UK General Discussion: 2019. Blackadder goes Brexit.

[CumbrianLefty]

His not signing it is irrelevant legally.

Overwhelming legal opinion is that he has complied with what he was required to do, however sulkily. The multiple letters stunt was a typical Cummings "galaxy brain" idea which could yet backfire as previous ones have.

[brucejoel99]

His not signing it is irrelevant legally.

Overwhelming legal opinion is that he has complied with what he was required to do, however sulkily. The multiple letters stunt was a typical Cummings "galaxy brain" idea which could yet backfire as previous ones have.

The crux of the legal argument is that sending the other letters is an attempt to frustrate the Benn Act, which is unlawful, as per Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.


If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

[Coastal Elitist]

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

[brucejoel99]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

[brucejoel99]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

People who don't know any better make the analogy of meeting with a real estate agent offering a deal on a house, but retaining the ultimate resort of walking out without buying the house, i.e. no deal. Brexit isn't like that. No-deal isn't leverage because it's not a case of walking away saying "Oh well, I won't buy that house then." This is a case of going to buy the house, & if you don't, your old house is demolished & you end up on the street.

No-deal isn't leverage, & it never was. It isn't leverage when they know that no-deal would do massive harm to the British economy & only small harm to the EU's. And not only would it harm the UK more than the EU, but the negotiating tactic of "We're willing to leave without a deal" has been tried 3 times now, & all 3 times, the UK has bottled it. The EU called the UK's bluff three times & won, so what, should they go for best of 7 now?

[OSR stands with Israel]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

People who don't know any better make the analogy of meeting with a real estate agent offering a deal on a house, but retaining the ultimate resort of walking out without buying the house, i.e. no deal. Brexit isn't like that. No-deal isn't leverage because it's not a case of walking away saying "Oh well, I won't buy that house then." This is a case of going to buy the house, & if you don't, your old house is demolished & you end up on the street.

No-deal isn't leverage, & it never was. It isn't leverage when they know that no-deal would do massive harm to the British economy & only small harm to the EU's. And not only would it harm the UK more than the EU, but the negotiating tactic of "We're willing to leave without a deal" has been tried 3 times now, & all 3 times, the UK has bottled it. The EU called the UK's bluff three times & won, so what, should they go for best of 7 now?

The only way using leverage works is if your serious about using it and since the UK wasn’t then it’s pretty obvious the EU wouldn’t fall for that since it’s obvious that it is a bluff .

[brucejoel99]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

People who don't know any better make the analogy of meeting with a real estate agent offering a deal on a house, but retaining the ultimate resort of walking out without buying the house, i.e. no deal. Brexit isn't like that. No-deal isn't leverage because it's not a case of walking away saying "Oh well, I won't buy that house then." This is a case of going to buy the house, & if you don't, your old house is demolished & you end up on the street.

No-deal isn't leverage, & it never was. It isn't leverage when they know that no-deal would do massive harm to the British economy & only small harm to the EU's. And not only would it harm the UK more than the EU, but the negotiating tactic of "We're willing to leave without a deal" has been tried 3 times now, & all 3 times, the UK has bottled it. The EU called the UK's bluff three times & won, so what, should they go for best of 7 now?

The only way using leverage works is if your serious about using it and since the UK wasn’t then it’s pretty obvious the EU wouldn’t fall for that bluff .

Well yes, of course the UK wasn't serious about leaving without a deal. The point is that no country in their right mind would be.

[Pericles]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

People who don't know any better make the analogy of meeting with a real estate agent offering a deal on a house, but retaining the ultimate resort of walking out without buying the house, i.e. no deal. Brexit isn't like that. No-deal isn't leverage because it's not a case of walking away saying "Oh well, I won't buy that house then." This is a case of going to buy the house, & if you don't, your old house is demolished & you end up on the street.

No-deal isn't leverage, & it never was. It isn't leverage when they know that no-deal would do massive harm to the British economy & only small harm to the EU's. And not only would it harm the UK more than the EU, but the negotiating tactic of "We're willing to leave without a deal" has been tried 3 times now, & all 3 times, the UK has bottled it. The EU called the UK's bluff three times & won, so what, should they go for best of 7 now?

The only way using leverage works is if your serious about using it and since the UK wasn’t then it’s pretty obvious the EU wouldn’t fall for that since it’s obvious that it is a bluff .

It would be hugely irresponsible for the UK to actually be serious about a no deal Brexit because it is so damaging to them.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

People who don't know any better make the analogy of meeting with a real estate agent offering a deal on a house, but retaining the ultimate resort of walking out without buying the house, i.e. no deal. Brexit isn't like that. No-deal isn't leverage because it's not a case of walking away saying "Oh well, I won't buy that house then." This is a case of going to buy the house, & if you don't, your old house is demolished & you end up on the street.

No-deal isn't leverage, & it never was. It isn't leverage when they know that no-deal would do massive harm to the British economy & only small harm to the EU's. And not only would it harm the UK more than the EU, but the negotiating tactic of "We're willing to leave without a deal" has been tried 3 times now, & all 3 times, the UK has bottled it. The EU called the UK's bluff three times & won, so what, should they go for best of 7 now?

The only way using leverage works is if your serious about using it and since the UK wasn’t then it’s pretty obvious the EU wouldn’t fall for that bluff .

Well yes, of course the UK wasn't serious about leaving without a deal. The point is that no country in their right mind would be.

Which of course made no deal much more likely .

[brucejoel99]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

People who don't know any better make the analogy of meeting with a real estate agent offering a deal on a house, but retaining the ultimate resort of walking out without buying the house, i.e. no deal. Brexit isn't like that. No-deal isn't leverage because it's not a case of walking away saying "Oh well, I won't buy that house then." This is a case of going to buy the house, & if you don't, your old house is demolished & you end up on the street.

No-deal isn't leverage, & it never was. It isn't leverage when they know that no-deal would do massive harm to the British economy & only small harm to the EU's. And not only would it harm the UK more than the EU, but the negotiating tactic of "We're willing to leave without a deal" has been tried 3 times now, & all 3 times, the UK has bottled it. The EU called the UK's bluff three times & won, so what, should they go for best of 7 now?

The only way using leverage works is if your serious about using it and since the UK wasn’t then it’s pretty obvious the EU wouldn’t fall for that bluff .

Well yes, of course the UK wasn't serious about leaving without a deal. The point is that no country in their right mind would be.

Which of course made no deal much more likely .

Tory extremists (including BoJo) sh*ting on the best deal that the UK could've gotten is what made no-deal much more likely. Fortunately, Parliament was able to step in with the Benn Act & Letwin Amendment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Yeah, that's exactly what the "threat" of No Deal was. You'd have to be a complete and total cretin not to understand that 1 country cutting ties with its 27 biggest trading partners is going to hurt the one more than the 27. Even BoJo and his buddies ultimately showed they understood that, even if the nutjobs in the ERG might not.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

People who don't know any better make the analogy of meeting with a real estate agent offering a deal on a house, but retaining the ultimate resort of walking out without buying the house, i.e. no deal. Brexit isn't like that. No-deal isn't leverage because it's not a case of walking away saying "Oh well, I won't buy that house then." This is a case of going to buy the house, & if you don't, your old house is demolished & you end up on the street.

No-deal isn't leverage, & it never was. It isn't leverage when they know that no-deal would do massive harm to the British economy & only small harm to the EU's. And not only would it harm the UK more than the EU, but the negotiating tactic of "We're willing to leave without a deal" has been tried 3 times now, & all 3 times, the UK has bottled it. The EU called the UK's bluff three times & won, so what, should they go for best of 7 now?

The only way using leverage works is if your serious about using it and since the UK wasn’t then it’s pretty obvious the EU wouldn’t fall for that since it’s obvious that it is a bluff .

Leverage is only useful if it is actually...you know...leverage.  The threat of a no deal brexit wouldn't give the UK any leverage even if everyone believed they were 100% ready and willing to follow through.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

People who don't know any better make the analogy of meeting with a real estate agent offering a deal on a house, but retaining the ultimate resort of walking out without buying the house, i.e. no deal. Brexit isn't like that. No-deal isn't leverage because it's not a case of walking away saying "Oh well, I won't buy that house then." This is a case of going to buy the house, & if you don't, your old house is demolished & you end up on the street.

No-deal isn't leverage, & it never was. It isn't leverage when they know that no-deal would do massive harm to the British economy & only small harm to the EU's. And not only would it harm the UK more than the EU, but the negotiating tactic of "We're willing to leave without a deal" has been tried 3 times now, & all 3 times, the UK has bottled it. The EU called the UK's bluff three times & won, so what, should they go for best of 7 now?

The only way using leverage works is if your serious about using it and since the UK wasn’t then it’s pretty obvious the EU wouldn’t fall for that since it’s obvious that it is a bluff .

Leverage is only useful if it is actually...you know...leverage.  The threat of a no deal brexit wouldn't give the UK any leverage even if everyone believed they were 100% ready and willing to follow through.

The EU would get hurt badly by the UK leaving without a deal to so then they would have an incentive to negotiate fairly

[brucejoel99]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.

The only thing that has been validated by this entire process is the principle of checks & balances. And the only thing that's trash about the Benn Act (the sole purpose of which has been to prevent a no-deal exit) is your opinion about it.

If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

As much as BoJo has already made it, the threat of a no-deal Brexit would've been infinitely worse had Parliament not been there to take it off the table.

Well yeah it was immensely idiotic to take no deal off the table. It was their best bargaining chip

"Please Mr. EU, give me the deal to end all deals! Or else I'll be forced to shoot myself in the head!"

Quite the bargaining chip indeed.

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

People who don't know any better make the analogy of meeting with a real estate agent offering a deal on a house, but retaining the ultimate resort of walking out without buying the house, i.e. no deal. Brexit isn't like that. No-deal isn't leverage because it's not a case of walking away saying "Oh well, I won't buy that house then." This is a case of going to buy the house, & if you don't, your old house is demolished & you end up on the street.

No-deal isn't leverage, & it never was. It isn't leverage when they know that no-deal would do massive harm to the British economy & only small harm to the EU's. And not only would it harm the UK more than the EU, but the negotiating tactic of "We're willing to leave without a deal" has been tried 3 times now, & all 3 times, the UK has bottled it. The EU called the UK's bluff three times & won, so what, should they go for best of 7 now?

The only way using leverage works is if your serious about using it and since the UK wasn’t then it’s pretty obvious the EU wouldn’t fall for that since it’s obvious that it is a bluff .

Leverage is only useful if it is actually...you know...leverage.  The threat of a no deal brexit wouldn't give the UK any leverage even if everyone believed they were 100% ready and willing to follow through.

The EU would get hurt badly by the UK leaving without a deal to so then they would have an incentive to negotiate fairly

Any detrimental economic impacts that a no-deal Brexit would have for the EU pale in comparison to those that the UK would suffer.

[Pericles]

Plus it's not like the UK won't have to negotiate with the EU if there's no deal. It would have to figure out a way to mitigate the chaos and get a trade agreement to stop the economic damage. The problem then is that the UK's negotiating position would be even weaker and the UK would suffer unnecessary and self-inflicted damage in the mean time. And it's similar with the Brexit deal, just ratifying the deal doesn't 'get Brexit done' or end the negotiations, it starts a new phase of even more arduous negotiations where the UK's position is weaker.

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1185605845440180231?s=19

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1185605845440180231?s=19

I see the DUP is finally catching up with the reality that unionism will only survive if the UK remains.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The DUP's pigheadedness and opportunism never cease to astound, but for once they might actually be a force for good. A referendum on BoJo's deal genuinely is the best way to end this psychodrama. Either the deal wins, and thus gains the legitimacy it needs to be accepted by (the non-fanatical) Remainers, or it loses, and while it wouldn't solve anything, it would at least probably spell the end of BoJo's political career and allow the public to indicate a new direction through a general election.

[Blair]

I know posters on here hate my opinion but I think I have been validated by this entire process. A presidential system is far better than a parliamentary one . A President would not have been handcuffed by parliament throughout negotiations and trash laws like the Benn act would never have been signed into law without a 2/3 vote.


If their really was a firm threat of No-Deal Brexit, I can bet you the UK gets a much better deal from the EU then they will ever get .

How would President Gary Lineker have made this situation any different?

Did you read any of the posts I & others did about why no deal hurt the U.K. more and also why it was a threat no British government could uphold?

[Blair]

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1185605845440180231?s=19

Very sceptical of this; there’s 20 anti 2nd ref labour (some may abstain) and still not enough second referendum supporters among the ex Tories.

[cp]

https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/1185605845440180231?s=19

Very sceptical of this; there’s 20 anti 2nd ref labour (some may abstain) and still not enough second referendum supporters among the ex Tories.

The numbers would be very tight, and as of writing I think it would probably fail to pass, but that's not the only dynamic at work. There will be multiple opportunities to amend the Withdrawal Act, by the Commons and the Lords, any one of which could produce an amendment that one or another side of the debate find intolerable. An amendment for permanent UK-wide customs union failed only by 2 votes back in April.

There's also the not insignificant matter of the actual confidence of the house. If the DUP voted against the government in a VONC there is no way there would be enough non-Tory (or ex-Tory Independents) votes to avoid a government defeat. Provided the EU granted an extension through to January as requested* there would be an election *after* the deal had passed but *before* it took effect and the UK was no longer a member of the EU.

*There's a non-zero chance the EU will provide a 'counter offer' of an earlier date, which would complicate matters quite a bit. That said, I think the EU will do as little as possible to interject themselves further into the UK's domestic political melodrama, and so will opt for the least controversial step - to grant the extension request as written.

[CumbrianLefty]

Supporters of "no deal remaining on the table" have made comparisons with Mutually Assured Destruction.

The difference is, it wouldn't be that - the "destruction" would be massively disproportionately on one side.

[pppolitics]

Removing leverage is a terrible way to negotiate

"Give me what I want or I'll commit suicide"

That's quite a leverage the UK got there /sarcasm