Not as charming as doubting my patriotism. And yeah, I know I’ll probably get slapped rightly by a mod for my words, but you need checking.
Utter nonsense. The EU doesn’t want to harm itself, but up to a point, indulging division and indecision will cause more harm than a simple cutoff. You’ve been told this before.
Like what? Seriously? Every attempt to implore the UK to have a new vote, or unilaterally extend the Leave date, will be interpreted by the conservatives as weakness and they will demand more and more and more. It won’t win the EU sympathy or support. It will make hard Brexit more likely.
They have not made the revocation of Article 50 impossible. It only requires a letter from the PM. What are you talking about?
The EU isn’t requiring anything of the UK’s political processes. This is the UK’s own politicians trying to sort it out.
And the EU has said it’s willing for the UK to take part in EU elections so long as the UK is willing to take part in them as part of a firm course for Brexit.
The trouble with that idea is that, as with so many things to do with running the EU (and for good reason), it is not a matter of political decision-making on the hoof, it’s a matter of international law by treaty. It’s not the same as rushing a bill through Westminster in an emergency.
That is not going to happen. There is more chance of the Queen disolving parliament and taking charge herself than of May rescinding Article 50 and, because of the refusal to extend the deadline sufficiently, there is no opportunity to replace her.
The EU is, for whatever reason, ignoring British political realities, and by doing so will seignificantly damage itself. Which is absurdly stupid, almost as much as stupid as what the UK is doing.
It has offered exactly that, IF Parliament or the government, or somebody at least, comes up with a plan and a proposal for exactly that, by 12 April. What they’re not prepared to do is issue a blank cheque in terms of the time available.
The point about the elections I dealt with above, and as for your last point, just as for your first, they can’t mind-read our negotiating position for us, we have to come up with a firm proposal, preferably with a firm decision by parliament (or whatever other means we choose and will stick by) and a timetable attached.
Of course they’re not going to say “We’ll just sit here forever while you make your minds up - but in the meantime you can be half-in and half-out of normal business, just as suits you”, which is what you seem to be asking for - why would they?
Oh, is that what you call your current lively antics over there. Does make them sound a little more dignified, I’ll give you that.
Not that we in our glass house on this side of the pond have a whole lot of leeway to be throwing stones at other feckless democracies, I’ll give you that too.
Because it’s better than the alternative. What do you think the EU has to gain from a no-deal Brexit? Because unless May’s deal gets voted for (it won’t) that is what will happen.
There is nothing stopping us from revoking A50 other than the stubborness (and delusions) of our government. Parliament has had multiple opportunities to remove May but has chosen not to. What more do you expect the EU to do, annex the UK and take control?
Stop pretending that you’re concerned about the EU. The EU has already been, and continues to be, damaged by Brexit. At some point they have to cut their losses and just let us go. Unlike the UK they have prepared for Brexit and can therefore deal with most of the issues arising from it. It’s the UK that will suffer, but that is entirely the UK’s fault. We should have voted remain, but even if you accept the vote to leave our government should have been prepared after 3 years, but instead they’ve let the nutters argue and done nothing. Trying to blame the EU for not saving us is childish.
Switching the subject to the general to avoid the specific when debating with posters who hold those same views, makes the group insult indistinguishable from the person insult.
This is a warning for personal insults. If you, in your outer voice, are cognizant that things may be against the rules of the forum, my suggestion is to restrain them to your inner voice.
Up until the point they refused to grant the necessary extension I would have agreed, but since then they’ve made it clear that their precious elections are more important than the economic and political health of the whole of Europe, which is equally petty and childish.
The UK leaving will harm the EU more than it staying in, therefore the EU should do whatever it can to keep the UK in it. I truly don’t understand why anyone is disagreeing with this.
Grant the requested extension, and stop making things conditionalon holding European elections. Then grant any further extensions requested, so that the UK can in practice only leave by deliberate action, not inaction.
This might leave things in limbo for years, but so what? That’s still better than leaving, especially without a deal.
Here’s a question related to the advisory (that is non-compulsory) nature of the referendum. If we posit an alternate universe in which the referendum came back with a “Remain” result, and UKIP gained a majority in Parliament, would PM Farage have been able to invoke Article 50 unilaterally, on the grounds that the referendum was “advisory?”
Certainty, for one. There are and have been several companies that have complained about a lack of certainty in the political situation and what it is costing them. There is no “business as usual” when the can is repeatedly kicked down the road a few weeks at a time with no end in sight.
With a hard exit, they have a definite situation and can deal with it as best they can. With repeated delays and no firm idea what the exit will look like, they can’t plan even a month ahead without significant risk if their projections are incorrect.
Leaving things in limbo has a real cost of billions (in euros, dollars, or pounds, take your pick) to the relevant economies. There’s a real argument such loss is not better than having no deal for weeks, months, or years without end.
There would have had to be an Act of Parliament authorising him to do so, just as there was authorising May to do so. One would assume that a Parliament that had confidence in Farage as leader would pass such an act, though.
Well stop kicking it a few weeks down the road, when that’s not what was requested, then.
But the certainty of something bad is not better than uncertainty which may lead to a better outcome. The problems at the moment would be magnified tenfold under a no-deal Brexit.
Please do not use the pejorative slur “retard” or variants in this fashion. While not as socially verboten as other slurs, I think it would be better to avoid such usage.
Anyway, today’s Parliamentary business is unusual even by recent standards. The House voted earlier to wrest control of the order of business for today from government, and pass it to Members.
What is happening is that there will be indicative votes! This is an attempt to clarify what members will actually vote for. Sixteen motions were proposed, and the Speaker has selected these eight:
They are currently debating these motions, and at 7pm the House will recess and MPs will - on green paper ballots, unusually - indicate which options they would be prepared to support. The results will be known around 9pm. The next step, well, I dunno.
Also today, the Speaker firmly reminded the Government that if the Meaningful Vote is to return to the House for a third time, then it has to meet his change criteria ie not be a tarted up version of the last one.