next step is uk parliament will vote next week on whether to accept this deal

they prolly vote no

dunno what happens then

No Deal is national suicide and cannot be on the ballot. And if you traitors want 'some right nasty ****,' you might just get it. In fact you certainly will, when people find out what your agenda really means.

It's complicated.

Brexit vote: What could happen next?

EU approval needs 20 of the 27 countries representing at least 65% of the population, which is the sort of margin that the 2016 referendum should have required instead of a simple wafer-thin majority.

She could get some parts (ie the backstop) re-worded by the EU, claim it's not the same deal and put it to a referendum.

Thanks, that was helpful.

MM MD

Never thought I would say this, but Boris Johnson is speaking a load of sense here https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/793358...brexit-vision/. I don't like him one little bit, but he would be a competent lead negotiator, especially compared to the travesty that is currently going on.

No deal must be left on the table as an option or our hand is extremely weak. Nobody wants to see it but if we are treated badly then they have to know we will do it, otherwise we will just get bullied.

Boris laying down a major FU EU message on Marr right now.

And he's had a hair cut.

He's talking as much nonsense about the £39Bn we owe for commitments made as he did about the £350M/week for the NHS.

He can't ever be trusted.

I'm sure most of us agree about the USA (yes to craft beer, no to most everything else)

And yet you want our state to hand over power to a difficult to control federal government ruling over an empire with the the wealth of a full continent. In order to be less like the USA?

Eventually, a Trump will be elected to be head of the federal EU, then what do we do?

I propose that the highest power we can elect a bad (/any) politician to is something much smaller.

If by "more like the USA" chez really meant more integrated with the EU countries, then yes I'm a federalist because I see it as a good thing to be able to oppose/mediate Russia/USA, and see people worrying about loss of national identity are being very silly and xenophobic because they are forgetting that Wales/Scotland/Cornwall/Liverpool/Newcastle/London all have distinctive identities that havn't been subsumed into British homogeneity, while Oklahoma, New York and California are as distinct from each other as countries in Europe are.

Eventually everything will happen, including a Trump exploiting the UK's lack of a written constitution who can ride roughshod through long-observed and critically important Parliamentary and constitutional conventions. Why don't you care about that possibility?

OK, that's your point of view which I don't agree with but respect.

I do, but those stakes aren't as high. I don't want to re-raise that from national to continental. Then we can reform that bit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/08/Remainers gear up for second referendum, with new NHS pledge

Ah so trying a positive message for a change?

The actual behaviour from before 2016 up until today belies that, doesn't it...

So, these promises about spending more on communities and NHS Etc.. Who exactly is promising that, cos only Gov/parliament majority can actually deliver that, so they'd need the government to get behind that otherwise it's all lies.

very good

You mean unlike the Leave campaign of 2016 promising £350M/week more for the NHS?

Who was going to deliver that because "only Gov/parliament majority can actually deliver that, so they'd need the government to get behind that otherwise it's all lies".

Funny how you apply criteria to one side of the debate and not to the other (ie yours). More hypocrisy from you.

Not really. I never believed the bus thing cos it was indeed lies, and never defended it because it was groundless nonsense.

I expect you to not support this tack if it's lies because it would be YOU that's the hypocrite, and I'm sure you wouldn't .... oh wait.

It is amazing how the positives are still not actually 'the EU is good because....'

It's more 'we'll do this to mitigate the effects of the EU if you vote to stay...'


loooool - they literally cannot see they are basically saying 'yeah EU is **** but we can help spread the **** out a bit so you're not in such deep ****'


No one is gonna believe it any more than they believed Project Fear, sorry about that Remain.


It might work better if you just go to 'Vote Remain and we'll give you 2 grand'

It says a lot that in the run up to the 2016 referendum, voters were force fed an absolute wall of remain propaganda from all angles yet the result was still 52% leave. I was solidly in the remain camp and still thought it was ridiculous and see through.

The book Unleashing Demons gives some insight, I mean the remain campaign director moans about the BBC News website redesign losing readership in it. Also when Obama came over he just asked the remain campaign "what do you want me to say" then did it. The book is laughably biased (especially in blaming Jeremy Corbyn for brexit).

There is still lack of why the EU is good (that's so tough without a leader after all these decades of abdication) but it's not about mitigating the effects the EU unless you mean things such as that the economic benefits of being in the EU weren't distributed fairly.

The anger/frustration caused by that unfairness, which is about far more than the EU, is the key underlying factor that led people to vote for brexit, and that's where the remain campaign need to focus a lot of their efforts. Then it has to actually be done because if it's not brexit, it will be other outlets they will vote for again and again.

o really?

I don't believe it's necessarily lies, but I do agree that it will be up to the government of the day to do something about it.

I think that's much more likely to happen now because it's become quite clear to every sentient adult in the UK (yes, even you) that some people voted to leave not because of "sovereignty" or even directly because of racism, but because of anger at how jobs have disappeared and communities have disintegrated, and frustration at both of the main parties for failing to tackle those things.

When voting for the opposition fails to make any appreciable difference to underlying problems in the infrastructure in some of the forgotten parts of the country, it's understandable that some people will lash out if given the chance to vote against the status quo, even if it does mean cutting their noses off to spite their faces.

It's clearly NOT the fault of the EU or of EU membership that some communities have been allowed to deteriorate so much: the EU has given direct grants of billions of pounds to some areas that would probably never have been given by a UK government (eg £2Bn just to Cornwall) because UK governments have gamed the political returns from Treasury spend and probably see investing large sums in a small number of seats as a poor investment when they can make headline-grabbing spends in other areas. It's apparent that this has led to a potentially catastrophic exit from the EU, which is why I believe there will be political will on both sides (but not the far right obviously) to fix some of the long-standing problems if we stay in the EU.

Indeed. I've made exactly the same point before that immigration is good for the economy but the benefits/resources are not distributed well.

The solution isn't to be anti-immigration, it's to make sure that the benefits/resources are well distributed.

Jalfezi,

I do see something we can actually agree on in all this, for a change. I do believe giving affected communities proper help is something I'd definitely get behind and would like to see.

I would prefer excising the EU out of all of it though, and national democracy deal with it - preferably in some sort of centre ground party (or one of the main parties reclaiming the centre ground).