Cabinet Insiders report Art 50 to be extended according to Evening Standard

Assuming the EU agree, ( which I doubt they will) what happens next, and for how long can Art 50 be extended for before we crash out with no deal?

There's only two reasons the EU will extend it and it won't be an election because the tory party know it would tear them apart.  They won't even be able to agree on a manifesto.

Or they're asking for an extension for a second referendum.

Without that then no deal seems by far the most likely to me.  I can't see how May's deal is going to pass.  Some estimates have it losing by more than 200 (which in any ordinary time would see the PM resign on the spot) so unless an alternative is found we'll leave with no deal by default.

Cnuts! 

I knew this would happen. As far back as the summer of 2016, I said they'd spend the next two years fiddling it to manipulate remaining.

It's the worst Establishment stitch-up of all time. 

A rigged referendum:

- May’s deal

- Remain

would be an outrage. They should just revoke Art. 50

A lot of people who've taken a lot of things for granted that are going to get a big shock if it is no deal.  It won't happen overnight but the decline in this country over the following 5/10 years will be unparalleled.

Listening to people talk about how "we survived two world wars" so we'll survive Brexit a few minutes ago was soul-destroying.  He kept going on about WTO rules as if they represented a whole alternative global network which the EU prevented us from accessing.  His naivete was astonishing.

We'll be chained to the negotiating table, face down and arse in the air next to a 10 gallon tub of lube, fair play to any passing nation or trade bloc that wants to pop in and have a go.

It's going to be a long walk of shame back to the EU and we'll have no-one to blame but ourselves.

Cnuts! 

I knew this would happen. As far back as the summer of 2016, I said they'd spend the next two years fiddling it to manipulate remaining.

It's the worst Establishment stitch-up of all time. 

How is a new referendum a stitch-up?  None of the leading Brexiters said it would be no-deal.  They all said it would be sunny uplands, easy deals, better off than we are now blah blah blah.  People voted on that basis.

Now they know that it really looks like, shouldn't they have a chance to confirm or change their minds?

If the case for Brexit is as strong and as universal as you think then you'll win.

There will have to be a 2nd referendum and the irony is that it will be the hard core brexiteers that brought it about by not supporting their own government.

I don;t think it's that bad Dux. It's more like when they couldn't get Lisbon ratified they calleda  hiatus, pretended to change it and then had another go. 

 

They will call the extension pretend to change this deal and the UK will then agree it. 

Wot bloopers said.

As someone remarked, it is one thing to decide to go to the beach, but that doesn’t mean you can’t decide to do something else when you get there and it is tipping it down and the beach is covered in dog poo.

I wish when people post these threads they would post the twitter feeds or whatever they’re getting them from so we can judge ourselves rather than cryptically referring to “insiders” or what it “looks like” is happening. 

There will be a new general election before no deal because the government will lose a vote of no confidence if it does not come up with an alternative without a shadow of doubt

ZG: the thread is about an article in the Standard, so its source is likely to be one of Osborne's mates

the standard has been consistently correctly (albeit from a specific Osborne angle) about tory gossip since he became editor

As far back as the summer of 2016, I said they'd spend the next two years fiddling it to manipulate remaining.

If that's what you believe is happening, then isn't it a shame the brave Brexiteers didn't do more to stop it, for example, by coming up with a viable plan?

The problem with a 2nd ref is you then potentially upset 17.4m people. No government wants to do that. It's absurd when there are other options available.

The sensible way forward is A50 extension, series of indicative votes in Parliament, then proceed towards a plan commanding a reasonable majority. Labour and Tory moderates would surely agree on a Norway-style solution representing a soft Brexit over the nuclear option of calling the whole thing off. 

At least that used to be how politics worked. These days it's hard to tell.

Or knowing what they wanted before they started campaigning.

Or being honest with the public about what was possible.

Or having a negotiation strategy before they called for negotiations.

Or just now being massive thundercunts.

3 ducks , they haven't fiddled around so we would remain, the reverse is true. Granted there is a lot of fiddling about going on, but far from ensuring we remain it has resulted in us likely exiting with no deal. The EU have said no extension to Art 50 unless:

 

1) A general election is called

2) A peoples vote takes place.

Tories won't call an election obviously

And TMPM, and some of her colleagues are under no circumstances going to have a referendum, their mantra being one has already taken place, and thats the end of it. Besides I don't trust these Torie kvnts, they will probably hoodwink/lie to the EU and say ok we are having an election or peoples vote and then resile from that just to buy more time.

 

Assuming as unlikely as it is they agree to an extension is their a time limit?

 

 

OK

this is only the second Brexit thread I have bitten on. Here goes.  The last one was after the referendum when Ca moron had resigned and May took over and everyone queried how a remainer could lead Brexit. The debate descended into farce almost immediately and I decided to let others debate democracy while I concentrated on fart jokes and stupid examples of nominative determinism.

But on this issue now I would like to say something, though not necessarily from the angle you might expect.  I have been in the working world for 29 years this year and that has encompassed quite a few economic dips and crises (1991 recession, Russia debt market, Asia financial market, dotcom, GFC etc) and EVERY time there's a load of people who say "we will get through this and growth is just round the corner".  but it always takes a long time to struggle back up from a big negative event.

A hard brexit would be a very very significant neutering of the British economy at a time when the global economy is far from secure and Britain's economic indicators are very weak indeed.  The country has NOT emerged properly from the events of 2008-9 and we are coming to terms with a profoundly adjusted economic context for Britain which quantitative easing masked for a long time. The debt has not been paid fully. It is being paid on the tick by parts of our economy fading and failing. We are having our belt tightened like a homeless person does - this is no diet, it is a new norm of less food.  Just as the real bite is being felt on that, as it now is, to then dump out of the EU with nothing but the hopes and aspirations of entirely unrealistic aspirant Brexiteers would be catastrophic.  I do not want to hear how that language is Project Fear. It is Project Fucking Reality.

What will happen? We are downstream from the businesses that will be pared back. So we will be pared back.  A lot of you will lose your jobs. The number of human beings in associate lawyer jobs ahead is going to rationalise anyway,  but this will be another one of those oh fuck moments.  You, you and you in the M&A, tax, commercial, banking and capital markets teams. Yeah, you,  and the one behind you with the big nose.  You're on a list of people who will be consulted for redundancy and your department will be decimated. Fact.

The issue is not whether we should or should not have voted Out in 2016. That has gone by. The issue is when the fuck are people going to drop some of their personal political dogma to rescue what would otherwise be a devastating bollock kick for Britain and compromise, achieving some sort of mitigation of the worst case.  Now is not the time for polarised bumtrumpetry, but for pragmatism and rescue plans.

A whole generation has been royally screwed for the long term in the UK following the financial crisis and now we are going to hold their heads under water to make sure they yield. Fucking disgrace.   

I for one want you to leave, these 17.4m people are not to my liking

At least that used to be how politics worked. These days it's hard to tell.

You're making the mistake of thinking that this is about the national interest and doing the best thing to reconcile a divided country.  It's not.  It's about holding the tory party together and doing their best to stop Labour from getting in.  May abandoned the national interest a long time ago (if she ever had it).

Tories won't call an election obviously

 

It is not a question of calling an election  - if the government allows the country to head to no deal it will lose a vote of confidence and an election will follow -  at that point it will be forced to request an A50 extension.

They did the same in Denmark when they got the "wrong" result. And Ireland. And France. 

**** it bring it on. If we win this time, what will the "People's Vote" mob do next? A third referendum??

FAOD I'm not saying Jeremy Corbyn is the best thing for the national interest but both the House of Commons and the mass media seem to be led by twitter at the moment.

Many remain Tories have said by voting for the deal they will have completed their obligations to the manifesto, to respect the result of the referendum and to the government.   If the deal is rejected gloves will be off and the remain majority in parliament will really start flexing its muscles - booting out the government if necessary,

it will lose a vote of confidence and an election will follow

If Cooper, Kendall or Umuna was leading the Labour Party that might be true.  It might even be true if it was Lammy.  Maybe even Watson.  Not with Jeremy Corbyn.  There's no way the tory party will vote for something that might end up with him as PM.

As for compromise, a Norway style situation would be a reasonable compromise.

Going back and begging people to remain in the EU (no doubt with the same "neutral" literature as before, from the Govt) is not reasonable. 

This whole "booting out the government" thing is silly talk because many of these people reflect on the wielding of such "power" and recognise that they will lose their seats when they are swept away in an election so that's something of an own goal.

In fact, forget it. Not even with Lammy or Watson.  Absolutely no chance with Corbyn.

You might be Ducks, but Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry and Dominic Grieve won't.  Nor will Rees-Mogg or Boris Johnson.

Now is not the time for polarised bumtrumpetry, but for pragmatism and rescue plans.

This. Unfortunately the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and his ERG have placed ideology over everything else, ruining what should have been a sensible and pragmatic Tory debate on the best way forward in negotiations. The hard right portion of the Tory membership are responsible for the PM being put in an impossible position. 

This whole "booting out the government" thing is silly talk because many of these people reflect on the wielding of such "power" and recognise that they will lose their seats when they are swept away in an election so that's something of an own goal.

Mutley normally I would agree, but here we are talking about averting what they perceive as a national disaster - I believe there are still enough principled MPs who would risk their seats to prevent this - in any event they will recognise that if no deal is as bad as they fear then the Tory party will be swept away at the next election and most of them with it.

And as I said before, the tories wouldn't even be able to agree on a manifesto.  They know there's no way they can fight an election at the moment.  And no-one's got a fecking clue what parliament would look like afterwards but I'd bet you anything you like that no party would have an overall majority.

It has to be resolved and it has to be this parliament that does it.

2nd referendum is the best choice as far as I can see.

"Going back and begging people to remain in the EU (no doubt with the same "neutral" literature as before, from the Govt) is not reasonable."

I agree with that precise wording but I don't think this is a case of going back and begging. This is a case of carefully measuring where public opinion stands now that the reality is dawning.

However, dux, that is me engaging in a debate I do not really have much interest in as I am not promoting the idea of abandonment of art 50 or another referendum with a view to a remain rethink. I was a remainer who is now of the view that the dye is cast and that all energy should now be put  into a Brexit which is on terms better than a cocked up hard Brexit would deliver.  That is in my view, the responsibility of Parliament now.  The opposers clinging to a remain wish, on the one hand, and the opposers at the extreme brexit end of the spectrum, are playing party politics with the  population's individual prospects. It is time to act responsibly.  

As for Labour, the moderates are going to use this as yet another excuse to oust Corbyn. Labour's contribution to this "debate" won't be about the national interest at all.

The thing I don’t get about folks like dux is that it has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that leaving will make us poorer, that large numbers of people will lose their jobs as a direct result and a number of industries will be damaged (some irreparable) and yet they still want to push ahead with it.

The thing I don’t get about folks like dux is that it has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that leaving will make us poorer, that large numbers of people will lose their jobs as a direct result and a number of industries will be damaged (some irreparable) and yet they still want to push ahead with it.

You mean leaving without a deal. There are still other serious options to consider. 

 "I was a remainer who is now of the view that the dye is cast and that all energy should now be put  into a Brexit which is on terms better than a cocked up hard Brexit would deliver"

 

Muttley, out of interest, would that hold true no matter what the opinion polls said - suppose they went to 80% remain for example?  Would it still be wrong to hold a 2nd referendum?

I remember when the polls were comfortably for Remain, in fact right before Leave won the referendum.

See also, Trump.

just ratify the deal that has been agreed and all will be good, for both sides. fartage and co won't be in brussels anymore, business will continue uninterrupted and unaffected

struts - demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt - this is where it all gets fucked up. we immediately flip into pantomime "oh no he didn't/oh yes he did" fakenews whataboutary and whether the doubt is reasonable or not - whether that fact has been proven or not - is immediately debatable for ever and will never be adequately established before actually doing it.  There is no point in trying to get one or other side to agree. Battle lines are drawn and both sides say the other's black is white.

Fuck that.

Move on.

Think of the future.

Care for our children's generation, the security of the nation* and do the right thing. Back an agreed deal.

 

*yes, economic and physical security.  If the country goes down the shitter on bad terms it will become vulnerable and dependent. e.g. gas and oil security and thus geopolitically vulnerable, and it won't have the support of a union of nations to rely on.

I *heart* your 15:51 Mutters.

I wish it could be tattooed onto the carcass of every single member of parliament.

Muttley, out of interest, would that hold true no matter what the opinion polls said - suppose they went to 80% remain for example?  Would it still be wrong to hold a 2nd referendum?

 

making policy on the basis of polls is truly a moronic approach

Having a referendum at all was an entirely off-road act barely known to our constitution and ill-fitting, hence the cocked up nature of the question, the weak and incorrect political campaigns and the level of dissatisfaction with the outcome and the political process fall out. Square peg being jammed back and forth in round hole.

What went wrong here, and this is a real lawyer's angle, is that we decided to use an alien process (plebiscite) to determine something which then triggered a different process (EU law) the ratification of which requires domestic parliamentary process which cannot easily grapple with the former two and brings into play party political processes which weren't in play at the time of the referendum. Totally catastrophic approach to resolution. Like saying "let's litigate this, but in the following way: let's use rock paper scissors (one go only) but then when we have the answer take that and start an LCIA arbitration process, then when that is over we take the result and resolve the outcome by holding a Vogon poetry competition."  Total lack of clarity of process such that opinion has swung back and forth and everyone's been free to pile in with any point whatsoever because nobody can say it is wrong to do so. There is no process map.

I think the answer to your question is therefore yes, oddly.

The problem with a 2nd ref is you then potentially upset 17.4m people

Tough.  Many more people, including some or all of those 17.4 million will be definitely upset if brexit happens (either no deal or May's deal).

Why are we only told to consider people who voted to leave?

 

There are still other serious options to consider. 

Not really.  A paper was circulated when the negotiations began making clear that the level of access to the Single Market depended on the level of compliance with its regulations.  May has chosen minimal compliance and the UK will get minimal access - however (assuming the deal is agreed by parliament) there will be a 2 year transition period during which things will stay the same as now.

In practical terms the transition period will allow those companies and concerns which haven't made provision for the consequences of Brexit to do so.  Expect capital and corporate flight on an epic scale.

it has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that leaving will make us poorer, that large numbers of people will lose their jobs as a direct result and a number of industries will be damaged

Listening to the radio today it astonished me the number of people who are convinced that in a few years time new trade deals and new business will make up for any shortfall from Brexit.  They don't seem to have grasped how much of what we have is due to our membership of the EU and our participation in the Single Market.

You'd be amazed by the level of ignorance in the country.  Don't forget that a recent NI Secretary didn't even realise that nationalists don't vote for unionists and that unionists don't vote for nationalists, never mind that Brexit Secretary who didn't know that Dover was important.  These are ministers.  MPs are worse.  What do you think Bob from down the pub is like?

Mutters I respect your avoidance to date of Brexit threads. I get drawn in and its like the pig wrestling joke, you both get covered jn sh1t etc.

these threads are all opinion and speculation.

what facts do we have?

1) the EU member states have said before they would not agree to Art50 extension unless material change in circs. They have said a GE does not fulfil the criteria.

2) the EU member states are believed to be even less keen on negotiating with Corbyn than they are with May, according to Katya Adler (perhaps because he is an even bigger fantacist??). Or that was the case some months back. Maybe things have changed.

3) the only vote up for grabs is the Withdrawal Bill.

4) the vote is most likely going to go against the govnt although obv no one knows for sure and i dont think anyone in govnt or the House should be making irrevocable decisions until it is known.

Why are we only told to consider people who voted to leave?

Because May's priority has always been to hold the tory party together and to keep herself at the head of it.  If she had taken the closeness of the result into account then her approach would have been different from the beginning.

I'm with Bikes in hoping that the EU predicted this and have got a small rabbit in a thimble sized hat that will be just enough to let MP's u-turn and get behind May's deal.  

I can't see even the ERG supporting a motion of no confidence that runs the risk of a Corbyn government and I also suspect there are moderate Labour MP's who will also vote against it on the basis they want to get rid of Jezza.

Many more people, including some or all of those 17.4 million will be definitely upset if brexit happens (either no deal or May's deal).Why are we only told to consider people who voted to leave?

Because we had a referendum, rightly or wrongly, and the result should be respected. There are serious alternatives on the table that deliver may Brexit in a flavour acceptable to the majority of Parliament. A 2nd ref would be divisive and an insult to those who voted out, not least as they've spent the past few months being told they're imbeciles for having voted the 'wrong' way.

"hoping that the EU predicted this and have got a small rabbit in a thimble sized hat that will be just enough to let MP's u-turn and get behind May's deal."

they aren't that creative or prescient 

"I can't see even the ERG supporting a motion of no confidence that runs the risk of a Corbyn government "

they have lost their sense of which way is up. The rage has addled them. Kamikaze fighters, the lot of them.

They are that manipulative and Machiavellian thought Muttley!

 

There are serious alternatives on the table that deliver may Brexit in a flavour acceptable to the majority of Parliament. 

No.  There aren't.

There are 3 alternatives.

May's deal.

No deal.

No brexit.

That's it.

They are that manipulative and Machiavellian thought Muttley!

Funnily enough, when they say there will be no further negotiations, that's what they mean.  They're prepared to make flattering non-binding noises from stage left if you think it'll help but nothing else.  And they've already done that.

They're actually sick of the late night calls and "take me back you know you want to" texts.

Because we had a referendum, rightly or wrongly, and the result should be respected

I don't actually agree that the result of the referendum should be respected if by doing so means that we are all fvked.  Even more so given the closeness of the result and the basis on which the referendum was held and run. 

Just because a child wants to stick its fingers in an electric socket doesn't mean it shouldn't be stopped from doing so (or, indeed, that all other children are forced to stick their fingers into electric sockets).

 

 

Fred, a soft Brexit would make the head bangers just as angry as abandoning Brexit altogether, so why bother?

Further proof that dux is a Russian agent whose mission is to stir up stuff as much as possible. If indeed further proof were needed. 

The Russian equivalent of Johnny English, I assume.

Fred, a soft Brexit would make the head bangers just as angry as abandoning Brexit altogether, so why bother?

It would, but since they're already p1ssed off time to leave them behind and build consensus across the House.

Revoke article 50 and remain. Get some clever Brits into the workings of the EU and chuck a spanner into this 'ever closer union' rubbish, most of the EU members don't want it anyway.

The them and us thing is ridiculous.

It would, but since they're already p1ssed off time to leave them behind and build consensus across the House.

Why not just remain then? 

​​​​

Get some clever Brits

Heh.

Cos look how many of them are in politics.

"Further proof that dux is a Russian agent whose mission is to stir up stuff as much as possible."

LOL. Completely mental.

Fred Titmus11 Jan 19 15:50

Reply

Report

 | 

The problem with a 2nd ref is you then potentially upset 17.4m people. No government wants to do that. It's absurd when there are other options available.

The problem with proceeding with May’s deal or no deal is you definitely upset at least 16.5m remainers and in either case a few million Leavers. Plus all the 35m or so people who didn’t vote but will get screwed by fantasist idiocy. 

It’s absurd when there are other options available.

Clever Brits don't want anything to do with the politics/media circus.

Okay.  I've had enough of this bollocks.  Put up or fuck off.

Apart from May's Deal, No Deal or No Brexit what options do you think are available?

18:44 is to Resident Rump and Fred Titmuss, not to New Chambers.

Muttley11 Jan 19 16:06

Reply

Report

 | 

...I was a remainer who is now of the view that the dye is cast

tinctura iacta est?

Goose are you so thick you can’t see what dux’s Rof is intended to achieve? Oh, you are. 

I can see what cookie's rof is intended to achieve.

The police have been cut to shreds since 2010.  Are they seriously intending to use an airborne assault regiment on mainland UK?

The army are meant to fight the enemies of the state.  The police are meant to protect and to serve the people.  When the two become one, the enemies of the state and the people are also likely to be identified as one and the same thing.

There can be no downside to letting the Parachute Regiment loose on a civilian population. It’s not as if they have previously massacred unarmed civilians. 

Oh wait...

Did you see the reply from the Paras that they are called on to do crowd control when overseas, e.g. in Iraq, Sierra Leone, etc. Why wouldn't they train for it? Why immediately leap to Brexit?

The only sensible way forward I can see is a military coup, installing Mutters as Generalissimo until sensibleness is restored in the nation once again. 

Yeah with Goose as foreign sec.

Only kidding

Can you nip out for a packet of quavers?

Soz, I'm not sure you can be trusted not to harm yourself with a pack of cheesy snacks. Soft foods only. How about some mashmallows?

Mash again, snowflake. 

ps is it your fat missus that’s behind lawbla?

"Have placed ideology over everything else"

Most of these people are right wing Catholics

Part of the mind set 

Is it possible that you could try not being an absolute cancer of a human being for just one day? 

No, thought not. 

Have another drink and wallow in your own bile.

Heh.

He’s got nowhere to go.

Brill.

Can we discuss something of value now?

Cool.

Why immediately leap to Brexit?

Because Brexit brings significant threats to public order and the police service has been cut to the bone.

I want everything to be fine and dandy.  I hope that even if we end up going with no deal, that the ports continue to run smoothly and supermarkets are all supplied with food, that there are no significant job losses, that new trade deals are negotiated, that manufacturing thrives, that banking and legal and financial services keep current markets and develop new ones.

I'm not banking on it though, and if I was the govt I wouldn't be either.  You have to have contingency plans, you have to have manage risk.

https://news.sky.com/story/army-on-standby-to-handle-food-and-medicines-shortages-in-event-of-no-deal-brexit-11453093

If the army are already on standby to deal with food and medicine shortages you'd have to be pretty naive to think they aren't also going to be prepared for public order issues.  Food and medicine shortages are heavy shit - especially for a population that has no experience of it, is not prepared for it and doesn't understand why it is necessary.

Cancer specialists have warned that people might die because of difficulties in obtaining radioactive material.  Didn't some health minister refuse to rule out people dying because of Brexit?  Imagine if someone died because of medicine rationing or somesuch - if a child died because they couldn't get insulin.  That sort of thing could easily lead to riots.