Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Panrich

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

http://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1110553207854583809

Doesn't this method increase the risk of nothing gaining a majority?

They can vote yes to multiple options so there will be a majority for at least one you'd assume.

Water John

It will allow MPs to talk the first results over before having a second ballot. Think this more in terms of electing a Pope. It hopefully for many creates an evolving process.

Inquitus

Water John wrote: »

It will allow MPs to talk the first results over before having a second ballot. Think this more in terms of electing a Pope. It hopefully for many creates an evolving process.

Aye its is more "corruptable" than a single AV vote would be, allowing people to vote tactically and work with each other as rounds progress to try and shape the outcome in a way which reflects their intent more. You could deliberately vote against something to exclude it from progress for instance knowing when it came to a final vote it might garner a lot of support if it was the last remain option, for example you could try and get "revoke" off the table.

Spook_ie

Enzokk wrote: »

Well the problem with this is from the UK side and not the EU. The Brexiteers fought against leaving NI inside the EU basically and they were threatening to diverge from EU rules but take NI with them. So it doesn't take away the need for the backstop, it just means the backstop is the solution even if there is no-deal Brexit. This is because of the GFA. This was known before the referendum and never discussed.

The problem is the power the DUP has in the UK right now. Funny as ever that Sammy Wilson is quick to remind everyone that Brexit is a whole 4 nation affair but other stuff, like gay rights is not. He is British when it suits him and it depends on social issues.

No WA = no backstop, only the commitment to no new border infrastructure from Ireland and UK, which isn't compatible with the EU.

FrancieBrady

Panrich wrote: »

They can vote yes to multiple options so there will be a majority for at least one you'd assume.

But May has said the results will not be binding on the government, so who knows, it could just be another pointless talk shop.

ancapailldorcha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But May has said the results will not be binding on the government, so who knows, it could just be another pointless talk shop.

That's only what she says. She still needs Parliament to vote through one option to avert no deal.

awec

Inquitus wrote: »

Edit though it's recently been clarified as not necessarily being the view of the DUP as a whole:

https://twitter.com/Laura_K_Hughes/status/1110556561246695429

I have to say, I was surprised when I saw the DUP prefer a 1 year extension, but it makes more sense that it was just Sammy Wilson blowing hard.

A lot can change in 1 year. The chances of the UK getting through a year without an election must be slim-to-none. In a year's time, chances are the DUP will be an irrelevance.

The DUP need a deal now while they still have an iron in the fire. Otherwise they'll be watching on as spectators.

Last night's vote must have spooked them. It has to have. If the indicative vote comes out with a result that the DUP are not warm to they are going to find it hard to spin. They must see there is a chance of parliament pulling the rug out from under them.

Inquitus

The official taking control document:

https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1110565759674212352

Water John

TM said at the Despatch Box 108 times that the UK was leaving the EU on the 29th March. TM says lots of things until they prove inoperable. What she says carries little weight any more. Events will push he along.

woohoo!!!

No deal is dead, just has to be formally buried. Whilst Mays deal has got a boost, I'm not seeing it getting the numbers although if you strip it down, it allows whatever version of Brexit or indeed remain, a means to an end. I'm seeing a long extension, a GE and a NI only backstop. Brexit is going to turn out to be a much softer exit than heretofore suggested in the UK.

As an aside, Westminster is dead to the norths nationalists, look at how the SNP are faring there for another reason. I'm told that both SF and the SDLP are firmly getting the message from their canvassing not to ever set foot in Westminster. Stormont is also dead, and look no further than the DUP for the reason. It'll take a huge change for Stormont to ever reopen. And they're all looking to Dublin.

Joe_ Public

Water John wrote: »

TM said at the Despatch Box 108 times that the UK was leaving the EU on the 29th March. TM says lots of things until they prove inoperable. What she says carries little weight any more. Events will push he along.

That’s very true. I am inclined to think she’d disrupt the indicative voting if it got in the way of her deal but that remains to be seen. It also seems likely she’ll announce her own leaving date tomorrow and that could be a gamechanger.

An Ciarraioch

More clarity now - runoff on Monday between the most popular options:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/mar/26/brexit-government-may-ignore-result-of-indicative-votes-process-says-hancock-live-news

Laois_Man

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

More clarity now - runoff on Monday between the most popular options

April 1st?

We'll be getting false news all day! :P

Loafing Oaf

Water John wrote: »

TM said at the Despatch Box 108 times that the UK was leaving the EU on the 29th March. TM says lots of things until they prove inoperable. What she says carries little weight any more. Events will push he along.

But it's still within her power to push through 'no deal', if that was what she wanted to do, assuming parliament is unable to agree on her deal or any other over the coming days. This is largely why people are making such an effort to parse her words. But it's looking increasingly like she doesn't want to drag her country over that cliff.

Anteayer

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

More clarity now - runoff on Monday between the most popular options:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/mar/26/brexit-government-may-ignore-result-of-indicative-votes-process-says-hancock-live-news

The problem is that they may then be coming to the EU with some proposal that is totally unworkable or unacceptable, based on no negotiated position and with just days to go before the end of the short extension.

I appreciate they've had serious governmental dysfunction over the last few months, but this does seem all rather a unilateral and highhanded way of doing business with anyone.

I suppose all we can do is hope parliament's proposals are somewhat less bonkers than the government's but I can almost guarantee they'll be proposing some cake-and-eat-it nonsense again on Tuesday and finding the EU isn't really interested.

woohoo!!!

Laois_Man wrote: »

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

More clarity now - runoff on Monday between the most popular options

April 1st?

We'll be getting false news all day! :P

hehe was bound to occur, it's only been nigh on 3 years of utter farce.

ancapailldorcha

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

More clarity now - runoff on Monday between the most popular options:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/mar/26/brexit-government-may-ignore-result-of-indicative-votes-process-says-hancock-live-news

But that rules out May's deal. The UK has to come up with a new plan by 12th April to avoid no deal.

Anteayer

I'm still baffled by this process.

OK, let's assume parliament has taken control and a proposal emerges at the end of this simultaneous parallel 12 vote system and run off.

Then what?

Is this a non-binding proposal to Government to do something?

Parliament can't negotiate with the EU directly without changing the government and holding them to account. What if May just refuses to play ball or the cabinet refuses to change tack and it continues to be back my deal or else...

I mean are we in a situation where there are two parallel governments - the Government and parliament acting as executive challenging the legitimacy of the Government ? Or some kind of rogue government emerging within the existing parliament that is refusing to challenge the mandate of the existing government ?

The whole thing strikes me as nuts and a refusal to deal with the reality that the Government's mandate has run out and a General Election is urgently needed.

The safety mechanism in a parliamentary democracy, much like the fuse in your fuse board at home is that in the event of a government losing its mandate, it will collapse triggering either a complete reshuffle within parliament or a general election.

That should be happening in the UK right now but isn't.

You can't just stumble on and on without any clarity as to what the direction is or who's running the country.

This is heading rapidly towards being an actual constitutional crisis where there's a mess between the executive and the legislative branches and a refusal to face reality and call a general election.

Inquitus

Anteayer wrote: »

I suppose all we can do is hope parliament's proposals are somewhat less bonkers than the government's but I can almost guarantee they'll be proposing some cake-and-eat-it nonsense again on Tuesday and finding the EU isn't really interested.

Unicorn and Cake options are banned from being put forwards I think, Bercow will select what is on the order paper.

Inquitus

Anteayer wrote: »

I'm still baffled by this process.

OK, let's assume parliament has taken control and a proposal emerges at the end of this simultaneous parallel 12 vote system and run off.

Then what?

Is this a non-binding proposal to Government to do something?

Parliament can't negotiate with the EU directly without changing the government and holding them to account. What if May just refuses to play ball or the cabinet refuses to change tack and it continues to be back my deal or else...

I mean are we in a situation where there are two parallel governments - the Government and parliament acting as executive challenging the legitimacy of the Government ? Or some kind of rogue government emerging within the existing parliament that is refusing to challenge the mandate of the existing government ?

The whole thing strikes me as nuts and a refusal to deal with the reality that the Government's mandate has run out and a General Election is urgently needed.

The safety mechanism in a parliamentary democracy, much like the fuse in your fuse board at home is that in the event of a government losing its mandate, it will collapse triggering either a complete reshuffle within parliament or a general election.

That should be happening in the UK right now but isn't.

You can't just stumble on and on without any clarity as to what the direction is or who's running the country.

From the rumblings coming out of May's office, if the option chosen by parliament contravenes the Tory Election manifesto e.g. it contains, SM or CU or SM/CU or anything else, then she will not take it to europe she will instead consider a GE.

Anteayer

Inquitus wrote: »

From the rumblings coming out of May's office, if the option chosen by parliament contravenes the Tory Election manifesto e.g. it contains, SM or CU or SM/CU or anything else, then she will not take it to europe she will instead consider a GE.

So in that case we're looking at Brexit being pushed out into probably 2020.

May should resign at this stage, it's getting into very dangerously screwed up territory the longer she continues to 'brass neck' it.

The big problem over there at the moment is there's been no leader emerged from the chaos. You've a weak, yet doggedly stubborn May and Corbyn seems to be so divisive within his own party that it's nearly split in two. Meanwhile the only other leaderly figures seem to be in the new independent group, yet they're not gaining sufficient traction to do anything serious other than shout from the sidelines.

I see endless people putting forward why things shouldn't be done - they either bitterly oppose the EU or they bitterly oppose Brexit. Nobody's putting forward a vision for the UK's future in a positive way either within or outside the EU. It's all about attacking opponents and negativity.

Leadership's about bringing people on board, not attacking them and I just see nobody doing that.

The UK's risking going down the plughole in a mess of negativity without any leadership at all.

briany

Anteayer wrote: »

So in that case we're looking at Brexit being pushed out into probably 2020.

May should resign at this stage, it's getting into very dangerously screwed up territory the longer she continues to 'brass neck' it.

As has been said, in normal times, she'd be out of the job about a year ago. But these are not normal times. I don't think there's a single MP in the Tory ranks who'd want her job as things stand today. It just goes to show how unenviable her position is that no-one else has staged a coup. No-one else in her party has any better ideas that can garner the kind of broader support needed. Boris Johnson would only widen divisions. Michael Gove would be stuttering his way through his speeches. And the less said about Jacob Rees Mogg, the better.

FrancieBrady

Inquitus wrote: »

From the rumblings coming out of May's office, if the option chosen by parliament contravenes the Tory Election manifesto e.g. it contains, SM or CU or SM/CU or anything else, then she will not take it to europe she will instead consider a GE.

There is the potential here for a much more serious rupture in the body politic of the UK, I think.

Inquitus

Anteayer wrote: »

So in that case we're looking at Brexit being pushed out into probably 2020.

Well it takes about 4 weeks (17 working Days to be precise) to call and execute a GE, so assuming we got indicative votes coming out for say Single Market + Customs Union, May would have to table a VoNC in her Government which would have to be carried, so would need at least some Tories to vote for it, then if noone can form an alternative Government in 14 days, which they can't, there is a confirmatory VoNC that starts the 4 week timer. So Thurs 9th May is the earliest date or perhaps the 16th May. In the meantime she would have to go to Europe and tell them she wants a long extension and will take part in the EU elections at the end of May, and that that extension is to allow for a GE so a different Brexit path can be charted.

Then it is also entirely possible that a GE changes nothing much, it would depend on Labour standing on a 2nd Referendum platform you'd think, and then a likely Lab / SNP coalition forming. If we get another Tory / DUP Government then we would be back to square 1 with the only change being perhaps a new PM in Gove or Johnson or whoever, if anyone, takes up the mantle. It would be much like May's ascension, a poisoned chalice likely to destroy your political career, not sure who'd want the job, lol.

Anteayer

From the EU's perspective this is going to come down to ... "well you're on the pot.. decide one way or the other." As UK domestic chaos is impinging on neighbours and costing businesses billions upon billions in terms of opportunity cost and having to assume the worst outcome and plan for it.

The UK can't seem to even decide to kick this far down the road and ask for a very long extension, which would be one way of at least dealing with the internal problems and allowing the EU to get on with life while Britain goes off to find itself or have a bar brawl with itself or whatever it is it needs to do.

Effectively they're holding 442 million people hostage while they have a national mental breakdown.

Enzokk

Spook_ie wrote: »

No WA = no backstop, only the commitment to no new border infrastructure from Ireland and UK, which isn't compatible with the EU.

From my side it looks like the UK is aware of their commitments regarding the GFA and that they will have to keep the border open between Ireland and NI. This seems evident even in the event of no-deal in that both sides are most likely talking about a deal in such a case. Yes I am aware that in the event of no-deal having a deal means it is not no-deal, but that seems to be what will happen.

As for the argument that these talks show that the backstop is not needed, well it doesn't make sense to me. All it does do is make the importance of maintaining no border between NI and Ireland even more apparent, in that it will happen even when there is no deal and the UK crashes out. The fact that it will still be maintained doesn't mean it isn't needed, it just reinforces that it is the most important item for the two sides (EU and UK) in that this is the item that will be carried over from the talks when all other fall away.

Laois_Man

Inquitus wrote: »

Well it takes about 4 weeks (17 working Days to be precise) to call and execute a GE,

They can run a General Election on the same day and in tandem with their European elections

How ironic!

RobertKK

I think for the sake of the EU we need the UK out of the union as soon as possible. The UK is so divided, there are a section of people who are so deluded, that I think a reality check is needed to cure the disease.
The only problem is other countries will also be affected by this. But I think it is worse for the EU if the UK now remains in the EU. We need them out so everyone can then move on.
The UK would likely come running back fast to make a deal if they leave on no deal. Which I see now is also the opinion of some in the Irish government - w would not stay in a no deal scenario for very long as the UK would look to rescue itself from the self inflicted disaster.
I have no idea where any of this is going, I don't think anyone really does.

Xavier Bettel, the PM of Luxembourg and is known as Mr Nice Guy.
Philippe Lamberts MEP: “When you listen to Xavier Bettel when he exited the Council you feel that if even (he) is upset by Theresa May, she must be totally devoid of the basic human skills that you need to be a political leader. And that is scary,”

Inquitus

Laois_Man wrote: »

They can run a General Election on the same day and in tandem with their European elections

How ironic!

That would probably be a good thing as it would guarantee a higher turnout for the EU elections and go some way to mitigate, perhaps, the sort of scoundrels elected, likely be bad for Nigel's New Brexit Party for instance, and good for any remainers standing.

Anteayer

i'd agree that they have now realised just how serious the GFA is, but the issue was the ignored that before and during the first year and a bit of Brexit. It's only a recent position. I think it's almost been like some of the Tories have only recently learnt about how messed up Northern Ireland is and how fragile and complex that whole process was.

Also I think they're starting to realise that there are serious international ramifications to screwing up the GFA, particularly from Irish American politicians who'd probably hold their feet to the fire on it in any trade negotiations with the US and those politicians in the US are across the spectrum of politics from left to right and Democrat to hat wearing Trumpeteers.

The impression I got was some people in the UK were a bit shocked at the extent of Irish soft power in the US and also American interest in Northern Ireland's peace process. Patrick's Day this year was somewhat of an eye opener.

I also got the sense that they were somewhat shocked by the extent of Ireland's connections within the EU, particularly FG within the EPP which is hugely influential in a way Tories absolutely are not.