Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Duty281 wrote:So a good day for the Prime Minister, at last. Motion carried and some pesky amendments defeated.

Yes folks a good day for the PM is telling the Country over 50 times in the Commons the UK is leaving on the 29th March and then winning an extension..

What a low bar..

Now that Theresa May has enraged the DUP (not that it's difficult) by saying in the Commons that one of the reasons we've had to delay Brexit is that Northern Ireland isn't ready, where does that leave the confidence and supply arrangement? If she can't rely on DUP votes in the Commons, nor on her own MPs toeing the party line, how can she govern? Isn't a general election now very likely?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Now that Theresa May has enraged the DUP (not that it's difficult) by saying in the Commons that one of the reasons we've had to delay Brexit is that Northern Ireland isn't ready, where does that leave the confidence and supply arrangement? If she can't rely on DUP votes in the Commons, nor on her own MPs toeing the party line, how can she govern? Isn't a general election now very likely?

If there are 2 certainties about the DUP, they won't vote for this deal with the backstop and they won't do anything to bring down the government.

A GE soon is extremely likely but it will come via her own party rather than the DUP I think.

I bow to your superior knowledge of how the DUP think, but I still wouldn't say an election is extremely unlikely. If a majority is found in Parliament tomorrow for a way forward with Brexit, and the prime minister refuses to make it government policy, having mocked MPs for only saying what they don't want, something has to give.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I bow to your superior knowledge of how the DUP think, but I still wouldn't say an election is extremely unlikely. If a majority is found in Parliament tomorrow for a way forward with Brexit, and the prime minister refuses to make it government policy, something has to give.

I said extremely likely LP? I just don't believe it will come at the DUPs hands, they'll do anything to maintain their kingmaker position and keep out Corbyn - except back this deal.

Worse case for them is the deal getting passed, then TM being replaced by one of the hard brexiteers as this is the surest way to see the backstop become invoked.

40 years old and I can't read!

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:40 years old and I can't read!

Has anyone ever seen Penny Mourdant smile? Whenever I see her she's got a face like a slapped @rse.

Duty281 wrote:

rodders wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Afro wrote:Interesting to hear two such conflicting perspectives of what is 100% going to/not going to happen, from Rodders and Duty.

Is probably a really accurate reflection of the country.

Myself personally, I'm on the Rodders side of the fence. I think a majority in parliament will want to avoid a no-deal at all costs. even to the extent of revoking article 50. The only ways I can see a no-deal, is either if that majority is not actually there, or we have a second referendum which shows that as the path the public wants to follow

I'm not 100% sure it will be no-deal. I just think that, right now, it remains the most likely scenario.

I am confident no deal won't be allowed to happen there is one scenario where it could. If a general election returned a party with a majority on a no deal ticket, and or a referendum result with an explicit option of no deal.

I don't believe no deal can carry any sort of even significant minority of support, it is a politically toxic idea even for the tories given it's rejection by the overwhelming majority of the business community.

In fact I believe many so called advocates of this, outside of the far right, are just using it for political gain and don't seriously believe this is a real option for the UK. Talk of trading on WTO terms and slashing tariffs is so idiotic it beggars belief even by Liam Fox standards.  

Canada plus won't work as it involves hard border controls at the frontiers and major disruption to UK business with the complex supply chains and dependencies we have with the EU.  Norway plus is viable but makes no sense, we'd be paying into the EU, accepting the rules with no say and breaks several government red lines particularly ending free movement.

Pretty much every brexit scenario breaks some of the key promises made by leave and the government, except ironically Theresa May's withdrawal deal which everyone seems to hate, even though it delivers on many of the key referendum issues.

That said I don't believe Parliament will revoke article 50 without putting it back to a public vote and/or general election.

Therefore for me by far the most likely scenario is a 1-2 year extension on condition of second referendum, putting whatever option parliament agrees versus remaining in the EU. That doesn't solve the conundrum of electing MEPs but every scenario is a mess at this stage and everything is about damage limitation.

But the reason why no deal is the most likely scenario is because it's the default option. It doesn't need to carry support, or win a majority in Parliament, or be supported in another referendum or another GE. If a deal cannot be agreed, or an alternative plan of action, within the time limit (currently April 12th), we will leave with no deal.

That said, it looks like JRM is switching to back the PM's deal at the next time of asking, which is a massive boost to the PM.

But I thought that the haunted f*cking pencil had recently said that May's deal was worse than leaving with no deal?

The Haunted Frak Pencil (HFP from now on) also said that Mays deal is better than No Brexit.

Which brings us back to the question of how there can be no brexit if leave with no deal is the legal default?

If I'd betted against the British economy to the extent that Rees Mogg allegedly has, I suppose I'd be desperate for any kind of Brexit.  But of course he's not thinking about himself at all and he genuinely believes that Britain will benefit from a no deal Brexit (in around 50 years).  

At least with Farage you know it's born out a underlying racism and xenophobia and the financial perks are just a happy (for him) coincidence of that.  With Rees Mogg and Johnson it's cynical opportunism and they're pushing this agenda to further their influence beyond the scope of their intellectual abilities and also for self-profit.

Dominic Raab, David Davis, Liam Fox and Ian Duncan-Smith are too stupid and ignorant to fathom the scale of the impact of their actions.

rodders wrote:Which brings us back to the question of how there can be no brexit if leave with no deal is the legal default?

Because Parliament dont want No Deal and we have the legal power to revoke A50 without needing the EU’s consent. A no deal exit will only happen if Parliament let it.

As I understand, tomorrows indicative votes will work like:

MP's get ballot
They vote on all options at once.
It'll be Yes or No next to each option rather than preference votes
Speaker decides what options are on the ballot

results will be declared later that evening.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/government-rejects-petition-to-cancel-brexit-signed-by-58-million-people

Good.

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/government-rejects-petition-to-cancel-brexit-signed-by-58-million-people

Good.

And so they should, but once the inevitable second referendum comes, and it will, it will be a different story.

rodders wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/government-rejects-petition-to-cancel-brexit-signed-by-58-million-people

Good.

And so they should, but once the inevitable second referendum comes, and it will, it will be a different story.

Only way they would've recognised it would've been had it reached 17m odd...

Will be interesting what motions go on the ballot today, as i believe one might be to cancel Article 50.

One of the fundamental problems of the last few years is that Brexiteers, in government and elsewhere, have behaved as though the 48% who voted to remain weren't worth the time of day. 'You lost, get over it.' (Mark Francois said that on Sky News just the other week.) Now that's no way for a government to behave. You have a duty to the whole electorate, not just those that back you.

A sensible government would have acknowledged the narrow margin of victory for Leave, taken the temperature of Parliament from the very start, and negotiated a withdrawal agreement it knew would pass. Basically, a sensible government would have done the opposite of virtually everything this government has done.

Today is a complete waste of Parliamentary time. Any thing that gets backed that the PM doesn't like will just be ignored. And there's rumours of abstention on the votes from various MPs. And we can already estimate, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, what certain groups of MPs want and don't want.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Basically, a sensible government would have done the opposite of virtually everything this government has done.

100% spot on. In fact all this debate about what type of Brexit we should have should have been done before article 50 was submitted.

The 2 year period was for negotiating a withdrawal agreement with EU not debating to decide what the country actually wanted.

School kids will be laughing about this in their GCSE history lessons in 40 years time.

Duty281 wrote:And we can already estimate, with a reasonable degree of accuracy, what certain groups of MPs want and don't want.

I think it is clear what they don't want -

TMs deal
No deal
A customs union
Border controls in Ireland
Border checks in the Irish sea
Free movement
Revoking article 50
Extending Article 50
Tariffs

The problem is once you take away what doesn't have support then there really isn't anything left.

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Basically, a sensible government would have done the opposite of virtually everything this government has done.

100% spot on. In fact all this debate about what type of Brexit we should have should have been done before article 50 was submitted.

The 2 year period was for negotiating a withdrawal agreement with EU not debating to decide what the country actually wanted.

School kids will be laughing about this in their GCSE history lessons in 40 years time.  

Problem was that you had the people who Duty probably has posters of on his basement wall constantly moaning about the delay in invoking Article 50.

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/government-rejects-petition-to-cancel-brexit-signed-by-58-million-people

Good.

'cos mass participation in something like this is only valid if you agree with it?

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Basically, a sensible government would have done the opposite of virtually everything this government has done.

100% spot on. In fact all this debate about what type of Brexit we should have should have been done before article 50 was submitted.

The 2 year period was for negotiating a withdrawal agreement with EU not debating to decide what the country actually wanted.

School kids will be laughing about this in their GCSE history lessons in 40 years time.  

Well, quite and the whole Commons is complicit in that bollox are they not?

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/government-rejects-petition-to-cancel-brexit-signed-by-58-million-people

Good.

'cos mass participation in something like this is only valid if you agree with it?

Not really. More the fact that 5.8mil << 17.4 mil, that the petition is not subject to the same checks/balances as referendum/election and the fact that, yes, it would subvert the outcome of the referendum.

What does that petition actually say that isn't already known? Nothing.

The Indicative Votes

Option A
Bill Cash
Condemns the PM's brexit deal and today's votes, and bans MPs from ever doing this again without a two-thirds majority

Option B
John Baron
Leave the EU without a deal on April 12.

Option C
John Baron
Leave the EU on May 22 after rewriting the Irish backstop

Option D
Nick Boles
Common Market 2.0/Norway-plus

Option E
Will Quince
Reaffirms Britain must leave the EU

Option F
Gareth Snell
Leave the EU with a customs union

Option G
Angus MacNeil
Revoke Article 50

Option H
George Eustice
Norway option (but not customs union)

Option I
Ian Blackford
No Brexit without consent of Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly

Option J
Ken Clarke
Leave the EU with a customs union

Option K
Jeremy Corbyn
Labour's Brexit plan - Customs union plus alignment on future EU rights and regs.

Option L
Joanna Cherry
Revoke Article 50 in the event of No Deal

Option M
Margaret Beckett
Any withdrawal agreement must be put to a second referendum

Option N
Nicky Morgan
Malthouse Compromise Plan A - Replace backstop with technical solutions

Option O
Marcus Fysh
Malthouse Compromise Plan B - Seek "standstill" agreement with the EU while negotiating trade deal

Option P
Marcus Fysh
Attempt to manage no-deal Brexit.

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/government-rejects-petition-to-cancel-brexit-signed-by-58-million-people

Good.

'cos mass participation in something like this is only valid if you agree with it?

16.1 million voted Remain. Now just under half of them have signed a petition for the same thing. What difference does this make? Zero.

navyblueshorts wrote:

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Basically, a sensible government would have done the opposite of virtually everything this government has done.

100% spot on. In fact all this debate about what type of Brexit we should have should have been done before article 50 was submitted.

The 2 year period was for negotiating a withdrawal agreement with EU not debating to decide what the country actually wanted.

School kids will be laughing about this in their GCSE history lessons in 40 years time.  

Well, quite and the whole Commons is complicit in that bollox are they not?

Not really as the Government would have by passed the commons altogether if TM had her way.

B, D, H, J, K, L, M O.

All to be debated.

Ayes to the right won by a majority of 44.

Bercow has stated that any MV3 MUST be on an amended Withdrawal Agreement.

Keep an eye on M...

rodders wrote:Keep an eye on M...

Will do, 007.

I think that's the other key motion along with D.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

rodders wrote:Keep an eye on M...

Will do, 007.

rodders wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

rodders wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Basically, a sensible government would have done the opposite of virtually everything this government has done.

100% spot on. In fact all this debate about what type of Brexit we should have should have been done before article 50 was submitted.

The 2 year period was for negotiating a withdrawal agreement with EU not debating to decide what the country actually wanted.

School kids will be laughing about this in their GCSE history lessons in 40 years time.  

Well, quite and the whole Commons is complicit in that bollox are they not?

Not really as the Government would have by passed the commons altogether if TM had her way.

Actually, yes. Labour whipped to get A50 on the statute books when it did.

May vows to step down if her deal is passed. Obviously looking to martyr herself in a final bid to get her deal through.

Doubt it'll work though, unless a GE is called afterwards which is unlikely. Even then whoever takes charge will be stuck with her deal, which everyone hates.

Duty281 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Duty281 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/27/government-rejects-petition-to-cancel-brexit-signed-by-58-million-people

Good.

'cos mass participation in something like this is only valid if you agree with it?

16.1 million voted Remain. Now just under half of them have signed a petition for the same thing. What difference does this make? Zero.

And significantly less have voted for a petition to demand we leave without a deal.

Look it is a feck load of people who give a damn about this trying to find a way to get through to parliament that this is a big deal. The system has been set up to allow people to do just that. It doesn't mean that parliament should instantly revoke (they should, but that is another matter) but it does mean they need to sit up and take notice, and at least debate the damn thing. Nothing in the history of the petition system has got remotely close to this level of support. It can't be dismissed out of hand.

Friday 29th March was when Brexit was due to come into effect.

The EC/EU agreed an extension for two scenarios:
1) Being informed by Thursday 28th March that May's Deal was going ahead. Extension to May 22nd to sort out the practicalities - then Brexit with May's Deal.
2) If May's Deal is not confirmed by Thursday 28th March - then extension to April 12th followed by NO DEAL Brexit. During this period they will entertain a request for a long extension with the proviso that Britain participate in the May 23rd MEP elections.

As far as I can tell - Option 1 has more or less lapsed and Britain is left with Option 2.

Corbyn and May deserve shooting.

Corbyn had a golden opportunity to champion the second referendum and really get the majority of the country behind him but he's, predictably, too much of an idealist.

May is possibly the worst PM in the history of the country.

These were all meaningless votes anyway as May had no intention of honouring any of them. Its incredible that Johnson and HFP are now backing her deal. They’ve been getting torn to shreds by hard brexiters on social media. Probably killed any chances they had at succeeding May aswell.

It should be amazing to watch the Tories destroy themselves but we’re so close to the precipice of disaster I cant seem to find any joy it in. Shambles doesnt even come close to describing this whole Frak mess.

For all those that wanted to leave the EU because they wanted to get back control and have our Parliament make our laws again I hope they've watched the absolute Poopie that our Parliament made of trying to sort Brexit in the past two years.

I think the votes on a Customs Union and the Second Ref getting more than May's WA is quite telling.

Struggle to see how she can get MV3 through now, especially with the DUP stance, and the ERG following suit. Surely she needs to call a snap election?

In hindsight I think "Brexit" with some sort of custom's union was the best option.  I am not sure what May's Deal is all about.

In hindsight when David Cameron went off to Brussels to renegotiate a better deal - and came back claiming it was a fantastic deal and Britain should accept it by voting remain - there were many people and many papers that didn't believe it - saying it was a whitewash.  I wish more attention had been paid to the merits and demerits of that deal rather than how the debate played out on national media - which was a series of armageddon stories of what would happen if Britain left and people becoming sceptical of that tactic - calling this tactic project fear.

Prior to that David Cameron and others played a major part in warning Britain and the EC/EU NOT to elect Juncker as President - as they claimed that Juncker was a Federalist and had always had ambitions of creating a stronger political union.  David Cameron had even said he might be forced to recommend a LEAVE vote if Juncker was voted in as President.  Well Juncker was voted in and David Cameron then didn't mention it again.

Then David Cameron said he would recommend LEAVE if the EC/EU didn't give Britain better terms as he went off to Brussels.  The media generally presented the new deal as weak, only acting as a delay in implementing certain EU policies.  But David Cameron came back spinning it as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

And then the focus was on the so-called project fear if Britain did leave the EU - completely forgetting that David Cameron had said he would/might recommend leave if a) Juncker was elected President and b) he didn't get a good deal in Brussels.

Furthermore the EU referendum was a selling point for the 2015 General Election - Britain would get to choose whether to stay in the EU or to Leave.   That referendum was sold as democracy in action - the people finally getting a say.  It wasn't sold as a choice between armageddon and paradise - which was what the debate descended to leading up to the actual referendum day. That is not really a choice if you believed it (more like a Hobson choice) - so many people didn't believe it.

Anyway that is all water under the bridge for now.

I'm not sure I follow your here point, Bertie. If you're suggesting that one shouldn't threaten if one isn't prepared to go through with it, I'd probably agree with you.

In hindsight we already had a great deal (with a veto to stop stuff happening that we didn't like) but it was never sold to the UK public. Much easier to blame the EU for the government's own failings

lostinwales wrote:In hindsight we already had a great deal (with a veto to stop stuff happening that we didn't like) but it was never sold to the UK public. Much easier to blame the EU for the government's own failings

Indeed. The UK has never really engaged properly with the EU and been an active member. Always slagging it off. Reap what we sow.

This is the tragic irony, pretty much every brexit scenario britain will have less sovereign control than they do now, especially under the withdrawal agreement. Every deal with the EU means adopting some or all of their rules without a say in them.

The only scenario where the full brexit fantasy can play out is if the EU actually collapsed, which it hasn't.

So most of what was promised by leave is un-deliverable and I think more people see that now, hence the surge of interest in revoking article 50.

Even funnier is that the EU will almost certainly reform in some of the ways we were bitching about, going forward. Problem is, we'll be on the outside, looking in. Pretty hysterical when you think about it.

Pr4wn wrote:Corbyn had a golden opportunity to champion the second referendum and really get the majority of the country behind him but he's, predictably, too much of an idealist.

May is possibly the worst PM in the history of the country.

Labour's marginal targets are in leave areas.

If Remain wins a second referendum 52-48 what happens then ??

If a second referendum is so popular why are TIG..The Lib Dems and Greens polling so low ??

Your post hasn't got much going for it..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Corbyn had a golden opportunity to champion the second referendum and really get the majority of the country behind him but he's, predictably, too much of an idealist.

May is possibly the worst PM in the history of the country.

Labour's marginal targets are in leave areas.  

If Remain wins a second referendum 52-48 what happens then ??

If a second referendum is so popular why are TIG..The Lib Dems and Greens polling so low ??

Your post hasn't got much going for it..

Difference being that any 2nd Ref would be based on the ACTUAL terms of Brexit, rather than misleading information slapped on the side of a bus.