Brexit process

[fuzzy]

Without a political choice, an election is pointless. The labour party doesn't even know what ordinary non-unionised people are. JC can't/won't restrict immigrants. The tories want everyone breaking rocks for China. The ecology want more kids, wolves and fish-eagles, and earth mothers. Where does that leave us??

[UndercoverElephant]

Without a political choice, an election is pointless.

That may be so, but it is also what always does happen if parliament cannot agree on a way forwards.

Where does that leave us??

Heading for the biggest political crisis of our lifetimes.

[adam2]

It has just been announced that parliament will get to vote on the brexit deal, before it becomes law.

Far from clear as to how this will work, if parliament votes no to the deal, does that mean that we stay in the EU ? under what terms ?
Or does it mean that we leave without a deal ?
Or does it mean that talks continue past the original deadline ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41975277

EDIT TO ADD
Later news reports state that MPs will be given the choice of leaving the EU with whatever deal has been thrashed out, or of leaving with no deal.
MPs wont have the option of overturning the referendum result and remaining in the EU.

[UndercoverElephant]

It has just been announced that parliament will get to vote on the brexit deal, before it becomes law.

Game, set and match to the EU and remainers. Brexit will NOT happen now unless there is a general election that returns a majority of hard brexiters in the commons.

The EU is now even more incentivised to offer the UK a truly terrible deal: the worse the deal they offer, the more likely it is that the UK won't leave at all, and now they know that the UK parliament, with a majority who won't accept either a bad deal or no deal, has the final say.

Far from clear as to how this will work, if parliament votes no to the deal, does that mean that we stay in the EU ? under what terms ?

If parliament votes no to the deal then it will have to make a second decision: either leave without a deal (which it won't decide to do) or revoke article 50, leading probably to a dispute with the EU, and maybe within the EU, about whether the UK can remain in the EU on pre-article-50 terms.

Or does it mean that talks continue past the original deadline ?

The EU can grant an extension to the article 50 process at any time.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/sta ... 2975933447

BREAKING Britain will leave the EU without a deal if MPs vote down final deal, David Davis said. MPs in the House of Commons audibly gasped.

There is no way she can get this through parliament. It is all too predictable where this is heading: The EU will offer the UK the worst deal imaginable, then MPs have to choose between a terrible deal and no deal, at the last moment. It is a recipe for total disaster.

I think she's going to be ousted within 48 hours.

[Potemkin Villager]

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/sta ... 2975933447

It is a recipe for total disaster.

I think she's going to be ousted within 48 hours.

The entire project was a recipe for total disaster from the get go and is getting worse exponentially. Nobody is going to get either what they want, what they may think they were promised or even what they may think they might get.

It is total insanity.

Anybody who thinks they can second guess the next political spasm is probably deluding themselves.

Better have a nice cup of tea.

[adam2]

According to this evenings news (BBC 1 West country, 18-00 news) If parliament votes against the brexit deal, this will mean leaving with no deal, and WILL NOT mean remaining in the EU.

So when the vote takes place it will be a choice between leaving on the negotiated terms, or leaving without any deal.

MPs wont be given the option of overturning the referendum result and staying in the EU.

As what will actually happen, as others have already stated, it all looks rather unknown and unstable.

[clv101]

The discussion isn't fruitful without an agreed definition of 'no deal'.

When I say 'no deal' is not going to happen, that I know it, Ken knows it, May and the EU know it, here's what I mean by 'no deal':

Millions of EU nationals in the UK lose their entitlement to stay and likewise UK nationals in the EU become illegal immigrants lose access to all services and face deportation - in under 17 months.

Hard border in NI.

Loss of frictionless trade, tariffs (some large, some small), loss of passporting rights especially effecting financial services.

No more radiation therapies or other critical nuclear materials.

No more EU (or US) flights after we drop out of Open Skys.

I've no idea what it means for policing and security cooperation.

...and no more "pet passports".

The truth is that there will be a deal, or more likely many deals covering off many/most of these points. Proposing that 'no deal' is actually on the table is not a good negotiating strategy, it's just daft.

[clv101]

According to this evenings news (BBC 1 West country, 18-00 news) If parliament votes against the brexit deal, this will mean leaving with no deal, and WILL NOT mean remaining in the EU.

In the event of the Government losing the Brexit deal vote, it's conceivable they would attempt rescind Article 50 to avoid 'no deal' the following week. ...or an extension (the first of many) is granted and we enter the semi-permanent transition period twilight.

I think she's going to be ousted within 48 hours.

I'd give her more than 48 hrs. But I'd give her less than 50/50 of still being PM by the end of January.

[UndercoverElephant]

The discussion isn't fruitful without an agreed definition of 'no deal'.

When I say 'no deal' is not going to happen, that I know it, Ken knows it, May and the EU know it, here's what I mean by 'no deal':

Millions of EU nationals in the UK lose their entitlement to stay and likewise UK nationals in the EU become illegal immigrants lose access to all services and face deportation - in under 17 months.

Hard border in NI.

Loss of frictionless trade, tariffs (some large, some small), loss of passporting rights especially effecting financial services.

No more radiation therapies or other critical nuclear materials.

No more EU (or US) flights after we drop out of Open Skys.

I've no idea what it means for policing and security cooperation.

...and no more "pet passports".

The truth is that there will be a deal, or more likely many deals covering off many/most of these points. Proposing that 'no deal' is actually on the table is not a good negotiating strategy, it's just daft.

I think you are very wrong.

Or rather, I think you are wrong to believe this couldn't happen. The only reason it is almost certain not to happen is that there isn't a commons majority for it. But there could be, quite easily, if another election is held.

[UndercoverElephant]

According to this evenings news (BBC 1 West country, 18-00 news) If parliament votes against the brexit deal, this will mean leaving with no deal, and WILL NOT mean remaining in the EU.

In the event of the Government losing the Brexit deal vote, it's conceivable they would attempt rescind Article 50 to avoid 'no deal' the following week. ...or an extension (the first of many) is granted and we enter the semi-permanent transition period twilight.

But that means businesses and government spend another year not knowing whether we're heading for a no deal Brexit, a deal we don't know the details of, or staying in the EU, and we won't find out until about a month before it happens. I can actually imagine any of those outcomes being possible, but I am seriously struggling to believe everybody in Europe is going to be left with such a level of uncertainty and given so little time to prepare for what is going to happen. Something will break before then.

[UndercoverElephant]

Actually this is becoming clearer to me now. There is a paradox at work.

Today May was visited by a bunch of European business leaders telling her the uncertainty has to end. She's being told the same thing by British businesses. They need to know which outcome to prepare for, because preparing for any of three is going to be catastrophically expensive.

But it is precisely that uncertainty that is keeping her in office. If she was to take steps to end the uncertainty - to commit to leaving without a deal, to say she is going to revoke article 50, or to commit to a soft brexit (regardless of this being a terrible negotiating move), then one group or another of her own MPs will have nothing left to lose by removing her.

[cubes]

I still think no deal is the most likely (and default position) due to no faction in the uk being prepared to compromise. The EU will be fine without the UKs contribution, we will still buy far too many german cars, eu produced food (not much choice here) etc, it'll just cost us more. The other agreements that were bundled into the EU are going to be a far bigger problem along with the corresponding regulatory agencies which currently don't exist (how much of the £350m/week will these consume...?)

I don't feel the EU is vindictive enough to offer a stupidly bad deal to the UK right at the end - it won't be a good deal but not the worst possible one, however I think UK politics is utterly f***ed up atm mainly over this stupid issue and I can't see it being resolved until it's a moot point (i.e. after brexit).

Lets all hope for a resolution to this that will cause the least damage to the UK whatever you feel that may be.

[clv101]

I still think no deal is the most likely...

What do you mean by 'no deal'? Literally no flights and no movement of radioactive materials (or pets) and millions of people in countries they no longer have any right to be in? Or are you actually expecting no deal... except for x, y and z where we will have deals?

Interesting that with everything going on at the moment, May choses today to poke Russia with pointy stick:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -fake-news

[UndercoverElephant]

There could be a "no deal deal", which basically means some things which can be agreed reasonably easily, like flights still moving, while the more difficult things are really no deal.

Chris, you seem to think it would be possible to just cobble together a deal that keeps goods moving "frictionlessly", or solves the Irish border problem. I don't understand why. The reason these problems are causing so much difficulty is precisely because they don't have easy solutions. The Irish border is the perfect example. Nobody wants to see a hard border in Ireland, but the alternatives are all unacceptable. We cannot have one part of the UK remaining in the customs union while the rest leaves, creating an internal hard border within the UK itself. That would be even worse than a hard border in Ireland. But if we rule that out, then the only other solution fatally compromises the integrity of the borders of the EU. All possible solutions are totally unacceptable either to the UK, the EU or Ireland. There is no quick fix available, and that means a hard border in Ireland is a very real possibility.