The battle of Brexit!

[Double Edge]

Boris wants an FTA with India, he says Indian tariffs on scotch are too damn high. We should all rise up against these barriers imposed on merriment : D

[Oracle]

Boris wants an FTA with India, he says Indian tariffs on scotch are too damn high. We should all rise up against these barriers imposed on merriment : D

I agree. Not only that, Stella (small bottle) in Spencers cost around 300 bucks, and that is lager, not even strong. Didn't like the taste. I also don't understand why the GoI doesn't encourage beer and wine, less alcohol, healthy when compared to 42.8% alcohol content in Rum/Whisky etc.

[snapper]

Boris does not give a fig about Indian whisky tariffs. He has only ever wanted one thing; to be PM.

[Double Edge]

Boris does not give a fig about Indian whisky tariffs. He has only ever wanted one thing; to be PM.

See, this is the part that puzzles me. There is nothing new in this talk that you don't know. He's advocating for Brexit like he did years back.

What i don't understand is once Cameron stepped down why didn't Boris step up. It's not like he couldn't but at the time seemed like he wouldn't.

He seemed to shrink away from that responsibility only to let some one else take on the burden.

Enter May, and now he is bashing her for the deal she got. Says its unacceptable bla bla..

[Oracle]

^ In times of crisis, there are 2 choices. Be the king and take the fall. Or be the kingmaker and take credit for the good. If bad things happens, the kingmaker can always say 'Ohhh I never thought that'd happen'. Boris is shrewd. Sonia Gandhi, not so much.

[snapper]

See, this is the part that puzzles me. There is nothing new in this talk that you don't know. He's advocating for Brexit like he did years back.

What i don't understand is once Cameron stepped down why didn't Boris step up. It's not like he couldn't but at the time seemed like he wouldn't.

He seemed to shrink away from that responsibility only to let some one else take on the burden.

Enter May, and now he is bashing her for the deal she got. Says its unacceptable bla bla..

I did not follow it closely but I seem to think he did stand in the leadership election - or did at first. I remember reading about fall out between Boris and some other Brexit campaigner Michael Gove who somehow 'betrayed' Boris by standing himself; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7110921.html

[Double Edge]

I did not follow it closely but I seem to think he did stand in the leadership election - or did at first. I remember reading about fall out between Boris and some other Brexit campaigner Michael Gove who somehow 'betrayed' Boris by standing himself; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7110921.html

Gove never stands though, your article says Johnson ruling himself out makes way for May.

[snapper]

Gove did stand and was eliminated. Boris endorsed Andrea Leadsom, another Brexiteer. As I recall the gossip - or whispers that reached as far as Ukraine at the time - Gove started off as Chief Cheerleader for Team Boris but some kind private argument followed which led to Gove standing himself. "Betrayal" according to Boris but with Andrea Leadsom also in the race (whom I think had occupied some senior Ministerial position before) and now Gove and others, 'Dr' Liam Fox; another Brexit campaigner and former Defence Secretary (who got fired under somewhat strange circumstances regarding his sleeping arrangements when abroad on Government business), Boris withdrew. The 'Brexiteers' split their vote; three of them ran against Theresa, who had been Home Secretary for years, and proclaimed the meaningless-ness that "Brexit means Brexit".

There may well be another Tory leadership election this week or next so sit tight. Seems almost certain that Theresa May will lose a vote tomorrow on her 'deal', then I believe there is a vote which if passed would forbid leaving the EU in a "no deal" situation, followed by a vote on an extension of Article 50 to buy more time to negotiate. If Mrs May loses the first vote and either of the two votes pass she may resign or face a serious challenge (or challenge first then resign).

The problem is that a. the whole Brexit campaign was based on lies (and almost certainly dirty money) and b. the 'Brexiteers' themselves were divided about 'Brexit' meant. There are literally 1001 variations of what a Brexit might mean, from something from a Norway, or Canada deal, Swiss perhaps... to leave with "no deal". It was commonly argued among the old UKIP people I used to know that negotiating a deal with EU would be the "easiest thing ever" and something about the value of German car exports to the UK mentioned. Well this has proven to be wrong too. Nor of course were those 'Brexiteers' motivated by a form of mild xenophobia against "all these migrants taking our jobs and houses" thinking at all of what a 'hard border' may tear up regarding the Northern Ireland settlement. So there was never any consensus on what 'Brexit' actually entailed; still isn't.

One thing they did want of course was Parliamentary sovereignty to be restored. That at least has to some extent been achieved and total mess it has proved to be as the issues were never clear, there was no consensus of what any side wanted or meant, while all the time it becomes increasingly clear that the UK is heading for a self inflicted disaster of historic proportions: I heard on World Service that the BoE is asking the Banks to triple their liquid assets in case of a "no deal" exit, an impossible task at this late stage, the £ sinks lower, more companies and pro Brexit billionaires reportedly leave, medicines apparently must be 'stockpiled', the army on standby, plans to move the Queen to safety (Canada perhaps?), the Ramsgate harbour deal fallen apart (for extra freight ferries, the contract having been given to a company with no ferries) with some £300m compensation payed to Eurostar as the bidding process was restrictive... I could continue about the ineptitude of Government - how many 'Brexit Secretaries' have there been? A list of similar length could be made regarding the idiotic (and sometimes racist) behaviour of Her Majesty's (not so) Loyal Opposition, the most damning indictment of which is in the opinion polls where despite the total shambles the Government is in, according to the polls if an election were held tomorrow the Conservatives would win a majority. Yet the 'comrades' are delighted planning idiotic and un-affordable schemes or 're-nationalising' the heavens and earth and all between; impossibilities they will never get a chance to even attempt.

We shall soon see if the UK is full of lemmings as it appears or whether some reason may say the nation from the precipice.

[towncity]

I'm not holding my breath, but this could be the moment the EU shifts. The EU and Theresa May have the same goal: pass the withdrawal agreement. Option 1 is to wait for March 29, and make the MPs "panic-buy" the deal. Legally, only a statute can change the withdrawal date (and all EU countries must agree to it).

But with Meaningful Vote 2 tomorrow, and May's travel to Strasbourg today, there's a new option: give some sort of concession to the backstop, and in the vote tomorrow the MPs, even the ERG, will capitulate.

The backstop that forces Northern Ireland (plus the rest of the UK, thanks to May's negotiating) to conform to the EU's standards if no trade deal is met, needs an end date, although practically this is an issue. The backstop maintains the default position, but the default is remaining in the EU.

If May didn't rely on the DUP, she probably would have agreed to keep the backstop limited to NI, since the land border and Troubles issues are limited to there. I wonder how much people like Boris and Mogg really care about NI and the union.

Boris gave himself an "out" for the backstop, agreeing to support it if an end date is given. 5 years seems fair, but I could imagine 7 years, the longest a trade deal has taken (Canada I think), being a justified max length.

Extending Brexit by a few months achieves nothing, unless May is willing to sacrifice her career and go for a 2nd referendum: her deal or remain. I thought it was terrible at first. What if you want Brexit but not May's deal? On the other hand, it's a "take it or leave it" for Brexiteers. What are they going to do, vote remain? Plus, she never really was a Brexiteer, so any chance to remain is good in her eyes.

I don't really listen to LBC (UK's talk radio), but when I do, I hear Brexiteers who are disappointed and feel cheated, both by May's deal and the open plans to usurp Brexit. They sound peeved. But I never hear anger. I never hear rage, like they've been hard done by, or like the disdain some had for Thatcher.

This isn't like Trump. Trump, a reality TV star who belittled professionals in suits, stood up against 16 professionals in suits and belittled them, to the entertainment of the audience, and won the popularity contest that is the Republican nomination. After 2 consecutive Democrat terms, and the most unpopular Democrat nominee in history, a Republican was pretty much guaranteed to win.

The disappointment I heard sounded more like a guy who got massively undercharged for something expensive. They can't quite believe it, and like Brexit, they got very lucky. A perfect storm led to a narrow 2% victory that probably couldn't be repeated today. If you're undercharged, get caught and have to repay, it sucks, but you don't feel anger, only disappointment. Meanwhile, if you're overcharged, you feel righteous anger.

[Double Edge]

then I believe there is a vote which if passed would forbid leaving the EU in a "no deal" situation, followed by a vote on an extension of Article 50 to buy more time to negotiate.

Does the UK get to vote on extension of article 50 ? thought it was EU members that decided that

In order to extend the deadline all (other) EU member states have to unanimously vote in favour.

There is no clarity on whether this deadline is hard or soft.

If its hard then UK has to leave if there is no deal and the deal was already roundly rejected.

If UK has to leave then UK gets no say on extension. It wants out, it is out.

Now whether the Brits are happy with their situation thereafter is their problem.

How to forbid leaving in case of a no deal situation ? Does UK get to say not leaving after invoking Article 50

All sorts of contradictions here

[snapper]

As far as my (limited) knowledge of EU law goes I think, offhand, that kato is correct. But it may be for their benefit the EU as well as the UKs interests, as our newer member 'towncity', whom I commend on the first post I have read of his/hers, to reach as good a deal as possible, then it is at least possible.

Frankly I think from afar having been a British civil servant before, it is just a colossal mess. I am pleased to be moored in Lesbos and going to help in the 'refugee' camps tomorrow before heading back to Ukraine before the election there rather than in the mess that has become the UK. I at least can do my small bit against against the real enemy whence came the Brexit campaign dirty money, the US election and the invasion of the country in which my home is now a part of. To hell with all the BS... We know who is behind all of it, we've known for years and done nothing. Well I at least 'went home' as perhaps some 'Brexiteers' will welcome when the Muscovite tyranny again threatened my family's home; it is the same as that which payed to leave campaign and ran a social media campaign on the 'leave' side.

Seems the Brits since have no idea what is best for them, pretty sad. You argue and Ukrainians fight and die. Same cause.

[towncity]

Well well well... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47533164.

I'm not sure if this will convince her working majority of 4. Many Labour votes will be needed, and who knows how the Tiggies will act?

[towncity]

Thanks Snapper. Although this doesn't give an end date for the backstop (just a dispute mechanism), it may be enough for the UK to save face and vote on it. As of writing, the ERG and DUP are holding their breath, on quizzing of the Attorney General later (which saves them face). If the DUP agrees, the ERG will follow. As Gove, cheerleader of the government has said, if the vote fails and Brexit is extended (most likely scenario), the EU determines the end date, financial penalties and other terms. In other words, "no deal" is still weaponised. I wish I could edit my post.

[kato]

Does the UK get to vote on extension of article 50 ? thought it was EU members that decided that

They of course get to vote on whether the British government should go begging to extend the deadline. The European Council would then after such an application vote (without the UK) on whether to accept an extension. Article 50, Section 3 of the Treaty on European Union.

Of course if the British government asks to extend, then we'll first have a negotiation round on how long to extend the deadline for. And given voices from both the EU and EU member states the extension would be a one-time affair of anywhere between six weeks and a maximum of three months. Reason for that are the European Parliament elections in May. There's basically three options:

• extension by about six weeks, with the UK leaving before the election details are fixed down as unchangable (that's four weeks before the election)
• extension by about three months, with the UK not participating in the election and no longer being a member before the newly elected parliament consolidates in its first meeting
• extension by longer periods, with the UK not participating in the election and sending unelected "representatives" into parliament (likely wouldn't find a majority in the EU council)

The votes set before the UK parliament are basically in sequence:

• accept the withdrawal agreement as negotiated (rejected)
• cancel the Article 50 notification and remain a member
• ask the EU council for an extension

If all three are rejected then it boils down to an automatic withdrawal on the two-year deadline ("hard brexit"). Realistically only the extension vote among the three has a chance of actually being passed and not rejected.

[Double Edge]

That means they've got 6 weeks to 3 months which is very short. Why are the Euros going to make any more concessions. Is it even remotely feasible they can get a better deal

Mentioned watching a program cpl years back where an Indian negotiator that worked with the EU to get an FTA was at it for five years and couldn't pull it off. He was dismissive of the Brits getting it in a mere two. The Saudis were at it for eight years before giving up.

Why in hell was article 50 invoked. They could have taken all the time they wanted and got the deal both sides could live with without any time pressure.