Reply to: Votes to be offered to the commons

[Yorkie62]

Except for the one that ensures we leave with no deal.
the scenario:

12th March: Mays deal fails to get parliamentary approval

13th march: No Deal fails to get parliamentary approval

14th March: Parliament agree to ask for a short extension

15th March: EU says the deal is on the table accept it or leave. You are not getting your extension we have an election to run.

18th march May sticks two fingers up to parliament at the dispatch box and says "told you so" and dissolves parliament as she is toast post Brexit anyway

29th March: UK leaves with No deal

AS OG said: The UK holds all the cards.

Sorry I needed to correct my scenario

[stonehenge]

Please, hide your ignorance, he's not an MEP. I doubt we'd have to pay anything like what we currently pay for the so-called "free trade deal". I'll give you a clue - it's not even close to "free".

Sorry, meant Farage not moggy.

[Old Greg]

Except for the one that ensures we leave with no deal.
the scenario:

12th March: Mays deal fails to get parliamentary approval

13th march: No Deal fails to get parliamentary approval

14th March: Parliament agree to ask for a short extension

15th March: EU says the deal is on the table accept it or leave. You are not getting your extension we have an election to run.

16th march UK Parliament implodes

29th March: UK leaves with No deal

AS OG said: The UK holds all the cards.

Yes, leaving with no deal will teach those sausage eating swine a lesson.

[Yorkie62]

Exactly. The UK holds all the cards.

Except for the one that ensures we leave with no deal.
the scenario:

12th March: Mays deal fails to get parliamentary approval

13th march: No Deal fails to get parliamentary approval

14th March: Parliament agree to ask for a short extension

15th March: EU says the deal is on the table accept it or leave. You are not getting your extension we have an election to run.

16th march UK Parliament implodes

29th March: UK leaves with No deal

AS OG said: The UK holds all the cards.

[Old Greg]

If they are asking for money for a trade deal, the answer is no. They can pay us a few billions if they are that keen on one.

Exactly. The UK holds all the cards.

[meridian]

If they are asking for money for a trade deal, the answer is no. They can pay us a few billions if they are that keen on one.

They wouldn’t be, they would be asking for money to settle our agreed obligations before we start to talk about the future relationship.

[GJABS]

Even under no-deal, we'd still have to pay a tidy sum if we wanted a future trade deal.

If they are asking for money for a trade deal, the answer is no. They can pay us a few billions if they are that keen on one.

[meridian]

Votes to be offered to the commons

Only if the EU agree, and what do you reckon they'd want to do? They'd have to be mad to agree to a technical solution, when they could simply tell us to sod off and keep paying up.

Then it goes to arbitration. Better than not implementing the technological solution and just moaning about “what if”, no?

There are a fair few of the other member states that see the CU alignment as an advantage to the U.K. and that want to be shot of us ASAP.

Why would we keep paying up? There’s no agreement yet for payments if the backstop is triggered.

If we go into the backstop, will the UK be making any financial contributions to the EU for that period? - Full Fact

[Mordac]

Why? What happened to the technological solutions to the backstop that the Brexiters promised us? They've got two years to get it up and running, and then we're out.

Simples.

Only if the EU agree, and what do you reckon they'd want to do? They'd have to be mad to agree to a technical solution, when they could simply tell us to sod off and keep paying up.

[meridian]

May's deal effectively keeps us in the EU forever (or at least until they decide to allow us to actually leave, which will be effectively never).

Why? What happened to the technological solutions to the backstop that the Brexiters promised us? They've got two years to get it up and running, and then we're out.

Simples.

[Mordac]

Even under no-deal, we'd still have to pay a tidy sum if we wanted a future trade deal.

Someone's got to pay for moggy's pension etc.

Please, hide your ignorance, he's not an MEP. I doubt we'd have to pay anything like what we currently pay for the so-called "free trade deal". I'll give you a clue - it's not even close to "free".

[Mordac]

May's deal is not worse than no deal, at least not to the UK economy. No brexit is clearly significantly better than both May's deal and no deal to the UK economy but not to the pockets of the likes of JRM. Question is, will JRM risk the chance of no brexit, or should he tell his ERG pals to support May? He's seeing no deal slipping out of his grasp, so he needs to decide which cards to play next before he is completely out played

May's deal effectively keeps us in the EU forever (or at least until they decide to allow us to actually leave, which will be effectively never).
No Brexit still leaves us with another chance at A50 (and the "try, try, try again" principle"). Not ideal, but if at first you don't succeed...
No deal means we get the chance to build from day 1 as an independent country, and when it comes to negotiating a trade deal, we will actually hold some value cards.
It'll be interesting to see how the EU elections in May change the playing conditions. That alone might be a good reason to delay A50, just to see what happens.

[stonehenge]

We save £39b

Even under no-deal, we'd still have to pay a tidy sum if we wanted a future trade deal.

Someone's got to pay for moggy's pension etc.

[meridian]

I guess it ought to be substantially less than £39bn because there would be no transition period.

I'm not sure what they could do if we refused to pay them anything, but it might hamper trade talks a wee bit.

We save £39b, but that’s not taking into account the lost opportunity cost, the increased cost of trade, or the cost of No Deal preparations.

A bit like jacking in your job to save on travel costs.

[stonehenge]

At least with "no deal" we save ourselves £39bn.

I guess it ought to be substantially less than £39bn because there would be no transition period.

I'm not sure what they could do if we refused to pay them anything, but it might hamper trade talks a wee bit.