Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is likely that the vote will lose today, but by a very reduced margin.

That will put massive pressure on the remaining hold out ERG members to get behind the party, put massive pressure on DUP not to be the ones to destroy Brexit etc

I would then expect another vote close to 12 Apr to pass and the EU to give extension to allow the legislation to go through

The question is if they could bring the same deal back for a 4th time. They have been warned by the Speaker and he fired a warning shot before this vote. They cannot get a changed vote and they have used their last ammunition to get this latest vote so I cannot see them bringing it back again with "enough changes" for a 4th time. What can they change?

Also, Labour will call for another vote of confidence in the government once the deal is defeated again and I think the DUP may just abstain this time. All you would need then is 5 MPs to vote against her from the last time and it succeeds. Remember that a successful motion does not automatically mean a election and someone else can try to win the confidence of the house within 14 days. So a Michael Gove could stand up to lead the house and avoid a general election, and I think for the ERG this will be very tempting.

Akrasia

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The DUP do not like the backstop so they will not back the deal, full stop.


And if they don't, it is not the end of Brexit: it is now quite clear that parliament can come up with a softer Brexit and the EU will allow time for that.

Thats been the case for years now, the parliament could have agreed on a soft brexit if there was compromise and cross party cooperation . Theresa May did the opposite and refused to honestly engage with anyone, including her own party, and attempted to ram home her own version of brexit.

Its been like this since A50 was triggered, is there any reason to think this will change in the final 2 weeks?.

She whipped against yesterdays indicative votes taking place and basically announced that she would ignore the results if anything got a majority. Her plan is still completely unchanged. Wait for the last minute and then hope enough MPs cave and support her deal

joe40

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is likely that the vote will lose today, but by a very reduced margin.

That will put massive pressure on the remaining hold out ERG members to get behind the party, put massive pressure on DUP not to be the ones to destroy Brexit etc

I would then expect another vote close to 12 Apr to pass and the EU to give extension to allow the legislation to go through

I think at this stage there is absolutely no way DUP will support the WA.
They have spent a year saying it will damage the union, that is much more important to them than any Brexit, or any reputation in Britain.
I can see the DUP supporting a softer Brexit sooner than the WA. Maybe secretly.

Akrasia

Enzokk wrote: »

The question is if they could bring the same deal back for a 4th time. They have been warned by the Speaker and he fired a warning shot before this vote. They cannot get a changed vote and they have used their last ammunition to get this latest vote so I cannot see them bringing it back again with "enough changes" for a 4th time. What can they change?

Also, Labour will call for another vote of confidence in the government once the deal is defeated again and I think the DUP may just abstain this time. All you would need then is 5 MPs to vote against her from the last time and it succeeds. Remember that a successful motion does not automatically mean a election and someone else can try to win the confidence of the house within 14 days. So a Michael Gove could stand up to lead the house and avoid a general election, and I think for the ERG this will be very tempting.

Would the EU be happy to grant an extension with Michael Gove as PM? I think Donald Tusk has already reserved a special place in hell for the leaders of the brexit campaign who had absolutely no plan for what happened afterwards. A general election is one thing they might extend for, but a passing of the reigns to another arch brexiteer? I think thats gonna see a very short extension or one that requires a full general election as a precondition

volchitsa

joe40 wrote: »

I think at this stage there is absolutely no way DUP will support the WA.
They have spent a year saying it will damage the union, that is much more important to them than any Brexit, or any reputation in Britain.
I can see the DUP supporting a softer Brexit sooner than the WA. Maybe secretly.

Rees Mogg said it would create a slave state, no less, and he's prepared to change his mind. And has a lot less to lose from a hard Brexit than most of Northern Ireland, who are after all, the DUP's electors.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . if HMG doesn't get in the way.

HM doesn't have a Government at the moment. May's own whips defied the whip, her Cabinet have defied her, one minister recently gave a speech proposing a motion and then immediately voted against it.

It's not a Government, it's a rabble.

May is the caretaker PM - Parliament will leave her in place until they sort this mess out, but they will vote down her plan 10 times if they have to, and prevent No Deal if she tries it.

Leroy42

volchitsa wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

I think at this stage there is absolutely no way DUP will support the WA.
They have spent a year saying it will damage the union, that is much more important to them than any Brexit, or any reputation in Britain.
I can see the DUP supporting a softer Brexit sooner than the WA. Maybe secretly.

Rees Mogg said it would create a slave state, no less, and he's prepared to change his mind. And has a lot less to lose from a hard Brexit than most of Northern Ireland, who are after all, the DUP's electors.

Watch that Newsnight clip. Right at the beginning the man couldn't even give a straight answer on whether he was a man of principle or not.
He knew what was coming and so had to prevaricate about even that to try to avoid making a position he couldn't defend.
When a person can't even speak about things like that honestly and straight forward you know they are a chance.
I know the Groucho Marx quote that I thought that was meant to be a joke.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

HM doesn't have a Government at the moment. May's own whips defied the whip, her Cabinet have defied her, one minister recently gave a speech proposing a motion and then immediately voted against it.

It's not a Government, it's a rabble.

May is the caretaker PM - Parliament will leave her in place until they sort this mess out, but they will vote down her plan 10 times if they have to, and prevent No Deal if she tries it.

It may be unable to govern, but as long as it's still HMG it can and will stop anyone else governing.

If the UK wants a long extension, HMG has to ask for it. If the UK wants to revoke, HMG has to notify EuCo of the revocation. If EuCo wants to talk to someone about the terms, conditions, circumstance etc of a potential extension, HMG is who they will talk to.

In short, even if a consensus in Parliament develops in favour of a soft Brexit, through either malice or imcompetence or a blend of the two HMG can effectively block it until the clock runs down.

Zubeneschamali

If May defies a majority in Parliament, they will have to remove the Government. But they would rather not just now, so they will let May keep the PMs seat warm for while unless she does defy them.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If May defies a majority in Parliament, they will have to remove the Government. But they would rather not just now, so they will let May keep the PMs seat warm for while unless she does defy them.

Even if they commenced the removal today, May could cling on for long enough to cause insurmountable problems. If she loses a vote of confidence in the House, she's entitled to remain in office for another two weeks. She can't be faced with another vote of confidence in the party. Party officials could tell her her position was hopeless and Ministers could resign rather than serve under her, but even then she could ignore the party officials and appoint other Ministers rather than stand aside.

As matters stand UK crashes out without a deal by operation of law in 14 days time. May can impede the development of consensus in Parliament around an alternative course of action and, even if consensus develops, she can refuse to give effect to it. And, such are her limpet-like qualities, by the time they succeed in prising her out of Downing Street it may be too late.

(In this context it's worth noting that the UK can't pull a rabbit out of hat at 11:59 pm on 12 April and secure a long extension. 12 April is when the EU will decide whether to grant a long extension (if HMG has asked for one, which as yet it hasn't). That decision will depend on consideration of the UK's plans for what it will do in durign the extension, review of the UK's willingness/preparations for EU elections, etc, etc, which means there has to be dialogue about it before 12 April - UK tallking about what it might do, EU talking about what it might require, both sides responding to the other, etc, etc. EU has provisionally schedule a meeting for 10 April to review what progress has been made between UK and EU to that point, plan Council position for 12 April. If no progress has been made to that point, if UK hasn't asked for a long extension and/or there has been no dialogue about what the extension is for, etc, then it's probably all over.)

In short, the UK cannot avoid a crash-out without May either co-operating with efforts to avoid it, or standing aside so as not to impede those efforts. And she needs to do one or other sooner rathe than later. I'd be hopeful that she'd do one or the other, but it does depend on her. She cannot be sidelined.

joe40

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if they commenced the removal today, May could cling on for long enough to cause insurmountable problems. If she loses a vote of confidence in the House, she's entitled to remain in office for another two weeks. She can't be faced with another vote of confidence in the party. Party officials could tell her her position was hopeless and Ministers could resign rather than serve under her, but even then she could ignore the party officials and appoint other Ministers rather than stand aside.

As matters stand UK crashes out without a deal by operation of law in 14 days time. May can impede the development of consensus in Parliament around an alternative course of action and, even if consensus develops, she can refuse to give effect to it. And, such are her limpet-like qualities, by the time they succeed in prising her out of Downing Street it may be too late.

(In this context it's worth noting that the UK can't pull a rabbit out of hat at 11:59 pm on 12 April and secure a long extension. 12 April is when the EU will decide whether to grant a long extension (if HMG has asked for one, which as yet it hasn't). That decision will depend on consideration of the UK's plans for what it will do in durign the extension, review of the UK's willingness/preparations for EU elections, etc, etc, which means there has to be dialogue about it before 12 April - UK tallking about what it might do, EU talking about what it might require, both sides responding to the other, etc, etc. EU has provisionally schedule a meeting for 10 April to review what progress has been made between UK and EU to that point, plan Council position for 12 April. If no progress has been made to that point, if UK hasn't asked for a long extension and/or there has been no dialogue about what the extension is for, etc, then it's probably all over.)

In short, the UK cannot avoid a crash-out without May either co-operating with efforts to avoid it, or standing aside so as not to impede those efforts. And she needs to do one or other sooner rathe than later. I'd be hopeful that she'd do one or the other, but it does depend on her. She cannot be sidelined.

What you have just described is a dictatotorship not a democracy. I'm no expert on parliamentary policy but everything you say sounds possible, but hopefully unlikely.

Will May want to go down in History as the PM that forced through a "no deal" Brexit.? I really don't know at this stage.

Leroy42

The EU want to avoid a no deal, if there is any glimmer of hope left that the UK can be helped to get to that position then the EU will find a way. The UK left the request for the original extension to almost the last minute (the day before I think) so I think it is perfectly possible that 11.59 (hell, well into the next day) the UK could decide to opt for a long extension and the EU would, if the proposal is plausible, find a way to facilitate it.

This is the 'cave at the 11th hour' that the Brexiteers have been talking about. The problem is, they misunderstood it. The EU, the same as lots of other international and even national bodies, are great are pushing back supposedly iron deadlines, but that is very different from changing the actual position. The EU will happily give additional time for the UK for finally come around to its way of thinking.

Russman

I'm beginning to think a no-deal crash out through inaction is getting very likely. Even if May is removed, there's no way in hell the current HoC appoints Gove as PM, I just can't see him getting the numbers in any scenario. Same for BoJo. JRM is probably dead in the water after his multiple changes of mind, and last night's QT. I dunno, its just a complete stalemate. If Labour were even in the same time zone as competent they'd be making hay, but with Corbyn at the wheel that's not going to happen.
Really hard to see how it plays out. I think we'll eventually get to MV4 (or 5)and see how many MPs have to fortitude to vote it down at the last minute and guarantee a crash out......

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if they commenced the removal today, May could cling on for long enough to cause insurmountable problems. If she loses a vote of confidence in the House, she's entitled to remain in office for another two weeks. She can't be faced with another vote of confidence in the party. Party officials could tell her her position was hopeless and Ministers could resign rather than serve under her, but even then she could ignore the party officials and appoint other Ministers rather than stand aside.

As matters stand UK crashes out without a deal by operation of law in 14 days time. May can impede the development of consensus in Parliament around an alternative course of action and, even if consensus develops, she can refuse to give effect to it. And, such are her limpet-like qualities, by the time they succeed in prising her out of Downing Street it may be too late.

In short, the UK cannot avoid a crash-out without May either co-operating with efforts to avoid it, or standing aside so as not to impede those efforts. I'd be hopeful that she'd do one or the other, lbut it does depend on her.

Michael Portillo had an interesting take on Andrew Neil last night.
The installation of a 'caretaker' PM (like Liddington) or the Palace appointing a PM in the event of deadlock. Seems the monarchy still has that power if it wishes.

Russman

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is the 'cave at the 11th hour' that the Brexiteers have been talking about. The problem is, they misunderstood it. The EU, the same as lots of other international and even national bodies, are great are pushing back supposedly iron deadlines, but that is very different from changing the actual position. The EU will happily give additional time for the UK for finally come around to its way of thinking.

Couldn't agree more with this, really well put !

robinph

If the HoC votes in a majority to revoke A50 for example, or any other option, but May refuses to go to the EU to do so then would it not be a case of popping round to see the Queen and whichever MP the HoC nominates saying that they are the leader of the commons, make me PM for this one issue, they then deal with the EU and get the revoke letter dealt with.

Then the next day they can start the arguing internally about who is then the leader of the closest thing to a majority and can be PM for the next stage of whatever.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

She cannot be sidelined.

Not by Parliament acting alone, perhaps. But if the UK is in the middle of an actual constitutional crisis where the PM has lost a vote of confidence but is clinging on regardless, I can see the EU unilaterally extending the deadline until the smoke of revolution clears in London.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

the Palace appointing a PM in the event of deadlock

Anyone for Dominic Grieve? Ken Clarke?

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not by Parliament acting alone, perhaps. But if the UK is in the middle of an actual constitutional crisis where the PM has lost a vote of confidence but is clinging on regardless, I can see the EU unilaterally extending the deadline until the smoke of revolution clears in London.

Except that price will be participation in the EU elections. That would require lorry loads of popcorn.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Except that price will be participation in the EU elections.

That is now inevitable - they cannot get the needed legislation in place by May 22 even if they pass the WA today.

Leroy42

The HoC is not going to vote to revoke A50. Indicative Vote result was 184 v 293. Not going to happen.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

The EU want to avoid a no deal, if there is any glimmer of hope left that the UK can be helped to get to that position then the EU will find a way. The UK left the request for the original extension to almost the last minute (the day before I think) so I think it is perfectly possible that 11.59 (hell, well into the next day) the UK could decide to opt for a long extension and the EU would, if the proposal is plausible, find a way to facilitate it.

This is the 'cave at the 11th hour' that the Brexiteers have been talking about. The problem is, they misunderstood it. The EU, the same as lots of other international and even national bodies, are great are pushing back supposedly iron deadlines, but that is very different from changing the actual position. The EU will happily give additional time for the UK for finally come around to its way of thinking.

I dunno. They have signalled pretty clearly that if the UK wants an extension beyond 22 May they need to hold EP elections. 12 April represents the date by which any country holding EP elections has to have set the process in train (which is why 12 April was chosen as the limit for the short extension).

Right. UK turns up at 11:59 pm on 12 April gasping for breath and panting out that they want a long extension. But they're not going to get it unless they have already taken the legal steps to put in train the EP elections in the UK. Which means, of course, that they would have to have decided before 11:59 on 12 April that they were going to go for a long extension, and they would have to have made the statutory orders and served the notices etc etc. relating to the EP elections.

But the UK is not going to to do that unless they know they're going to get the long extension, which means they have to have talked about it in advance to the EU; they have to have explained what extension they want and what they propose to do with it, and they have to have got the nod from the EU to say, yeah, that works for us. And of course it's a unanimous decision of EUCO, so UK has to go through these issues with EU negotiators in sufficient time for member states to be briefed, make a decision.

So the sequence of events is:

- Some time before 10 April: HMG and EU negotiators talk about UK's plan, whether likely to be acceptable to EU; what conditions likely to be required before EU agrees. Probably a bit of back-and-forth here, so may be spread over a couple of days.
- Before 10 April: Governments of Member States briefed.
- 10 April. EU-27 governments decide if UK plan justifies extension and, if so, on what conditions. All going well, UK is given the nod.
- 11 April: UK takes legal steps in relation to EP elections, confirms to Brussels that it has done so, confirms will accept any other conditions attached to long extension.
- 12 April: EuCo formally offers long extension; UK formally notifies acceptance. (Or other way around; UK formally requests, EuCo formally grants.)

There's limited scope for skipping this process. Granting the UK a long extension (post-22 May) without participating in Parliamentary elections involves EU in considerable legal risk affecting matters that have nothing to do with Brexit. Extreme reluctance on EU side to run this risk, allow Brexit to jeopardise validity of general EU business.

No matter how willing you are to keep kicking the can down the road, sooner or later you run out of road, and we're getting close to that point now.

Pedro K

Is this meaningful vote (I love that they keep calling them that) due to happen around the same time as previous meaningful votes? 19:30ish?

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not by Parliament acting alone, perhaps. But if the UK is in the middle of an actual constitutional crisis where the PM has lost a vote of confidence but is clinging on regardless, I can see the EU unilaterally extending the deadline until the smoke of revolution clears in London.

They can't unilaterally exend the deadline. Under the Treaty, this can only be done by agreement with the UK. HMG must signify agreement.

robinph

Pedro K wrote: »

Is this meaningful vote (I love that they keep calling them that) due to happen around the same time as previous meaningful votes? 19:30ish?

14:30ish I believe.

Cryptopagan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Michael Portillo had an interesting take on Andrew Neil last night.
The installation of a 'caretaker' PM (like Liddington) or the Palace appointing a PM in the event of deadlock. Seems the monarchy still has that power if it wishes.

I think the Queen can indeed sack the PM and appoint a new one, though even in this scenario I’m not sure parliament would be content for her to exercise that power.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

The HoC is not going to vote to revoke A50. Indicative Vote result was 184 v 293. Not going to happen.

It's also voted against a crashout Brexit. It has to pick something sooner or later.

Cryptopagan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's also voted against a crashout Brexit. It has to pick something sooner or later.

They don’t have to pick anything to achieve a crash out. Article 50 revocation is extremely unlikely.

robinph

Leroy42 wrote: »

The HoC is not going to vote to revoke A50. Indicative Vote result was 184 v 293. Not going to happen.

It is the option with the longest time for them to carry on kicking the can for though before actually having to decide something. Well other than no-deal but that doesn't count as having made a decision.

Peregrinus

robinph wrote: »

If the HoC votes in a majority to revoke A50 for example, or any other option, but May refuses to go to the EU to do so then would it not be a case of popping round to see the Queen and whichever MP the HoC nominates saying that they are the leader of the commons, make me PM for this one issue, they then deal with the EU and get the revoke letter dealt with.

Then the next day they can start the arguing internally about who is then the leader of the closest thing to a majority and can be PM for the next stage of whatever.

Any attempt by the Queen to dismiss a PM would provoke a massive constitutional crisis. The Queen is not going to want to go there. If push came to shove, the strongest argument party figures could put to May to get her to resign would be the damage to the monarchy if it got to the point where Parliamentarians had to call on the Queen to dismiss her.

May could, eventually, be got to go, I've no doubt. She's weird, but she's not insane. But it's the kind of crisis that could take a few days to play out and, to be honest, they don't have that many days. At this point they need more than just an in-principle decision as to the kind of Brexit they want; they need an actual feasible plan for progressing it, and they need to work out how long that plan requires, and they need to work out how stakeholders are to be brought on board and kept on board, etc. All of that feeds into any request for an extension and, seriously, they have less than 10 days for this. They can't waste days on a constitutiional crisis with a Prime Minister who won't resign because she's in denial about the fact that she can't govern.