Brexit.

[maddog]

Withdrawing article 50 unilaterally would be the worst option. It can never happen. The people voted for Brexit, if its not to go ahead it will have to, at the very least, seem like its the public who've changed their minds.

It can absolutely happen and it would be a far better option than no deal.

You have to separate Brexit the abstract idea from Brexit the reality.

Half of Britain likes the abstract idea of Brexit. An abstract idea is fantasy.

In reality, Brexit has proven to be undeliverable - every single practical idea of what Brexit could be is deeply unpopular.

May's deal is deeply unpopular, no deal is deeply unpopular, Liechtenstein is deeply unpopular.

If somebody is on the edge of a multi-storey car park for six hours shouting loudly that they're going to throw themselves off but is secretly having second thoughts, relenting and retreating is a far better option than throwing themselves off for fear of losing face.

Far better to lose face and survive than not lose face and self-destruct.

Were the 'will of the people' denied, Britain would have much bigger problems going forward than Brexit.

What do you think might happen ?

[RadioGAAGAA]

Also, if one was a Brit (and thank the Lord I'm not), why would you want Theresa May to show her hand to the EU on a no-deal in what after all is a giant game of Chicken (chlorininated or not).

Its not the EU that you are saying "there won't be a no deal to".

Its to all the businesses and investors that are either not putting their money into, or are actively taking their money out of, the UK.

That costs jobs.

[RadioGAAGAA]

I think it's quite reasonable to test whether May is just playing to the gallery or genuinely interested in finding a solution.

+1

She hasn't a genuine bone in her body.

+10

Despite being a Remain campaigner she seems perfectly happy to let Britain leave the EU with no deal in order to keep her position.

+100


She's a self-serving wannabe dictator.

[RadioGAAGAA]

The constitutional difference between Ireland and the UK as regards referendums is as follows: Ireland has a written constitution - we have had many referendums, but they are always constitutional ones, and the options are always defined.

Hence why there should be a referendum on the final deal negotiated.

As the two (three?) options are then more (if not fully) defined (indeed, there probably should be forecast numbers generated by the OBR for WTO/Deal/Remain so the public have an idea what they are getting into).


Was Lisbon treaty a constitutional referendum? [it was definitely defined options]

[Insane Bolt]

Withdrawing article 50 unilaterally would be the worst option. It can never happen. The people voted for Brexit, if its not to go ahead it will have to, at the very least, seem like its the public who've changed their minds.

It can absolutely happen and it would be a far better option than no deal.

You have to separate Brexit the abstract idea from Brexit the reality.

Half of Britain likes the abstract idea of Brexit. An abstract idea is fantasy.

In reality, Brexit has proven to be undeliverable - every single practical idea of what Brexit could be is deeply unpopular.

May's deal is deeply unpopular, no deal is deeply unpopular, Liechtenstein is deeply unpopular.

If somebody is on the edge of a multi-storey car park for six hours shouting loudly that they're going to throw themselves off but is secretly having second thoughts, relenting and retreating is a far better option than throwing themselves off for fear of losing face.

Far better to lose face and survive than not lose face and self-destruct.

Were the 'will of the people' denied, Britain would have much bigger problems going forward than Brexit. The entire democratic system would be shaken to the core, and the rise of the far right would be the least of the problems.

There are much safer ways to withdraw from Brexit, most of which are routes to a second referendum.

What do you base this assessment on? Far right? Tommy Robinson been on to you? Most people are busy getting on with their lives.

[Rossfan]

Is it true that the Brits have put all their army reserves on notice to be ready to mobilise on 30th March??

[quit yo jibbajabba]

Cant say. *touches nose. Winks*

[Insane Bolt]

Is it true that the Brits have put all their army reserves on notice to be ready to mobilise on 30th March??

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/brexit-gavin-williamson-announces-plan-to-call-up-army-reserves-for-no-deal/ar-BBSmY1s?li=BBoPWjQ

Dads Army to the rescue....carry on Godfrey😜

[seafoid]

Brigid Laffan

« If we lived in normal political times, UK prime minister Theresa May would already be consigned to history. As PM she lost a 20-seat majority, 13 ministers and a crucial vote in the Commons by a staggering 230 votes. The UK is now in a full-blown political and constitutional crisis. « 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/may-will-stick-to-brexit-principles-in-cross-party-talks-says-no-10

[playwiththewind1st]

Not a bad record, for a British PM.

[weareros]

Also, if one was a Brit (and thank the Lord I'm not), why would you want Theresa May to show her hand to the EU on a no-deal in what after all is a giant game of Chicken (chlorininated or not).

Its not the EU that you are saying "there won't be a no deal to".

Its to all the businesses and investors that are either not putting their money into, or are actively taking their money out of, the UK.

That costs jobs.

Fair point. I just thought that from her perspective if she ruled out a no-deal, then EU and Germany would not get nervous and cave in on any new demands. But you are right, there's the even bigger damage caused by uncertainty.

[johnnycool]

Also, if one was a Brit (and thank the Lord I'm not), why would you want Theresa May to show her hand to the EU on a no-deal in what after all is a giant game of Chicken (chlorininated or not).

Its not the EU that you are saying "there won't be a no deal to".

Its to all the businesses and investors that are either not putting their money into, or are actively taking their money out of, the UK.

That costs jobs.

Fair point. I just thought that from her perspective if she ruled out a no-deal, then EU and Germany would not get nervous and cave in on any new demands. But you are right, there's the even bigger damage caused by uncertainty.

Philips have just pulled the plug on a factory in England and moving production back to their homeland.

Nothing to do with Brexit as all that talk was project fear.....

[Insane Bolt]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46912135

Goon man Ken, calling them out for what they are.

[haranguerer]

Withdrawing article 50 unilaterally would be the worst option. It can never happen. The people voted for Brexit, if its not to go ahead it will have to, at the very least, seem like its the public who've changed their minds.

It can absolutely happen and it would be a far better option than no deal.

You have to separate Brexit the abstract idea from Brexit the reality.

Half of Britain likes the abstract idea of Brexit. An abstract idea is fantasy.

In reality, Brexit has proven to be undeliverable - every single practical idea of what Brexit could be is deeply unpopular.

May's deal is deeply unpopular, no deal is deeply unpopular, Liechtenstein is deeply unpopular.

If somebody is on the edge of a multi-storey car park for six hours shouting loudly that they're going to throw themselves off but is secretly having second thoughts, relenting and retreating is a far better option than throwing themselves off for fear of losing face.

Far better to lose face and survive than not lose face and self-destruct.

Were the 'will of the people' denied, Britain would have much bigger problems going forward than Brexit.

What do you think might happen ?

Most remainers would be at the very least uncomfortable with the UK govt unilaterally withdrawing article 50, given the referendum result, most leavers would understandably be apocalyptic. Would the political system recover? It would certainly take a massive hit.

Civil unrest at the time would be inevitable, off-setting any economic bounce. Conditions would be ripe for a breakdown in the democratic system, swathes of support for far left and far right, and the UK on a trajectory of disaster much worse than a managed EU exit (and hopefully a swift return), and certainly much worse than taking it back to people either directly through a referendum, or ideally a referendum via a general election.

[HiMucker]

I don't understand people. A no deal Brexit would be an unmitigated disaster not just for Britain but for Ireland and the EU. No sane person wants that and certainly I do not believe many voted for that. It's an entirely reasonable request for a compromise. After the abuse and smears continuosly directed at this man by the Tories I think it's quite reasonable to test whether May is just playing to the gallery or genuinely interested in finding a solution. She hasn't a genuine bone in her body. Despite being a Remain campaigner she seems perfectly happy to let Britain leave the EU with no deal in order to keep her position.

The face on May when Corbyn asked her to rule it out told the story. She was sick.

Of course everyone wants a deal. But if that is guaranteed on one side, the other can just sit back and wait until its terms are granted, or until, as Sid suggests, Article 50 is withdrawn. Its ludicrous.

The biggest issue has been giving parliament a vote on the deal - there are so many different factions that was always going to result in stalemate.

The only way I can see out of it is through a general election. Perhaps at that point labour will run on second referendum ticket. That isn't the golden bullet people seem to think it will be either however.

The problem in the first place was having the referendum.

The UK does not have a written constitution and has always operated on a system of parliamentary sovereignty, ie. that parliament decides.

The UK's first referendum was 1975, and 2016 was only the third ever.

In 1975, Margaret Thatcher was in fact one of the few people to warn of the dangers that introducing the concept of a referendum posed to British politics - that it introduced a hostile, rival system of lawmaking to the existing parliamentary system.

The constitutional difference between Ireland and the UK as regards referendums is as follows: Ireland has a written constitution - we have had many referendums, but they are always constitutional ones, and the options are always defined. We NEVER hold non-constitutional referendums. The UK held an advisory referendum with no status in law where one option was completely undefined.

My take on what people voted for when they voted for Brexit, is that they were voting to retain all the benefits of European Union membership, and none of the responsibilities.

They voted to stop immigration, yet have full free movement rights themselves.
They voted for the ability to make their own trade deals, yet have full access to the single market, and no budget obligations.

They voted to have full membership of the golf club, with full playing rights on the course, use of the gym, swimming pool and bar etc. for free.

Voting for Brexit was like voting for all taxes to be abolished yet public spending to simultaneously be quadrupled.

The EU says: "We can't offer you that - it is fundamentally undeliverable."

But the Brits say: "But that's what we voted for! Get on with it and give us what we want!"

The EU respond: "We can't. You are living in a la la land."

Brexit was fundamentally undeliverable because it was a fantasy idea based on deep seated ideas of Britain's "glorious" past. It was an attempt to magically transplant the past into the future. The Tory party gave in to these delusions. David Cameron, more than any one person, is responsible for this mess because he agreed to opening the door to it.

There's no silver bullet that will get Britain out of the mess it created for itself, only least worst options.

Vote for the deal that most people hate and which even pro-Brexiteers say is worse than EU membership, and nobody will be happy, and it would be hugely divisive.

Stumble into no deal, and it would be a disaster. Britain would be ripe for destruction by anarcho-capitalists.

A second referendum could still leave open the possibility of no deal and would be again incredibly divisive, with far right rhetoric poisoning public discourse.

Withdrawing Article 50 unilaterally would be incredibly divisive. It could easily lead to a rise of the far right. But so could all the other options, with no deal likely being the worst case in this regard.

So all options, are, frankly, shit.

But withdrawing Article 50 now looks like the least worst option, and it's an option that has become more likely.

The flipside is; no deal has also become more likely.

Thats a fairly accurate summary