I’m not sure spending years arguing before triggering Art 50 would’ve been sustainable, either domestically or on the continent. That's before you get to the issue that we could spend all that time negotiating only to be told on day one that it was a no go. Further, parliament have just rejected the idea that they should be the lead on the direction of negotiations. The official opposition have the chance to implement 90% of their policy on the matter - no single market, a customs union and safeguards on labour and environmental law - but have just moaned that it’s a rehash of WAB 2 and that May hasn’t moved, despite big concessions on parliamentary power, second ref and CU. She has thrown a large section of her party under a bus to give Lab a lot of what they want but it’s still a no, and a hostile no at that.Puja wrote:Now I get why you've been arguing with me, cause that does sound stupid. However, it's not the point I was trying to make - we should've had all this argument bollocks and tried to find a workable direction that parliament agreed on before going to the EU (preferably before triggering Article 50). Sure, we'd probably still be deadlocked, but at least we'd be deadlocked at the start of the process, rather than the end.Mellsblue wrote: On the plus side, at least we can put to bed the notion that if only govt had compromised and given parliament greater say it all would’ve been, to stick with the boating theme, plain sailing.
Puja
I think the idea that parliament would come to a consensus under its current make up is for the birds. They couldn't find one under the pressure of a deadline and they are now refusing to even take responsibility for the next stage of negotiations.