No you are confusing the two votes. May will not bring her new amendment up for voting (because she has nothing to show for it) BUT on wednesday Copper and some other MPs will bring for voting an amendment that forces the UK government to rule out a no deal Brexit. There are two separate votes. Until a month ago because of May wanting to keep the Torry party together by all means necessary it looked likely this amendment wouldn't pass. But now because of the defections the moderate MPs have been empowered to vote against May so it looks very likely that it will pass.
Also Corbyn has been forced to back a second referedum today. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-50-extension-minister-suggests-politics-live This is the latest update. There are right now 8 MPs defecting and up to 20 more considering it that's why he has been forced to do this. Both May and Corbyn are in no control of their parties. This has never happened before in the UK history.
I believe the "basic math" as you call it is part of the establishment led "Operation fear," which is designed to try to scare people into abandoning their aspirations to leave the EU. This is 'Fake news' if ever there was any. And this 'Operation fear' campaign by the establishment types is backfiring big-time. Also, only the EU will be making it tougher to trade with the UK, if that is what happens going forward, as the UK is ready to sign a free trade deal with the EU right now. The way this will be beneficial for the UK will be in enabling the UK to establish unilateral free trade deals with as many countries as they desire to have them, which will help their economy immensely. Again, if the EU wants a free trade deal with the UK, they can definitely have one too. And if there is no free trade deal between the UK and the EU, the EU will be fully to blame for that. In addition, the UK will benefit financially from not having to funnel billions of pounds per year to Brussels, which they can reinvest in their own economy. Also, the UK will be able to focus its military spending and allocation of resources in a way that is more beneficial to the interests of the UK. Yes, this is going to be great for the UK. Watch and see.
The EU has NO issue with a free trade agreement with the UK. Well..except for food but then again the one who exports food is the EU and the UK is the one who imports it and is dependant on it. The UK will have to decide is they want to follow the HAPSA rules or the US governement rules for food and animals in the near future. If they use the US rules then that will be a big hurdle in free trade on food products. Anyway, the problem isn't the free trade, the problem is the Good Friday agreement. You have made so many posts in this thread, but somehow you have never brought this up? Also Brexit as voted in the 2016 referedum in no way shape or form meant exclusively no customs union. In fact a good part of people who voted for it thought they were heading for a Norway style customs union, as was advertised by the Brexit campaigners.
Boris Johnson is part of establishment just like Trump... don’t let him confuse you first of all..... If the purpose to leave the UK was about prosperity then basic math isn’t in their favor. You should really look at the UK’s strengths and weaknesses.... this isn’t the 19th century anymore. Your issue isn’t with globalization, it’s with capitalism. You want to ignore “basic math” because justifying being a small fish in a large pond is tough. Which allows them to access various factors that makes a large trade union the largest in the world. You anti globalists have to tell yourself that. Meanwhile the US economy is strong while its trade deficit grows. We will watch and see.
Their decision doesn't just affect them - it affects the rest of Europe and all their other trading partners too. Why *wouldn't* countries voice an opinion about something that affects their citizens?
Theresa May has returned from her negotiations with EU leaders in Egypt. No breakthroughs and so far everyone still has their heels dug in. The UK appears to be devoted to not agreeing to a deal that includes a permanent backstop and that possibly leaves the UK unable to leave the EU without EU permission. The EU is focused on making sure the UK does not leave, by any means necessary. As a result, they will not vary their negotiating posture until they have given up hope of possibly sabotaging and effectively overturning the UK's Brexit plans. So if there is going to be a deal, it will not happen until right at the end. Meanwhile, Theresa May gave a speech today outlining the process going forward, which is pretty much what everyone who has been paying close attention should have been expecting. She announced three options, the first two of which she has announced repeatedly, and the third which we have been anticipating, but she has now spoken about in the House of Commons openly for the first time. THREE days that will DECIDE Brexit - How March 12-14th will seal Britain's fate In her statement to MPs following a Cabinet meeting with senior colleagues at 10 Downing Street, Theresa May said she wanted to set out "three further commitments" to the Commons. She said: "First, we will hold a second meaningful vote by Tuesday, March 12 at the latest. "Second, if the Government has not won a meaningful vote by Tuesday, March 12, then it will - in addition to its obligations to table a neutral amendable motion under Section 13 of the EU Withdrawal Act - table a motion to be voted on by Wednesday March 13 at the latest, asking this House if it supports leaving the EU without a Withdrawal Agreement and a framework for a future relationship on March 29. "So the United Kingdom will only leave without a deal on March 29 if there is explicit consent in the House for that outcome. "Third, if the House, having rejected the deal negotiated with the EU, then rejects leaving on March 29 without a Withdrawal Agreement and future framework, the Government will on March 14 bring forward a motion on whether Parliament wants to seek a short, limited extension to Article 50." The first option is to approve whatever deal she presents to the Parliament on March 12, the second option is to vote and approve leaving the EU with no deal, and the third option, if the first two fail to pass, is to agree to a "short, limited extension to Article 50". This last option she has tippy-toed around and has not agreed to until today. It appears that they are considering a time period for this "Short, limited extension" to be around two months, which considering that the EU elections are at the end of May, makes sense. This really should be wrapped up and done before that election, as if the UK is leaving the EU, they will no longer have representation in the EU government, or the elections required to elect those representatives. In any case, any of these three options look fine to me, as long as the "short, limited extension" is limited to about two months and does not extend very much longer. Do not be surprised if the EU eventually folds and agrees to allow a fixed time limit on the backstop, in exchange for a large payment of cash by the UK to the EU. Since the UK was probably going to end up paying the EU most of this money anyway, it seems like as reasonable a compromise as we are likely to see here.
That’s the anti globalist/anti capitalist pot calling the pro globalist/pro capitalist kettle black... I mean you started this thread to project no?
Globalism as it is currently being contrived is against the best interests of humanity and I am certainly opposed to that. But the truth is that I support Brexit first and foremost because the people if the UK voted for it and because I believe it is a wise decision on their part that is in the best interest not only of their nation, but also the larger world. My support for Brexit is not primarily about being anti-anything.
Jacob Rees Moog has backed off of demands that there be no backstop of any kind in the exit deal with the EU. He is now agreeable to including the backstop, as long as their is a fixed hard date when it ends, either in the treaty, or the "equivalent" of the text of the treaty. Eurosceptic Leader Backs Off Key Brexit Demand As May Opens Door To Delay As Reuters reported Wednesday, the leader of the Eurosceptic ERG signaled that he would drop his demand that the Irish Backstop be removed from the exit deal altogether, a major concession which suggests that the eurosceptics have been sufficiently rattled by the possibility that Brexit could be delayed or - now that Labour is officially backing a second referendum - canceled altogether. ERG leader Jacob Rees-Mogg said he could "live" with the backstop, so long as assurances are made that it won't be permanent, and that a "short-term" exit date be affixed to the deal. “I can live with the de facto removal of the backstop ... I mean that if there is a clear date that says the backstop ends, and that is in the text of the treaty or equivalent of the text of the treaty,” Rees-Mogg told BBC radio.The concession offers a hint at the ERG's thinking as the group, which played a major role in defeating the first iteration of May's deal, mulls what to do now that a delayed Brexit is a real risk. Rees-Mogg also appears to believe that a short extension will be agreed to by Parliament, and while he will vote against it, he sees certain benefits that can be had from this short, limited extension, which he refers to as a "silver lining". Jacob Rees-Mogg reveals 'SILVER LINING' of Brexit DELAY It is my sense that this reflect the politics of where this is going and what needs to be done to get this done. Theresa May really has been in the lead on all of this all the way along, and as we see here, certain peripheral but important players are starting to see the light and at least move towards and walk along side the wagon, if not quite ready to get entirely on board.
because Mojoman is a socialist and doesn't believe in capitalism. Globalism is a beacon of Capitalism.
Because the anti globalist feel they are being taken advantage of when really they just can’t adapt or too lazy.
