What is the most likely outcome of the current situation regarding Brexit?
They say a week is a long time in politics, and in these tumultuous times, the old adage has never felt truer. Last week we asked readers what they felt was the most likely outcome of the Brexit impasse. At the time, prime minister Theresa May had just pulled the meaningful vote on her Brexit withdrawal agreement. Since then, May has survived a vote of ‘no confidence’ from her own party, had her attempts at renegotiation shot down in Brussels, set aside a week for the meaningful vote in the new year, and may now be on the cusp of a ‘no confidence’ motion raised from the opposition benches.
But for all the political posturing and jockeying of the past week, nothing has really changed. May’s red lines are still clashing with reality, no one likes her deal, and the EU is standing firm. Unless the PM can rally support for her beleaguered agreement – something that seems highly unlikely given the divisive nature of the ‘backstop’ – her deal will be voted down. This will bring us closer to the cliff-edge of ‘no deal’, but will also undoubtedly increase the chances that the UK remains in the EU.
The cold facts of the situation have been reflected by our readers, with ‘Remain in the EU’ and ‘Leave without a deal’ claiming the vast bulk of responses. Precisely 40 per cent believe remaining within the bloc is now the most likely outcome, closely followed by 32 per cent who feel the UK will exit with no deal on March 29th. Total respondents numbered 1,193, giving a sample size more statistically relevant than many of our Tuesday polls.
Of the other runners and riders, ‘Leaving with a renegotiated deal’ was the next most popular choice, gathering 12 per cent. ‘None of the above’ and ‘a deal under a newly elected government’ polled six per cent each. The least popular option – a new deal under a new Conservative government – saw just four per cent of the vote, reflecting perhaps that May was always likely to win the Tory ‘no confidence’ vote in her leadership last week.
As with everything Brexity, the comments have been full-blooded on both sides. We have left the comments section open and invite readers to continue the debate, but remind everyone to keep it civil and not wander off-topic. Please familiarise yourself with our guidelines for comments content before submitting.
I cannot see how we can ever negotiate a satisfactory deal, particularly at this late date, so there is only one option: leave without a deal. And, it will probably also lead to an election and a new government.
There is no feasible solution to the Irish border problem other than having a hard border, like we will with all the other EU states. In my opinion, the Irish republic is playing political games to suit their own reunification agenda so the UK should just treat them the same as the rest of the EU states. Any ‘special’ solution that applies to NI would also have to be available to Scotland and Wales so how is that going to work ? it isn’t !
May’s deal is uniformly bad for everyone, it’s time to just get on with it and get out – no deal, no divorce settlement.
Yes agreed .
Yes agreed. Not what anybody wants but this is what will happen
The remaining EU States ( who are not leaving the Club, so can write the Rules ) do not want a No Deal crash-out as it is just as bad for them. They are already likely to lose nearly 13.5% of the EU Budget. The Brexiteers don’t want May’s ‘Deal’ as it appears to be worse than staying in and the Official ‘Opposition’ aren’t opposing. It’s not a Party issue and should never have been approached that way; it should have been a Cross-Party Council .
In case anyone forgot, 16.1M people voted to stay in. What would be the likely outcome of writing off the 2016 Referendum and having another? It seems to be the Least Worst option.
Coming back to where we are today, we are heading for uncharted waters whichever way we go, EXCEPT for Staying In. ” You know it makes sense”
And it is the uncharted waters aspect that was what was the exciting aspect. It is the restrictive certainty of the EU which I object to. The real division in the country is between those who are prepared to take a risk and those who don’t. Our political classes are risk averse, many of the rest of the country are not. So its the Engineer, how many of the great engineers and entrpreneurs of the past would have succeded if they individually and occasionally society wide hadn’t taken a risk? Risk may be financial, environmental or of other forms and no guarantees are given, but in the interests of safety and stasis we have the politicians and engineering projects we deserve. Any one brave enough to go against the grain is termed a fool and irresponsible.
You are correct in that the current deal is universally bad for everyone, but that does NOT mean the only option is to get on with it and leave without a deal! The other option is blindingly obvious – stick with the status quo – i.e. REMAIN. To get to that point we need a new referendum – but crucially it is NOT A SECOND ONE! It will be a new first referendum on a different issue. The first one was on the principle of ‘in or out’ without knowing what ‘out’ really meant, the new one will be on the status quo versus the deal we now have the hard facts on, not based on speculation or untruths.
The Republic of Ireland did not vote to leave the EU. The current situation is a direct consequence of a unilateral decision taken by the UK which now places the Belfast Agreement in jeopardy.
I believe the Irish had a vote ,the result was not what their EU masters liked so they voted again , is this a repeat performance. Q what is a hard border .Would a customs post some distance from the border with a simplified check be a hard border
Ireland voted against the Lisbon Treaty, sought clarifications and commitments from the EU, then ratified it overwhelmingly with a second vote. Democracy in action.
So a vote every 10 years would be even more democratic I guess? Now as we are always being told we now know what leaving means (we don’t one way or the other, we just have predictions and scenarios)- we’d all be able to judge each time, right?.If we’d had one at the time of Maastricht. or the Lisbon treaty then that argument may hold. Ireland gained significant gestures – they kept their commissioner (all though commissioners don’t work for the country that nominates them – they work for the EU as a whole) over decisions on abortion and Ireland’s neutrality. I don’t see anything significant that the EU is prepared to offer the UK this time as a bribe. People are, despite what many people think are not stupid and recognise this and will remember. Clearly the EU establishment do not want to (or just can’t) compromise and the fact that Cameron couldn’t get much out of them shows this. There are many left wing and progressive reasons to leave and Corbyn in his heart knows that – but continually being labelled ‘right’ wing Brex -[insert contorted putdown here] eeeer associated with Rees- Mogg/ Boris- is not going to get me to change my mind or more importantly my understanding – because my understanding of the situation makes more sense to me- going against the status quo used to be what the left did, but now it appears to be for stasis and what many normally refer to as neo liberalism.
Shocking that so many would settle for a no deal. Clearly they couldn’t care less. Sad indictment of the state of this country.
We can only guess how many would settle for no deal, because nobody’s asking.
Stuart does that mean that in your opionion NoDeal should be an option on a re-run referendum?
Since you ask, I can’t see how that would help.
Couldn’t care less, or actually believe the lies still being thrown out by the Brextremists that being out is in any way better than being in.
The entire process was launched by Nationalists and exclusively for Nationalists with zero consideration for the effects and consequences, because sovrn’ty and immugrunts and sharia lesbians etc.
It’s a visible reminder to us all that the rise of the right, Nationalism and indeed overt fascism is rampant in the world as a whole and our sceptre’d isle in particular.
We must hope it all gets back to normal now, and get this stupidity off the table.
There are so many catch phrases being used including “Peoples Vote” and “No Deal”. We have had the peoples vote already and no deal is not correct because we would exit on the WTO deal that is effectively an international treaty. It is clear from the poll though that the majority of those that took the poll want something other than to remain in the EU.
The situation that we are in now is directly the result of the UK agreeing to “negotiate an exit deal” that was basically not required if we had directly started negotiating a trade deal from day one. The deal currently being offered by Mrs May and the EU could be used to keep us in the EU and no “reassurances” from the EU will replace the legally binding text. If something is not intended to happen as the result of a deal between two parties then there is no reason why it should not be written into the text.
The question was “What is the most likely outcome of the current situation regarding Brexit?”
The answer to this is not “what so many would settle for” but what many respondents felt we were regrettably heading towards “in the current situation”
Many of us hope that reality will dawn upon our political masters, but bitter experience tells us not to hold our breath.
Remain in the EU. I believe this is the most likely outcome because it is the will of the establishment and about half the country.
Note, I am answering the question in the poll, not saying what I would like (which is what people often do in these questions).
We cannot stay in the EU. It was a bad deal for us when we were properly in the EU. Now they have excluded us from any decision making, but are intimidating us. It would be a disaster to stay.
The most likely outcome is that the process will drag on forever. Which is almost as bad as staying in the EU because of the uncertainty.
We can’t have trust in a Government that is so obviously hell bent on getting the all-time most unpopular piece of legislation through parliament.
They and all opposition parties must admit that this has all gone badly wrong and is bad for the country, Europe and the World. Regardless of whether they are Remainers and Brexiteers.
Just admit it was a bad decision and should be reversed – we shall all be better off for it.
I can’t understand how the UK allowed their negotiating team to carry on if they thought they were getting a bad deal, surely the Cabinet must have been aware of what the potential outcome was going to be. If the deal was that bad how were they allowed to carry on to finality.
This isn’t Ireland’s problem to fix. The UK are the ones that are leaving.
Also, any negotiations over the Irish border aren’t with Ireland, or any individual member state – they’re with the EU. And the EU is much, much bigger than the UK and has a lot more clout than any individual country in the EU. Probably the reason they’re in it…
They are, it’s true. However its mostly for show. Varadker has an election to fight in 2020 and giving the British a bloody nose plays well to the nationalists (even if he has to run and hide behind Merkel’s skirts afterwards).
Selmeyer is on record as saying the price for Brexit is Northern Ireland- however it is not so clear that Eire has the political will or deep enough pockets to take the North. Would they want Northern Ireland’s share of the UK’s national debt? Probably not.
Furthermore, Northern Ireland is a net recipient of UK taxpayer funds . Eire may want unification but they wont much like the cost of it. It would be economically ruinous for both North and South were it to happen. Eire are not exactly West Germany pre-reunification in the economic sense.
Varadker is posturing. Potentially he risks a no deal Brexit and massive damage to his own country by doing so- but he has figured that project fear will eventually prevail. Let him have his fun. Like so many politicians, Brexit isn’t about Brexit. Its about getting elected.
Parliament will not allow the UK to leave the EU without a deal. They will not allow the UK to go through with such a massive act of self harm.
There will not be a GE because the government will not lose a vote of no confidence.
Regardless of who leads it the conservative party is incapable of agreeing on what deal they want.
Inevitably, the matter will be referred back to the people. Most probably the question will be, May’s deal or forget the whole thing.
The real problem in parliament is Corbyn and Labour, if he could just get off the fence then the issue would stand a chance of being solved, but he is playing a horrible game of politics with the country, the worst type of politics.
He could swing the decision however he chooses provided the Labour MP’s follow his lead, although they might not.
The one thing he is clearly displaying is that he is not fit to lead the country at least May is trying!
The ‘simple’ and safe political solution (for all parties) is to put the three options to a mandatory referendum and take the party politics out of it.
Constructing the referendum questions is a relatively easy one
Basicaly
the issue with a multi-choice ballot is: say the result spilt Hard Brexit=25%, Soft Brexit=27%, Remain in EU=48% how would you interpret it – won by “remain” (first past the post), even though an aggregate 52% still voted leave?
Hitting the nail on the head! The problem is that Corbyn is neither party leader nor prime minister material. He is the reason there is such a problem and there is no effective opposition. Had there been almost anyone else in charge of Labour in the last election the Conservatives would not be in government. And we must still bear in mind that there was a significant majority who didn’t vote for Brexit. It may be that the vacillators would swing one way or the other now we are in an informed position of choice, unlike in 2016. We know what the actual outcomes are this time round. Last time it was a preferred choice to enter into negotiations, now we know what is on offer and time to make our minds up.
The UK is scheduled to leave the EU at 11pm GMT on 29 March 2019. If a formal withdrawal treaty (i.e. No Deal scenario) has not been signed by this point, all EU rules and regulations will instantly cease to apply to the UK.
This means there will no remaining agreements between Britain and the EU on how to manage customs, trade, travel or citizens rights.
Does anyone think seriously think this is a good idea?
Given the parliamentary arithmetic https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/ a confidence motion, if it came to it, would be won or lost depending on how the DUP vote. Assuming they assess it is in their best interest to support the Conservatives, the most likely deal is therefore one that both satisfies the Belfast Agreement and maintains the integrity of the UK. In an almost mathematically axiomatic way “if A=C and B=C then A=B” this means maintaining very close ties with the EU (EFTA and EEA membership) for the whole of the UK: so my prediction is the government will cling to power and a deal akin to Norway+ will be struck
This is wrong in at least two places: 1) EU law was transcribed into UK law, so EU law an regulation will continue to apply on 30th March; it’s the new laws that may diverge.
2) WTO is the default agreements for trade, and it will apply. Furthermore, there have already been agreements made that will come into play regardless of deal or no deal.
if I may correct your correction 🙂 EU directives – not laws – are indeed transcribed into law across all 28 EU states “in their own words” which is fine if the text is cut-and-paste out of the directive and into the law. However, through laxness or laziness some UK legislation has been drafted using phrases like “in compliance with Directive xyz”, not the wording itself and these laws will cease to apply when the EU no longer has jurisdiction
WTO rules mainly cover trade in Goods, not Services. 50% of our exports are services.
Until now the EU has represented UK at the WTO, and UK’s membership rights were not set out distinctly, even though UK was always a WTO member in its own right. Its June 2016 decision to leave the EU means disentangling the EU trade rules to allow UK to act independently.
Seven agricultural suppliers – including the United States, Canada and Australia – have already said they disapprove of the terms of the divorce, since they will lose flexibility to switch exports between Britain and the rest of the EU.
Their objections are likely to force Britain into a wider negotiation, said David Henig, a former British trade official who now leads the UK Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE).
Just read the government guidance on what’s required for Air Travel to/from the EU in the event of No Deal to see some of the complexities that still need to be resolved. That’s just one item out of hundreds. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flights-to-and-from-the-uk-if-theres-no-brexit-deal/flights-to-and-from-the-uk-if-theres-no-brexit-deal
I’m not sure what the obsession is with the single market and the customs union. We have around an £80 BN trade deficit with the EU, and around a £ 10 BN trade surplus with the ROW . We export £ 280 BN to ROW , and £ 235 BN to the EU . We Import £ 320 BN from the EU, and £ 243 BN from ROW . Single market works great for the EU , but not so well for the UK. First thing that will happen if we have tariffs is we’ll try to source more locally in the UK, and potentially lower cost sources in ROW e.g. lower costs sugar cane rather than expensive EU Beet. EEC may have been a good idea 40 years ago ( but I didn’t vote for it) , but now it’s an outdated dinosaur. It’s not a question of whether the UK will survive Brexit, but whether the EU will. It’s time for the UK to leave the protectionist EU, and re-join the world community which is leaving the EU behind. Yes of course there are going to be some initial transition pains, but medium and long term I strongly believe leaving the EU will create more opportunities than it loses.
I tend to agree with Mr M. Abdullah on this, “No deal is better than a bad deal” would only work properly (or less painfully) if you prepare for such and the government sadly did not (so ruining the game play in the process) . Instead we have wasted 2 years bickering, boxing ourselves in and raising the uncertainty stakes on our economy. The current deal seems a non starter across all parties and even if the PM extracts a legally binding amendment to the backstop, its unlikely to satisfy a majority of ministers. A return to Hotel California may be a pragmatic outcome.
Watching from across the pond, Britain has the same divisive dilemma as the US. When the very foundation of the future rests upon a Democratic vote, there has to be a Super Majority ( minimum 60%) result. Otherwise you are equally divided and… “A house divided cannot stand”
Can’t believe it has got to this. As much as I hope I’m wrong it looks like it going to be leaving with no deal which will be disastrous for Engineering/Manufacturing and a JIT supply chain system that is heavily integrated into this sector. What were we thinking back in 2016
So true.
I cannot believe some of these votes… who thinks we can remain in the EU… can’t happen, the vote has been taken, the results are in… job done…another vote or not leaving would be against the basic principles of our democracy… it may not have been the result you wanted, get over it, work to make it a success….
It will be good for business long term and offer so may opportunities to those that look to take them!
This is one point of view. Another is that referendums go against the basic principles of our representative democracy and are not easily accomodated within our constitution. As for it being good for business long-term it is surely noteworthy that no business agrees this is the case.
which voted by 544 to 53 in favour of the principle of holding the referendum …
Surely rule by referendum is closer to true democracy than representative democracy. The same goes for “populist” governments where the politicians are actually enacting policies that the public want.
The problem with referenda is that people who disagree with the result call for another referendum, as we saw a few years ago in Denmark, and probably in the near future in Scotland. There should be a minimum time limit between referenda on the same subject.
Another point of view is that, “of course”, businesses are not happy with the decision to leave the EU because for years they have been able to import cheap labour, exploit the local labour markets and get away with not investing in their businesses. ‘Maybe’, when we leave the EU these businesses will have to pay a decent rate and invest in the business and the staff.
but it was politicians, across the political spectrum, that abrogated that decision to the plebiscite ! now they are fighting a rearguard action because they did not get the result they expected?!. I seem to remember the government leaflet- which cost a lot but was put out just before the start gun, so avoiding limits on spend , promising hell and damnation – yet here we are. wrt business, they always complain they want certainty, but not the certainty of a no deal brexit it seems, and for all the benefits to business of the EU, the benefits to the plebs at the bottom seem a bit more nebulous – we still have austerity and stretched civic services (NHS, police etc) here and riots and what else in France and rise of the right wing in Europe ( I think we should discriminate between national populists and fascists, which are not the same thing)
The Tory party was quite happy to have another vote this week on their leadership. If it’s ok for them…
The EU made Cameron look a fool when he came back with nothing and Teresa May will be treated the same. If we “rejoin” then we will still never be listened to so it will never end.
To me, no deal gives us a fighting chance outside the EU in the big wide world, we have our own money to spend on what we need and probably will get many trading partners from the EU as we have now. Remember, they need us to keep the money flowing.
I am sorry to be able to ‘add’ a rider: a decision predicated from internal squabbles within one political party (yes, that one)
Those proposing the leave option started off by arrogantly assuming they would be able to get exactly what they wanted, and some of those preferred it because they could see a personal profit to be made. All negotiations end up with compromise and as has now become apparent nothing is going to please everybody. The difficulties and issues would have been obvious if we had the opportunityof an informed debate prior to the referendum . We are leaving and therefore have no (or very little) leverage to get any form of beneficial concessions from EU. There is only one way out of this morass, and that is to take the first referendum as indicating a desire to seriously see what can be negotiated, and then a second one of do we accept the final negotiated deal or not? But blinkered politicians never think beyond what affects their own private interest.
Well I for one voted for Leave because I wanted to leave an arrogant, un-democratic, authoritarian protectionist EU which the ROW is leaving behind. I believe there will be more opportunities once the UK is back in the world community. Remain makes the automatic assumption that being in the single market is good for the UK. It isn’t. We have an £80 B trade deficit with the EU, and a £10B trade surplus with the ROW. We Export £45B more to the ROW than to the EU, and our trade with the ROW is growing, but it’s been staitic with the EU for about 10 years. Why do we need the single market again ?
An informed decision! But there is more to it than just the trade surplus or otherwise. There is plenty of disquiet at the extent of EU interference and influence in our internal decision making. Sometimes we just have to take the bad with the good. Trade deals however are merely a way of protecting or opening up trading. We still have to comply with the destination country’s rules and regulations, so when we sell to europe we have to comply and vice-versa. Same with every other country round the world. In that sense nothing will change other than some will gain because they can now sell something that they previously couldn’t, at the same time as exposing ourselves to potentially shoddy goods and practices. The real argument comes down to immigration, most of which that causes concern has nothing to do with the EU!
How true! fellow Bloggers might recall from previous posts that at one point it was my privilege to write poetry (starting when Parliament’s affairs were first televised) to amuse Mr Speaker Weatherill. The textile industry, to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the invention of the knitting machine, presented him (and the Lord Chancellor) with ‘leg-hose’ (we were not permitted to call such stockings!) for the absurd Court Dress they wore on parade. I got to know both quite well.
Most of the best work in Parliament is done well outside the view of cameras: informally and by sensible agreement. The knock-about fun is simply to allow some humour into contentious matters. Both pointed out that it is a very short step from a working democracy to ‘tanks in the street’ and the Beast of Baghdad (or 30s Berlin) and anything which detracts from Parliament as the ultimate force and Law in the Land -and a referendum is certainly such- is a recipe for disaster. Hopefully ‘they’ will realise such, but….
It is, as we are being reminded almost daily, hourly!
The UK never voted to be part of the EU as it is, and has continuously, and dangerously in my opinion, taken more and more powers by Stealth. We got one opportunity to vote to be part of the EU , and we voted to Leave. That says it all !
The problem with representative democracy is exposed in this type of event where party and personal interests conflict with common-sense. In particular the poor principle of contiunuing blindly down a path that is becoming increasingly fractious and unclear because of a very marginal decision taken some years ago. Since parliament cannot be trusted to make a proper decision (either way) as our representatives it is only right that the decision be re-validated, particularly with a statistically significant outcome. If that still cannot be achieved then whatever happens it will still cause dissention and strife for years and years to come. The only way out of the mess is for a real decisive outcome. We do not pursue bad decisions in business just because someone decided on a particular course on flimsy and inadequate information so why do the same over Brexit?
I`m a none of the above.
I believe a `faux` renegotiated deal will be put to parliament which will be rejected, a `peoples vote` will follow the government will collapse even further which will prompt a cross party vote of no confidence & a general election will follow in the summer of 2019. Then it will get sorted out.
Are the French vine producers aware that a no deal would result in a 32% tariff . What would be the result, French farmers have a way of dealing with situations like that Maybe the French PM will have a change of heart again.
Will be good for UK wine industry which is already growing ( pardon the pun)
Also good for the none EU wine imports like South Africa, USA, Australia etc.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/driving-in-the-eu-if-theres-no-brexit-deal/driving-in-the-eu-if-theres-no-brexit-deal
We are just not prepared for No Deal without a transition period. As just one example, if we exit with No Deal you will need 1 or 2 different types of International Driving Permit depending on which EU country you are visiting.
No Deal is a recipe for chaos lasting 6 weeks or 6 months depending on who you listen to.
Whatever happened to the paperless society? Everything digitised, so that the borders (hard or soft) are only in the mind anyway! If the ‘ship’ recently portrayed can deal with multiple inputs in real time, surely HMC&R (and their European colleagues) can do the same?
It’s not a question of “No Paper”, it’s a question of the right bit of paper (or binary digits). It’s not that we couldn’t do some of these things given time, it’s that we are not ready for them now and won’t be by March 2019. Have you applied for your International Driving Permits? I haven’t and I don’t expect many other people have either.
More negotiation will give us nothing worthwhile. Leave with no deal is the way to go. I don’t think it will be anyway near as problematic as some would have you believe.
Corbyn as PM is a more scary prospect! Unfortunately, it could happen.
A second “people’s vote” that some are demanding would not be the right thing to do – we have voted. Not happy with the result – that’s life, you don’t always get what you want…
Maybe this is wishful thinking, but surely no Government would be stupid enough and foolhardy enough to leave without a deal. If there is no deal by March, May needs to fax over the retraction letter.
Of course, until then, business will continue to suffer and investment will dry up.
One other possibility is that the UK and EU agree to extend the transition period until the NI border is no longer an issue.
In fact you can’t currently apply for a Convention 1968 IDP unless you go to one of only 88 Post Offices in person. You can’t apply online. After 1st February 2019 you should be able to get one at your local Post Office. Assuming 5m people apply for an IDP and it takes 30 mins to find your documents, get to the Post Office, stand in the queue, get it issued and get home, that is 2.5 million person-hours of wasted time.
It’s worth noting that the poll question does not ask ‘Which of the following outcomes would you personally favour?’ but ‘What is the most likely outcome of the current situation regarding Brexit?’ For instance, I would personally vote to remain, but this poll is not asking me to answer that question.
We’ve asked the “what would you favour?” question a couple of times before and got similar results. This question was partly an attempt at providing some variety and avoiding repeating ourselves.
My view, from very far away, is that the referendum was lost with a very small and I’m sure that the people that voted for Brexit had no idea of the consequences of that, rather than fixing the individual issues that Britain has with the EU. Other than jingoism, it’s hard, if not impossible to see why Brexit would benefit any British companies, and therefore how it would the British people. In fact, the contrary is true.
Rules and regulations are a lot easier to change than the impossible task of getting an acceptable deal on Brexit. Brexit. Things like the trade deficit with the EU, given the EU represents about half the export business, may mean that the UK is using EU imports to service OW exports.
So. just have another vote, now that everyone is aware of what it means, and I’m sure the UK will stay in a union that has been a real benefit to UK citizens.
so basically, you are advocating (a) that votes by people with low IQ , the ignorant and uninformed should be disregarded and (b) the metric of their intelligence is agreement with your personal views – because any other view would be irrational?
High unemployment – report of June 2018 has France 9.2%, Italy 10.9%, Spain 15.2% and poor old Greece at 20.2%. In the long run the UK is best out of it!
Mrs May’s current withdrawal deal is universally bad for everyone, but that does NOT mean the only option is to get on with it and leave without a deal! The other option is blindingly obvious – stick with the status quo – i.e. REMAIN. To get to that point we need a new referendum – but crucially it is NOT A SECOND ONE! It will be a new first referendum on a different issue. The first one was on the principle of ‘in or out’ without knowing what ‘out’ really meant, the new one will be on the status quo versus the deal we now have the hard facts on, not based on speculation or untruths.
If parliament cannot agree a deal to leave and at the same time will not permit a no deal Brexit then parliament may have a case to agree to the only thing which it can agree to- that we remain.
Another referendum solves nothing and we have no time for one.
I suspect that Corbyn is waiting until a no deal looks imminent before he moves to a no confidence vote. A vote he’d lose if he ever gets past his urge to dither.
Rather than allowing this outcome or another referendum the conservatives may look to pass a motion to conclude this impasse.
This would be in the form of a free vote based on a the choice to either remain or agree a no deal brexit.
This way neither party wins or loses. Parliament will argue that it has done all it can to implement the outcome of the referendum, MPs can playact at having voted with their consciences and the country can get back to business.
Indeed, many Labour MPs would find it very difficult to oppose a vote to remain. The SNP would have to support it or look very silly. The DUP would probably support it or at least not oppose it as would conservative remainers.
Finally we can all wake up from this horrible dream and get back to being the worst Europeans in the EU, a title we seem to have recently lost to the Hungarians.
One can but hope.
Your suggestion of a free vote in parliament which “would be in the form of a free vote based on a the choice to either remain or agree a no deal brexit. ” and which you say ” This way neither party wins or loses. Parliament will argue that it has done all it can to implement the outcome of the referendum, MPs can playact at having voted with their consciences and the country can get back to business.”……………….In truth the loss would be to the entire system of democracy in this country. It would in fact be the death of democracy. Not to mention the fact that in truth parliament and the Government would actually have done nothing at all to implement the outcome of the referendum, having actually wasted the last two and a half years attempting to find some way to avoid implementing the result of the referendum. Far from being the end of a problem, it would be the beginning of the biggest problem the country has ever had since the murder of Charles 1st by parliament, and a problem which would continue for decades.
I see your point Barrie. However we have a largely unwritten constitution.
Furthermore this Parliament Vs the Referendum question has already been answered via the ruling on granting MPs a final vote. Parliament is the ascendant body.
Sure enough merry hell will kick off if Brexit gets called off by Parliament -so they may do it via another referendum or they may halt it and offer another referendum.
The bottom line is that direct democracy is the same thing as mob rule – which is why we have a representative democracy. So rather than allowing big decisions such as whether or not we should lop off the monarch’s head to be made by the people- some of whom barely have the wit to decide on who to vote out of the big brother house, we have MPs to decide for us. Or in this case to not decide for us.
Barrie you are totally right about the imminent constitutional kerfuffle that is about to kick off but right now were into damned if we do and damned if we dont territory, all of it uncharted.
There may be some grumbling and possibly a small amount of window braking if the people don’t get their way but at the end of the day we’re not the French.
Apart from the grumbling it will die down as soon as there is another royal baby or cake baking show on TV. Either way it will sell a lot of newsprint and give us something to talk about besides the weather.
The next Royal baby is due in the Spring.
I looked to see what was posted here due to the plethora of abusive comments related to Brexit elsewhere on the internet. Before looking at any posts I looked to see the moderator’s policy was, and was pleasantly surprised to see the following ……..”Keep it polite. We absolutely welcome a frank and passionate exchange of views, but please treat your fellow commenters with respect. When personal insults, upper-case shouting, petty sarcastic asides likely to cause upset, irritation or anxiety are used comments won’t be published. ” Looking at the posts I then find lots of capitalised, shouty comments from Remain supporters (and only from Remain supporters), and also the following from two Remain supporting posters ” Those proposing the leave option started off by arrogantly assuming they would be able to get exactly what they wanted ” and “Maybe this is wishful thinking, but surely no Government would be stupid enough and foolhardy enough to leave without a deal. ” I am left with the conclusion that anyone who voted leave is being directly accused of arrogance, with the insinuation of stupidity, and also that anyone who suggests or supports leaving without a deal is stupid or foolhardy. Pushed hard to think of a response to such behaviour, I am sure that I could post some equal attempts at insult and derision, but I will not do so. It would be against the standards of behaviour required of those who post comments here.
One thing is obvious, we entered the Common Market solely as a trade agreement to facilitate easier trading between member states which are our nearest neighbours; so how did it turn into this all powerful monolith of today, and more importantly, when were the people ever consulted about this and voted. We have an EU which twists and manipulates situations to suit their agendas and takes awat the powers of all people across Europe and then expects them to pay for it themselves, and the only remaining thing people have left is their democracy. This is little more than another power game which the EU have controlled, manipulated, and dictated right from the start and when they knew we were leaving their power and control they simply wanted money as this is what this is all about, and nothing more.
Brexit negotiations? what negotiations, the EU have set their stall out and agreed what they are going to do and that is that, they have negotiated nothing and are unwilling to negotiate anything and remain behind this facade of legitimacy by using the media and trotting out the same drivel again and again in their carefully rehearsed rhetoric.
What does this leave? actually nothing as if the EU cannot get their way they are intent on causing as much carnage as possible to the UK in an attempt to dissuade other member states from leaving; and this is nothing to do with nationalism or fachism or anything else which has been portrayed. It is all about money and control and nothing else, and these unelected alleged officials to take away our control and as much money from us as possible and as that is looking unlikely they are forcing us into a no deal scenario to create as much damage as possible to the UK.
I think everyone knows that words such as “patriotism” and “duty” and so on are used to make people go off to their deaths without complaint for the benefit of some other people who are staying behind. When one is making decisions, therefore, if nationalistic arguments enter into the debate doesn’t that really mean that the case they support is weak and likely to be bad for the person the argument is being made to?
I agree up to a point with Mr.Murphy, but, with respect, some say that a form of national patriotism (and such old fashioned ideas of duty, honour and fidelity) is the glue that holds a people, and its culture within a country together, otherwise we are just a collection of people who could not care less one for another, hence the distrust some conservatives have for the idea of multiculturalism. Whatever your ethnic origins and religion, one should think of and protect the environment in which you live and afford it and your neighbors what protection and consideration one can. The tragedy of Brexit is that the ultimately binary choice means that all parties, in pursuit of what they think best for the country, cannot accommodate the rationale of the opposing view – I am not up much on history but the last time that happend in the UK was with the roundheads and cavaliers, and the 30 years war in europe. We may indeed be living in ‘interesting times’.
Mr S Martin’s comments are spot on. The EU club have successfully defended themselves in the past and will do so again, albeit more aggressively this time against Britain.
It will probably take several years of hardship for many uk companies particularly in the Engineering sector to cope with the relevant changes. As the apparent 5th biggest economy in the world then the uk should and will be able to cope, but there will be some business casualties on the way.
The sooner we leave the EU and move on the better. After 3 years the uk will be in calmer waters.
The EU economy will struggle. The EU current high youth unemployment and the financial weakness of many EU countries will probably collapse the EU operation before 2030.
I hesitate to remind readers that Establishment(s) have several times in the past arranged alternative means of keeping the unemployed busy: 1914 and 1939 to name but two: and the fact that the last time there was absolutely full employment in Europe was May 8th 1945