National News Brexit - the Deal or No Deal poll

[YellowTaxi]

The Brady amendment could be the thing that breaks open the backstop issue. And the most important thing is, it signals to the EU that the UK parliament agreed on it, so it's something they can take seriously.

Yes nothing makes you look like a convincing and trusted negotiating partner than voting against your own agreement which you negotiated and then signed a f*****g treaty about.

 

[Essexyellows]

Yes nothing makes you look like a convincing and trusted negotiating partner than voting against your own agreement which you negotiated and then signed a f*****g treaty about.

Hate to sound like I`m teaching someone to suck eggs but you can only negotiate to a particular point, then you need to reach a collective decision to take back to a larger group. If the larger group then turns around and says "Thats pretty crap" then you either force it through (not happening in a democracy) or tweak the sticking points.
Still at least it has brought Steptoe to the table even with "No Deal" still in the pack.
Nice to see Coopers Can Kick was also, deservedly, dismissed.
We are getting there........... just need the EU to show some flexibility which may not happen.

 

[Gary Baldi]

Agree. What the EU would (rightly I hasten to add) only take notice of is a Parliamentary majority in this negotiation. In some respects, it puts No Deal more on their table than it's ever been and also made clear that at the moment, Article 50 won't be extended either. What do they do?

 

[ZeroTheHero]

I await clarification of the 'alternative arrangements' with baited breath. The ones that I have just heard the Brexit minister being unwilling and unable to clarify on the radio just now despite being asked repeatedly. The ones that the UK and the EU didn't manage to think of in the time they spent in negotiations. The ones that use some sort of magic technology that can differentiate a Irish cow from a Northern Irish one and that hasn't yet been invented. The ones that the EU rejected THREE MINUTES after the vote.
This is just a stalling tactic to waste more time and wind the clock down so MPs will be forced to vote for the deal that is currently on the table or accept a no deal (which they won't). Oh, and to keep the Tory party intact of course!

 

[Gary Baldi]

I am interested to see what is come up with - but if you want to know what is going on, don't listen to the Brexit Secretary - Mr Mushroom! Talk of a 5 year time limit on the backstop and other such things are not unreasonable compromises - if there is a will there is a way?

Let's see - the EU like to take negotiations down to the wire (no matter what they say), so regardless of the statements, this is very much still on.

 

[Yellow River]

Even if the backstop issue is sorted/fudged, it’s still not a good deal. May weakened her hand in negotiations considerably by calling a General Election and reducing her majority.

Personally I think we should be fully in the EU or fully out. Warts and all either way. Half in, half out seems to me like a poor compromise.

However we are where we are, time is running out, business needs certainty. With a heavy heart I say get the backstop resolved and vote through May’s deal. I just hope the UK doesn’t concede anymore to the EU. Time for the EU to decide what’s more important, no deal or backstop?

I suspect there will a classic last minute EU fudge with nobody appearing to lose face. Lots of inane grins for the cameras and back slapping all round.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

But (please correct me if I am wrong) the backstop is designed to be a failsafe in case the UK and EU cannot agree trading terms within a reasonable period after we leave. If there is a time limit on it, then it is basically useless because the time could elapse and then there would have to be a hard border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. Which nobody (apart from on the fringes, but then there are always a few of those in any situation!) wants. And is basically impossible to implement anyway - we tried it! It should be noted that both the UK and EU agreed there should be a backstop and the form it should take (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-44615404).
I don't think last nights parliamentary shenanigans get us any further forward to be honest. I reiterate - WE are leaving THEM. They have no obligation to bend over backwards to make that any easier, and indeed it is possibly against their interests to do so, looking at the future unity of the EU.

 

[Marked Ox]

But (please correct me if I am wrong) the backstop is designed to be a failsafe in case the UK and EU cannot agree trading terms within a reasonable period after we leave. If there is a time limit on it, then it is basically useless because the time could elapse and then there would have to be a hard border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. Which nobody (apart from on the fringes, but then there are always a few of those in any situation!) wants. And is basically impossible to implement anyway - we tried it! It should be noted that both the UK and EU agreed there should be a backstop and the form it should take (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-44615404).
I don't think last nights parliamentary shenanigans get us any further forward to be honest. I reiterate - WE are leaving THEM. They have no obligation to bend over backwards to make that any easier, and indeed it is possibly against their interests to do so, looking at the future unity of the EU.

Yep, this is just more of the same.

 

[Shosho]

Yep, this is just more of the same.

I thought the backstop was partly our design due to May's red lines?

Some of the amendments offered legitimate progress last night...the Brady amendment does not. May shot her own deal in the face to go back to the EU to negotiate on something they've already stated they won't negotiate on. We are sending May back to follow some fantasy.

Truly astounding. Government has gone politically insane

 

[Essexyellows]

As above, WE are leaving THEM. So we leave, with no "half in/half out" deal, and respect the result of the referendum.
We don`t put up a border in Ireland and leave it as is. Ball back in their court and leave them to it. Sorted.

It is becoming more obvious that when we leave and prosper outside of the bloc the knock on effect could see the whole empire crumble as all empires do over time and have done since the Romans decided to expand.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

That's all well and good - I know that your opinion is that if we 'just leave' somehow business will somehow sort it all out and we will be OK and prosper. And if that's how it works out then fine. The problem that I have (and quite a lot of businesses have) is in thinking that is not how it will turn out - that we will have an increased cost of living, less jobs, a race to the bottom that means employment, regulatory and environmental standards will be reduced and what's more a significant number of those who voted will still not be happy because many of the things they thought they were voting for simply won't happen.

I guess we will find out. As I'm crawling through the wreckage of our country I'll be croaking "I told you so"!

 

[Essexyellows]

@ZeroTheHero are we not transposing all current EU Law/Regs onto our statute books until we decide what to keep and discard?
Don`t be scared of what you don`t know and only worry about what you can change.

Not bad for an island!

 

[ZeroTheHero]

But that infographic is already out of date in that we have now shot off sideways from the second leg of November 2018. Parliament didn't vote for the deal but won't back a No Deal either!

Yes we are transposing all those 'dreadful' EU laws and regulations that were so horribly 'imposed' on us into our own legal framework (which sort of implies that they were actually needed in the first place!) but a) we haven't done it all yet and b) there is nothing to stop this or future governments fiddling about with them. Which could (for example) mean strengthening environmental and health legislation - or could mean allowing the import of US chlorinated meat and fruit/veg with more than the currently allowed amount of pesticides on them. I know which I personally think is more likely, given that trade with the EU is going to be more difficult and we will have to kowtow to the US to make up some of the shortfall!

 

[Yellow River]

Just looked up my local MP Robert Courts (Witney) to see how he voted last night.
He voted for the Brady amendment, voted against all other amendments.

Originally campaigned to leave EU.
His constituents voted 54/46 to remain.
The country voted 52/48 to leave.
I bet his local Tory party is strongly leave.
He stood and campaigned on Tory party manifesto in which it promised to exit European single market & customs union.

Was he right to vote the way he did?


Interesting to compare him to fellow Tory MP Anna Soubry.
She on the other hand voted against Brady’s amendment, but voted for Grieve, Cooper, Reeves & Spelman’s amendments.


Originally campaigned to remain in EU.
Her constituents voted to leave 55/45.
Local party is pro leave.
Like Robert Courts stood & campaigned on the Tory manifesto.

Was she right to vote the way she did ?


One of the fallouts from this whole saga is that a few MPs from both main parties could face a deselection process.

 

[Gary Baldi]

And what is abundantly clear more than ever is Maybot's bad deal is really the only deal on the table that has a chance of getting through parliament. Norway++++, Canada++++++, a Customs Union etc have no chance of getting through whatsoever.

Perhaps the EUs red line on negotiating in this order is biting them on the backside? The backstop has become a big deal because no trade discussions were permitted and there is a big unknown if we can get there. Would allowing some trade discussions in parallel have helped those most worried about the back stop?

 

[tonyw]

I am interested to see what is come up with - but if you want to know what is going on, don't listen to the Brexit Secretary - Mr Mushroom! Talk of a 5 year time limit on the backstop and other such things are not unreasonable compromises - if there is a will there is a way?

A 5 year, or any time limit on the backstop is utterly pointless and fails to truly appreciate what the backstop is.

If we leave the EU under a deal similar to May's, we have until December 2020 to get a trade deal in place. Frankly, I see zero chance that this is going to happen - we've spent more than two years negotiating a much simpler agreement, that still has a lot of nebulous terms and can-kicking. A trade deal has to be very broad and very technically precise. Reckon I'd put the over/under at 2025 before it's concluded.

So after December 2020, until the trade deal is completed - what happens? That's what the backstop is trying to determine.

If you time limit the backstop - let's say for five years - so that it runs out in March 2024, then all you're doing is modifying the above question to read:
So after March 2024 until the trade deal is completed - what happens? You're not actually providing a solution!

I've said it over and over again, but Britain has got to stop waffling and actually make a frickin' decision.
If we don't have a trade deal and if we haven't come up with technical solutions to undertake border checks remotely then do we want to a) Stay in the customs union until we work out a deal, b) Keep N.I. in the customs union until we work out a deal, and have the Irish Sea be the dividing line between two different customs areas, or c) Have the Irish border be the dividing line between two different customs areas until we work out a deal.

If we don't have any backstop clause in the withdrawal agreement, then it's c) by default.

And then, yes, there's a question for both sides in that scenario as to whether they would implement that border - and Essex Yellows is advocating not doing so - but that's not the issue for today. The issue today is deciding which of the three options above we want.

May has at least put her cards on the table and made a choice. Frankly, Corbyn has too, and it's the same choice - he just wants to take it further.
But all these MPs whining about just wanting the same agreement without a backstop or a time-limited backstop are doing my head in. It's basically the logic of "If I don't make a decision now, maybe everything will work itself out and I won't have to" and is cowardly and pathetic.

 

[Gary Baldi]

A 5 year, or any time limit on the backstop is utterly pointless and fails to truly appreciate what the backstop is.

If we leave the EU under a deal similar to May's, we have until December 2020 to get a trade deal in place. Frankly, I see zero chance that this is going to happen - we've spent more than two years negotiating a much simpler agreement, that still has a lot of nebulous terms and can-kicking. A trade deal has to be very broad and very technically precise. Reckon I'd put the over/under at 2025 before it's concluded.

So after December 2020, until the trade deal is completed - what happens? That's what the backstop is trying to determine.

If you time limit the backstop - let's say for five years - so that it runs out in March 2024, then all you're doing is modifying the above question to read:
So after March 2024 until the trade deal is completed - what happens? You're not actually providing a solution!

I've said it over and over again, but Britain has got to stop waffling and actually make a frickin' decision.
If we don't have a trade deal and if we haven't come up with technical solutions to undertake border checks remotely then do we want to a) Stay in the customs union until we work out a deal, b) Keep N.I. in the customs union until we work out a deal, and have the Irish Sea be the dividing line between two different customs areas, or c) Have the Irish border be the dividing line between two different customs areas until we work out a deal.

If we don't have any backstop clause in the withdrawal agreement, then it's c) by default.

And then, yes, there's a question for both sides in that scenario as to whether they would implement that border - and Essex Yellows is advocating not doing so - but that's not the issue for today. The issue today is deciding which of the three options above we want.

May has at least put her cards on the table and made a choice. Frankly, Corbyn has too, and it's the same choice - he just wants to take it further.
But all these MPs whining about just wanting the same agreement without a backstop or a time-limited backstop are doing my head in. It's basically the logic of "If I don't make a decision now, maybe everything will work itself out and I won't have to" and is cowardly and pathetic.

But what they are doing is two fold. Making a bitter pill easier to swallow by putting a time limit on it, and as we've seen now, 2 years may not be enough time to negotiate the deal. The spectre of a no deal getting bigger and bigger, or a longer time period to get a trade deal to avoid a backstop? What's worse?

We are rapidly heading to a No Deal that means WTO terms, no £39 billion pay off and immediate trade harder for the EU and the UK. Suddenly, the world opens up to the UK, and while it will incur significant issues...

 

[YellowTaxi]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

" while it will incur significant issues..". what. FInish the sentence What are the significant issues. do you think? what do you think the upside will be?

 

[Gary Baldi]

.... it's really not the end of the world, but I'd prefer we have an orderly exit.

Upside, we can buy food globally and eventually help reduce the impact of leaving the EU with no deal - we aren't obliged to keep certain things in the EU any more. We can more easily target our immigration (not in the 10s of thousands though). We can more flexibly invest in state organisations if we choose.

On the flip side, the supply chain will be ripped apart. We'll have 39 billion in our pocket but it will be unclear about obligations we have to Brits in Europe, etc.

 

[Peterdev]

An orderly exit is what most of us want, I think.
The problem at the moment is that the uncertainty that has been going on for so long is reflecting in company decisions on jobs. Lloyds Bank announced redundancies yesterday. Tesco’s too, although that is probably more due to over extending themselves.
It would make economic sense in terms of business, and also in terms of good relations to get an agreement.
The problem at the moment is the backstop. Although the EU is well known for its bullying tactics and intransigence I do see that an agreement will be reached before 29/3 to allow an orderly exit from the EU.
It’s also positive that Corbyn has agreed to talks with Theresa May. I always remember Tony Benn saying jaw jaw is better than war war and I personally think that is spot on