I have been in discussion with others about the likelihood of a No Deal Brexit next week. I confess I do not share the optimism of some I have been talking with that this will now be avoided.
Their logic is that the Lords will pass the Cooper / Letwin bill on Monday with what might be called the Maugham amendment having been added. This will mean that if on Thursday there is no deal with the EU May would have to put a motion to the Commons that would require a vote on whether or not the UK wished to leave with No Deal. If that resolution was not passed (and if precedent is to be believed then it is very unlikely that it will be) May is then required to submit notice to the EU that Article 50 is revoked. As a result we would stay in the UK.
This is the legislation that I always suspected Bercow would permit to be tabled. When I said we had to rely on him this is what I meant. And those I have been debating with seem to think that this is all a foregone conclusion now. And I have to disagree.
I do think that the Lords will pass this legislation sometime late on Monday. I have little doubt that it reflects their desires, and so will happen.
But that's when things get harder to predict. The Commons has, first of all, to accept the Lords amendment to include the Maugham amendment, which requires the actions I note above. And very bluntly, I think that there is no hope of that. The Tories will oppose it. We know that. Then we have to imagine what Labour will do.
If Labour know that if this law is passed that this will require a vote on Thursday which is binary i.e. vote No Deal or Revoke then to avoid any chance of voting for revocation - which Corbyn will argue goes against the will of the referendum - they will whip against this amendment. That is precisely because they will want to avoid any chance that it can be said that they did not deliver on ‘the will of the people'. And if
It whips against this amendment then the Letwin / Cooper Bill will become the toothless tiger it was when first presented, the result of which is that there will be no binary vote on Thursday.
And there is no chance that May will ask for a long extension because that will require Euro MEP elections and that will tear the Tories apart, and that she will not risk, come what may.
And so we will leave with No Deal.
I think that almost unavoidable now.
And I hope I am wrong.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Leave means leave once we leave we should have a big shake up of MPs I for one will never vote for an MP who wanted to remain I will always appose them for the simple reason is I will never have confidence in them again because they are in it for them self’s and not the people no deal is the best deal to many people scarred of a change
You mean you will vote for all those who seek to destroy the well-being of out country
And who want to kill those who will die from a lack of drugs that they need?
I hope you and they can live with their consciences
The British public on aggregate voted to be half in and half out. Even if there were a repeat people’s vote and it went 52:48 in favour of EU full membership, the aggregate desire to he roughly half in would still hold true.
And yet there are plenty of half-in half out options available – Norway, Guernsey, Theresa May’s WA. You’re always going to give up a little of your independence to get along with your neighbours, but as long as we’re out of the worst EU institutions and programmes, then the public would be moderately happy overall and collectively.
Yet Parliament cannot see this.
They’re all shouting children who want all cake and no greens, or all greens and no cake. And unwilling to trade the greens for the cake with those who want to trade the other way.
To answer Dean’s point : the 10 or so non-EU countries that are half in and half out ( CU, free movement, EEA etc ) all have functioning trade in drugs. In fact they have slightly better health outcomes overall than their neighbours.
Of course one day we will have a functioning trade in drugs
But you’re being crass: the point is one day
And in the meantime people die
Whilst in the long term we will unambu=iguously be worse off – as all the evidence shows
We’re not playing semantics here
Or some crass game
We’re talking lives
And livelihoods
And you just want to play semantics
Now, very politely, stop wasting my time
Dean Elliott I realise it’s late in the day but can I ask you how a no deal will benefit the people of the UK. After almost 3 years I cannot find a good argument to support this position, even though I’ve always been prepared to be convinced.
Dean Elliott.
You’re right about one thing.
No-deal will certainly leave many people scarred!
Dude.
Punctuation.
Use it.
Seriously.
This is a blog
Punctuation is optional if meaning is apparent
dean elliott says:
“Leave means leave once we leave we should have a big shake up of MPs….”
And the Brexit fantasy lives on……and on…
Why do I say that ? Because leave does not mean ‘Leave at any cost’.
Leave was a desire not a policy. IF it still is a majority desire (which is questionable now the potential for chaos is clear) then Leave needs to be negotiated so we don’t chuck away everything. This the Conservative party has signally failed to do. So from my viewpoint it makes it a government failure and we should knock it on the head , Revoke Article 50 and maybe start again.
Start again …..with all these new MPs you think we’re going to find from somewhere. (!!!???) Yes a major shake-up of MPs would be good thing, but it needs a realignment of the parties to do that and we need a proportional Representation voting system to be in with a chance of achieving that. Nothing sensible is going to be achieved by a parliament fighting to rescue the country from the debacle of a chaotic Brexit. (For the next decade..)
WE could have done Brexit sensibly to mutual advantage. But not the way it has been attempted.
The ‘Will of the people’ was not expressly stated to be a desire to wreck the whole future prosperity , peace and integrity of the UK. And that’s the road we’re threatening to take.
If the ardent leavers really do want , as is implied, inevitably, by your dogmatic position, to make a bid for Little England’s independence, then that should be what it says on the voting slip.
Hi Richard, the travails of Brexit seem to have depressed you…!
I agree with your analysis, but I believe, in the event of the Commons inflicting a No Deal on the country, the EU will rescue us in some way, shape or form.
At least, I hope they will, but my hard hat will be firmly strapped to my head all week!
Hallo Richard.
Such a Pity you have to resort to this kind of rhetoric . Far too sentimental and an injustice to the real cause.. I would prefer to remain in the EU so iets use better argument…John
I use rhetoric appropriate to the moment
@John Charles
I agree, we are at the mercy of the EU and as an extension has already been requested the EU just has to grant a much more lengthy extension than the one requested, as the only extension on offer. They know the gov’t has already started preparing for MEP elections. It is presumably open to May to refuse any extension at all and crash out immediately but I’d certainly like to imagine that that would be unlikley…
Richard,
I’ve tried to find dissenting opinion to “No Deal Brexit may be unlawful – a view from Rose Slowe” but found nothing authoritative or substantive on Twatter (despite your suggestion recently in response to a previous comment of mine that there are) and nothing anywhere else, other than a few non legally qualified lay rejections here and there e.g. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-no-one-mentioning-that-to-leave-the-EU-the-UK-needs-to-pass-legislation-otherwise-we-stay-in-as-default
There may thus be the hope you wish for – unless you can provide us with links to dissenting opinions, or indeed have you own, beyond just assertion(s) to the contrary?
It has been dismissed by a host of serious lawyers on twitter and elsewhere
I do not think it is credible
I’m sure it has, and I’m sure you don’t think it credible, but why?
I can’t find any dismissals despite looking (and I’m usually pretty good hunting down specific online content) though the other week I did see 2 “serious lawyers” support Slowe on Twatter, including A C Grayling.
Since the Slowe opinion is so far reaching, and none of your “serious lawyers” have published in an easily publicly visible forum, I see no grounds to dismiss the Slowe opinion so fast – even if the impact of it is projected to be a slow process through the courts – if it ever gets that far and is robust to survive a while!
Please just point me to these “serious lawyers” if for no other reason than completeness of your above arguments?
BTW I don’t count calling Slowes opinion “fanfic” by another academic lawyer, Steve Piers “serious” in his 140 character or so Twatter opinion. Such condescension just lowers the discussion. And still nothing from e.g. @JolyonMaugham @JMPSimor etc. despite several calls for them to comment. Thanks
Let me explain why no one is taking this seriously
A) It is deeply conjectural
B) It may not be credible
C) Even if it is true it will change no outcome
D) And it will never be litigated
So it is a diversion that achieves no goal
Richard, you tell us that “no one is taking this [the Slowe opinion on no-deal] seriously … [because] A) It is deeply conjectural”, yet you claimed earlier that “serious lawyers” have rejected it, despite me asking three times for links, but none forthcoming!?
Then you say “B) It may not be credible”, but it could be credible, since we still haven’t seen any “serious lawyers” opinions, and neither you nor I are lawyers and thus not properly competent?
Then you suggest “C) Even if it is true it will change no outcome” certainly true if a no-deal is avoided. But, the thesis of your above piece is that you think no-deal is now the most likely prospect, a view you have told us you hold for a while now. Surely this demands you give Slowe a proper appraisal, or at least take some of it into account rather than rejecting it unexamined and unmentioned in your analysis?
Next you write “D) And it will never be litigated” an assertion Slowe covers in he opinion: she never claims it would be “litigated” only that art50 will simply be voided by default and Brexit will have failed on grounds that to not assume it void would fundamentally clash with the constitutions of both the UK and the EU.
As Slowe puts it “The intention expressed in the Article 50(2) notification has to be read as subject to the fulfilment of subsequent constitutional requirements, and if those conditions remain unsatisfied at the end of the Article 50 negotiation period when the terms of withdrawal, or lack thereof, are known, the conditional notification given would have to be treated as having lapsed, if not unilaterally withdrawn, because the constitutional requirements necessary to give effect to it have not been met.”
Even if the the UK parliament does decide to strut about pretending it has met the its side of the art50 constitutional requirements, do you really believe the EU authorities will ignore their side of the art50 constitutional realities and obligations? If they did it’d enable the UK’s subsequent legal & constitutional turmoil to infect its remaining 27 members, some of whom may also be in the process of thinking about wanting to leave? The EU would thus be forced to litigate, or rapidly crumble in the wake of such contradictions.
Finally you suggest “… it is a diversion that achieves no goal” true if in a week or so no-deal is legislated away. But that is by no means certain, especially if May gets an extension to the art50 deadline, which could be a year, giving plenty of time for UK litigation (e.g. Miller).
Leavers and others whinge that if the 2016 result is not delivered parliamentary integrity will evaporate because it would have betrayed the people’s perception they were given a ‘ political promise to deliver Brexit’, pales into insignificance, compared to the Slowe opinion predictions:
“Article 50(3) would not automatically expel the UK as no Member State can be forced to withdraw otherwise than pursuant to a voluntary decision taken in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
In conclusion, if the UK is unable to leave the EU in a constitutionally compliant manner by 29 March 2019, [or following any agreed time limit extensions] as in by an Act of Parliament, then we cannot lawfully withdraw. If an extension of time is not agreed by the EU, or as and when that extension expires, the UK’s Article 50 notice will lapse as a matter of national and supranational law, if not unilaterally withdrawn. A no-deal Brexit in the absence of parliamentary approval is, therefore, not the legal default.”
Ignoring constitutional reality on either or both sides of the channel seems to me a very dangerous game indeed.
Perhaps its you who is not taking the Slowe opinion “seriously” ?
I am not taking it seriously because it has no impact on the real world
I am getting rather sick and tired of those who come here saying that we will be OK with No Deal.
We will be more at the mercy of the EU more than ever before – and given that the Leave-Mongers are always telling us how bad the EU is – what is all of that about? Is that a good situation to be in? Is the EU an evil entity or good one? Pray tell?
Leavers slag the EU off, and then say ‘Oh when we’ll leave, don’t worry the EU will be nice to us and things won’t be that bad’. So if that is the case (the EU is nice and reasonable) why are we leaving? Duh!!!!!!!
But what really sticks in my craw is those of you who come here thinking everything will be OK are as always thinking long term. Sure – every time some hare-brained Neo-lib Tory scheme destroys the economy, somehow things get back to some kind of normal (but never in the same way believe you me with victims everywhere – things for real people are still not back to pre-2008 levels).
When the vote was taken, the result was unexpected OK? There was no plan to leave before the vote result. And the planning that has been done since is a mixture of coping and second guessing because of issues like the Irish back stop are still as of now un-resolved.
We don’t even know how we are going to leave and we keep seeing the dates put back in the form of stupid short extensions.
You want a clue? Why are we creating lorry parking in the south east? Hmmmmmm? Shall we talk about Chris Grayling and ghost shipping fleet and a certain defunct port too eh?
Those who think we’ll be OK need to get your heads out of your bottoms OK? In the short term we are not ready for BREXIT. Just not ready at all. Savvy? There are going to be issues arise that really did not need to happen at all – the severity of which will depend on how we leave.
And let’s just consider the long term for a minute eh? Who is to say that the EU will be at first very pliant but then over time begin to make things more difficult for us as they try to get back to normal? Many of you Leave-Heads just haven’t even thought about that have you? No……………not at all. Why would China want to trade with us when they can trade with the EU given the relevant size of the EU zone’s economy to little olde England? The goodwill from the EU will not last. And I wouldn’t blame them. So do not be so sure about the long term. The Commonwealth for example can sell more in the EU zone and globally than in the UK. Who do you think they’ll want to trade with?
For those of you who think that increased child poverty, austerity, dwindling life expectancy and zero hours contracts are sacrifices worth making for a ‘better country’, BREXIT is right up your alley because it’s going to get much worse.
The other thing you Leave-Heads don’t seem to get is that Parliament is now in a state of panic OK? Because the current Government’s handling of the whole thing is obdurate and undemocratic. The Parliament that voted for A50 did not expect the Tory party to be so reckless in how it has set about how to leave.
I for one as a Remainer could cope with seeing us leave but stay in the customs union – but even that sensible way of doing such an insensible thing is blocked by a party that thinks that it alone has the right to rule.
This is where we are Leave-Heads! Stop being in denial and deal with it. We are a small country that is about to become tiny – and even more tiny if we leave without a deal.
Pilgrim wrote “We are a small country that is about to become tiny — and even more tiny if we leave without a deal.”
Tinier than you envisage, Pilgrim, if Scotland and NI depart (and why would they want to stay?).
Agreed.
Alas a move to Bonnie Scotland might be out of the question. Even Ireland.
The EU is reportedly quite likely to respond to TM’s short-extension request with an offer of a long extension that can terminated early by agreeing a deal (i.e., just an extension as A50 allows that anyway). If the extension also can be terminated by unilaterally declaring no deal, then TM can treat it as the short extension she has already requested – just declare to the Tories that it will be no deal unless a deal is agreed by June 30, thus guaranteeing that any MEPs elected in May will not take up their seats. Of course Parliament could thwart her by voting to not allow a declaration of no deal, but they don’t seem inclined to do that having had several opportunities already.
I think TM is very reluctant to go down as the PM who chose no deal – she is desperate to pin the blame on someone else.
Grim reading….but I thought parliament voted to prevent a no deal exit? Although that has not been actually made into an act I believe. I also thought that Jeremy Corbin explicitly stated that a ‘no deal’ was not an option?
Assuming this does come to pass as you predict, what do we do now? Just being a keyboard warrior is futile really. I and many others went on a march but what good did that do? Glad I went for sure but then so did a million object to the Iraqi war and all they predicted came to pass and worse!
I am totally frustrated by the overlooked illegal election spending, hardly gets a mention in the MSM, the Cambridge Analytica and Facebook meddling (and I understand this is still happening with FB targeted ads pressing for a no deal Brexit and encouraging people to press their MPs to vote for that). These folk are threatening to spoil their ballot papers by scrawling ‘BREXIT’.
Round here, letters in the local press are ranting about how a no deal is what we voted for. When they have their street parties I will get some short term satisfaction in kicking over the trellis tables!
In the upcoming local elections, looking at the previous results in my ward, UKIP came second and in many cases a very close second to the Conservatives (local MP is Chope needless to say).
I look forward to the comments from the regulars who have great analysis but at the end of the day, we have lost and are seemingly powerless.
Somebody convince me otherwise.
I wish I could answer the question Ian
At one level we get what we deserve
Maybe we deserve what is coming
But it is going to be ghastly
I too have at times gone down the ‘we get what we deserve route’ but from what I have read in Hugo Young’s ‘This Blessed Plot’ I have become more convinced than ever that the UK does not deserve this BREXIT at all – it is neither a ‘fait accompli’, historically inevitable, or even natural.
To see it as any of the above is to give it a legitimacy that it does not deserve and excuses those in positions of power who have done nothing but pursued their own agenda over Europe since the last days of Mrs Thatcher.
We cannot ignore that Europe has also become an out of control problem in the ruling party which does not help matters at all and complicates things a hundredfold.
The Tory party is being put before the country it has in its stewardship.
I don’t deserve this; You don’t deserve it; Remainers and leavers alike don’t deserve it (abused as both are) but I know who deserves NEVER to be allowed to govern again in this country and it is the Tory Party.
They are unfit to govern and think that our country is just a playground for their whims and vices.
Enough!
I am afraid that I get to the same conclusion, Richard, though by a marginally different route.
As you rightly say, the question this week as so often for the last two years is “we have to imagine what Labour will do”? It is as likely that they will not whip in relation to the Maugham amendment – irresolution in the face of morally demanding situations having become their default position. That might leave a very small chance of the amended version passing the Commons. Imagine that this does happen and Labour will have kicked the moral can right into the middle of the field come a Thursday break-down – and then they will…. abstain, shouting something like “Neither betrayal nor endorsement” (rather in the manner of the gutless Italian Liberals in 1916) and try pointing the finger of reproach at the Tories.
No – I really, really, do not know what they will do, save that it will be unintelligent, indefensible and useless – and will allow the obsessed of Downing Street to do her vengeful worst. But we could both be wrong… couldn’t we?
I have considered that option
I thought they’d try to avoid it by not creating the chance of it happening
But they may not have that foresight
Richard, how bright do you think Corbyn is? When he first became leader, I thought he was rather intelligent, but as time has gone on and watching what he has done and said, I have begun to think that he is much less intelligent than I originally thought he was. Now, I am not sure. And I don’t know what to think. What I can say is that I do not approve of his approach to Brexit.
I am not sure speculation on this solves anything very much
I think there is a good chance that May will just pull the plug on the whole operation – revoke Article 50 – with just minutes to go until the UK crashes out. Literally at the eleventh hour. Why? Because she is more desperate to avoid being “the Tory PM who broke up the UK” than she is to avoid being “the Tory PM who split the Tory party”. I imagine that May will have seen civil service advice to the effect that No Deal will be so catastrophic that it will put the Tory party out of office for 20 years, at least, and put Jeremy Corbyn in 10 Downing St with the sort of majority that might enable him to make absolutely fundamental changes to the British economy. Whereas she may figure that the Tory party can recover more quickly after a split in the event of A50 revocation – the economic damage will be minimal and whilst there would presumably be a no confidence vote and an election, the outcome is more uncertain. A “hard Brexit” splinter Tory party (which would actually contain a good proportion of the MPs and most of the party activists) might actually do OK. There are enough “swivel-eyed loons” out there. So last minute revocation looks like a reasonable bet to me… in fact I may actually put some money down on it.
Fascinating
I find your logic quite appealing
But you assume she is as logical as you are Howard
Let’s just hope she really does think her legacy is to be only the second worst Tory PM in a century
Yes, that might be where my line of argument breaks down… May appears to change her mind every few days so who the hell knows where she will be at by this Friday?
Indeed…..
I’ve this going round in my head in a loop.
can’t shake it….
The Farage of the Right Brigade.
By Alfred, Lord Tennyson
I
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!” he said.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
II
“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
III
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.
IV
Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered.
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right through the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre stroke
Shattered and sundered.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
V
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell.
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
VI
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!
The Latest YouGov poll illustrates frighteningly well how uninformed or indeed quite deluded the public still is.
50% think a no-deal Brexit would be a bad outcome yet if a deal is not agreed by 12th and the EU refuses to extend the deadline then 44% agree we should leave with no deal. ( 42% remain with 13% don’t know.) – So the Brexiteers don’t really care if its a bad outcome: “they want’s it…” as Gollum would say.
Of course they’ve convinced themselves it’s not going to be bad “really”… because 47% think the warnings about a no deal Brexit causing short term disruption are actually “… exaggerated or invented” and that in reality a no deal exit “would NOT cause serious disruption…”
All this would be kind of understandable if there was some kind of charismatic messianic political leader surrounded by a cadre of genius, but the actuality is a Tory party lead by May with a rump of Brexiteers waiting in the wings that make the cartoon characters from the Beano look three dimensional and a Labour party intent on any form of mutual suicide that will involve not taking power.
– This is sleepwalking at its most dangerous .
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/04/04/what-do-public-think-about-no-deal-brexit
From my distant, occasional helicopter viewpoint the facts are.
1. The EU refuses to budge on freedom of movement and residencey despite mass migration of over 15% that causes national troubles.
2. Coalition governments and PR encourages splits and lying by politicians who break their promises when they join a coalition.
3. The EU staff have steadily acted like “Fagin” regarding the UK as a source of high net income £10Bn/yr or £190mil per week to be correct, intellectual property, upholding laws, fish handouts, the reliable fall guy for speaking strong common sense, picking pockets adn rubbing out red lines.
4. The EU political system was only voted in by a slim majority of the 4.8mil people of Ireland and overwhelmingly rejected by all other countrys that were allowed a referendum. The people I would assert had more common sense on their side, the EU employees had powers of luring and persuasion needing just 28 prime ministers.
5. The euros introduction causes a crisis which allows for the grabbing of the powers from the states with taxes, judges etc without regional grants or a currency devaluation.
6. As a result of no fiscal pacts nor the recirculation of money the trade imbalance of Germany €250Bn surplus is unsustainable as they refuse to hand more than €25bn back.
7. The EUs preferred option IMHO is a ‘half out’ Britain stripped of EU commissioners or EU executives but with MEPs that can only rubber stamp what laws comes from above. The UK in Mays deal lies trapped paying yearly and the exit fee whilst unable to gain any of the benefits. Selling back at cost valuable assets from property/bank ownership etc. Only breaking treatys and international laws would allow the country to be freed as the EU must agree to break one of its 4 principles which will never happen.
The second best solution for the EU is revoking Article 50 as they have grabbed what they wanted already and by influencing key remain ministers trussed up the country by removing danger points e.g. helicopter carriers sold that would cover the North sea, ownership of UK based car makers, rules on basing financial transactions in the EU and the city, backup plans to airlift support to Ireland like Berlin in the cold war, continued access to fishing, no alternative treaties, a comprehensive united against the UK European effort whilst dividing the opposition.
8. The EU is not the EEC there are no longer the checks and balances with this vast PR system, nor asking for national money – like a bigger version of Belgium the EU is run by the civil servants ideals and ambitions e.g. 6 Presidents. Yes Minster on a grander scale. The easy bit of building roads, tunnels, standard setting and tariff lowering is in the past.
9. T May probably wanted to avoid the hospital pass of the Brexit referendum result but in leaping like in the grand national got stuck on the fence and found herself in a typically Greek government coalition position. The people voted out and yet the politicians betrayed them and remained.
10. Economies of scale and diseconomies or scale remain important. The EU with 27 nations is a diseconomy of scale with slow bureaucratic decision making vs a rapidly changing world keeping outdated assumptions making for failed decision making. When a economy is growing as it has been decisions are easier. Geographical location counts close neighbours trade more so Ireland should switch to the UK and Scotland and Wales go with 70% of their trading market and open up to the world.
11. The Commissions members acts in its own self interests which do not align with the peoples.
12. The PR electing countrys voters are fed up with their own lying politicians and then misplace their trust that the PR and cabal elected EU will be better (big disappointment is now showing up) e.g. back in 1992 it was Germanys pension gap, with the EU to do things that the coalition governments could not politically implement because they were too weak. The British people and politicians expected fair play and tradeoffs but the EU gave none as they only required a revoke or an enslavement. Anything else would reduce the chances of those two. The British didn’t expect that.
I predict EU elections (‘just in case’) then capitulation with a withdrawal of article 50 unilaterally as after 2.5 years of critical business ministrys deliberately unprepared and takeover policy we are left at the mercy of European companies controlling swathes of the economy and due to the EU being better game players threw our cards away one by one over 2 years.
Alternatively an accidental ‘it wasn’t me’ No deal exit is unlikely as the numbers don’t add up with the numbers of remain MP’s in parliament 400 vs 200. So the outcome is just as the game theory would predict with a coalition government. If it did happen then like the phoney war we would need a war cabinet with no remainers.
My suggestion to politicians:- ask the people on the tube just like Churchill did by getting out of the limo on the way to Parliament before WW2.
Remaining does not solve the migration problem, housing problem, fishing issue, lowering GDP/head, the breaking of EU laws by nations, threats on the City’s wealth (Tobin Tax) nor being made as the repeated victim by ‘Fagins gang’. Only the UK could get so far because of still having our own currency and the strong First Past the Post voting system yet we may fail.
If we are out, its for 30+ years IMO, when trade will of resumed (the ‘easiest agreement ever’), if not its revoke & remain or its break the laws and await the gunboats up the Thames etc.
Judging by how the migration issue is going, on top of globalisations loss of jobs, AI the same, climate change causing forced migration, maybe the EU’s MPs might shift to solve that, but the EU with its ‘Fundamental Rights’ stop that being solved, as the commissioners still hold sway putting only ‘European interests’ first. A lose lose for all. Anyway time for some shut eye knowing we have been gamed.
I have posted this, but confess I gave up the will to read it and think it adds little to debate
Please forgive my candour Gavin, but it may have been more judicious to have benefited from the refreshment of sleep, before you wrote this piece.
My eyes began to grow heavy around point ‘6)’; so perhaps it has some use as a soporific.
John S Warren says:
“Please forgive my candour Gavin, but ……”
With you entirely, John. Perhaps not for the same reason.
This sort of considered analysis is now fully three years too late………. even if it has merit. (on which I make no comment)
I can understand Ken why people might want to see an end to something – especially BREXIT – because there is nothing clear coming from Parliament at all except yet another a vote (or an indicative vote) etc., etc. People just want to know where they stand.
Also, for years the EU has been portrayed negatively in the UK with very little understanding of what it actually does – the polling above reflects this too.
[…] Reed challenged my view that No Deal was almost inevitable this week, expressed yesterday. His logic for doing so […]