Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Eod100

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is one way to boost the Remain vote.

Seems odd to say that holding a new vote would be anti-democratic. Pretty much what May has been saying all along

joe40

funkey_monkey wrote: »

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

I can understand the DUP opposition to the WA but it beggars belief that the DUP would abstain on the "No deal"

Either they genuinely believe "no deal" is a viable option which makes them criminally negligent in my opinion and do not deserve any say in the running of northern Ireland.

Or they still think the UK are horse trading with the EU and the prospect of "no deal" will make EU relent on the back stop at this late stage.

That would be an embarrassing level of stupidity from them.

I would be so ashamed to be a DUP supporter right now. But guess what none of this will affect their electoral support. That speaks volumes.

Eod100

Eod100 wrote: »

Another not very helpful comment from France

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

Deeming that unhelpful is kind of an admission that countries retain their voice and sovereignty as members of the EU. If it was all Brussels, that opinion would be worth nothing.

Eod100

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1111237341832773633

A Dub in Glasgo

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It does somewhat stick in the craw that they had done that

Not to go off topic but Labour has been blaming the SNP for decades about putting Thatcher in Government and it has been debunked loads of times but the LP keep repeating it. There are some interesting insights in James Callaghans memoirs which effectively demolish the argument as he blames his own backbenchers for creating the turmoil

Inquitus

https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1111235331947417600

robinph

ShooterSF wrote: »

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.

If there was a defined version of what leave meant then fine, but there isn't. If leave can come up with a single option that they can get behind and put that up against remain then I'd be more than happy to put that back to the people and take the consequences of the result, whatever way it falls.

It just can't be a vague idea of unicorns though which leave select.

robinph

Inquitus wrote: »

https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1111235331947417600

With any luck he is adding the 2nd referendum as the requirement.

May obviously won't make that change herself, but would she refuse to bring the MV3 back if someone else has forced that change on her as the only way it can be brought back?

lawred2

Inquitus wrote: »

https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1111235331947417600

I didn't really believe that when push came to shove that he was really going to block a third vote..

this will be a window dressing exercise

robinph

robinph wrote: »

If there was a defined version of what leave meant then fine, but there isn't. If leave can come up with a single option that they can get behind and put that up against remain then I'd be more than happy to put that back to the people and take the consequences of the result, whatever way it falls.

It just can't be a vague idea of unicorns though which leave select.

Could a referendum have multiple questions I wonder? Each against remain. And then a final one about no deal.

Eod100

robinph wrote: »

With any luck he is adding the 2nd referendum as the requirement.

May obviously won't make that change herself, but would she refuse to bring the MV3 back if someone else has forced that change on her as the only way it can be brought back?

That would be fairly significant change alright!

FrancieBrady

lawred2 wrote: »

I didn't really believe that when push came to shove that he was really going to block a third vote..

this will be a window dressing exercise

Agree. They'll agree a form of ladder to climb down.

Laois_Man

Deleted User wrote: »

Could a referendum have multiple questions I wonder? Each against remain. And then a final one about no deal.

There's absolutely no point in having a second referendum until the people of Britain have a decent "leave" option that they can choose - May's withdrawal agreement doesn't cut it. It needs a new PM with a new WA negotiated with the May red lines off the table

Seth Brundle

Laois_Man wrote: »

There's absolutely no point in having a second referendum until the people of Britain have a decent "leave" option that they can choose - May's withdrawal agreement doesn't cut it. It needs a new PM with a new WA negotiated with the May red lines off the table

Why does it not cut it?

Joe_ Public

Only thing stopping me from remortgaging and putting the lot on pm deal losing is prospect of May allowing second referendum as a way not just of getting around bercow but also of getting it through the house. Hard to see any other reason to move it again other than to finally put it out of its sorry existence.

Laois_Man

Laois_Man wrote: »

There's absolutely no point in having a second referendum until the people of Britain have a decent "leave" option that they can choose - May's withdrawal agreement doesn't cut it. It needs a new PM with a new WA negotiated with the May red lines off the table

I disagree. I think she did as best she could to be honest. She's a mess, but it's not an entirely bad deal. They can't do trade deals if they're in the CU. That's what her focus has been.

BonnieSituation

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Not to go off topic but Labour has been blaming the SNP for decades about putting Thatcher in Government and it has been debunked loads of times but the LP keep repeating it. There are some interesting insights in James Callaghans memoirs which effectively demolish the argument as he blames his own backbenchers for creating the turmoil

You're right but don't get me wrong, as it's that they remained in power til 97 that really created the myth from the POV of Labour.

Coupled with the Falklands victory of course which changed Thatcher's perception.

But nobody was to know that these things would happen.

The biggest issue for the SNP then was how they drifted thereafter.

That's the craw into which it sticks which tbf shows just how principled the SNP have been despite the potential damage to their party.

An Ciarraioch

Apparently, they will vote solely on the WA, rather than the Political Declaration, but given the backstop is in the Agreement itself, hard to see how that budges the ERG or DUP.

Joe_ Public

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Apparently, they will vote solely on the WA, rather than the Political Declaration, but given the backstop is in the Agreement itself, hard to see how that budges the ERG or DUP.

Yeah, fundamentally changes nothing much. Only thing it does is get it back before the house, hardly worth bothering with on that basis frankly.

Inquitus

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1111249001913946115

From Reddit with 20k upvotes. Hoping it's allowed here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/b6aa6s/no_majority_for_any_of_brexit_options/ejj19d8

Can we have Theresa May's deal?

Parliament: No

How about a new PM since the leadership is so bad?

Tories: No

Ok, how about a general election?

Parliament: No

Ok, so how about a slightly altered version of May's deal?

Parliament: No

So a no deal Brexit then?

Parliament: No

Fine, here are 8 different options just pick one.

Parliament: No

Joe_ Public

Gov doesn’t know what it’s doing as bbc reporter just said there. Look to be faffing around blindly in the dark here. Tomorrow will be a colossal waste of time and it’ll be onto Monday to try make some real progress.

Headshot

No meaningful vote tomorrow but there is a supposed vote tomorrow but no one knows what it is lol

Leroy42

Exactly what was TM playing at last night by claiming she would resign if the deal was voted but not checking with the DUP if they would back the deal?

Yet again, TM seems to make terribly uninformed decisions. Her recent speech was a disaster, he trip to the EU to secure an extension was a disaster.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly what was TM playing at last night by claiming she would resign if the deal was voted but not checking with the DUP if they would back the deal?

Yet again, TM seems to make terribly uninformed decisions. Her recent speech was a disaster, he trip to the EU to secure an extension was a disaster.

It's a person being pushed to the absolute limit. Being fully responsible whilst no one will back your work.

She needs to resign. But when is the problem.

Ha, another good one from Reddit: Schroedinger's Brexit.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a person being pushed to the absolute limit. Being fully responsible whilst no one will back your work.

She needs to resign. But when is the problem.

Yeah, I get all that, but why not tie up the DUP first? Without that it is likely her deal will fail and as such, what she will continue? Its bonkers.

As Laura K said last night on BBC, it really is the nuclear option for any PM, and to do so without first checking the lay of the land seems crazy.

But it is just another in a long line of politically inept things that she has undertaken.

In terms of the vote tomorrow, I am just catching up on the news and it all seems terribly disorganised. Leadsom says they will put forward a motion to ensure they meet the requirements of Bercow (the need for substantive change), the requirements of the EU (WA passed by the 29th). But the motion isn't finalised but she hopes the house will pass it!

Leroy, you're right. But sanity seems to be lacking. It's like a deer in the headlights vocalising every option they have but ultimately doing nothing.

Penn

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly what was TM playing at last night by claiming she would resign if the deal was voted but not checking with the DUP if they would back the deal?

Far more Tories against the deal than the DUP. I guess she figured if she got them on side with voting for the deal, it might force the DUP's hand as they'd either be the only outliers, or enough rebel Labour MPs might vote for the deal to counteract the DUP (which would likely then force a General Election after the WA is already passed if the DUP pull support), but at that point May is out the door anyway.

bilston

While I fundamentally disagree with the DUP on Brexit, they have at least stuck to their guns on the WA, they don't like the deal, so unless it changes they won't vote for it. Now you may disagree with their ideology (and 99% of posters obviously do), but I'd argue the ERG MPs who decide to support the WA because it means May will go have far less scruples than the DUPers.

The reality is the WA probably does weaken the Union, it will most likely separate NI from the rest of the UK, that's why they are unlikely to vote for it.

Of course they don't represent the majority view in NI, and even a lot of moderate Unionists like myself would accept an Irish Sea Customs Border as I think it would arguably give NI the best of both worlds. But from the DUPs perspective rice the union is their "guiding star"