I think unless Magic Grandpa goes full on People's Vote convert there seems little point in this discussion. The debate that needs to be had would be a mirror of what any future referendum should ask - should we remain in the EU or go ahead with Brexit on the basis of Theresa's deal. We are out of any other realistic/ non-batshit crazy options at this point.
And let's not forget that quite a lot of people actually want the batshit option. (They should be sectioned of course, for their own and everyone else's sake, but they are out there and have the right to vote. Some of them are even in the government, God help us.)
I'd like to think it an option GC, but not sure the Tories would vote for it (after all in their peculiar universe why would we want to participate in a successful single market when we could be hauling up the drawbridge of Fortress Britannia and getting rid of FOM!) unless it's of the Norway for now variety, and since that still rubs up against the total insanity of the backstop arrangements it is every bit as fatally flawed as Theresa's deal.
Surely the whole point is for Corbyn to explain his vision of Brexit, what he would have done differently. Which is also what he should have been doing the past 2 years.
TM can possibly use this get the public behind her to a greater extent. This puts pressure on MPs of all stripes to accept her deal. I also think JC will be too cautious about upsetting his own party to come across as a convincing alternative. In the event of a snap GE that will really hurt them.
LI Norway plus simply leaves us in the custom union so backstop no longer an issue- I suspect all other parties including DUP would back this together with the Ken Clarkes and Anna Soubreys in the Tory party.
GC yes understood re Norway plus - was talking about Boles's Norway for now when referencing backstop - but isn't the issue with Norway plus that we'd have to abide by the four freedoms (albeit with the massive benefit of securing single market access)? Can't see that going down well with the Brexiteer loons. Whilst I agree if it was put before a free vote in Parliament it would be supported, it does rather beg the question why bother with this rubbish in the first place? If the legislative's response to the public's vote to leave is to avoid economic calamity or a further referendum via such a blatant BINO arrangement then why not just go the whole hog and revoke A50 without further ado?
Lorem rationally you are right, but we have to leave without a referendum, this would avoid the need for a referendum. Yes the breximorons would hate it and scream betrayal but ultimately they are the minority and having voted down May's deal essentially will only have themselves to blame. Whatever they may have thought at the referendum most people care more about their livelihood than the 4 freedoms and if we can say we have left the EU, however symbolic that may be, the vote has been honoured.
Would the UK pay less into the EU as a result of EFTA or any other Norway-style arrangement? One cause of resentment has been our permanent status as net contributors.
They should have said, "the actual amount we pay to the EU once you account for the rebate and all the funding that comes directly back to the UK is X (piddling) amount per person per day, and these are all the benefits we get in return for that (actually pretty small) payment: ..........................................."
Had the conservatives lost the election, does anyone believe we'd be getting a better deal? And if so, in what way and how?
The problem with all of this is that whatever mandate a govt has, whatever it's stated aims and demands, there's a non-controllable entity involved, who have the superior negotiating position plus the ability to say 'yeah, no thanks'.
I'm not at all very clued up on Ireland, but it also seems barmy that we could 'properly' Brexit (leaving single market and customs union' without having a hard border. Can a Brexiteer explain how this can possibly be avoided?
We are doing all this so that we can control our borders. And then we will decide not to control our borders. Which is fine, because it will be us choosing not to control them. Oh and we don't need a deal because we're going to "fall back on WTO rules". Even though the WTO is a non-British organsation whose rules we have no say in making. And if the WTO rules require us to control our borders then we will have an invisible border with Ireland, which will work because technology.
0
0
Rain check.
0
0
they should make them both do a bushtucker trial and settle it that way
0
0
No, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn should do an old fashioned duel with pistols. Hopefully they'd both fatally shoot each other at the same time.
0
0
I wouldnt back corbo in a pistol (or indeed any) fight. he'd try and drop the revolver and shoot his own cock off.
0
0
I don't see the problem
0
0
oh c'mon it would be much more fun to watch them having to eat kangaroo bums or get put in a coffin with snakes
0
0
the concept of a tv debate when the decision is for parliament alone strikes me as plain bonkers
0
0
the concept of a tv debate when the decision is for parliament alone strikes me as plain bonkers
0
0
or get put in a coffin with snakes
That just sounds like your average cabinet meeting, tbh.
0
0
we had a bushtucker trial game as one of my nipper's presents. the crickets were a bit dry but meal worms are lush
0
0
no way am I watching a debate between May and Corbyn, I think it would make me suicidal
0
0
I think unless Magic Grandpa goes full on People's Vote convert there seems little point in this discussion. The debate that needs to be had would be a mirror of what any future referendum should ask - should we remain in the EU or go ahead with Brexit on the basis of Theresa's deal. We are out of any other realistic/ non-batshit crazy options at this point.
0
0
Norway plus is still potentially an option LI - the EU would allow us time for that as they would prefer it to the dogs dinner deal on the table.
0
0
And let's not forget that quite a lot of people actually want the batshit option. (They should be sectioned of course, for their own and everyone else's sake, but they are out there and have the right to vote. Some of them are even in the government, God help us.)
0
0
I'd like to think it an option GC, but not sure the Tories would vote for it (after all in their peculiar universe why would we want to participate in a successful single market when we could be hauling up the drawbridge of Fortress Britannia and getting rid of FOM!) unless it's of the Norway for now variety, and since that still rubs up against the total insanity of the backstop arrangements it is every bit as fatally flawed as Theresa's deal.
0
1
Surely the whole point is for Corbyn to explain his vision of Brexit, what he would have done differently. Which is also what he should have been doing the past 2 years.
TM can possibly use this get the public behind her to a greater extent. This puts pressure on MPs of all stripes to accept her deal. I also think JC will be too cautious about upsetting his own party to come across as a convincing alternative. In the event of a snap GE that will really hurt them.
0
0
LI Norway plus simply leaves us in the custom union so backstop no longer an issue- I suspect all other parties including DUP would back this together with the Ken Clarkes and Anna Soubreys in the Tory party.
0
0
I think Corbo is quite dishy in his own way. good bone structure.
0
1
GC yes understood re Norway plus - was talking about Boles's Norway for now when referencing backstop - but isn't the issue with Norway plus that we'd have to abide by the four freedoms (albeit with the massive benefit of securing single market access)? Can't see that going down well with the Brexiteer loons. Whilst I agree if it was put before a free vote in Parliament it would be supported, it does rather beg the question why bother with this rubbish in the first place? If the legislative's response to the public's vote to leave is to avoid economic calamity or a further referendum via such a blatant BINO arrangement then why not just go the whole hog and revoke A50 without further ado?
0
0
Lorem rationally you are right, but we have to leave without a referendum, this would avoid the need for a referendum. Yes the breximorons would hate it and scream betrayal but ultimately they are the minority and having voted down May's deal essentially will only have themselves to blame. Whatever they may have thought at the referendum most people care more about their livelihood than the 4 freedoms and if we can say we have left the EU, however symbolic that may be, the vote has been honoured.
0
1
it does rather beg the question why bother with this rubbish in the first place?
Well, quite.
Anyone?
Dux?
0
0
Would the UK pay less into the EU as a result of EFTA or any other Norway-style arrangement? One cause of resentment has been our permanent status as net contributors.
0
0
Yeah the remain campaign missed a trick there.
They should have said, "the actual amount we pay to the EU once you account for the rebate and all the funding that comes directly back to the UK is X (piddling) amount per person per day, and these are all the benefits we get in return for that (actually pretty small) payment: ..........................................."
0
0
this is all the wrong way around
We have a debate between a remainer who is advocating leaving the EU
and a leaver advocating rejecting the deal to leave!
0
0
Archie its been like that all the way through, completely dysfunctional.
0
0
This is what happens when too many people believe the Tories are capable of governing competently.
0
0
Had the conservatives lost the election, does anyone believe we'd be getting a better deal? And if so, in what way and how?
The problem with all of this is that whatever mandate a govt has, whatever it's stated aims and demands, there's a non-controllable entity involved, who have the superior negotiating position plus the ability to say 'yeah, no thanks'.
0
0
I'm not at all very clued up on Ireland, but it also seems barmy that we could 'properly' Brexit (leaving single market and customs union' without having a hard border. Can a Brexiteer explain how this can possibly be avoided?
0
0
By using technology, silly.
0
0
Anna, 12, it’s simple. We won’t put up a border. If the Irish or the EU choose to do so that is a matter for them.
0
0
They can't even agree on the fooking telly channel
0
0
We are doing all this so that we can control our borders. And then we will decide not to control our borders. Which is fine, because it will be us choosing not to control them. Oh and we don't need a deal because we're going to "fall back on WTO rules". Even though the WTO is a non-British organsation whose rules we have no say in making. And if the WTO rules require us to control our borders then we will have an invisible border with Ireland, which will work because technology.
Schroedinger's border, innit.
0
0
the idea that a govt which notoriously can't get any IT system working properly can "use technology" to control a national border is laughable.
0
1
Having worked directly with the people who procure IT systems for the government, I concur wholeheartedly.
Join the discussion