No Deal

[Shaggy Hiker]

You will be crashing out. It may not happen on the current deadline, because there may be an extension. But the more I read about it, the less likely it appears that any alternative will be reached.

[PlausiblyDamp]

You will be crashing out. It may not happen on the current deadline, because there may be an extension. But the more I read about it, the less likely it appears that any alternative will be reached.

It seems that party politics is going to put before the good of the country, sort of expect that from politicians but I would have hoped that the size of the disaster they are facing might have made them actually put the country first....

There just seems to be no real motivation to take an honest look at the problems involved and actually attempt to address them.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Representative democracy is all well and good but it fails when the representatives are pathologically unable to practice consensus politics.

The Government set the tone for this by refusing to engage with parliament until the last minute, and then when they did engage presented one single option, oh and when that was voted down presented the same option again.

I dont see how anyone could have expected any other outcome. If you really want Parliament to function by consensus then you have to stop trying to strong arm them into a position and actually let them make some decisions in the process.

Sajid Javid (who admittedly has some skin in the game but campaigned as a remainer and continues to pursue a soft option) quotes Border Force as saying they believe it's achievable.

Of course he does he is a Government minister, a member of the cabinet, its a bit like saying "I had a chat with a priest the other day and he is pretty certain that god exists".

The Irish border question isn't so controversial because it's impossible to achieve, it's controversial because it's highly political and convenient for so many players in the game for it to remain unresolved.

Of course its highly political its a political deal. When i say it impossible to achieve i dont mean that in the sense that if both sides had a very good reason and it was a benefit to both sides to find a way round a hard border they could not.

The EU has commitments to its member states which would make it political suicide to have a porous border with the UK without some sort of customs union which guarantees that the UK plays by the same rules as everyone else.

As the UK wants to be outside the single market which means no free movement of people, any border put in place would have to be policed for people as well as goods in the way its doesn't have to be in somewhere like Switzerland.

The UK government does not want a deal like Switzerland's or in fact anyone else's it wants a bespoke deal just for us our Government expects to be able to leave but still everything else to remain the same, its not a realistic position.

If you where negotiating for the EU would you be saying anything different to what they are saying now? why would they look to endanger there entire political project just for us?

[PlausiblyDamp]

The Government set the tone for this by refusing to engage with parliament until the last minute, and then when they did engage presented one single option, oh and when that was voted down presented the same option again.

I dont see how anyone could have expected any other outcome. If you really want Parliament to function by consensus then you have to stop trying to strong arm them into a position and actually let them make some decisions in the process.

Add to that the fact almost the first thing TM did was lay down her "Red Lines" to please the Tory party and then Triggered Article 50, all of this happened before any planning or discussion was even considered. She effectively set the tone from the very beginning. As you said there was never going to be any other outcome.

Of course its highly political its a political deal. When i say it impossible to achieve i dont mean that in the sense that if both sides had a very good reason and it was a benefit to both sides to find a way round a hard border they could not.

The EU has commitments to its member states which would make it political suicide to have a porous border with the UK without some sort of customs union which guarantees that the UK plays by the same rules as everyone else.

As the UK wants to be outside the single market which means no free movement of people, any border put in place would have to be policed for people as well as goods in the way its doesn't have to be in somewhere like Switzerland.

The UK government does not want a deal like Switzerland's or in fact anyone else's it wants a bespoke deal just for us our Government expects to be able to leave but still everything else to remain the same, its not a realistic position.

If you where negotiating for the EU would you be saying anything different to what they are saying now? why would they look to endanger there entire political project just for us?

Again, from the very beginning we have set out outrageous demands and wanted to to be treated differently to every other member, the mantra of "the EU needs us more than we need them" made it impossible to really negotiate as we approached everything from a position of superiority - it was pretty much assumed we would get our way. Since then the EU hasn't given in so we have just acted as if we will get our way if we wait long enough, sooner or later the EU will blink....

As you said, there is no way the EU will compromise the fundamental rules and structures on our behalf yet that is what we have based our entire Brexit strategy on.

[Sako]

I wonder if any fall is expected in property prices in the UK after a no deal Brexit, any ideas? Because of the current risks I'm thinking about investing in overseas property markets considering they offer affordable financing, stable economy and population growth in major cities, as you can see in this article.

-moderator action- removes URL. It seemed suspicious that a persons first post would redirect away from the website.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Well, it's the first of March. Where Brexit is concerned:

Beware the ideas of March.

[FunkyDexter]

If there's anything the last month has shown us it's that there are no ideas.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, that's become pretty clear. Theresa May has essentially admitted to running down the clock, which means that SHE certainly has no ideas, and there hasn't been anything meaningful out of anybody else. There have been some things that have been mean, just not mean-ingful.

[PlausiblyDamp]

Yeah, that's become pretty clear. Theresa May has essentially admitted to running down the clock, which means that SHE certainly has no ideas, and there hasn't been anything meaningful out of anybody else. There have been some things that have been mean, just not mean-ingful.

That was pretty much her strategy from the moment her "Red lines" would obviously never be met, just delay after. Two or three votes on exactly the same bad deal she has "negotiated", still claiming to be making progress on the backstop when everything points to absolutely no progress being made.

Somehow it has gone from "No Deal is better than a bad deal" to "My bad deal is better than no deal" and we have had delay after delay while she runs the clock down to force a vote that she hopes will go in her favour.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I suppose that really IS her best strategy, at this point. It's not likely that she could negotiate any other deal.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I suppose that really IS her best strategy, at this point. It's not likely that she could negotiate any other deal.

There is another deal she could have got through parliament, but she as never going to look or try for that deal. As predicted she was always going to aim for the narrow way through of running down the clock and hoping she can force her deal through at the last.

I dont see it happening i am convinced she does not have the votes for it, she has to overturn a 230 votes deficit, so it looks like we will be 2 to 3 weeks away from brexit and no deal and nowhere to go.

If her deal does get voted down she has been forced by her own cabinet to offer votes against No Deal and then on an extension of article 50, so both of these thing will happen if her deal is voted down.

While this will not get us any closer to a deal it will allow Parliament to specifically vote against No Deal.

This leaves but one route through the deadlock, and there has been a noticeable push behind a motion which allows May Deal through parliament in return for it going to a public ratification vote where the public gets to vote on accepting her deal or not leaving.

[FunkyDexter]

There is another deal she could have got through parliament

I'm not convinced there is or ever was. If you're talking about the permanent customs union Labour proposed, I'm fairly sure they never would have suggested it if May had not already drawn her red lines and prohibited it. Had she drawn different lines, Labour would have presented a different plan. Labour's plan was never meant to be a viable solution to Brexit, it was meant to be an embarrassment to May.

Of the two main parties I lean strongly toward the left but Labour have been playing politics with this, same as everyone else.

My prediction at this point starts out the same as yours - nothing's getting resolved by the 29th and we'll end up extending. However, there is no majority in the house for a people's vote. There is no majority in the country for a people's vote either. And pretty much every poll shows that there has been no significant movement since the original referendum.

To be clear, May has not promised there won't be a no deal Brexit or even a vote to prevent the possibility. What she has promised is that, if her deal is rejected (which, yeah, it will be), there will be a vote on whether we have a no deal Brexit on the 29th. If that fails there will be a vote on whether to extend article 50. If that passes we extend but if that fails we still leave with no deal. And assuming we do extend, the default position at the end of the extension is still a no deal Brexit. The BBC has a pretty good flowchart on the possible outcomes.

So, starting from the assumption that May's deal is rejected again we still end up with a no deal if:-
1. the vote on the 13th allows a no deal (unlikely)
Or
2. the vote for an extension does not pass (more likely but probably still less than 50/50 in my opinion)
Or
3. the vote to extend passes but we don't arrive at an alternative outcome by the end of the extension (this is disturbingly likely)

There may be a people vote during the extension period but it's got some major obstacles to overcome: at present there is no majority for it, nobody knows what the question would be (this decision is still entirely in May's court) and it's unlikely to indicate any significant shift in position from two years ago.

No deal is still very much a possibility. In fact, I'd judge it's now probably the most likely by a slim margin.



Edit> I should add that I take absolutely no glee in this. No deal is a far worse outcome than just about any deal (short of one that actually locks us in as I've mentioned previously) in my opinion. But I do think that both sides are guilty of dangerous levels of wishful thinking that will prevent us compromising towards a decent deal. It's important that we recognise the severity of the situation we're facing.

[PlausiblyDamp]

No deal is still very much a possibility. In fact, I'd judge it's now probably the most likely by a slim margin.

Unfortunately I am thinking the same thing, the entire thing has been driven by asking for the impossible with the threat of No Deal being the magic words that would save us; we simply needed to say them often enough and the EU would give in and let us have our way.

Turns out reality isn't that easy a thing to change, from day one the EU told us what we could expect and our approach wasn't acceptable but we ignored them. None of the benefits promised were ever likely to be realised and the few benefits that are likely to happen won't come close to mitigating the negatives Brexit will inflict.

The Tories have done nothing but try to hold their party together, Labour have done nothing but try to score cheap political points and experts from every walk of life have been ignored or classed as "Project Fear".

No deal seems to be the only promise anyone can keep i.e. "No Deal is better than a bad deal" despite the fact even TM is now claiming that No Deal is actually worse than a Bad Deal. She pretty much came back from the EU telling us this is the best deal we could get and then encouraged her own party to vote against her deal so she could go back and get a better deal despite knowing there wasn't a better deal. Then repeatedly delaying any vote on the matter so she could go to the EU to be repeatedly told that she had already agreed a deal and that was the deal. It would be fairly amusing if it wasn't a nation's future at stake.

No deal is seeming inevitable.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Car companies certainly seem to think that No Deal is inevitable. Honda claims that wasn't part of their thinking....but that seems pretty unlikely to be totally true.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

My prediction at this point starts out the same as yours - nothing's getting resolved by the 29th and we'll end up extending. However, there is no majority in the house for a people's vote. There is no majority in the country for a people's vote either.

I agree that right now there is no path through Parliament for a second referendum, particularly while May still thinks she can get her deal through, but i also believe that there is a narrow path for it to happen but it wont be be until after May's Deal is rejected again.

There probably has to be nowhere else to go apart from No Deal for it to become an option.

And pretty much every poll shows that there has been no significant movement since the original referendum.

Hmm i don think that is quite true the latest YouGov survey has remain at 56% (and 59% if the alternative is no deal) which i would say is significant movement.

There may be a people vote during the extension period but it's got some major obstacles to overcome: at present there is no majority for it, nobody knows what the question would be (this decision is still entirely in May's court) and it's unlikely to indicate any significant shift in position from two years ago.

No deal is still very much a possibility. In fact, I'd judge it's now probably the most likely by a slim margin.

My problem with No Deal being the most likely outcome is that every MP apart from the 40 MP's in the hard right of the conservative party knows that No Deal will be disastrous, and MP's and the Prime Minister care about their legacy and about winning future elections.

While No Deal is of course very possible it would be a dangerous thing politically to be the party that let it happen.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Car companies certainly seem to think that No Deal is inevitable. Honda claims that wasn't part of their thinking....but that seems pretty unlikely to be totally true.

Of course its not totally true in Japanese culture there is the concept of saving face which is very important and is highly likely to have been in play here.

Honda will not have wanted to embarrass the UK government publically, but privately of course the uncertainty of Brexit influenced there decision.

[FunkyDexter]

I agree that right now there is no path through Parliament for a second referendum, particularly while May still thinks she can get her deal through, but i also believe that there is a narrow path for it to happen but it wont be be until after May's Deal is rejected again.

There probably has to be nowhere else to go apart from No Deal for it to become an option.

Yeah, I'd agree with that analysis but...

Hmm i don think that is quite true the latest YouGov survey has remain at 56% (and 59% if the alternative is no deal) which i would say is significant movement.

You're obviously looking at different polls to me. I'm looking at 45% remain to 41% leave compared with 48% remain to 42% leave at the time of the original referendum. That's a trivial shift with a slight reduction in "don't know" - so if anything we're slightly more polarised now than we were then. And while the graph does show movement it's always minor and very short lived. Heck, we're probably more likely to exit on a Wednesday due to the mid-week blues. And we can probably learn the lesson from last time that leavers tend to be underrepresented in the polls - although it's likely that phenomenon has changed as being a brexiter was sort of taboo right up until the moment they won.

Overall, though, I certainly don't look at that and see a major shift.

(and 59% if the alternative is no deal)

Careful what you wish for.

My problem with No Deal being the most likely outcome is that every MP apart from the 40 MP's in the hard right of the conservative party knows that No Deal will be disastrous, and MP's and the Prime Minister care about their legacy and about winning future elections.

While No Deal is of course very possible it would be a dangerous thing politically to be the party that let it happen.

Now there I'm with you. Although I think it's also becoming more dangerous to be the party that doesn't let it happen. Basically, whatever stance a party takes immediately alienates 2/3 of the country.

Car companies certainly seem to think that No Deal is inevitable. Honda claims that wasn't part of their thinking....but that seems pretty unlikely to be totally true.

BMW too now. More than one pundit has said that Brexit will be the final nail in the coffin of the British car industry. I reckon Morgan will survive though. Anyone who's still making car chassis out of wood in 2019 truly understands what it mean to be British

[Shaggy Hiker]

I read a totally awesome analysis of what should happen: The Brexit date should be delayed till after the end of May.

Regardless of whether or not it is right, it's a pretty good pun, and I support that.

[FunkyDexter]

May will never end. At the end of the universe she'll still be there explaining to God how hers is the only reality that delivers on the promise of creation.

[FunkyDexter]

Well, "meaningful" vote tomorrow on whether No Deal will be taken off the table for the 29th. Any predictions? Place your bets here.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

All bets are off

possibilities include May pulling the vote for her deal, but i would expect that to trigger further resignations from her own party at this point and chaos to ensue

Her deal being voted down, No Deal being voted against, and extension being voted for, and then nobody having any clue as to what they want that extension for, or everyone wanting an extension for there own narrow reason which they can't get through parliament.

A slim possibility that parliament might work cross party and go for a customs union or Norway option.

Another referendum

No Deal


So really no difference to where we are now, apart from May's deal will be voted against again, leaving us with the same options we had before. I just wonder how close to the cliff edge we will have to go until enough MP's gets scared enough to take control of the process and actually choose an option.

[PlausiblyDamp]

I find it amazing that after two years the only difference in where we stand is that we are closer to the time we leave. Hardly a single thing seems to have been organised, planned or properly thought through. Surely we should have been further ahead in the planning before we triggered article 50.

[FunkyDexter]

Her deal being voted down, No Deal being voted against, and extension being voted for, and then nobody having any clue as to what they want that extension for, or everyone wanting an extension for there own narrow reason which they can't get through parliament.

That seems most likely to me though I'm not sure the extension will go through. I think it will when MPs are faced with extend or no deal but it's iffy. Plus the EU are now talking about charging us for an extension...

Surely we should have been further ahead in the planning before we triggered article 50

That's the crux. Although I do wonder if we'd be anywhere different. I think we might have just prevaricated for longer.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It DOES seem like this is an excellent thing to bet on, since the odds are purely speculative. Therefore, I cast my vote for: Taking No Deal off the table.

Frankly, I vote that way because it makes for the most interesting future. After all, that could take on SO many different flavors, whereas No Deal itself is relatively clear as to what it means.

[PlausiblyDamp]

That's the crux. Although I do wonder if we'd be anywhere different. I think we might have just prevaricated for longer.

I can easily imagine my boss' reaction if I gave him a date for a project going live before I had done any coding, requirements gathering or even a business case for why we needed the new application. Perhaps I am a bit old fashioned in my ideas of plan then act

[Shaggy Hiker]

The "act" part was the Brexit vote. The rest is fallout. Doing any kind of extensive planning for how people could vote in any election is kind of a waste. After all, half of any such planning will have to be discarded, so how much should you do? In this case, they may have expected a certain outcome, which would have taken no effort to implement. They got the other outcome.

Branch prediction only works up to a point.

[PlausiblyDamp]

I was thinking more the triggering article 50 after the vote rather than the vote itself.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, now that you mention it, that IS where the thinking should have taken place.

[FunkyDexter]

I agree and my comment on prevarication is more about the fact that, after triggering article 50, we still failed to plan. The argument was that we were sure we'd get a deal so planning for no deal was a waste of resources. There is a nugget of common sense in that position but it overlooks the fact that it makes the prospect of no deal even more disastrous, which seems pretty short sighted given that it was always the default option.

@PD, to milk your metaphor (seems appropriate given your avatar), I'm guessing you boss would be equally cheesed if he gave you a project and then two years later was still waiting for you to produce a plan or deliver a requirements spec. I'm sure his blood would curdle and he'd certainly whey up your future. You'd have to put a lot of effort into buttering him up. I can't think of any more puns but I'm sure Shaggy will come up with an udder one or two.

edit: Ooh, ooh, I didn't think I could come up with any more but it turns out I cud. <mike drop>

[FunkyDexter]

Anyway, apparently there have been legally binding changes to the backstop that will ensure the EU cannot unilaterally lock us in if we want to leave. So that's great. Except I can't actually find any details, anywhere, of what those changes actually are.

If those changes are genuine then I think May's deal becomes palatable, if imperfect, and stands a fighting chance of getting ratified. But May's got form and you'll forgive my cynical suspicion that these changes may be purely cosmetic. Certainly the MPs reactions so far seem to be@ "stuff that".

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Anyway, apparently there have been legally binding changes to the backstop that will ensure the EU cannot unilaterally lock us in if we want to leave. So that's great. Except I can't actually find any details, anywhere, of what those changes actually are.

In Reality what she has secured is an addendum which says if the EU acts in bad faith when trying to find alternatives to the backstop, an arbitration panel will be put in place which could then allow the UK to leave the backstop.

However as a number of solicitors have pointed out this morning is firstly good luck proving bad faith, and secondly as long as the EU makes attempts in good faith to find alternatives then the backstop stands and there is no unilateral exist mechanism.

Basically she got very little and is trying to dress it up as some fundamental change when it is not, also the government own Lawyer has just now published his own legal advice which says "risk of UK being stuck in backstop remains" which means its got no chance of passing !

[FunkyDexter]

Yeah, just been reading Cox's statements and the "legally binding" measures are a chocolate teapot. Oh well then, strap in for a bumpy ride.

[PlausiblyDamp]

However as a number of solicitors have pointed out this morning is firstly good luck proving bad faith, and secondly as long as the EU makes attempts in good faith to find alternatives then the backstop stands and there is no unilateral exist mechanism.

Given our track record in negotiations so far if anyone is likely to be acting in bad faith it will be us!

[Shaggy Hiker]

I agree and my comment on prevarication is more about the fact that, after triggering article 50, we still failed to plan. The argument was that we were sure we'd get a deal so planning for no deal was a waste of resources. There is a nugget of common sense in that position but it overlooks the fact that it makes the prospect of no deal even more disastrous, which seems pretty short sighted given that it was always the default option.

@PD, to milk your metaphor (seems appropriate given your avatar), I'm guessing you boss would be equally cheesed if he gave you a project and then two years later was still waiting for you to produce a plan or deliver a requirements spec. I'm sure his blood would curdle and he'd certainly whey up your future. You'd have to put a lot of effort into buttering him up. I can't think of any more puns but I'm sure Shaggy will come up with an udder one or two.

edit: Ooh, ooh, I didn't think I could come up with any more but it turns out I cud. <mike drop>

I was too busy focusing on "prevarication". That would suggest that there was at least a little bit of fore...something. I think you can safely say it's just plain varication, nothing pre about it.

[FunkyDexter]

Well, there was certainly no foresight or forethought. Quite a lot of foreboding, though.

So the new deal got voted down, same as the old deal. Today we get the fun of watching parliament vote no deal off the table (I'd say this one's pretty much a given) even though this won't actually remove no deal from the table - it's essentially a vote on whether we have a vote on whether to extend. This has been the weirdest period in British politics in my lifetime.

[FunkyDexter]

I missed a lot of the detail of what happened last night as I was out climbing but here's where we seem to be now.

Parliament voted not to leave without a deal... ever.
But it's not legally binding so at the moment we're still leaving without a deal. Unless we make a deal.
The EU are refusing us a short extension unless it comes with a formal plan because they don't want to carry on wasting effort and resources on this.
The EU are happy to offer us a long term extension - no strings attached - because that won't be a waste of effort and resource.
Theresa May is going to present her plan for the third time (yes, THIRD time) despite the fact that our parliamentary rules say the commons can't debate the same motion twice without a substantive change.

Did I miss anything?

[PlausiblyDamp]

You did forget the bit where the Tories had their plan voted in but with an amendment and then later tried to use the whip to get the Tories to now vote against their plan they had just voted for.

[FunkyDexter]

Yeah. I sorta caughta bita that on the news but didn't really understand it. I get the impression that that's how the motion moved from "no no deal on the 29th" to "no no deal ever", is that right.

So the original motion passed (so no deal on the 29th would have been removed from the table but it was still the default if no extension or the extension ended with no agreement). And the Tories (at May's behest?) introduced another motion that it would be taken off the table completely and then whipped to vote against it?

I'm really struggling to understand the thought process that led to them bringing that second motion forward at all. They never wanted no deal removed in any form (the original motion was a sop to party rebels) so why open themselves up to having it removed completely? Was it in the hope of scaring the ERG into line? That wouldn't make sense because, presumably, they would have been voting against the original motion anyway.

I said yesterday we were living through the weirdest period I could remember. Last night it got even weirder.


Edit> By the way PD, is that Newport, Wales? If so greetings from Bristol. I could pretty much wave to you from here

[PlausiblyDamp]

It is indeed Newport, Wales technically I work in Bristol but seem to spend more time on London that anywhere....

In all honesty I am not longer sure exactly what is going on anymore, the entire process seems to be people suggesting things that the don't want and then trying to get them voted down but actually end up winning which means they didn't get what they want. It is certainly one of the weirder episodes in British politics...

Everyone seems to be trying to get a deal (just not the deal on offer) while threatening no deal (even though most people realise this would be a disaster) and the majority don't seem to want brexit at all but have to pretend they do to appease the voters who voted to leave even though nobody really knows if the general consensus is still to leave and if so what kind of leave.

[FunkyDexter]

Poo! London smells! If you work in Bristol I bet you're glad the tolls have come off. You're probably saving enough to offset the Brexit impact.

Yeah, I keep missing all the important stuff because it's suddenly moving so fast over the last couple of days. I've just heard that the Gov squeaked through (by 2 votes) to stop a motion that would have let parliament take control. I hadn't heard that was being debated and I'm not sure exactly what it would have meant. Parliament motions becoming legally binding perhaps.

Latest talking heads seem to be saying Europe is likely to agree an extension but are likely to demand some heavy concessions, and not just related to Brexit and trade deals. Spain's rumbling about Gibraltar and France are back onto fishing rights.