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..

Beer wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Ministers were asked to abstain..

Not sure why more don't resign....May and Corbyn will be gone soon.

Melanie Onn resigned from the SC last week and Boles has just quit the Tories..

Staggered there isn't more.

I personally don't think they should be allowed to abstain. Not paid or elected by their constituents to sit on the fence.

I think the argument is that because these indicative votes weren't the government's idea (they whipped MPs to vote against having them), they're not obliged to vote.

rodders wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:All four options rejected this evening. Nick Boles leaves the Tories.

Guy Verhofstadt says a 'hard Brexit' is nearly inevitable, and calls Wednesday the last chance for the UK to break the deadlock.

It's not a good look, is it?

The wet weekends talking about the additional referendum option 'coming out on top' need a good slap. The pipsqueaks talking as if an indicative vote with a single figure majority is somehow a mandate/good thing should also be slapped.

It looks like a majority will be there for a Customs Union, which the SNP didn't back ysterday but if it is amended to keep Scotland (or the UK) in the single market then they will, so a hybrid of this and Bowles deal looks the way forward and will get a majority on Wednesday. I suspect next week this will be back as a bill that will be amended to include a public vote on it.

In return Labour will back the ability of parliament to revoke article 50 if the EU don't agree to an extension or the proposal.
 

Why do you think a majority for a CU would be of any use, unless the margin is huge? Even then, May could simply ignore it. I agree with the EU as well - WTF are the Commons voting on this for now? This sort of thing can be discussed with the EU after we're 'out' i.e. future relationship. It's a red herring now.

navyblueshorts wrote:

rodders wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Duty281 wrote:All four options rejected this evening. Nick Boles leaves the Tories.

Guy Verhofstadt says a 'hard Brexit' is nearly inevitable, and calls Wednesday the last chance for the UK to break the deadlock.

It's not a good look, is it?

The wet weekends talking about the additional referendum option 'coming out on top' need a good slap. The pipsqueaks talking as if an indicative vote with a single figure majority is somehow a mandate/good thing should also be slapped.

It looks like a majority will be there for a Customs Union, which the SNP didn't back ysterday but if it is amended to keep Scotland (or the UK) in the single market then they will, so a hybrid of this and Bowles deal looks the way forward and will get a majority on Wednesday. I suspect next week this will be back as a bill that will be amended to include a public vote on it.

In return Labour will back the ability of parliament to revoke article 50 if the EU don't agree to an extension or the proposal.
 

Why do you think a majority for a CU would be of any use, unless the margin is huge? Even then, May could simply ignore it. I agree with the EU as well - WTF are the Commons voting on this for now? This sort of thing can be discussed with the EU after we're 'out' i.e. future relationship. It's a red herring now.

Agreed.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Beer wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Ministers were asked to abstain..

Not sure why more don't resign....May and Corbyn will be gone soon.

Melanie Onn resigned from the SC last week and Boles has just quit the Tories..

Staggered there isn't more.

I personally don't think they should be allowed to abstain. Not paid or elected by their constituents to sit on the fence.

I think the argument is that because these indicative votes weren't the government's idea (they whipped MPs to vote against having them), they're not obliged to vote.

Yes, you're right. But surely the interests of the Country should come before the party line. Once she lost the vote, May should've encouraged her party to vote, it was a 'free' vote after all. It's her stubbornness to get her deal through, which i imagine is coming again very soon.

Stubbornness, and party before country. That just about sums her up.

The irony is that this referendum was intended to end the divisions in the Conservative party once and for all, but instead the division is greater than ever, and the UK is now split over Europe too. Well played Tories, you utter sh!ts.

I'm sure, for a time, she had the best interests of the Country in mind. But, she should never have been in charge. She's sacrificed the political careers of others, as well as her own to get this deal through. There comes a point where you have to accept you are not the right person for the job and walk away. Problem is, now those who may have been suitable replacements are now just a tainted. The likes of Raab and Gove, and Fox won't win the trust of the Country, or even the House.

Someone made the point the other day that after the snap election in 2017, when the Tories lost their majority, the government should have acknowledged that circumstances had changed, that getting legislation through Parliament was clearly not going to be as simple as it had been, and worked in a more cross-party manner on the Brexit project. Instead, the prime minister behaved as if there'd never been an election, and as if she could carry on as before. She's paying for that now, and it's only right that she should.

It's another example of the prime minister doing the opposite of what she should have done at every turn.

Absolutely.

She called that Snap Election thinking she was going to steam roller it, when actually, at the time, the Country was at a crossroads. Corbyn had momentum, people were sick of politics, sick of the false promises and failures to deliver. Hung parliament was always going to be the outcome (4/1 with the Bookies, easy money).

What constantly baffles me, is that her minority government is propped up by the DUP and yet, her Brexit alienates the DUP, and she's surprised they won't back her?! You have to be some sort of idiot to do that.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Someone made the point the other day that after the snap election in 2017, when the Tories lost their majority, the government should have acknowledged that circumstances had changed, that getting legislation through Parliament was clearly not going to be as simple as it had been, and worked in a more cross-party manner on the Brexit project. Instead, the prime minister behaved as if there'd never been an election, and as if she could carry on as before. She's paying for that now, and it's only right that she should.

It's another example of the prime minister doing the opposite of what she should have done at every turn.

The problem is that it is not just her paying for it. It is all of us. Horrendous mismanagement.

The good thing - possibly the only good thing - is that people seem to be blaming the Tories for it. There was a half-hearted attempt to blame Labour for not backing the Withdrawal Agreement on Friday, but it just doesn't fly when so many Tories voted against it too. I was worried that people would blame (or would be led to blame) the EU for things going t!ts up, but so far they're giving 'credit' where it's due.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The good thing - possibly the only good thing - is that people seem to be blaming the Tories for it. There was a half-hearted attempt to blame Labour for not backing the Withdrawal Agreement on Friday, but it just doesn't fly when so many Tories voted against it too. I was worried that people would blame (or would be led to blame) the EU for things going t!ts up, but so far they're giving 'credit' where it's due.

Oh the Tories are mostly responsible. The ones who have not abstained have almost en mass voted against every indicative option. But there have been times when Labour could have done much better.

I honestly don't think we would be in our current position had we had an effective opposition. When it has really mattered Corbyn has either worked against the best interests of the country or has gone missing.

Sadly I think the voting public is too complacent and sheep like in its tendency to keep voting the same way regardless of politician or politics, which is the only reason why either main party will still be here at the next GE.

At this point, any 'third party' would be terrible or UK politics, as it would just split the House even further.

The Tories are ultimately to blame, but there are some good Tory MP's who are potentially going to lose their roles because of this farce should we hit another GE. But, Labour have failed when it matters. Corbyn played the 'no confidence' motion too early for me. He's been found wanting when it comes to solidifying Labour's position on key issues that where in the best interests of the Country (2nd Ref), but on the other hand, some issues I agree with.

Not meeting with May for example, it was common knowledge she refused to budge on her red line issues. Why risk going in and being seen to bow to the Tories when you hold your ground? The Indy group walk out? Again, for me, spot on. These defectors should be sitting By-Elections, not aiding the discussions. There's also some irony in Umunna being involved, considering he was once a shoe-in for the Labour leadership, until tales of his finances came out...

In a parallel universe, David Miliband beat his brother to the Labour leadership, Labour won the election in 2015, and there's no such word as Brexit.

A third round of indicative votes is very unlikely to be held. A fourth vote on May's deal is unlikely to be held. Long extension likely to be requested, but the EU27 unlikely to agree to it unanimously (which is required). Some bill is being put forward to prevent a no-deal exit, but it's highly improbable that it will be carried. The Tories really don't want a GE.

May apparently of the belief that if it's a straight choice between revoke article 50 or no deal exit, she would plump for the latter.

lostinwales wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The good thing - possibly the only good thing - is that people seem to be blaming the Tories for it. There was a half-hearted attempt to blame Labour for not backing the Withdrawal Agreement on Friday, but it just doesn't fly when so many Tories voted against it too. I was worried that people would blame (or would be led to blame) the EU for things going t!ts up, but so far they're giving 'credit' where it's due.

Oh the Tories are mostly responsible. The ones who have not abstained have almost en mass voted against every indicative option. But there have been times when Labour could have done much better.

I honestly don't think we would be in our current position had we had an effective opposition. When it has really mattered Corbyn has either worked against the best interests of the country or has gone missing.

Sadly I think the voting public is too complacent and sheep like in its tendency to keep voting the same way regardless of politician or politics, which is the only reason why either main party will still be here at the next GE.

This. In Spades. It's not just the Tories. The whole lot are a useless, pathetic, shower masquerading as Government, Opposition and sundry assorted MPs.

I wish there were a third party, it may make some of them act more responsibly. Right now, there's far too much childish dithering, whereas a third party might actually bring some of these darlings into a comfort of being able to vote for what is (at least in their opinion) right, rather than what suits them.

Nearly three years since the referendum and four days after we were supposed to have left..

May wants help from Labour....

Pretty woeful stuff..

It’s very much upset the Tories, which is funny, but May and Jezza are not the most inspirational team

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:It’s very much upset the Tories, which is funny, but May and Jezza are not the most inspirational team

Yep. May doesn't seem to talk to anybody and Corbyn sometimes seems to have trouble talking to women. Maybe they should just bring in the advisors to talk to each other.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:It’s very much upset the Tories, which is funny, but May and Jezza are not the most inspirational team

Not wrong there!

Don't think May was ever a dyed-in-the-wool Brexiteer. Wouldn't be surprised if she felt that by pushing her 'deal' as far as she has, she's been true to her view that the outcome of the Ref2016 must be upheld. Given the ERG wonks and DUP won't play ball and it's nearly game over, maybe she's fallen back on her instincts i.e. if we have to leave, a soft Brexit it will be and with Labour/SNP etc replacing missing Tory MPs. She's also not got anything, political career-wise, to lose.

Jezza was a Brexiteer at heart, but isn't so dumb he can't see that 'no deal' is shooting himself in both feet re. those he's supposed to be championing.

I don't think the two of them are fundamentally that far apart on Brexit.

I don't think there's ever been a time in English politics where the leaders of both parties are so universally despised but the public is seemingly unable to get rid of either of them.

It's great that at one of the most important political points in recent history, both major parties are utterly useless and completely focussed on appeasing hardcore elements of their support

lostinwales wrote:

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:It’s very much upset the Tories, which is funny, but May and Jezza are not the most inspirational team

Yep. May doesn't seem to talk to anybody and Corbyn sometimes seems to have trouble talking to women. Maybe they should just bring in the advisors to talk to each other.

Seeing as Corbyn's shadow cabinet is predominantly Women..

Doesn't seem they find it too hard to talk to him..

It’s a different matter if those women are Jewish.

Corbyn’s problem is how to speak to anyone who doesn’t agree with him. He needs a detention and a talking to from the teacher, but it’s 60 years too late

No Deal still a possibility but now looking less likely. Good to see one of the grown-ups in parliament (Yvette Cooper) coming to the forefront.

Now that No Deal is looking less likely, let's see how many Conservatives who previously backed May's withdrawal agreement revert to the "No Deal is better than a bad deal" argument.

superflyweight wrote:No Deal still a possibility but now looking less likely.  Good to see one of the grown-ups in parliament (Yvette Cooper) coming to the forefront.

Now that No Deal is looking less likely, let's see how many Conservatives who previously backed May's withdrawal agreement revert to the "No Deal is better than a bad deal" argument.      

Alternatively, Labour could have whipped their MPs to support Joanna Cherry's amendent the other day. That would have been a grown-up thing to do. But yes, good to see that common sense is breaking out at last.

I think there's a chance that Article 50 may well eventually be revoked and I agree with the spirit of Joanna Cherry's amendment as it seeks to completely rule out No Deal, but I'm not sure it would be the best political move for Labour to be seen to be going for revocation at this stage.

The smarter move is to support an extension and look to gather support for revocation through a general election or referendum.

The best that the EU should do now is to say have as much time as you wish to sort out the mess, they've already won the negotiations through this debacle but by not forcing our hand and risking a no deal Brexit they can certainly play the waiting game of us eventually moving towards revoking/2nd referendum.

Both major parties following the best political moves for them is how we're in this mess

superflyweight wrote:I think there's a chance that Article 50 may well eventually be revoked and I agree with the spirit of Joanna Cherry's amendment as it seeks to completely rule out No Deal, but I'm not sure it would be the best political move for Labour to be seen to be going for revocation at this stage.  

The smarter move is to support an extension and look to gather support for revocation through a general election or referendum.  

Extension is dependent on the EU agreeing to it. I would hope they will, but they are fed up to the back teeth with the current idiots and none too keen to carry on talks with a new Gove or Johnson PM. The hugely depressing thing is how close the idiots are to the precipice and yet they are still arguing and posturing. Can you believe they ran a briefing on Monday to explain the common market to MP's, 3 years into this chaos?

We will drop out with no deal on the 12th unless the government gets its act together, but it has little direction or control and is hamstrung by a bunch of idiots who either don't understand the consequences or actively want the chaos that no deal will bring.

As someone posted on Twitter yesterday, what government actually votes to impose trade sanctions on itself?

GSC wrote:Both major parties following the best political moves for them is how we're in this mess

I’d question that. Maybe what they thought was the best move, but they’ve been endlessly wrong. It started with an awful idea to pick up some UKIP voters.

The Lib Dems were political destroyed because they stabbed their voters in the back following the 2010 General Election.

Similarly politically the Conservatives will be destroyed if they don't deliver some form of Brexit.  It was the basis behind their 2015 General Election and their 2017 General Election.  Politically they can't stab their voters in the back without being destroyed.

That is the political reality.

If exiting of the EU was so disastrous for Britain - the Conservatives should never have made the EU Referendum a central pledge in their 2015 General Election manifesto.

Politically it would be better for the Conservatives to have a no deal brexit than revoking A50.

What would be best for Britain, consistent with the various political promises and democracratic choices already made is some form of soft exit deal.

The only reason Cameron made the referendum pledge was to appease his Euroskeptic backbenchers and try to win votes from UKIP.

He knew fine well how damaging Brexit would be but everyone was certain we wouldnt vote for it, which is why he went ahead with it and Frak off first chance he got when we voted Leave.

Yougov...

No deal Brexit 51% (+9)
Remain.............49% (-9)

Brexit fatigue perhaps ???....

Still with the 'WTO will be OK and everything will be lovely if only we believe hard enough'. And if it doesn't work out it is because the non cultists didn't believe hard enough...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Yougov...

No deal Brexit  51% (+9)
Remain.............49% (-9)

Brexit fatigue perhaps ???....

Interesting poll. Whilst the WTO option isn't the most popular, it still seems to come out on top against the option of staying in the EU.

Also it reveals that another GE around this time is a deeply unpopular option.

Most of the general public have no idea what WTO rules actually are, never mind the irony of obeying the rules of an unelected trading organisation.

I love the way poll results are received. They’re either interesting or unreliable, depending on what the person wants them to be

No name Bertie wrote:The Lib Dems were political destroyed because they stabbed their voters in the back following the 2010 General Election.

Similarly politically the Conservatives will be destroyed if they don't deliver some form of Brexit.  It was the basis behind their 2015 General Election and their 2017 General Election.  Politically they can't stab their voters in the back without being destroyed.

That is the political reality.

If exiting of the EU was so disastrous for Britain - the Conservatives should never have made the EU Referendum a central pledge in their 2015 General Election manifesto.

Politically it would be better for the Conservatives to have a no deal brexit than revoking A50.

What would be best for Britain, consistent with the various political promises and democracratic choices already made is some form of soft exit deal.

I’m happy you’re not pretending to just be down the middle like you really badly did to begin with.

None of this is fact. To be honest, I think the Lib Dem stuff has shown the power of the press as much as anything. Labour and the Tories have control of parts each, but the Lib Dems have nowt. They were easily shafted to be blamed over and over again, allowing the Tories a whipping boy for unpopular policies and Labour a way to take back the voters they lost to the LDs.

The young voters they did win didn’t automatically feel betrayed by them specifically, they just saw a time where their engagement felt worthless again. I was a student at the time and didn’t go on the marches when a lot of friends did, I don’t feel like tuition to uni should be free, but was also planning to vote Lib Dem if I voted (I then got too drunk during the day and couldn’t find my polling station)

The easy “Lib Dem betrayal” story has always annoyed me as it was so managed.

There are Tory voters who didn’t vote Brexit, that needs to be remembered too.

Lib Dems are behind this new Change Party in the polls...Which is giving Blairites a new home instead of them going to Cable's Party..

They might do better when Corbyn goes....

Corbyn is hugely polarizing and is making the Tory vote hold up when it should be fracturing to the lib Dems...

Corbyn is also keeping the left wing Lib Dems that left Labour over Iraq..

Two party politics is dominating because certain people are electrified or terrified of Corbyn..

Better for Labour if he retires....

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

No name Bertie wrote:The Lib Dems were political destroyed because they stabbed their voters in the back following the 2010 General Election.

Similarly politically the Conservatives will be destroyed if they don't deliver some form of Brexit.  It was the basis behind their 2015 General Election and their 2017 General Election.  Politically they can't stab their voters in the back without being destroyed.

That is the political reality.

If exiting of the EU was so disastrous for Britain - the Conservatives should never have made the EU Referendum a central pledge in their 2015 General Election manifesto.

Politically it would be better for the Conservatives to have a no deal brexit than revoking A50.

What would be best for Britain, consistent with the various political promises and democracratic choices already made is some form of soft exit deal.

I’m happy you’re not pretending to just be down the middle like you really badly did to begin with.

None of this is fact. To be honest, I think the Lib Dem stuff has shown the power of the press as much as anything. Labour and the Tories have control of parts each, but the Lib Dems have nowt. They were easily shafted to be blamed over and over again, allowing the Tories a whipping boy for unpopular policies and Labour a way to take back the voters they lost to the LDs.

The young voters they did win didn’t automatically feel betrayed by them specifically, they just saw a time where their engagement felt worthless again. I was a student at the time and didn’t go on the marches when a lot of friends did, I don’t feel like tuition to uni should be free, but was also planning to vote Lib Dem if I voted (I then got too drunk during the day and couldn’t find my polling station)

The easy “Lib Dem betrayal” story has always annoyed me as it was so managed.

There are Tory voters who didn’t vote Brexit, that needs to be remembered too.

Do you accept as facts the number of MP seats and votes won at a general election?

General Election ... LibDem Seats ... Lib Dem Votes
2001 ........................ 46 .............. 4,814,321
2005 ........................ 52 .............. 5,985,454
2010 ........................ 62 .............. 6,836,824
2015 ........................ 08 .............. 2,415,916
2017 ........................ 08 .............. 2,371,910

I think my earlier comment was a fair assessment of the situation.  Maybe the word "destroy" is an exaggeration - but it is the type of word others have used.  So between 2010 and 2015 Lib Dems lost 4.4 million votes or to put it another way -  they lost 2 out of every 3 voters that voted for them in 2010.

Pr4wn wrote:Most of the general public have no idea what WTO rules actually are, never mind the irony of obeying the rules of an unelected trading organisation.

Anyone happy to go with the WTO Rules either (a) doesn't know what they are or understand how they work, or (b) is an idiot.

Or both.

There's probably a sizeable chunk of people shouting for no deal who think it means no Brexit.

In other news, Jacob has just realised that we do actually have power and sovereignty while being in the EU https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1114086264024727554

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I love the way poll results are received. They’re either interesting or unreliable, depending on what the person wants them to be

In my case, that would be complete fiction. This poll was interesting because it was the first one in a while to directly compare no deal v no Brexit.

BamBam wrote:There's probably a sizeable chunk of people shouting for no deal who think it means no Brexit.

In other news, Jacob has just realised that we do actually have power and sovereignty while being in the EU https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1114086264024727554

Wonder when people will wake up and realise they've been conned?

Interesting piece on R4 yesterday evening, suggesting that any compromise deal on a 'soft Brexit' is inherently worse than either No Deal or No Brexit.

No Deal at least has the potential future benefit of allowing the Government freedom to negotiate independent trade deals, along with removal of payment to the EU budget and removing the jurisdiction of the ECJ (I know, grossly overstated by the Brexiteers). Of course in the short term it would be a shambles.

No Brexit obviously moves us back to the pre-existing arrangements, with full membership and decision-making rights within the EU.

Any compromise leaves us in a position whereby we are bound by at least some of the EU regulations and so do not (potentially) have the ability to negotiate international deals, but also lose any influence within the EU.

Pr4wn wrote:Or both.

Damn, beat me to it.

dummy_half wrote:Interesting piece on R4 yesterday evening, suggesting that any compromise deal on a 'soft Brexit' is inherently worse than either No Deal or No Brexit.

No Deal at least has the potential future benefit of allowing the Government freedom to negotiate independent trade deals, along with removal of payment to the EU budget and removing the jurisdiction of the ECJ (I know, grossly overstated by the Brexiteers). Of course in the short term it would be a shambles.

No Brexit obviously moves us back to the pre-existing arrangements, with full membership and decision-making rights within the EU.

Any compromise leaves us in a position whereby we are bound by at least some of the EU regulations and so do not (potentially) have the ability to negotiate international deals, but also lose any influence within the EU.

Remainers will prefer it to No Deal, and Leavers will prefer it to not leaving at all. That's about the best that can be said for a soft Brexit.

dummy_half wrote:Interesting piece on R4 yesterday evening, suggesting that any compromise deal on a 'soft Brexit' is inherently worse than either No Deal or No Brexit.

I agree actually.

I think a soft brexit neither satisfies brexiteers nor solves many of the key concerns and issues raised by remainers.

Under almost any form of soft brexit proposed we'd have less sovereignty than we have in the EU as well as more friction at the borders and be worse off economically. Both a Customs Union and Single Market membership are needed to receive most of our current benefits, so we may as well revoke article 50 than agree to a brexit that ends up with this.

A no deal WTO or a Canada style trade deal is just so plainly stupid to anyone who can read a map it's not worth discussing the issues but ultimately this comes back to hard brexit versus remain, anything else is a red herring.