want."
UK to EU: "OK if you're going to be like that, we want a backstop added to the Withdrawal Agreement.
EU to UK: "Finally, yes OK, thats fine, but remember this is your idea, shall we sign the Withdrawal Agreement off? Once we have done this we cannot reopen it in the time left."
UK to EU: "Yes, sign it off."
EU to UK: "Done."
UK to EU: "Ummm we couldn’t get it through parliament so we need to reopen the withdrawal agreement and change the backstop."
EU to UK: "We said we wouldn’t do that, but OK we might be able to do something, we are listening, what do you want to change it to?"
UK to EU: "Alternative arrangements."
EU to UK: "What?"
UK to EU: "Alternative arrangements."
EU to UK: "What the actual fuck is that?"
UK to EU: "Don't know, just something different."
EU to UK: "Look, the backstop was your idea, we reluctantly agreed, now you don't want it anymore and instead want it changed to something that doesn’t exist."
UK to EU: "Why are you being so intransigent?"
EU to UK: "It literally does not exist, what don't you understand about that?"
UK to EU: "Stop bullying us. OK, how about having a backstop that isn’t a backstop?"
EU to UK: "Oh fuck the fuck off you absolute idiots!"
Theresa May to UK general public: "The EU are being intransigent. This is not our fault, its all theirs."
The saddest part about this mess it that it's really not all that complicated and made complicated due to the situation in the UK:
That single slide basicly explains everything you need to know. You have all kinds of different possible relationships you can have with the EU, from the left being the closest, still being in the EU, down to the very right with trade-deal like we have with Korea and Canada or even more extreme, no deal at all and thus having WTO rules.
It's literally all you need to know. Noone makes you choose anything, you get to pick which solution you want going forward. It even explains what "downsides" each different solution comes with, spelling out Mays redlines and explaining what you need to provide to get to what level (above Canada-style) more or less.
And for some reason it's too complicated to take this chart and make someone point a finger towards one of the different steps on that ladder.
No deal will cripple the British economy for a generation and result in the kind of mass chaos that the modern world has never seen. And that's nothing to say with what the fuck will happen to northern Ireland and Gibraltar.
May will cancel Brexit beacuse its the only option.
On March 15 2019 08:01 Toadesstern wrote: The saddest part about this mess it that it's really not all that complicated and made complicated due to the situation in the UK:
That single slide basicly explains everything you need to know. You have all kinds of different possible relationships you can have with the EU, from the left being the closest, still being in the EU, down to the very right with trade-deal like we have with Korea and Canada or even more extreme, no deal at all and thus having WTO rules.
It's literally all you need to know. Noone makes you choose anything, you get to pick which solution you want going forward. It even explains what "downsides" each different solution comes with, spelling out Mays redlines and explaining what you need to provide to get to what level (above Canada-style) more or less.
And for some reason it's too complicated to take this chart and make someone point a finger towards one of the different steps on that ladder.
It is more complex than that. Basically only due to NI.
On March 15 2019 08:01 Toadesstern wrote: The saddest part about this mess it that it's really not all that complicated and made complicated due to the situation in the UK:
That single slide basicly explains everything you need to know. You have all kinds of different possible relationships you can have with the EU, from the left being the closest, still being in the EU, down to the very right with trade-deal like we have with Korea and Canada or even more extreme, no deal at all and thus having WTO rules.
It's literally all you need to know. Noone makes you choose anything, you get to pick which solution you want going forward. It even explains what "downsides" each different solution comes with, spelling out Mays redlines and explaining what you need to provide to get to what level (above Canada-style) more or less.
And for some reason it's too complicated to take this chart and make someone point a finger towards one of the different steps on that ladder.
It is more complex than that. Basically only due to NI.
Indeed the main problem currently appears to be how to handle NI, which is why the Backstop was thought up which is what I think? Is the main thing stopping May's deal
But there is no solution to the Irish border outside of not leaving the customs unions or just letting NI join Ireland.
On March 15 2019 08:01 Toadesstern wrote: The saddest part about this mess it that it's really not all that complicated and made complicated due to the situation in the UK:
That single slide basicly explains everything you need to know. You have all kinds of different possible relationships you can have with the EU, from the left being the closest, still being in the EU, down to the very right with trade-deal like we have with Korea and Canada or even more extreme, no deal at all and thus having WTO rules.
It's literally all you need to know. Noone makes you choose anything, you get to pick which solution you want going forward. It even explains what "downsides" each different solution comes with, spelling out Mays redlines and explaining what you need to provide to get to what level (above Canada-style) more or less.
And for some reason it's too complicated to take this chart and make someone point a finger towards one of the different steps on that ladder.
It is more complex than that. Basically only due to NI.
sure, but at that point you're basicly already locked into a Canada-style (more or less) deal and now it's just about if you want to have the border on the island of Ireland or in the sea between (northern) Ireland and the rest the UK. There aren't really any other options besides those two and the UK is against both without bringing up alternatives, which again boils down to the same thing imo. You have decided that you don't want any of the Norway, Switzerland etc kind of solutions, the thing you have picked locks you down to basicly two different paths, or if you can come up with something else maybe even 3 (but they can't) but they don't like either so it's stuck
Ni is shadowing Gibraltar as an issue. Spain was probably ready to pitch a shit fit for it until they realized that they didn't need to as long as the Irish could do it for them. And then the Irish realized that they didn't need to as well because it was so obvious of a failure.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-1406175-640_panofree-miji-1406175.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/YcLP7tB.png)
