Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Dorkins]

2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

So it is both inevitable both that the EU will break up and that if we Remain we will be part of a super state that never existed.

 

[Kosmin]

8 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

BJ ranting like a crazy man in The Commons.

What do you mean "like a crazy man?!"

[Riedquat]

So if they vote to go for no to  No Deal, which seems likely, and they've already voted to not revoke Article 50, and already rejected May's deal, just what exactly do they expect to do?

Edited September 3, 2019 by Riedquat

[OnionTerror]

13 minutes ago, kzb said:

It's now 3.2 years from the referendum.

Realistically a trade deal could be done in less than 5 years.  If they'd started straight away we'd be less than 2 years off completing it by now.  As it is I bet we've not left after 2 years from now.

 

A completely bespoke FTA could well be north of seven or eight years. I read an estimate that a bespoke EEA agreement would have taken three to four years.

[Bruce Banner]

4 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

What do you mean "like a crazy man?!"

lol.... Actually, "crazy man" were the words used by a French friend to describe BJ when he became PM........ " Ee is a crazy man".

[Bruce Banner]

5 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

So if they vote to go for no to  No Deal, which seems likely, and they've already voted to not revoke Article 50, and already rejected May's deal, just what exactly do they expect to do?

My guess is that they'll pass legislation to allow another vote on revoking A50.

[Riedquat]

Just now, Bruce Banner said:

My guess is that they'll pass legislation to allow another vote on revoking A50.

Aside from the precedent of wriggling around procedure that way (a dangerous one to set) is there really enough time for both?

[jonb2]

23 minutes ago, kzb said:

It's now 3.2 years from the referendum.

Realistically a trade deal could be done in less than 5 years.  If they'd started straight away we'd be less than 2 years off completing it by now.  As it is I bet we've not left after 2 years from now.

 

When you wish upon a star ... doesn't make it so.

Edited September 3, 2019 by jonb2

[Confusion of VIs]

20 minutes ago, kzb said:

It's now 3.2 years from the referendum.

Realistically a trade deal could be done in less than 5 years.  If they'd started straight away we'd be less than 2 years off completing it by now.  As it is I bet we've not left after 2 years from now.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

A completely bespoke FTA could well be north of seven or eight years. I read an estimate that a bespoke EEA agreement would have taken three to four years.

Of course that assumes we had decided what we want, we hadn't and even now its not obvious. Add in the complexity of drafting an agreement that allows for increasing divergence and you would probaly end up with a timescale riveling HS2s arrival in Birmingham.

[Bruce Banner]

4 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Aside from the precedent of wriggling around procedure that way (a dangerous one to set) is there really enough time for both?

How many "meaningful" votes did May want? As for available time, I don't know, I merely hazarded a guess.

[OnionTerror]

2 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

 

Of course that assumes we had decided what we want, we hadn't and even now its not obvious. Add in the complexity of drafting an agreement that allows for increasing divergence and you would probaly end up with a timescale riveling HS2s arrival in Birmingham.

The rush to enact A50 before thinking through what we wanted has turned this situation into a dogs dinner.  There was a window directly after the referendum whereby a clear and precise process of withdrawal could have been thought through and initiated.  But then those on both sides rubbished any compromise and we are where we are.

[byron78]

Is Boris Johnson the only man in the country who can make Corbyn look electable? 

This idiot needs to shut up. Fast. 

[Riedquat]

8 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

How many "meaningful" votes did May want? As for available time, I don't know, I merely hazarded a guess.

There were questions about that, and challenges based on the fact that the following ones weren't really voting for anything different. I suppose she got away with claiming the minor differences were sufficient. Rather harder to do that  for a more straightforward question.

[Riedquat]

8 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

The rush to enact A50 before thinking through what we wanted has turned this situation into a dogs dinner.  There was a window directly after the referendum whereby a clear and precise process of withdrawal could have been thought through and initiated.  But then those on both sides rubbished any compromise and we are where we are.

Agree completely, but there was no willingness to put any effort in to the task. We have neither a government or parliament capable of acting professionally.

[GrizzlyDave]

29 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

So if they vote to go for no to  No Deal, which seems likely, and they've already voted to not revoke Article 50, and already rejected May's deal, just what exactly do they expect to do?

Thoughts and prayers.

[Bruce Banner]

".....it has increasingly become infected with the twin diseases of populism and English Nationalism"

From Philip Lee's resignation letter to BJ, about the Tory party.

https://www.euronews.com/2019/09/03/boris-johnson-loses-parliamentary-majority-after-mp-phillip-lee-defects-to-lib-dems

[Riedquat]

Nothing like a bit of namecalling eh? Mind you not sure why he's running off crying to the LibDems if he doesn't like populism when the Tory stereotype is for elitism instead.

Edited September 3, 2019 by Riedquat

[Goodafterbad]

3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

 I'm not terribly interested in what the economic results are.

Fair enough if the economic impact of leaving wasn't a major factor for you, but there must be something you are hoping will change for the better by leaving the EU without a deal. Are you able to point to something you anticipate will be improved by leaving and offer a time frame for that improvement to occur, after which you'd admit you'd got it wrong?

[jonb2]

Well if the Daily Mail are saying it - it must be bad surely?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7421045/No-Deal-Brexit-lead-months-chaos-public-disorder.html

But then there's also the Guardian - Leavers can ignore this as it's a left wing thing and not part of Fantasy Island Magazine

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/03/no-deal-brexit-crashing-out-uk-europe

 

[OnionTerror]

11 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Agree completely, but there was no willingness to put any effort in to the task. We have neither a government or parliament capable of acting professionally.

Many if not most MPs still dont understand how the EU works..

 

[Riedquat]

10 minutes ago, Goodafterbad said:

Fair enough if the economic impact of leaving wasn't a major factor for you, but there must be something you are hoping will change for the better by leaving the EU without a deal. Are you able to point to something you anticipate will be improved by leaving and offer a time frame for that improvement to occur, after which you'd admit you'd got it wrong?

Yes, we won't be a member of the EU.

By asking that question you've got my perspective backwards. I'm not expecting any specific improvements, my position is by default not liking the sort of level of integration the EU consists of, so I'll never want to be a member without having something very persuasive to do so. No-one's come up with anything yet.

I guess you fundamentally like the idea so you can't see any reason to leave without something equally persuasive that you've not seen.

Edited September 3, 2019 by Riedquat

[Bruce Banner]

2 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Nothing like a bit of namecalling eh? Mind you not sure why he's running off crying to the LibDems if he doesn't like populism when the Tory stereotype is for elitism instead.

They've certainly got that with BJ. The MPs couldn't even understand his babbled, clipped, enunciation. 

[Goodafterbad]

3 hours ago, Gigantic Purple Slug said:

If we remain we are finished as an independent country. It basically green lights our entry into the superstate.

Chances that a government will allow another referendum after what has happened ? Practically zero.

We didn't get a vote on Maastricht or Lisbon. We will get zero votes in the future. 

That kind of sounds like project fear on steroids.

If in another 10 years, the EU doesn't turn into the superstate you fear, would you then admit you'd got it wrong? If not, can you describe any future situation where you would say that the idea of leaving the EU without a deal was the wrong decision?

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

2 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

They've certainly got that with BJ. The MPs couldn't even understand his babbled, clipped, enunciation. 

Seemed perfectly clear to me. He's a good speaker, better than both May and Corbyn.

[Goodafterbad]

5 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Yes, we won't be a member of the EU.

Surely you must be able to point to something other than this circular logic? There must be some improvement from leaving the EU other than we wont be a member of the EU.

If this is really what it boils down to for you, then you're in the enviable position of never being wrong about it as its self fulfilling.