UK Politics: Time Marches On

[Ser Reptitious]

6 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Looks like Parliament (Bercow) won't allow the same motion twice in one session.

He allows that there was enough negotiation and change between January and March, with new documents and new advice.

He states precedent going back a mere 4 centuries and reinforced by (IIRC) a dozen different speakers.

ETA, now an article up: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47614074

This part of the article pretty much sums up the utter ridiculousness of the situation:

Quote

Solicitor General Robert Buckland warned there was now a "constitutional crisis" and suggested the onus was on the EU to come up with "new solutions" to enable MPs to vote on the deal again.

So the British Speaker of the House disallowed the British MPs to vote on May's deal a third time, thereby apparently creating a British constitutional crisis, but solving this problem (according to Buckland) is the duty of the EU! Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Heaven forbid the British HoC has to solve its own problems! 

 

[mormont]

13 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

That's the prorogue mentioned earlier.

Akin to "it's my ball, therefore you all have to play by MY rules"

The difficulty there is that ending the current session of Parliament because the government would otherwise be paralysed is an extremely good argument for having a general election.

May can probably whip the votes to avoid that, but by the time she's dissolved Parliament, reconstituted it, ducked a vote of no confidence, etc. we're likely to be into April.

[The Anti-Targ]

What if EU plays hardball and says nope, to the delay and demands that Britain either leaves or withdraws A50? If you want to re-invoke A50 the next day, that's fine, but the clock on the current A50 runs out on 29 March.

If the EU is prepared to live with the consequences of a no-deal Brexit then they can be as hard as they want in their stance. But if the EU does not want to have to live with a no-deal Brexit then the EU has no choice but to agree to whatever the UK asks in it's attempts to avoid a no-deal Brexit. So in that respect the SG is kind of right, that it's up to the EU to throw the UK a few more bones so that it has something different it can vote on this week to try to get a deal through at the last minute.

So, what is the feeling in the EU on a no-deal Brexit?

[karaddin]

6 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Anyway, Becow said no vote on this, this week or next week (or anytime before official Brexit date for that matter). 

And just a reminder for anyone that's managed to forget, these two time periods are the same - Brexit day is Friday next week. She's really running out of road to kick the can down without an extension of the road.

[Spockydog]

23 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So, what is the feeling in the EU on a no-deal Brexit?

There is absolutely no chance of no deal. Rees-Mogg and his chums are deluded. If it comes to it, Article 50 will be revoked.

[Spockydog]

Good to see Nadhim Zahawi, usually one of May's most hawkish Brexiters, absolutely shitting himself on Newsnight tonight. His repeated claim that Parliament voted last week to allow a third meaningful vote was an outright lie. Well done to Maitliss for pulling him up on it.

He also conceded that no deal is basically off the table. 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

32 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

There is absolutely no chance of no deal. Rees-Mogg and his chums are deluded. If it comes to it, Article 50 will be revoked.

In that case EU should say no extension. IMO, stop this clown show from dragging on any further and make Britain hit the reset button. They can still work on Brexit, but do it more sensibly learning a lot of lessons from the first experience.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

11 hours ago, mormont said:

And yet if May's career has a theme (beyond 'immigrants, ugh') it's sticking to the line no matter what. People laughing at you? Courts ruling against you? Nobody buying your shit? Ignore them and carry on regardless.

Well, before her latest Brussel's adventure she was already admitting that she won't get any significant changes to the deal. So it was already way less huff and puff than say one year ago. So she would again walk home with (basically) the same deal on offer. This time she won't even get cosmetic changes. Ian Dunt (I think) mused whether May will travel to Brussels get a small (technical) extension travel back to Westminster and present that as change to her proposal. Will that satisfy Bercow? Seriously, will it? I have no idea, that is probably a question for British constitutional lawyers and WEstminster insiders. To me as an outsider this idea looks ridicilous, but then again, so does Brexit.

 

[Mosi Mynn]

What happens if Article 50 is revoked?  Does someone invoke it at a later date?  Can the PM just revoke it?  Does Parliament have to vote on it?  Does the EU have to agree (which I guess is the most straightforward thing about this, as they will)?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

24 minutes ago, Mosi Mynn said:

What happens if Article 50 is revoked?  Does someone invoke it at a later date?  Can the PM just revoke it?  Does Parliament have to vote on it?  Does the EU have to agree (which I guess is the most straightforward thing about this, as they will)?

1. Brexit is canceled.

2. Possibly.

3. and 4. As per the Gina Miller (?) case: The ruling was it required parliamentary action to trigger article 50. So I presume revoking it, will probably require parliamentary action, too. (a motion should suffice).

5. Nope. The UK can revoke article 50 unilaterally (ECJ ruling).

[Mosi Mynn]

48 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

1. Brexit is canceled.

2. Possibly.

3. and 4. As per the Gina Miller (?) case: The ruling was it required parliamentary action to trigger article 50. So I presume revoking it, will probably require parliamentary action, too. (a motion should suffice).

5. Nope. The UK can revoke article 50 unilaterally (ECJ ruling).

1 is why I think it can't just be revoked.  I can't see how they could just overturn the referendum result after three years of shenanigans. 

[Which Tyler]

6 minutes ago, Mosi Mynn said:

1 is why I think it can't just be revoked.  I can't see how they could just overturn the referendum result after three years of shenanigans. 

Oh that bit's easy.

The referendum was non-binding (hence it hasn't been struck down for shenanigans).

We've tried and failed to deliver on the result.

[Mosi Mynn]

Just now, Which Tyler said:

Oh that bit's easy.

The referendum was non-binding (hence it hasn't been struck down for shenanigans).

We've tried and failed to deliver on the result.

That's a bit pathetic, though.  

The referendum was non-binding (I wonder how many people know that, or would accept that if it was discarded) - but after three years I don't think Parliament can just say it was all too difficult and they have changed their minds! What's the point in having a referendum if you're not going to abide by the result, or at least do something with the result?

This is an extraordinary mess.  A lot of the country probably want Article 50 to be revoked; a lot of the country just want to leave the EU - by whatever means we can; and a lot of the country just want to stop hearing about Brexit!  It is going to take a truly amazing leader to pull us all back together.  And we haven't got one!

[Which Tyler]

Everybody knew it was non-binding.

Yeah, of course rabid Brexiteers won't like it, but they won't like anything that isn't a No Deal brexit (that wasn't on the ballot).

Why not? It has been all too difficult. There is no deal that is better than our existing relationship with the EU. There is no Brexit that doesn't fuck our country for a generation or more. And no, deluded people don't like being told that they're deluded; it doesn't make them rational however. Those same Brexiteers will be first rioting on the street when they finally realise how badly they've screwed themselves with their vote.

Of course rational Brexiteers are a different beast, and already appreciate how hard the process was always going to be, and would accept that 2nd voting is the only way of solving this mess, and that revoking is a better option than No Deal.

Parliament DID do something with the result (mostly, government arguing with itself, but that's 100% on Theresa May)

Yup.

[Mosi Mynn]

1 minute ago, Which Tyler said:

Everybody knew it was non-binding.

Yeah, of course Brexiteers won't like it, but they won't like anything that isn't a No Deal brexit (that wasn't on the ballot).

Why not? It has been all too difficult. There is no deal that is better than our existing relationship with the EU. There is no Brexit that doesn't fuck our country for a generation or more.

Parliament DID do something with the result (mostly, government arguing with itself, but that's 100% on Theresa May)

Yup.

What is the point of having a non-binding referendum?  I'm really asking.  Is there an actual reason to do this?  Someone on another forum, with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, suggested it was a useful demonstration of the divisions in Britain that could be used to bargain with the EU - but it was never suggested that it could be used that way.  And it hasn't been used that way since.  Because nobody thought Leave would win, the referendum result was assumed by everyone to be the way we would go.  

"There is no deal that is better than our existing relationship with the EU. There is no Brexit that doesn't fuck our country for a generation or more."

I agree.  A lot of people agree.  But a lot of people also think it's worth it.  And to play devil's advocate: I think a lot of people fear that being part of the EU could fuck our country for a generation or more too: the populists could gain significant ground in the upcoming elections, the euro could crash, further integration is the goal.  It worries a lot of people.  If we had politicians that could argue that if we were in the EU we could help shape it's future and stability that would be something - but nobody important enough is doing that.

If nothing else, this should be a counter-argument to Brexit!

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, Mosi Mynn said:

What is the point of having a non-binding referendum?  I'm really asking.

David Cameron put the referendum in place to acquiesce the anti-EU faction of the conservatives that has dogged the party for as long as the EU has been a thing. Plan was to announce it, then let the Lib Dems in the coalition government veto it ... but wouldn’t you know, the Tories won a straight majority. So they had to have it. Ok, nevermind, Remain is bound to win. So let’s do no serious campaigning, educating of the public, or preparation for a Leave result.

Oh shit.

[DaveSumm]

It would have been good of Cameron to talk up the non-binding nature of the referendum, saying if Leave wins then we will begin looking into the viability of triggering Article 50. It would’ve bought much more leeway with the public to not trigger immediately, and get all this sorted out before hand. I’ll never forget when he appeared This Morning and after being pushed by Philip Schofield as to what happened if we lose, he very casually took a sip of water and said “well then the next day I’ll trigger Article 50 and we’ll leave”. Will you now David?

[Mosi Mynn]

3 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

David Cameron put the referendum in place to acquiesce the anti-EU faction of the conservatives that has dogged the party for as long as the EU has been a thing. Plan was to announce it, then let the Lib Dems in the coalition government veto it ... but wouldn’t you know, the Tories won a straight majority. So they had to have it. Ok, nevermind, Remain is bound to win. So let’s do no serious campaigning, educating of the public, or preparation for a Leave result.

Oh shit.

Ha ha!  Yes I know the real reason!  

But why even have "non-binding" as an option?  What is the purpose of a referendum that isn't binding?

[Mosi Mynn]

1 minute ago, DaveSumm said:

It would have been good of Cameron to talk up the non-binding nature of the referendum, saying if Leave wins then we will begin looking into the viability of triggering Article 50. It would’ve bought much more leeway with the public to not trigger immediately, and get all this sorted out before hand. I’ll never forget when he appeared This Morning and after being pushed by Philip Schofield as to what happened if we lose, he very casually took a sip of water and said “well then the next day I’ll trigger Article 50 and we’ll leave”. Will you now David?

Yep.  But, as you say, it never even crossed his mind that he might lose.  

[DaveSumm]

Just now, Mosi Mynn said:

Ha ha!  Yes I know the real reason!  

But why even have "non-binding" as an option?  What is the purpose of a referendum that isn't binding?

To gauge public opinion on a subject before taking action I guess?