Anti-Brexit scaremongering ....

[Noir]

But, to answer you: it seems to me that the only requirement of border control emanates from the EU.

Incredible. So you don’t want any U.K. customs checks between it and the EU?

[Drummond]

Incredible. So you don’t want any U.K. customs checks between it and the EU?

Well ... I suppose they're going to be forced on us, eh ?

The EU creates problems all the time. Such a pity that it even exists.

Still, it'll be the EU that'll absolutely insist upon them. Can't have THEIR border(s) violated ....

[Noir]

Well ... I suppose they're going to be forced on us, eh ?

The EU creates problems all the time. Such a pity that it even exists.

Still, it'll be the EU that'll absolutely insist upon them. Can't have THEIR border(s) violated ....

I thought Brexit was about taking control etc?
You want to ‘take control’ of a border by the U.K. having absolutely zero customs controls?
You want EU goods to be able to cross into the U.K. with zero checks by the U.K.?

[Drummond]

I thought Brexit was about taking control etc?

Choosing not to take control, Noir (should it ever come to that), is a choice CONTROLLED by us. It would represent a lack of others controlling that status quo for us.

Of course, as it'll continue to be an EU member, Southern Ireland will have no latitude to exercise that choice of control for themselves.

You want to ‘take control’ of a border by the U.K. having absolutely zero customs controls?

Answered above.

You want EU goods to be able to cross into the U.K. with zero checks by the U.K.?

That may not be such a bad thing (in certain circumstances).

Of course, as a means of facilitating illegal immigration, or drug trafficking ... that'd be different. As an un-monitored source of food and raw materials, though .. well .....

In any case, that'd be no more than a moot point, should the EU choose it to be. After all, THEY govern controls within THEIR territory (pity Southern Ireland will have to obey them, but then, they could choose our path, instead ...)..

[Noir]

Choosing not to take control, Noir (should it ever come to that), is a choice CONTROLLED by us. It would represent a lack of others controlling that status quo for us.

Of course, as it'll continue to be an EU member, Southern Ireland will have no latitude to exercise that choice of control for themselves.

Answered above.

That may not be such a bad thing (in certain circumstances).

Of course, as a means of facilitating illegal immigration, or drug trafficking ... that'd be different. As an un-monitored source of food and raw materials, though .. well .....

In any case, that'd be no more than a moot point, should the EU choose it to be. After all, THEY govern controls within THEIR territory (pity Southern Ireland will have to obey them, but then, they could choose our path, instead ...)..

Incredible.
You think you’ve heard it all, then you hear ‘atleast we’re choosing not to have any controls at our border’.

A man can stand in front of his burning house and demand that firefighters let it burn. He may not be a wise man, but atleast he was in control...

[Drummond]

Incredible.
You think you’ve heard it all, then you hear ‘atleast we’re choosing not to have any controls at our border’.

A man can stand in front of his burning house and demand that firefighters let it burn. He may not be a wise man, but atleast he was in control...

'A burning house' is hardly the same subject as the one (- I thought -) we were discussing.

It's a pity you don't get the point, though.

The point of Brexit is that we regain a fundamental freedom ... that of CHOOSING OUR FUTURE.

With the control-freaks in Brussels, we were (& currently are, in fact, until Brexit actually happens) having basic freedoms taken away from us ever-more completely with time. We voted in the 2016 Referendum to reverse all that, and take charge of our own fate.

I suggest to you that we have that right ... no matter how much the Left hates what we've done with it, thus far.

I'd also suggest to you that, even IF we know short-term hardship during the period of readjustment, (a) it will be short-term only, until we create new trading alliances with what is, after all, the greater marketplace to be found outside of the EU ... and ... (b) I don't believe the EU will remain stable or even viable for too many more years; since I think the Euro will implode after multiple bailouts are demanded from the EU's weaker economies.

Give it a decade, and I believe we'll be thanking our lucky stars that we got out when we did (& yes, THEN, we will need very strong border controls !!!).

[Noir]

So the governments Brexit plan failed in parliament, again, by some 150 votes.

Mutterings about the Governments no deal strategy have been surfacing - one claim I saw was that NI will operate under different tariffs to Great Britain. Which would be amazing if true.

[jimnyc]

As per the headlines on Drudge anyway....

---

WHAT A BREXS*ITSHOW Theresa May’s Brexit deal crushed by MPs AGAIN meaning we’re no nearer to quitting EU after 993 days

The House of Commons last night voted against the PM's Brexit deal for the second time - by a margin of 391 votes to 242

BRITAIN was last night plunged into chaos once again as MPs voted to kill off Theresa May's Brexit deal by 391 votes to 242.

Now 993 days after the referendum, and with just 17 days before Brexit, Brits are still in the dark about when or if we will ever leave the EU.

Furious MPs blasted the uncertainty - saying the "wretched soap opera of Brexit continues" as the country heads "back to square one".

And Cabinet ministers were summoned for a crisis meeting at No10 to work out how to move forward.

Parliament has repeatedly voted against Mrs May's strategy for leaving the EU on March 29 - last night the Commons laughed and cheered after the the fresh chaos was confirmed.

But without a clear alternative on the table, the latest defeat opens the door to a range of wildly different outcomes - from a cliff-edge No Deal to a second referendum which could cancel Brexit entirely.

Tonight MPs will vote on whether Britain should quit the EU without a deal in 17 days' time.

But they are expected to oppose the idea - and will instead back a delay to Brexit in a further vote likely to take place on Thursday.

Tory MP Bob Seely, who voted for the deal, warned that last night's result would "prolong the Brexit purgatory" and "grab defeat from the jaws of victory".

He said: "This entire episode is becoming a shambles that reflects appallingly on this current House of Commons. There are now no good options."

Ex-minister Stephen Crabb added: "A coalition of the principled, the tribal, the ideologues, opportunists and conspiracy theorists have again blocked Brexit."

Rest - https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit...ails-majority/

[Drummond]

So the governments Brexit plan failed in parliament, again, by some 150 votes.

Mutterings about the Governments no deal strategy have been surfacing - one claim I saw was that NI will operate under different tariffs to Great Britain. Which would be amazing if true.

You should be more accurate in your descriptions, Noir. The 'Brexit plan', as such, doesn't exist yet, because we don't know - beyond the 2016 Referendum decision - that there is a 'plan' (- OF SORTS -) showing the way by which Brexit actually happens.

The precise manner of how, even when, that's achieved is what the current mess is all about .. so, if it's a 'plan', it's a remarkably un-detailed, unclear and chaotic plan.

No. The DEAL, Noir, isn't particularly the Government's deal, either. The very nature of deals is that responsibility for their existence is shared by whatever parties were part of it. In this case, that includes the EU. So, you can't particularly call it the 'Government's' deal.

A particular reason WHY you can't, is that Mrs May made multiple journeys to Brussels to get it changed, &/or guarantees as to how exactly it'd be implemented. She essentially failed, and, why ? Because, Noir, it's MORE the EU's deal than it is ours. It's the EU that has shown such dogged determination not to move ground on THEIR deal.

So, Noir, let's be more truthfully precise, shall we ?

We still have further (maybe laughingly ?) 'progress' to make before the fog clears. Such as, what will happen from tonight's Commons vote ? Labour's entirely fantasist belief in the chance of a 'deal' exit being realistic, when no such deal exists (beyond the one they've done their utmost to make fail !!), nor is the EU at all interested in considering any alternative one, is driving the current direction into sheer dysfunctional weirdness. As I see it, the only realistic outcomes, are:

1. Crashing out, minus any deal ...
2. Our being able to get an extension of time agreed by the EU (... and we're forced to ask PERMISSION for this, from the EU !!) ... but I think we can only get that if we first show the EU that one has clear direction and an envisaged intention as to what, exactly, we want !

Labour's fantasist disconnection from reality will only muddy those waters, since any thoughts they have on their side outright defy the Referendum intention, that of actually EXITING, FULLY, from the EU !

There's ....

3. A second Referendum.

Three problems with that ... one, it'd take time to agree what exactly would be asked in one, two, there's the time it'd take to organise, and three, its sheer uselessness, if it only reconfirmed the outcome of the first Referendum !!!

A second Referendum could only have a point to it, if it reversed the decision of the first one in some fashion ... meaning, IT EXISTED TO NULLIFY THE OUTCOME OF THE FIRST REFERENDUM.

Therefore ... the second Referendum is intended to ruin the outcome of the first one. A move to make democratic process subvert previous democratic decision-making.

The only truly democratic outcome from all of this is to see the Brexit decision implemented (those wanting it stopped in its tracks, and even fail, totally defy the Will of the People). Legally, and currently, Article 50 mandates the UK to leave the EU on 29th March 2019. This should be respected, deal or no deal. It's down to Parliament's sheer uselessness as to why we have a measure of chaos which is interfering with that.

[Noir]

You should be more accurate in your descriptions, Noir. The 'Brexit plan', as such, doesn't exist yet, because we don't know - beyond the 2016 Referendum decision - that there is a 'plan' (- OF SORTS -) showing the way by which Brexit actually happens.

Well congratulations are in order to our government, and various Brexit Ministers, MPs, Think Tanks, and so on. Who have been able to get us to 15 days before Brexit without a plan.

A particular reason WHY you can't, is that Mrs May made multiple journeys to Brussels to get it changed, &/or guarantees as to how exactly it'd be implemented. She essentially failed, and, why ? Because, Noir, it's MORE the EU's deal than it is ours. It's the EU that has shown such dogged determination not to move ground on THEIR deal.

Do you remember when we first voted to leave, and all the talk was ‘The EU *needs* a good deal with Britain’ ‘If the EU doesn’t give us a good deal they’ll be sorry’ etc etc, guess that was all nonsense, though I think it’s nonsense our negotiators believed

As I see it, the only realistic outcomes, are:

1. Crashing out, minus any deal ...
2. Our being able to get an extension of time agreed by the EU (... and we're forced to ask PERMISSION for this, from the EU !!) ... but I think we can only get that if we first show the EU that one has clear direction and an envisaged intention as to what, exactly, we want !
3. A second Referendum.

1 - Not what our parliament wants, but it is what our executive wants. I think this is the most likely option
2 - We are now aware that Aaron Banks and Andy Wigmore have been in talks with Matteo Salvini in order to veto any extension, so I see this as unlikely, but even if it did happen I don’t see what good it would do other than delay our crash out.
3 - I think a third referendum is the least likely of the 3 options, and quite what would happen if the majority voted to Remain idk, given Leaves strongest argument is ‘no matter how bad it is to leave, that’s what the majority voted for’.

[Drummond]

Well congratulations are in order to our government, and various Brexit Ministers, MPs, Think Tanks, and so on. Who have been able to get us to 15 days before Brexit without a plan.

You overlook the EU's behaviour in all of this. Most of the available negotiating time, over the TWO YEARS originally available for it, were frittered away by the EU's stubbornness, intractability, and outright refusal to make progress. My belief ... they always wanted things to go to the wire, in the (mistaken) belief that we'd feel time-pressured into rushing through their stitch-up of a 'deal'.

They badly miscalculated, didn't they ...

Do you remember when we first voted to leave, and all the talk was ‘The EU *needs* a good deal with Britain’ ‘If the EU doesn’t give us a good deal they’ll be sorry’ etc etc, guess that was all nonsense, though I think it’s nonsense our negotiators believed

The EU's sheer arrogance was always badly underestimated. They did indeed need ... our money !! They've been dreaming up demands for it, throughout all this time. If we do end up with an Article 50 extension, the EU (as they're busily proving) will want it to ideally last for a long time. Why ? Because, for as long as it does, they'll still expect revenue from us. They're fine with that !

My guess is that they'll demand a good reason for a delay from us if we only ask for a short extension, say up to June. As for something far longer ... they'll be far less picky ('strangely').

1 - Not what our parliament wants, but it is what our executive wants. I think this is the most likely option
2 - We are now aware that Aaron Banks and Andy Wigmore have been in talks with Matteo Salvini in order to veto any extension, so I see this as unlikely, but even if it did happen I don’t see what good it would do other than delay our crash out.
3 - I think a third referendum is the least likely of the 3 options, and quite what would happen if the majority voted to Remain idk, given Leaves strongest argument is ‘no matter how bad it is to leave, that’s what the majority voted for’.

I think that a third referendum is very unlikely. I'm not too convinced we'll even get a second Referendum. However, if we do ... then we might as well have a third, or fourth, and indeed, as many as it takes for the Great Voting Public to finally 'get it right', eh ?

I think I agree, though. The EU is way too arrogant, too self-serving, to rethink anything of their attitude. Ultimately we'll have to either just crash out, or maybe even forget Brexit altogether ....

... except that if our politicians took that road, it'd shatter all faith in Parliamentary, ahem, 'democracy'.

Anyway .. we seem to be on course for the request to be made for an extension. We shall see if even THIS brings about a fit of stroppiness from the EU side.

I think it will.

**UPDATE**

After a further round of voting on amendments, etc in the Commons .. the Government just barely (by TWO votes) escaped having control of the Brexit process wrested from them, and handed over to Parliament as a whole (further proof of how weak our Government has become). More importantly -- they voted to opt for an extension to the Article 50 deadline of 29th March.

The idea was to extend to June.

The EU isn't altogether happy. Their view is that a short extension should only be granted if the UK has a clear plan as to how to proceed in fixing the present 'backstop' impasse. None is apparent.

The EU is more likely to agree to a much longer extension. This has definite advantages for them:

1. EU elections are due in May. The 'powers-that-be' in the EU would much rather that the angst and sheer dysfunctionality illustrated by the ongoing Brexit issue wasn't a live and urgent issue during those elections.

2. The EU gets to keep its influence over us during that time. EU laws passed during it are expected to be taken on board. Freedom of movement across borders continues. All the 'ills' the EU visits upon us, continue unimpeded.

3. We'd need to keep paying into EU coffers, of course. The EU benefits financially. The longer the delay, the greater the benefit .. to THEM.

Ah, well. Mrs May's weakness in not standing up to EU bullying during negotiations will literally cost us billions of £ sterling. It's effectively cost her a functioning Government, with the collective responsibility status quo wrecked in her Cabinet. She wants to provide leadership in Commons votes ... her Ministers do whatever the hell they like.

We live in interesting times.

[Noir]

So after 2 historically large government defeats on the ‘meaningful vote’ it has been doing the rounds that the government will try for a 3rd (and even 4th!) vote with much the same text.

The speaker of the house considered it necessary to advise the government that he will not allow them to repeatedly put the same bill to parliament as it’s already been voted down, twice.

[Drummond]

So after 2 historically large government defeats on the ‘meaningful vote’ it has been doing the rounds that the government will try for a 3rd (and even 4th!) vote with much the same text.

The speaker of the house considered it necessary to advise the government that he will not allow them to repeatedly put the same bill to parliament as it’s already been voted down, twice.

Bercow's ruling is a curious one. There were very minor tinkerings done (mainly 'clarifications') to the backstop, just prior to the last vote on the deal. The Attorney General ruled that they didn't really change anything in terms of legality. Yet, Bercow allowed the second vote.

I think his ruling, now, comes from a deliberate effort to find any way of stopping Brexit in its tracks. My belief ... he didn't even know of this '1604' ruling until just days ago.

Here's an interesting point. Bercow said that no repeated motions would be allowed IN THIS (PARLIAMENTARY) SESSION. Meaning, that in the next one, she can re-submit the 'deal' one ? Seems to me that all Mrs May needs is to get the EU to agree to a delay lasting long enough to last until the next session is underway !

https://www.parliament.uk/site-infor...ssary/session/

A session is a parliamentary year. Sessions normally begin in the Spring with the State Opening of Parliament, and run for around 12 months, ending with the prorogation of the session. There are normally five sessions in each Parliament.

Then again, though .....

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexi...id=mailsignout

Theresa May will defy John Bercow and “find a way through” to stage a third vote on her twice-defeated Brexit deal next week, a Cabinet minister has insisted.

Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, revealed the prime minister would attempt to get around the Speaker’s shock ruling – that identical votes cannot be restaged after defeats – by arguing she had secured changes.

One option was to insist the EU agreeing an extension to Article 50 to delay Brexit day constituted a different motion, or to agree changes that satisfied the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP).

[Noir]

So in a totally normal week for Brexit -

Therresa May was declared finished by a number of political editors and MPs when she held a closed doors meeting with several potential leaders of the party, and she walked out without being kicked out of the job, and their support.

Anti-Brexit campaigners held a Proest march in London with several hundred thousand (some outlets saying a million) in attendance, though missing was the leader of the opposition because he couldn’t make the time for the biggest political demonstration in 15 years.

Pro-Brexit campaigners concluded their March in a pub car park that maybe had 200 people.

Parliment votes to take control of the agenda for Brexit amendments, given Mays lack of success to find any deal remotely acceptable to parliament, which means we’re in for a lot more votes, and maybe Brexit at some point.

[Drummond]

So in a totally normal week for Brexit -

Therresa May was declared finished by a number of political editors and MPs when she held a closed doors meeting with several potential leaders of the party, and she walked out without being kicked out of the job, and their support.

Anti-Brexit campaigners held a Proest march in London with several hundred thousand (some outlets saying a million) in attendance, though missing was the leader of the opposition because he couldn’t make the time for the biggest political demonstration in 15 years.

Pro-Brexit campaigners concluded their March in a pub car park that maybe had 200 people.

Parliment votes to take control of the agenda for Brexit amendments, given Mays lack of success to find any deal remotely acceptable to parliament, which means we’re in for a lot more votes, and maybe Brexit at some point.

In short ... chaos rules. Total dysfunctionality. Everyone head-butting, everyone of all persuasions wanting to win out, getting ever-more frantic, as time .. GOVERNED BY THE EU .. rapidly runs out.

A second Referendum may be talked about, but there's no time to hold one. Of course.

Tomorrow's handover to Parliament may produce motions and voting patterns which provide nonsense, decisions running contrary to each other, and decisions the EU will never accept. So it's little wonder that our Government has said that it doesn't believe it must be tied to anything 'decided' tomorrow.

I think there are two overriding difficulties, dysfunctionalities, in play:

1. Everyone in Parliament is following their OWN agenda, being far too determined to ignore what the public mood is saying, and for that matter, too blind to consequences that'd arise from the people they supposedly 'represent', generally believing that the Brexit Referendum imperative is being eroded or even overridden.

2. Parliament just hasn't grasped how relatively powerless it is, in all of this. Even now, they don't comprehend just how much the EU is calling the shots. Labour has been especially bad at that, steadfastly ignoring the fact of the EU's unbending insistence of getting their deal ratified. Throughout, Labour has insisted that alternatives could be negotiated, which in fact, was utter rot.

Perhaps the inmates are now in charge of the asylum ?