For the Brits: When will BREXIT referendum happen ?

[Laphroaig]

I read a quote about the snp the other day on that subject.

"They're working away to get a 2nd referendum to stay in a union, so they can work away at getting a 2nd referendum to leave a union".

something along those lines.
Amused me.

Nothing would surprise me from them, but let's not forget, the SNP's reason for existence is to see an independent Scotland. For them to give up on that would be like the Green party coming out in favour of coal power stations. Irony is that if Scotland ever did become independent, once the euphoria wore off the SNP would soon be deposed for their own incompetent governance. An independent Scotland would see the death of the SNP in the same way UKIP have shrunk in the wake of the EU referendum.

[Laphroaig]

And you have to ask?

Yes, as all this was completely predictable. Did you and all the other Brexiteers honestly think it was just a case of saying "bye bye EU" and that would be it, job done? Of course the EU was going to look after its own members interests first and guess what, they've proved better at it than us. What's worrying me is that we've made an arse of this deal and yet somehow people still believe these same idiots can negotiate better deals with all those other countries we need to trade with. Be afraid, be very afraid...

[peejaye]

Yes, as all this was completely predictable. Did you and all the other Brexiteers honestly think it was just a case of saying "bye bye EU" and that would be it, job done? Of course the EU was going to look after its own members interests first and guess what, they've proved better at it than us. What's worrying me is that we've made an arse of this deal and yet somehow people still believe these same idiots can negotiate better deals with all those other countries we need to trade with. Be afraid, be very afraid...

It's all that bastard Jeremy Corbyns fault.

[Laphroaig]

It's all that bastard Jeremy Corbyns fault.

Nope, while I agree he's completely useless, he's had nothing to do with the negotiations so far and if he had we'd probably be even deeper in the shit. All evidence points to the fact that Corbyn is quite happy being leader of the opposition, but would shit himself if he became PM and actually had to deal with Brexit or any other responsibility, directly.

[Laphroaig]

It's all that bastard Jeremy Corbyns fault.

Ok then, why is it all Corbyn's fault when:

1. The referendum was promised by Cameron as the Tory Party were afraid of losing votes and seats to UKIP.
2. Cameron assumed remain would win, therefore put no plans in place in case of a leave vote.
3. Brexit negotiations have been conducted solely though the Government (ie Tory party), and some believe May has had complete control over them.
4. Corbyn and the rest of parliament have been shut out completely until now.

??

[broncofan]

He was being sarcastic when he said it was all Corbyn's fault. You said it wasn't his fault but called Corbyn useless. Peejaye's a supporter of Corbyn so perhaps he didn't agree that he's useless. As for me, I'm just clearing up the miscommunication with no opinions whatsoever about it

[Stavros]

It would be easy to regard Tuesday's debates and votes on Brexit as a farce. The one and only deal that was rejected by the Commons is not so dead after all, because Theresa May has been given the authority by Parliament to go back to Brussels to re-negoiate the terms of withdrawal, with the express hope that the 'Backstop' can be removed and replaced with an 'alternative arrangement'. When asked what this means, Theresa May offers a mix of options, some political, some 'technological' but is not more specific than that. The view that what May was doing was 'taking back control' of her party is strong because a few hours before she began the debates, she spoke to Jean-Claude Juncker on the phone who told her there was nothing to re-negotiate.

I offer a different view, on the basis that I am probably wrong, but regard these events from an 'alternative perspective'.
It begins with the argument that because Theresa May voted to Remain in the EU, she cannot be trusted to deliver the result of the EU Referendum -this is the view voiced by Telegraph readers who variously call her useless, incompetent, deceitful, and of course a traitor. In fact Theresa May went out of her way to adopt the Brexit cause but did so by presenting her Red Lines and her strategy as one that the hard line Brexiteers in her party would accept, and brought into her Cabinet in 2016 promnent Leave campaigners, namely Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, Michael Gove, Andrea Leadsom and David Davis who was even put in charge of the negotiating process. It has been said that the Brexiteers were instantly sidelined by May and the civil servant Ollie Robins (also from the 'deep state' or the 'Establishment' if you prefer) though it seems in two years David Davis did not complain and while he and Johnson resigned in protest at the draft of what is now the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, the other Leave campaigners did not.

The key point is that again and again May denied there would be a 'soft Brexit' the UK would be leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union, would not pay vast sums to the EU and would leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Just as even on Wednesday she claimed Parliament had voted to prevent a 'No Deal' exit from the EU, but could not rule it out altogether if there is no support for any deal.

But, does this mean that in fact Theresa May can only get a change to the text of the Withdrawal Agreement, if at all, by asking the EU to remove references to the Backstop by retaining the UK's full membership of the Customs Union -but not the Single Market- through the transition period 2019-2020 when negotiations on long term trade take place? On the one hand it solves the problem of trade between Ireland and the EU via the UK, but on the other hand would rile he hard liners seeing in this 'alternative arrangement' a sell-out that is 'Brexit in name only'.
And then, if the hard liners say they can't vote for it, May could whip the old one out of the hat and say, well vote for this one! A lot depends on whether or not she can persuade Labour to support her in order to out-vote the hard liners, as the alternaive is a No Deal exit and few other than the fanatics want that.

And Labour could change tactics, because while Corbyn's Brexit position has been to retain membership of 'a' customs union, he has presented his as an option to explore after leaving rather than as a term of withdrawal -were May to get a Customs Union option to replace the Backstop, Corbyn could accept it as would many Labour MPs, and the final vote in February would end this phase of Brexi to the satisfaction of the Remainers in the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and most of British business. It is also hard to see how the DUP could oppose it as a Customs Union arrangement would retain an open border and satisfy the majority in Northern Ireland who voted to Remain in the EU.

Would the hard liners be so outraged that they left the party? Mark Francois is one who might, not sure about Jacob Rees-Mogg, but if they are isolated behind the ultra position of No Deal their absence might not matter anyway.

The other alternative is that the EU rejects any suggestion from Theresa May, she returns empty handed to either suggest extending Article 50 to give the government more time to prepare -in practice the provisions of the amendment in the name of Yvette Cooper that was rejected on Tuesday- or there will be an exit from the EU on the 29th March 2019 without a deal, but with Nessun Dorma playing in the background, though the markets won't open until April 1st.

One final thought on this peculiar state of affairs. The UK and Ireland have enjoyed the freee movement of people since the 1920s, codified in 1953 as the Common Travel Area, and this arrangement has not been prejudiced by Brexit, so that when Theresa May declares that free movement from the EU to the UK will end, she should add, 'but not with regard to Ireland'. That this stands as a contradiction that is acceptable is a good example of the stupidity of Brexit, for whatever happens with the Backstop, the UK will, because it must, negotiate a Customs Union arrangement with the EU. In 2020, or 2021 or 2025 we will be where we are now, only the clothes will be different, and the words will have changed.

But as I say, I am probably wrong.

Interesting article on Ireland and free movement here-
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irel...area-1.3776100

Corbyn's Brexit in name only-
https://www.ft.com/content/d7673a26-...a-43db76e69936

[Laphroaig]

He was being sarcastic when he said it was all Corbyn's fault. You said it wasn't his fault but called Corbyn useless. Peejaye's a supporter of Corbyn so perhaps he didn't agree that he's useless. As for me, I'm just clearing up the miscommunication with no opinions whatsoever about it

That'll teach me for not bothering to read through all of the thread...

In any case, the point remains. While the blame for this mess lies with Cameron and May, combined with all the Brexshitters who disappeared rather than take responsibility and demand to be part of the process, (Farage MEP anyone), I still think we'd be in an even worse state if Comrade Corbyn was in charge...

[broncofan]

That'll teach me for not bothering to read through all of the thread...

In any case, the point remains. While the blame for this mess lies with Cameron and May, combined with all the Brexshitters who disappeared rather than take responsibility and demand to be part of the process, (Farage MEP anyone), I still think we'd be in an even worse state if Comrade Corbyn was in charge...

I've had some harsh words about Corbyn but I don't want to fall into a trap of picking sides or just condemning someone regardless of their actions. I agree this is not his show, but I'm not sure what would have taken place if he were completely in charge. He didn't call the referendum, but what terms are the Europeans obligated to accept given that Britain is leaving the union? I don't think he'd achieve a better result not because there's a ton of blame to be handed out about the negotiation of Brexit; Britain simply has no bargaining power. I haven't been following too closely so I'll accept correction if that initial impression is contradicted.

There are reasons people on the left have been concerned about economic unions and in general the loosening of trade restrictions, but we've also seen similar biases on the right where nationalism and protectionism are popular. At least on the left the skepticism is about control over the conditions of work and the prioritizing of quality of life over total productivity where the right tends to be more motivated by xenophobia and the homogeneity of their culture.

I wish for more pragmatism from politicians; more contingent decision-making; less polarization; and people who are better able to respond to the exigencies of the moment. While I can see the pitfalls of economic unionization, in this case, isolation will be far worse.

[broncofan]

And Labour could change tactics, because while Corbyn's Brexit position has been to retain membership of 'a' customs union, he has presented his as an option to explore after leaving rather than as a term of withdrawal -were May to get a Customs Union option to replace the Backstop, Corbyn could accept it as would many Labour MPs, and the final vote in February would end this phase of Brexi to the satisfaction of the Remainers in the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and most of British business.

Once May and Corbyn figure out whether retaining membership in the customs union but leaving the single market is the ideal objective, what levers do they have to bring this about other than asking for it? Is there any indication that the EU would accept withdrawal from the single market but continued membership in the customs union?