• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Raab gone

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by meridian View Post
    As part of the request for an extension to 31 October, the U.K. government agreed not to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement.
    So? The WA is dead, and they know it. If the new government proposes a deal that they believe will pass and that they believe is better for them than no deal, they'll take it. If not, they won't. It doesn't matter what Theresa May did or did not agree to.

    It's going to be no deal, new deal, or no Brexit.

    My money is on no deal with Boris withholding large parts of that £39 billion, followed in the coming months by a new deal or deals which also involve him releasing most or all of the rest of it. They need the money, he needs a Brexit that is clear enough to neuter the Farage threat but not drastic enough to totally enrage all remainers. So that's what is likely.

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by meridian View Post
      It’s a bit more clear-cut than that. As part of the request for an extension to 31 October, the U.K. government agreed not to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement.
      That would be the previous Govt.

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
        They need the money

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
          My money is on no deal with Boris withholding large parts of that £39 billion...
          Parliament will try and prevent him. If they can't, there'll be a vote of no confidence that he'll probably lose. There are enough Tory MPs (Clarke, Gauke, Stuart, Grieve etc) who will bring down the Govt, if necessary, to stop no-deal.

          Comment


            #15
            Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
            So? The WA is dead, and they know it. If the new government proposes a deal that they believe will pass and that they believe is better for them than no deal, they'll take it. If not, they won't. It doesn't matter what Theresa May did or did not agree to.

            It's going to be no deal, new deal, or no Brexit.

            My money is on no deal
            with Boris withholding large parts of that £39 billion, followed in the coming months by a new deal or deals which also involve him releasing most or all of the rest of it. They need the money, he needs a Brexit that is clear enough to neuter the Farage threat but not drastic enough to totally enrage all remainers. So that's what is likely.
            Off you go. UK Next steps: Brexit outcomes | Politics odds | Smarkets betting exchange

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by WordIsBond View Post
              So? The WA is dead, and they know it. If the new government proposes a deal that they believe will pass and that they believe is better for them than no deal, they'll take it. If not, they won't. It doesn't matter what Theresa May did or did not agree to.
              The WA is better than no deal, and has been accepted by the EU. The issue is not on that side of the agreement, it’s coming up with something that the U.K. parliament can agree on that is the problem.

              For the moment though, both the rhetoric and the legal position is on the side of the EU - the WA will not be opened regardless of what unicorns come frothing from the U.K.


              It's going to be no deal, new deal, or no Brexit.
              If not the current WA, then No Deal or no Brexit. There may be changes to the future relationship document, but the WA is closed. This seems to be a very difficult position for the U.K. to accept.



              My money is on no deal with Boris withholding large parts of that £39 billion, followed in the coming months by a new deal or deals which also involve him releasing most or all of the rest of it. They need the money, he needs a Brexit that is clear enough to neuter the Farage threat but not drastic enough to totally enrage all remainers. So that's what is likely.
              Not at all likely, but feel free to put your money on it. There are no new deals, only “side” agreements that the EU want to put into place unilaterally (with reciprocity) and that can be withdrawn at any time by the EU.
              The first time that the U.K. asks for any kind of “deal” will be when the three main heads are raised again - citizens, backstop, financial obligations.
              Your sentence I’ve highlighted makes no sense. Firstly there is no “clear enough” Brexit, it’s either WA, No Deal, or No Brexit, there’s no halfway house and certainly not one that Boris could ever concentrate on enough to write down the detail. Secondly, anything less than No Deal will result in calls of betrayal, there is no neutering a threat from someone that isn’t prepared to compromise.

              Comment


                #17
                Already done.

                It's called hedging my bets. If something is going to damage me I can mitigate the damage by putting down a bet to limit my losses. I don't think the damage will be too bad but if it happens I'm getting something back, anyway.

                Comment


                  #18
                  Originally posted by stonehenge View Post
                  Parliament will try and prevent him. If they can't, there'll be a vote of no confidence that he'll probably lose. There are enough Tory MPs (Clarke, Gauke, Stuart, Grieve etc) who will bring down the Govt, if necessary, to stop no-deal.

                  I doubt it. If they think he's going to keep their comfortable 'jobs' in Parliament safe there will be less than five who would bring him down and risk Corbyn. It's already been asked, what's more damaging, PM Corbyn or no-deal Brexit. Most would say PM Corbyn especially if it means they might have to actually look for work somewhere. Clarke and Grieve, maybe, probably no one else.

                  And they run the risk he'd form an electoral alliance with Farage, that they'd lose their seats and still get a no-deal Brexit, and even a harder one.

                  Comment


                    #19
                    Originally posted by meridian View Post
                    The WA is better than no deal, and has been accepted by the EU.
                    You may think it is better, I may think it is better, and the EU may think it is better, but it is dead, all the same. You're in cloud cuckoo land if you think that thing will pass. So it is irrelevant.
                    Originally posted by meridian View Post
                    For the moment though, both the rhetoric and the legal position is on the side of the EU
                    Legal, smegal. The WA is dead, so it's a new deal or no deal or no Brexit. If the EU can't get no Brexit, and I doubt they can get it, they have to choose between a new WA or no deal, whatever they might be saying now. The WA has no legal force at all.
                    Originally posted by meridian View Post
                    If not the current WA, then No Deal or no Brexit. There may be changes to the future relationship document, but the WA is closed.
                    Until No Deal happens, or is imminent. They are right now making it binary, the May WA or No Deal. That's their choice, for now. You seem to think these people are the Divine Immutable that Cannot and Will Not Ever Change. The fact is, they've changed over and over again. There is no sane reason for them to insist on No Deal if the WA is dead, and it is. Give them a reasonable deal and they will eventually accept it. Money always talks, and if German exporters are hurt badly by no deal, the EU position will end up magically moving before long. That's just the way it is in the real world.
                    Originally posted by meridian View Post
                    Your sentence I’ve highlighted makes no sense. Firstly there is no “clear enough” Brexit, it’s either WA, No Deal, or No Brexit, there’s no halfway house and certainly not one that Boris could ever concentrate on enough to write down the detail. Secondly, anything less than No Deal will result in calls of betrayal, there is no neutering a threat from someone that isn’t prepared to compromise.
                    Boris needs a Brexit that is clear enough to win back most Tory Brexiteers, not all of them. No Irish backstop, no customs union, free trade agreements with the US and various other countries. He needs the Euro ports to not blow up with massive backlogs, no nightmares at airports, and reasonable agreements on expats. If he gets that he holds his party together, sees off Farage, and probably blows up Labour as well. If he can also get some decent agreements with the EU on fishing and a few other key things he's a 'hero' and wins the next election hands-down. Then, he'll do something absolutely stupid and blow up his popularity for something absolutely pointless. That's Boris.

                    Comment


                      #20
                      Originally posted by meridian View Post
                      The WA is better than no deal, and has been accepted by the EU. The issue is not on that side of the agreement, it’s coming up with something that the U.K. parliament can agree on that is the problem.

                      For the moment though, both the rhetoric and the legal position is on the side of the EU - the WA will not be opened regardless of what unicorns come frothing from the U.K.



                      If not the current WA, then No Deal or no Brexit. There may be changes to the future relationship document, but the WA is closed. This seems to be a very difficult position for the U.K. to accept.





                      Not at all likely, but feel free to put your money on it. There are no new deals, only “side” agreements that the EU want to put into place unilaterally (with reciprocity) and that can be withdrawn at any time by the EU.
                      The first time that the U.K. asks for any kind of “deal” will be when the three main heads are raised again - citizens, backstop, financial obligations.
                      Your sentence I’ve highlighted makes no sense. Firstly there is no “clear enough” Brexit, it’s either WA, No Deal, or No Brexit, there’s no halfway house and certainly not one that Boris could ever concentrate on enough to write down the detail. Secondly, anything less than No Deal will result in calls of betrayal, there is no neutering a threat from someone that isn’t prepared to compromise.
                      That may change, and it rather depends on how much of the £39bn they want to see. Let's hope they haven't spent it already...
                      His heart is in the right place - shame we can't say the same about his brain...

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X