Brexit
 

I am kind of surprised that we did not have a thread dedicated to this before.


This seems to be a relevant question once again.

Idiots. All of them. This is why you don’t trust the electorate with open ended complex decisions. Thanks Cameron.

Brexit/Trump has to be the greatest intelligence operation of all time. It's amazing how easily the Russians fucked up the West.

Doesn't help to then have no cohesive strategy/plan to actually follow through on said decision (which, unless i misremember, was supported in principle by the major players in government ?).

Eh, I kind of like this approach. We should have probably taken a solid two years after the election to transition to the Trump presidency.

Sounds like the vote will go against PM May.

submarine made of cheese

Her submarine of cheese is full of holes. If I were in charge you can be sure we'd have much better cheese submarines.

What domyou expect when the leader of the government was in the Remain camp, and the leader of the opposition was (privately) in the Leave camp.

Clusterfuck all round, so no one will get what they want, and parliament is doing is damnedest to run any sense of credibility, representation or mandate that they have.

Althouhg she was dealt an impossible hand, May should resign, she’s a terrible leader who has overseen or held poor negotiations both with the EU and parliament.

However, ironically that would increase the chances of staying in the EU: I do think she’s trying to reflect the will of the referendum - she just has no conviction and is incompetent

It's been known for months now that the deal will die - my question is, how much will the size of the defeat matter for how this thing stumbles forward?

Lost by 226. Completely unheard of. No confidence motion been tabled.

What a complete clusterfuck. There are no good options left and there probably never were.

If it had ever been close, then maybe it would have had some effect,but it was always going to lose by a lot, so the difference between 115 and 230 is zero in this case.

The options now are Article 50 is postponed, or even revoked, and the 52% are livid; or there is a no-deal exit and the 48% are livid, and probably a decent amount of the 52% will not be pleased

Can someone explain to a dumb American what happened today? They voted against leaving? I'm thoroughly confused.

Well this will make for some interesting conversations on my flight to London tomorrow.

The Prime Minister put forward a Brexit deal (because just leaving without a deal would be economically catastrophic). The House of Commons voted against that deal decisively. The deadline for the UK to leave is in a few months. No one (well very few) wants to leave with no deal in place. So... either there is a new election or a new referendum.

Oversimplification alert!

Today’s vote was basically Parliament’s disapproval of the deal that May negotiated. The deal was supposed to define the relationship rules between the UK and the EU. The EU has said that they are not coming back to the negotiating table. At this point, the UK will be leaving (or forced to leave) at the end of March and no one knows what the everyday rules will be for either party after that.

I wish John Oliver wasn't on hiatus right now.

If Corbin actually embraced Remain (and I know he isn't because he's actually a Leaver, but wants a lefty Leave deal), Labour would probably be able to retake government easily in a new election.

The dilemma is that two years ago 52% of the 2nd highest post-war turnout voted to Leave.

Now any GE turnout is likely to be high, but there is no guarantee of this, and although moreyoung voters were remainers, I think it would be closer than people think.

If Corbyn runs against May, he wins.

If the Tories find a credible candidate (tbf I’m not sure who that is) they have at least a fighting chance.

Another factor is that the Tories will lose votes to the far right over this mess, so that will split their vote somewhat

Corbin and May make me feel slightly better about our choices.

Neither is as bad as Trump!

Although having written that, I’m trying to think why. And not coming up with any answers other than “they’re not Trump”...

Still think that’s just about good enough reason, but it’s closer than I thought :D

There's a chance the opposition to Trump is better. With May and Corbyn you guys are fucked.

Bump, yes there is... answering both the above and my question in the Trump thread.

Repeating what reply to Marc in the Trump thread, no, it wasn’t your link I was referring to, it was Super Ugly’s link that just ever so slightly partisan.

With regards to Ireland, maybe I wasn’t clear - by removing the backstop I’m talking about the ‘insurance policy’ that means the EU can simply say ‘no that’s not acceptable’ forever regardless of the validity of the proposal. It in essence means that the UK could be held to EU rules forever, without any opportunity to influence these EU rules as at least we have now.

That’s why it’s unacceptable to leave the backstop in, and why staying completely is better than signing the current deal. I don’t blame the EU, it’s an excellent possibility from the EUs POV.

But something needs to be there: there has to be something definitive for the Irish border, or more pertinently to avoid an Irish border if that is what the majority of Irish want.

While I agree that a hard border would almost certainly be a disaster for the GFA and be a target, I am not convinced the current small spike (but a spike nonetheless and compared to basically zero for the last good few years) is directly as a result of Brexit - it seems like everything negative that happens is ‘obviously down to Brexit’ for some, while anything positive that happens is glossed over or coincidental

What is true is that there is huge uncertainty at the moment: that is the biggest issue. The government has been terrible throughout the process, MPs have been terrible throughout the process, and until as a group they can do what they should have done months ago and come together to represent a single viewpoint, it will continue to be uncertainty that rules.

The EU have a single platform - it doesn’t want the UK to leave, and tbh the most pro-EU I have been is down to the way the negotiators have generally been consistent and professional, especially in comparison to the likes of Davis and Raab, and Parliament in general.

Hi AlexB. I appreciate that the writing is emotive (unhelpfully so, but understandable after 2.5 years of this shit), the author of that blog is a highly regarded economist with a reputation for being utterly scrupulous in his handling of data. If you don't like him then take your pick of his peers. Ignoring the occasional wingnut (hello Patrick Minford), as a profession they are overwhelmingly of the opinion that Brexit is an utter clusterfuck.

Agreed. Just about every economist I've seen have said Brexit is an economic disaster for the UK. Increasing protectionism (as Brexit is) generally is. It is even worse if you have no plan in place regarding how to deal with the issues.

Now there are reports that there's a plan to evacuate the Queen if Brexit sparks large protests.

You can really stop punching yourself in the junk, UK. You don't have to do this.

That would make for a great movie.

Punching yourself in the junk?

Enjoy. I'll pass, thank you.

Instead of 'Escape from New York' ... 'Escape to New England' ? ... ;)

(I'll get my coat :D )

I was actually thinking of a sequel to "London has Fallen". Great action movie!

Brexit is an extraordinary example of why you shouldn't let the (mostly) uneducated masses decide fundamental questions of policy... The details escape me (and not going to google it sitting on the train on my phone), but it reminds me of the story of the Greeks living in Persia that sailed across to Greece to try and gain support for an invasion of Persia. They met with a few kings of Sparta etc. who all declined, then went to a democratic city and told an assembled crowd that there would be much treasure to be won and they all enthusiastically joined and sailed off to their deaths.

This guy gets it. Completely self destructive and unnecessary. The damage to the UK economy will last generations. I'm sure Toyota pulling out of a 60 million pound plant in the North East and all the banks scrambling to be the last ones out of London before the light goes off aren't an ominous sign.

There's no good answer at this point. Another referendum isn't it and tears the country apart for 20 years. I suspect there will be a deal cobbled together that is basically the same as on the table now but there will be some softening of the backstop argument that allows everyone to save face, but a no deal is still a realistic outcome. Cameron, Corbyn and Clegg (the Killer C's) have absolutely set the UK back decades and decades. And yes, I do include Clegg in that for enabling Cameron and destroying the Lib Dems at a time where a sane third option in parliament would have brought the country back from the brink.

I don't live in the UK and don't know enough to really comment intelligently on the pros-and-cons but your statement was an interesting one and had to google on it.

I am probably more sympathetic to staying vs leaving so don't get me wrong, I just wanted to understand better this relationship.

FWIW

Brexit was not the voice of the working class nor of the uneducated – it was of the squeezed middle | British Politics and Policy at LSE

When I say uneducated, I'm not talking about people who bombed out of high school or never attended university. I'm talking about regular people voting on issues they know next to nothing about based on emotion. Politicians have direct access to experts on any subject... whether they use them or not is another question, but THAT's what people should be voting on, not direct matters of policy. It's incredibly reckless and could absolutely ruin the UK.

Ah, my bad, sorry.

I was drawing a parallel to what some people allude to re: Trump supporters.

Brexit adjacent.

Seven MPs leave Labour Party in protest at Jeremy Corbyn's leadership - BBC News

0-2 with two strikeouts for PM May

I don't get it, seriously. Are we really in a position where, because we can't find an outcome enough people are willing to accept, that the worst possible scenario is now being sought out - and cheered by a substantial amount of Parliament it would seem??

If by worst possible scenario you mean no-deal, don’t think it will happen. My bet is that by hook or crook (mostly the latter) we’ll stay in the EU.

AlexB, correct me if I am wrong but I don't remember any talks about any deals pre the Brexit vote. I thought it was a simple leave or stay and then once the break was completed then it was time to deal negotiations.

The vote was just to trigger the article that set a date for leaving IIRC, the rest was completely vague and uncharted territory. Which is reason #18657 having a simple binary vote on something so legally complicated and relatively unprecedented was such a spectacularly awful decision. Brexit as a simple leave/remain scenario was dead when May called an early election and managed to decrease her majority and had to rely on a bunch of lunatic Unionists, and then when legally she had to get her deal through the Commons, but even if she had just been able to push the button and leave, I don't think she'd have had the guts to do it under the current deal as she would have guaranteed a generation of Tory losses and would have been responsible for the break up of the union. There's just no good options left on the table and probably never were to be honest.

As for the extension, fuck knows what is going to happen now. There's very little incentive for the EU to approve a short extension as it's just extending the uncertainty that is affecting their individual countries, but equally no-deal is a disaster for both sides. If I had to bet I'd guess we're heading to a longer extension with a UK general election and an implicit understanding that there may be a second referendum, but like I said. Way past the point now where there's any good solution that isn't completely unpalatable to most people.

You’re right, and bhlloy summed it up pretty well.

I think short term MPs will vote tonight to remove no-deal from the options, so we will be left in a position with no leverage.

The UK will effectively be saying to the EU we definitely won’t be leaving without a deal, but we don’t like this deal, and you won’t negotiate a new deal, so can we have an extension? To which they will quite rightly say ‘Why, what’s the point’, and so everything will be in limbo.

Although if this process does play out, the end result will be that we will have to leave with no deal I guess? So does that mean a no-deal is more likely? Or does it mean what I suspect and we’ll ed up staying in the EU?

In my mind though, if we’re going to leave, no-deal has to be left on the table in order to act as leverage for further negotiations and extension of Article 50. Otherwise the only option left is whatever the political equivalent is of kids keeping saying ‘please’ until parents relent.

Again, I think everyone agrees, regardless of Leave/Remain, the whole thing has been a clusterfuck, particularly from the House of Commons.

Yeah, I'd go a step further and say (as much as it terrifies me) that no-deal is the ONLY option that remotely results in the UK leaving the EU under anything close to the intent of the UK people when they (in my opinion idiotically) voted to leave the EU.

To me two truths are completely undeniable at this point, and probably should have been all along

1) There is no deal that can possibly satisfy the EU and the UK's competing desires and demands. I read a number of EU politicians essentially say "the Brexit that was promised to the British people was a pipe dream" today and I couldn't agree more. Essentially what was sold was we can keep the bits we like about EU membership today (trade, investment, free movement for us) and get rid of the bits we don't like (paying out, all these damn Polish people, restrictive rules and regulations) and everyone will just go along with it and cheerily wave us goodbye. That was never remotely realistic, and I can't see a deal without complete capitulation from the EU that will ever achieve those goals and get the majority of people behind it. And as that capitulation essentially heralds the end of the EU, there's less than a 0% chance it's coming.

2) No deal would be absolutely disastrous for the UK and should be avoided at all costs.

I think 1) has pretty much been proven at this point, the only way forward is to figure out if the country agrees with 2) in a new referendum. It's not a good option but it's the least bad one. There's not a politician on the planet that can sort this shit out now.

May voted against her own motion on Brexit, which I'm sure is going to make her even more popular.

Maybe I just don't get how the referendum or English politics work, but how is that even an option? I thought leaving was mandated as a result of the referendum, no matter how ridiculous or stupid the outcome, and that the only question was when & how? If it's not, then why did anyone ever even care what the results of the referendum were, if following through on them is optional? Yeah I'm basically just totally confused here.

Join the rest of us!

Not saying that's how it should work, but my gut feel is that the Commons will disregard the referendum (the removal of no-deal from the table is the first significant step towards that IMO) and the impasse* can only be solved by pulling the political equivalent of the Dallas Dream Season.

*We won't leave without a deal
*We won't approve the current deal
*The EU won't renegotiate the current deal
*The EU have no reason to renegotiate now that no-deal is no longer a threat
*The EU has no reason to extend Article 50 if there's no renegotiation required
*Only remaining solution is to stay in the EU

Although the Tory government promised to implement the result of the referendum (largely as they thought Leave had no chance of winning), the 'out' is that the referendum wasn't actually legally binding.

So my prediction is that there will some political shenanigans justifying that the above impasse (which the MPs themselves have created) means the referendum result has to be ignored, and the last 2 years will prove to have been a waste of time and money.

Dola, now it appears the deal will be voted on again, for the third time, so now that no-deal is out (although all of these votes have been non-binding too) then maybe the harder Brexiteers will vote for the deal on the basis it's the best that they will get?

TBF I don't care anymore: everything except the fug around the Irish backstop is OK from I have read in this deal, and from what the DPP said, that hasn't changed much, so it still could just leave us as a vassal state.

If that is the case we should stay, as better to be part of something we can influence rather than be effectively part of something that we can't

Don't forget the calls to forget the bitterness on both sides of the debate and united as one.

I admit to not having followed this as closely as I probably should have. But I do have one noob question about it.

What was the first Brexit referendum? The UK voted to Brexit. And, ever since then, Parliament has been trying to pass a law to make it happen. So what was the vote if it wasn't the law?

Here, if there is a referendum on the ballot, you tend to vote for a specific law to pass. You levy a .5 cent tax on soda in the county and the money goes to purchasing new textbooks for the public schools. The bit on the ballot may be a short summary, but if you look for it, somewhere you can find the actual language that you are voting to pass into law.

We don't vote for something like "There shall be improvements to the public schools" and then have the legislature and the school boards fight over how to make that happen.

So what was, exactly, the Brexit vote?

basically your example was how it was worded:

How likely do you think a second referendum is at this point? Very, right? That would be a disaster and the beginning of the end of democracy imo though.

Referenda are always a dumb way to do democracy though. I would imagine if there was a second referendum folks would just say well we weren't told the full story in the first one, etc (after all it's easy to say leave but entirely another to work out what that means and every group had a different idea of what that meant). And then they'll never do huge policy decision through referendum again (or at least put a 2/3 on it).

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Fascinating first post.

The difficulty here is in the EU provisions, not necessarily the ballot (though of course there are issues there).

The EU termination/withdrawal provisions were started by the referendum.

That led to the UK government needing to provide official notice under the EU docs (Article 50 notification if I recall correctly).

This notification led to a 2 year period for the withdrawing nation to negotiate the terms of its exit with the other member nations.

The resulting terms of withdrawal must then be approved by the EU member nations and the withdrawing nation.

If there is no deal, there is a deadline for a hard exit. This is the pending March 29 deadline. Under the hard exit, the withdrawing nation leaves with no agreements regarding things like trade, immigration, validity of contracts, etc.

So, in reality, I think you can view the referendum as starting a process that no one has been through before and with which no one could really anticipate the consequences.

Whole bunch of stuff gets rejected by narrow margins, followed by overwhelming approval of the motion to extend Article 50 to June 30th if May's deal is approved by March 20th. Otherwise, they'll seek a longer extension.

Up to the EU to approve either extension scenario, though.

That's not the really big news though, the big news is that Benn's amendment that would have put the deal in the hands of Parliament was defeated by 2 votes (as well as an amendment on a second vote being thoroughly defeated after Labour wouldn't back it)

Either of those passing would have been absolute disaster for the Government and probably the final death for this iteration of Brexit - now she at least has some momentum on her side, and the EU can probably use the threat of an extension past the EU elections to finally get her deal through the Commons. The motion to extend was always going to pass - this is the first good news that May has had in a long time.

That’s the problem in the whole process. Although more people overall wanted to Leave, with the different types of Brexit people have in mind, the largest and most coherent group are in fact Remainers.

Right?

(I'd love an IP check on "Tommer.")

Brexit in a nutshell (part 1)

Throughout the ages:

Some people in UK (Group 1): We shouldn't be part of the European Union. Hell, Churchill didn't want to be part of a united Europe. That's good enough for me.

Others (Group 2): Well, the problem is that we're deeply embedded in europe-wide rules, and trade, and getting us out would require about a decade plus of renegotiating treaties, and they wouldn't want to give us a deal, considering they don't want others to follow us. So, there's not much we can do.

Group 1: Bullshit! We're Great Fucking Britain (and Northern Ireland). We saved the world in World War II. We can handle anything. So what if there's a bit of pain in the transition, we can handle anything that comes our way. I mean, with that kind of attitude, the Huns would be singing the Nazi Anthem in London today!

David Cameron (PM at the time): Look, Since you yobs won't kindly shut the hell up about this bullshit, and I don't want to keep hearing this, how about this? We hold a public vote. If Leave wins, we'll figure out how to get out of the EU. And WHEN you lose, maybe we'll get some peace and quiet from you.

Group 2: Sounds Reasonable. I mean, look at the alternative.
Group 1: If we win, everyone gets a pony, the Health Service gets a bajillion pounds bonus. it'll be great!
Group 2: Wait, that's not true at all..
Group 1: See? They oppose it. Which mean we MUST be telling the truth.

(vote happens, Leave wins 51.9% to 48.1%)

Cameron: Oh shit.
Group 2: Oh shit.
Group 1: Oh Shit.. I mean yay! we won.
Group 2 (to Cameron): So, I assume you had a plan to deal with what happened if they won, right?

Cameron: Nope, but just now, I came up with a brilliant plan.
Group 2: Great, what is it?
Cameron: Resigning.
Group 2: That's not a brilliant plan.
Cameron: It is for me. Means I don't have to deal with this. Good luck, you're going to be facing about a dozen Gordian knots.

Group 1 (now firmly in control). Great! I'm sure that now that we've set a date for us leaving the EU, we have all the power. I mean, think of all the deals we can renegotiate. We can play off the small nations against the big ones and..
EU: Um excuse me..
Group 1: It's time we stuck a finger in the eye of the krauts and the frogs and the..
EU: Hold on a moment.
Group 1: Yup, nothing can go wrong with this plan..
EU: WAIT A SECOND
Group 1: Eh, what?
EU: First of all, you're dealing with the EU as a whole. And secondly, you can't pick and choose what EU rules you want to follow and which ones you don't. All in or All out.
Group 1: But that's not what we told our voters!
EU: I think the requisite phrase is "Sucks to be you."
Group 1: Ok, maybe this is going to take a bit more effort than we thought. But at least we have a deadline. We have to leave March 29th, 2019, and surely the EU will blink as we get closer. It may hurt us a lot more than it does them, but the EU always folds.
EU: You know, it's not a good strategy to admit that your strategy depends on us caving when you know it will hurt you more than it does us for no deal.
Group 1: See, that's the kind of defeatist thinking that means we won't get everything we want.
EU: (shakes head)

(some time passes)

Leave (formerly known as group 1): well, it's not great, but I think we can agree to this.

EU: It's the least bad option.

Hardcore Leavers: Wait, we promised everyone that we'd take control of borders and trade and sticking it to the EU. This doesn't go nearly as far as we thought it would. HELL NO! NO DEAL CRASH OUT! WE'LL CUT OFF OUR NOSES TO SPITE OUR FACE.

EU: That's a bunch of cutting, have you looked in the mirror lately?

Hardcore Leavers: WHAT DID YOU SAY?

EU: Oh nothing (to the Leavers): They're your problem. We've stated our terms. The least bad option is our deal. The next least bad is watching you leave, and using you as an object lesson to anyone else who wants to leave.

Leave: You know, that Cameron strategy looks better and better all the time.

Hardcore Leavers: BURN IT DOWN! ANARCHY IN THE UK!

Leave: OH SHUT UP WILL YOU. Look, take the deal.

Hardcore Leavers: No.

Leave: Look, it's this deal or no deal. It would cripple our economy for decades to come.

Hardcore Leavers: You say that like it's a bad thing compared to sticking it to the EU

Remainers: Since this is so intractable, maybe we should go back to the public and ask them what we should want to do?

Leavers and Hardcore alike: NO SHUT UP! WE WON THE VOTE FAIR AND SQUARE. SURE, WE BROKE ELECTION LAWS AND LIED OUT OUR ASSES TO DO SO, BUT NO TAKE BACKS!

Leavers: Ok, now that we've taken care of the Remainers, let's have another vote. It's either this deal or we have to delay Brexit. We don't want that.

Hardcore Leavers: OPTION C! NONE OF THE ABOVE! RULE BRITANNIA AND FUCK THE EU!

Leavers: Good thing is that we're only a couple weeks away, and although we've asked twice, all we have to do is wait and they have to take the deal. Sooner or later, they will come to their senses.

(Speaker Of the House): Um.. there's a problem with that.

Leave: OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE WHAT NOW???

(Speaker of the House): we have precedent that you can't keep asking the same question until you get the answer you like.

Leave: WE OBJECT!

(Speaker) It's a 400+ year old precedent. What do you object to..

Leave: WE OBJECT BECAUSE IT"S HARMFUL TO OUR CASE!

(Speaker) Did you just use a scene from Liar Liar to complain about politics?

Leave: WE OBJECT!

(Everyone) OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE FIGURE THIS SHIT OUT, THE NO-DEAL CLIFF IS COMING, AND RIGHT NOW, ANY ONE OF THE EU27 LEADERS CAN DECIDE TO CUT THE BRAKE LINE AND SEND US FLYING OVER THE CLIFF.

Hardcore Leavers (some of them at least): WE WANT THEM TO CUT THE BRAKE LINES!

Everyone: SHUT THE FUCK UP!

EU27 responds to UK requests in a positive spirit and:
👉 agrees to Art. 50 extension until 22 May if Withdrawal Agreement approved next week
👉 if not agreed next week then extension until 12 April
👉 approves ‘Strasbourg Agreement’
👉 continues no-deal preparations

— Donald Tusk (@eucopresident) March 21, 2019

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/medi...lusions-en.pdf

I'm so confused. It sounds as if they need another referendum to once-and-for-all decide? Or has there been another one already?

I think there's enough out there now where a decision either way can't be said to be made out of ignorance and that it truly would be the will of the people.

I'm good if the Brits decide to stay-or-leave just as long as its an informed (as much as possible) choice.

Basically, May has been playing "My Deal or No Deal", but Parliament has rejected it twice. The main problem is there's a majority to reject May's Deal, but there's no majority for an ACTUAL way forward (No Deal, Softer Brexit, Remain, etcetera)

May's tactic (and somewhat the EU) has been "This is the deal on offer. It's this or nothing", and she's been trying to run out the clock to make it literally THIS or nothing. She's refused to modify her stance, refused to countenance anything BUT her deal.

So Right now, the only thing that everyone in Parliament can agree on is that May sucks (her own party can't get rid of her because they tried once previously, and they can't try again for like a year, but they don't vote for no confidence because that would likely trigger a new election, and they prefer things as they are.

May tried to publicly pressure the MPs, trying to rile up the nation's Brexiteers, but it's backfired as May is now getting blamed for the threats people are making, and rather hardened the MP's stance that "Fuck no, we're not going to vote for your deal".

So, right now, here are the UK's options

1) May has said that she will bring the withdrawal agreement again to the Commons next week. If it goes through, a technical delay will be necessary because well, they can't put everything through Parliament in a week.

2) If it fails, then the UK has until the 12th of april to indicate how they're going to move forward (They will have to hold euro elections, for example). If they don't, then no-deal happens and the UK crashes and burns.

3) For all of the Parliament that wants the withdrawal agreement modified to suit their needs, this is "Fuck no, that ain't going to happen. Stop dreaming".

So options (in order of what I think is most likely to happen)

Long Delay: I consider this most likely, because no one really can figure out what would get through Parliament. Meaningful Vote 3 (Ie, the third attempt to pass May's deal) fails. Brexit continues for a year or so while everyone tries to untie this gordian knot. What the outcome would be afterwards is still unclear.

No Deal: There are enough hardcore Euroskeptics in Parliament that I honestly can't think of a deal that would get past the Euroskeptics AND the Remainers AND the Soft Brexiteers. The UK crashes out, and trade takes a major hit because all those trade agreements are no longer in force. (I think they have post-trade agreements with only two of the EU27 nations, and one if them is Lichenstein for god's sake). So trade no longer happens "normally", and all kinds of shenanigans are on the table.

Meaningful Vote 3 gets approved, and passes. This is a hail mary play by May, but it's really the only move they keep trying. In this case, the Withdrawal Agreement comes into effect, and trade between the rest of the EU and England goes through under its terms.

I think meaningful vote 3 is infinitely more likely than no deal. If there is one majority in parliament it’s recognition that no deal is absolutely disasterous to almost every constituency in the country. Once it becomes obvious that the EU isn’t fucking around and this really is the last chance to avoid no deal, it will get through.

There’s really no incentive for the EU to back a longer delay without a commitment to another vote that remain has a very good chance to win, which isn’t happening without Labour and a decent number of Tory remainers throwing their weight behind it, which will then result in a good number of them losing their seats. And as we all know the first rule of politicians is self preservation, I just can’t see that’s a remotely realistic option either.

LONDON (REUTERS) - Deutsche Bank on Thursday hiked its expectation of a no-deal Brexit to 20 percent - the highest level ever - from 10 percent as the third attempt to get UK parliamentary approval for the nation's exit from the European Union looms.

"The risks of a last-minute accident have increased," said Oliver Harvey, head of Brexit research at the German bank, adding that "government strategy appears to be being made off the hoof".

Deutsche Bank's new call on a no-deal Brexit came after JP Morgan also upped its chances of an exit without a deal to 15 percent from 10 percent. The deadline for an agreement on Brexit is next Friday.

Deutsche Bank cut its estimated chances of UK Prime Minister May winning the next parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal to 25 percent, from 35 percent previously.

So, according to Deutsche Bank, these are the odds of what's about to happen.

??????? 55%
No Deal 20%
May Deal Passed 25%

edit: Link to story, and this came "yesterday", so the EU notice hadn't happened yet.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/n...it-probability

She gone?

Theresa May to resign before next phase of Brexit | Politics | The Guardian


Also MPs voted on eight different alternative options to the May deal and all of them failed to get a majority.

May's been a disaster, but I have so much more respect for her than all of the other Tory assholes that bitch and complain but refuse to do anything else.

Qualifier there of *if* the deal passes.

I kinda don't think it will. Parliament's fuckery will hose them and the EU is already prepared for no-deal.

Loses again, this time by 58

I guess since the margin is getting smaller with each vote.

May hopes to hold fourth vote on Brexit deal | Politics | The Guardian

The definition of insanity is....

So far today in Brexit:

We've had a story that at least one member of one party brought up the idea of stealing Parliament's mace (the symbol of Parliament's authority, they can't hold official sessions without it) , to make sure the UK exited the EU without a deal on 3/29 (the plan was shelved when they couldn't figure out where the mace was stored overnight).

Then, we had a nude-in protest by climate change protestors, which lead to a lot of English jokes about getting to the bottom of Brexit, and the cheeky behavior of some folks.

Said protesters have now apparently superglued their hands to the screen to keep from being carried out by cops.

I swear, if you made a gonzo version of House of Cards, it wouldn't be half as crazy as Brexit.

FAKE NEWS!!!!

They were semi naked😛

So once again none of the alternative options passed tonight. May has called for a cabinet meeting tomorrow with a possibility of a swift general election. IF a general election is called and IF the Tories lose, is Labour still required to go through with Brexit?

EDIT: Assuming the UK receives another extension before April 12.

Am I wrong in my understanding that they aren't required to go through with Brexit? Isn't that part of the insanity of all of this?

/giphy dumpster fire

Yeah its not 'required' - this was an advisory referendum and not legally enforceable nor is there any reason a second referendum couldn't be undertaken ... apart from a strange illogical urge by the people in power to follow this path off the cliff, the issues with the original referendum (blatant lying and abuse of funds by the Leave campaign amongst other things) have barely registered ... its all very strange ... especially when you consider the size of the protests against Leaving which have been huge in comparison to the supportive counter protests which have been attempted.

(at the very least I'd like to see a second referendum)

The other part of the cluster, of course, is that Labour's leader, Jeremy Corbyn, isn't really that big of a Remainer anyways. It was rumored that he was a secret Leaver - and at the very least would be fine with Leaving but in a different deal. I think if they were a robust Remain party, dedicated to second referendum, maybe they'd have more support.

Oh joy, now May is saying she wants another extension and wanting to use that time to have some talks with Corbyn to see if they can get a deal done that way (though Labour has said they want a custom union membership as part of any deal - so the UK would just be another Switzerland or Norway):

May to ask for short Brexit extension and reaches out to Labour | Politics | The Guardian

And the Euroskeptics/hardcore leavers are yelling MARXIST at Corbyn and BETRAYER at May. They ain't happy.

They are asking for a lot of this organization they are trying to leave, ain't they?;)

Dola,

It goes without saying that it is in the EU's interests to get a deal done as well.

I do think the EU would be tickled pink if Brexit ends up being "we'll be Norway" sort of thing.

This is what is so confusing to me. Is that the version of Brexit the 51.9% voted for or would just Brexit-ing be good? I don't know

Well, yeah. "Have to deal with EU rules with no representation to influence it."

The Brexiteers didn't think their cunning plan through.

Yep. There's no sense to even Brexiting then. Either hard Brexit or Remain should be the options. Everything else is just turning the UK into a de facto vassal state to the EU

Well, no one knows what the version of Brexit the 51.9% voted for. I'm sure a small but substantial part voted for hard-Brexit. A good amount probably voted for magical thinking idealistic Brexit where the EU would let them stay in the common market but allow for restrictions on free movement of people (all the while not thinking about what that really means). Some likely voted for a deal that would be in the middle of those two, but no one has really come up with that deal that would be amenable to those folks.

Really there should have been a more choices, or a deal already written up for voting. Voting on the vague concept of Brexit without articulating what that means other than leaving led to this mess. Technically being a vassal state to the EU is Brexit after all.

EU27 has agreed an extension of Art. 50. I will now meet PM @theresa_may for the UK government's agreement. #Brexit

— Donald Tusk (@eucopresident) April 10, 2019

Funniest part? It's reportedly until Halloween with a June review date because Macron dug his heels in, and now the rest of the EU is salty at France.

So does this mean UK stays?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.408895ae7c8b

It more likely means hard Brexit as there will be no deal when the deadline comes (and how many more 'extensions' is the EU going to grant when there is no progress on anything).

This. Revoking Article 50 is tantamount to political suicide for whichever government invokes it IMO.

So is a hard Brexit. You are absolutely infuriating 40% of the country who will never vote for you again, pick which side you want to piss off.

If it's a Tory government, then I can buy the argument that most of those 40% probably aren't voting for you anyway. But still, there are wealthy conservative areas of the country that are not anti-EU that they would be wiped out in almost overnight. Hell, look at how much of their home counties heartland are wealthy bankers or import/export types. And they've already destroyed their credibility with many of the hardest Brexit supporters, although somebody like Boris or Rees-Mogg would probably get a lot of that back.

It's kinda hilarious to me that the Lib Dems are the main benefactors of this. It's a beautiful circle of life after self destructing when they finally seemed ready to start becoming the third main party the first time. Thanks Nick Clegg.

Yes. Labour would be basically unaffected if they decided to do a second referendum or just Remain. Though Corbyn isn't really a Remainer anyways, which makes it a bit more difficult.

That's actually not the case (and if I've missed sarcasm there I apologize) - many of Labour's core working class areas (South Wales valleys, the north east) are virulently anti-EU and some of the areas that voted highly in favor of Brexit to begin with. It's very sad and ironic to me to see the area I grew up in that has been a massive net gainer from EU money with such an illogical position, but it is what it is.

The results of the recent local elections bear that out. The Tories took an absolute caneing but Labour really didn't benefit that much. Both parties are pretty screwed right now, and unless a palatable Brexit deal gets done (chances of that are less than 0%) it's going to be an absolutely chaotic general election.