Why Are These Three Going On About Extending A50?

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47336501
It's not up to us is it?

[Ken4155]

It's up to us to request an extension, isn't it?

[dannyk13]

We can only extend it with agreement by the EU.

[ichkeria]

As ken said

[Canary42]

From past experience I wouldn't take anything these 3 say seriously.

[agchristie]

I didn't realise the route between Warrington and Leicester needed to be longer. o:)

[THECORBYLOON]

Do you think the EU would consider extending the two-year period without being asked?

[ladybirder]

LOL;-)

[andy-hughes]

Never underestimate the need for some people to have their faces plastered across the media, giving them a (undeserved!) sense of importance, and belief that they will be written into history.

[Zacs-Master]

From the article:
‘Mr Clark, Ms Rudd and Mr Gauke argue if a deal is not endorsed by MPs imminently "it would be better to seek to extend Article 50 and delay our date of departure rather than crash out of the European Union on March 29". ’The key word being ‘seek’.

[andy-hughes]

Ken Clarke is another one who is keen to de-rail Brexit.

Mind you, a man who worked as Secretary For Health while being a board member of Imperial Tobacco is not someone whose opinions I take particularly seriously!

[Togo]

I see they have called themselves the 3 Amigos(male) More like Moe, Curly and Larry, The Three Stooges. There was a line in the Three Amigos that fits them though.

‘Which one do you like?’
‘I like the one that’s not so smart.’
‘Which one is that?’

[New Judge]

Of course the real aim of the “Three Amigas” (along with more than half the Commons, if truth to tell) is not to delay Brexit but to see it cancelled entirely. Extending A50 will serve no purpose. It is clear that the EU will not alter its so-called agreement and that the Commons (amply aided and abetted by people such as these three) will not countenance a “No Deal” (i.e. proper” departure.

[Canary42]

/// It is clear that the EU will not alter its so-called agreement ///

Nostrodamus I assume.

[jim360]

No Deal is not a destination, so it can hardly be a proper departure. At some point, the UK has to figure out what it actually wants its future relationship with the EU to be, rather than the other way round.

As to the three ministers: in any sort of coherent, stable government, they would deservedly be sacked for this. I agree with what they say, of course, but it shows just how broken our government has become right now that three ministers so publicly rejecting official policy can survive in their jobs.

[Theland]

No deal should be renamed, New Deal, or Different Deal, or International deal.
The Great Unwashed will surely look at No Deal, and think, "Erm, don't like the sound of that! No Deal means we get nuffink? Dats not fair! We want sumfink, don't we Fred?"
"Yeah we want sumfink, not fair to get noffink, arter all I payz me taxes, an it's just not fair"
"But hey Charlie, der is dis New Deal, an it's gonna be better dan no deal "
"Yeah let's ave sum of dat den, sounds better"

[ToraToraTora]

even if we applied for an extention, the EU would want some sort of valid reason, it's not enough to just extend to avoid no deal.

[New Judge]

"No Deal is not a destination, so it can hardly be a proper departure."

Of course it is, Jim. It is the logical conclusion to the question asked of the electorate in 2016. The question was "Remain or Leave"? It was not "Remain or Remain partially" (which is what any agreement that the EU cobbles together means). Because of the government's ineptitude I can see the need for a short transition period to allow the UK to do what it should have been doing since June 2016 - that is preparing to no longer be an EU member with all that entails. But talk that the world will fall in on March 30th is plainly ridiculous. Other nations manage to interact with each other perfectly well without the need for a supra-national political entity to help them along the way. I did not vote to Leave only to see the country bound by (arguably) an even worse Treaty than the Treaty of Lisbon which I voted to abandon. However, I think we've done this once or twice before.

These politicians are making the nation a laughing stock. They voted five to one to invoke A50 just two years ago. Now, because they fear they might actually have to play a part in running the country instead of simply drawing their pay, they don't like the look of it.

[Hopkirk]

An extension would do nothing, the arguing would continue up to the new deadline.

[albaqwerty]

NJ, your last paragraph is one I wholeheartedly agree with.

The democratic vote was Leave, I think we should do just that then no more dithering or complaining.

[jim360]

A No Deal Brexit resolves nothing, solves no problems, and gives no future worth desiring. WTO terms are a worst-case scenario to ensure that at least there are *some* rules for trade, but nobody in the world wants to stick with them, so relying on that as the end goal for all time is, frankly, nonsensical.

It is completely and utterly wrong, therefore, to call No Deal a destination at all, let alone one worth pursuing. Logic dictates that whatever our future it will involve trading with the EU on terms that must be decided and negotiated as party of a treaty. Anything less will be damaging at least and ruinous at worst. I cannot take seriously the claim that you aren't aware of this. Even Brexiteers in the ERG understand that No Deal will be at most a brief stopping point, one that all but the most rabid are still determined to avoid, and yet hand over us all like the time bomb that it is.