Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Muizer]

Did May not say she wanted an extension of no more than 2 months? Let's see, that would indeed mean ............... the end of May.

[caratacus]

This is beyond ridiculous, it's scandalous!
As a so called "emergency measure" a £13 million pound contract is awarded to a company with no experience to run a ferry service, nor a ferry to undertake one, is cancelled weeks before it is needed. Fortunately though, little of this money is handed over before a financial partner in the project pulls out and the idea is scrapped.

Now weeks after, Eurotunnel a competitor, who had launched a legal case against the Government over the way the contract was awarded, is offered a £33 million out of court settlement, more than twice the sum of this badly conceived contract.

UK government pays £33m to Eurotunnel over "secretive" handling of no-deal Brexit ferry contracts
Eurotunnel has withdrawn its legal claim after reaching the agreement
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...unnel-14071573
The UK government has had to pay £33m to Eurotunnel after accusation of "secretive" process over no-deal Brexit ferry contracts.
Eurotunnel has withdrawn its legal claim against the Department for Transport over post-Brexit ferry contracts after reaching the financial agreement, the Government said today.

The plan was to guard against no-deal Brexit leading to congestion on roads down to the coast.
In documents outlining the agreements, the DfT stated that an "unforeseeable" situation of "extreme urgency" meant there was no time for the contracts to be put out to tender. Seaborne Freight, which had no ships and had never run a ferry service, has already had its contract cancelled after the Irish company backing the deal pulled out. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling came under huge criticism for the deal, which would have been worth £13.8m.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

At this point the entire UK Government and the Opposition including all members of Parliament should resign and the UK must elect a new party.

Otherwise seeing how the UK Government has imploded these negotiations, what's the point?

Or bring Trump in. *shock, horror, gasp* Honestly I'm fed up of the hatred towards this guy. You may not like him, but his twitter account and his policies have changed the mainstream politics. There will never be a leader like him again for a very long time.

Trump likes the UK, but after seeing how the UK treated him during his visit - why would he bother intervening? If Trump does ever by a miracle intervene, it will be at US-UK interests.

I don't like how defenders of the EU say the EU is a miracle, its so great!

Then why were the EU negotiators behaving like businessmen when Greece begged for its debt to be removed? Isn't the EU led by Germany? The EU certainly wasn't in the mood for distributing free cake. If the EU is so bloody great, why haven't they solved Greece's crisis already?
For anyone saying, Trump is so bad - the guy does negotiation better than the UK Government and that's ironic compared to May - worst PM in the history of the world. I am just as sure that Pitt, Diserali, Gladstone, Lloyd George, even Churchill would be watching this disgrace of a prime minister and be revolted.

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).

This makes me frustrated.

The reason why Trump won was because Clinton called the voters, 'basket of deplorables.'

The reason why Leave won was because George Osbourne threatened economic doom for those voters choosing Brexit. The Remain side had a campaign.

Leave may have won, but the 58% will feel that their vote was a waste of time. Because all the Government has done so far has carried out the will of the 48%.

Let me make it clear: The majority of the Government and the Labour Party are pro-remainers. No wonder they must have scowled when they saw the so-called 'peasants' vote against their interests.

For all the remainers arguing that the Conservatives have done a bad job - Nonsense. Total nonsense. The Government has done exactly what you asked for. Staying close to the EU and not destroying ties with it.

Nigel Farage saying 75% of our laws made in EU - Total Nonsense. There are three European Courts, that deal with law making. If you signed up for the EU - the politicians of 1975 would know that the European Politicians were aiming to make a political union. Farage may say that we voted to join an economic community - but let's be honest. Politicians across all sides, all countries know each other. Farage isn't a man of the people if he's dining with the top posh society of Conservative MPs - that much is clear. The UK politicians would have known exactly what they were doing.

I'd bet the Government knew exactly what they were doing when it came to Brexit.

Respect your vote no matter the result of the referendum, why do the two main parties act as if they're patrons of Christ and will bring paradise to the voters when its the opposite?

The 58% won in all but name only. The remain side has won far more politically. Why? Because the PM is a remainer, the majority of the cabinet are remainers.

So honestly, the will of the referendum came to Leave, they won. Their will should be carried out. But no, in this bizarre world, Brexit is the worst thing since WW2.

I don't believe that for one second.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

This makes me frustrated.

The reason why Trump won was because Clinton called the voters, 'basket of deplorables.'

The reason why Leave won was because George Osbourne threatened economic doom for those voters choosing Brexit. The Remain side had a campaign.

Leave may have won, but the 58% will feel that their vote was a waste of time. Because all the Government has done so far has carried out the will of the 48%.

Let me make it clear: The majority of the Government and the Labour Party are pro-remainers. No wonder they must have scowled when they saw the so-called 'peasants' vote against their interests.

For all the remainers arguing that the Conservatives have done a bad job - Nonsense. Total nonsense. The Government has done exactly what you asked for. Staying close to the EU and not destroying ties with it.

Nigel Farage saying 75% of our laws made in EU - Total Nonsense. There are three European Courts, that deal with law making. If you signed up for the EU - the politicians of 1975 would know that the European Politicians were aiming to make a political union. Farage may say that we voted to join an economic community - but let's be honest. Politicians across all sides, all countries know each other. Farage isn't a man of the people if he's dining with the top posh society of Conservative MPs - that much is clear. The UK politicians would have known exactly what they were doing.

I'd bet the Government knew exactly what they were doing when it came to Brexit.

Respect your vote no matter the result of the referendum, why do the two main parties act as if they're patrons of Christ and will bring paradise to the voters when its the opposite?

The 58% won in all but name only. The remain side has won far more politically. Why? Because the PM is a remainer, the majority of the cabinet are remainers.

So honestly, the will of the referendum came to Leave, they won. Their will should be carried out. But no, in this bizarre world, Brexit is the worst thing since WW2.

I don't believe that for one second.

I agree here, though i tend to use less explosive language I would caveat all of that though with the further complexities of FPTP and the insanity of a referendum within the UK's constitutional structures over a complex issue. It makes for what should be morally clear arguments such as 'respect the vote' (as you've stated) a murky swamp, as what does respecting that vote mean in terms of policy direction? Remain and Leavers are split electorally into multiple factions all with different competing visions of brexit, in parliament they are roughly split into 4 factions- left-wing leavers and remainers and right-wing leavers and remainers. And then within that and across it their are also varying sub-factions to the 'extent' of brexit. This is also mirrored in the general public. With all this division, the actual unifying emphasis that lies with the electorate further ability to ensure their 'will' (whatever that might be) is further diluted by FPTP- it effectively shields the big two parties from any real significant fall-out from brexit by diluting any disquiet from the various different factions of brexit/remain among the public. The worst that happens is one might lose an election, but effectively its business as usual. Thus beyond the referendum, there is no legitimate means for those who vote on either side to ensure their vision is at all taken up (and again its debatable over what that vision should be anyway). Add to this the fun of a party system and the fact MP's are either whipped or can vote on their own conscience and the complete inability for constituents to hold them to account (especially again as the nature of a GE with its party-emphasis acts again as a rather effective shield) and i'm not sure why the Conservatives ever thought a referendum would be a good idea (of course Cameron expected to win, but it was a costly mistake).

So you have an issue already with what the mandate actually means. As mentioned also First Past the Post then goes and complicates this further by essentially protecting ever party from any significant fall-out regarding brexit (beyond i would argue a full remain or full no-deal leaving scenario), this is because A) MP's can vote with the concience, but of course are also whipped- Brexit innately from the get go was sold as party politics (a silly decision) and then the May faction of the Conservatives have doubled down on this approach, alienating for most of the past two years the ability to get the a compromise position. B) FPTP is also an issue as it means the only time the public can voice their outcry (If indeed there is any at all) to the referendum result under the UK's current political structure is during a General Election, and as 2017 proved, Brexit does not feature highly at GE's as it was quite easy when the domestic situation is so contentious in terms of welfare, NHS, Social care, living costs et al for these concerns to (naturally) trump a rather more seemingly distant issue. Thus those interested in brexit are significantly watered down, so even if they wanted to voice their dissent at government or opposition policy regarding brexit by voting for another party- its a drop in the ocean. FPTP is thus doing its 'job' (for those who like it at least) of enforcing somewhat a state of stability in terms of political influence from the electorate over governance.

The other key issue is sustainability of the referendum result. (I know you keep saying 58% but i'm assuming that was a typo merging both sides , it was actually 52-48%, if it was 58% arguably you would have less of an issue). Now being so close wouldn't necessarily be a problem if again the government, brexiters and remainers had all got together and worked out a compromise position that fairly represented everyone here, or indeed if brexiteers and/or the government had committed to 'winning hearts and minds' post-vote with serious argument after having won the battle, the fact they did not remotely attempt this, but sat back and decried any opposition as 'traitors' or 'betraying brexit' was politically stupid. The further fact that they then based the entirety of this brexit process on the 'will of the people' as its font of legitimacy was also politically stupid. These are the two sure-fire ways to ensure that an already divisive vote actually gets more polarized, not less. It actively alienates opposition, and then further places the whole process up in the air as the 'will of the people' is an incredibly easy thing for all sides to adopt, especially as public opinion fluctuates. This is incredibly bad for the UK and both sides generally. For instance, if we crash out and their is any kind of economic hit (even one not caused by brexit) immediately its up for reassessment under these political conditions, and what's more that reassessment had legitimacy by its courtesy of being based on the 'will of the people'.

The 'Will of the people' also means that brexit and subsequent EU membership (i.e. if we have left, its likely we can no rejoin in 4/5 years and then leave again, and then try and rejoin- or at the very least every election for the foreseeable future will be able to have brexit/EU membership as a talking point, which would undermine stability in the economy) is now a GE issue, as in the British system, a General Election is the manifestation of the peoples will (A very limited and controlled one that as mentioned dilutes single issues into a plethora of competing interests within broad churches) thus it becomes a part of it and is now political football. This is why 52-48 is not sustainable as a platform for policy and as of yet, no one has bothered to address that which is a real issue.

Overall though, it sort of highlights a longer term issue for the UK and that is the pointlessness of having a referendum on a complex issue with our existing political structures. It does far more damage both in the short and long term, than any good. The bright side about a more democratic say in governance is quickly ruined when you look at the fact the rest of the UK's political structure and constitution is designed to directly avoid that at all costs. The minute voters had left the polling booth, their influence (due to FPTP) and ability to exert change was at an end. The mandate they had provided (and subsequently what it was spun as being based on 'Will of the people') was in the hands of party politics (which brexit was always going to devolve into) and it can and is indeed used by all sides for different purposes (The SNP for instance use the result in England compared to Scotland to legitimize their own push for independence, the Lib-Dems use the 48% as an argument that brexit should thus be a compromise as there is no long-term majority for it, Labour sat for a long time on both sides, trying to bridge divides, and the Conservatives then fell upon themselves arguing over just what faction within the party had the right to use that 52%...it turned out none of them at the 2017 GE).

The referendum thus in the UK's context does not mean all that much. Indeed if anyone has been following the arguments within Labour about how to respond to it, its pretty apparent indeed that once the electoral map was again placed on top of the referendum, it trumped that. Thus the 'split approach', and endless debates that actually if Labour supported remain they might indeed 'Gain' voters (In which case- what result has greater legitimacy? The brexit referendums, or if theoretically Labour went 'full remain' in its aftermath and won the government on the back of disaffected Conservative remain voters, they then have the mandate to cancel brexit, as i said GE's will always trump referendums). Likewise their current position is not to openly support a second referendum- its an interesting political move as it still essentially is Labour straddling both leave and remain (or trying to), while also attempting to cause problems for the Tories, and also overall it essentially is Labour supporting remain as its now likely that would be the outcome of a second referendum (Which further complicates the 'Will of the people' argument indeed).

So from someone who supports PR and a greater degree of democratic say in the UK i do see this as an issue. However, i recognize under the current system, these are the constraints, and what's frustrating indeed is the mess the brexit process has created (and which MP's blame on the British people if anyone saw that QT a few weeks ago when the Conservative MP said he would never support the public having another referendum again as their too divisive) large-scale opposition to any move to shift the UK away from being a 'stability state' or 'managed democracy' and into being more democratic like our European cousins, many of who already use PR, and indeed hold regular referendums on policy. I think that cause has been set back decades now in the UK. The irony being for those who wanted brexit, changing the UK's existing political structures and unwritten constitution (through advocating PR or arguably AV) was necessary if any brexit referendum was ever going to have 'real' meaning.

This is beyond ridiculous, it's scandalous!

As a so called "emergency measure" a £13 million pound contract is awarded to a company with no experience to run a ferry service, nor a ferry to undertake one, is cancelled weeks before it is needed. Fortunately though, little of this money is handed over before a financial partner in the project pulls out and the idea is scrapped.

Now weeks after, Eurotunnel a competitor, who had launched a legal case against the Government over the way the contract was awarded, is offered a £33 million out of court settlement, more than twice the sum of this badly conceived contract.

Christ. This is something i just do not get. I understand that setting up the infrastructure is a lot of work and can be tricky, fair enough. But technically this is the easiest part of brexit, as it has (or should have...) 0 politics to it, no party politics or controversy. Its literally what governments are meant to do- set up working infrastructure, its their day job. Moreover in a context where Corbyn's Labour are promoting nationalization, you would have thought the Conservatives after years of growing public disquiet even among their own core electorate, with privatized services, their cost and perceived lack of efficiency, would be extra careful to show just how the private-public sector alliance can work, and work well. Its their ideological backyard. They have a core stake in making sure this is all seen to work really well (And it ties into the whole early brexit related defense of a free trade and free market approach).

Yet they literally it up, twice... its like they don't even want to be in power anymore (Possible, but that was backbench comments). Or maybe Grayling genuinely is that incompetent, but is surviving courtesy of making up the remain-brexiteer number balance. I just don't get it beyond telling them to 'Try better'.

[Daruwind]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...erman-mps-told

Michel Barnier has told EU ambassadors that he is having to repeatedly rebut British demands for a time limit on the Irish backstop but that he is working on a legal add-on to the Brexit deal to help the prime minister.

During a meeting on Friday in Brussels, the EU’s chief negotiator expressed frustration with the British demands after the latest round of talks. “The UK side keeps on insisting on the same two things,” one EU diplomat said following Barnier’s briefing after the latest week of talks. “And we keep on explaining why it won’t happen.”

But in an interview with the German newspaper Die Welt, Barnier publicly admitted for the first time that he was looking at drafting a joint interpretative instrument as an adjunct to the withdrawal agreement. He also suggested that the parliamentary arithmetic might be moving in the prime minister’s favour.

“We will not allow a time limit or a one-sided exit right,” Barnier told the newspaper. “What can exist is the commitment to limit the backstop through an agreement on the future relationship … in the form of an interpretive document. Like the joint letter from Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker. If this document were combined with a written commitment from the British, then obviously it would have a much greater power.”

It is the first time the EU official has publicly confirmed that such a legal instrument, previously used by the bloc to sweeten deals by offering an optimistic interpretation of terms of draft treaties, was a possibility.

The EU’s 27 heads of state and government rejected such a step last December as they did not want to offer any suggestion of a time limit to the backstop, even if it involved a soft target for escaping from the arrangement. It had been mooted at the time that the legal document would commit both sides to trying to get out of the backstop within 12 months of it being triggered. The leaders rejected the idea as they were not convinced that such an interpretation was feasible or that it would persuade the Commons to back the deal.

A letter from Tusk, the European council president, and his European commission counterpart, Juncker, sent to May in January had committed the EU to ensuring that the backstop was temporary, although there was no specific time limit.

Barnier disclosed, however, that Jeremy Corbyn had told him during a recent visit to Brussels that Labour was poised to back a second referendum. “Jeremy Corbyn sat at this table last week and told me that he would announce support for a second vote,” he said. “I cannot say if there will be such a vote at all, whether enough MPs would vote for it. That is not my basis. I only work on objective fundamentals.”

Theresa May is seeking legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement to reassure MPs that the Irish backstop will be temporary.

Downing Street is said to have been encouraged by the suggestions that Brexiters in the European Research Group in her party appear to be looking for a way to back down on their resistance to the deal.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the chair of the ERG, has recently said he would accept a mere add-on to the withdrawal agreement, but insisted that this would need to include a time limit on the all-UK customs union envisaged in the Irish backstop.

Barnier told Die Welt that he sensed that “something was moving” in the UK. An EU diplomat said: “Barnier seemed to think that the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, at least offered a more realistic position, brainstorming to find something that was within the EU’s red lines.”

The Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, and Cox were expected back in Brussels on Tuesday for further negotiations.

At the meeting of ambassadors with Barnier on Friday morning, the 27 member states agreed that the length of a delay to Brexit would depend on the reason given by the prime minister.

The EU is examining a range of options if the UK makes a formal request for an extension, with the potential length ranging between two and 21 months. But legal experts have advised the German parliament that any Brexit delay beyond the European elections on 23-26 May could be in breach of EU law and leave the UK open to legal action, according to a confidential report seen by Die Welt.

The newspaper said the Bundestag’s European law experts had concluded that even the “short, limited” two- or three-month extension to article 50 beyond 29 March promised to MPs by May if they again vote down her Brexit deal could prove problematic.

“Failure by the UK to hold European parliament elections in the event of an agreed extension of the negotiation deadline under article 50 raises deep concerns regarding the right of citizens to vote and stand, as well as … possible legal consequences,” Die Welt quoted the advice as saying.

If the UK does not take part in the European elections while it is still officially a member of the bloc, “British nationals resident in the UK would be denied a core set of rights giving them EU citizenship status,” the advice said. This would amount to “a violation of the active and passive voting rights of British nationals”.

This could be interesting. So aparantly EU is working on some king of add-on about possible short time period for Irish Backstop. This could shift balance in favour of May´s deal. However if this will not work, looks like EU would prefer longer extension nothing short.

So it is still thrilled situation, Will May be triumphant or lose?

[Malcolm Tucker]

Wishing for Trump's "intervention" in this is like waiting for a vulture to intervene with your corpse, because his only interest would be ways to make a quick buck while screwing the UK over. His ambassador is already pushing the UK to lower its food standards legislation to allow hormone-fed US meat to be exported to the UK.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Wishing for Trump's "intervention" in this is like waiting for a vulture to intervene with your corpse, because his only interest would be ways to make a quick buck while screwing the UK over. His ambassador is already pushing the UK to lower its food standards legislation to allow hormone-fed US meat to be exported to the UK.

Exactly spot on, any dreams of a post-brexit US 'saviour' as has been touted in the case of no-deal or indeed just as normal part of negotiations is actually a nightmare for the UK's long-term futures prospects, British business has rightfully identified it would mean the end of them, their are huge repercussions for institutions like the NHS and based both on historic precedent of US deals, and indeed the sheer power imbalance of a weakened post-brexit UK there isn't much wiggle room for Britain to get anything remotely resembling 'equitable' terms. It would be a political disaster and is something that should be avoided at all costs, but the Conservatives will seek it out based on an ideological stand-point and the real need to bring any kind of good, short-term economic news alas.

Its one of the reasons indeed that Liam Fox in his proposed changes to post-brexit trade agreements is attempting to remove parliamentary scrutiny of these deals, and indeed any kind of say as much as possible, if the changes are approved, we'll actually have less scrutiny directly than we currently do over EU deals. But i suspect the idea behind this is to try and limit the electoral fall-out for dropping working rights, standards, protections and sacrificing British business interests. Already indeed the current talks with the US are being conducted in unusual levels of secrecy for the FTA (not the intermediate agreement) with none of the full details being released until 4 years after signing (That would take us beyond the next election for those cynics among us). While trade deals have always been subject to confidentially to varying degrees, reportedly 'large-scale' ones such as an FTA with the US that has wide-ranging repercussions for the economy and society tend to be rather more public in their scutiny- the moves currently by Fox would even limit debate of any deals, until the day after they had been ratified. This despite an admission from Fox that the government had to 'learn' from the failure of TTIP, which due to its secrecy faced massive public backlash, apparently the lesson was 'go stealthier'.

[B. W.]

With the thought that adding a little more fuel to the fire might be helpful, along comes this little diddy:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/201...s-brexit-song/

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Has everyone of our british forumites enough toiletpaper?

Hard Brexit Means Hard Times on the Toilet

One consequence of leaving the EU that Brexiteers forgot to reckon with? Nationwide toilet paper shortages.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/05...on-the-toilet/

[Daruwind]

Look like EU gave Uk 48 hours to come with new proposal for deadlock around Irish backstop.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...uk-48-14099429
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...inet-resigned/
So basically nothing new came from talks up to now, UK demands were "insane" and UK has the last 48 hours else no changes to previous deal. Given May´s inability to negotiate anything, her deal is finale.

Has everyone of our british forumites enough toiletpaper?

Hard Brexit Means Hard Times on the Toilet

One consequence of leaving the EU that Brexiteers forgot to reckon with? Nationwide toilet paper shortages.

Well, hopefully they will hire company with some paper...not like the last time with the ferries

[Daruwind]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ck-brexit-deal

So May is trying for the last time to beg EU for some changes, and almost like pointing finger at EU...

“It is in the European interest for the UK to leave with a deal. We are working with them but the decisions that the European Union makes over the next few days will have a big impact on the outcome of the vote.”

Given the likelihood of defeat, there was heavy speculation in Westminster that May will end up pulling the votes she had promised MPs on whether to rule out a no-deal Brexit and a second on whether to extend article 50.


A senior government adviser said she could announce straight after losing the meaningful vote that she would seek an extension from the EU, knowing that she would only get either a short technical extension to enable the passing of her withdrawal deal or a lengthy 21-month one enabling a full rethink – dubbed a Brexit reset. The prime minister would then return to the House of Commons for a third time to put those proposals to a vote.


May has a serious problem with holding a vote on whether parliament should rule out no deal, as it is unclear which side of the argument she would be on and would risk resignations of cabinet ministers from each side of the Brexit debate if she whipped in either direction. It is understood a delegation of cabinet ministers met her chief of staff on Thursday to argue for a free vote.

i like how even now we have no idea what will happen in mere week. Will she lost and resign? Will she offer some serious cookies to win over labours? So far it looks like May will be unable to get anything more from EU and given her inability to make any comprosime....any alternative plan with labours will probably fall too so we are probably looking into long extension. When UK asks for it, by this moment it will lose all power for negotiations with EU... will be fun watching under what conditions France and others will at the end agree to it..

EDIT: I think May lost in moment when EU realized the "hard no deal brexit" is not viable option for UK. It was only bluff from May for long time...

[Greyblades]

I've been thinking the same for the last year and a half.

When you cant come back empty handed you either must hide that fact or you will only be offered subservience, May stopped trying ages ago. Usually this level of capitulation is a result of being on the edge of a bayonet, see the versailles treaty or china's century of humiliation, this time there is no bayonet, just an refusal to comprehend reality.

Leave has been inevitable since July 2016, hard leave since July 2018, barring a complete Turnaround, what is in question right now is not so much what form it will take but who will be in Downing Street afterwards.

[Muizer]

So, the 'backstop' was negotiated in dec 2017 and was planned to kick in in dec 2020 if no solution for the Irish Border had been found......And out of those 3 years grace, 14 months have now been spent unsuccesfully negotiating the terms for that postponement. One can wonder what assurances from either side that the backstop is not meant to be permanent are worth. If you cannot even agree on an agreement on how to postpone an agreement ....

[Daruwind]

Well, given current May´s negotiation skill, fear of being stucked in transition period forever is very real threat

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...-a4087006.html

So EU offered some fresh cookies to UK...

It has previously been suggested that both the EU and the UK would have to agree for Britain to be able to fully leave the customs union in a backstop scenario. However, the EU would now be willing to allow the UK to fully leave the customs union unilaterally - provided it avoids a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

"The UK will not be forced into a customs union against its will," Mr Barnier said. "The EU will continue working intensively over the coming days to ensure that the UK leaves the EU with an agreement."

He stressed that Britain would still need to keep the sensitive border between EU member state Ireland and the UK province of Northern Ireland free of controls.

In a series of messages on Twitter, Mr Barnier also said the EU had proposed a "legally binding interpretation" of the Withdrawal Agreement.

He said arbitration panel envisaged the deal would give the UK the right to a "proportionate suspension of its obligations under the backstop, as a last resort" if the EU breached its obligations to use "best endeavours" and act in "good faith" to negotiate alternative solutions.

The EU was also ready to give "legal force" to the commitments made in January's letter from Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, writing them into a "joint interpretative statement".

Buuuuuut we all know, UK accepting that, that would be too little fun, so instead:

However, following Mr Barnier's comments on the customs union DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds said his proposal regarding the Northern Ireland backstop was neither "realistic nor sensible". "It disrespects the constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom," he said.

"This is an attempt to get ahead of a possible blame game and appear positive when in reality it is going backwards to something rejected a year ago."

Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay also dismissed Mr Barnier's proposal.

So appearantly UK wants way more...moooore...moooore.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I found this commentary in the "Die Zeit" quite good.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Brexit: A perfect summary of Britain’s flaws

Brexit was a moment when Britain as a nation looked in the mirror and saw the division and disharmony that had long been in plain view. And now? Four suggestions

A guest contribution by Musa Okwonga


Brexit has shattered something, and the shards are everywhere. The Prime Minister is still seeking negotiations with an EU that refuses new negotiations, the country’s two largest parties have just seen a flurry of defections, with a small group of liberal and conservative politicians having joined forces to form a centrist party of protest, and parliament may seek to delay Brexit in order to prevent a no-deal exit. And the people? They are feeling "meaner and angrier" as one survey suggested.

It is difficult to think of a vote that people have taken more personally. Another piece of research by the London School of Economics revealed that the highest predictor of a Leave vote was a negative view of non-EU immigration. As the child of Ugandan refugees it was not hard for me to see Brexit - at least in part - as the culmination of xenophobia that had been simmering in British society for as long as I could remember.

But perhaps Brexit did not shatter anything, but merely illuminated what was already broken. The referendum process was a summary of Britain’s flaws so perfect that it was almost artful. The campaign to remain in the EU was run by a group of politicians utterly oblivious to the economic damage that they had visited upon the country. The campaign to leave the EU was guided by an assortment of disaffected and opportunistic voices, the latter of which - backed by donors of dubious provenance and criminal methods - relentlessly stoked the fear of foreigners. Fully 700.000 British citizens were denied the opportunity to vote, only because they were living abroad.
Global power and a wary, small island

Given this toxic cocktail, part of me is surprised that Britain has lasted as long in the EU as it has. Some of its citizens have always wanted their country to keep the Continent at arm’s length. It is a strange and unique contradiction: a swaggering global power and a wary small island, a society which on the surface seems to be vibrantly multi-racial but which remains afraid of being overwhelmed by the outsider. This has long been the case: The journalist Ian Cobain, in his book "The History Thieves", notes that "during the first decade of the 20th century alone, around 300 invasion novels were published in Britain".


Brexit was truly a moment when Britain as a nation looked in the mirror and noticed the division and disharmony that had long been in plain view. Some might say it is simple for me, a writer and musician who has made a new life for myself on the Continent, to approve of the EU. It is less easy for the three groups in which my Leave-voting friends and acquaintances found themselves. First, there were those who have long contended that the EU has a lack of direct accountability to its voters; secondly, those inhabitants of small towns who argue that their wages have been undercut by cheap labour; and thirdly, those who felt that the arrival of so many foreign faces so quickly had left them feeling like strangers in their own country. Where I saw consensus, the first group saw subservience; where I saw lack of worker protection, the second group saw the ravages of globalisation; where I saw joyous diversity, the third group saw an irreconcilable clash of cultures.

Looking beyond my own dissatisfaction, I am unconvinced that Brexit is part of the long-term answer to Britain’s problems. It was not the EU which imposed a policy of severe austerity upon the UK for years on end, leading to levels of child poverty that the UN rapporteur on human rights described as "not just a disgrace, but a social calamity and an economic disaster". It was not the EU which allowed tax evasion in the UK on a colossal scale - money which could otherwise have funded the social programmes that British citizens so desperately need. It was not the EU which sent rent and housing prices soaring beyond the budgets of the majority of young people, or neglected the North of England in the service of London. No: In all cases, these were the actions of successive British governments, which then turned around and blamed Europe for their own failings. Yet the time for scapegoating Brussels is running out, and the present government seems to be largely staffed by people who seek to exacerbate these problems.

I worry for the the UK, whatever happens with Brexit. I worry that not enough politicians and voters have the appetite for the radical reforms needed to provide a positive future. I worry because too few people seem to recognise the source and the gravity of the problem. As recently as 2014, when Ed Miliband – then leader of the Labour Party, and hardly a radical – identified inequality as a key election issue, the Financial Times declared him to be "preoccupied" with the subject.
Nothing feels orderly

Even as the country hurtles towards the prospect of leaving the EU with no deal, Rupert Harrison - the architect of the ruinous austerity policies that caused so much of the Brexit-related unrest - writes that "the most likely Brexit outcome is still an orderly process that creates (at worst) a modest long-term drag". Looking at the current state of affairs, there is nothing that feels orderly.
In closing, I hope that the UK’s leaders do four things. First, that they take the recent advice of the historian Rutger Bregman and of Winnie Byanyima, the executive director of Oxfam International, and truly tackle the issue of large-scale tax evasion - which, alongside climate change, will possibly go down as the defining challenge of our time. Secondly, that they begin to negotiate with potential trade partners in ways that reflect modern realities and not colonial structures; for a Britain that seeks to be global, there can be no room for playground bigotry. Thirdly, that they stop discussing migration in hysterical terms, which only leads to rising racism. Finally, that they start talking about climate change in a way that is robust and visionary; perhaps they could begin to pay attention to the political economist Richard Murphy’s long-standing advocacy of a Green New Deal.

We have gazed at our navels over Brexit for too long, and in the process our politics have become small. It’s well past time for them to scale up.

https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/...united-kingdom

[NorseThing]

So PM May is presenting a clarification of an explanation as a new deal?

At the eleventh hour, Theresa May claims to have made a breakthrough in Brexit negotiations.

During talks with the European Union in Strasbourg late Monday, the UK Prime Minister and Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay "secured legally binding changes" to "strengthen and improve" the UK's agreement on withdrawing from Europe, Cabinet Office Minister David Lidington told Parliament in a statement.
Those changes would not affect the terms of the withdrawal, but offer legal assurances to back it up.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/11/europ...ntl/index.html

[Daruwind]

There si still no time limit, or end date to the backstop. The EU said all along that a time limit would invalidate the backstop as an insurance policy, and they are not giving in. There are still no legal changes....The changes are cosmetic at best...

Varadkar is against
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...m-leo-varadkar

Corbyn against
https://edition.cnn.com/uk/live-news...gbr/index.html

And what is interesting, there might be some clouds in Eu about future article 50 extension...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...t-happens-next

[Elmetiacos]

So PM May is presenting a clarification of an explanation as a new deal?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/11/europ...ntl/index.html

Whether people believe it or not remains to be seen. The ERGers have their own team of former lawyers, picturesquely dubbed the "Star Chamber" looking at it all. The fact that they set this up suggests to me that they don't trust the Attorney General, and suspect him of preparing to give bad advice for political reasons. If this did indeed amount to the legal guarantees, Juncker will have enthroned May as a national heroine for the UK and also hamstrung the EU in all future negotiations with anyone for anything, since it will have proved that EU negotiators are indeed the cowards who will always cave in at the last minute, just as Brexiteers like David Davis said they were...

If.

[Daruwind]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47533666

and looks like it is not good enough....just watching debate online. May´s voice sounds like after very long night without sleeping. Funny quote from her : "There is no evidence that public change opinion about leaving"

Meanwhile note from EU:

Mr Juncker also warned MPs that they would be putting everything at risk if they voted down the deal.

"In politics sometimes you get a second chance," he said.

"It is what we do with that second chance that counts. There will be no third chance."

He added: "Let us speak crystal clear about the choice - it is this deal or Brexit might not happen at all."

EDIT:
ERG, DUP against
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...b016d23425a4d7

[Daruwind]

And May lost once again

So tomorrow free vote on "no-deal scenario" , possible extension vote on Wendesday...

Question is, what will UK tell EU now. Comments from Brussels are, that avoiding brexit at all cost but at the same time there should be good reason why grant extension and that many have problem with possible extension after EU elections. UK will be able to affect EU while heading outside...