UK Politics: Time Marches On

[The Anti-Targ]

15 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Quote

The extension vote today was with the understanding there would be a ‘managed’ no deal at the end of the extension, so it was chucked in with the other no deal stuff.

That's my understanding, that first one is now completely irrelevant, as the reason for that extension are now void

 

2 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Where are you getting that from? It's just been outright rejected.

Government policy WaS to request an extension, with the threat of suicide if it wasn't granted. Government policy has now been force to change, and remove the threat of suicide.

Didn't you just agree with the above statement that there would be a no-deal Brexit? Or did I read that wrong and the arrangement Philokles mentioned was rejected by Parliament?

[Which Tyler]

You read it wrong, No Deal has been rejected by parliament.

No deal is considered unacceptable by parliament. It's still the legal default, but there is now a non-obligatory obligation to find an alternative, be that Mays deal, a different (closer) deal, people's vote or no brexit

[Fez]

I saw this news when trying to find something about the votes today:

Did the House of Lords just do something tangible and important? Or is this symbolic only?

[divica]

Let me see if I understand this.

UK voted no to a no-deal Brexit. UE has said multiple times that they wont negotiate a diferent deal. So UK poticians decide they want more time to negotiate a new deal and won t leave otherwise? And UE didn t want the UK to leave since the beguining...

So why dont they just ask the people if they accept may's deal or if they want to remain in the UE? Why waste more time on this? They just said to the UE that if they mantain their Brexit deal they won t leave...

[Which Tyler]

19 hours ago, divica said:

Let me see if I understand this.

UK voted no to a no-deal Brexit. UE has said multiple times that they wont negotiate a diferent deal. So UK poticians decide they want more time to negotiate a new deal and won t leave otherwise? And UE didn t want the UK to leave since the beguining...

So why dont they just ask the people if they accept may's deal or if they want to remain in the UE? Why waste more time on this? They just said to the UE that if they mantain their Brexit deal they won t leave...

Yes, except that it's the EU, not the UE.

UK parliament has now voted against a No Deal Brexit.

EU have said they won't negotiate a new deal under May's red lines (but might if they were removed, or offer an off-the-shelf departure)

UK politicians get to decide tomorrow if they want more time; but would need to come up with something different in order to be granted extra time.

A people's vote is a pretty popular option, but asking people if they've changed their mind after 3 years and lots of new information would be a betrayal of democracy. Instead, you have to ask them 2 months later with no new information, and keep doing so until they do change their mind - because that's democratic (unless it's the EU asking, of course).

 

You also forgot that we don't trust the EU because they're not democratic - you can tell by those pesky elections they're about to hold (real democracy never gives people a second vote... except when they do... yay democracy!).

The EU are also evil as they keep using unelected experts for advice and guidance, treating them as if experts might possibly know more about their field of expertise than elected ignoramuses. Real democracies would never allow someone like, I dunno, Geoffrey Cox to provide advice and guidance to their elected ignoramuses!

[Denvek]

The motion for tomorrow is apparently the following:

If Parliament can pass a deal by March 20th (next Wednesday), request an extension until June 30th for the purpose of passing the legislation needed to implement whatever that deal is.

If Parliament can't pass a deal by March 20th, request an extension of currently undetermined length, understanding that the EU will require the UK to give a clear purpose for the extension, and that any extension past June 30th will require UK participation in the EU elections.

The date of March 20th is because the European Council meeting where the request for an extension would need to be made is on March 21st.

The motion is amendable, and there seems to be some suggestion that Parliamentary rules prevent May from putting her deal to Parliament again if there aren't any changes to it since its rejection last night, so its more likely that we'll be asking for the longer extension than the shorter one.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

From afar, this is looking worse than ever. It seems like everyone is against something while not being for anything. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

As required by law.

Summary by Ian Dunt of what happened today, and the implications going forward.

Short version, next week will be the final battle. May will put forward her deal once more, if it gets rejected again, she will seek a longer extension (a year min.), with another referendum or softer Brexit as an outcome. This is inteded to get the ERG in line (accept my deal, or I shall take away your precious Brexit from you).

Overall, this piece sounds as a whole way more optimistic than his previous articles.

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I saw this news when trying to find something about the votes today:

Did the House of Lords just do something tangible and important? Or is this symbolic only?

It's somewhere in between. If the Government is defeated in the Lords on an issue then it can back to the Commons to have another vote to overturn the Lords decision. If they do overturn it then it goes back to the Lords to vote on it again, this can keep going back and forth repeatedly. If there's deadlock between the two houses then the Commons decision is ultimately meant to take precedence (due to them being democratically elected).

[The Anti-Targ]

I imagine there is a decent chance the ERG will finally cave and vote for the May deal, because the alternative is staring into the abyss of an indefinite delay. Though if they think they will win another referendum and guarantee Brexit come hell or high water they may continue to vote. But then Labour may fracture and enough of them may vote for the May deal to negate the ERG.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

Where are you getting that from? It's just been outright rejected.

Government policy WAS to request an extension, so.thatcould arrange our suicide. Government policy has now been force to change, and remove the threat of suicide.

I'm not even sure that a constitutional lawyer could tell you what all these votes mean.

The Commons is opposed to the Withdrawal Agreement, but the EU won't discuss the future relationship till the WA has been agreed.  If it is not agreed, then we are scheduled to Leave on 29th March, without a deal.

We can apply to extend the deadline, but the EU can say No.  They ought to say No, but I suspect they'll kick the can down the road.  But, if they do say No, we leave on 29th March, with or without the WA in place.  If they agree to an extension, no one knows at this stage,  how long it would be for, or what they would want.

The Commons can revoke A50, either by repealing the relevant legislation (the EU would agree an extension for that) or by passing a VONC, and installing a new PM, who would immediately send notice of revocation to Brussels.  Those seem unlikely at the moment.

There  is little in the WA that MP's should have any reason to object to.  But, the Opposition want to defeat the government, understandably enough, and the ERG want to demonstrate their purity, because they are fuckwits.

 

 

[Chaircat Meow]

48 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I'm not even sure that a constitutional lawyer could tell you what all these votes mean.

The Commons is opposed to the Withdrawal Agreement, but the EU won't discuss the future relationship till the WA has been agreed.  If it is not agreed, then we are scheduled to Leave on 29th March, without a deal.

We can apply to extend the deadline, but the EU can say No.  They ought to say No, but I suspect they'll kick the can down the road.  But, if they do say No, we leave on 29th March, with or without the WA in place.  If they agree to an extension, no one knows at this stage,  how long it would be for, or what they would want.

The Commons can revoke A50, either by repealing the relevant legislation (the EU would agree an extension for that) or by passing a VONC, and installing a new PM, who would immediately send notice of revocation to Brussels.  Those seem unlikely at the moment.

There  is little in the WA that MP's should have any reason to object to.  But, the Opposition want to defeat the government, understandably enough, and the ERG want to demonstrate their purity, because they are fuckwits.

 

 

Praise them.

O Lord, let the ERG stay nuts. 

edit: those whom the gods would destroy they first ...

[Spockydog]

11 minutes ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

Praise them.

O Lord, let the ERG stay nuts. 

edit: those whom the gods would destroy they first ...

The view on Newsnight is that while some may cave, there is a large enough hardcore to ensure May is defeated. Again.

Though, that's if she even gets another chance. Word is Berkow's gonna block a third vote.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

9 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

The view on Newsnight is that while some may cave, there is a large enough hardcore to ensure May is defeated. Again.

Though, that's if she even gets another chance. Word is Berkow's gonna block a third vote.

 

It is ridiculous to have another vote 1 week after it was just rejected for the 2nd time. A 3rd vote should be blocked.

Is the R in ERG ironic, like the self-titled QAnon Researchers, and Flath Earth Researchers?

[Spockydog]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It is ridiculous to have another vote 1 week after it was just rejected for the 2nd time. A 3rd vote should be blocked.

Indeed, and this is what Hilary Benn asked the House today:

"Why is it democratic to keep bringing back to the House a proposition that has been historically defeated twice, but it is somehow undemocratic to ask the British people if they want to change their minds?"

[Altherion]

Could that be the endgame of all of this maneuvering? I suspect if the UK goes to the EU and asks for an extension to hold another referendum, the EU would grant it. They could then offer three choices: revoke Article 50 (i.e. cancel Brexit), May's deal and no deal. Cancelling Brexit might get an outright majority at this point, but even if not, it's hard to see how it doesn't get a plurality.

[SeanF]

6 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Indeed, and this is what Hilary Benn asked the House today:

"Why is it democratic to keep bringing back to the House a proposition that has been historically defeated twice, but it is somehow undemocratic to ask the British people if they want to change their minds?"

It's more that you should never make promises you aren't prepared to carry out.  Don't pass legislation to hold a referendum if you can't abide the outcome.   

[Derfel Cadarn]

53 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It's more that you should never make promises you aren't prepared to carry out.  Don't pass legislation to hold a referendum if you can't abide the outcome.   

That was Cameron. He's fucked off.

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

That was Cameron. He's fucked off.

He did.  But, there are plenty of MP's who backed the referendum legislation, and who voted to trigger A50, who are still around.  If there were real horrors in the Withdrawal Agreement, I could see a case for reneging, but I don't think there are horrors in it.

[DaveSumm]

So my understanding is we’re headed toward a cliff edge at 100mph, and we’ve ruled out either slowing down, stopping, or falling off the cliff? It looks to me like May’s deal will be defeated again, so will it come down to a short extension, with May then having the choice between No Deal or referendum? And no deal was of course ruled out? Was her talk last night of ‘facing the consequences’ and not getting Brexit at all softening up for a referendum? Is that her choice alone or does that get put before parliament? Will it not then become part of a long list of things we’ve ‘ruled out’?