Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

LeinsterDub

RobMc59 wrote: »

The UK contributed equally towards the success of the GFA and this shouldn't be overlooked despite the mess the UK government is making of brexit .

It's wasn't my intention to overlook anyone's contribution. I was being hyperbolic.

RobMc59

lawred2 wrote: »

I presented it exactly as it is. The English Tory party are not in any shape or form responsible for the peace that exists in NI. And those responsibilities still exist despite the obvious disdain that this Tory government has for them.

Which party was it exactly that sent the Paras into NI in the first place?

Isn't that a different thread subject?
I didn't think airbrushing the past about the GFA is right.

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

Hardly fair to John Major. He gave a damn but he wasn't a typical toff Tory.

John Major was reported to be the only man to run away from the circus to become an accountant.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

John Major was reported to be the only man to run away from the circus to become an accountant.

Edwina Currie seemed to find him interesting enough.

ancapailldorcha

murphaph wrote: »

Hardly fair to John Major. He gave a damn but he wasn't a typical toff Tory.

The crazy thing is that the last two Conservative party leaders have drastically lowered the bar for measuring the quality of their PM's. The Tories always presented themselves as a party of competence, prudence and stability and that's been shattered. Utterly, utterly shattered. Even the most dismal of Tories like Eden stopped at acting poorly in crises as opposed to Cameron who created one himself.

demfad

Analysing the Indicative votes at this stage it be more useful to look at the votes AGAINST than FOR in the indicative votes keeping an eye on abstentions:



Some Indications: (assuming abstain = Potential yes)

1-Five options (all soft/ref/revoke) could have potential majorities when Abstains added.
2-Hard Brexit dead
3-DUP abstaining on SOFT options.
4- If UK parliament ever stumbles into Deal V Revoke: It would be easy majority for Revoke
5-A simple Irish style PR vote (1-8 Pref with eliminations and subsequent redistribution) could whittle it down to any number and would provide far deeper indication analysis.

ancapailldorcha

Does Theresa May even have time to vote through her deal tomorrow? It needs to be substantially different and since the EU are done facilitating her silly games, that means she'll have to attach either a general election or a confirmatory referendum to it to get past the speaker considering the dearth of support for the deal. She seems to have underestimated the DUP. Saying "NO!" is the one thing they do consistently. They're not going to change the habit of half a century.

robinph

demfad wrote: »

4- If UK parliament ever stumbles into Deal V Revoke: It would be easy majority for Revoke

Is there something that prevents them having an option A v option B vote?

There hasn't been any talk of such a vote so far, and if they are only allowed to have option A (y/n) and separately option B (y/n) then we'll never be able to get past this point.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

One possible scenario is that WA gets approved after 29 March, and then UK goes to EU and says "Here's our plan; we'll implement the WA. How about it?" And I would think their prospects of getting an extension to 22 May in that case would be pretty good.

I don't think the EU will need much of a plan to allow a long extension. Leaving the UK in the EU doesn't cost much, and the longer they stay, the greater chance that the whole thing will be called off.

So if the UK go to Europe and say "The WA as negotiated cannot pass the House. We would like a long extension so that we can sort our sh!t out. We will participate in the Euro elections, maybe have a General Election, perhaps a referendum on whatever final deal emerges.

And look at our indicative voting! We have already started the cross-party effort that the EU has been looking for!"

I think the EU will say "Fine, have 21 months. What's for lunch?"

FrancieBrady

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Does Theresa May even have time to vote through her deal tomorrow? It needs to be substantially different and since the EU are done facilitating her silly games, that means she'll have to attach either a general election or a confirmatory referendum to it to get past the speaker considering the dearth of support for the deal. She seems to have underestimated the DUP. Saying "NO!" is the one thing they do consistently. They're not going to change the habit of half a century.

It has to be lodged with the speaker today if it is to be voted on tomorrow apparently.

ShooterSF

So any clarification on what a confirmative vote is? My guess under the current government is do you support leaving with the agreed deal. Yes or no?

If rejected it goes back to the government to renegotiate /leave/cancel a50

FrancieBrady

Gosh, you would'nt miss Bertie Ahern's man of the people, international diplomat spiel.

He was on S'O'R and was handing out brickbats to May, Andrew Brickens, and the DUP for 'at least' 'being consistent'.
But apparently SF's policy of abstensionism is to be regretted and will need review when the dust settles.
Having abstentionism as a policy since the foundation of the party, is apparently not a 'consistent' position for bertie.

funkey_monkey

Who was the one DUP MP who went rogue on the No Deal vote and voted No instead of abstaining?

blackwhite

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Who was the one DUP MP who went rogue on the No Deal vote and voted No instead of abstaining?

Hard to break the habit of a lifetime sometimes....

demfad

robinph wrote: »

Is there something that prevents them having an option A v option B vote?

There hasn't been any talk of such a vote so far, and if they are only allowed to have option A (y/n) and separately option B (y/n) then we'll never be able to get past this point.

The weakness of the indicative votes is how to analyise and act on the indications. They need a system to whittle choices down.

A straight PR system 1-8 on the ballot would work. Lowest eliminated and votes redistributed based on next preference.

Maybe for an amendment in future.

There is a lot to be learned from this for MPs.
The hardest remaining realistic Brexit is the WA with the PD as it is now.
So does the likes of Steve Baker (The worst Baker since the guy who burned London down in 1666)..he must choose between the WA or its massively likely there will be something softer or ever more likely with a long extension: No Brexit.

Sparko

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Who was the one DUP MP who went rogue on the No Deal vote and voted No instead of abstaining?

Jim Shannon.

It is remarkable that indicative votes on basic things like CU weren't done two years ago.

Akrasia

lawred2 wrote: »

Well realistically where would that take the process? It must be odds on that a referendum on May's deal would be defeated. Then what?

Referendum on her deal v remain, her deal loses, therefore remain

Sam Russell

demfad wrote: »

The weakness of the indicative votes is how to analyise and act on the indications. They need a system to whittle choices down.

A straight PR system 1-8 on the ballot would work. Lowest eliminated and votes redistributed based on next preference.

Maybe for an amendment in future.

There is a lot to be learned from this for MPs.
The hardest remaining realistic Brexit is the WA with the PD as it is now.
So does the likes of Steve Baker (The worst Baker since the guy who burned London down in 1666)..he must choose between the WA or its massively likely there will be something softer or ever more likely with a long extension: No Brexit.

Well, three of the votes had an absolute majority vote against them so they should be eliminated.

Zubeneschamali

On the indicative votes, an interesting question is are there enough abstentions to get the proposition to pass if the abstainers back it?

In other words, is Yes+Abstain more then No?

366 - 272 Customs Union
355 - 283 Common Market 2.0
349 - 293 Revoke to avoid No Deal
342 - 295 Referendum
341 - 307 Labour plan
260 - 377 EFTA and EEA
237 - 400 No Deal
209 - 422 Standstill

From this you can see that if push came to shove, No Deal and EEA would still lose, but there are enough MPs floating to give a possible majority for any of the plans above EFTA.

murphaph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is remarkable that indicative votes on basic things like CU weren't done two years ago.

Or even before the referendum.

mazwell

prawnsambo wrote: »

Sorry, what's the WM? On Monday they are going to vote again on the most popular motions that went through the indicative vote process yesterday. I assume there'll be a process for this, but not sure what it is or when it will be carried out. As far as I know, the house is not sitting on Friday.

Sorry WA

bob mcbob

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

On the indicative votes, an interesting question is are there enough abstentions to get the proposition to pass if the abstainers back it?

In other words, is Yes+Abstain more then No?

366 - 272 Customs Union
355 - 283 Common Market 2.0
349 - 293 Revoke to avoid No Deal
342 - 295 Referendum
341 - 307 Labour plan
260 - 377 EFTA and EEA
237 - 400 No Deal
209 - 422 Standstill

From this you can see that if push came to shove, No Deal and EEA would still lose, but there are enough MPs floating to give a possible majority for any of the plans above EFTA.

Especially when you look at who abstained. The most pro-EU parties (SNP, LibDem & PC) abstained on pretty much everything except revocation.

Eod100

Political speak for ''would ye make up yer fecking minds?!''. Looks like failure to pass WA this week is only extension to 12th April alright

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1111228988297486337

Akrasia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

On the indicative votes, an interesting question is are there enough abstentions to get the proposition to pass if the abstainers back it?

In other words, is Yes+Abstain more then No?

366 - 272 Customs Union
355 - 283 Common Market 2.0
349 - 293 Revoke to avoid No Deal
342 - 295 Referendum
341 - 307 Labour plan
260 - 377 EFTA and EEA
237 - 400 No Deal
209 - 422 Standstill

From this you can see that if push came to shove, No Deal and EEA would still lose, but there are enough MPs floating to give a possible majority for any of the plans above EFTA.

Labour whip 'recommended' abstain against the revoke amendment

ShooterSF

Akrasia wrote: »

Referendum on her deal v remain, her deal loses, therefore remain

Should and I'm sure would be seen as highly undemocratic. To go back to a population that voted to leave and offer them an unpopular deal or cancel the whole thing when a lot want to leave without mays deal is stacking the referendum in remains favour.
You can say people can't be offered no deal because it is too dangerous but either you trust the people and your ability to argue your case to them or you don't go back to them at all.
I'm pro eu but the willingness of other pro eu people to subvert and manipulate the system to keep the UK in is appaling to me. If the same referendum was mays deal or no deal you'd rightly be outraged too.

Donald Trump

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Gosh, you would'nt miss Bertie Ahern's man of the people, international diplomat spiel.

He was on S'O'R and was handing out brickbats to May, Andrew Brickens, and the DUP for 'at least' 'being consistent'.
But apparently SF's policy of abstensionism is to be regretted and will need review when the dust settles.
Having abstentionism as a policy since the foundation of the party, is apparently not a 'consistent' position for bertie.

UK has a form of representative democracy. Politicians are elected to reflect and communicate their constituents views.


From the point of view of the HoC, Northern Ireland is 91% Brexit supporting and not concerned about a hard border.


(There are 11 politicians in the HoC representing NI. 10 of them are in the DUP. One isn't)


HoC needs to get a majority. People/politicians/idealogies who don't use their vote don't count. Those who use their vote, do.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

On the indicative votes, an interesting question is are there enough abstentions to get the proposition to pass if the abstainers back it?

In other words, is Yes+Abstain more then No?

366 - 272 Customs Union
355 - 283 Common Market 2.0
349 - 293 Revoke to avoid No Deal
342 - 295 Referendum
341 - 307 Labour plan
260 - 377 EFTA and EEA
237 - 400 No Deal
209 - 422 Standstill

From this you can see that if push came to shove, No Deal and EEA would still lose, but there are enough MPs floating to give a possible majority for any of the plans above EFTA.

Fair enough, 7 votes wouldn't bridge the gaps, but those 7 voices might help persuade some others to change theirs!

BonnieSituation

Eod100 wrote: »

Oof.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1111196735613874176

It does somewhat stick in the craw that they had done that but Sturgeon really is on another level.

Pure class.

Also Ian Blackford is tip top too.

Eod100

Another not very helpful comment from France

https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1111226149319950338

Sam Russell

Eod100 wrote: »

Another not very helpful comment from France

https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1111226149319950338

That is one way to boost the Remain vote.