The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Genie]

We're **** either way now.

It would be a massive climb down if May even hinted at another vote/discussion on the matter. She'd have to resign. Plus as a nation we'd be a worldwide laughing stock.

The only viable way would be if it were to be deemed we went back, on our terms. Unlikely.

 

[StefanAVFC]

I don't get how it can be a success from this point.

The people who you'd want to be doing the negotiations, or coming up with a plan are mostly remainers and are still pissed off it's even happening.

The leaders/politicians who want it to happen are unbelievably incompetent and still haven't outlined a plan other than 'Brexit means Brexit' or 'Red, White and Blue Brexit' even with 9 months to **** go.

As Genie says, walking it back now would be a disaster too. Could trigger a bit of a crisis between various groups of people.

The very best option is the softest of Brexits, EEA - but then the majority of idiot leavers would be angry because we'd still have 'no control'. In fact, in that situation, we'd have even less control because we'd have to pay into the EU, have to follow their rules but with way less of a say.

To coin a phrase by @Chindie

Brexit, **** stupid.

[StefanAVFC]

On a different point,

I do find it fairly amusing that the main argument against a 2nd vote/vote on the final deal is 'it goes against the will of people', as if 2/3 years isn't enough time for the electorate to change their minds. Yet, the current government called another general election after less than 2 years implying people are allowed to change their mind 

These idiots are only democratic when it suits them.

[Chindie]

It'll be seen as one of the stupidest moments of hubris in the country's history. A stone memorial to a nation unable to get over itself, to moronic patriotic nostalgia.

I'm sure thoughts of Churchill and blitz spirit and empire will sate everyone when the ports keel over, businesses collapse and jobs go and bins start exploding in shopping centres. And 'worst of all', lots more of brown people from the subcontinent turn up.

[Genie]

I said it before, but like the transfer deadline 90% the deals, business and agreements will happen in the last week of the negotiation window.

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

I said it before, but like the transfer deadline 90% the deals, business and agreements will happen in the last week of the negotiation window.

And that is an absolutely mental thought.

[Chindie]

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

I said it before, but like the transfer deadline 90% the deals, business and agreements will happen in the last week of the negotiation window.

And that's still not the case.

It's far far far more complex than any transfer deal. Infinitesimally more complex. You can't sort that out in a last minute rush for the finish.

[Genie]

4 minutes ago, Chindie said:

And that's still not the case.

It's far far far more complex than any transfer deal. Infinitesimally more complex. You can't sort that out in a last minute rush for the finish.

Obviously more complicated and serious, but there will be an incredible flurry of agreements being made in that last week. Tariffs, taxes, quota's, final numbers will be hastily agreed right before the deadline.

There's pretty much no firm details of anything yet after 18 months for that reason. No point in having 2 years, its much too long. Should be 6-9 months.

We all react to deadlines.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Genie

[Chindie]

4 minutes ago, Genie said:

Obviously more complicated and serious, but there will be an incredible flurry of agreements being made in that last week. Tariffs, taxes, quota's, final numbers will be hastily agreed right before the deadline.

There's pretty much no firm details of anything yet after 18 months for that reason. No point in having 2 years, its much too long. Should be 6-9 months.

We all react to deadlines.

That's simply not the case. The time is such because the things being dealt with are exceptionally complex and convoluted. Hence why the legal experts looking at article 50 basically all agreed that 2 years wasn't long enough to actually get things in order before the deadline.

We know it as well - even just looking from our own legal perspective we know rolling back 40 years of legislation isn't possible in 2 years, hence why the government tried to do it's power grab under the veil of necessity with the 'Great Repeal Bill' as a fast track.

Now repeat that for everything. It's not just tariffs and quotas. It's the minute intricacies of law. It's whether businesses, and then how, businesses will be able trade with the EU, for every single type of trade, in every way.

You cannot agree this in a mad rush to the finish. It isn't possible. There's too much to agree.

That nothing has yet happened is due to its not being able to agree what we want and how that will be achieved with the EU. We're not even close to the agreements in the tiny things.

Bear in mind the Canada deal. That took 7 years, in a much less contentious negotiation, over a far less wide reaching deal, and that nearly fell apart at the end over a single objection. That wasn't fully agreed in a rush to the end. It took 7 years because it needed 7 years. We've got 2. And we've wasted most of that with no progress.

It simply will not be agreed in the final days and everything will be fine. If that was the case why have 2 years? Have a weekend. Get it done.

[choffer]

45 minutes ago, Chindie said:

A stone memorial to a nation unable to get over itself, to moronic patriotic nostalgia.

A bit like this one?

[StefanAVFC]

25 minutes ago, Chindie said:

We've got 2. And we've wasted most of that with no progress.

Not only that, we had a totally pointless election putting an NI party in power, making the Irish border problem 10x worse.

We somehow made the situation worse than if we just twiddled our thumbs for 2 years.

[Chindie]

12 minutes ago, choffer said:

A bit like this one?

I am waiting for some swivel eyed loon to insist on some form of statue to 'celebrate' leaving in fairness. Probably of Farage done up like Britannia giving the finger, carefully orientated towards Brussels.

[Genie]

50 minutes ago, Chindie said:

That's simply not the case. The time is such because the things being dealt with are exceptionally complex and convoluted. Hence why the legal experts looking at article 50 basically all agreed that 2 years wasn't long enough to actually get things in order before the deadline.

We know it as well - even just looking from our own legal perspective we know rolling back 40 years of legislation isn't possible in 2 years, hence why the government tried to do it's power grab under the veil of necessity with the 'Great Repeal Bill' as a fast track.

Now repeat that for everything. It's not just tariffs and quotas. It's the minute intricacies of law. It's whether businesses, and then how, businesses will be able trade with the EU, for every single type of trade, in every way.

You cannot agree this in a mad rush to the finish. It isn't possible. There's too much to agree.

That nothing has yet happened is due to its not being able to agree what we want and how that will be achieved with the EU. We're not even close to the agreements in the tiny things.

Bear in mind the Canada deal. That took 7 years, in a much less contentious negotiation, over a far less wide reaching deal, and that nearly fell apart at the end over a single objection. That wasn't fully agreed in a rush to the end. It took 7 years because it needed 7 years. We've got 2. And we've wasted most of that with no progress.

It simply will not be agreed in the final days and everything will be fine. If that was the case why have 2 years? Have a weekend. Get it done.

I am still not convinced I am afraid, you've kind off confirmed my point several times in your post. Very little is agreed as a result of the length of time allowed. If it was shorter more resource and urgency would have been applied to it.

It'll all get agreed in the next 6-9 months from a current position of not much sorted, also reinforcing my point  

[Chindie]

Nonsense.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

I don't get how it can be a success from this point.

It could never be a success. It could only ever be damage limitation. Unfortunately with an incompetent Government, dependent on the DUP plus an incompetent opposition and the overall situation of the majority of MPs being too party loyal and lacking in spine to act in the best interests of the  Country it'll end up as a massive clusterpork. Either that or the Government will crack wide open.

[Genie]

9 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Nonsense.

So you think we'll be asking for an extension then? Because we've used about 3/4 of our time already and agreed almost nothing.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

So you think we'll be asking for an extension then? Because we've used about 3/4 of our time already and agreed almost nothing.

We'll either ask for an extension of some sort, which the EU might agree just to damage mitigate a little (though how long they agree might be neither here nor there, it's not going to be indefinitely unless the deal is made on a can kicking basis), or we crash out wherever we're at and damn it all while the negotiations continue.

What isn't possible is to cram it all in at the last minute. There's too much, and it's too complicated. The only 'deal' that can be agreed in a dash to the end is one that says nothing changes. Which is unlikely because it'll be suicide for the government.

The state of negotiations at the moment is our fault, being completely unable to solve things like the border in a manner that is acceptable. The EU itself was saying 6 months ago it wanted the actual discussions on the nitty gritty underway ASAP and even they felt like that was later than it should be.

[wazzap24]

We'll still be 'in the EU' in one form or another for the best part of the next decade. 

[Chindie]

All those Lords defeats are to be overturned in one bumper Commons session next week it appears.

Anyone expect anything to not be just waved through?

[snowychap]

25 minutes ago, Chindie said:

All those Lords defeats are to be overturned in one bumper Commons session next week it appears.

Anyone expect anything to not be just waved through?

The bars will be doing a roaring trade.

I haven't paid as much attention to the detail in the past month or so but aren't there still likely to be one or two votes where Grieve, Morgan, Soubry et al. vote against the government?

Overturning the amendments is just going to lead to a bit of ping pong before the summer recess (and then more in October/November), surely?