Brexit Thread 2

[Return_of_the_STAR]

I was thinking earlier, if labour had voted for mays deal then it would have gotten through, but the DUP would have then ditched the Tories, stripping the Tories of their commons majority, allowing a successful vote of no confidence etc... I’m not sure that would have been better as it would have meant Brexit definitely happening.

[Lagamorph]

I was thinking earlier, if labour had voted for mays deal then it would have gotten through, but the DUP would have then ditched the Tories, stripping the Tories of their commons majority, allowing a successful vote of no confidence etc... I’m not sure that would have been better as it would have meant Brexit definitely happening.

If Labour had voted for May's deal then there wouldn't have been a vote of no confidence.

[Squinty]

I think the most likely scenario is May pushing that WA back through with next to no amendments. If it's done late enough, there's a bigger chance that she could succeed in getting it through. If it doesn't......I have no idea what will happen.

All this talking to other parties is just for show. She won't listen to anyone.

[Moggy]

I was thinking earlier, if labour had voted for mays deal then it would have gotten through, but the DUP would have then ditched the Tories, stripping the Tories of their commons majority, allowing a successful vote of no confidence etc... I’m not sure that would have been better as it would have meant Brexit definitely happening.

If Labour had voted for May's deal then there wouldn't have been a vote of no confidence.

Plus even then the DUP may well have preferred the idea of a Tory government to a Labour one.

[captain red dog]

I think Corbyn is bang on to put down a red line of May having to rule out "no deal" before talks. May has shown absolutely no sign of compromising on anything and ruling out a no deal should be the baseline for talks.

If she refuses, I don't see any other choice for Corbyn but to push for a second referendum.

[Blue Eyes]

I think Corbyn is bang on to put down a red line of May having to rule out "no deal" before talks. May has shown absolutely no sign of compromising on anything and ruling out a no deal should be the baseline for talks.

If she refuses, I don't see any other choice for Corbyn but to push for a second referendum.

I'm sort of in two minds about this. At first I thought it was good from Corbyn but as they're both stubborn strawberry floaters it was never going to fly and that the best way to avoid no-deal would be to work on an alternative. Or, May could agree that if no agreement has been reached by say March 15 they would have to revoke Article 50.

[pixelwinx]

I think Corbyn is bang on to put down a red line of May having to rule out "no deal" before talks. May has shown absolutely no sign of compromising on anything and ruling out a no deal should be the baseline for talks.

If she refuses, I don't see any other choice for Corbyn but to push for a second referendum.

I'm sort of in two minds about this. At first I thought it was good from Corbyn but as they're both stubborn strawberry floaters it was never going to fly and that the best way to avoid no-deal would be to work on an alternative. Or, May could agree that if no agreement has been reached by say March 15 they would have to revoke Article 50.

I don’t think there is any chance of Article 50 being revoked as that privilege is granted with the understanding that it is done in good faith of the UK changing their mind about leaving the EU. I think it’s much more likely that an extension of up to a year will be offered by the EU...there is some confusion though if this would be granted for renegotiation or purely for another referendum etc. With both a no deal and second referendum option being so problematic I think this is the likely outcome.

[Photek]

Every station here is on about this, I'm bored out of my f**king mind.

[Blue Eyes]

I think Corbyn is bang on to put down a red line of May having to rule out "no deal" before talks. May has shown absolutely no sign of compromising on anything and ruling out a no deal should be the baseline for talks.

If she refuses, I don't see any other choice for Corbyn but to push for a second referendum.

I'm sort of in two minds about this. At first I thought it was good from Corbyn but as they're both stubborn strawberry floaters it was never going to fly and that the best way to avoid no-deal would be to work on an alternative. Or, May could agree that if no agreement has been reached by say March 15 they would have to revoke Article 50.

I don’t think there is any chance of Article 50 being revoked as that privilege is granted with the understanding that it is done in good faith of the UK changing their mind about leaving the EU. I think it’s much more likely that an extension of up to a year will be offered by the EU...there is some confusion though if this would be granted for renegotiation or purely for another referendum etc. With both a no deal and second referendum option being so problematic I think this is the likely outcome.

Yeah an extension is probably more likely. I think I heard that it would be extended in the case of another referendum but who bloody knows.

[Moggy]

I think Corbyn is bang on to put down a red line of May having to rule out "no deal" before talks. May has shown absolutely no sign of compromising on anything and ruling out a no deal should be the baseline for talks.

If she refuses, I don't see any other choice for Corbyn but to push for a second referendum.

I'm sort of in two minds about this. At first I thought it was good from Corbyn but as they're both stubborn strawberry floaters it was never going to fly and that the best way to avoid no-deal would be to work on an alternative. Or, May could agree that if no agreement has been reached by say March 15 they would have to revoke Article 50.

I don’t think there is any chance of Article 50 being revoked as that privilege is granted with the understanding that it is done in good faith of the UK changing their mind about leaving the EU. I think it’s much more likely that an extension of up to a year will be offered by the EU...there is some confusion though if this would be granted for renegotiation or purely for another referendum etc. With both a no deal and second referendum option being so problematic I think this is the likely outcome.

It’s not true that it has to be in good faith. All the court said was it has to follow a democratic process.

[DML]

May can no longer pretend she holds control. Its compromise now, or get amended on Monday. I think people are just asking her to admit that shes a piece of the puzzle now, and not the kingmaker, totally reasonable when shes shown no sign of budging previously and that resulted in the worst defeat in British political history.

[pixelwinx]

I think Corbyn is bang on to put down a red line of May having to rule out "no deal" before talks. May has shown absolutely no sign of compromising on anything and ruling out a no deal should be the baseline for talks.

If she refuses, I don't see any other choice for Corbyn but to push for a second referendum.

I'm sort of in two minds about this. At first I thought it was good from Corbyn but as they're both stubborn strawberry floaters it was never going to fly and that the best way to avoid no-deal would be to work on an alternative. Or, May could agree that if no agreement has been reached by say March 15 they would have to revoke Article 50.

I don’t think there is any chance of Article 50 being revoked as that privilege is granted with the understanding that it is done in good faith of the UK changing their mind about leaving the EU. I think it’s much more likely that an extension of up to a year will be offered by the EU...there is some confusion though if this would be granted for renegotiation or purely for another referendum etc. With both a no deal and second referendum option being so problematic I think this is the likely outcome.

It’s not true that it has to be in good faith. All the court said was it has to follow a democratic process.

Good faith probably wrong phrase. By all accounts there is a clause which states is needs to be “unequivocal and unconditional"...funnily enough different people have different options on what that actually means.

[Errkal]

Every station here is on about this, I'm bored out of my f**king mind.

Same here. There are a load of comedy shows i used to like such as The Last Leg that I just can't watch any more as it is just Brexit stuff each week and it is just depressing and infuriating.

[Moggy]

I think Corbyn is bang on to put down a red line of May having to rule out "no deal" before talks. May has shown absolutely no sign of compromising on anything and ruling out a no deal should be the baseline for talks.

If she refuses, I don't see any other choice for Corbyn but to push for a second referendum.

I'm sort of in two minds about this. At first I thought it was good from Corbyn but as they're both stubborn strawberry floaters it was never going to fly and that the best way to avoid no-deal would be to work on an alternative. Or, May could agree that if no agreement has been reached by say March 15 they would have to revoke Article 50.

I don’t think there is any chance of Article 50 being revoked as that privilege is granted with the understanding that it is done in good faith of the UK changing their mind about leaving the EU. I think it’s much more likely that an extension of up to a year will be offered by the EU...there is some confusion though if this would be granted for renegotiation or purely for another referendum etc. With both a no deal and second referendum option being so problematic I think this is the likely outcome.

It’s not true that it has to be in good faith. All the court said was it has to follow a democratic process.

Good faith probably wrong phrase. By all accounts there is a clause which states is needs to be “unequivocal and unconditional"...funnily enough different people have different options on what that actually means.

It does say that but there is nothing to stop the UK triggering Article 50 again soon after revoking it. The ruling was clear that a member state has the right to revoke it unilaterally and Article 50 has no rules on when a member state can trigger it.

[Moggy]

Every station here is on about this, I'm bored out of my f**king mind.

Same here. There are a load of comedy shows i used to like such as The Last Leg that I just can't watch any more as it is just Brexit stuff each week and it is just depressing and infuriating.

“I’m sick of Brexit......QUICK TO THE BREXIT THREAD!”

[pixelwinx]

I think Corbyn is bang on to put down a red line of May having to rule out "no deal" before talks. May has shown absolutely no sign of compromising on anything and ruling out a no deal should be the baseline for talks.

If she refuses, I don't see any other choice for Corbyn but to push for a second referendum.

I'm sort of in two minds about this. At first I thought it was good from Corbyn but as they're both stubborn strawberry floaters it was never going to fly and that the best way to avoid no-deal would be to work on an alternative. Or, May could agree that if no agreement has been reached by say March 15 they would have to revoke Article 50.

I don’t think there is any chance of Article 50 being revoked as that privilege is granted with the understanding that it is done in good faith of the UK changing their mind about leaving the EU. I think it’s much more likely that an extension of up to a year will be offered by the EU...there is some confusion though if this would be granted for renegotiation or purely for another referendum etc. With both a no deal and second referendum option being so problematic I think this is the likely outcome.

It’s not true that it has to be in good faith. All the court said was it has to follow a democratic process.

Good faith probably wrong phrase. By all accounts there is a clause which states is needs to be “unequivocal and unconditional"...funnily enough different people have different options on what that actually means.

It does say that but there is nothing to stop the UK triggering Article 50 again soon after revoking it. The ruling was clear that a member state has the right to revoke it unilaterally and Article 50 has no rules on when a member state can trigger it.

Time will out I suppose. I don’t think the government would entertain the idea of revoking it over seeking an extension as the message it would send out would be inflammatory to the Brexiteers.

[Photek]

Every station here is on about this, I'm bored out of my f**king mind.

Same here. There are a load of comedy shows i used to like such as The Last Leg that I just can't watch any more as it is just Brexit stuff each week and it is just depressing and infuriating.

“I’m sick of Brexit......QUICK TO THE BREXIT THREAD!”

tbf I haven't posted in a little while but this is always around the top of the 'off topic' page and the football thread is dying slowly cos manu are having a mare.

[Moggy]

Every station here is on about this, I'm bored out of my f**king mind.

Same here. There are a load of comedy shows i used to like such as The Last Leg that I just can't watch any more as it is just Brexit stuff each week and it is just depressing and infuriating.

“I’m sick of Brexit......QUICK TO THE BREXIT THREAD!”

tbf I haven't posted in a little while but this is always around the top of the 'off topic' page and the football thread is dying slowly cos manu are having a mare.

I was only messing around. I totally get why people are fed up with all this bullshit.

[Moggy]

I think Corbyn is bang on to put down a red line of May having to rule out "no deal" before talks. May has shown absolutely no sign of compromising on anything and ruling out a no deal should be the baseline for talks.

If she refuses, I don't see any other choice for Corbyn but to push for a second referendum.

I'm sort of in two minds about this. At first I thought it was good from Corbyn but as they're both stubborn strawberry floaters it was never going to fly and that the best way to avoid no-deal would be to work on an alternative. Or, May could agree that if no agreement has been reached by say March 15 they would have to revoke Article 50.

I don’t think there is any chance of Article 50 being revoked as that privilege is granted with the understanding that it is done in good faith of the UK changing their mind about leaving the EU. I think it’s much more likely that an extension of up to a year will be offered by the EU...there is some confusion though if this would be granted for renegotiation or purely for another referendum etc. With both a no deal and second referendum option being so problematic I think this is the likely outcome.

It’s not true that it has to be in good faith. All the court said was it has to follow a democratic process.

Good faith probably wrong phrase. By all accounts there is a clause which states is needs to be “unequivocal and unconditional"...funnily enough different people have different options on what that actually means.

It does say that but there is nothing to stop the UK triggering Article 50 again soon after revoking it. The ruling was clear that a member state has the right to revoke it unilaterally and Article 50 has no rules on when a member state can trigger it.

Time will out I suppose. I don’t think the government would entertain the idea of revoking it over seeking an extension as the message it would send out would be inflammatory to the Brexiteers.

I don’t think they will either. I think May will cling onto her deal for as long as possible and then we’ll crash out with no deal. An extension is possible but I think it’ll end up in the same place.

[pixelwinx]

I think Corbyn is bang on to put down a red line of May having to rule out "no deal" before talks. May has shown absolutely no sign of compromising on anything and ruling out a no deal should be the baseline for talks.

If she refuses, I don't see any other choice for Corbyn but to push for a second referendum.

I'm sort of in two minds about this. At first I thought it was good from Corbyn but as they're both stubborn strawberry floaters it was never going to fly and that the best way to avoid no-deal would be to work on an alternative. Or, May could agree that if no agreement has been reached by say March 15 they would have to revoke Article 50.

I don’t think there is any chance of Article 50 being revoked as that privilege is granted with the understanding that it is done in good faith of the UK changing their mind about leaving the EU. I think it’s much more likely that an extension of up to a year will be offered by the EU...there is some confusion though if this would be granted for renegotiation or purely for another referendum etc. With both a no deal and second referendum option being so problematic I think this is the likely outcome.

It’s not true that it has to be in good faith. All the court said was it has to follow a democratic process.

Good faith probably wrong phrase. By all accounts there is a clause which states is needs to be “unequivocal and unconditional"...funnily enough different people have different options on what that actually means.

It does say that but there is nothing to stop the UK triggering Article 50 again soon after revoking it. The ruling was clear that a member state has the right to revoke it unilaterally and Article 50 has no rules on when a member state can trigger it.

Time will out I suppose. I don’t think the government would entertain the idea of revoking it over seeking an extension as the message it would send out would be inflammatory to the Brexiteers.

I don’t think they will either. I think May will cling onto her deal for as long as possible and then we’ll crash out with no deal. An extension is possible but I think it’ll end up in the same place.

Think there could still be a plot twist that could see May misjudging something and losing the DUP or backing of her own colleagues which could lead to her downfall. For me the best option would be to get a year extension and enter renegotiations with a cross party team of Brexiteers who holding no fear of no deal could hold far more aces with the EU. This period could also be used to prepare for a no deal outcome as well. The problem from day one has been having a remainer in charge who has been constantly on the back foot.