UK Politics: A Third Meaningful Thread

[SeanF]

36 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Last week's vote means that the House must actively vote in favour of No Deal in order for us to crash out. How many are likely to do that? That leaves revoke.

No, they'd actually have to do something to prevent leaving on 29th March.

Anyway, we apparently have  a very big announcement coming up at about 6 pm.  

[Heartofice]

47 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

I struggle to see what's "soft brexit" about May's deal, or an anti-immigration platform. If she wanted a soft brexit, it would have happened by now; it's her red lines absolutely rule out that option.

None of May's red lines have ever appeared on a ballot paper, there is nothing about them aligns any closer to the referendum result than No Deal, or EFTA.

Her deal isn't Soft at all, but her personal position is something else. I don't its worth judging what she does by what she believes, as she seems to be more concerned with survival and pride than anything else. 

Her red lines correspond very closely with the main reasons voted for Brexit in the first place, as has been showing in almost all polling.

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Oh yeah.

We haven't even started on the really tricky decisions yet. We have 21 months to work out an entire new trading and political relationship with the EU. Tariffs, services, standards, certifications, travel and border arrangements, the lot. Based on our record so far, we're not going to be able to do that. So... what next? 

Lol, my cynical response is the Americans will come in and...Er....ravage you, to use a quaint British term.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, my cynical response is the Americans will come in and...Er....ravage you, to use a quaint British term.

Thats the most worrying aspect. Ideally Brexit is an opportunity to craft custom trade deals across the world, but all we've done is shown the world that we are a bunch of incompetent negotiators, unable to organise a piss up in a brewery. We'll get.. ravaged. You are correct.

[Tywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, my cynical response is the Americans will come in and...Er....ravage you, to use a quaint British term.

The U.K. could always use more “freedom.” Much like your country by the way. That water of yours looks awfully like a terrorist.

[SeanF]

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Thats the most worrying aspect. Ideally Brexit is an opportunity to craft custom trade deals across the world, but all we've done is shown the world that we are a bunch of incompetent negotiators, unable to organise a piss up in a brewery. We'll get.. ravaged. You are correct.

There is no chance of a UK/US trade deal being able to pass both Parliament and Congress.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

Even if they give us an extension til the end of April, how does that allow her to present the same bill again? It will still be the same parliament, no? 

My understanding was that the same bill would not be allowed in the same session of parliament. And the current session ends at the end of March.

If I understood that bit wrong, somebody with a sounder understanding of British parliament and constitutional law can correct, please.

54 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

What I'm saying is last week, the House voted to rule out No Deal. That means there is now an obligation to do more than sit on their hands as the clock runs down. If it comes to it, they will revoke. 

When optimism becomes dysfuctional. I've thus far seen nothing that suggests that May will not sit on her and doing anything other than say, look I tried to get a deal passed. Will of the people beats will of parliament.

And neither have I seen a strong majority in parliament forcing May to to revoke.

I've said it in the last thread a few times (and so have others) the vote itself was pretty meaningless. It's still the deer on the middle of the road with the car approaching quickly, and the that stupid animal just standing there frozen unable to move in either direction to get out of the way and thus avoid the crash. The deer can then take it up with Moose Jesus how it did not vote for the crash, thus it should not have happened.

[Plain, Simple Tailor]

The politics of the UK have become the plot of a bad sitcom. Just misunderstanding after misunderstanding, bad decision after bad decision, Boris Johnson being in a position of power - I'm just waiting for the laugh track to kick in. 

"How are the Tories going to get out of this one??" 

*theme music plays* 

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Is it just me or would the exact date of a possible delay play an incredibly important role in the eventual outcome? I'm thinking specifically of the upcoming EU elections in May.

If the UK does not participate in the May elections (no pun intended), that means Remain, Long delay and Other deals are definitely off the table, thus forcing parliament to choose between May's deal and No deal. (I realize this is exactly what A Horse Named Stranger wrote a page back but I don't feel it was discussed enough). 

To add a question: does May have the authority to decide that the UK will not participate in the EU elections, or would that decision have to pass parliament as well? Or did last week's house decision on seeking a delay give her a carte blanche on the timing? If so that was a grave mistake.

[Spockydog]

46 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

My understanding was that the same bill would not be allowed in the same session of parliament. And the current session ends at the end of March.

If I understood that bit wrong, somebody with a sounder understanding of British parliament and constitutional law can correct, please.

Okay, according to the HoC website, this session runs until 'summer 2019'. 

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Okay, according to the HoC website, this session runs until 'summer 2019'. 

Thats what I read too.

I think it might be possible for parliament to vote on overturning the judgement and allow a 3rd vote, though I haven't seen that mentioned since the other day as a possibility. But they have to do something! 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Anyway, Tusk response to the request is apparently.

Okay, we are willing to do that, IF the HoC accepts the deal with the EU.

However the end date is causing the EU comission some legal headaches. As in if the UK is still a member on May 23rd (EU election are beginning) it must participate.

Oh boy, this is so much fun to watch.

[Spockydog]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Thats what I read too.

I think it might be possible for parliament to vote on overturning the judgement and allow a 3rd vote, though I haven't seen that mentioned since the other day as a possibility. But they have to do something! 

No chance. Berkow's ruling, whilst inconvenient for the government, was based on tradition and principles that many MPs will be loathe to screw around with. 

A vote in the House should carry weight. There is a reason why the last time a speaker blocked a vote on these grounds was a hundred years ago.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Anyway, I stand corrected with regards to when the current session ends.

But let's try to sort this out.

The long extension will only be granted if the HoC accepts the deal.

The HoC cannot vote (thus accept) the deal until Summer.

So, we are down to revoke, long extension, crash then?

Unless the HoC takes action and overrides its own rules and votes the deal thru next week.

Man, this messed up even by Brexit standards.

[A wilding]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

What I'm saying is last week, the House voted to rule out No Deal. That means there is now an obligation to do more than sit on their hands as the clock runs down. If it comes to it, they will revoke. 

 

And last week parliament also voted for the Maybot's own motion to seek a longer extension if she had not got her deal agreed by today. Which she is conveniently ignoring with some handwaving about Bercow's ruling.

She is a monster. I can only assume that at this point she is only thinking of posterity - reasoning that her only hope of not going into the history books as the worst prime minster ever is to somehow still ram her deal through.

 

[Spockydog]

11 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Anyway, I stand corrected with regards to when the current session ends.

But let's try to sort this out.

The long extension will only be granted if the HoC accepts the deal.

The HoC cannot vote (thus accept) the deal until Summer.

So, we are down to revoke, long extension, crash then?

Unless the HoC takes action and overrides its own rules and votes the deal thru next week.

Man, this messed up even by Brexit standards.

Sums it up perfectly. Though I simply can't see Parliament allowing a crash. 

[A wilding]

5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Anyway, I stand corrected with regards to when the current session ends.

But let's try to sort this out.

The long extension will only be granted if the HoC accepts the deal.

The HoC cannot vote (thus accept) the deal until Summer.

So, we are down to revoke, long extension, crash then?

Unless the HoC takes action and overrides its own rules and votes the deal thru next week.

Man, this messed up even by Brexit standards.

As I understand it the current situation is that the Maybot  is asking for a short extension to get her deal through. Assuming she get that (and Tusk sounded positive) then the options are:

• Parliament votes for her deal (requiring some wrangling before they can even vote on it.)
• The UK crashes out with no deal (all too possible).
• Parliament votes to take control and to revoke article 50 (very unlikely I would say).

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, A wilding said:

As I understand it the current situation is that the Maybot  is asking for a short extension to get her deal through. Assuming she get that (and Tusk sounded positive) then the options are: 

• Parliament votes for her deal (requiring some wrangling before they can even vote on it.)
• The UK crashes out with no deal (all too possible).
• Parliament votes to take control and to revoke article 50 (very unlikely I would say).

 

Yes, I am sorry, that I have not made myself clear with long and short extension.

She is not asking for the real long extension (2 years+)

But for the shorter technical extension, but there she is gunning for the longest delay possible (and beyond).

And Tusk's response is apparently fine, if you (HoC) accept the deal, you can have that extension till June.

But otherwise you arrive at the same outcomes as I did.

[A wilding]

My impression is that she is deliberately only asking for a short extension, so as to box parliament into a corner.

The letter is here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47641357

[lokisnow]

48 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Thats what I read too.

I think it might be possible for parliament to vote on overturning the judgement and allow a 3rd vote, though I haven't seen that mentioned since the other day as a possibility. But they have to do something! 

To quote General Allenby’s best line in Lawrence of Arabia:

”Look sir, we cant just do nothing!”

”Why not? It’s usually best.”

they can certainly do nothing, they are in fact studied masters of this strategy.