Theresa May (Vol.2)

[Balmoral]

Elysium said:

Have a read of section 3 of article 50.

Which says what 768 said and with emergency powers what I said.

Edited by Balmoral on Thursday 17th January 20:21

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

Section 3 of a50 allows them to extend it 'in agreement with the member state'.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_versio...

That would require the agreement of Parliament and the majority of MP's are against no deal (labour, plus some Tories, plus others). May is also against no-deal, so if they EU decide to do this she find it difficult to refuse.

In summary - her threat of no-deal has no teeth, because the EU can comfortably call her bluff.

Now thats some quality bullst.

Uk law rescinds all EU law on march 29, it doesn't matter what the EU does once UK law is once again the only law applicable in the UK.

[saaby93]

Balmoral said:

Elysium said:

Have a read of section 3 of article 50.

Which says what 768 said and with emergency powers what I said.

Isnt there more chance of all the EU countries agreeing on something than MPs in parliament?

[don'tbesilly]

Balmoral said:

Elysium said:

Have a read of section 3 of article 50.

Which says what 768 said and with emergency powers what I said.

Edited by Balmoral on Thursday 17th January 20:21

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Both May & Leadsom have said that won't be requested or agreed to.

[Roboraver]

Oppsss

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-tweets-mps-cant-...

[Elysium]

don'tbesilly said:

Balmoral said:

Elysium said:

Have a read of section 3 of article 50.

Which says what 768 said and with emergency powers what I said.

Edited by Balmoral on Thursday 17th January 20:21

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Both May & Leadsom have said that won't be requested or agreed to.

When it comes to the crunch, the EU will offer an extension and the UK parliament will agree to it.

Avoiding no-deal is Govt and opposition policy. There is no question that the majority of MP's will agree to an extension.

I think you will find that May and Leadsom have said that they will not be asking for an extension and that they think the best way of parliament avoiding no-deal is to agree the Govt deal. They have not made ANY statements about the Govt response in the situation I have described.

[don'tbesilly]

Elysium said:

don'tbesilly said:

Balmoral said:

Elysium said:

Have a read of section 3 of article 50.

Which says what 768 said and with emergency powers what I said.

Edited by Balmoral on Thursday 17th January 20:21

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

Both May & Leadsom have said that won't be requested or agreed to.

When it comes to the crunch, the EU will offer an extension and the UK parliament will agree to it.

Avoiding no-deal is Govt and opposition policy. There is no question that the majority of MP's will agree to an extension.

I think you will find that May and Leadsom have said that they will not be asking for an extension and that they think the best way of parliament avoiding no-deal is to agree the Govt deal. They have not made ANY statements about the Govt response in the situation I have described.

Nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

You thinking/saying and others saying it MUST happen does not mean it will.

[wc98]

Elysium said:

It's not about me clutching at straws. Its about the ongoing failure of May's Govt to get stuff sorted.

Does it not concern you that Mays entire negotiating strategy hinges on the EU and Parliament reaching agreement in the next few weeks to avoid no-deal, but that this is built on a fiction because the EU can avoid it anyway?

We are just wasting time.

Edited by Elysium on Thursday 17th January 20:12

note the smiley, it was not a serious comment.i agree with what you say, though the only problem i have with no deal is if it occurs by default. i agree with others that say whatever deal does come about will be at the 11th hour,and even then at circa two and a half years it will be one of the quickest deals the eu will ever have done.

[wc98]

don'tbesilly said:

Nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

You thinking/saying and others saying it MUST happen does not mean it will.

to be fair i heard a few comments today stating that b ehind the scenes there is talk of some sort of customs union (i know in reality there is only one customs union) and an extension to article 50 to allow the terms to be thrashed out. i might be wrong but i am sure hammond was mentioned in the same sentence.

[Bill]

don'tbesilly said:

Nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

You thinking/saying and others saying it MUST happen does not mean it will.

Who's wishfully thinking?

The government, the majority of Parliament and the EU think no deal is the worst possible outcome. They'll move heaven and earth to prevent it.

They may fail, but those looking at the deadline and counting down to our no deal departure are on a hiding to nothing.

If we're still looking at no deal come the end of March there'll be some god awful bodge put in place. And given the government's past performance it'll probably involve TM giving something significant away.

[JagLover]

Bill said:

Who's wishfully thinking?

The government, the majority of Parliament and the EU think no deal is the worst possible outcome. They'll move heaven and earth to prevent it.

They may fail, but those looking at the deadline and counting down to our no deal departure are on a hiding to nothing.

If we're still looking at no deal come the end of March there'll be some god awful bodge put in place. And given the government's past performance it'll probably involve TM giving something significant away.

Or perhaps they are counting down to when there is a decisive breach between the majority of Tory MPs and the majority of those who voted for them.

Whatever form "The establishment stich up" takes is unlikely to be consequence free.

Edited by JagLover on Friday 18th January 08:01

[Elysium]

I am beginning to think that 'no deal' will only be possible if it is the outcome of a second referendum.

Any deal that might command a parliamentary majority will look 'soft' to the Brexiteer MP's. May's problem is that she tried to come up with something that appealed to everyone, but in reality neither side liked it. She is still talking about middle ground, but in reality I am not sure we have any.

There is some irony here, but I think we will start to see Brexiteers supporting and planning for an a50 extension and second referendum. It is the only way of deciding between the three factions:

Just get out / no-deal
Brexit in name only / customs union and 4 freedoms
Remain

Without a referendum, we will just keep banging away until we find a soft Brexit that all parties can agree.

Farage is already there:

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/nigel-farage-brexi...

[JagLover]

Elysium said:

I am beginning to think that 'no deal' will only be possible if it is the outcome of a second referendum.

Any deal that might command a parliamentary majority will look 'soft' to the Brexiteer MP's. May's problem is that she tried to come up with something that appealed to everyone, but in reality neither side liked it. She is still talking about middle ground, but in reality I am not sure we have any.

There is some irony here, but I think we will start to see Brexiteers supporting and planning for an a50 extension and second referendum. It is the only way of deciding between the three factions:

Just get out / no-deal
Brexit in name only / customs union and 4 freedoms
Remain

Without a referendum, we will just keep banging away until we find a soft Brexit that all parties can agree.

Farage is already there:

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/nigel-farage-brexi...

You are assuming that the "people's vote" campaigners are planning to allow "no deal" to be an option on the ballot paper, as many are not.

[motco]

'No deal' looks as if it is the only possible outcome. Anything more favourable to UK than the May proposal would be rejected by EU, and anything harder for UK would clearly not pass the House. No deal is automatic if nothing else is agreed and nothing else can be agreed obviously. Delaying A50 only prolongs the agony, and reversal of A50 would start a riot or two.

[Bill]

JagLover said:

Or perhaps they are counting down to when there is a decisive breach between the majority of Tory MPs and the majority of those who voted for them.

Whatever form "The establishment stich up" takes is unlikely to be consequence free.

To be fair, there'll be consequences whatever form Brexit takes.

Whatever happens it isn't looking good for the Tories. Presiding over no deal will taint them like the miners' strike tainted Maggie, and remaining will split the party. And any compromise is going to be st, like the current deal, or seen as BRINO by the brexiteers.

[Bill]

motco said:

'No deal' looks as if it is the only possible outcome. Anything more favourable to UK than the May proposal would be rejected by EU, and anything harder for UK would clearly not pass the House. No deal is automatic if nothing else is agreed and nothing else can be agreed obviously. Delaying A50 only prolongs the agony, and reversal of A50 would start a riot or two.

There's plenty of scope for a softening of May's red lines. Extend A50 and form a customs union with FoM gets rid of the NI border issue and gives parliament what they want and won't be resisted by the EU.

[motco]

Bill said:

motco said:

'No deal' looks as if it is the only possible outcome. Anything more favourable to UK than the May proposal would be rejected by EU, and anything harder for UK would clearly not pass the House. No deal is automatic if nothing else is agreed and nothing else can be agreed obviously. Delaying A50 only prolongs the agony, and reversal of A50 would start a riot or two.

There's plenty of scope for a softening of May's red lines. Extend A50 and form a customs union with FoM gets rid of the NI border issue and gives parliament what they want and won't be resisted by the EU.

Yes but would it pass muster in the HoC? I doubt it. Brexit in Name only and contrary to the wishes of many who voted leave.

[mattmurdock]

motco said:

Bill said:

motco said:

'No deal' looks as if it is the only possible outcome. Anything more favourable to UK than the May proposal would be rejected by EU, and anything harder for UK would clearly not pass the House. No deal is automatic if nothing else is agreed and nothing else can be agreed obviously. Delaying A50 only prolongs the agony, and reversal of A50 would start a riot or two.

There's plenty of scope for a softening of May's red lines. Extend A50 and form a customs union with FoM gets rid of the NI border issue and gives parliament what they want and won't be resisted by the EU.

Yes but would it pass muster in the HoC? I doubt it. Brexit in Name only and contrary to the wishes of many who voted leave.

Parliament would do everything in its power to prevent 'No deal'.

So May's focus has to be on either softening the backstop with the EU, or softening her party on the backstop. If she can do that, then the Conservatives and DUP can get her Withdrawal Agreement through the HoC regardless of what the other parties think.

The rest of the Withdrawal Agreement is good, it is just the backstop that is stopping it being agreed. The issue is the backstop is an extremely complex issue for both sides.

[Bill]

motco said:

Yes but would it pass muster in the HoC? I doubt it. Brexit in Name only and contrary to the wishes of many who voted leave.

Why wouldn't the HoC pass it?? They mostly want to remain and BRINO allows them to "respect the wishes of the people" while not buggering the country* up.

Brexit was always going to be a compromise.


*As they see it, YMMV.

[motco]

Time will tell...