Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

Calling it now, on April 12th the UK will undergo hard Brexit.

On the same day Trump will shut the southern border and call it Mexit.

The danger is a no-deal Brexit. A "hard Brexit" refers to a Brexit where we don't remain part of the single market and/or customs union.

[mongers]

Calling it now, on April 12th the UK will undergo hard Brexit.

On the same day Trump will shut the southern border and call it Mexit.

This may well break the power of The Taint.

[Tamas]

One of the many infuriating things is that at this stage the whole -otherwise failed- search for alternatives by MPs is entirely pointless and mis-timed. Apart from revoking A50 and a no-deal crashout, there are no alternatives proposed that would not need the current Withdrawal Agreement that they refuse to accept.

And those MPs who want a Norway 2.0 or Superpsecial Status Quo Stays But Brexit Happens Option or whatever is in vogue at this hour? The FUCK do they don't like in May's WA? The WA basically freezes Britain in a Norway-like arrangement (ok, there won't be freedom of movement after the initial transitional period) indefinitely, until a permanent Norway-like arrangement could be reached.

Not only their road-searching is two years too late, but it is almost entirely decoupled from the realities of the situation.

If we will have a second referendum, I think no-deal will win. The not-insane votes will be divided between remaining and May's deal.

A new general election would create a similarly indecisive Parliament because the two main parties are not aligned with the division represented by Brexit.

It's bloody hopeless.

I am almost certain May will go back to ask for a blank check extension to the end of the year and I must say I am starting to hope the EU rejects it. Bring it on. I don't see anything that would change a bloody thing, except rolling the dice on an election and hoping that by some twist of fate one particular approach will command a majority. But even that would take how much time exactly? All the while Farage could tip the balance to populists among the MEPs and bring about some real trouble.

[Valmy]

If we will have a second referendum, I think no-deal will win. The not-insane votes will be divided between remaining and May's deal.

Ok look Britain that is not how referendums work. They need to have a majority of the voters to pass, not a plurality. They need to be a binary choice.

[Tamas]

If we will have a second referendum, I think no-deal will win. The not-insane votes will be divided between remaining and May's deal.

Ok look Britain that is not how referendums work. They need to have a majority of the voters to pass, not a plurality. They need to be a binary choice.

To be fair, not only there's no agreement whether there should be a second referendum at all, but no agreement on what a second referendum should contain as questions, between those who actually do want one.

[Syt]

That's the worst 'photoshop' I've ever seen.


Has it perchance a microsoft advert for MS paint?

Better?

[Tamas]

Philippe Lamberts, the Belgian MEP who is co-president of the Greens in the European parliament and who sits on the parliament's Brexit steering group, told the World at One that British politicians were wrong if they thought the EU could not accept a no-deal Brexit. Asked if the EU would act to avoid no-deal at all costs, he replied:

No, that's exactly the mistake and a misreading that happens all the time.

It's not at any cost because if the cost of avoiding no deal is substantially bigger damage to the EU, namely to the integrity of the single market, then between two evils we will choose the lesser one.

Lamberts also said that MPs who thought the Malthouse compromise (a plan for the UK to effectively have a transition, without agreeing to the backstop) would work were "deluding themselves". He went on:

I have seen too much of that over the last two years in Westminster. I'm afraid the harsh reality is quite different and if people cannot come to terms with reality then the wake-up will be difficult.

Only this morning Damian Green, the Tory pro-European and the former first secretary of state, was claiming that the EU might accept a version of the Malthouse compromise. This is from Sky's Greg Heffer.

The PM's ex-deputy @DamianGreen tells @SkyNewsPolitics the "one thing" MPs have voted for is replacing the backstop - and he thinks the EU could agree to it "in a quick enough period to leave on the current schedule"

[dps]

If we will have a second referendum, I think no-deal will win. The not-insane votes will be divided between remaining and May's deal.

Ok look Britain that is not how referendums work. They need to have a majority of the voters to pass, not a plurality. They need to be a binary choice.

Puerto Rican statehood referendums do.  They give voters a choice of independence, statehood, or maintaining the current status.  I believe similar votes occurred in the Trust Territories we held in the Pacific.

[Valmy]

If we will have a second referendum, I think no-deal will win. The not-insane votes will be divided between remaining and May's deal.

Ok look Britain that is not how referendums work. They need to have a majority of the voters to pass, not a plurality. They need to be a binary choice.

Puerto Rican statehood referendums do.  They give voters a choice of independence, statehood, or maintaining the current status.  I believe similar votes occurred in the Trust Territories we held in the Pacific.

I was thinking somebody was going to bring that shit up. Is there anything too obscure to NOT be brought up by you people? Anyway those referendums have fucked up non-actionable results because of the way those are designed.

There is also the fact that none of those territories are sovereign the Congress pretty much ignores the results anyway.

[Barrister]

If we will have a second referendum, I think no-deal will win. The not-insane votes will be divided between remaining and May's deal.

Ok look Britain that is not how referendums work. They need to have a majority of the voters to pass, not a plurality. They need to be a binary choice.

Puerto Rican statehood referendums do.  They give voters a choice of independence, statehood, or maintaining the current status.  I believe similar votes occurred in the Trust Territories we held in the Pacific.

I was thinking somebody was going to bring that shit up. Is there anything too obscure to NOT be brought up by you people? Anyway those referendums have fucked up non-actionable results because of the way those are designed.

There is also the fact that none of those territories are sovereign the Congress pretty much ignores the results anyway.

I think it's important to point out than in the 1948 Newfoundland referendum there were three options on the ballot: independence, union with Canada, and continued British rule.

[Valmy]

If we will have a second referendum, I think no-deal will win. The not-insane votes will be divided between remaining and May's deal.

Ok look Britain that is not how referendums work. They need to have a majority of the voters to pass, not a plurality. They need to be a binary choice.

Puerto Rican statehood referendums do.  They give voters a choice of independence, statehood, or maintaining the current status.  I believe similar votes occurred in the Trust Territories we held in the Pacific.

I was thinking somebody was going to bring that shit up. Is there anything too obscure to NOT be brought up by you people? Anyway those referendums have fucked up non-actionable results because of the way those are designed.

There is also the fact that none of those territories are sovereign the Congress pretty much ignores the results anyway.

I think it's important to point out than in the 1948 Newfoundland referendum there were three options on the ballot: independence, union with Canada, and continued British rule.

And what did they do? They had a runoff with a binary choice in order to get a majority result. Exactly as I said.

[The Brain]

The Swedish nuclear power referendum in 1980 had three options: no, nah, and neigh.

[Tamas]

The talk is of Cabinet being asked to agree to a long delay to prepare better for no deal. I have no idea whether it is true. But I pass on more to give a flavour of gossip among senior Tories than to lend credibility

Say what now? 

[mongers]

The marathon twin session 7 hour cabinet meeting has now ended, May has given a press statement.

The upshot, she's seeking talks with the leader of the opposition, to try and agree a position that parliament will vote on and/or it will be given the chance to come up with a binding approach that will then be taken to the EU next week.

So sort of government of national unity -lite with the commons in the driving seat.

Expect some cabinet members to walk out and the Tory party to part-implode. 

No news link yet, and I may be way out in my  interpretation of what she said.


edit:
Oh and she'll be seeking a further extension of indeterminate length from the EU.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Underwhelming.