Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Ludicus]

Fresh news,Brexit: Labour will back amendment for second ... - The Guardian
...says Corbyn.

[Malcolm Tucker]

Fresh news,Brexit: Labour will back amendment for second ... - The Guardian
...says Corbyn.

The Labour leadership might, but Corbyn has been damaged by the resignations and there are plenty of leavers on his side of the Commons. As much as I would like to see it, I can't see remain commanding a majority. The only thing that would get a majority would probably be legislation against leaving without a deal.

[Elmetiacos]

The Labour leadership might, but Corbyn has been damaged by the resignations and there are plenty of leavers on his side of the Commons.

There are seven of them, plus Frank Field who no longer sits as Labour.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

So a fundamental shift has taken place in May's Brexit policy:

The prime minister is preparing a dramatic shift in her Brexit policy, namely an announcement that if her reworked Brexit deal is not passed by MPs on or before 12 March she will shortly afterwards give MPs a binding vote on whether or not to go ahead with a no-deal Brexit on 29 March.
This would be seen by many as a significant u-turn - because she will promise to abide by the will of Parliament, and thereby admit that a significant Brexit delay may be necessary.
As of Monday there was still uncertainty among her colleagues whether she would press the button on the volte face and put it to her Cabinet on Tuesday morning - where it will cause a furious row between Brexiters and Remainers.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-02-25/...-for-29-march/

May is potentially (Anything can happen of course) going to remove a 'no deal brexit' legally from Britain's options. On the one hand, this is smart as Britain now physically cannot be prepared for such a scenario without significant disruption due to lack of time (We will not have key trade deals signed, there is physically not enough shipping available for the date for the immediate short term to ensure key goods and services are maintained etc, there are also divisions over the 'type' of no-deal in the Conservative party- The Tariffs debate, which for the Conservatives is as a divisive issue as the EU has always been has reared its head, with some advocating protectionism, while others arguing for the dropping of all tariffs to cope).

On the other hand though. As it is certain that Parliament will take 'no-deal' off the table due to the arithmetic, the money spend so far on the entirely inadequate preparations has been squandered for nothing more than May trying to intimidate MP's into her position. A costly failure honestly as even this move shows she was not prepared to shoulder the blame of the 'no-deal' fallout (and remember as mentioned, even general economic shifts can and will be attributed to such an event, as well as the real economic cost and as i see it, it being one of two brexit options that might actually have electoral consequences that are significant, the other being remain).

The political reasons though i suspect is that May hopes that 'her' deal will get through now as the ERG and 'hard' brexiters will be forced to essentially vote for her or risk 'no brexit at all'.

Lets see what happens today with this move then, i think it likely she'll get it through Cabinet, it is mostly a so-called 'soft brexit' or remain dominated Cabinet. However, i'm not willing to bet money just yet .

So if this goes ahead (and currently its very likely given the threat of a collapsed government...again... and also that its still even with the ERG highly unlikely her deal will pass as thus far at least, there have been no significant changes to areas of contention, and even if the backstop was, it was not the only problem cited for many), we're looking at brexit becoming about May's Deal, A significant delay for a new deal (Probable), or no brexit at all.

[Daruwind]

What I find more interesting is now changing position in relations to Brussel.

May is so far using fear of "no deal" scenario to push her deal but as soon as that possible black scenario is off table. What will be the alternatives? Parliament will not cancel article 50, "no deal" will be off so only option is May´s deal or delay. With her deal still having major issue for UK politics, only available option is "delay option". And now the interesting part is EU. There were a lot comments lately that if UK is asking for extension, it should be like till 2021. Good luck for May to trying to secure short time extension. EU can easily force Uk into this long extenstion due to time constraint. Asking after 12th March for extension, which needs agreement from all EU27...just saying accept this long delay offer or enjoy no deal Brexit which you just a moments ago put off the table....

Any such long term delay basically saying off May, Uk, you should get your politics together and try once more later. This would be in my eyes political end of May. Basically nothing was accomplished, UK looking like idiot...Enough time for GE or Second referendum because I honestly have no idea how this general discussion can be solved in UK.

EDIT: There would be one good point as result of this. It would return "brexit" question/discussion back into UK domestic area for time being without imminent consequences...Basically doing what UK tried to skip. Having home discussion and getting nation wide agreemenent for long term future. Staying/leaving/change relationship to EU...

[Malcolm Tucker]

There are seven of them, plus Frank Field who no longer sits as Labour.

There were also six who abstained. Perhaps the continued rejection of May's deal and the looming threat of no deal at all will get them to follow the party whip.

[Daruwind]

There were also six who abstained. Perhaps the continued rejection of May's deal and the looming threat of no deal at all will get them to follow the party whip.

This may work only as long as people believe the threat is real possibility...

And what´s worse. May was using fear of No Deal even to leverage EU....quess what will happen as soon now as May loses that leverage. Afer all, UK was never ever "really preparing" for Hard Brexit. Almost looks like May knows whole time...

[Malcolm Tucker]

This may work only as long as people believe the threat is real possibility...

And what´s worse. May was using fear of No Deal even to leverage EU....quess what will happen as soon now as May loses that leverage. Afer all, UK was never ever "really preparing" for Hard Brexit. Almost looks like May knows whole time...

It's also an incredibly disrespectful strategy to use against nations who are meant to be some of our closest allies.

[Daruwind]

It's also an incredibly disrespectful strategy to use against nations who are meant to be some of our closest allies.

EDIT: sorry I probably interpreted your comment in opposite way. Like Uk being punish by mean EU... In that case sorry sir!

Then maybe act like close ally and don´t try to piss off all friends around.

See, I wish all well to British people. It is their right to decide nation future or solve their own internal discussions. We were better allies (Winning WWII, RAF - Czech/Polish pilotes?) we had some hiccups (Munich Agreement for Czechoslovaks? ) but each friendship has ups and downs...

I´m from Czech Republic. For me, as member of EU27, is for example very disrespectful strategy to basically play dice with our/EU economy. UK comments like we don´t need EU we will be the island between EU and USA, let´s be independent globat trade empire once again...are also not very helpful. Uk has all right to use "Britannia first" trump style but don´t be surprise while a lot smaller countries in EU will be pissed off. It is called good diplomacy. UK is lacking in that department lately. Especially if Uk is giving up good relationship with V4 countries in process..

As far as I can see, the main issue is problem in Uk home political system and lack of wide discussion. But this is influencing all others around. Cameron tried Referendum, totally blew it up. May triggered article 50 without real strategy and we are seeing it crashing now. So stop blaming EU..EU is not perfect but it has to protect the interest of EU27 first THEN is Britain.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

What I find more interesting is now changing position in relations to Brussel.

May is so far using fear of "no deal" scenario to push her deal but as soon as that possible black scenario is off table. What will be the alternatives? Parliament will not cancel article 50, "no deal" will be off so only option is May´s deal or delay. With her deal still having major issue for UK politics, only available option is "delay option". And now the interesting part is EU. There were a lot comments lately that if UK is asking for extension, it should be like till 2021. Good luck for May to trying to secure short time extension. EU can easily force Uk into this long extenstion due to time constraint. Asking after 12th March for extension, which needs agreement from all EU27...just saying accept this long delay offer or enjoy no deal Brexit which you just a moments ago put off the table....

Any such long term delay basically saying off May, Uk, you should get your politics together and try once more later. This would be in my eyes political end of May. Basically nothing was accomplished, UK looking like idiot...Enough time for GE or Second referendum because I honestly have no idea how this general discussion can be solved in UK.

EDIT: There would be one good point as result of this. It would return "brexit" question/discussion back into UK domestic area for time being without imminent consequences...Basically doing what UK tried to skip. Having home discussion and getting nation wide agreemenent for long term future. Staying/leaving/change relationship to EU...

I think this is the thing- its expected that at minimum May is going to ask for a 3 month extension from the EU, and the EU expects this- that's enough time to do a GE or Second Referendum, especially indeed if as everyone suspects today May will take 'No deal' off the table (Hence the entirely inadequate illusion of preparation can be stopped and resources concentrated elsewhere)

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/gov...elay-to-brexit

At the same time, May is effectively done now-

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-ministers-say

Instead of standing down just before the next GE. The Cabinet want her gone in 3 months. They want her to step down after the local council elections in May this year. So she's effectively finished as a political power, hence also partly why i think she is taking 'no deal' off the table now. Her legacy is now a lot closer than it was going to be, she does not want her successor to be able to blame all the problems of a no-deal brexit on her (as it would be politically very easy) and thus she is removing that option (there are a lot of other reasons, but i suspect this is partly why).

So its likely 'no-deal' is finally (as it should have been from the start when article 50 was activated with no real preparation) dead as a political option, and partly again it is indeed UK domestic politics dictating things. Luckily it seems the EU is mostly on board with a delay (for now at least). It will also give time for this-

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...VRcbRzdr4O_jxg

So while Labour has been playing a balancing act (politically understandable and sensible, though very frustrating for people on all sides of the debate) of purposefully giving mixed messages on their brexit stance (Their unifying option was potentially just as politically impossible as May's), they are now essentially walking towards a 'credible deal or remain' (as is clarified from earlier comments).

If this becomes the touted line (it might not as before), then its clear we're essentially heading for 'remain'. As a 'credible deal' is hugely subjective and if Labour were clever they could play party politics with that point all parliament long, keeping the Tories off-balance while also avoiding any blame themselves (IF done right of course). (Personally i will comment relief here, as if we were to brexit, damn right i want proper preparation, a strong economic and political base beforehand for a sustainable post-brexit policy and a strategy that avoids the many pitfalls of the UK's current position going into it where we are being essentially taken for a ride by trading partners who quite fairly are exploiting our current and short/mid term weakness for their own benefit).

[lolIsuck]

As much as I would like to see it, I can't see remain commanding a majority. The only thing that would get a majority would probably be legislation against leaving without a deal.

There doesn't need to be a majority for Remain, there has to be a majority for a second referendum which has Remain as an option. It is clear the Commons won't pick Remain (or anything really) by itself, that is something the British public has to do.

[Greyblades]

In a way I think we brexiteers should thank May. By dragging her heels as blatantly as she has; the argument that the EU is immoveable has become less convincing now as it was in 2016. We can just point to Trump's dealings with the EU at the same time and say "see how easy it is when the leader is not a complete pushover as May was"

A more competent PM might have been able to shift blame from his failure onto the very premise of brexit, May only proved what a massive mistake it is to ever allow a remain supporting politician to take the reins of power. I dare say the last two years has given leave's campaign more than enough ammunition to see off any threat of a second referendum.

[Love Mountain]

In a way I think we brexiteers should thank May. By dragging her heels as blatantly as she has; the argument that the EU is immoveable has become less convincing now as it was in 2016. We can just point to Trump's dealings with the EU at the same time and say "see how easy it is when the leader is not a complete pushover as May was"

A more competent PM might have been able to shift blame from his failure onto the very premise of brexit, May only proved what a massive mistake it is to ever allow a remain supporting politician to take the reins of power. I dare say the last two years has given leave's campaign more than enough ammunition to see off any threat of a second referendum.

This goes against common wisdom. Care to enlighten us?

[Greyblades]

Yes, what you call common wisdom is actually the same echo chamber born wordview that lost the referendum in the first place, likely overlapped with the echochamber born worldview that lost the 2016 american election.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

In a way I think we brexiteers should thank May. By dragging her heels as blatantly as she has; the argument that the EU is immoveable has become less convincing now as it was in 2016. We can just point to Trump's dealings with the EU at the same time and say "see how easy it is when the leader is not a complete pushover as May was"

A more competent PM might have been able to shift blame from his failure onto the very premise of brexit, May only proved what a massive mistake it is to ever allow a remain supporting politician to take the reins of power. I dare say the last two years has given leave's campaign more than enough ammunition to see off any threat of a second referendum.

Honestly, i'm not sure here. I'm personally doubting we'll even get to second referendum territory (Though most opinion polls are now showing a clear majority for remain, what everyone seems to forget is that actually the brexit results were 'within the margin of error' for political polling. People like to whine on remain or about GE's that the 'polls failed them', the truth is they didn't, they did their job. What failed was that being in the 'margin of error' for either side is a bad place to be and is something where you should expect you might lose). The more likely scenario is that again given the vote never leading to a sustainable policy due to lack of compromise, that the next GE (Which will likely be called to settle this mess) will see 'remain' as the default option. As we saw in 2017, a 'Brexit-based GE' does not work, domestic issues for the majority of the country trump remain or leave, thus brexit will be more than likely sidelined for the foreseeable future. It might reoccur down the line, however i think that the brexit referendum has done is made MP's on all sides incredibly wary of holding a referendum on a complex issue. Thus to achieve a similar brexit, you will first have to change the UK's political system through political reform to FPTP to a more representative and directly democratic model, and away from the 'managed democracy' it currently is.

However, that is an option that traditionally the British public are not particularly in favour of. So essentially it'll be an uphill struggle to get PR (Something which i'd support) first and then to see if an anti-EU alliance forms from the candidates and parties voted in on that model.

Also just as a general note I hope no one would ever look at the USA and its dealing with the EU and compare that to how Britain could be... the USA is a Super power. The UK is resting on its laurels as a 'great power', despite the fact that an increasingly multipolar world is fast rendering the 'Great Power' second tier terminology as irrelevant. Regardless though of technical terms, the UK could not dream of wielding the hard and soft power the USA can and does in its negotiations. The EU-US relationship is fascinating, and is essentially one between two economic equals, though hard-power tips the equation in the USA's favour typically as does the lack of EU unity in foreign policy. Its one of close allies but also geopolitical rivals, paradoxically navigating a turbulent relationship. Its something the UK could only aspire to with a multiplier factor, such as serious Commonwealth behind it (A pipe dream). It was mentioned before, even with the 15 odd years of preparation required to properly prepare for brexit, and an astounding leader and statesmen at the helm (of which we have 0, there is no-one in the front ranks of either party or indeed even in their wings of the qualities needed), the UK would still not get the 'ambitious' deal that was alluded to during the referendum as it was totally unrealistic due to the power-imbalance (not to mention you would still have the gaping wound of a non-sustainable referendum result of which neither side bothered to try and come to some kind of compromise with, so domestic unity at home among Parliament and the electorate is a pipe-dream unless you somehow either fundamentally change the Brexit referendum, and thus result, or you somehow come up with a brexit vision that satisfies a clear and stable majority of the electorate and parliament- bearing in mind FPTP and how that further confuses getting to this goal). The only way it could have happened is if the EU did not present the united front it did and the UK was able to take advantage of internal squabbles...

However that is relying on an outside factors that the UK has no control over. The simple fact is there is very little the UK could do to try and address its power imbalance, beyond seeking a patron among the other 'Great Powers' such as the USA, China or potentially Russia. However all three of those are actually very detrimental relationships for a brexiting UK to be in bed with, and will fundamentally alter the UK economy and social structures in ways politically unacceptable.

Essentially the UK needs to be fundamentally different for our current brexit timeline to have any success For all i dislike May and her incompetence (and i agree she is) there is no viable point in time post-referendum where brexit could realistically be considered a 'success' or achieve what brexiters (fairly) want.

[Greyblades]

The EU caved quickly against what it is supposed to be an equal. Its weak, unstable, fundamentally divided and the UK has control over a good portion of its income it cannot replace without causing further unrest. The main reason we failed is May's government's refusal to even pretend to be willing to walk away.

Yes, May wasted the two years, we'd be better off extending and renegociating but that requires a government that can be trusted to actually do thier damn jobs and such a givernment doesnt inhabit westminster, any extension will be wasted by whichever remainer the party replaces may with and we'd be back here again in 3 months.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

The EU caved quickly against what it is supposed to be an equal. Its weak, unstable, fundamentally divided and the UK has control over a good portion of its income it cannot replace without causing further unrest. The main reason we failed is May's government's refusal to even pretend to be willing to walk away.

Not remotely. The EU and USA is not as i mentioned quite an 'equal' The USA still enjoys significant advantages over the EU and thus has an upper hand in negotiations. Its a complex and very interesting relationship.

The EU SHOULD be fundamentally divided indeed. But as we've seen the EU has presented a united front to Britain during the brexit process, despite what has actually been to be fair, Britains best efforts to create division. The key issue is that 'Brexit' is for most EU memberstates more of an opportunity for them potentially than it is an issue, either directly (Belgium, France, Germany and Spain who stand to have a direct political or economic benefit) or indirectly (though the EU being a more important market/source of political legitimacy or economic strength than a post-brexit UK could ever hope to replace.

The UK is indeed a paying member state. The fact though that this has been touted as some great 'card' to play has shown just how weak the UK's actual negotiating position is, its about as weak as when some claim that because we 'buy German cars' we have significant influence as a consumer over the EU... both are desperate moves and have little actual clout as we've seen. Again Britain fundamentally misunderstanding that the EU can take an economic hit far more easily than Britain can. The EU's key concern is its stability, it can and will sacrifice its economic interests upon that altar. If it means the EU budget needs to be rejigged, it'll do it. If it means as currently the EU accepts a greater say from its member-states over policy (for instance as currently over EU enforced company amalgamation) it will. Its flexible to stay alive and always has been.

Britain on the other hand could never afford this. Domestically we are still reeling from mismanaged austerity that exacerbates pre-existing structural issues in our economy. We are no where near in a healthy position to tackle brexit as a successful enterprise, even with a Blair or Thatcher tier statesman at the helm.

Economic concerns were paramount (again partly due to a non-sustainable result), and stupidly was what both sides based their legitimacy on. Thus any negative impact from brexit is potentially ruin for the group who carried it out and also the concept. It was absolutely terrible political planning. It also means that any knocks from the upcoming recession can and will be blamed no doubt on brexit. The sheer incompetence of our political class over this is astounding honestly from both sides of the referendum divide.

So in no world can even a well-led UK divide the EU. The EU and its member states have too much to gain- they can either force Britain to stay, or they can all benefit in some way from our departure directly or indirectly- hence no scope for us to play what should have been the strong card and create division. The ironic fact is that on our current timeline it is the UK suffering the huge internal divisions- and that all stems from the result and the referendum, not anything post-referendum. Their literally is nothing to be done unless we time-travel back to before Cameron announces a referendum and both sides then have to completely replan how they will argue and what they will base their legitimacy on.

EDIT: Sorry i missed your edit above mate. Your partly right, Any May extension is pointless if she is at the helm renegotiating her deal, its why we're likely now to end up pending a major shake-up (which might happen) with just simply remaining after all this.

The issue being to oust May and the current Conservative government, you need a GE. What the 2017 GE taught the Tories is that you cannot make a GE about just brexit. FPTP literally forces it to be a broad-spectrum debate, and those who are not really brexiteers and remainers but do care about domestic or local issues hold sway as we saw last time with austerity, social care and welfare being the key battling issues, brexit was effectively sidelined, seen by how well Labour did by simply not talking about brexit at all. So a GE will not lead to the clear 'brexit' parliament needed, current polling indicates it might actually make things even murkier.

For brexit to have a hope of success there is a list of things that need to be addressed, even prior to the actual brexit referendum-

1) Economic recuperation- Britain has not done this, our economy and economic stability are pretty much shot to pieces. There are varying reasons beyond merely the mismanagement of austerity for this. This essentially is a bad time to be undergoing brexit when you have a crisis of private debt (which compared to public debt is an economy killer), issues surrounding wealth inequality, rising working poverty (despite high employment),a cost of living crisis that has actually never really been tackled and a completely unbalanced economy to name a few. The ageing population is also a real issue due to the way the UK handles public debt. Brexit currently has wiped out the minimal 'saving' austerity did actually do- so we're stuck with an economy stripped to the bone, in a low skilled consumer based economy where credit is becoming an issue and no growth so to speak. I'll link later the latest report, but essentially the Conservatives austerity wiped out £100 billion from growth that we could have had, if they hadn't gone economically illiterate with things.

2) Reformed political system based on PR- if you want a referendum result to have any actual meaning beyond what those in Westminster want to construe it as, you need to circumvent FPTP. May's deal can pass tomorrow, we could be in the single market etc and the government who did it can sit back with little fear of any significant consequences. Remain or no-deal might have electoral consequences, but that's it.

3)Referendum Campaigns- The Leave campaign made the mistake of going 'anything to win' coming up with unicorn arguments that could never be delivered upon regarding economics, budgets, Free trade deals- all were fantasy land, the Remain campaign when full into the economic sphere and completely botched it as frankly the government had done a shite job on the economy up until then, it was stupid ground to try and fight on. The issue here is both sides though tied economic health to brexit...really bad mistake. As for the winner, any economic downturn or knock can and will be blamed (or spun) as their fault, undermining any legitimacy for the result. This was made worse when your promises were pipe-dreams or nightmares. Total incompetence here by both sides.

4)The Result- This produced a non-sustainable result that fundamentally divided the UK. This result alone will not see the UK either stably remain (Farage comments) or leave for any length of time. There are almost 0 electoral consequences due to FPTP and 'voter fatigue'. It meant also that all sides of the referendum could twist the result to mean what they wanted. This is important when an issue with the referendum was that FPTP parties were fighting on a simple platform for a complex issues- these layers mean that factionalism and competing visions of brexit (especially as neither side had any actual plan for it) were a dead cert from the day of the result. Fundamentally further weakning the remain-leave close vote into different splinter groups.
How do you make this stable? You could try and create a compromise- no one bothered to try that (Which was stupid), but honestly in a FPTP context is was kind of pointless to try anyway as party politics and faction politics came to the fore. I actually cannot see a way you make this vote sustainable and stable in the current British system- hence the need for step 2. What you do not do though is further divide these factions by being a complete moron (May, Boris and the Brexiteer press) and call those with a different opinion 'traitors' or 'betrayers' blah blah. That was of all things the epitome of political stupidity if you actually wanted any hope of delivering brexit. But again that was as party and faction politics reasserted themselves.

Do not build on 'Will of the People'- I cannot stress this enough, but it is the shakiest ground politically to ever do something. Its completely stupid to ever use that as a key argument as the Will of the People can and does change and more importantly can be spun to be perceived to change. You effectively allow your opponents to have a tool to also beat you up with equally, if not more so than you can hurt them. A really silly thing to do.

This result and the way it was handled mean we will rejoin the EU in the near future even if we did leave, membership will be political football and a referendum will not be considered, it could just come off the back of a GE where FPTP dilutes the issue.

5)Article 50... do not activate it until you have a sustainable plan and a coherent way forward with a clear majority of the electorate and parliament behind it. Certainly do not leave when you have made 0 economic preparation. Most experts put leaving the EU as a 15 odd year process. Do not think you know better than experts.

6) Do not attempt to hide the fact that prematurely activating article 50 has ed over brexit even more by hiding the brexit process from parliament and attempting to govern by underhand measures- it further polarizes on faction lines an already divided parliament and electorate.

7) Do not use brexit to try and sneak in human rights and working protections changes that you know will not ever be politically acceptable under normal scrutiny- see above

-There's more about how to not desperately seek trade deals from the USA and China too early, but apparently even doing ones with Japan and South Korea is fraught with difficulty- but i hope that would be covered in the 'do not rush leaving when abysmally weak'- negotiations will always be an uphill struggle, but by leaving so early and indeed having a non-sustainable referendum result as base the UK is indeed already being taken for a ride by most other states. Signing short-term transitional deals have been hard enough, all these will then be negotiated after leaving to the advantage of the other side. Also it goes without saying, actually have enough trained negotiators to strike deals, and be realistic, FTA's take years to complete normally and that's with a huge staff of experienced negotiators.

Now a lot of this is indeed the Conservative's fault , but a fair chunk was to do with the referendum itself and circumstances before and during it. This is even without going into the issues of doing brexit in a growing multipolar world where a return to protectionism appears to be happening from all major blocks. Its like the 1880s 'Great Depression' as Britain waves the flag of free trade, while everyone else tells us to piss off. Luckily we had a premade block to sustain us in the form of the empire and dominions. This time though, we're not so lucky, but we're still just as incompetently led.

[Greyblades]

Not remotely. The EU and USA is not as i mentioned quite an 'equal' The USA still enjoys significant advantages over the EU and thus has an upper hand in negotiations. Its a complex and very interesting relationship.

Hence why I said "supposed to be". As much as the EU boasts equal economic power to the US they are incapable of sustaining the political will to resist for even a season.

The EU SHOULD be fundamentally divided indeed. But as we've seen the EU has presented a united front to Britain during the brexit process, despite what has actually been to be fair, Britains best efforts to create division. The key issue is that 'Brexit' is for most EU memberstates more of an opportunity for them potentially than it is an issue, either directly (Belgium, France, Germany and Spain who stand to have a direct political or economic benefit) or indirectly (though the EU being a more important market/source of political legitimacy or economic strength than a post-brexit UK could ever hope to replace.

Britains best efforts?

I fear you'll have to explain this, when I think best efforts I think of backroom dealings, bypassing the EU and proposing trade deals with the council members themselves, efforts to leverage the conflicts between France and Italy, Germany and Hungary, Germany and Poland. I dont think Theresa May has even been to hungary.

I have seen little to no evidence of this in two years, merely constant vistations with EU die hards like france and germany. They didnt even attempt to capitalize on Trump's push for gods sake. You'd think Divide and conquer would be our forte, alas not any more.

The UK is indeed a paying member state. The fact though that this has been touted as some great 'card' to play has shown just how weak the UK's actual negotiating position is, its about as weak as when some claim that because we 'buy German cars' we have significant influence as a consumer over the EU... both are desperate moves and have little actual clout as we've seen. Again Britain fundamentally misunderstanding that the EU can take an economic hit far more easily than Britain can. The EU's key concern is its stability, it can and will sacrifice its economic interests upon that altar. If it means the EU budget needs to be rejigged, it'll do it. If it means as currently the EU accepts a greater say from its member-states over policy (for instance as currently over EU enforced company amalgamation) it will. Its flexible to stay alive and always has been.

That is absurd, the EU's stability is entirely reliant on the will of the contributors to subsidise the non contributing, having to compensate for the loss of a major contributor requires a greater burdens or fewer subsidies. The prospect of distributing this impact among the already discontent member states scares both the EU bureacrats and the Pro EU members of the council, why else do you think the EU constantly demands a 9 figure sum on our departure?

You are right in a way, the EU will survive what comes but there is no way they will come out unscathed without our money, and more importantly there wont be the same people in charge once the dust settles. Thier careers are what we threaten, or would be if we werent lead by donkeys.

Britain on the other hand could never afford this. Domestically we are still reeling from mismanaged austerity that exacerbates pre-existing structural issues in our economy. We are no where near in a healthy position to tackle brexit as a successful enterprise, even with a Blair or Thatcher tier statesman at the helm.

Economic concerns were paramount (again partly due to a non-sustainable result), and stupidly was what both sides based their legitimacy on. Thus any negative impact from brexit is potentially ruin for the group who carried it out and also the concept. It was absolutely terrible political planning. It also means that any knocks from the upcoming recession can and will be blamed no doubt on brexit. The sheer incompetence of our political class over this is astounding honestly from both sides of the referendum divide.

This view depends on how much stock you put into the economic numbers, supposedly we are doing better than any of the other EU states, but I remember the days of Blair where the government regulared the international pawn shop to remain in the black. I dont think either of us believes that May is any less short sighted than blair.

But thats the thing, I voted for brexit knowing from the start it would cost us. I viewed the attempts at negociation as an indulgence, see if the government could get the good without the bad in two years, with some actual leverage, that cameron could not on his own. I voted for a brexit, to be rid of the bad parts of the EU even at the cost of the good and if the conservatives or labour wont deliver such I will turn to whoever else who will. Evolve or Die.

If they cant evolve to this new course I dare say we will be better off for ridding ourselves of those who have for the last 30 years doggedly determined to take turns selling off or demolishing everything our ancestors left us.

So in no world can even a well-led UK divide the EU. The EU and its member states have too much to gain- they can either force Britain to stay, or they can all benefit in some way from our departure directly or indirectly- hence no scope for us to play what should have been the strong card and create division. The ironic fact is that on our current timeline it is the UK suffering the huge internal divisions- and that all stems from the result and the referendum, not anything post-referendum. Their literally is nothing to be done unless we time-travel back to before Cameron announces a referendum and both sides then have to completely replan how they will argue and what they will base their legitimacy on.

They cannot force us to stay. They can hope that our politicians choose to stay, but inevitably even that would be a temporary arrangement. If they gain without us, good for them, it's gotta be a hell of a gain if it equal to our contribution.

I somewhat doubt it's as optimistic for them as you say though, considering the current state of the continent ranges from stagnation to self destructing.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Hence why I said "supposed to be". As much as the EU boasts equal economic power to the US they are incapable of sustaining the political will to resist for even a season.

Tis the nature of having a closely-linked economic bloc without the institutions to turn that into political strength. The ever-question for the EU is will it develop these institutions, i suspect so, but on a two-tier basis to accommodate the pro-fed group and those like the Visegard block, or formally the UK who have a different conception of what the EU should be.

Britains best efforts?

I fear you'll have to explain this, when I think best efforts I think of backroom dealings, bypassing the EU and proposing trade deals with the council members themselves, efforts to leverage the conflicts between France and Italy, Germany and Hungary, Germany and Poland. I dont think Theresa May has even been to hungary.

I have seen little to no evidence of this in two years, merely constant vistations with EU die hards like france and germany. They didnt even attempt to capitalize on Trump's push for gods sake. You'd think Divide and conquer would be our forte, alas not any more.

Indeed, Britain has reached out to controversially to Hungary and also Poland-
https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...usz-morawiecki

We have also reportedly lobbied German manufacturers, been getting cosy to the Czechs, and messing around in the Balkans. The UK hasn't been inactive, the issue has been that for the most part, they don't really care all that much as we have little to offer leaving the EU.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8466066.html

As i said for many the pros outweigh the cons, directly or indirectly. Jumping on the back of Trump is also something i'd argue the UK has attempted, however Trump's America First approach is highly changeable (fairly so) in regards to the UK. One minute US trade officials have officially stated brexit is a great chance to dismantle UK industries in favour of the US, the next when Trump is having a spat with the EU, he'll put us at the front of the que (not that again that's anything Britain wants to be at- historical precedent shows the USA even at its 'fairest' would destroy British standards, protections and economic power if we make an agreement as we are likely to, from a position of weakness post-brexit)- Essentially the USA has been using the UK as a stick with the far more valuable EU markets. Its not a firm footing to build policy, especially as the USA is doing this in comparatively speaking quick-fire disputes with the EU, whereas we are engaged in a long grueling process. So i wouldn't blame the government for all its faults, not hitching onto Trump as it could backfire quite spectacularly for us.

That is absurd, the EU's stability is entirely reliant on the will of the contributors to subsidise the non contributing, having to compensate for the loss of a major contributor requires a greater burdens or fewer subsidies. The prospect of distributing this impact among the already discontent member states scares both the EU bureacrats and the Pro EU members of the council, why else do you think the EU constantly demands a 9 figure sum on our departure?

You are right in a way, the EU will survive what comes but there is no way they will come out unscathed without our money, and more importantly there wont be the same people in charge once the dust settles. Thier careers are what we threaten, or would be if we werent lead by donkeys.

I'm afraid this is a far too simplistic view, and one that alas is far too common on the British side of the argument. EU stability is not merely built on direct financial subsidies. Its built primarily on access to a protectionist market. The subsidies while great, are also ways to expand that market (its your basic growth needs new markets concept), the key though to the entire EU project is living standards. The entire block is set-up to essentially guarantee what a free-marketeers would argue is an artificially high standard of living compared to what should be had. Consistency and ability to 'raise' them. That's also where the issues come today in the wake of the financial crisis and Industry 4.0 (which incidentally as predicted and as national governments are only just finding out, needs an international bloc to tackle its problems as national governments lack the clout to do so sustainably). With that in mind, subsidies become one part of a much larger picture of how stability can be secured (and bearing in mind stability also rests on merely the national level 'going along with' the EU- this dual layers is actually pretty effective thus far). In the absence of UK funds there is a gap, but there are many ways to deal with this, as you said, raise subsidies, or lower spending, likewise rely on deficit financing, restructure the system (Three tier membership, rights and responsibilities), heck i'd advocate that the EU actually discard the recent expansion members (Expanded at the UK's behest before we then got cold feet about the immigration aspect) and fall-back on the core federal members. France-Germany alone is a European continent dominator (its why my mind boggles at those who say the EU is a German domination project, Germany does not need the EU to dominate Europe, all it needs is France to be joined with it, something that was the original intent behind the Coal and Steel pact for the two powers).

Threatening the EU will not work. When we are talking about no-deal brexit as implied here (As again if the UK backs out of paying the EU anything, we'd have an even harder time forging trade deals than we already are) its not a case of 'ha ha the EU will still be hurt'- sure they would, but they can cope, you rightly identify this. Britain on the other hand cannot, a no-deal brexit would have long-term ramifications for the UK's political and economic structure. Sure worst-case the EU sheds some members, for us, the UK fundamentally changes for the worse due to lack of preparation and the subsequent economic hardship will delegitimize the concept of brexit, meaning we promptly rejoin at the next GE as very few people, even on the leave voting side are prepared to shoulder that, especially as the Leave campaign was built on the promise of short-term economic prosperity. This is something that needed to be addressed years before article 50 was even thought about being activated.

This outcome would still suit the EU though, they'll take a hit, Britain takes a far worse one- stability is ensured as a 'lesson' is shown to wavering members. Likewise Britain's payment isn't just because the EU wants to in the short-term plug the budget, its also a statement of leaving not being 'easy'.

This view depends on how much stock you put into the economic numbers, supposedly we are doing better than any of the other EU states, but I remember the days of Blair where the government regulared the international pawn shop to remain in the black. I dont think either of us believes that May is any less short sighted than blair.

But thats the thing, I voted for brexit knowing from the start it would cost us. I viewed the attempts at negociation as an indulgence, see if the government could get the good without the bad in two years, with some actual leverage, that cameron could not on his own. I voted for a brexit, to be rid of the bad parts of the EU even at the cost of the good and if the conservatives or labour wont deliver such I will turn to whoever else who will. Evolve or Die.

If they cant evolve to this new course I dare say we will be better off for ridding ourselves of those who have for the last 30 years doggedly determined to take turns selling off or demolishing everything our ancestors left us.

Not just numbers alas, but actual suffering. Britain in modern memory has not had this 'perfect storm' of current and potential problems stacked against it, not even during the 1970s and the OPEC oil crisis. Its been an absolute blunder.

I respect your position, but do not share it. I fail to see the point of taking an economic hit for little to no gain. A multipolar world combined with digitalization actively limits traditional sovereignty regardless, indeed in response to the latter and the current industrial revolution it ironically is transnational institutions that are the only things able to potentially alleviate the power of multinational companies and arrest the negative consequences of globalization. So you are right in terms of evolve or die, but we're not evolving alas.

The issue with your stance here though is that i assume your in favour of just walking away- that could never have happened and brexit have any kind of longevity- the referendum result saw to that. So that was essentially 'off the table' the minute the brexiteers opened their mouths about 'economic benefits' and the result came in 52-48, Let alone the fiasco with immediately activating article 50. While you i'm sure will accept a negative economic impact, and i respect your belief there, the majority of even brexiteers will not. My parents i've mentioned before are pro-brexit diehards. They though are against 'no deal' or anything that creates a negative economic impact. This is the issue there is no 'one' vision that commands a mandate, each one currently will see brexit essentially scrapped in a couple of years if followed through with. The problem thus isn't just May. It was the referendum (and not any stuff about illegal funding or lying, but simply from incompetent politics from both sides).

So i get you've waited 30 years for this, but in the current brexit timeline your ideal is not viable at any point, (just as mine isn't now ) you'd have to time-travel to get the Referendum groups to campaign very differently and then deal with the mandate in a very different way as i've stated before.

You've sort of indeed here alluded to the real issue- for your brexit to ever be remotely possible and politically sustainable as policy- you would need to ditch FPTP and reform Britain's parliamentary system for reasons we've discussed. That's something to be done way before even considering having a referendum on brexit. The issue here being though that even with PR (or specifically because of PR) now that citizens views count for a lot more politically, you would also have an equally hard-time selling a 'brexit at all costs' approach, when its clear the population is going to be so polarized into broadly 4 camps, but in practice far more. Thus all factions need to scrap their preconceived notions and find a compromise position, otherwise no one will get anything- a brexit approach needs to protects jobs, living standards, protections and the economy but delivers brexit too in terms of independent foreign policy..the issue being for all this, complete lack of preperation physically for it (let alone politically) has marred all attempts alongside FPTP tribalism.

They cannot force us to stay. They can hope that our politicians choose to stay, but inevitably even that would be a temporary arrangement.

Not really, again going back to how Brexit was billed- it has to be nothing less than a resounding success to shore up its wonky legitimacy now (Wonky for being built on economic grounds influenced by a myriad of non-brexit factors). If it falls short, it becomes as it will- political football, rejoining at the next few GE cycles, back and forth potentially. Just as Farage feared it would in his prediction on the night.

EDIT:

Apologies again mate, i keep missing your edits - i'm in need of my beauty sleep i think To reply to your last point-

If they gain without us, good for them, it's gotta be a hell of a gain if it equal to our contribution.

I somewhat doubt it's as optimistic for them as you say though, considering the current state of the continent ranges from stagnation to self destructing.

I don't personally think they will make-up the short-fall easily, but then they don't have to. All they have to do is in the event of the UK refusing to pay whatever sum is agreed, or indeed in the case of a 'hard brexit' is show that the UK is suffering far worse than them (And as mentioned that has a direct impact on brexits legitimacy among the British electorate due to how the referendum was fought and how most mainstream leave factions have extolled brexit as being economically beneficial), which we will be. As i said its more than just about the subsidy budget.

Also i'd caveat that with i'm not being optimistic for the EU's future . I think that they'll eventually kick out a fair few Eastern and Southern European member states who are not enthusiastic about the EU. What's interesting for instance is we've currently botched brexit up so badly that even states who are in open confrontation with the EU like Hungary and to a lesser extent Poland have little interest in actively following the UK in the mid-term.

However i also think that would be directly beneficial for the EU to lose members. As i mentioned providing France-Germany and the core pro-EU countries remain, which likely they will its a certainty that they can dominate Europe economically and politically. They don't need the EU in its current form to do that, indeed is something of a hindrance to that (by design) giving states that would otherwise be dominated a voice and some means of alleviating the balance of power. But if we're talking 'pure' geopolitics here, a streamlined EU who all are on board with federalization is far more preferable to the current lumbering multi-tier model. The EU expanded too fast, too quickly and without sufficient planning- the Euro is a key example. If your going to have a shared currency, you need a shared fiscal policy at transnational level. So i do see the EU shrinking in size, but the outlier states who have left/been kicked will not enjoy a sudden burst of sovereignty or independence, but will either still be under the EU's shadow, or as is happening now, Under China's aegis, or potentially Russia's (Arctic drilling is something to watch here as this will be a future flash-point and is partly why the 'west' has sanctioned Russia- its not just aimed at Ukraine, but also to slow down Russian exploitation of its Arctic zone, which potentially could change Russia's entire economy- world conditions for oil and minerals permitting).

EDIT EDIT: Just so i'm not accused of being sloppy (It has happened before), but when i reference why a no-deal would be so much worse for Britain than the EU, i'm not just talking about the short term (or indeed the issues we now have with several WTO members who are blocking our schedules) economic hit in terms of GDP, prices etc- though that will happen, but for me the real danger is the longer term consequences. Politically and economically the UK will be severely weakened and forced to quickly seek and sign trade deals from a quite frankly terrible position. Post-brexit we're going to be weak anyway (as currently seen with the demands for trade deals from states who ostensibly are our 'equal' or indeed who usually could not command such terms- in some cases it actually looks like unless we're willing to sacrifice levels of standards and working protections, we're going to have far fewer trade deals than we would if we had stayed in the EU), but a no-deal UK will be forced to sign away far more, as the CBI has warned a deal normally with the US (based on their historical precedents) will see the end of British business due to scale, but in a no-deal context we'll be seeing fundamental changes to NHS investment, legal structures for foreign businesses and standards and protections. It makes brexit pointless if anyone was ever interested in sovereignty or genuinely making the UK a better place post-brexit. It in the long-term will cripple us. Now of course there is a minority of a minority of brexiters who want this exactly, the tout the 'Singapore model' as the goal (without realizing Singapore relies a lot on direct government intervention...and regardless is not compatible with the UK economy remotely), but the reason for this is that such a scale of change to a more libertarian model would never be a winning vote, among the electorate, or even parliament, there is a reason they are a minority of a minority . Worse such an approach exacerbates the UK's existing economic problems, both current and structural.

So its a fundamentally undemocratic and imposed from above concept. It domestically and in terms of the economy, no-deal will see the UK in short and long terms suffering from both economic issues and imposed social restructuring. Its more than enough in terms of the EU (who again will also take a hit) to sit back and feel satisfied they've made their point and ensured stability- as we've already seen those states who were kicking up a fuss about potentially leaving, since brexit have died down significantly.

[Daruwind]

https://www.politico.eu/article/macr...xit-extension/

I think those voices will keep getting louder and louder as UK will vote "no deal" off the table. Reason like GE, Second Referendum....basically anything that cannot be done in 3 months. It will also locked UK for EU parliament elections and basically be political end of May..

Just my thoughts:
May´s deal - still not acceptable for majority
No deal - if voted off table = also not acceptable for majority
revoke article - not really option, no majority for it..

this leaving only extension for current situation however there is no clear vision what to achieve next after that basically there is no majotirty for any plan, just against every plan. May is not getting any new progress in Brussel so her deal will be same for next three months.. Thus probably UK will be forced into longer extension period.