Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
John Drake

The Brexit Thread (incl Brexit Party)

Brexit: What should happen now?  

165 members have voted

  1. 1. Brexit: What should happen now?

    • Accept Theresa May's Brexit deal and just get it over and done with
      18
    • Reject Theresa May's Brexit deal and leave with 'No Deal' regardless of the consequences
      49
    • Reject Theresa May's Brexit deal and force a General Election
      12
    • Reject Theresa May's Brexit deal and have a second referendum with 'Remain' as an option
      56
    • Reject Theresa May's Brexit deal and have a second referendum without 'Remain' as an option
      7
    • Something completely different which I'll explain in detail below
      0
    • I have absolutely no idea and have now lost the will to live, just make this stop, for pity's sake
      23


Recommended Posts

The politics around this are pathetic. We're surely getting to the point of no confidence in our MPs, not just the government.

The Independent Group aren't backing Common Market 2.0 for some reason, mainly because they all want to appear to be in a big group hug.  What part of Parliament taking control today didn't they get?!  Free vote or you're nothing other than a poundland version of the main parties.

  • Like 1

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ckn said:

The politics around this are pathetic. We're surely getting to the point of no confidence in our MPs, not just the government.

The Independent Group aren't backing Common Market 2.0 for some reason, mainly because they all want to appear to be in a big group hug.  What part of Parliament taking control today didn't they get?!  Free vote or you're nothing other than a poundland version of the main parties.

I think there reason is that it is not possible as it stands it is an aspiration not a fully fledged plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SSoutherner said:

Nope - 65%

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/03/13/xx-xx-britons-want-mps-vote-against-no-deal-brexit

Unsurprisingly, Remain voters are the most opposed to a No Deal Brexit, with 76% saying they wanted MPs to vote against it. Leave voters are overwhelmingly receptive, with 65% wanting MPs to take Britain out of the EU without a deal, and only 19% want them to prevent such an outcome

If No Deal is to be an option, then it needs to be explained to people.   And I don’t mean idiots saying “Mauritania works on WTO rules just fine so we can too”

It would mean leaving the single market and customs union.   That must therefore also mean that NI is split from GB or the Good Friday Agreement is ripped up - and that’s just it’s effect on Ireland.

If people want no deal they must honestly balance the benefits against the costs. 

If they actually did that, I can’t see No Deal getting more than a few percentage points in any referendum. 

  • Like 1

English, Irish, Brit, Yorkshire, European.  Citizen of the People's Republic of Yorkshire, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Union.  Critical of all it.  Proud of all it.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ckn said:

Ken Clarke taking no prisoners with his own side in his speech!

Selling the Customs Union quite well, and being ably aided by the EU saying it'd accept it.

Apparently the reason why Clarke refused to accept an intervention from the ERG lot is that they intended to filibuster it out.  Really...


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there's a joke in there somewhere about #### in Parliament during tonights Brexit debates, but I'm not funny enough to make it!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tory civil war breaking out... Ed Vaizey (Tory) having a right grumble at 170 Tory MPs going behind the backs of Parliament to demand the PM go for no deal.

I wonder if this is the thing that finally breaks the party.  I wonder if Jezza can keep Labour together as well.

 


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Steve May said:

It would mean leaving the single market and customs union.

But that's fine. Please bear in mind that most British people on the Britain mainland do not care about Northern Ireland, not really.

So you need to put it in terms they understand.

No deal means no transition. It means only the barest minimum agreement to keep things going as normal. If the thing - whatever that thing is - that you are doing, buying, using for transport etc, has, at any point, gone through the EU then that thing will get more complex, more expensive, harder to achieve and you'll only be able to bring a small bottle of whisky back. Your freedom of movement will end. Stanislaw down the road who nicked your job whilst claiming all the benefits - he's still got plenty of freedom of movement, how does that feel?

Oh, and your GPS doesn't work.

  • Like 2

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 17 stone giant said:

IF we end up remaining in the EU, does anyone else agree with me that the UK government should pay compensation to the EU for the disruption we've caused, and also pay compensation to the EU and UK businesses that have had to spend time and money preparing for a No Deal Brexit, as well as any costs they have incurred as a result of the uncertainty caused by the referendum result?

Firstly, I apologise for quoting myself, but I have done so because I didn't get much of a response from Remainers on here, and I think it's a discussion that needs to be had.

If you are arguing that we should remain in the EU, either by remain winning a second referendum or by parliament cancelling Brexit, or whatever method it may be....do we not need to think about what that might mean?

Remainers here are quite rightly asking Leave voters to consider and confront the real choices that we're facing, but I think Remainers need to do likewise.

The reality is that people in the UK/EU have spent a lot of time and money on the Brexit issue. I'll just lift a couple of examples from here:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/other-eu-countries-preparations-no-deal

Some governments are also providing funding for businesses, or seeking to mitigate potential costs, to allow them to make contingency plans for a variety of Brexit outcomes:

  • The Irish government in particular has a number of funding schemes for different types of businesses, including cash grants for SMEs worth up to €2,250 and loans up to €1.5 million, for Irish businesses that are particularly exposed to trade with the UK.
  • The Dutch government has also set up a voucher scheme to provide up to €2,500 towards the cost of professional advice for businesses seeking new markets outside the UK.
  • The Spanish Government are also offering export services at discounted rates for Spanish companies that trade with the UK

Now, I don't know - maybe the EU and the governments of countries in the EU, will happily take these expenditures on the chin. Maybe it's a drop in the ocean to them and nothing to worry about. Maybe they'll all say "No worries, UK, you can remain in the EU and we'll carry on exactly as we were."

But what if everyone doesn't say that? What if people (including individual business that have been affected) aren't prepared to write-off the financial consequences of the UK indulging in three years of nonsense? Even if, say, legally everyone (UK gov, EU, EU countries govs) is able to wash their hands of having to pay compensation - that's not exactly going to cause those who are out of pocket to have a very favourable view of the UK or the UK government.

Is it not fair to at least consider whether there is now a cost for remaining, as well as a cost for leaving?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

You are presuming everybody votes the same as before , but even that isn't the point to this particular discussion , you and others are suggesting that the voting public are as split as our parliament is over what they want from Brexit , I suggest try aren't , if push comes to shove I believe you would get a unanimous no deal if the other option meant remaining 

You wouldn't get close to unanimous.

I also can't see many remainers who didn't think Brexit was a good idea being won over by a no deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

Firstly, I apologise for quoting myself, but I have done so because I didn't get much of a response from Remainers on here, and I think it's a discussion that needs to be had.

If you are arguing that we should remain in the EU, either by remain winning a second referendum or by parliament cancelling Brexit, or whatever method it may be....do we not need to think about what that might mean?

Remainers here are quite rightly asking Leave voters to consider and confront the real choices that we're facing, but I think Remainers need to do likewise.

The reality is that people in the UK/EU have spent a lot of time and money on the Brexit issue. I'll just lift a couple of examples from here:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/other-eu-countries-preparations-no-deal

Some governments are also providing funding for businesses, or seeking to mitigate potential costs, to allow them to make contingency plans for a variety of Brexit outcomes:

  • The Irish government in particular has a number of funding schemes for different types of businesses, including cash grants for SMEs worth up to €2,250 and loans up to €1.5 million, for Irish businesses that are particularly exposed to trade with the UK.
  • The Dutch government has also set up a voucher scheme to provide up to €2,500 towards the cost of professional advice for businesses seeking new markets outside the UK.
  • The Spanish Government are also offering export services at discounted rates for Spanish companies that trade with the UK

Now, I don't know - maybe the EU and the governments of countries in the EU, will happily take these expenditures on the chin. Maybe it's a drop in the ocean to them and nothing to worry about. Maybe they'll all say "No worries, UK, you can remain in the EU and we'll carry on exactly as we were."

But what if everyone doesn't say that? What if people (including individual business that have been affected) aren't prepared to write-off the financial consequences of the UK indulging in three years of nonsense? Even if, say, legally everyone (UK gov, EU, EU countries govs) is able to wash their hands of having to pay compensation - that's not exactly going to cause those who are out of pocket to have a very favourable view of the UK or the UK government.

Is it not fair to at least consider whether there is now a cost for remaining, as well as a cost for leaving?

 

Is it more or less than £600m a week?


Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ckn said:

you're nothing other than a poundland version of the main parties.

IG is more like the 99p shop

Looks like remaining by the back door is the screen saver.

What will the Brexit Party make of that?

Free movement was on the table ?


  " I ain't no saint and I don't pretend to be,  But I hope you all found a friend in me."   Steve Forbert       

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Is it more or less than £600m a week?

I honestly don't know. All I'm saying is that in MY opinion, IF we choose now to remain in the EU, we would have a moral duty to pay some compensation (and I can't tell you right now what amount that would be) to those people that have been affected by our actions over the past three years.

It may well be the case - and I think this is what you're hinting at - that remaining would still be a far better option financially than continuing down the Leave route. If that is the case, I would have no problem accepting that. I'm just saying that we need to consider what every option we have, would mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SSoutherner said:

Depends where in the country you are - in the League heartlands that may be the case - in London and SE England far less so and whenever remainers said freedom of movement was the biggest issue Leavers kept telling us that wasnt the case

' the biggest ' ? , I'm not going to put the various issues into any kind of order of importance 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 17 stone giant said:

I honestly don't know. All I'm saying is that in MY opinion, IF we choose now to remain in the EU, we would have a moral duty to pay some compensation (and I can't tell you right now what amount that would be) to those people that have been affected by our actions over the past three years.

It may well be the case - and I think this is what you're hinting at - that remaining would still be a far better option financially than continuing down the Leave route. If that is the case, I would have no problem accepting that. I'm just saying that we need to consider what every option we have, would mean.

If we remain one of the first items on the EU agenda is the next Budget cycle so I assume it would come into that

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all surprising that all the indicative vote motions chosen by Bercow are remainer led ones.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Barry Sheerman speech is a disgrace, talk about irrelevant ramblings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government has approved preparations for EU elections on 23rd May. 


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, shrek said:

This Barry Sheerman speech is a disgrace, talk about irrelevant ramblings!

It needs Land of Hope and Glory to make it truly spectacular.

  • Haha 2

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, shrek said:

 

It’s almost as if they didn’t have a Conference last autumn


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ckn said:

It’s almost as if they didn’t have a Conference last autumn

In what way does that go against conference policy? Or is unreasonable in any way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Evil Homer said:

In what way does that go against conference policy? Or is unreasonable in any way?

Conference was clear, try to get a general election to impose a Labour Brexit, if that’s not possible then support 2nd referendum.  Labour squirmed and evaded until they had zero choice over the no confidence vote that they then lost.  They’ve triggered the second point now and should be bound to seek that 2nd referendum


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ckn said:

Conference was clear, try to get a general election to impose a Labour Brexit, if that’s not possible then support 2nd referendum.  Labour squirmed and evaded until they had zero choice over the no confidence vote that they then lost.  They’ve triggered the second point now and should be bound to seek that 2nd referendum

That is... what it says in the letter.

Why you characterize their actions as 'squirming and evading' is anyone's guess, what do you think they should've done differently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steve May said:

If No Deal is to be an option, then it needs to be explained to people.   And I don’t mean idiots saying “Mauritania works on WTO rules just fine so we can too”

It would mean leaving the single market and customs union.   That must therefore also mean that NI is split from GB or the Good Friday Agreement is ripped up - and that’s just it’s effect on Ireland.

If people want no deal they must honestly balance the benefits against the costs. 

If they actually did that, I can’t see No Deal getting more than a few percentage points in any referendum. 

Good Friday agreement ripped up on … erm Good Friday?

Edited by Trojan

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Evil Homer said:

That is... what it says in the letter.

Why you characterize their actions as 'squirming and evading' is anyone's guess, what do you think they should've done differently?

Corbyn repeatedly said he wouldn’t raise a no confidence vote that would lose.  He’d not have raised one even if the government lost the DUP and half the rest of the Tories left for the Kippers because it would mean he had to back the referendum. But for the government saying it’d accept a no confidence motion from anyone then he never would have done so.


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...