Couple of sensible questions (IMHO)
Firstly, wouldn’t the sensible thing to do be to agree a trade agreement with the EU as a whole, that species that No tarrifs be charged between UK and EU countries, but that UK could negotiate with non EU countries. Has this been tried? All other elements would also stay, as in movement of people; leaving jurisdiction of ECJ etc. Surely this is a win win?Second, am I right in deducing that nothing is being agreed in parliament because there is a great number of MPs still hoping it won’t happen and are just being mischievous, rather than accepting the referendum result and find the best deal to respect this.
Phil Until the withdrawal agreement is in place the EU won't discuss a trade deal. That's the next hurdle, or quite probably a mountain, to overcome.
As for the second? That's what happens when you have a majority in parliament who believe remaining in the EU is the best thing for their country. They've been called a lot worse than mischievous around these parts, but I've got some sympathy (for some at least); they're in an impossible situation as far as their duties as an MP go. Thanks, as I thought. So if parliament don’t want it, and the EU don’t want it, T May is / was in an impossible position and was always going to fail and be scapegoat. Leave first (WTO) and then negotiate a FT agreement with the EU.Would have happened for sure.Just a matter of time (considering the huge trade between the 2).
That was an absolute no brainer and, i'm sure a PM who had faith in the UK, would consider. The process has been frustrated from day one by those not willing to accept the referendum result.
First establish a clean break. Then layer it up with deals that are actually worth our while. Trying to do both at the same Rome is crazy, as has been demonstrated.
Phillip Hammond has a lot to answer for as it has now come out that it was him asking for the backstop arrangements, and that it is not the EU to remove it. Pretty damning stuff. The PM was always in a very difficult position without a doubt. However, her approach of trying to appease the ERG rather than forge a cross party consensus was a failing of her own making and has led to where we are now. For the second point, there are extremes...
- On the one side you have the hardline Remainers who are hoping Brexit will be cancelled.
- On the other side, you have the hardline Brexiteers who want a no deal.
- Then you have a few individuals who don't really care what happens, as long as May quits and they get a shot at being PM.
Then you have the rest who are looking for a compromise, but they don't make up 50% I would argue that what you have suggested was impossible as has been demonstrated over the last two years, because you need agreement for this in the HoC.And there are a lot of people opposed to this because of the impact to businesses (as they see it).
This is not an argument about whether there is an impact to business because no one will agree, but some MPs do agree and will vote with what they consider are best interests of this country (which is their first duty)
Knowing how split the house was on the vote, how the last GE went, it would have made a lot more sense trying to have a cross party team to come up with a consensus on the way forward, not in the 11th hour, but 2 years ago. A lot of sense and clarity here in this thread, so the only reason the MPs can't compromise to the right way forward has to be down to party politics, mischief, and trying to scupper the referendum result itself (as was said earlier).
Thanks to all How has she appeased the ERG by pushing a deal they hate?