Labour's support for another referendum if its own Brexit plans are rejected makes the lead for most papers. The Times says the recent Labour breakaway involving eight MPs appears to have unnerved the leadership, with senior figures understood to have demanded that Jeremy Corbyn back another vote. But the Daily Mirror reports some MPs have warned he will destroy support in Labour's Leave-backing heartlands. According to the Guardian, the move is likely to face determined opposition from dozens of MPs in Leave seats, including a significant number of frontbenchers.
The Spectator website says there are a chunk of Labour MPs who refused to back an amendment delaying Brexit, so they are unlikely to come out in support of one that could potentially stop it from happening at all. On the New Statesman website, though, frontbench advocates of Labour's referendum plan say it will service both halves of the party - those in Leave seats can sell it as a vote for a deal, while those in Remain areas can cast it as a vote for a new referendum. The Financial Times thinks Labour's shift will increase pressure on Conservative Eurosceptic MPs to back Theresa May's deal, rather than extend the parliamentary stalemate and risk the prospect of Brexit being overturned. 'Dissidents' For its lead, the Daily Mail says it can reveal that Mrs May is ready to rule out the possibility of leaving the EU without a deal after "an extraordinary mass revolt by ministers". According to the paper, a group of 23 "dissidents" met secretly at the Commons to discuss how to stop such a scenario - with as many as 15 said to be ready to resign. The Sun says any move like that by the prime minister opens the door to delaying Brexit, a development that will infuriate Leavers. However, to calm their rage, she wants to keep the option of no-deal alive as a negotiating tool until later in the year, the paper adds.
Tuesday Crucial cabinet meeting to focus on the Brexit impasse Then Theresa May gives a statement to the House of Commons updating them on her progress Meanwhile, members of her negotiating team return to Brussels to continue talks
Wednesday MPs get another chance to debate Brexit Speaker John Bercow chooses which amendments - proposals for alternative strategies - get a hearing Then MPs cast their votes on those amendments
Brexit: Theresa May facing revolt ahead of cabinet meeting
What are the ministers demanding? Mrs May's Brexit deal was comprehensively rejected by MPs on 15 January and she has said they'll get a second chance to vote on it - possibly with some changes - by 12 March. But writing in the Daily Mail, ministers Richard Harrington, Claire Perry and Margot James said Mrs May must promise now that she will rule out the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without a deal if her agreement is rejected again, and instead seek a way to delay. If she does give such a commitment, they write, it "would be greeted with relief by the vast majority of MPs, businesses and their employees", adding that the UK risked being "swept over the precipice" in the event of no-deal. If she does not give in, they said, it would be in the "national interest" for them to resign and instead back a move to force a delay upon her.
That move comes in the form of an amendment - a legislative tool - being put before the Commons by Labour's Yvette Cooper and Conservative Oliver Letwin on Wednesday. If passed, it would give MPs the power to demand a delay to Brexit if a deal cannot be agreed by 13 March. Three other senior cabinet ministers, Greg Clark, Amber Rudd and David Gauke, have already signalled they could also be prepared to vote for the Cooper-Letwin option if there is no breakthrough in the next few days. Mrs May has long resisted any suggestion that the UK's departure from the EU could be postponed beyond 29 March. But one of the ministers who is threatening to resign told BBC Newsnight they were now hearing "good mood music from Downing Street" about the possibility of a shift in the prime minister's position. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47365645
Labour backs the ultimate 'dead cat' strategy – a second Brexit referendum
It had been billed as the nightmare meeting that threatened to tear the Labour Party even further apart after the resignation of nine MPs. With a string of female Labour politicians lining up to confront Jeremy Corbyn over anti-Semitism, the leader’s office was bracing itself for Monday night’s Parliamentary Labour Party meeting to turn into what one source described as “a bloodbath”. Which perhaps goes some way to explaining why - of all people, Corbyn’s top team appeared to take inspiration from Conservative campaign strategist Lynton Crosby by deploying what is known in political parlance as the “dead cat manoeuvre”. Boris Johnson (who had previously employed Crosby as his campaign manager...
If we’re heading for a hard Brexit, then we’re heading for a united Ireland
Whisper it, but a second referendum is the best way out of this mess, even for the DUP
All of this could have been avoided if the majority in Northern Ireland had been listened to during the referendum campaign. But as Nigel Farage and Johnson trumpeted their migrant-free magic kingdom, we were Kevin in Home Alone – only remembered at the baggage carousel after the plane had landed. It’s why the minutes of the first meeting between Michel Barnier and David Davis will never be released. “So, what do you propose for your land border with Europe?” Polite laughter. “We have a land border with you guys?”
Even at this late stage, it remains the unanswered question – how can you take back control of your borders when the only land border you have can’t be put back in place? The fact that more than 70% of people in Northern Ireland voted to give up control of that border via the Good Friday agreement so they could live in peace remains totally ignored.
In Sharm el Sheikh, May has shown herself to be a far more accomplished pool player than prime minister On the pool table, she hit the cue ball towards the object ball. It was more than she managed in her press conference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW-7U_dpZlY
It is important to make clear that, when the excruciating clip of Theresa May playing pool with the Italian prime minister cuts out on exactly one minute, her virginal strike of the cue ball sends it on what looks to be a clear trajectory towards the object ball. She has even managed to politely distance herself from the various cueing tips offered up by her chief of staff Gavin Barwell, a man who spent 2016 writing a book called How to Win A Marginal Seat and 2017 losing one. It is, in other words, a success.
Riots and right wing extremist groups getting a leverage would be the reality of a 2nd referendum .
That's an opinion that I wouldn't completely share. If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing. If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen. To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.
Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?
The argument against isn't because of rioting ( that will be a by product), but because apart from anything else it completely smacks in the face of democracy . This government promised to carry out the wishes of the public on the referendum vote , and re presenting it to the nation will disaffect generations to come and there will be zero trust in politics and politicians as a whole . If you naively think that the majority of the people who voted leave , would just sit back and say " oh , ok , 2nd referendum , no worries " , then you're deluded. Like I've said a million times on here , never going to happen anyway , thankfully .
The majority will be unhappy with the result.
Is that democracy?
Yes. Democracy relates to votes, not happiness.
Ok lets put it another way. The majority will say that the outcome is not what they voted for.
I agree. But that is going to be true for every option. And you cannot "unask" the question from the last referendum
The fact that you cant unask the question, is another very good reason to ask a better question.
If Parliament rules out no deal, then the fair question to ask would be a deal or remain.
That is neither "fair" or, indeed, accurate.
The country was given a very simple (too simple) question. "In" or "out", and the Government promised to abide by that result.
The country voted "out". Parliament has refused to allow Government to carry out the wishes of the people, due to some people thinking "out only means my out" or remainers. Which part of that is carrying out the will of the people as promised?
your "fair" question fails on 2 counts. Firstly, you are excluding the "no deal" brigade. You don't want the people to decide on that option, you don't want to campaign as to why that option is not the best. You just want to ban that option. It's like saying too many people voted UKIP at the last election. They are odious. so they are banned.
Then let's look at the options that you DO want on the table.
May's deal is an option. It is a very unpopular one. But what other deal is being proposed? Absolutely none. This ignores the other party to any deal. We need permission from the EU to delay Article 50. They would agree to delay for a vote on definite options. But to allow us to delay in order to start the whole sorry process of any deal from scratch? Not a chance. They have duties to the people who ARE in the EU. Even a (temporary) no deal would be better for the EU than that.
The logical options for a vote would be:
1. Remain (and hope we can stay on the same terms) 2. Leave with No deal 3. Leave with May's deal 4. Ask for a delay, in order to seek a better deal 5. If 4, and the answer is no, 1/2/3 above
With the AV that the people have already rejected in a referendum. With a substantial delay causing untold damage to UK business via yet more uncertainty.
It is going to take months, if not years, to agree on the questions, and then 6 months to organise the referendum itself. Which will undoubtedly be bitter and divisive in a way not seen since the 1640s.
Riots and right wing extremist groups getting a leverage would be the reality of a 2nd referendum .
That's an opinion that I wouldn't completely share. If there were riots, which I don't buy, then it still wouldn't be a reason not to do the right thing. If Parliament decided that a referendum was the right thing to do, then it should happen. To argue that we shouldn't because we might have a couple of riots, is just wrong.
Would we expect our politicians to alter decisions in the future due to the possibility of riots?
The argument against isn't because of rioting ( that will be a by product), but because apart from anything else it completely smacks in the face of democracy . This government promised to carry out the wishes of the public on the referendum vote , and re presenting it to the nation will disaffect generations to come and there will be zero trust in politics and politicians as a whole . If you naively think that the majority of the people who voted leave , would just sit back and say " oh , ok , 2nd referendum , no worries " , then you're deluded. Like I've said a million times on here , never going to happen anyway , thankfully .
The majority will be unhappy with the result.
Is that democracy?
Yes. Democracy relates to votes, not happiness.
Ok lets put it another way. The majority will say that the outcome is not what they voted for.
I agree. But that is going to be true for every option. And you cannot "unask" the question from the last referendum
The fact that you cant unask the question, is another very good reason to ask a better question.
If Parliament rules out no deal, then the fair question to ask would be a deal or remain.
That is neither "fair" or, indeed, accurate.
The country was given a very simple (too simple) question. "In" or "out", and the Government promised to abide by that result.
The country voted "out". Parliament has refused to allow Government to carry out the wishes of the people, due to some people thinking "out only means my out" or remainers. Which part of that is carrying out the will of the people as promised?
your "fair" question fails on 2 counts. Firstly, you are excluding the "no deal" brigade. You don't want the people to decide on that option, you don't want to campaign as to why that option is not the best. You just want to ban that option. It's like saying too many people voted UKIP at the last election. They are odious. so they are banned.
Then let's look at the options that you DO want on the table.
May's deal is an option. It is a very unpopular one. But what other deal is being proposed? Absolutely none. This ignores the other party to any deal. We need permission from the EU to delay Article 50. They would agree to delay for a vote on definite options. But to allow us to delay in order to start the whole sorry process of any deal from scratch? Not a chance. They have duties to the people who ARE in the EU. Even a (temporary) no deal would be better for the EU than that.
The logical options for a vote would be:
1. Remain (and hope we can stay on the same terms) 2. Leave with No deal 3. Leave with May's deal 4. Ask for a delay, in order to seek a better deal 5. If 4, and the answer is no, 1/2/3 above
With the AV that the people have already rejected in a referendum. With a substantial delay causing untold damage to UK business via yet more uncertainty.
It is going to take months, if not years, to agree on the questions, and then 6 months to organise the referendum itself. Which will undoubtedly be bitter and divisive in a way not seen since the 1640s.
Firstly, what I said was that if Parliament ruled out no deal, then it would be a fair question.
If Parliament rule out no deal, then it is no longer an option, so why would you then revive the option and put it on the ballot.
You are the person constantly claiming that we cant go back, and that we are where we are.
I would agree and think we have to look forward, and ask where we go from here.
There appears to be no majority in Parliament for any particular deal. Yet there is undoubtedly a majority in favour of ruling out no deal.
I have quoted Dominic Raab, a number of times, the ex Brexit secretary, and prominent Brexiteer. He cant be the only leave voter that would choose to remain rather than accept the PMs deal.
Many people have said, and I will include myself among them, that even though a referendum may not be the best solution, at least it is a solution.
Many people are fed up with Brexit. Yet the trade negotiations will go on for many years to come.
I appreciate that the Government promised to implement the result of the referendum.
However The High Court ruled that it was not legally binding.
The promise was made by a previous Government, and no Government may bind the hands of future Governments.
Although I appreciate that to use these defences would not generate any confidence in British politics.
There are many valid, and important reasons, which would offer a better defence.
Parliament could conduct free votes to decide which is the most popular deal option. We could implement a 21 month extension, which has been discussed, giving business certainty.
This would be followed by a 2 year transition period, giving business more certainty. During this period we could organise a referendum, and choose the deal that was most popular.
We would then vote on the deal, or to remain.
Assuming no deal has been ruled out, no other options would be required.
The result would signal the end, as the deal could be finalised during the transition period.
The EU have said a number of times that if we revoked Article 50, we would remain on the same terms.
If no deal had been ruled out as an option the Brexiteers would have to choose a preferred deal.
If you look at where we are now after 2 years of negotiating.
We cant finalise the Withdrawal Agreement.
We don't really know what the PMs deal is, as only a framework for future negotiations is in place.
Just one valid example of our current position is the Common Fisheries.
Theresa May maintains that as a result of her deal we will be leaving it. Making many fishermen happy. Yet many experts maintain that the EU will not do a comprehensive trade deal with us, without them having access to our waters for their fishermen. So perhaps another promise that will fall by the wayside.
You have pointed to the inadequacies of the referendum.
So is it really sensible to implement the result of a vote made by a misled electorate, that will cause economic harm to the country, without reviewing it.
If the majority haven't changed their minds, then we will still leave.
The difference would be that we would be aware of the terms under which we left, prior to voting.
I am not sure that many people consider that the PM threatening one group of MPs with her deal or no deal, and another group of MPs with her deal or no Brexit, is democracy in action. The fact that this is now coming back to bite her, is encouraging.
I tried to reply to your wall of text. However, your argument was so long-winded the site will not allow it. Sure your MP wasn't Neil Kinnock?
Parliament has ruled out everything. Including implementing us leaving. As was promised. Might not be "legally" binding, but is binding if we want to be seen as decent, honest people.
The only definite thing is that Parliament intends to ignore the last referendum. Unless you count one side to a deal simultaneously rejecting the deal as agreed between the UK/EU AND telling the other side (the EU) that they rule out no deal. A case of "No Deal, and No No deal"-even Noel Edmonds couldn't sell that.
UK business needs certainty. 21 months of further uncertainty will cause far more harm than the deal on the table. It is true to say that most UK businesses would prefer to be in than out. but many businesses would prefer to be out than the purgatory that this uncertainty brings.
Imagine you were trying to flog, say, timeshare. I'm sure your experience could stretch to that. Who is going to buy when the future in relation to taxes, flights etc is unknown?
Which business is going to choose to invest in the UK when no-one knows the future trading position? Delay IS no deal-does no-one understand that?
The 5th largest economy in the world has chosen to leave the massive trading bloc after 45 years. Without a plan. So the plan now is to tell the 2nd largest trading bloc in the world to wait nearly 2 years, and have no medium-term plans for UK trade, while we decide what we are going to do? Really? and this isn't going to factor at all in how we or the EU approach whether to allow another vote.
And you believe that the next referendum will involve all sides telling us the truth? Good luck with that.
I tried to reply to your wall of text. However, your argument was so long-winded the site will not allow it. Sure your MP wasn't Neil Kinnock?
Parliament has ruled out everything. Including implementing us leaving. As was promised. Might not be "legally" binding, but is binding if we want to be seen as decent, honest people.
The only definite thing is that Parliament intends to ignore the last referendum. Unless you count one side to a deal simultaneously rejecting the deal as agreed between the UK/EU AND telling the other side (the EU) that they rule out no deal. A case of "No Deal, and No No deal"-even Noel Edmonds couldn't sell that.
UK business needs certainty. 21 months of further uncertainty will cause far more harm than the deal on the table. It is true to say that most UK businesses would prefer to be in than out. but many businesses would prefer to be out than the purgatory that this uncertainty brings.
Imagine you were trying to flog, say, timeshare. I'm sure your experience could stretch to that. Who is going to buy when the future in relation to taxes, flights etc is unknown?
Which business is going to choose to invest in the UK when no-one knows the future trading position? Delay IS no deal-does no-one understand that?
The 5th largest economy in the world has chosen to leave the massive trading bloc after 45 years. Without a plan. So the plan now is to tell the 2nd largest trading bloc in the world to wait nearly 2 years, and have no medium-term plans for UK trade, while we decide what we are going to do? Really? and this isn't going to factor at all in how we or the EU approach whether to allow another vote.
And you believe that the next referendum will involve all sides telling us the truth? Good luck with that.
I am not saying it is the best solution, but it is a solution.
What the alternatives?
The majority support the fact that no deal would be a disaster.
Yet the options today, if you rule out a referendum, are no deal, or the PMs deal.
We don't even know what the PMs deal is as we haven't started negotiating it yet.
So we are expected to leap over the no deal cliff, or leave without knowing the direction we are headed.
So what is your solution?
Parliament has been severely criticised for only being able to iterate what they don't want, and not what they want.
You appear to be doing the same thing.
Please don't say support the deal, as more people according to the polls, would prefer no deal than the PMs deal.
This appears strange as the PMs deal is not a deal, it is purely a Withdrawal Agreement, with major disputes over the Irish border issue.
Her Withdrawal Agreement was rejected by the widest ever margin in political history.
The ERG will not support this unless the Backstop, is time limited, and we have the unilateral right to exit it.
Either or both of these conditions would disqualify the Backstop from being a Backstop.
So looking at a referendum.
Many MPs have suggested a series of indicative votes to find out if Parliament has a majority in favour of any particular deal.
I think this would be a good idea, if we could get past the Withdrawal Agreement.
I maintain that Brexit as sold in the referendum campaign is impossible.
On the uncertainty front there was always going to be a 2 year transition period, and she has today proposed a 2 month extension. What happens after the 2 month extension, another 2 months?
That will provide certainty.
You seem to hope that politicians could turn into decent, honest people, good luck with that.
Less businesses are likely to choose to invest in the UK, if we limit our access to the Single Market.
If there was another referendum, more people would be aware of the implications of their vote.
I tried to reply to your wall of text. However, your argument was so long-winded the site will not allow it. Sure your MP wasn't Neil Kinnock?
Parliament has ruled out everything. Including implementing us leaving. As was promised. Might not be "legally" binding, but is binding if we want to be seen as decent, honest people.
The only definite thing is that Parliament intends to ignore the last referendum. Unless you count one side to a deal simultaneously rejecting the deal as agreed between the UK/EU AND telling the other side (the EU) that they rule out no deal. A case of "No Deal, and No No deal"-even Noel Edmonds couldn't sell that.
UK business needs certainty. 21 months of further uncertainty will cause far more harm than the deal on the table. It is true to say that most UK businesses would prefer to be in than out. but many businesses would prefer to be out than the purgatory that this uncertainty brings.
Imagine you were trying to flog, say, timeshare. I'm sure your experience could stretch to that. Who is going to buy when the future in relation to taxes, flights etc is unknown?
Which business is going to choose to invest in the UK when no-one knows the future trading position? Delay IS no deal-does no-one understand that?
The 5th largest economy in the world has chosen to leave the massive trading bloc after 45 years. Without a plan. So the plan now is to tell the 2nd largest trading bloc in the world to wait nearly 2 years, and have no medium-term plans for UK trade, while we decide what we are going to do? Really? and this isn't going to factor at all in how we or the EU approach whether to allow another vote.
And you believe that the next referendum will involve all sides telling us the truth? Good luck with that.
This was quite a good article.
All of this could have been avoided if the majority in Northern Ireland had been listened to during the referendum campaign. But as Nigel Farage and Johnson trumpeted their migrant-free magic kingdom, we were Kevin in Home Alone – only remembered at the baggage carousel after the plane had landed. It’s why the minutes of the first meeting between Michel Barnier and David Davis will never be released. “So, what do you propose for your land border with Europe?” Polite laughter. “We have a land border with you guys?”
Even at this late stage, it remains the unanswered question – how can you take back control of your borders when the only land border you have can’t be put back in place? The fact that more than 70% of people in Northern Ireland voted to give up control of that border via the Good Friday agreement so they could live in peace remains totally ignored.
I tried to reply to your wall of text. However, your argument was so long-winded the site will not allow it. Sure your MP wasn't Neil Kinnock?
Parliament has ruled out everything. Including implementing us leaving. As was promised. Might not be "legally" binding, but is binding if we want to be seen as decent, honest people.
The only definite thing is that Parliament intends to ignore the last referendum. Unless you count one side to a deal simultaneously rejecting the deal as agreed between the UK/EU AND telling the other side (the EU) that they rule out no deal. A case of "No Deal, and No No deal"-even Noel Edmonds couldn't sell that.
UK business needs certainty. 21 months of further uncertainty will cause far more harm than the deal on the table. It is true to say that most UK businesses would prefer to be in than out. but many businesses would prefer to be out than the purgatory that this uncertainty brings.
Imagine you were trying to flog, say, timeshare. I'm sure your experience could stretch to that. Who is going to buy when the future in relation to taxes, flights etc is unknown?
Which business is going to choose to invest in the UK when no-one knows the future trading position? Delay IS no deal-does no-one understand that?
The 5th largest economy in the world has chosen to leave the massive trading bloc after 45 years. Without a plan. So the plan now is to tell the 2nd largest trading bloc in the world to wait nearly 2 years, and have no medium-term plans for UK trade, while we decide what we are going to do? Really? and this isn't going to factor at all in how we or the EU approach whether to allow another vote.
And you believe that the next referendum will involve all sides telling us the truth? Good luck with that.
Here and now, there is just a choice between the PMs deal, which has yet to be negotiated, and no deal. This is dependant upon passing the Withdrawal Agreement, which currently seems unlikely. In the event of the Withdrawal Agreement being passed, we leave the EU. How many voters could say they got what they voted for, when they wouldn't know what it is? How many would be distraught when they found out some years later that it wasn't? Democracy would appear to be a choice between total economic disaster, and maybe the least popular of the deals available.
Here and now, there is just a choice between the PMs deal, which has yet to be negotiated, and no deal. This is dependant upon passing the Withdrawal Agreement, which currently seems unlikely. In the event of the Withdrawal Agreement being passed, we leave the EU. How many voters could say they got what they voted for, when they wouldn't know what it is? How many would be distraught when they found out some years later that it wasn't? Democracy would appear to be a choice between total economic disaster, and maybe the least popular of the deals available.
True. But your democracy necessitates ignoring the vote that has taken place. That is more democratic?
Here and now, there is just a choice between the PMs deal, which has yet to be negotiated, and no deal. This is dependant upon passing the Withdrawal Agreement, which currently seems unlikely. In the event of the Withdrawal Agreement being passed, we leave the EU. How many voters could say they got what they voted for, when they wouldn't know what it is? How many would be distraught when they found out some years later that it wasn't? Democracy would appear to be a choice between total economic disaster, and maybe the least popular of the deals available.
True. But your democracy necessitates ignoring the vote that has taken place. That is more democratic?
Can you argue that things have moved on?
The situation has become clearer?
There have been many occasions where Governments have put forward policies, and not implemented them after having second thoughts.
Admittedly this has not been the case subsequent to a referendum.
You could argue that I would only say the following, because of the side of the argument that I am on, but I wouldn't have a problem if I was a leave voter, and was told that there was to be a new vote because of the reality becoming clearer.
I also think that the Government have the right to just revoke Article 50 on the basis that it will be extremely harmful for the country to leave.
This is a Parliamentary Democracy, we elect MPs to act in our best interests. There is a clear argument that going through with Brexit is not. This is particularly true of a no deal.
Lets say that no agreement on a deal is reached. Is it the duty of our MPs to take us over the no deal cliff, for the sake of the will of the people, when they know it will be an economic catastrophe or not?
Assuming Parliament remove the no deal option which seems likely. How does that play into the democracy of the referendum, and those who voted to leave that were in favour of no deal?
How many people will feel they got what they voted for anyway? Will the result feel democratic?
I think that for many people getting over the disappointment of the referendum result not being implemented, will be less painful than the economic pain of actually leaving.
I don't see it as a big deal.
If the majority is still in favour we will still leave, but if a sufficient number of people have decided to change their mind, having become better informed, then we wont.
Thee years have gone by, does democracy mean people cant just change their minds.
For me it will take 20 minutes to pop into my polling station to vote again.
I am not certain that the result will change.
People have become intrenched in their views.
Some people wont change their minds on principle, even though they know in their hearts that leaving is wrong.
I think that some people are deluding themselves that leaving will end the deep divisions in the country.
Assuming we leave, the campaign to rejoin will probably start the following day.
There have been many occasions where Governments have put forward policies, and not implemented them after having second thoughts.
Admittedly this has not been the case subsequent to a referendum.
You could argue that I would only say the following, because of the side of the argument that I am on, but I wouldn't have a problem if I was a leave voter, and was told that there was to be a new vote because of the reality becoming clearer.
I also think that the Government have the right to just revoke Article 50 on the basis that it will be extremely harmful for the country to leave.
This is a Parliamentary Democracy, we elect MPs to act in our best interests. There is a clear argument that going through with Brexit is not. This is particularly true of a no deal.
Lets say that no agreement on a deal is reached. Is it the duty of our MPs to take us over the no deal cliff, for the sake of the will of the people, when they know it will be an economic catastrophe or not?
Assuming Parliament remove the no deal option which seems likely. How does that play into the democracy of the referendum, and those who voted to leave that were in favour of no deal?
How many people will feel they got what they voted for anyway? Will the result feel democratic?
I think that for many people getting over the disappointment of the referendum result not being implemented, will be less painful than the economic pain of actually leaving.
I don't see it as a big deal.
If the majority is still in favour we will still leave, but if a sufficient number of people have decided to change their mind, having become better informed, then we wont.
Thee years have gone by, does democracy mean people cant just change their minds.
For me it will take 20 minutes to pop into my polling station to vote again.
I am not certain that the result will change.
People have become intrenched in their views.
Some people wont change their minds on principle, even though they know in their hearts that leaving is wrong.
I think that some people are deluding themselves that leaving will end the deep divisions in the country.
Assuming we leave, the campaign to rejoin will probably start the following day.
There are few things that are certain. One is that 52% of the people in 2016 are having their vote cancelled.
With respect, you don't know what it means to the average leave voter. People felt sidelined and ignored, and were given the chance to vote on something. You can't just take that away.
If you had the same vote today, I think it would be 52% Remain this time. But many of the 48% this time would feel betrayed. The biggest delusion is believing that a new vote will end the deep divisions. It will intensify them.
The main reason we are going off the no deal cliff is due to extremists on the 1 hand, and Remainers on the other. 20 minutes for you? Possibly. 3 years of No Deal already, another 2 years to see if we can go back to square 1 or not? Bah. The "cure" is worse than the disease.
There have been many occasions where Governments have put forward policies, and not implemented them after having second thoughts.
Admittedly this has not been the case subsequent to a referendum.
You could argue that I would only say the following, because of the side of the argument that I am on, but I wouldn't have a problem if I was a leave voter, and was told that there was to be a new vote because of the reality becoming clearer.
I also think that the Government have the right to just revoke Article 50 on the basis that it will be extremely harmful for the country to leave.
This is a Parliamentary Democracy, we elect MPs to act in our best interests. There is a clear argument that going through with Brexit is not. This is particularly true of a no deal.
Lets say that no agreement on a deal is reached. Is it the duty of our MPs to take us over the no deal cliff, for the sake of the will of the people, when they know it will be an economic catastrophe or not?
Assuming Parliament remove the no deal option which seems likely. How does that play into the democracy of the referendum, and those who voted to leave that were in favour of no deal?
How many people will feel they got what they voted for anyway? Will the result feel democratic?
I think that for many people getting over the disappointment of the referendum result not being implemented, will be less painful than the economic pain of actually leaving.
I don't see it as a big deal.
If the majority is still in favour we will still leave, but if a sufficient number of people have decided to change their mind, having become better informed, then we wont.
Thee years have gone by, does democracy mean people cant just change their minds.
For me it will take 20 minutes to pop into my polling station to vote again.
I am not certain that the result will change.
People have become intrenched in their views.
Some people wont change their minds on principle, even though they know in their hearts that leaving is wrong.
I think that some people are deluding themselves that leaving will end the deep divisions in the country.
Assuming we leave, the campaign to rejoin will probably start the following day.
There are few things that are certain. One is that 52% of the people in 2016 are having their vote cancelled.
With respect, you don't know what it means to the average leave voter. People felt sidelined and ignored, and were given the chance to vote on something. You can't just take that away.
If you had the same vote today, I think it would be 52% Remain this time. But many of the 48% this time would feel betrayed. The biggest delusion is believing that a new vote will end the deep divisions. It will intensify them.
The main reason we are going off the no deal cliff is due to extremists on the 1 hand, and Remainers on the other. 20 minutes for you? Possibly. 3 years of No Deal already, another 2 years to see if we can go back to square 1 or not? Bah. The "cure" is worse than the disease.
Decide between May/Corbyn's deals on a free vote, and minor tweaks to one of them
Neither of them really have a deal at present.
May has a Withdrawal Agreement that was voted against, by the highest margin ever.
For Corbyn to be able to propose a deal would mean passing the Withdrawal Agreement first.
The 585 page WA includes 7 pages of unbinding text on the future trading relationship. That clearly cannot be described as a deal.
She said today that the alternative arrangements on the Backstop are being discussed alongside the trade talks in phase 2, and therefore will not assist in being able to pass the WA.
Therefore ERG support is unlikely.
If we could get past the WA, then Corbyn proposing Norway plus a Customs Union would become relevant, but not necessarily for long.
How many leave voters will go along with, Freedom of Movement, not being allowed to have an independent trade policy, and continuing to pay annual contributions.
Passing the WA has to be accomplished before any deal being discussed is relevant.
The original Meaningful Vote was supposed to be on December 11th. She has been postponing to find solutions to the Backstop ever since, seemingly playing for time.
The Backstop was originally agreed, a year ago last December.
No WA means no deal.
I thought indicative votes would be handy in the case of a referendum, as a means to decide which deal to put on the ballot paper.
Holding them now would just indicate which deal was most popular with Parliament, but this is irrelevant until the WA goes through.
UK government worried businesses, residents aren't ready for a no-deal Brexit
The papers noted that 240,000 UK-based companies do business only with EU partners and these firms would be caught up in brand new customs processes and paperwork after a no-deal Brexit. The total administrative burden would cost them about £13bn a year. The papers also warn that roughly 30% of critical government projects related to a no-deal Brexit aren’t done yet. A range of current trade deals are also still not ready to be rolled over if there is a no-deal Brexit, including the new free-trade deal with Japan. The analysis was released after the government previously published economic forecasts in late November 2018 predicting that a no-deal Brexit would leave the UK economy as much as 9.3% smaller in the next 15 years compared to a scenario where the UK remained in the European Union.
The Bank of England also forecast in November that a no-deal Brexit in March would cause the UK economy to shrink by about 8% within a year, the worst drop the country has seen since the 1920s. The central bank predicted inflation would peak at 6.5% and unemployment would peak at 7.5%. House prices could fall by about 30% and interest rates could spike. Brexit delay? The economic and trade analysis comes just hours after May announced the option of delaying Brexit if UK lawmakers rejected her Brexit deal and rejected the option of a no-deal Brexit. The parliamentary vote to delay Brexit is set to be held on 14 March. The pound (GBPUSD=X, GBPEUR=X) was rising throughout the day against the US dollar and euro as traders cheered the possibility of a Brexit delay. The pound vaulted to a 21-month high against the euro. Sterling was also trading at its highest level since late 2018 against the US dollar.
Comments
The Times says the recent Labour breakaway involving eight MPs appears to have unnerved the leadership, with senior figures understood to have demanded that Jeremy Corbyn back another vote.
But the Daily Mirror reports some MPs have warned he will destroy support in Labour's Leave-backing heartlands.
According to the Guardian, the move is likely to face determined opposition from dozens of MPs in Leave seats, including a significant number of frontbenchers.
The Spectator website says there are a chunk of Labour MPs who refused to back an amendment delaying Brexit, so they are unlikely to come out in support of one that could potentially stop it from happening at all.
On the New Statesman website, though, frontbench advocates of Labour's referendum plan say it will service both halves of the party - those in Leave seats can sell it as a vote for a deal, while those in Remain areas can cast it as a vote for a new referendum.
The Financial Times thinks Labour's shift will increase pressure on Conservative Eurosceptic MPs to back Theresa May's deal, rather than extend the parliamentary stalemate and risk the prospect of Brexit being overturned.
'Dissidents'
For its lead, the Daily Mail says it can reveal that Mrs May is ready to rule out the possibility of leaving the EU without a deal after "an extraordinary mass revolt by ministers".
According to the paper, a group of 23 "dissidents" met secretly at the Commons to discuss how to stop such a scenario - with as many as 15 said to be ready to resign.
The Sun says any move like that by the prime minister opens the door to delaying Brexit, a development that will infuriate Leavers.
However, to calm their rage, she wants to keep the option of no-deal alive as a negotiating tool until later in the year, the paper adds.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-47365692
Tuesday
Crucial cabinet meeting to focus on the Brexit impasse
Then Theresa May gives a statement to the House of Commons updating them on her progress
Meanwhile, members of her negotiating team return to Brussels to continue talks
Wednesday
MPs get another chance to debate Brexit
Speaker John Bercow chooses which amendments - proposals for alternative strategies - get a hearing
Then MPs cast their votes on those amendments
What are the ministers demanding?
Mrs May's Brexit deal was comprehensively rejected by MPs on 15 January and she has said they'll get a second chance to vote on it - possibly with some changes - by 12 March.
But writing in the Daily Mail, ministers Richard Harrington, Claire Perry and Margot James said Mrs May must promise now that she will rule out the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without a deal if her agreement is rejected again, and instead seek a way to delay.
If she does give such a commitment, they write, it "would be greeted with relief by the vast majority of MPs, businesses and their employees", adding that the UK risked being "swept over the precipice" in the event of no-deal.
If she does not give in, they said, it would be in the "national interest" for them to resign and instead back a move to force a delay upon her.
That move comes in the form of an amendment - a legislative tool - being put before the Commons by Labour's Yvette Cooper and Conservative Oliver Letwin on Wednesday.
If passed, it would give MPs the power to demand a delay to Brexit if a deal cannot be agreed by 13 March.
Three other senior cabinet ministers, Greg Clark, Amber Rudd and David Gauke, have already signalled they could also be prepared to vote for the Cooper-Letwin option if there is no breakthrough in the next few days.
Mrs May has long resisted any suggestion that the UK's departure from the EU could be postponed beyond 29 March.
But one of the ministers who is threatening to resign told BBC Newsnight they were now hearing "good mood music from Downing Street" about the possibility of a shift in the prime minister's position.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47365645
It had been billed as the nightmare meeting that threatened to tear the Labour Party even further apart after the resignation of nine MPs.
With a string of female Labour politicians lining up to confront Jeremy Corbyn over anti-Semitism, the leader’s office was bracing itself for Monday night’s Parliamentary Labour Party meeting to turn into what one source described as “a bloodbath”.
Which perhaps goes some way to explaining why - of all people, Corbyn’s top team appeared to take inspiration from Conservative campaign strategist Lynton Crosby by deploying what is known in political parlance as the “dead cat manoeuvre”.
Boris Johnson (who had previously employed Crosby as his campaign manager...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/25/backing-second-referendum-ultimate-dead-cat-strategy-labour/
Whisper it, but a second referendum is the best way out of this mess, even for the DUP
All of this could have been avoided if the majority in Northern Ireland had been listened to during the referendum campaign. But as Nigel Farage and Johnson trumpeted their migrant-free magic kingdom, we were Kevin in Home Alone – only remembered at the baggage carousel after the plane had landed. It’s why the minutes of the first meeting between Michel Barnier and David Davis will never be released. “So, what do you propose for your land border with Europe?” Polite laughter. “We have a land border with you guys?”
Even at this late stage, it remains the unanswered question – how can you take back control of your borders when the only land border you have can’t be put back in place? The fact that more than 70% of people in Northern Ireland voted to give up control of that border via the Good Friday agreement so they could live in peace remains totally ignored.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/26/hard-brexit-united-ireland-second-referendum-dup
On the pool table, she hit the cue ball towards the object ball. It was more than she managed in her press conference
It is important to make clear that, when the excruciating clip of Theresa May playing pool with the Italian prime minister cuts out on exactly one minute, her virginal strike of the cue ball sends it on what looks to be a clear trajectory towards the object ball. She has even managed to politely distance herself from the various cueing tips offered up by her chief of staff Gavin Barwell, a man who spent 2016 writing a book called How to Win A Marginal Seat and 2017 losing one. It is, in other words, a success.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-sharm-el-sheikh-brexit-pool-table-latest-meaningful-vote-a8796361.html
The country was given a very simple (too simple) question. "In" or "out", and the Government promised to abide by that result.
The country voted "out". Parliament has refused to allow Government to carry out the wishes of the people, due to some people thinking "out only means my out" or remainers. Which part of that is carrying out the will of the people as promised?
your "fair" question fails on 2 counts. Firstly, you are excluding the "no deal" brigade. You don't want the people to decide on that option, you don't want to campaign as to why that option is not the best. You just want to ban that option. It's like saying too many people voted UKIP at the last election. They are odious. so they are banned.
Then let's look at the options that you DO want on the table.
May's deal is an option. It is a very unpopular one. But what other deal is being proposed? Absolutely none. This ignores the other party to any deal. We need permission from the EU to delay Article 50. They would agree to delay for a vote on definite options. But to allow us to delay in order to start the whole sorry process of any deal from scratch? Not a chance. They have duties to the people who ARE in the EU. Even a (temporary) no deal would be better for the EU than that.
The logical options for a vote would be:
1. Remain (and hope we can stay on the same terms)
2. Leave with No deal
3. Leave with May's deal
4. Ask for a delay, in order to seek a better deal
5. If 4, and the answer is no, 1/2/3 above
With the AV that the people have already rejected in a referendum.
With a substantial delay causing untold damage to UK business via yet more uncertainty.
It is going to take months, if not years, to agree on the questions, and then 6 months to organise the referendum itself. Which will undoubtedly be bitter and divisive in a way not seen since the 1640s.
If Parliament rule out no deal, then it is no longer an option, so why would you then revive the option and put it on the ballot.
You are the person constantly claiming that we cant go back, and that we are where we are.
I would agree and think we have to look forward, and ask where we go from here.
There appears to be no majority in Parliament for any particular deal. Yet there is undoubtedly a majority in favour of ruling out no deal.
I have quoted Dominic Raab, a number of times, the ex Brexit secretary, and prominent Brexiteer. He cant be the only leave voter that would choose to remain rather than accept the PMs deal.
Many people have said, and I will include myself among them, that even though a referendum may not be the best solution, at least it is a solution.
Many people are fed up with Brexit. Yet the trade negotiations will go on for many years to come.
I appreciate that the Government promised to implement the result of the referendum.
However The High Court ruled that it was not legally binding.
The promise was made by a previous Government, and no Government may bind the hands of future Governments.
Although I appreciate that to use these defences would not generate any confidence in British politics.
There are many valid, and important reasons, which would offer a better defence.
Parliament could conduct free votes to decide which is the most popular deal option.
We could implement a 21 month extension, which has been discussed, giving business certainty.
This would be followed by a 2 year transition period, giving business more certainty.
During this period we could organise a referendum, and choose the deal that was most popular.
We would then vote on the deal, or to remain.
Assuming no deal has been ruled out, no other options would be required.
The result would signal the end, as the deal could be finalised during the transition period.
The EU have said a number of times that if we revoked Article 50, we would remain on the same terms.
If no deal had been ruled out as an option the Brexiteers would have to choose a preferred deal.
If you look at where we are now after 2 years of negotiating.
We cant finalise the Withdrawal Agreement.
We don't really know what the PMs deal is, as only a framework for future negotiations is in place.
Just one valid example of our current position is the Common Fisheries.
Theresa May maintains that as a result of her deal we will be leaving it. Making many fishermen happy. Yet many experts maintain that the EU will not do a comprehensive trade deal with us, without them having access to our waters for their fishermen. So perhaps another promise that will fall by the wayside.
You have pointed to the inadequacies of the referendum.
So is it really sensible to implement the result of a vote made by a misled electorate, that will cause economic harm to the country, without reviewing it.
If the majority haven't changed their minds, then we will still leave.
The difference would be that we would be aware of the terms under which we left, prior to voting.
The fact that this is now coming back to bite her, is encouraging.
Parliament has ruled out everything. Including implementing us leaving. As was promised. Might not be "legally" binding, but is binding if we want to be seen as decent, honest people.
The only definite thing is that Parliament intends to ignore the last referendum. Unless you count one side to a deal simultaneously rejecting the deal as agreed between the UK/EU AND telling the other side (the EU) that they rule out no deal. A case of "No Deal, and No No deal"-even Noel Edmonds couldn't sell that.
UK business needs certainty. 21 months of further uncertainty will cause far more harm than the deal on the table. It is true to say that most UK businesses would prefer to be in than out. but many businesses would prefer to be out than the purgatory that this uncertainty brings.
Imagine you were trying to flog, say, timeshare. I'm sure your experience could stretch to that. Who is going to buy when the future in relation to taxes, flights etc is unknown?
Which business is going to choose to invest in the UK when no-one knows the future trading position? Delay IS no deal-does no-one understand that?
The 5th largest economy in the world has chosen to leave the massive trading bloc after 45 years. Without a plan. So the plan now is to tell the 2nd largest trading bloc in the world to wait nearly 2 years, and have no medium-term plans for UK trade, while we decide what we are going to do? Really? and this isn't going to factor at all in how we or the EU approach whether to allow another vote.
And you believe that the next referendum will involve all sides telling us the truth? Good luck with that.
What the alternatives?
The majority support the fact that no deal would be a disaster.
Yet the options today, if you rule out a referendum, are no deal, or the PMs deal.
We don't even know what the PMs deal is as we haven't started negotiating it yet.
So we are expected to leap over the no deal cliff, or leave without knowing the direction we are headed.
So what is your solution?
Parliament has been severely criticised for only being able to iterate what they don't want, and not what they want.
You appear to be doing the same thing.
Please don't say support the deal, as more people according to the polls, would prefer no deal than the PMs deal.
This appears strange as the PMs deal is not a deal, it is purely a Withdrawal Agreement, with major disputes over the Irish border issue.
Her Withdrawal Agreement was rejected by the widest ever margin in political history.
The ERG will not support this unless the Backstop, is time limited, and we have the unilateral right to exit it.
Either or both of these conditions would disqualify the Backstop from being a Backstop.
So looking at a referendum.
Many MPs have suggested a series of indicative votes to find out if Parliament has a majority in favour of any particular deal.
I think this would be a good idea, if we could get past the Withdrawal Agreement.
I maintain that Brexit as sold in the referendum campaign is impossible.
On the uncertainty front there was always going to be a 2 year transition period, and she has today proposed a 2 month extension. What happens after the 2 month extension, another 2 months?
That will provide certainty.
You seem to hope that politicians could turn into decent, honest people, good luck with that.
Less businesses are likely to choose to invest in the UK, if we limit our access to the Single Market.
If there was another referendum, more people would be aware of the implications of their vote.
This was quite a good article.
All of this could have been avoided if the majority in Northern Ireland had been listened to during the referendum campaign. But as Nigel Farage and Johnson trumpeted their migrant-free magic kingdom, we were Kevin in Home Alone – only remembered at the baggage carousel after the plane had landed. It’s why the minutes of the first meeting between Michel Barnier and David Davis will never be released. “So, what do you propose for your land border with Europe?” Polite laughter. “We have a land border with you guys?”
Even at this late stage, it remains the unanswered question – how can you take back control of your borders when the only land border you have can’t be put back in place? The fact that more than 70% of people in Northern Ireland voted to give up control of that border via the Good Friday agreement so they could live in peace remains totally ignored.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/26/hard-brexit-united-ireland-second-referendum-dup
This is dependant upon passing the Withdrawal Agreement, which currently seems unlikely.
In the event of the Withdrawal Agreement being passed, we leave the EU.
How many voters could say they got what they voted for, when they wouldn't know what it is?
How many would be distraught when they found out some years later that it wasn't?
Democracy would appear to be a choice between total economic disaster, and maybe the least popular of the deals available.
This is dependant upon passing the Withdrawal Agreement, which currently seems unlikely.
In the event of the Withdrawal Agreement being passed, we leave the EU.
How many voters could say they got what they voted for, when they wouldn't know what it is?
How many would be distraught when they found out some years later that it wasn't?
Democracy would appear to be a choice between total economic disaster, and maybe the least popular of the deals available.
True.
But your democracy necessitates ignoring the vote that has taken place.
That is more democratic?
But your democracy necessitates ignoring the vote that has taken place.
That is more democratic?
Can you argue that things have moved on?
The situation has become clearer?
There have been many occasions where Governments have put forward policies, and not implemented them after having second thoughts.
Admittedly this has not been the case subsequent to a referendum.
You could argue that I would only say the following, because of the side of the argument that I am on, but I wouldn't have a problem if I was a leave voter, and was told that there was to be a new vote because of the reality becoming clearer.
I also think that the Government have the right to just revoke Article 50 on the basis that it will be extremely harmful for the country to leave.
This is a Parliamentary Democracy, we elect MPs to act in our best interests. There is a clear argument that going through with Brexit is not. This is particularly true of a no deal.
Lets say that no agreement on a deal is reached. Is it the duty of our MPs to take us over the no deal cliff, for the sake of the will of the people, when they know it will be an economic catastrophe or not?
Assuming Parliament remove the no deal option which seems likely. How does that play into the democracy of the referendum, and those who voted to leave that were in favour of no deal?
How many people will feel they got what they voted for anyway? Will the result feel democratic?
I think that for many people getting over the disappointment of the referendum result not being implemented, will be less painful than the economic pain of actually leaving.
I don't see it as a big deal.
If the majority is still in favour we will still leave, but if a sufficient number of people have decided to change their mind, having become better informed, then we wont.
Thee years have gone by, does democracy mean people cant just change their minds.
For me it will take 20 minutes to pop into my polling station to vote again.
I am not certain that the result will change.
People have become intrenched in their views.
Some people wont change their minds on principle, even though they know in their hearts that leaving is wrong.
I think that some people are deluding themselves that leaving will end the deep divisions in the country.
Assuming we leave, the campaign to rejoin will probably start the following day.
The situation has become clearer?
There have been many occasions where Governments have put forward policies, and not implemented them after having second thoughts.
Admittedly this has not been the case subsequent to a referendum.
You could argue that I would only say the following, because of the side of the argument that I am on, but I wouldn't have a problem if I was a leave voter, and was told that there was to be a new vote because of the reality becoming clearer.
I also think that the Government have the right to just revoke Article 50 on the basis that it will be extremely harmful for the country to leave.
This is a Parliamentary Democracy, we elect MPs to act in our best interests. There is a clear argument that going through with Brexit is not. This is particularly true of a no deal.
Lets say that no agreement on a deal is reached. Is it the duty of our MPs to take us over the no deal cliff, for the sake of the will of the people, when they know it will be an economic catastrophe or not?
Assuming Parliament remove the no deal option which seems likely. How does that play into the democracy of the referendum, and those who voted to leave that were in favour of no deal?
How many people will feel they got what they voted for anyway? Will the result feel democratic?
I think that for many people getting over the disappointment of the referendum result not being implemented, will be less painful than the economic pain of actually leaving.
I don't see it as a big deal.
If the majority is still in favour we will still leave, but if a sufficient number of people have decided to change their mind, having become better informed, then we wont.
Thee years have gone by, does democracy mean people cant just change their minds.
For me it will take 20 minutes to pop into my polling station to vote again.
I am not certain that the result will change.
People have become intrenched in their views.
Some people wont change their minds on principle, even though they know in their hearts that leaving is wrong.
I think that some people are deluding themselves that leaving will end the deep divisions in the country.
Assuming we leave, the campaign to rejoin will probably start the following day.
There are few things that are certain. One is that 52% of the people in 2016 are having their vote cancelled.
With respect, you don't know what it means to the average leave voter. People felt sidelined and ignored, and were given the chance to vote on something. You can't just take that away.
If you had the same vote today, I think it would be 52% Remain this time. But many of the 48% this time would feel betrayed. The biggest delusion is believing that a new vote will end the deep divisions. It will intensify them.
The main reason we are going off the no deal cliff is due to extremists on the 1 hand, and Remainers on the other. 20 minutes for you? Possibly. 3 years of No Deal already, another 2 years to see if we can go back to square 1 or not? Bah. The "cure" is worse than the disease.
With respect, you don't know what it means to the average leave voter. People felt sidelined and ignored, and were given the chance to vote on something. You can't just take that away.
If you had the same vote today, I think it would be 52% Remain this time. But many of the 48% this time would feel betrayed. The biggest delusion is believing that a new vote will end the deep divisions. It will intensify them.
The main reason we are going off the no deal cliff is due to extremists on the 1 hand, and Remainers on the other. 20 minutes for you? Possibly. 3 years of No Deal already, another 2 years to see if we can go back to square 1 or not? Bah. The "cure" is worse than the disease.
So whats the answer then?
So whats the answer then?
Decide between May/Corbyn's deals on a free vote, and minor tweaks to one of them
Neither of them really have a deal at present.
May has a Withdrawal Agreement that was voted against, by the highest margin ever.
For Corbyn to be able to propose a deal would mean passing the Withdrawal Agreement first.
The 585 page WA includes 7 pages of unbinding text on the future trading relationship. That clearly cannot be described as a deal.
She said today that the alternative arrangements on the Backstop are being discussed alongside the trade talks in phase 2, and therefore will not assist in being able to pass the WA.
Therefore ERG support is unlikely.
If we could get past the WA, then Corbyn proposing Norway plus a Customs Union would become relevant, but not necessarily for long.
How many leave voters will go along with, Freedom of Movement, not being allowed to have an independent trade policy, and continuing to pay annual contributions.
Passing the WA has to be accomplished before any deal being discussed is relevant.
The original Meaningful Vote was supposed to be on December 11th. She has been postponing to find solutions to the Backstop ever since, seemingly playing for time.
The Backstop was originally agreed, a year ago last December.
No WA means no deal.
I thought indicative votes would be handy in the case of a referendum, as a means to decide which deal to put on the ballot paper.
Holding them now would just indicate which deal was most popular with Parliament, but this is irrelevant until the WA goes through.
Your democracy is easier said than done.
How do the get the WA passed?
The papers noted that 240,000 UK-based companies do business only with EU partners and these firms would be caught up in brand new customs processes and paperwork after a no-deal Brexit. The total administrative burden would cost them about £13bn a year.
The papers also warn that roughly 30% of critical government projects related to a no-deal Brexit aren’t done yet. A range of current trade deals are also still not ready to be rolled over if there is a no-deal Brexit, including the new free-trade deal with Japan.
The analysis was released after the government previously published economic forecasts in late November 2018 predicting that a no-deal Brexit would leave the UK economy as much as 9.3% smaller in the next 15 years compared to a scenario where the UK remained in the European Union.
The Bank of England also forecast in November that a no-deal Brexit in March would cause the UK economy to shrink by about 8% within a year, the worst drop the country has seen since the 1920s.
The central bank predicted inflation would peak at 6.5% and unemployment would peak at 7.5%. House prices could fall by about 30% and interest rates could spike.
Brexit delay?
The economic and trade analysis comes just hours after May announced the option of delaying Brexit if UK lawmakers rejected her Brexit deal and rejected the option of a no-deal Brexit. The parliamentary vote to delay Brexit is set to be held on 14 March.
The pound (GBPUSD=X, GBPEUR=X) was rising throughout the day against the US dollar and euro as traders cheered the possibility of a Brexit delay. The pound vaulted to a 21-month high against the euro. Sterling was also trading at its highest level since late 2018 against the US dollar.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-government-worried-businesses-residents-arent-ready-no-deal-brexit-173001700.html