Is No Deal Now Innevitable?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47660019
They'll only get the extension if Parliament approves the deal as is. That seems unlikely given the numbers, so shall I order the champagne for next Friday?

[ichkeria]

Someone asked last week why we were asking for an extension until June 30 when the EU elections were actually May 23-26.
And I replied that there was an understanding by the government, presumably, that we could go a month over without it being a problem.
I assumed the govt knew what it was doing ... fall for it every time :-)

[Old_Geezer]

No, May capitulated on a deal only she had the gall to bring back. since it neither satisfied the Brexit promise nor was sufficiently "do nothing" to satisfy the Remainer MPs. There hasn't been a Brexit deal yet, so naturally the House voted against it. It would have been madness to do otherwise. And we aren't at the point where all gathering nuts in May yet.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I prefer the word "liar" to "traitor". (Don't need a thesaurus, OG)

Most Remainers believe that Brexit in any form is bad for the country and that the stupids who voted for it need to be spared the consequences of their folly. To that extent I would readily concede that they are acting from honourable intent.

But for:

No such Honourable Remainer would, in the first place, have voted for the Referendum with the necessary risk that would entail of a largely stupid electorate being conned by populists like Nigel Farage.

And no such Honourable Remainer would, after the Referendum, have voted for triggering Article 50 which announced our leaving the EU on March 29 unconditionally.

To those Remainers whose actions have been consistent with their beliefs as I have described: Sir, Madam, you have my respect. My contempt to the rest of you.

[ichkeria]

I might remind you that "Remainer MPs" in general, on the Tory side at least, objected on the grounds that we would be subject to the EU's rules during the transition period, but would not have a say in them.
Of course it's actually the Labour Party whose votes could have made all the difference: they were ostensibly pro-Brexit but only if we could leave with all the benefits of membership: the so-called "three or five or whatever tests". But then they are HM's Opposition.

[Ellipsis]

Vote Leave brochure> Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave

We have negotiated the terms of a new deal, as referred to in that Vote Leave brochure.

By "we", I mean the democratically elected Government that "we" voted in after the Referendum to negotiate that deal. So who is treasonous?

[jim360]

Returning to the original question: no, it seems that No Deal is *not* now inevitable, as the EU Council has apparently proposed a draft statement granting the UK an extension to May 22nd if the Withdrawal Agreement is accepted, and to April 12th if it is not.

Assuming that Theresa May accepts this and brings it back to the House, and assuming that Stephen Barclay tables a Statutory Instrument to amend the definition of "exit day", then No Deal remains very far from inevitable.

[ichkeria]

It's certainly the death knell for March 29.

And,
if they do not (agree a deal), EU leaders would back a shorter delay until 12 April.
The draft conclusions seen by the BBC say the UK would then be expected to "indicate a way forward before this date".
Which to me suggests they are leaving the door open for a referendum (say) or whatever, leaving the UK enough time to prepare for the elections on May 23 :-)

[naomi24]

Treachery, lies, deceit, duplicity, sanctimonious claptrap – whatever you want to call it, none of it is worthy of the principle of democracy, of the British electorate, or of a British parliament.

[Zacs-Master]

And being the ones who are going to have complete control over our affairs. Yeah, great reason to pop a bottle of Bolli.

[naomi24]

Well, with a bottle of Bolli you can drown your sorrows at least, Zacs - but cheer up. It might never happen.

[Zacs-Master]

Best have a bottle now before WTO tariffs double the price!

[naomi24]

Stockpile..... not that you're scaremongering or anything silly like that. ;o)

[Zacs-Master]

‘A’ bottle, I said. Just because you buy yours by the case! ;-)

[naomi24]

Too true!! :o)

[Zacs-Master]

You’ll have to economise come next Friday, N. Asti Spumante or a Lambrini.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Always thought Cava was far better value - vintage stuff at half the price. Also has nobody spotted that Oz has been producing méthode champenoise wines for decades?

[Zacs-Master]

I agree. Quality Cava can be a real bargain. But there’s just something about Chamagne. I think it must be the terroir.

[jim360]

Enough with all this wining.

[vetuste_ennemi]

I think the UK may be the largest market for champagne after the US.

Smart producers are not going to lose their second most important customer, are they? (It won't bother Tusk, Juncker and Verhofstadt of course. Why would it?)

[cassa333]

I’ve never found a Champaign I like. I much prefer sweet sparkling wine.