UK Politics: Time Marches On

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Really depends on what happens next week.

If May's deal gets passed, then a few more months looks reasonable for the ratification process. If he deal fails (again), then a longer extension is pretty much unavoidable (if you don't want a no-deal outcome).

Fun story. BMW (yes the car manufacturer) is against any extension (particularly the short one). The reason being, they ordered a production stop for around Brexit time as precaution for custom check dealys and stuff. So they want to power up production up again a it later, after the dust has settled a bit. If the UK gets an extension their production restart falls directly into the "new Brexit date". They are not particularly happy about that.

 

Anyway. I somehow fail to see the point of an extension at all right now. Westminster has ruled out a second referendum, a new election is not on the horizon, and the morons there still don't know what they actually want. I don't see how giving them more time to come up with nothing but nonsense solves anything. Maybe the Brits can enlighten me.

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

To go back about today being the more important day wrt votes about Brexit than Tuesday.

So you still think Brexit is dead?

It is dying a slow, miserable death. Its insides are sliding out of its arse, and now, hopefully, Farage's fascist mates will deliver the coup de grace by vetoing the extension. 

[Spockydog]

2 hours ago, Bittersweet Distractor said:

You're right actually- a shit song by a shit band for a Country deeply in the shit!.

Utter bollocks. That's a great fucking tune. 

[Werthead]

Quote

 

Fun story. BMW (yes the car manufacturer) is against any extension (particularly the short one). The reason being, they ordered a production stop for around Brexit time as precaution for custom check dealys and stuff. So they want to power up production up again a it later, after the dust has settled a bit. If the UK gets an extension their production restart falls directly into the "new Brexit date". They are not particularly happy about that.

 

Good point, actually. Quite a few companies had already booked "Brexit pauses", in some cases months ago, and now they're being told the date will change with two weeks notice, which will piss everyone off.

In overall terms, a delay to the Brexit date is the first crack in the idea that we will leave. Up to this point, for three years, the government has been adamant that we will leave on 29 March. That's no longer the case. The question is now how many more dominoes will fall before we get a second referendum.

The EU proposal, of a much longer delay (maybe even another 2 years), I don't think can fly. The uncertainty and economic disquiet from the last two years cannot continue, and the UK can't go another two years whilst vital issues are kicked to the curb in favour of yet more bloviating about Brexit. For the Tories, it also destroys the point of the 2017 general election. They wanted to kick the can down the road so far after Brexit that any immediate blowback/recession might have been overcome by the time of the next election so they can avoid getting the blame for it. If we get a two year extension, that puts Brexit a year or so before the next election and leaves the Tories vulnerable again.

[Werthead]

Jon Snow (not that one) tearing hapless cabinet member Matt Hancock a new one in a very satisfying manner.

[Jen'ari]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

Utter bollocks. That's a great fucking tune. 

Yes, if you're utterly tone deaf it is, only good thing the Sex Pistols did was their gig at the Manchester Free Trade hall which inspired the members of Joy Division and The Smiths, but to each their own.

[The Anti-Targ]

26 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Jon Snow (not that one) tearing hapless cabinet member Matt Hancock a new one in a very satisfying manner.

Dayum! That's a big ole Git off mah lawn! dressing down.

[The Anti-Targ]

Are they having so many vote, pulling Brexit in different directions with each vote, so as to keep everyone, including themselves dazed and confused about what decisions are actually being made, so that whatever outcome actually happens, there will have been a vote in Parliament which can be spun as having anticipated and supported that outcome?

[Spockydog]

2 hours ago, Bittersweet Distractor said:

Yes, if you're utterly tone deaf it is, only good thing the Sex Pistols did was their gig at the Manchester Free Trade hall which inspired the members of Joy Division and The Smiths, but to each their own.

Respectfully, fuck off with that pretentious bollocks. The Pistols set the punk scene on fire and went on to influence some of the biggest bands in history.

/derail

 

[Fragile Bird]

Is there any light at the end of the tunnel now?

[Spockydog]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Is there any light at the end of the tunnel now?

For me, yes. Worst case scenario now appears to be May's deal, which, while not exactly brilliant, isn't the end of the world.

The most democratic thing now is to have another referendum with two choices: May's Deal or Status Quo.

 

[karaddin]

41 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

For me, yes. Worst case scenario now appears to be May's deal, which, while not exactly brilliant, isn't the end of the world.

The most democratic thing now is to have another referendum with two choices: May's Deal or Status Quo.

 

While I hope you're right the fact that No Deal happens by default in 14 days if parliament doesn't pass something has me awfully worried that its going to happen regardless of all the people saying its off the table.

[The Anti-Targ]

Has parliament voted to prevent no-deal from happening (even if non-binding) or have they just voted to not actively decide to go with no deal. So coasting towards a no-deal Brexit doesn't violate the anti no-deal vote?

Kind of akin to end of life care: if you withdraw life support it's not euthanasia and thus is legal, but if you administer an OD of morphine it is euthanasia and hence murder in countries where it is not legal.

[karaddin]

I think what parliament passed yesterday is more akin to "We will not turn off life support" but the electricity is being switched off in 2 weeks so even though it will be "switched on" its actually turning off anyway.

[Impmk2]

My favorite analogy is circling in an airplane unable to get a majority decision on where to go, so you spend your time holding votes against running out of fuel.

 

[karaddin]

And then passing a motion that the plane will not fall out of the sky but you just keep on circling

[Alarich II]

7 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Is there any light at the end of the tunnel now?

There is light - but the HoC is apparently unsure wether it is the end of the tunnel or an oncoming train.

[mormont]

These analogies aren't really helping...

The situation at the moment is that in addition to passing a vote against No Deal, Parliament has also passed a vote requesting a delay. So yes, Parliament has voted in favour of something and that thing is positive action aimed at avoiding the No Deal default due on 29 March.

The risk now is that one of the EU member countries may veto that request. If that happens, No Deal is back on the table as a real possibility. However, I think the risk is low. No EU country would want to be seen to be doing that, as it amounts to kicking the UK when it's down. As long as the UK can give some justification for a delay and a roadmap for progress during the delay, however sketchy, I think the EU 27 will approve it. Nobody wants to be the bad guy here.

What happens next is key. It's all very well for politicians to say they detect no enthusiasm for another referendum, but there's little enthusiasm for another round of negotiations from the EU either, at least if all of May's 'red lines' remain in place. But then, if she puts her deal to yet another vote and goes down to yet another defeat, then she may have to go, and the situation changes again, according to who takes over...

[Mosi Mynn]

32 minutes ago, mormont said:

The risk now is that one of the EU member countries may veto that request. If that happens, No Deal is back on the table as a real possibility. However, I think the risk is low. No EU country would want to be seen to be doing that, as it amounts to kicking the UK when it's down. As long as the UK can give some justification for a delay and a roadmap for progress during the delay, however sketchy, I think the EU 27 will approve it. Nobody wants to be the bad guy here.

What happens next is key. It's all very well for politicians to say they detect no enthusiasm for another referendum, but there's little enthusiasm for another round of negotiations from the EU either, at least if all of May's 'red lines' remain in place. But then, if she puts her deal to yet another vote and goes down to yet another defeat, then she may have to go, and the situation changes again, according to who takes over...

I really hope somebody is working on the bolded - because what we have lacked since June 2016 is any sort of flippin' plan.

And if May goes, what does that mean?  An election?  I don't want or trust Corbyn to negotiate Brexit!

[Mentat]

36 minutes ago, mormont said:

The risk now is that one of the EU member countries may veto that request. If that happens, No Deal is back on the table as a real possibility. However, I think the risk is low. No EU country would want to be seen to be doing that, as it amounts to kicking the UK when it's down. As long as the UK can give some justification for a delay and a roadmap for progress during the delay, however sketchy, I think the EU 27 will approve it. Nobody wants to be the bad guy here.

What happens next is key. It's all very well for politicians to say they detect no enthusiasm for another referendum, but there's little enthusiasm for another round of negotiations from the EU either, at least if all of May's 'red lines' remain in place. But then, if she puts her deal to yet another vote and goes down to yet another defeat, then she may have to go, and the situation changes again, according to who takes over...

I think the risk of the EU refusing to grant a short extension, if a WA is voted before the 20th of March, is close to nil. If May's plan is voted down a 3rd time (or if Bercow refuses to even allow it to be tabled) then I think the risk increases. The UK would have to come up with, and present some sort of plan going forward. Some sort of indicative votes (Lidington suggested that despite the motion not passing they might have to happen if May's deal is off the table) might come up with something that could be more palatable to Parliament, but it would still mean negotiating a full new deal from scratch, which is something the EU doesn't really want to do. It's also a risky proposition, as there's no guarantee that Parliament will support this new deal once it has transitioned from wishful thinking about the future into an actual legal document result of negotiations with the EU. There's also the risk that indicative votes prove that there's no clear majority in Parliament for anything, or that they insist on something the EU has already explicitly ruled out (remove the backstop, free market but we want to negotiate our own trade deals and we don't want any immigrants, etc.). Finally, there's the fact that Theresa May's government has truly exhausted any authority it might have once had. A new general election is looming in the horizon, and might disrupt any potential future negotiations.