• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

Theresa May: “If this deal is not passed then Brexit could be lost"

Oct 27, 2017
8,067
#1
British Prime Minister Theresa May has implored lawmakers to back her EU divorce agreement, telling them that “if this deal is not passed then Brexit could be lost.”

May — her voice reduced to a raw whisper after days of frantic Brexit diplomacy — spoke as the House of Commons began debating the deal before a vote later Tuesday.

She said she had secured “improvements” from the European Union to the deal that lawmakers rejected in January.

But many pro-Brexit lawmakers still think the agreement keeps Britain bound too closely to the EU and say they plan to vote against it.

Britain is due to leave the bloc in less than three weeks, on March 29.
https://www.apnews.com/caee566fb32242df977d267d3bc5d4e0

Edit: Live debate:

 
Last edited:

GoldenEye 007

Roll Tide, Y'all!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,761
Texas
#3
What is she talking about? Article 50 is triggered already. With a rejection of her deal and no extension, the default is still Brexit but with no deal. Not no Brexit.

Is that not right?
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,007
#8
Did they detail what those "improvements" were exactly?
Either way, Brexit should be lost, and not in the "no-deal" kind of way.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,320
#30
It doesn't feel like there is a sense of urgency about this thing
Classic negotiating, wait til time is about to run out and then accept a deal no one is happy with.
Seems like this is more a threat to hard-line brexiteers to accept the deal or face no brexit rather than a threat of a no deal
See above, the writing is on the wall here, they are going to accept some terrible deal at the 11th hour.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,673
#31
Does it take a vote? Because it seems there are enough in the UK government that want a no deal Brexit to happen. If a vote is needed, does she have the numbers?

Would the EU accept a revocation without a vote?
I don't think any part of the Brexit fiasco was a "binding vote". It was a non-binding referendum, right? They could cancel this whole shit-show, without any vote needed.
What does require a parliamentary vote is signing a deal with the EU.
It's like, you need both parties to sign the divorce papers. But if you change your mind prior to signing the papers, you don't need "screw it, let's give this another shot and stay together" papers :P

cmiiw.
 

GoldenEye 007

Roll Tide, Y'all!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,761
Texas
#33
You said there seems to be enough in support of a no deal, I'm saying that's not true unless you have something to back it up
What I mean is there seems to be enough Tories that can throw a wrench into the process and prevent May’s deals from going through. Which we’ve seen already. And with no assertive action, the default is no deal Brexit barring an extension or outright revocation. Is that not accurate?
 

Slayven

You probably post about me on another board.
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
28,684
#34
Classic negotiating, wait til time is about to run out and then accept a deal no one is happy with.

See above, the writing is on the wall here, they are going to accept some terrible deal at the 11th hour.
That seems to be the new western government way of doing things
 

GoldenEye 007

Roll Tide, Y'all!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,761
Texas
#35
I don't think any part of the Brexit fiasco was a "binding vote". It was a non-binding referendum, right? They could cancel this whole shit-show, without any vote needed.
What does require a parliamentary vote is signing a deal with the EU.
It's like, you need both parties to sign the divorce papers. But if you change your mind prior to signing the papers, you don't need "screw it, let's give this another shot and stay together" papers :P

cmiiw.
Sorry meant parliamentary vote specifically. Not a vote among the population.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,348
Nottingham, UK
#36
What I mean is there seems to be enough Tories that can throw a wrench into the process and prevent May’s deals from going through. Which we’ve seen already. And with no assertive action, the default is no deal Brexit barring an extension or outright revocation. Is that not accurate?
I think she's implying, could be/may be straight up lying, that she'd go no brexit rather than no deal
 
#38
What is she talking about? Article 50 is triggered already. With a rejection of her deal and no extension, the default is still Brexit but with no deal. Not no Brexit.

Is that not right?
Leaving without a deal is off the table. Has been for a while. Nobody is willing to accept us crashing out and more people are shifting towards a second vote, so if her deal isn't good enough (which it isn't) then we'll get an extension (which the EU is encouraging) while we organise a second vote (which is the best outcome).

I'm pretty sure it's becoming more likely every week that this whole thing is going to get called off and the Tories will be branded as "the idiots that almost cost us our EU membership". If Labour play their cards right over the next few months they'll win the next general election in a landslide.
 

GoldenEye 007

Roll Tide, Y'all!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,761
Texas
#42
Leaving without a deal is off the table. Has been for a while. Nobody is willing to accept us crashing out and more people are shifting towards a second vote, so if her deal isn't good enough (which it isn't) then we'll get an extension (which the EU is encouraging) while we organise a second vote (which is the best outcome).

I'm pretty sure it's becoming more likely every week that this whole thing is going to get called off and the Tories will be branded as "the idiots that almost cost us our EU membership". If Labour play their cards right over the next few months they'll win the next general election in a landslide.
That seems like the most optimistic scenario. Except isn't the Labour leader in favor of a form of Brexit too? Simply not a no-deal one?
 
#43
Leaving without a deal is off the table. Has been for a while. Nobody is willing to accept us crashing out and more people are shifting towards a second vote, so if her deal isn't good enough (which it isn't) then we'll get an extension (which the EU is encouraging) while we organise a second vote (which is the best outcome).

I'm pretty sure it's becoming more likely every week that this whole thing is going to get called off and the Tories will be branded as "the idiots that almost cost us our EU membership". If Labour play their cards right over the next few months they'll win the next general election in a landslide.
A Brexit without a proper deal is not the problem of the EU, but of the UK.
So it would be not really desirable for the EU, but rather absolutely catastrophic for the UK.
EU could live with all three things: Brexit with/without deal and no Brexit.
 
#49
A Brexit without a proper deal is not the problem of the EU, but of the UK.
So it would be not really desirable for the EU, but rather absolutely catastrophic for the UK.
EU could live with all three things: Brexit with/without deal and no Brexit.
Sure but the EU doesn't want that. They're not looking at the situation and thinking "you're on your own", they're actually trying to be reasonable and accommodating despite the fact they know that the UK leaving the EU would be bad for everyone.

They've expressed a few times already that they're totally okay with us retracting Article 50 and that they're fine with an extension but that the deal they've offered is the only one on the table.

That seems like the most optimistic scenario. Except isn't the Labour leader in favor of a form of Brexit too? Simply not a no-deal one?
Labour wants whatever they think the majority wants, basically. They keep changing their minds.
 
#50
More hot air from our garbage PM. All she does is lie and move the goalposts. It’s all about applying pressure and that is what she is doing here trying to pressure MP’s into voting for her deal.

Parliament has to ok any retraction of Article 50 and atm there is no majority for that.