Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

bilston

The following may be unlikely, but maybe it could work for May. Maybe this move by Bercow could force the EU into some sort of new conversation with May which could lead to most subtle of subtle changes to the wording. If that happens it may make it easier for the DUP and ERG waiverers to back her deal. Some MPs may be reluctant to back exactly the same deal they rejected 7 days earlier. If there is the slightest of the changes then maybe they can back it.

It's unlikely, but part of me thinks that May does actually have a game plan here, now this may have blindsided her, but it may not be completely lost yet.

tuxy

bilston wrote: »

The following may be unlikely, but maybe it could work for May. Maybe this move by Bercow could force the EU into some sort of new conversation with May which could lead to most subtle of subtle changes to the wording. If that happens it may make it easier for the DUP and ERG waiverers to back her deal. .

My understanding of what Bercow said would required substantial changes to hold another vote on the WA.

Inquitus

tuxy wrote: »

My understanding of what Bercow said would required substantial changes to hold another vote on the WA.

It seems a majority in the HoC is enough to set aside the ruling Bercow has made, I assume if they have majority for the Deal, then they have a majority to set aside the rules for a vote on the deal. Whether they have a majority for this is another thing altogether.

Enzokk

And the prize for craziest theory for today goes to...Daniel Hannan.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1107687206045536258

Some of the replies to his tweet is very good. Like how the EU forced a minority government on the UK in 2017. Or how they put in a rule about 400 years ago and inserted this rule to frustrate Brexit in 2017.

10000maniacs

[HTML][/HTML]

Infini wrote: »

The last info for this was she was planming on delaying the 3rd vote. Bercow could've just decided to call time on these games by removing the decision from her hands until she either 1) Comes up with a realistic new plan or 2) abandons this farce.

Or 3) End the current Parliamentary session and fast track a new Parliamentary session. It was last done and took a few days in 1948.

tuxy

10000maniacs wrote: »

[HTML][/HTML]

Or 3) End the current Parliamentary session and fast track a new Parliamentary session. It was last done and took a few days in 1948.

The Queen would have nothing to gain nor any interest in getting involved in this mess.

10000maniacs

tuxy wrote: »

The Queen would have nothing to gain nor any interest in getting involved in this mess.

I think if the government decides it, the Queen would have to do it. I don't think she would have any choice.

CelticRambler

bilston wrote: »

Maybe this move by Bercow could force the EU into some sort of new conversation with May ...

Bercow cannot force the EU to do anything. The UK is leaving the club, and doing so with bad grace. As Guy Verhofstat's statement earlier highlighted, and Tony Connelly's article on rte.ie last week, the EU's at the point where there are as many - if not more - advantages to letting the UK go without a deal, without the 39bn, and yes, even without an arrangement for the Irish border.

Inquitus

Enzokk wrote: »

And the prize for craziest theory for today goes to...Daniel Hannan.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1107687206045536258

Some of the replies to his tweet is very good. Like how the EU forced a minority government on the UK in 2017. Or how they put in a rule about 400 years ago and inserted this rule to frustrate Brexit in 2017.

LOL, The Lisbon rerun killed FF, not the fact they were in charge for the recession and associated impacts. What a load of complete Bollox! This isn't even partisan hackery it's just complete lies.

In Ireland, for example, Bertie Ahern, then the Taoiseach, who was at the time mired in corruption allegations, fell on his sword rather than allowing those allegations to prejudice the pro‑Brussels cause in the 2008 referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. When his side lost anyway, his successor, Brian Cowen, took the catastrophic decision to rerun the vote. In doing so, he predictably ended not only his own career but also his party’s hegemony. Fianna Fáil, which had won every Irish election since 1932, was destroyed. But the European project carried on.

Loafing Oaf

Enzokk wrote: »

And the prize for craziest theory for today goes to...Daniel Hannan.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1107687206045536258

Some of the replies to his tweet is very good. Like how the EU forced a minority government on the UK in 2017. Or how they put in a rule about 400 years ago and inserted this rule to frustrate Brexit in 2017.

Plus it's not entirely clear that Bercow's move is unwelcome to May and her 'people' anyway. It was looking increasingly likely that the vote was going to be cancelled anyway, and having it happen this way makes it look less like an admission of being up against it on their part.
https://news.sky.com/story/speakers-unchanged-brexit-deal-vote-ban-is-good-news-for-theresa-may-11669656

FrancieBrady

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Plus it's not entirely clear that Bercow's move is unwelcome to May and her 'people' anyway. It was looking increasingly likely that the vote was going to be cancelled anyway, and having it happen this way makes it look less like an admission of being up against it on their part.
https://news.sky.com/story/speakers-unchanged-brexit-deal-vote-ban-is-good-news-for-theresa-may-11669656

This makes eminent sense to me. I can't see what huge disadvantage it is to her at the moment, with no agreement with the DUP or cross party.

Panrich

bilston wrote: »

The following may be unlikely, but maybe it could work for May. Maybe this move by Bercow could force the EU into some sort of new conversation with May which could lead to most subtle of subtle changes to the wording. If that happens it may make it easier for the DUP and ERG waiverers to back her deal. Some MPs may be reluctant to back exactly the same deal they rejected 7 days earlier. If there is the slightest of the changes then maybe they can back it.

It's unlikely, but part of me thinks that May does actually have a game plan here, now this may have blindsided her, but it may not be completely lost yet.

To say that your scenario is unlikely is putting it in the mildest terms possible. Thee have been many opportunities for the EU to help May appease the extremists of the ERG/DUP and that has not happened. This changes nothing except that the UK is now facing stark choices.

Infini

Inquitus wrote: »

LOL, The Lisbon rerun killed FF, not the fact they were in charge for the recession and associated impacts. What a load of complete Bollox! This isn't even partisan hackery it's just complete lies.

What are you on about? The bank guarantee and the crash are exactly what did in FF. The Lisbon rerun wasn't the issue.

Edit: Oh I see it now my bad! Its bloody blatent rubbish like that in the trollegraph that has the UK in such a mess to begin with....

Inquitus

Infini wrote: »

What are you on about? The bank guarantee and the crash are exactly what did in FF. The Lisbon rerun wasn't the issue.

Exactly, read the Telegraph article quoted there, in which he claims the Lisbon rerun did for FF, not the IMF/EU bailout.

Loafing Oaf

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This makes eminent sense to me. I can't see what huge disadvantage it is to her at the moment, with no agreement with the DUP or cross party.

Plus it might put pressure on the EU to make some token concessions to make a third vote feasible in Bercow's eyes that would not have been there if the vote had simply been called off by the government.

Farmer

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Plus it might put pressure on the EU to make some token concessions to make a third vote feasible in Bercow's eyes that would not have been there if the vote had simply been called off by the government.

Oh no they won't !

They know where they stand, and it's not on stage at the pantomime

I think they'll channel their focus on the extension deal

Donald Trump

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yes, I do know how it works and no, STV doesn't work by eliminating 13 of the 15 candidates straight away and not redistributing their votes.



You do not get to vote for your second choice; you get to pick one of two candidates chosen by others, or you abstain (which hit record levels in R2 of the 2017 presidential election). In STV, you decide who your second choice is (or 3rd, 4th, 5th ...) .

With due regard to Calina , the point is that French and UK politics were on very similar trajectories due to an electoral process rigged in favour of the two major parties, one Left, one Right. The French managed to pull themselves back towards normality because, despite their many faults :rolleyes:, they do at least energetically debate every potential outcome and cast their (one ) vote with a degree of intelligent motivation.

The relevance to Brexit (and this thread): last weekend in France saw the conclusion of a massive consultative process in France arising from the gilets jaunes protests. Last weekend in the UK saw Theresa May in secret discussions with her own cabal in a desperate attempt to bulldoze her deal through the House of Commons. Westminster should be looking across the Channel, seeing how Macron has defused his situation ... but of course talking to the other side wouldn't be the British way.

Nobody said France had STV. I called it a "poor man's STV" as someone else (possibly yourself) had referred to it as FPTP.
It isn't FPTP. FPTP would mean that there would only be one round and the person with the highest number of votes would win.
That does not happen. The people who did not vote for the first or second candidates can "transfer" their votes to one of them. (Assuming the people who vote for 1&2 re-vote for them again)


Under the proper STV as is understood normally, your vote does not necessarily go to your second choice. Your second choice could be eliminated before your first. And that is as a result of other people's votes. And if you fill in all the way down, and it goes down to final two without reaching quota, your vote could end up with your final choice candidate (you know what I mean)


If the UK had the same system as France, their electorate could vote say Lib Dem, if they wanted to even though a seat might be only realistically be being contested by Lab/Tory. They would know that their vote would not be wasted. Because they would still get a say in the final choice. As it stands, even if they actually wanted to vote, Lib Dem (as in this hypothetical example), they might instead decide to vote strategically for who among the two main parties they'd prefer. And if enough people do similar, it looks like the Lib Dem candidate has no support. When in fact they might have a sizeable support. And maybe a candidate supporting a different idealogy might get sufficient support for the main parties to think "Well this is maybe something we should look at".





The relevance to Brexit, I suppose, is that you end up with the situation of dominance between the two major parties. A few more independents or small parties here or there might have meant no DUP wielding influence.




What we have now is the like of Farage going on with his statistics that 86% of the population voted for pro-Brexit parties. (Can't remember the exact percentage he quotes)

FrancieBrady

Farmer wrote: »

Oh no they won't !

They know where they stand, and it's not on stage at the pantomime

I think they'll channel their focus on the extension deal

Which can now only be a long one as a short one to get this deal through is redundant.

marno21

Inquitus wrote: »

LOL, The Lisbon rerun killed FF, not the fact they were in charge for the recession and associated impacts. What a load of complete Bollox! This isn't even partisan hackery it's just complete lies.

It's difficult to imagine how you can expect any sense of sanity from the general public in the UK when this level of claptrap is freely published.

When the public are subjected to this nonsense in the media for so many years and the Government of the day shovel their failings onto the EU it's little wonder half the population have "gone mad".

Itssoeasy

I think John Bercow can say despite the criticism that I've seen, can say he's carried out the duties of the speaker. He said he acted after having spoke to people on both sides of the House and on both sides of the brexit debate which to me is the right way to act. He gave previous times this rule was used and why it's there. So the usual suspects will probably complain and TM may be annoyed but if she'd done a better job then maybe the speaker of the HOC wouldnt have had to take the action he's taken today.

Sam Russell

tuxy wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

The following may be unlikely, but maybe it could work for May. Maybe this move by Bercow could force the EU into some sort of new conversation with May which could lead to most subtle of subtle changes to the wording. If that happens it may make it easier for the DUP and ERG waiverers to back her deal. Some MPs may be reluctant to back exactly the same deal they rejected 7 days earlier. If there is the slightest of the changes then maybe they can back it.

It's unlikely, but part of me thinks that May does actually have a game plan here, now this may have blindsided her, but it may not be completely lost yet.

My understanding of what Bercow said would required substantial changes to hold another vote on the WA.

The EU have ruled out absolutely any changes to the WA. All interpretations have been interpreted and all clarifications have been clarified.

There is no more. Also no extension without a road map as to where it is going and for what reason.

I think the UK has a choice - revoke or crash out. They have voted no to a crash out.

They might be able to propose a referendum of WA vs Revoke.

black forest

Bercow´s decision seems to speed things up quite a bit. Is there enough time to focus a few minds? If there are not very fast decisions made No Deal Brexit is close. Time for a few practical measures nicely put together in a LSE article:

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/03/18/long-read-beyond-tariffs-what-no-deal-would-mean-for-the-irish-border/

Just in time the Irish Brexit Omnibus Bill was signed yesterday. Of course a long extension of up to 21 month seems to be more useful, just not for TM. As the UK is stumbling from one mess to the next it can´t be wrong to be prepared for the worst.

An Claidheamh

brickster69 wrote: »

Incorrect, Parliament are having vote after vote, not the joke of a whole Country as you say.

1) In Britain, parliament is sovereign, not the people. Seemingly in Britain, the feudal serfs are not capable of taking part in constitutional affairs.

2) We actually decided what we wanted. And we got it.

Compare and contrast with Carry on up the Khyber over in Blighty

Imreoir2

Sam Russell wrote: »

The EU have ruled out absolutely any changes to the WA. All interpretations have been interpreted and all clarifications have been clarified.

There is no more. Also no extension without a road map as to where it is going and for what reason.

I think the UK has a choice - revoke or crash out. They have voted no to a crash out.

They might be able to propose a referendum of WA vs Revoke.

There is only one option that the UK can realisticly persue now, extension. The question is for what purpose?

The two most credible options, in my opinion, would be a short extension to allow a referendum, or a long extension to allow a general election and a restart to the process under a new government with a possible commitment that there will be a referendum on whatever new deal emerges.

I know the EU have rejected any changes to the WA, but that is because of the UK's red lines. If after a GE a new government wanted to restart talks without some or all of TM's red lines, then a very different deal becomes possible and the EU may well be willing to go down that road.

The biggest stumbeling block is that TM is clearly not in control of the HoC, unless the HoC indicates through a vote that it is willing to support one of these options before they are requested, then the EU would be mad to agree to it just because TM asks for it and promises that she can deliver.

A Dub in Glasgo

Enzokk wrote: »

And the prize for craziest theory for today goes to...Daniel Hannan.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1107687206045536258

Some of the replies to his tweet is very good. Like how the EU forced a minority government on the UK in 2017. Or how they put in a rule about 400 years ago and inserted this rule to frustrate Brexit in 2017.

Is this the man who said this?

https://twitter.com/bydonkeys/status/1083287637115453442?lang=en

Water John

Bercow has moved the dial, stopped groundhog day.
TM now goes to the EU without any cover. They'll force a timeline of events on her. They might even send her back to the UK to meet with the leaders of all the parties in Parliament. That would be spun a TMs own decision/offer.
The EU are going to ensure an end game during the Ext given.

astrofool

I love how the British MP's thinks it's the EU that does the deals in the last 5 minutes, while they're waiting on the DUP to wring all they can out of the situation till there is seconds to go.

Headshot

Newsnight on BBC2 now, it should be interesting

Itssoeasy

An Claidheamh wrote: »

1) In Britain, parliament is sovereign, not the people. Seemingly in Britain, the feudal serfs are not capable of taking part in constitutional affairs.

2) We actually decided what we wanted. And we got it.

Compare and contrast with Carry on up the Khyber over in Blighty

Carry on up the khyber was funny though. The mess in the HoC isn't funny at all.

hotmail.com

The Brexit drama has shown how ridiculous the House of Commons is.

The procedures and rules, the shouting and the use of titles is just beyond bonkers and embarrassing.