EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

This still assumes that Parliament can somehow revoke Article 50 and say actually we don't want to leave. Pessimistically I would imagine the EU will say That's it times up and out we go, regardless of if we want to or not

That is actually an interesting question though. Has it been decided yet on the EU side whether Article 50 can be revoked?

Overall, I think the EU would much prefer the UK to stay, especially if that is the result of a UK movement rather than something that is seen as being imposed on the UK. While the whole "they need us more than we need them" is of course bullshit, the UK leaving the EU is still not good for business in a number of EU countries - it's not like they're actively trying to get rid of the UK.

The question would be whether we can stay with our current deal. If we start losing vetos or part of the rebate or similar it will become much more complicated.

I think we mostly agree around here that the whole "the EU are just doing x to punish the UK" line is BS, but the one truth I can see in it is a desire to make the decision permanent/irrevocable - because that will make it far less appealing to other countries wanting to go down the path in future. (and could have the added benefit of forcing any potential country to have an internal dialogue first so that the terms of Brexit means Brexit are actually worked out before the Article 50 button is pressed.

Also ^ is a good point @aggi when you stop and think about it, for all the cake-ism that has been thrown around, the EU have almost let a cake situation happen- in our current status is about 90% cake which has been taken for granted

Barnier is waiting for any sign of sanity/logic from the Tory politicians he has to deal with.
No point offering an Art50 extension to lunatics who did not realise the volume of physical traffic between Dover and Calais.

the one truth I can see in it is a desire to make the decision permanent/irrevocable - because that will make it far less appealing to other countries wanting to go down the path in future

This doesn't make sense to me. The EU is worried that the project is being threatened. How will punishing an entire nation of people, who would presumably simply be asking to have more time to sort out their long-term relationship a) convert those already skeptical of the project (across the EU) and b) not alienate some of those who are in favour of the project? Especially when that action will damage the EU economically? This isn't a "we need them as much as they need us" argument. It's a "this is the easiest and most pragmatic response" argument.

What would it profit the EU to allow a delay, if both parties are the same with regards to the EU relationship?

I gave two reasons, although they're just my best guess.

It'd be referendum vs GE, would the DUP prefer to remain in an alliance with the government in power rather than accept the Irish sea border that would result from a Labour GE victory?

I'm not the DUP, but I would say absolutely no. They would not rather remain part of the government in the face of a sea border. Which is what the referendum risks Why would they support a referendum that threatens Northern Ireland's position in the UK? How could they?

One reason, surely?
Reason 1. rise of Eurosceptic parties: I'm guessing you mean that the EU being seen to allow a country some time to have a GE would be a demonstration of reasonableness, and to do otherwise would be ammunition to be used against them, so it's effectively the same as 2. because it's the right thing to do.

If you the DUP what the only route forward that works for you is no-deal. The party most likely to deliver that is the Conservatives. If May's deal gets voted down and she has no follow up move, then it's a GE and a border in the Irish Sea with Corbyn. A referendum on deal vs no-deal is the logical next move for May, and because the alternative might be Corbyn the DUP's least-worse choice is to support it and hope that the public votes for no-deal. To do otherwise gets them the Irish Sea border by default.

Post deal vote branches (feel free to add more):

1. Deal is approved, proceed to Brexit
   
2. Deal is voted down, May has nothing else, GE, Corbyn, deal is approved, proceed to Brexit
   
3. Deal is voted down, May has nothing else, GE, Hunt, deal is approved, proceed to Brexit
   
4. Deal is voted down, referendum, no-deal gains mandate, DUP happy
   
   
   

The question is whether the DUP would vote for a referendum which included an option which would potentially result in a sea border. The answer is, I think obviously, no. Whether that would result in Corbyn and a unified Ireland or the return of the other JC is immaterial.

1. Deal is voted down, gov. has no appetite for GE due to overwhelming stench of incompetence guaranteeing Lab victory, also no appetite for being recorded in history as the gov. that recklessly takes the country over the cliff. Referendum including remain option in face of overwhelming public pressure, which most newspapers (including nu-style DM) and every sane public voice will amplify. British public has a good hard think about things and then votes again. Remain. Brexit loonies piss and whine, but everyone now sees them for what they are.
   
   

Attractive for gov. since it gets them off the hook, disaster is averted, Tory brand is salvageable.

And in response to your first point: they are distinct. One is pragmatic, the other is normative.

Also, any option that results in a GE returning Lab will result in a remain option referendum, since no leave scenario can satisfy their 6 tests.

The six tests are a red herring - they can't be passed, yet Corbyn and Thornberry reject the concept of remaining.

The question is whether the DUP would vote for a referendum which included an option which would potentially result in a sea border. The answer is, I think obviously, no. Whether that would result in Corbyn and a unified Ireland or the return of the other JC is immaterial.

I disagree- voting against a referendum (if it's got a no-deal option) is to vote for a sea border.

They've got two routes that don't result in a sea border, that I can see - no deal with May or no deal with a replacement Tory PM.

A referendum with May is their best chance of no-deal, as a replacement Tory PM might pivot to remain.

Better the devil you know, essentially.

I disagree- voting against a referendum (if it's got a no-deal option) is to vote for a sea border.

But it literally is not. In fact, it is literally the opposite of that.

The DUP will not risk giving the rest of the UK, let alone Northern Ireland, the opportunity to create a sea border via a referendum. That's what voting for a referendum would potentially allow.

Of course they are, they were designed to be.

While Corbyn may be pro-leave, he is much more pro-having a clean shot at government. If you think the Tory gov is split over leaving, it will be as nothing compared to the civil war that will engulf a Labour gov that tries to leave without a new referendum.

I’m quite convinced that the current Corbyn/Starmer duality is a calculated strategy to avoid alienating support in leave constituencies.

But it literally is not. In fact, it is literally the opposite of that.

The DUP will not risk giving the rest of the UK, let alone Northern Ireland, the opportunity to create a sea border via a referendum. That's what voting for a referendum would potentially allow.

But the alternative to voting for a referendum is a sea border:

Deal can't pass>GE>Corbyn>deal passes>sea border.
Deal can't pass>GE>Hunt>deal passes>sea border.

What chain of events, that could possibly happen, doesn't result in a sea border?

The alternative is not voting for a referendum with a sea border as a potential outcome. That's what they will vote for.

The outcomes which would follow this would be handled as all other issues are: as they arise and are voted on.

The moment they vote against (the entirely hypothetical) referendum they're fucked, though.

Your view is that they can't work out the onward chain of events, or that even if they can they think that they can somehow counter each event as it occurs, but if it's a Corbyn victory in a GE then they abruptly lose any agency.

My view is they will never vote for a referendum with a sea border as an option. It is the DUP.

Remain option = no sea border.

Since the DUP is butt kissing the erg (don't believe the they care about NI hype, they've always been brown nosing the Tories) I'm curious how this will play out.

As right now the UK has nothing the EU accepts, the EU wants no time limit on the backstop (fair enough they did enough to help NI), the DUP wants no backstop, will there even be an option to vote on?

My view is they will never vote for a referendum with a sea border as an option. It is the DUP.

My view is that they won't vote for a sea border, which is why I disagree with you.

I still think that the Tories and DUP see Corbyn as the worst threat and will somehow pull together to pass the 'deal'. As before, I really, really want to be wrong.

All those 'will they/won't they' scenarios depend on them (Torymoaners, Leavers, DUP) actually acting on their principles. I think that's a very unlikely scenario.

Deal= sea border, the DUP can't and won't vote for that. I am in total agreement with Mrak on that.

Again, I think they'll work something out when push comes to shove. It'll be stupid and ugly, and I have no idea what it could be, but I think they will. And I still hope that I'm wrong.

I would hope that another GE would give a result that was not dependent upon the DUP.
They could then return to their accustomed position in public life, under a stone somewhere, denying both dinosaurs and womens' reproductive rights.
A conviction in the 'Ash for Cash' case would be welcome too.