Brexit negotiations

Bread2.0 wrote:How's this for a scenario:

Stalemate with the negotiations continues, Tory party infighting worsens, May gets ousted, snap GE called in the Spring, hung parliament (again), Labour / SNP/ Lib Dem coalition takes control after campaigning on a 2nd EU Ref ticket, we apologise to Europe, Article 50 gets reversed and we thus avoid the unnecessary economic disaster which would undoubtedly follow if we had carried on with this lunacy.

Or am I just being too hopeful?

YES!!!!!!!!!

I can certainly see the Tory party infighting getting much worse due to May's weakness.  If she was ousted a lot would then depend on who was the new Tory leader.  They couldn't go for some unknown at that stage, it would have to be a personality who could come out fighting.  I know he is loved and hated  ( especially in his own party) but could Boris get his bus out and pull off another hung parliament( Tory/DUP coalition) and the Brexiteers would march on.

I would actually like to see Boris replace May because of the damage it would do to the Tory party. Even better would be Jacob Rees-Mogg but surely not even the Tories would be that daft.

Bread2.0 wrote:How's this for a scenario:

Stalemate with the negotiations continues, Tory party infighting worsens, May gets ousted, snap GE called in the Spring, hung parliament (again), Labour / SNP/ Lib Dem coalition takes control after campaigning on a 2nd EU Ref ticket, we apologise to Europe, Article 50 gets reversed and we thus avoid the unnecessary economic disaster which would undoubtedly follow if we had carried on with this lunacy.

I'm sick of you posting your sexual fantasies on here.

boltonbonce wrote:http://uk.businessinsider.com/author-of-article-50-lord-kerr-stop-brexit-2017-7

This guy is nothing more than an arrogant, upper class, prick. He was probably given the job of writing Article 50 to keep him busy, and out of the way. 
He says that the British are stupid ! Its breathtaking how he sits in his ivory tower and denounces the very country he is supposed to be representing, even though he's lived high off the hog, at our expense. If you think he's a good representative of the remain voters, you've got it very wrong.

Also, have you noticed a subtle swing, as shown in some of the links attached, that the mood is definitely changing, with Tusk talking of 'defeat', and the German MEP saying its about time they got their act together. Still a long way to go, but the cracks, for them, are starting to show.

xmiles wrote:I would actually like to see Boris replace May because of the damage it would do to the Tory party. Even better would be Jacob Rees-Mogg but surely not even the Tories would be that daft.

They could be, after all the Labour party voted for CORBYN.

Cajunboy wrote:

xmiles wrote:I would actually like to see Boris replace May because of the damage it would do to the Tory party. Even better would be Jacob Rees-Mogg but surely not even the Tories would be that daft.

They could be, after all the Labour party voted for CORBYN.

And much to my surprise he did very well in the general election. However I would be very surprised if Boris achieved the same result for the Tories.

xmiles wrote:

Cajunboy wrote:

xmiles wrote:I would actually like to see Boris replace May because of the damage it would do to the Tory party. Even better would be Jacob Rees-Mogg but surely not even the Tories would be that daft.

They could be, after all the Labour party voted for CORBYN.

And much to my surprise he did very well in the general election. However I would be very surprised if Boris achieved the same result for the Tories.

He lost, where have you been?

Cajunboy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Cajunboy wrote:

xmiles wrote:I would actually like to see Boris replace May because of the damage it would do to the Tory party. Even better would be Jacob Rees-Mogg but surely not even the Tories would be that daft.

They could be, after all the Labour party voted for CORBYN.

And much to my surprise he did very well in the general election. However I would be very surprised if Boris achieved the same result for the Tories.

He lost, where have you been?

Corbyn and Labour did much better than most people expected.

Seems like the Tories want to keep track of people who might question brexit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41735839

xmiles wrote:

Cajunboy wrote:

xmiles wrote:

Cajunboy wrote:

xmiles wrote:I would actually like to see Boris replace May because of the damage it would do to the Tory party. Even better would be Jacob Rees-Mogg but surely not even the Tories would be that daft.

They could be, after all the Labour party voted for CORBYN.

And much to my surprise he did very well in the general election. However I would be very surprised if Boris achieved the same result for the Tories.

He lost, where have you been?

Corbyn and Labour did much better than most people expected.

XM, you could have done as well as Corbyn and his cronies, if you have promised everyone everything. (one in particular of which he has already reneged).

This is outrageous, snide and downright dishonest. David Davis is now saying that MPs won't get their promised vote on the Brexit deal until AFTER we have left the EU. What a bunch of lying toerags!

Here.

What I don't understand is what those who want a second referendum hope to achieve.
As I see it, we will vote for, or against, what has been negotiated. Which, in effect, due to the lack of time and will on the EU side, is to accept what is on offer, or instigate a clean break. This has always been the case.
Bearing in mind the way the EU has behaved so far, the chances of them renegotiating, just because we want more, just isn't going to happen.

That's easy glos. You are ignoring this third choice of revoking article 50. What we want is not to leave the EU. Once more people understand just how bad it is going to be outside the EU I hope a majority will choose to stay in. Remember only 36% of the eligible electorate voted to leave. The decision was not handed down on tablets of stone from God contrary to the interpretation brexiteers tend to believe.

xmiles wrote:That's easy glos. You are ignoring this third choice of revoking article 50. What we want is not to leave the EU. Once more people understand just how bad it is going to be outside the EU I hope a majority will choose to stay in. Remember only 36% of the eligible electorate voted to leave. The decision was not handed down on tablets of stone from God contrary to the interpretation brexiteers tend to believe.

If the government did a u-turn you'd be slagging them off for the next 20 years, calling them weak and dithering old farts.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

xmiles wrote:That's easy glos. You are ignoring this third choice of revoking article 50. What we want is not to leave the EU. Once more people understand just how bad it is going to be outside the EU I hope a majority will choose to stay in. Remember only 36% of the eligible electorate voted to leave. The decision was not handed down on tablets of stone from God contrary to the interpretation brexiteers tend to believe.

If the government did a u-turn you'd be slagging them off for the next 20 years, calling them weak and dithering old farts.

No I would give them credit for being sensible.

gloswhite wrote:What I don't understand is what those who want a second referendum hope to achieve.
As I see it, we will vote for, or against, what has been negotiated. Which, in effect, due to the lack of time and will on the EU side, is to accept what is on offer, or instigate a clean break. This has always been the case.
Bearing in mind the way the EU has behaved so far, the chances of them renegotiating, just because we want more, just isn't going to happen.

MPs voting on whether we should accept the terms of a deal or even what we should do if there is no deal forthcoming is nothing to do with a second referendum Glos - it's to do with due diligence and specifically about ensuring that our elected representatives don't sacrifice the country at the altar of political advantage. 
The outcome of these negotiations will impact on millions of people for the rest of their lives and nobody in their right mind should even contemplate leaving that decision to one desperate person trying to cement her place in history.

This is treacherous.

To be fair to May, she can't really conscience a vote on something she's not studied and has no idea about:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-does-not-know-how-brexit-will-hit-economy-david-davis-says-a3668491.html

Unfuckingbelievable.....

Bread2.0 wrote:To be fair to May, she can't really conscience a vote on something she's not studied and has no idea about:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-does-not-know-how-brexit-will-hit-economy-david-davis-says-a3668491.html

Unfuckingbelievable.....

But that's the point of having the parliamentary debate that was promised - to assess what's on offer and evaluate what impact it will have from which point it can be decided whether or not to proceed or go back to the table.
Obviously it would help if our negotiators took full account of the likely outcomes before they agree to anything but the way it looks right now is that they intend to sign up for whatever and then discuss it after it's too late to reconsider - like a teenager getting a dodgy tattoo and then announcing it to her parents over dinner ...(analogising from personal experience there )

wanderlust wrote:

But that's the point of having the parliamentary debate that was promised - to assess what's on offer and evaluate what impact it will have from which point it can be decided whether or not to proceed or go back to the table.

Erm, yeah....I know.

That's why I threw the "unfuckingbelievable" in at the end.

Bread2.0 wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

But that's the point of having the parliamentary debate that was promised - to assess what's on offer and evaluate what impact it will have from which point it can be decided whether or not to proceed or go back to the table.

Erm, yeah....I know.

That's why I threw the "unfuckingbelievable" in at the end.

Sorry Dave - I was unsure whether the unfuckingbelievable referred to negotiating without knowing what a good deal looks like, not evaluating the potential outcomes of the elements or not letting our representatives debate it.