MPs reject no-deal brexit

Original post by ThatOldGuy

And?

…

I already posted my conclusions - it's probably that the EU understands no deal brexit better than the UK government does, and at the very least they realise it's not going to be a viable option for the UK to take, no matter what happens. Therefore, yesterday's vote is meaningless in the context of the EU negotiations, even assuming any further negotiations take place.

Reply 22

username4307230

11

Regardless of where you stand on the Brexit debate, the last two days have proven that parliament is unfit for purpose and changes need to come.

Reply 23

eheheheh12334

2

All of this wouldn't be a problem if I was PM.
Nuke 'em all I say.

Reply 24

Original post by Dez

…

I already posted my conclusions - it's probably that the EU understands no deal brexit better than the UK government does, and at the very least they realise it's not going to be a viable option for the UK to take, no matter what happens. Therefore, yesterday's vote is meaningless in the context of the EU negotiations, even assuming any further negotiations take place.

And?

Reply 25

Original post by ThatOldGuy

And?

Are you my 5 year old nephew? :colonhash:

This is a debate forum buddy, come up with something substantive if you want to discuss this topic.

Reply 26

Original post by Dez

Are you my 5 year old nephew? :colonhash:

This is a debate forum buddy, come up with something substantive if you want to discuss this topic.

I will when you have said something substantive to debate. You have made a few sweeping statements(The EU knows better than Britain what it means to leave the EU. Globalism won't allow a single power to leave the EU and still be prosperous). I asked for clarification. You stated that your position had already been made clear. Our discussion was similar to this:

"Chocolate is the best thing in the world and anybody who says differently is wrong."
"Can you substantiate that?"
"Look at this chocolate manufacturers website that shows how much cocoa goes in to it! Much more cocoa than other places."
"And?"
"And I've already made my stance clear."
"And?"
"Are you my 5 year old nephew? :colonhash:

This is a debate forum buddy, come up with something substantive if you want to discuss this topic."

Do you understand why I'm waiting for you to say something substantive, now before I respond?

Reply 27

Original post by ThatOldGuy

I will when you have said something substantive to debate. You have made a few sweeping statements(The EU knows better than Britain what it means to leave the EU. Globalism won't allow a single power to leave the EU and still be prosperous). I asked for clarification. You stated that your position had already been made clear. Our discussion was similar to this:

"Chocolate is the best thing in the world and anybody who says differently is wrong."
"Can you substantiate that?"
"Look at this chocolate manufacturers website that shows how much cocoa goes in to it! Much more cocoa than other places."
"And?"
"And I've already made my stance clear."
"And?"
"Are you my 5 year old nephew? :colonhash:

This is a debate forum buddy, come up with something substantive if you want to discuss this topic."

Do you understand why I'm waiting for you to say something substantive, now before I respond?

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense. We were talking about whether the EU understands the consequences of no deal or not. It is clear from the various publications that the commission have made that the EU has undertaken substantive research into this area, far more extensive than the research done by UK government. So, the idea that we could hope to hold no deal over their heads during negotiations carries no weight, the EU knows just as well as we do that it is a terrible idea, that will backfire on the UK massively if it were to be considered.

Reply 28

Original post by Dez

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense. We were talking about whether the EU understands the consequences of no deal or not. It is clear from the various publications that the commission have made that the EU has undertaken substantive research into this area, far more extensive than the research done by UK government. So, the idea that we could hope to hold no deal over their heads during negotiations carries no weight, the EU knows just as well as we do that it is a terrible idea, that will backfire on the UK massively if it were to be considered.

That isn't what we were talking about, and I disagree with your conclusion, anyway. It was a 'Nuclear' option: MAD, where the EU would be critically hurt as well. Each group wants to avoid it and having that nuclear option to sabre rattle is important.

For examples of when MAD works, look at the 20th century and compare disagreements between nuclear and non-nuclear powers and disagreements between nuclear powers.

Reply 29

Original post by ThatOldGuy

That isn't what we were talking about, and I disagree with your conclusion, anyway. It was a 'Nuclear' option: MAD, where the EU would be critically hurt as well. Each group wants to avoid it and having that nuclear option to sabre rattle is important.

For examples of when MAD works, look at the 20th century and compare disagreements between nuclear and non-nuclear powers and disagreements between nuclear powers.

The EU would be "critically hurt"? That's doubtful. No deal isn't in the EU's interests, but it (probably) wouldn't lead to any critical situation.

I reiterate, though, that no deal was never a viable option for the UK to take, so the use of it as a sabre-rattle, as you put it, was minimal at best. It was essentially just empty bluster, especially since it was already fairly clear that Parliament would not carry support for no deal - afaik there was already a vote on this topic several months ago. Yesterday's vote changes nothing.

Reply 30

Burton Bridge

15

Original post by Dez

Are you my 5 year old nephew? :colonhash:

This is a debate forum buddy, come up with something substantive if you want to discuss this topic.

No he's trying not to get dragged down to you're level.

Saying that probably the EU knows best is baseless

Reply 31

Burton Bridge

15

Original post by Dez

The EU would be "critically hurt"? That's doubtful. No deal isn't in the EU's interests, but it (probably) wouldn't lead to any critical situation.

I reiterate, though, that no deal was never a viable option for the UK to take, so the use of it as a sabre-rattle, as you put it, was minimal at best. It was essentially just empty bluster, especially since it was already fairly clear that Parliament would not carry support for no deal - afaik there was already a vote on this topic several months ago. Yesterday's vote changes nothing.

The EU has given us 3 deals, they gave us these deals to avoid a no deal situation, our inept political figures have wasted all 3 deals, or you may wish to call them life lines.

You are saying the vote changes nothing but how us that possible, it changes everything. The EU now no longer has to give us a deal, to avoid no deal.

I find the notion that the EU will not allow us extension to A50 strange (not forn you but others), they will because they don't wish to cause themselves any pain and if nothing else no deal mean the other members have to find 39 billon between themselves. Romania ain't going to pay the same as Germany, so there is motive and we haven't even gone into the trade aspect that EU states would longer term EU member states would almost certainly lose.

Personally I think some hard core remainers are completely removed from reality, the problems with our EU membership are not going to magically heal by remaining a member even if there would be no backlash from the British people for ignoring the 2016 referendum, which we all know they will be! The notion we could go back to how we was is ridiculous, it's like a woman filing for divorce, offering it out round the village and then expecting her husband to take her back and carry on as if nothing had happened.

I'm not sure if you want no brexit Dez but if you want any type of Brexit then last night changes the game completely.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 32

Original post by Dez

The EU would be "critically hurt"? That's doubtful. No deal isn't in the EU's interests, but it (probably) wouldn't lead to any critical situation.

I reiterate, though, that no deal was never a viable option for the UK to take, so the use of it as a sabre-rattle, as you put it, was minimal at best. It was essentially just empty bluster, especially since it was already fairly clear that Parliament would not carry support for no deal - afaik there was already a vote on this topic several months ago. Yesterday's vote changes nothing.

"Doubtful" "Probably" "Never a viable".

You make flat statements unsupported, so I will as well.

You are wrong.

Reply 33