Brexit, a dead end? Watch

TensorTympani
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
With current talks in Parliament reaching nowhere and with a very few people backing the currently proposed deal, also the EU are not willing to make adjustments as well. The Parliament are also not in a majority for any deal on the table and wish to make the table longer by extending Brexit.
Have we reached a dead end on Brexit?
0
reply
TheNamesBond.
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
Idk I’ll be off to France soon so cya.

:auto:
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by TensorTympani)
With current talks in Parliament reaching nowhere and with a very few people backing the currently proposed deal, also the EU are not willing to make adjustments as well. The Parliament are also not in a majority for any deal on the table and wish to make the table longer by extending Brexit.
Have we reached a dead end on Brexit?
Not quite.

Although it is possible for May to fudge a few months it is not possible to persist past December if she does not deliver Brexit.

We have local elections in May which may force a resolution if a swing away from the government occurs or if forced to contest the European elections.

The manner of our extention also matters. Although the PM may request it, there is still talk of the Cooper amendment being on the table which would almost certainly force a general election if passed. No executive could tolerate that precedent.

Essentially we are likely looking at a general election to force a majority for some solution.
1
reply
TensorTympani
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by Rakas21)
Not quite.

Although it is possible for May to fudge a few months it is not possible to persist past December if she does not deliver Brexit.

We have local elections in May which may force a resolution if a swing away from the government occurs or if forced to contest the European elections.

The manner of our extention also matters. Although the PM may request it, there is still talk of the Cooper amendment being on the table which would almost certainly force a general election if passed. No executive could tolerate that precedent.

Essentially we are likely looking at a general election to force a majority for some solution.
That is a solution to the problem, however if Parliament are not able to reach a majority on any deal on the table then we have reached a dead end.
1
reply
ThatOldGuy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by TensorTympani)
With current talks in Parliament reaching nowhere and with a very few people backing the currently proposed deal, also the EU are not willing to make adjustments as well. The Parliament are also not in a majority for any deal on the table and wish to make the table longer by extending Brexit.
Have we reached a dead end on Brexit?
I have a secret to tell you:

Brexit was always going to go in this direction. There have been serious anti-EU sentiments rising in Poland, Norway, France, Italy. If Britain had succeeded well(Or even with minimal difficulties), those other areas would have been fuelled in to leaving as well. If the EU was too draconian in their push, the sympathies of the world would mean those other groups were fuelled.

The only way for the EU to win was for Britain to lose. And Britain didn't want to lose. For Britain to win, Europe cannot and vice versa.

This means that Britain always had to keep the idea of a no-deal Brexit on the table. Doing so would harm the economy of the EU and Britain and probably lead to a downturn in the worlds economy. Probably, that downturn would be minor - But the world economy is known for being hit with 'Perfect storms' as we see with the dotcom bubbles of the early aughts and the housing bubble later on - So the downturn, due to panic and misunderstanding, could lead to something far worse.

Neither side wants that, so they are currently in one of two potential end-games. I say this to give you a background you almost assuredly know and understand so that you can understand what comes next:

1) The two countries are both reasonable and competent - If this is the case, the sabre-rattling simply gets Britain a better deal. Maybe Britain was feigning incompetence and weakness early on to force the EU to make a mistake in their negotiations by pushing negotiations to the last second. Britain is well-known for having some of the toughest negotiators around and this is possible. Even likely. But another, equally likely prospect is:

2) One or both of the countries are either unreasonable or incompetent or both - If this is the case(Maybe the EU wants to be more punitive than the UK is willing to accept, for instance, or both sides are panicking and unable to come up with things that will placate either of their bases), then things take a darker turn. The sabre-rattling is not sabre-rattling, but last minute desperate attempts to let the other side know they have lost control and the other side needs to capitulate more. These notes are ignored, to the peril of all. The world economy takes a downturn, the EU loses a trading partner to up and coming minor powers scrapping for a good deal to earn money and major powers follow suit if and when Britain stabilises via trade with those minor powers. Probably at that point, you see a year of rough times for Britain(Or so), a reduction in the GDP and a lot of anger on both sides of the Britain/EU divide as everything falls in to mutual recriminations and blame.

It(Probably) won't be devastating, but it'll be bad if number 2 is correct. If number 1 is correct, Britain comes out reasonably well and starts negotiating trade. CANZUK will probably become a major thing in the next few months. The world keeps spinning and life takes a short dip followed by an improvement, with Britain shifting its developmental priorities.
4
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by TensorTympani)
That is a solution to the problem, however if Parliament are not able to reach a majority on any deal on the table then we have reached a dead end.
Yes but i am pointing out that the dead end can't persist several years as sone remoaners would wish. We are rapidly heading to a general election being essentially the only option available and that means that one way or another Brexit is likely to come to a conclusion.

Now this assumes that we don't end up with an even more hung parliament which would be problematic.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by TensorTympani)
With current talks in Parliament reaching nowhere and with a very few people backing the currently proposed deal, also the EU are not willing to make adjustments as well. The Parliament are also not in a majority for any deal on the table and wish to make the table longer by extending Brexit.
Have we reached a dead end on Brexit?
No we haven’t reached a dead end.

It is within the PM’s power to do no deal regardless what they vote next week it simply moves the date from the end of March to a later date.

Her plan is still the same scare enough MP’s to vote for her deal.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
jp.lk12
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
Norway isn't part of the EU? But yes, the UK would have to 'lose' and EU 'win' because otherwise other countries would follow the UK and the EU would collapse.
(Original post by ThatOldGuy)
I have a secret to tell you:

Brexit was always going to go in this direction. There have been serious anti-EU sentiments rising in Poland, Norway, France, Italy. If Britain had succeeded well(Or even with minimal difficulties), those other areas would have been fuelled in to leaving as well. If the EU was too draconian in their push, the sympathies of the world would mean those other groups were fuelled.

The only way for the EU to win was for Britain to lose. And Britain didn't want to lose. For Britain to win, Europe cannot and vice versa.

This means that Britain always had to keep the idea of a no-deal Brexit on the table. Doing so would harm the economy of the EU and Britain and probably lead to a downturn in the worlds economy. Probably, that downturn would be minor - But the world economy is known for being hit with 'Perfect storms' as we see with the dotcom bubbles of the early aughts and the housing bubble later on - So the downturn, due to panic and misunderstanding, could lead to something far worse.

Neither side wants that, so they are currently in one of two potential end-games. I say this to give you a background you almost assuredly know and understand so that you can understand what comes next:

1) The two countries are both reasonable and competent - If this is the case, the sabre-rattling simply gets Britain a better deal. Maybe Britain was feigning incompetence and weakness early on to force the EU to make a mistake in their negotiations by pushing negotiations to the last second. Britain is well-known for having some of the toughest negotiators around and this is possible. Even likely. But another, equally likely prospect is:

2) One or both of the countries are either unreasonable or incompetent or both - If this is the case(Maybe the EU wants to be more punitive than the UK is willing to accept, for instance, or both sides are panicking and unable to come up with things that will placate either of their bases), then things take a darker turn. The sabre-rattling is not sabre-rattling, but last minute desperate attempts to let the other side know they have lost control and the other side needs to capitulate more. These notes are ignored, to the peril of all. The world economy takes a downturn, the EU loses a trading partner to up and coming minor powers scrapping for a good deal to earn money and major powers follow suit if and when Britain stabilises via trade with those minor powers. Probably at that point, you see a year of rough times for Britain(Or so), a reduction in the GDP and a lot of anger on both sides of the Britain/EU divide as everything falls in to mutual recriminations and blame.

It(Probably) won't be devastating, but it'll be bad if number 2 is correct. If number 1 is correct, Britain comes out reasonably well and starts negotiating trade. CANZUK will probably become a major thing in the next few months. The world keeps spinning and life takes a short dip followed by an improvement, with Britain shifting its developmental priorities.
0
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by jp.lk12)
But yes, the UK would have to 'lose' and EU 'win' because otherwise other countries would follow the UK and the EU would collapse.
This argument has never made much sense to me. The EU says "We can't let Britain have this because then everyone will want that" - if everyone wants 'that' then maybe 'that' is what the EU should deliver!
0
reply
jp.lk12
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by CurlyBen)
This argument has never made much sense to me. The EU says "We can't let Britain have this because then everyone will want that" - if everyone wants 'that' then maybe 'that' is what the EU should deliver!
The EU can't deliver what the UK wants because what the UK wants is to have all the benefits and advantages, but pay nothing and have non of the disadvantages. The EU is a partnership, a cooperation. You have to be able to compromise and share in a partnership, but the UK does not want that. If one country gets everything and gives nothing, how is that fair? Obviously, if the UK gets what they want, everyone else will want that too, but nothing in the world works that way. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Last edited by jp.lk12; 2 weeks ago
4
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by jp.lk12)
The EU can't deliver what the UK wants because what the UK wants is to have all the benefits and advantages, but pay nothing and have non of the disadvantages. The EU is a partnership, a cooperation. You have to be able to compromise and share in a partnership, but the UK does not want that. If one country gets everything and gives nothing, how is that fair? Obviously, if the UK gets what they want, everyone else will want that too, but nothing in the world works that way. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Ah yes. The EU famously compromised when David Cameron tried to negotiate prior to the referendum.

Anyway that's a rather over-simplistic summation. If, for example, the UK wants to limit freedom of movement, and other countries would also want that, why can that not be agreed? (Other than that it would run counter to the ambitions of most senior EU politicians). Realistically, some kind of compromise on freedom of movement would have almost certainly kept the UK in the EU. Frankly, freedom of movement was a good idea originally when the economies involved were largely comparable but isn't when - as now - there are significant disparities.
0
reply
hello_shawn
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
When you hear that trump has backed down on immigration, you know that that's it for Western civilization. Democracy can no longer be trusted when it elects people who don't do what they promise, and do the exact opposite...
0
reply
jp.lk12
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by CurlyBen)
Ah yes. The EU famously compromised when David Cameron tried to negotiate prior to the referendum.

Anyway that's a rather over-simplistic summation. If, for example, the UK wants to limit freedom of movement, and other countries would also want that, why can that not be agreed? (Other than that it would run counter to the ambitions of most senior EU politicians). Realistically, some kind of compromise on freedom of movement would have almost certainly kept the UK in the EU. Frankly, freedom of movement was a good idea originally when the economies involved were largely comparable but isn't when - as now - there are significant disparities.
The deal David Cameron got was a good start. It wasn't perfect, but still good.

I don't think that many countries in the EU actually want to limit the freedom of movement besides the UK, so why would they limit the freedom of movement, when only one (or very few) countries wants to limit it? If only one country wants it and 27 others don't, it wouldn't really be a compromise because there's a huge majority.
0
reply
jp.lk12
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by hello_shawn)
When you hear that trump has backed down on immigration, you know that that's it for Western civilization. Democracy can no longer be trusted when it elects people who don't do what they promise, and do the exact opposite...
Well Trump didn't even win the popular vote, so the voting system in the US isn't really democratic.
0
reply
ThatOldGuy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by jp.lk12)
Norway isn't part of the EU? But yes, the UK would have to 'lose' and EU 'win' because otherwise other countries would follow the UK and the EU would collapse.
That's true, but it is part of the single market and the customs union and the complaints caused by huge immigration in to a tiny area has caused an upswelling of anti-EU sentiment.

They don't have to be part of the EU to be anti-EU and to want to change or remove themselves from the deal they created.
0
reply
CurlyBen
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by jp.lk12)
The deal David Cameron got was a good start. It wasn't perfect, but still good.

I don't think that many countries in the EU actually want to limit the freedom of movement besides the UK, so why would they limit the freedom of movement, when only one (or very few) countries wants to limit it? If only one country wants it and 27 others don't, it wouldn't really be a compromise because there's a huge majority.
So essentially the EU can't limit freedom of movement because then everyone would want that, although actually no one else does want to? Sounds about right for EU reasoning, but that doesn't mean it's got any basis in logic.
0
reply
jp.lk12
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by CurlyBen)
So essentially the EU can't limit freedom of movement because then everyone would want that, although actually no one else does want to? Sounds about right for EU reasoning, but that doesn't mean it's got any basis in logic.
That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that only the UK seems to want to limit the freedom of movement in the EU, the other 27 countries don't, so therefore it would be wrong to limit the freedom of movement because only 1 out of 28 countries wants to. There's a very large majority of countries who don't want to limit freedom of movement. Other countries don't want to limit the freedom of movement just because the UK does. The freedom of movement isn't the only reason why brexit people voted out of the EU, hence not the only disadvantage. Many people thought that the UK paid too much money to the EU without getting enough in return, and believed this money could be spent elsewhere. That has nothing to do with freedom of movement.

As a result, the UK have now decided they want out of the EU, which is fine. But they still want all the other perks of the EU, such as access to the single market, not having to pay anything to the EU, etc. You can't have all the advantages and no disadvantages. That's the point I'm making.
0
reply
TensorTympani
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by paul514)
No we haven’t reached a dead end.

It is within the PM’s power to do no deal regardless what they vote next week it simply moves the date from the end of March to a later date.

Her plan is still the same scare enough MP’s to vote for her deal.
But there are some serious back benchers of even her own party who will not vote for her deal.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by TensorTympani)
But there are some serious back benchers of even her own party who will not vote for her deal.
And that’s her issue.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by paul514)
No we haven’t reached a dead end.

It is within the PM’s power to do no deal regardless what they vote next week it simply moves the date from the end of March to a later date.

Her plan is still the same scare enough MP’s to vote for her deal.
I don’t agree with this in that if the EU don’t move on the backstop then she is headed for a second large defeat. Even if she would like to face MP’s down in June it is hard to politically justify maintaining the same approach for three months having failed twice knowing that there was a majority against no deal as an option. That means a very soft Brexit or indefinite extension.

Hence my belief that we probably don’t avoid a general election.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (89)
21.87%
Before I was 12 (137)
33.66%
13 (66)
16.22%
14 (51)
12.53%
15 (30)
7.37%
16 (11)
2.7%
17 (3)
0.74%
18 (3)
0.74%
Between the ages of 19 - 24 (4)
0.98%
Over 25 (0)
0%
12 (13)
3.19%

Watched Threads

View All