** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[Vorpal]

If I were to bet (I haven't in years), I'd put my money on a 'no deal' Brexit. IMO, that's where we are headed.

I also can't see May going anywhere soon. Many (most?) people who can influence it see the alternatives as far worse, and those who don't are probably too busy looking after their own , erm, political careers.

[100%JR]

I am pretty certain however that what "the lady" was chortling about was not conscription dodgers but all them foreigners going home … no doubt including those Asians in the NHS.

That's how I read it.

[kwackers]

If I were to bet (I haven't in years), I'd put my money on a 'no deal' Brexit. IMO, that's where we are headed.

I'd put money on the opposite.

"No Deal" is such a f'up with so much potential damage it won't be allowed to happen.
If it looks like it is then expect the government to announce a last minute delay - that's massively more likely.

[slowster]

A tactic of divide and conquer on both sides. That is as opposed to the various political parties, especially Labour as the largest in opposition, using their collective bargaining power to get the best deal possible from their side's perspective.

May would like just enough MPs from the other parties to vote for her deal in return for some (probably trivial/minor) concessions. If she could dangle carrots and bribes and lies to get enough Labour and other MPs to break ranks and vote for a slightly amended version of her deal, she would have 'won'. In that sense winning means not remaining much longer as PM, but her deal being passed by Parliament. I suspect that her legacy as PM is now a much stronger driving force for her, than remaining PM. As it stands, it looks very likely that she will go down in history as one of the worst PMs ever, who completely bungled the entire raision d'etre of her period as PM, i.e. to get an acceptable Brexit deal, and instead brought the country to chaos and the brink of the abyss (and might even yet take us over that brink).

Corbyn would like May to agree publicly to rule out 'no deal'. Superficially May's reason for refusing is that the UK needs the nuclear option of 'no deal' to threaten the rest of the EU in negotiations. In reality, apart from the swivel eyed ERG, everyone - especially those involved in the actual negotiations - knows that 'no deal' is not an effective threat because of the harm it would do to the UK. The real reason for May refusing to rule out 'no deal' is that it would trigger the implosion of the Tory Party, with multiple cabinet resignations and the hundred or so hardline Brexit MPs refusing to support her any more in Parliament (and possibly even forming a breakaway party or joining a revitalised UKIP). At that point Corbyn would be much more likely to win a vote of no confidence.

[horizon]

If I were to bet (I haven't in years), I'd put my money on a 'no deal' Brexit. IMO, that's where we are headed.

There are three outcomes still on the table: deal, no deal, no Brexit. I really think you should put some money on it (so should I, but like you I don't usually gamble). The result is so unknown and so finely balanced that it is really just a shot in the dark. My "money" is on no Brexit but I wouldn't claim that possibility to be more than 1% ahead of the others. Having watched Question Time last night, I am not even sure I want no Brexit anymore: we are going to have to live with the consequences of that.

This is a Judgment of Solomon moment: the Remainers love their country so much that they are prepared to give the supporters of Brexit what they want:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon

[thirdcrank]

... deal, no deal ...

Where's Noel Edmonds when you need him?

[PDQ Mobile]

If I were to bet (I haven't in years), I'd put my money on a 'no deal' Brexit. IMO, that's where we are headed.

I also can't see May going anywhere soon. Many (most?) people who can influence it see the alternatives as far worse, and those who don't are probably too busy looking after their own , erm, political careers.

I am not up to speed on the state of play but am I correct in thinking that any final deal needs to be ratified by Parliament?

This correct and sensible procedure is thanks to Ms G Millar's long and hard fight.

If that is the case then it is my perception that "no deal" would/could not get a majority?

[mr bajokoses]

Superficially May's reason for refusing is that the UK needs the nuclear option of 'no deal' to threaten the rest of the EU in negotiations.

Superficially is definitely the right word, as of course the EU has finished negotiating. Not for the first time, May is being dishonest.

[kwackers]

I am not up to speed on the state of play but am I correct in thinking that any final deal needs to be ratified by Parliament?

This correct and sensible procedure is thanks to Ms G Millar's long and hard fight.

If that is the case then it is my perception that "no deal" would/could not get a majority?

Ah, but "no deal" isn't a votable deal, it's simply the default if nobody can agree.
In theory if the infighting continues and nothing is agreed then 'no deal' will happen in March even if nobody wants it.

I personally think if we got that far then there'd be a last minute extension sought.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

If I were to bet (I haven't in years), I'd put my money on a 'no deal' Brexit. IMO, that's where we are headed.

I also can't see May going anywhere soon. Many (most?) people who can influence it see the alternatives as far worse, and those who don't are probably too busy looking after their own , erm, political careers.

I agree, all what you said.
On no deal poor deal for me its a 50/50 you know where I am on the third option.

IIRC No deal is the default option voted in by MP's when A50 was initiated?
Jeremy wants no deal off the table as only May / Gov can remove it?
I am just saying not bashing

[mr bajokoses]

I am not up to speed on the state of play but am I correct in thinking that any final deal needs to be ratified by Parliament?

This correct and sensible procedure is thanks to Ms G Millar's long and hard fight.

If that is the case then it is my perception that "no deal" would/could not get a majority?

'No deal' has already been ratified by Parliament (unfortunately). If No deal is not to happen then legislation has to be passed to stop it.

[horizon]

'No deal' has already been ratified by Parliament (unfortunately). If No deal is not to happen then legislation has to be passed to stop it.

I wonder if "they knew what they were voting for" .

[100%JR]

'No deal' has already been ratified by Parliament (unfortunately). If No deal is not to happen then legislation has to be passed to stop it.

Or they can:-
1.Ask for an extension to A50
2.Revoke A50.

My money is on No2.

[PDQ Mobile]

I am not up to speed on the state of play but am I correct in thinking that any final deal needs to be ratified by Parliament?

This correct and sensible procedure is thanks to Ms G Millar's long and hard fight.

If that is the case then it is my perception that "no deal" would/could not get a majority?

'No deal' has already been ratified by Parliament (unfortunately). If No deal is not to happen then legislation has to be passed to stop it.

Thanks for clarifying.
When did they ratify that?

[mr bajokoses]

I am not up to speed on the state of play but am I correct in thinking that any final deal needs to be ratified by Parliament?

This correct and sensible procedure is thanks to Ms G Millar's long and hard fight.

If that is the case then it is my perception that "no deal" would/could not get a majority?

'No deal' has already been ratified by Parliament (unfortunately). If No deal is not to happen then legislation has to be passed to stop it.

Thanks for clarifying.
When did they ratify that?

When Article 50 was triggered (by Parliament) it started a two-year countdown to leaving, whether a deal exists or not.