This will be true for at least 48% of people whatever happens. Either way half the country will be screaming treason.

True, but then you can say this for at least half of the frontrunners for her job if she goes, so I don't think many would pass up the opportunity.

May may have one more chance. If the process fails now it can't be very far from a solution. Someone else may want to get that credit, the new "genius" PM.

Hindsight is 20/20, but there was a small window after the referendum where a moderate brexit desk could have been forged that would have been acceptable for a good majority, including remainers who could have been won round to a good outcome much easier than the most hardened leavers.

Free movement is already solved by countries like Holland, where Europeans who cannot sustain themselves are sent away after three months. The PM could have gone to Europe, said they want a Holland Minus on free movement, which just means some kind of tweak on cross border benefits claims, combined with Norway Plus on good and service trade and it probably gets over the line with minimal problems.

You never get an outcome that everyone agrees to, but this captures the moderate leavers and the pragmatic remainers and would get through parliament easily.

I don't know if this was actually obvious to anyone two years ago. Its almost like you have to **** it up first before the obvious third way is apparent. If the leavers engaged with remainers instead of attacking them we could have had a deal like this signed and put to bed months ago getting us into the transition period and the fine details.

This is why I feel the most likely outcome is she approaches the point she could be challenged and if things are going badly she calls a leadership race and doesn't stand.

Expectations are so low now who knows she might actually be reasonably popular by the back end of the year, at least within the party, and if there is no reasonable alternative she might not even be forced out then.

We can already do that - but choose not to.

EU rules already offer a solution on freedom of movement

Since 2004, European Union law has allowed governments to control movements of EU citizens as follows: allow EU citizens to freely circulate only for three months and then require them (should they want to stay longer) to show they are working (employed or self-employed), a registered student or have sufficient resources (pension, savings) to support themselves and comprehensive sickness insurance eg a valid European health insurance card enabling the NHS to claim back the cost of treatment or have private health insurance. The UK is one of the few governments that has not implemented this.

For six years, Theresa May was in charge of the Home Office responsible for immigration, yet did nothing to adopt these conditions. One wonders why not and why immigration was allowed to dominate the referendum and is still being paraded as a big problem. Yet another failure of our own government and the Home Office under Theresa May is being blamed on the EU. The remedy was always in the UK’s hands.

How is the trade deal with China going lads?

‘They may be ****ty trade deals, but they’re OUR trade deals’

Is it possible that businesses will be able to sue for damages because of Brexit? After Germany decided to quit nuclear power the operators now get paid billions in damages.

That's somewhat different because one clearly caused the other.

The disingenuous argument you hear from Brexiters is that the economy has flat-lined because of this and that and the other, never that the cause is impending Brexit, and that's probably the same argument that the government would use in court because these things are hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt (if that's the standard required).

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is reserved for criminal cases, civil cases typically need a preponderance of evidence. (AFAIK, IANAL)

I'd assume it's contractual rather than trying to argue something caused a loss of business.

i.e. a contract is invalidated or has to be changed because of brexit (change in use of nuclear). That resulted in costs that are now being sued for.

I suspect it's not going to fly over brexit.

(fair amount of assumptions/suspicions in the above. Some expertise would be welcome)

There is some good brexit news

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47270616

If the U.K gets out of Brexit OK (plausible) and Tories win the next election (given <<-- also plausible) May should go down as a middle of the road PM. If her deal gets through and a new Tory P.M on new boundaries thumps Magic Grandpa/whoever for a stonking majority wouldn't you say she did her job? Conventional wisdom underestimates how often this happens imo.

Being able to brag about how much it cost is all part of the appeal.


In other news it's not just the youth that violently demonstrate ...

Six pro-Brexit protesters charged after London 'yellow vest' march

Mostly for assault on emergency workers and affray - 4 men ages 58, 57, 56 & 53 & 2 women 46 & 38.

The protesters were demanding a no-deal Brexit, an end to immigration, and an end to what they see as mainstream fake news and justice for three teenage boys killed by a drink-driver in London in 2018.

Mixing what they were protesting about somewhat - the drink driver one of course having nothing to do with him being named Jaynesh Chudasama.


I do agree that 13 years is not appropriate for someone killing 3 people while under the influence and "causing death by dangerous driving" is a nonsense in this case - but new laws are coming in to hopefully address that - Killer drivers to receive life sentences in law change

Time for an idiot Yank update - how's it looking over there?

May clinging like a barnacle to power? Going to crash out of the EU with no deal - or is a clever fudge coming? Is there really a drop dead date in the next few weeks?

Wife and I are thinking about visiting London in June - bad idea?

MM MD

looking exactly the same as last time. Clock has ticked on, big date is approaching but crashing out on it is very unlikely.

and no reason to change plans for coming to London in June.

Brexit is probably enough to trigger renegotiation and cancellation of a lot of contracts. The inability to deliver JIT alone would make it mutually beneficial to cancel a lot of contracts.

Huge amounts. But can you sue for damages when the government changes the law in a way that causes a problem for your contracts with a 3rd party?

Uh... answer is probably not but I honestly don't know. I am having trouble seeing the legal theory and contract/commercial law generally limits 3rd party liability even when the damages involved are relatively forseeable (in common usage sense of the word).

If we are talking a British business, and very general terms like you rely on the eu market and now you're out of business, I am pretty sure you can't. I believe tort law doesn't extend to something like brexit, domestically (ianal).

Though they may have a secret deal with the government and could sue for breach of contract depending what it said. No one has any ****ing clue how many of these secret deals May signed us up to or the exact reassurances were given.

Foreign investors have grounds to sue, through a couple different mechanisms, but the problem is brexit is so unprecedented no one is really sure what sort of outcome is likely. It would depend on the type on investment if you could truly claim damages in a process that took a couple years to finalise, you can't just claim you had no idea no deal could happen as its been enshrined in law as a possibility. If a precedent is set the flood gates open. Oh boy the country will be paying off brexit for generations, like we did for WW2.

Oh and for fun if we take a no deal brexit this 39 billion we agreed we owe will be sued for by Europe if we tried to not pay and they are guaranteed to win in the Hague because we already agreed we owe it. I am rather enjoying leavers talking like the silver lining of no deal is we don't give them the money we owe or that this is a big card to play in the negotiations. We agreed to pay it in like 2012 as a defined future liability and David Davis reconfirmed this value in negotiations.

It goes a lot wider than that.

Lots of companies were unable to secure supplies for post brexit because of the uncertainty of no deal.

Most purchasing works on credit. But suppliers in Europe will not give credit to a British company for a supply of goods post brexit. With tariffs and falling £ the goods might rise in cost by 50% depending what it is, even before considering spoilage with goods stuck at the ports, sending a lot of companies to the wall. If they can't turn this around and recoup the extra cost then the supplier won't get their money when the company goes into administration. Most companies don't have the cash on hand to pay down the order six months ahead of time knowing it might also cost 50% more on top which would need to be paid to secure the goods.

Companies live and die on cashflow and brexit is a huge huge disaster for forecasting if you do any significant cross border payments.

There are lots of stories around of businesses who purchase six months ahead of time and they don't have supplies after brexit because of it. They are planning around surviving the first couple of quarters even in the best circumstances, then hoping to get back on their feet in Q3-4.

One to watch now on Brexit is the planned Kyle amendment that seems to be gaining support from both sides.

The plan, in v.late March, is to agree May's deal but amended so that a 2nd referendum is required on the deal vs remain (has been mooted before in this forum but looking a real option now).

Also everyone who marches keep the date free for the event on 23 of March. That will be just before the final showdown and the possibility of getting Kyle's amendment through.

Not saying you're wrong but so many steps are involved with that and it's so transparently not "Brexit people voted for" that I think general election or a referendum without the agreement is almost as likely.

I still think the most probable/least resistance path is May just get an extension from EU and force parliament to choose between giving her more time and crashing out.

I admire the spirit of the second referendum people, so much so I don't want to see how much you guys will be crushed if you do get a referendum and then Britain votes out again. Which feels inevitable at this point.

I am also not so sure you have considered the consequences of what happens to British politics if brexit is cancelled on a 52-48 or similar.

Re this Kyle amendment, what is the timing and mechanism? Is this a case of "stop the clock, extending a50, and put May deal vs no brexit to a binding referendum"? Because inevitably this will not happen. This will never be the two choices in the second ref.