Forum menu
Even if they could get it past their parties (they won’t), they won’t get it past the country
You know what? They might, if they could summon the courage.
and we can’t stay because we’ve promised to leave
You could start by acknowledging the vote was illegal and thus void,
You know what? They might, if they could summon the courage.
Well now we're back to what would happen if they did. Suppose Corbyn and May both stood on the steps of Downing St and declared that they had agreed for the good of the country to cancel brexit. What then? I would expect a mass walkout from the cabinet and shadow cabinet, splits in both parties, a complete collapse of government with nothing to replace it, the resignations of both May and Corbyn, and a new election in the midst of a political crisis not seen since the civil war. And that's not even considering what would be happening outside of parliament. Is that courage or recklessness?
You could start by acknowledging the vote was illegal and thus void,
It isn't.
Sounds pretty good to me that dazh... perhaps there is an upside to this after all?
The problem with DazH's flight of fancy is whilst all sounds quite laudible on paper, it's a "solution" which pleases precisely no-one. Remain (obviously) doesn't want it, and the contingent of Leave making all the fuss doesn't want it either. If the goal is to please as many people as possible (something something democracy something) then the only viable options are either to crash out or call the whole thing off.
Of course, if the goal is just to please people then it's a bloody stupid goal, but that's a whole other argument.
(Also, on what planet is "do something different" and "maintain the status quo" synonyms?)
What then? I would expect a mass walkout from the cabinet and shadow cabinet, splits in both parties, a complete collapse of government with nothing to replace it, the resignations of both May and Corbyn, and a new election in the midst of a political crisis not seen since the civil war.
Political collapse, break down of the two main parties, a general election, a coalition government… all this could well occur Leave or Remain. All that going on after a no deal Brexit would hardly be preferable to it happening after either a declaration to cancel Brexit, or a delay in leaving linked to a referendum, in my humble opinion.
Looks like Leadsom's been confident in only scheduling the one Brexit debate for next week;s business in the commons. Somehow I think that timetable may be tweaked.
You could start by acknowledging the vote was illegal and thus void
Whatever the status of the referendum, the commons vote on A50 was legit and that's what we're stuck with.
Well now we’re back to what would happen if they did. Suppose Corbyn and May both stood on the steps of Downing St and declared that they had agreed for the good of the country to cancel brexit. What then?
True, it would be political chaos and there would be a lot of angry people, but at least the entire rest of the country would still be able to function come April 1st.
I would take that rather than political chaos on top of chaos everywhere else as well.
that’s what we’re stuck with.
They voted to give the PM the power to trigger A50 without needing further agreement from MPs, and she has the power to recind the notification as well. Should MPs have insisted that parliament have more involvement in the process? Hell yes… but the vote to give PM power to trigger A50 does not mean that we have to let the process complete… that is still the choice of the PM… and parliament needs to put the pressure on… or they are staring at April being a little messy.
If we leave with no Withdrawl Arrangement in place… it is a political choice… the government has the full power to stop it.
Remain (obviously) doesn’t want it, and the contingent of Leave making all the fuss doesn’t want it either.
You forget about the massive amount of people on both sides who are simply sick to the back teeth of it and want it sorting. They will all accept a deal not because they like it, but because it moves the issue on with the minimum of disruption.
We haven't even started.
it moves the issue on with the minimum of disruption.
They're in for a surprise then.
Also if tests showed that 52% of people were cured of cancer by taking a new drug that drug would be on the market very quickly.
And if the drug killed the other 48 on the spot, it might be thought about as a poor outcome.
But then we already established it’s a poorly performing analogy!
You could start by acknowledging the vote was illegal and thus void,
I read something about this the other day, it's down to the ref being advisory, therefore (I think) it didn't need to be official or follow rules & regs, if it had been official, then it would be gone by now due to the rule breaking & we'd all be having a nice cup of tea.
But then we already established it’s a poorly performing analogy!
It ignores cost as well… 4% more effective than placebo might be worth a punt if we're talking aspirin costs… where as Brexit is SUPER expensive (despite being sold as saving us money). And then… let's look at the list of side effects… …
down to the ref being advisory
Indeed. Mefty is right that no one has ruled that the referendum is "legal" or otherwise, but that's because any such law (UK or international) is neatly sidestepped by the referendum being non-binding.
You forget about the massive amount of people on both sides who are simply sick to the back teeth of it and want it sorting. They will all accept a deal not because they like it, but because it moves the issue on with the minimum of disruption.
not true
kelvin
Subscriber
It ignores cost as well… 4% more effective than placebo might be worth a punt if we’re taking aspirin costs… where as Brexit is SUPER expensive (despite being sold as saving us money).
indeed, NICE wouldve shutdown Brexit ina 2nd if it were a drug at the price we are paying for it!!
`<blockquote>I read something about this the other day, it’s down to the ref being advisory, therefore (I think) it didn’t need to be official or follow rules & regs, if it had been official, then it would be gone by now due to the rule breaking & we’d all be having a nice cup of tea.</blockquote>
This is simply not true, it seems to be widely promulgated but a reading of the relevant judgements shows it up to be a gross misinterpretation.
<blockquote>that’s because any such law (UK or international) is neatly sidestepped by the referendum being non-binding.</blockquote>
Ditto
You forget about the massive amount of people on both sides who are simply sick to the back teeth of it and want it sorting.
Ah yes, you're right. I was overlooking the intellectual heavyweights who haven't paid the blindest bit of attention to anything in the preceding three years.
They will all accept a deal not because they like it, but because it moves the issue on with the minimum of disruption.
The "minimum of disruption" is to remain. But you know that don't you, you cheeky wee scamp. Brexit in any form will be a disruption, it's just a matter of severity.
This is simply not true, it seems to be widely promulgated but a reading of the relevant judgements shows it up to be a gross misinterpretation.
Could you provide a link to these relevant judgements that you've read please? I'd like to read them also, heaven forfend that we'd be promulgating misinterpretations.
The judgement is here:
.
Someone made the point on this thread that an MP's enthusiasm for Brexit tends to be inversely proportional to their intelligence.
Just listening to Any Questions on iplayer. Liz Truss is on. Dear god that woman is dense! And you'd be unsurprised to hear; a very enthusiastic Brexiteer.
What really ****s me off is these clowns blithely saying 'oh, everything the EU does happens at the eleventh hour, they'll give us a deal in the end', when theres absolutely zero evidence to assume that to be true, and the consequences being so enormous
You forget about the massive amount of people on both sides who are simply sick to the back teeth of it and want it sorting. They will all accept a deal not because they like it, but because it moves the issue on with the minimum of disruption.
and its especially not true of Labour voters in the North & Midlands
Opposed by 86% or Labour remain & 64% of Labour leave voters in those regions
Dazh I think you may have to re-think your narrative on why you support brexit
One line sums it up I think:
"And, I repeat, the fact that Parliament has maintained control over withdrawal makes it patently inappropriate for the court to intervene."
Refering to torsoinalakes' link
Dazh I think you may have to re-think your narrative on why you support brexit
??
I don't and never have supported brexit. I'm long past thinking it can be stopped though. It's a cluster**** on just about every level for all the reasons that have been repeated on here ad infinitum. But clinging on to this faint hope of it being reversed is daft. And as I've argued, even if it was possible it would have very risky and uncertain results which may not be any better, or even worse. The only hope now is to change the debate and look for real solutions, and to do that we need to break out of this in/out leaver/remainer downward spiral.
Opposed by 86% or Labour remain & 64% of Labour leave voters in those regions
The trouble is we didn't vote in regions did we? We voted in constituencies - therefore if the sample size included a small amount of folk from Boston in the East Midlands region, and large amount from Rushcliffe then you've not got a proportionate sample size to compare a shift.
And Mansfield became a Tory voting constituency in 2017 - where it has been Labour in the EUref, so that would have conveniently shifted out a few more.
I'm not trying to explain away everything, but there are many factors.
And a sample size of 5000!
The only hope now is to change the debate and look for real solutions, and to do that we need to break out of this in/out leaver/remainer downward spiral.
Once we are out, that division will shift, but it will also deepen, between those actively trying to build strong links with Europe, and those wanting to kick out at, and happy to sour relations with, our immediate neighbours. That split will inform, and be the focus for, everything the government, and opposition propose. Once we are no longer operating on slowly shifting long standing rules jointly agreed with the rest of Europe, everything becomes a more urgent battle… this hasn't even begun yet…
A link to avoid me wasting more space explaining why (yet again)…
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/britain-europe-adrift-brexit-talks
Who remembers me banging on about CDS and CHIEF back in the long lost past…? I was, unfortunately, spot on with my predictions…
https://twitter.com/jl_owen/status/1103606385886089216?s=21
I went to a talk with Hilary Benn last Friday and although he is a remainer and moderate he still sees all sorts of issues with a 2nd ref. He said he would only support a 2nd ref if Parly deadlocked (in his view if a soft brexit deal couldn't get through Parly) - he also thought the only way a 2nd ref would get enough support would be if it was a choice between May's final deal or remain. I posted a Guardian article on this last week - basically Labour let May's deal through but only to be tested against remain as part of a 2nd ref.
But tbh I think Benn and a lot of moderate remainer MPs on both sides of the floor believe that a soft Brexit would be the best way to have some hope of uniting a divided country.
He did say that he thought all options were still possible although hard deal crash out becoming more unlikely. He did think that May's deal could pass if she gets enough weasel words on backstop and ERG DUP spooked enough by 2nd ref or soft brexit options.
He also thought that a 2 to 3 year extension to allow proper negotiation of Brexit is a possibility. Would probably need A50 to be revoked.
Clearly just the public opinions of one - albeit well informed - MP. But I think useful context for anyone who believes that any outcome would be simple with strong leadership for either of the main parties
Well, sounds like he's in a sound place to be TWO YEARS AGO. We have 3 weeks to go… talk of other Brexits implemented by other governments, are for the birds.
Tick. Tock.
He also thought that a 2 to 3 year extension to allow proper negotiation of Brexit is a possibility. Would probably need A50 to be revoked.
How? When? Who? Not going to happen.
He also thought that a 2 to 3 year extension to allow proper negotiation of Brexit is a possibility. Would probably need A50 to be revoked.
This, a million times this, with a final binding (with a 50% threshold - just for fairness) referendum at the end of it, then we'd know exactly what we were getting into, with the facts to hand. Hell if leaving the EU at that point looks good, I'll vote for it.
Someone made the point on this thread that an MP’s enthusiasm for Brexit tends to be inversely proportional to their intelligence.
I think this goes for the general public too.
And as I’ve argued, even if it was possible it would have very risky and uncertain results which may not be any better, or even worse.
I think you are hinting at civil unrest. Do you think that is more likely from Brexiters if we remain or Remainers if we leave?
This is simply not true, it seems to be widely promulgated but a reading of the relevant judgements shows it up to be a gross misinterpretation.
Well, I've just read through the court summary and, credit where it's due, you've managed to post something correct.
It's far more complicated than simply "it failed because of X" or "it would have succeeded if Y" because of course it is. The complaint was multifaceted and it was rejected for a number of reasons. I'll give a few here, if you want the full fat version I suggest you read the report.
One of the key reasons was that is was, in fact, an advisory referendum. This is stressed a number of times. There's two parts to this: firstly it means that (of course) you cannot hold it up to the same case law as a binding vote such as an election, and secondly it implies that Parliament invoked A50 of their own volition. Ie, even if the referendum was deemed illegal, there's no mandate for the government to revoke A50 because there was no mandate for them to apply it in the first place. Thusly:
"The referendum was merely advisory; and it was up to those that it advised to consider whether, in all the circumstances, the EU referendum result was and continues to be sufficiently robust as to reflect the will of the people on the question of withdrawal from the EU. Crucial to both of these grounds... Parliament has exerted and maintained control over the withdrawal process"
The investigations surrounding the allegations of corruption etc. are still ongoing (Banks is being looked into by the NCA, for example) which means that they can't be used in evidence - there's no legal provision for "he's probably guilty." In effect here, the case was submitted too early.
Perversely, the case was also submitted too late. There's a six week window in which you can appeal a referendum. In honesty I don't really follow this bit, it seems that even though they did submit a complaint in time initially they didn't have any evidence, and once they did have evidence it was then too late. I may be reading this wrong, but it seems an impossibly short time to take any relevant action? Odd. Anyway, largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things I suppose.
Finally, the court said that it's not their jurisdiction to be enforcing this sort of case because it believes Parliament has maintained control throughout. They'd essentially be overruling Parliament, the whole thing should have been dealt with at a political level rather than a legal one.
So whilst it's true - in part at least - that the referendum wasn't deemed unlawful because it was merely advisory, there were other factors in play. Whether the result would have been any different if it had been a binding vote instead is pure guesswork I'm afraid. It's possible that different laws and criteria would have applied (I'm not a lawyer so who knows) but it's also possible that it might still have been thrown out for other reasons.
Use fewer words…
E.g.…
Indeed. Mefty is right that no one has ruled that the referendum is “legal” or otherwise, but that’s because any such law (UK or international) is neatly sidestepped by the referendum being non-binding.
and secondly it implies that Parliament revoked A50 of their own volition
Did you mean revoked here?
Anyway, largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things I suppose.
Nonetheless it leaves an unpleasant odour.
Did you mean revoked here?
No, I don't, it's a typo. Corrected, thank you.
But tbh I think Benn and a lot of moderate remainer MPs on both sides of the floor believe that a soft Brexit would be the best way to have some hope of uniting a divided country.
In case any of those MP's want to actually ask people what they think it's not going to do **** all to unite people especially all those who are impacted by any kind of brexit.
What that judgement "should" probably mean is that May has run out of mileage on the "will of the people" message and ought to recognise that it is the will of government / parliament. Which should give parliament confidence to act in the way it thinks is in the best interest of the country.
I can but hope.
In case any of those MP’s want to actually ask people what they think it’s not going to do **** all to unite people especially all those who are impacted by any kind of brexit.
I'm sure Hilary Benn and Mp's like him have spoken to just those people, and all the others. Including the nearly 50% of Leeds voters who voted to leave. He doesn't have the luxury that forum members have to say "so what". He has to try and put forward ideas to unite people as best he can. Whilst still representing all of his constituents. Caught between a rock and a hard place to put it mildly, I dont envy any of them.
I’m sure Hilary Benn and Mp’s like him have spoken to just those people, and all the others. Including the nearly 50% of Leeds voters who voted to leave.
Recently or just in 2016 as it appears to be the last time anyone's opinion was allowed to be recorded.
He has to try and put forward ideas to unite people as best he can. Whilst still representing all of his constituents. Caught between a rock and a hard place to put it mildly, I dont envy any of them.
Well there is one way of dealing with it....
"Are you sure you really want to leave?"
No it won't unite the extreme's but it might sort out the middle.
Here is an MP who has figured out how not to be caught between a rock and a hard place.
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1103227782962782208
Jess Phillips is the first MP since Jo Cox to have caught my attention in a positive way. The Yardley ward has strange boundaries but an educated guess says her constituency is 60% leave, yet she is prepared to stand up and call for remain. I wish her well. (besides some of the other stuff she has come out with over the last few years is pure gold - Google her if you haven't already)
So there are people who think that the EU will cave at the 11th hr and agree to whatever deal Britain wants? That's quite a game of call-my-bluff.
This was a decent read:
https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/brexit-where-do-we-go-from-here/
And kind of answers
So there are people who think that the EU will cave at the 11th hr and agree to whatever deal Britain wants?
with:
The idea that, if we only negotiate harder, the EU will cave in, is fanciful. As former Australian trade negotiator Dmitry Grozoubinski pointed out in a recent Twitter thread, there appears to be very little political pressure on politicians in the EU to change their stance.Are there any signs of disunity within the EU? Are there any signs of popular dissent? Where are the demonstrations saying ‘Be nice to the Brits’ or ‘Avoid the Horror of No Deal’? Are newspaper op-eds calling for a softer stance? Have any EU opposition politicians decided they can make political capital by making an issue of Brexit?
The answer to all these questions is ‘no’ or ‘not very much’. Outside Ireland, there is very little discussion of Brexit in the rest of the EU. People seem fairly relaxed about it. Many are sad about the UK’s departure but they don’t see it as enough of a problem to make an issue of it with their politicians. Why, then, do we assume that the EU’s negotiators will capitulate at the last-minute when there is no significant political pressure on them to do so?
So what were Benn's reservations about a 2nd ref?
Molgrips - to be fair to Benn he always offers a reasoned position. I am also hesitant to be too definitive about what he said as I wasn't taking notes or anything.
My memory is that he will support second ref if Parly deadlocked with May's deal versus remain on the ballot paper
But I think his argument for caution on 2nd ref is around respect for democracy and social cohesion. I realise we've had almost 1600 pages arguing about merits of such arguments and I've previously raised with him that I thought referendums generally and the Brexit one in particular are a failure of our representative democracy.
.
The general point I was making is that it isn't just weakness and intransigence (May) or ambivalence (Corbyn) of the main leaders - the issue is genuinely complex for those MPs who aren't part of the noisy few from the extreme ends of the parties and there isn't a obviously consensus.
He's worth a listen if you get a chance - he often does stuff at the Universities in Leeds. Interesting answers to Qs from the floor on what his Dad's view on Brexit would have been and whether MPs should follow the views of their constituents slavishly or not.
My memory is that he will support second ref if Parly deadlocked with May’s deal versus remain on the ballot paper
But I think his argument for caution on 2nd ref is around respect for democracy and social cohesion.
Which taking a step back is the real result of the extreme positions people have taken, if was wasn't terrified of the ERG she could quite easily stand up and admit this is the best we can get, and it's crap - then that we should not take that deal and remain.
Others could stand up and retract their blame of the EU for the various problems they are scapegoating on the EU.
The papers could wind in some of the appalling headlines and admit they are just bullshitting people.
That is how you fix social cohesion.
The papers could wind in some of the appalling headlines and admit they are just bullshitting people.
Why would they do that?
Either their owners, their readership or both are pro-Brexit:
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/5ge5pq/whats-behind-the-pro-brexit-stance-of-the-british-press
The article is a little out of date, Dacre has gone, but you get the idea.
Why would they do that?
Think you missed the point of the rant there
Sorry.
But I think his argument for caution on 2nd ref is around respect for democracy and social cohesion.
I totally agree. But social cohesion is going downhill regardless. If living standards in the UK deteriorate, then it's only going to get worse. People will become poorer and more miserable and this will rip the country apart far more than a second referendum overturning the first. A soft Brexit won't help much over remaining, because Brexiteers will feel cheated and they will have enough grievances about not having control to last generations.
Every option has downsides. The best option is the one that ensures the most economic prosperity, because if people are happy and prosperous they will forget about not having Brexit sooner or later.
she could quite easily stand up and admit this is the best we can get, and it’s crap – then that we should not take that deal and remain.
Logic, reason, facts. This is how to stop brexit.
I'm happy have a second ref. But I don't belive it will solve the pretend issues propagated in the press and social media.
Brexit needs to be stopped on the basis that's it's completely unworkable and devestating.
That's not the #will of the people in the bent referendum, let's make this about facts and practicalities and stop poncing around.
That said we'll need some politicians to step up and do what's in thier job descriptions for a change. Probably a tall order for someone who earns 80k a year and doesn't give a toss about anything other than protecting thier income and retirement fund.
This is how to stop brexit.
ANyone on here still think it can be stopped now with the amount of time left
Logic, reason, facts. This is how to stop brexit.
You're kidding, surely?
When the hell has the general public responded to those things?
That said we’ll need some politicians to step up and do what’s in thier job descriptions for a change
Good luck with that and also world peace.
ANyone on here still think it can be stopped now with the amount of time left
Literally it takes about 6 minutes, maybe 8 if the numbers are overwhelming
…and agree to whatever deal Britain wants?
I'm glad you used the word "whatever" there… because "Britain" still has no cohesive plan… the UK redlines contradict each other… so, without a plan, the EU want a backstop to keep whole Ireland measures working while we argue with ourselves for another few years. They have even been nice to us and allowed us to sneak the whole of the UK into part of the temporary backstop, to keep trade moving while we fight it out over here. There is nothing coherent being presented by "Britain" for the EU to accept. We pay what we have committed to, we minimise impact to EU citizens, we agree to temporary measures that keep the border as open as possible… then we get on with working out what we "transition" to, and how we make that work without messing up trade, Ireland and cooperation on security, health, food standards… etc.
How long does it take to send to send a retraction email and for the recipients to receive it? 10 mins tops and the crisis can be dissolved.
Then the UK can rethink its position in a more sensible manner without this rediculous and self imposed time constraint.
Laws need changing.
It is not a 5 minute job.
Only the government can do it.
Leaving first, and deciding afterwards where we are going, whether we leave under the terms of the Withdrawl Agreement our government has obtained, or with "no deal" is, well… stupid. Lots of smart people may still support Leaving in such a blind fashion… but they still want contradictory things to happen next. The results will not be good. But the government do not care. They know where their support comes from. And they still will not, no, can not say where we are going. Once they do the support for Brexit fractures, and so does the ruling party.
May will suspend A50 unilaterally as it comes to the wire because she won’t want parliament to do it for her. That seems to have been her past form. I can’t see her changing.
Lots of smart people may support doing either of these things… but they still want contradictory things to happen next.
That literally sums it up. There's nothing 'smart' about brexit, it's completely stupid.
It's a complete, text book contradiction in terms.
There is a theory that May will call a General Election if backed into a 2nd ref corner. That would create a world of fun as parties decided what Brexit position to put in manifestos. Not convinced it's likely myself but fun throwing into the usual circular pub arguments.
Here is an MP who has figured out how not to be caught between a rock and a hard place.
She's ace, first MP I think I've seen in this whole mess to effectively say "I'm prepared to do the right thing", everything else (from everyone else) is pretty much pure self-serving bullshizzle.
Interesting poll reported on rte.ie indicating how abysmal the dup are
A new opinion poll suggests that voters in Northern Ireland are deeply dissatisfied with the British government's handling of Brexit.
The IPSOS/MRBI survey for the Irish Times also found that a clear majority of those questioned want to stay in the single market and customs union in order to avoid a hard border.
With the Brexit deadline fast approaching, the poll suggests there is a great deal of unease among voters in Northern Ireland, something which could put the DUP under big pressure, given it keeps the British government in power.
The poll found that 77% of those questioned were dissatisfied with UK government's performance on Brexit.
And 67% of those questioned expressed dissatisfaction with the way in which the DUP was representing Northern Ireland at Westminster
Around 59% said they would like Northern Ireland to have a special arrangement with the EU, even if this meant some checks between Northern Ireland and Britain.
Meanwhile labour has resumed its position on the fence.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-brexit-eu-referendum-members-deal-jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-a8813041.html
Meanwhile labour has resumed its position on the fence.
Labour policy is clear, it wants a soft brexit deal consisting of a comprehensive and permanent customs union and alignment on trade, employment rights and environmental regulations. If they can't achieve that they want a new election, and failing that a 2nd vote. If they can achieve it, which is looking more likely by the day, why would they provide brexiters with the opportunity of scuppering it with a 2nd vote?
How long does it take to send to send a retraction email and for the recipients to receive it? 10 mins tops and the crisis can be dissolved.
This assumes the sensible people haven’t decided already that the whole of the Uk shouldn’t just **** off
Labour policy is absolutely clear. Run down the clock.
Labour policy is clear, it wants a soft brexit deal consisting of a comprehensive and permanent customs union and alignment on trade, employment rights and environmental regulations. If they can’t achieve that they want a new election, and failing that a 2nd vote. If they can achieve it, which is looking more likely by the day, why would they provide brexiters with the opportunity of scuppering it with a 2nd vote?
You're missing out the key fact which is that they want to end FOM.
Which leads us right back to Unicornland.
Anyhow, is next week when we finally start closing in on a solution to the current impasse? From what I've seen so far it looks like May gets voted down again on Tuesday, there's no support for No Deal on Weds and then we're into uncharted territory on Thursday. That's meant to be the vote on extending A50 but more than likely there will be a few amendments thrown in along the way, maybe even another No Confidence vote from JC (though that'd mean actually doing some oppositiony stuff so unlikely).
From what I’ve seen so far it looks like May gets voted down again on Tuesday, there’s no support for No Deal on Weds and then we’re into uncharted territory on Thursday.
My bet is that the deal will be voted down, May will offer a customs union in some form, Labour will support it, and the deal will go through. I'll take that.
Forget cancelling, forget 2nd votes, forget no deal. There is simply no majority in parliament for any of these things. The only thing that will get a majority is a cross party compromise, and that's what will happen (probably).
forget no deal
You can't. It is the default position by law. Doesn't matter if there is no majority for it.
Tick tock. Countdown to this whole bit of a mess exploding in their faces.
May will offer a customs union in some form
But she can't do that without freedom of movement, which is one of her red lines, it's quite a nice corner she's painted herself into.
yep May & Labour would both be promising the same unicorn
forget no dealYou can’t. It is the default position by law. Doesn’t matter if there is no majority for it.
It's like watching someone who's managed to set themselves on fire. The majority might agree that they don't want him to burn to death but if you spend two years arguing over whether you need water, CO2, foam or some non-existent 'technological solution' to put the fire out then he's in trouble, regardless of the agreement that you'd prefer him to not burn to death.
edit: better yet, it's like a group of friends in a houseshare. they've handed their notice in on the current place and the landlord will be kicking them out and changing the locks in three weeks.
Some of them want to move to a cottage in the countryside, some want to go to a city centre flat, a couple want to live in a van, only one wants to sleep in a shop doorway. But if you don't get something sorted the doorway is the default.
But she can’t do that without freedom of movement, which is one of her red lines, it’s quite a nice corner she’s painted herself into.
It's the same red line as Corbyn. Oh, sorry- did you mean a customs union and not the customs union? Like it matters...