UK Politics: What Goes DUP Must Come Down

[Chaircat Meow]

6 hours ago, Spockydog said:

I can't see any scenario now in which we don't revoke A50.

You really are wildly optimistic if you can't even envision any other scenario. 

There is still a chance, even if it is pretty small, that the deal will get through. And no deal is also still there as the EU could basically force it* on the UK if they demand the UK needs a clear plan to have a long extension - which we won't have. 

*well, in the sense that British MPs lack the will or time to respond to the rejection of a long extension by revoking article. 50. 

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

There is still a chance, even if it is pretty small, that the deal will get through.

Not a chance. Not one. In a million years.

[Heartofice]

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-03-26/prime-minister-would-break-the-law-if-she-ignores-letwin-result/

Would she be breaking the law? 

[Werthead]

The EU has now moved TO TAKE CONTROL OF TIME ITSELF.

Quote

John Flack, the Conservative MEP for the East of England, said: “We’ve long been aware the EU wants too much control over our lives – now they want to control time itself."

 

Quote

Would she be breaking the law? 

Parliament voting for things that directly contradicted the governing party's manifesto (or a coalition agreement thrashed out as a compromise between two parties' manifestos, a la the LibDem-Tory coalition) would certainly create a constitutional crisis and I think would make the government want to trigger a general election, as by definition the governing party would no longer be able to fulfil its mandate (as slim as it is in this case).

The government refusing to follow Parliament's majority vote would also spark a constitutional crisis.

What that means no-one knows. We've never been in this situation before.

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Latest on petitions signed by 5.6 million people, we acknowledge you but we still are not listening much like we are not listening to parliament.

So... no surprises really.
Government responded
This response was given on 26 March 2019
This Government will not revoke Article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with Parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union.
Read the response in full
It remains the Government’s firm policy not to revoke Article 50. We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.
Revoking Article 50, and thereby remaining in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in Government.
The Government acknowledges the considerable number of people who have signed this petition. However, close to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at UK Government.
British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, including the Opposition, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum.
This Government stands by this commitment.
Revoking Article 50 would break the promises made by Government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy. As the Prime Minister has said, failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”, and it is imperative that people can trust their Government to respect their votes and deliver the best outcome for them.
Department for Exiting the European Union.

It is of course appropriate for the response to say "the govt will", "the govt's policy", "the govt remains committed". But of course parliament isn't government, so what govt won't do because of the firm stance it's taken parliament can do, if it has the balls to do it. It means that despite the above response to the petition, A50 can be revoked, and the above can still be true.

It can also still be govt policy to Brexit and honour the 2016 referendum. Since revoking A50 doesn't prevent you from invoking it again in a few year's time. The referendum did not vote on when to Brexit, it just voted to Brexit. The timeline was created by the Tory govt.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-03-26/prime-minister-would-break-the-law-if-she-ignores-letwin-result/

Would she be breaking the law? 

May just wants a side of criminality with her entree of destroying the U.K.

Let her have it.

[Ser Hedge]

6 hours ago, mormont said:

This is the type of thinking you get from people who think that memorising Ovid is the ultimate preparation for a leadership role.)

I think the current ersatz crew never got beyond PG Wodehouse. Must have cheated on all their exams.

[Vaith]

9 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

This response was given on 26 March 2019
This Government will not revoke Article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with Parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union.
Read the response in full
It remains the Government’s firm policy not to revoke Article 50. We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.
Revoking Article 50, and thereby remaining in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in Government.
The Government acknowledges the considerable number of people who have signed this petition. However, close to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at UK Government.
British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, including the Opposition, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum.
This Government stands by this commitment.
Revoking Article 50 would break the promises made by Government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy. As the Prime Minister has said, failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”, and it is imperative that people can trust their Government to respect their votes and deliver the best outcome for them.
Department for Exiting the European Union.

I suppose if you vote for an MP it means you support 100% of everything in the party manifesto. Can't agree with ending austerity without also supporting some kind of Brexit, right?

I mean, it makes sense. People don't have individual opinions. You just have your agreeing with 100% of Tories people, your 100% agreeing with Labour people, 100% agreeing with Lib Dem people, 100% agreeing with Greens people, 100% agreeing with UKIP people, 100% agreeing with Plaid Cymru people, 100% agreeing with SNP people, 100% agreeing with DUP people, and 100% agreeing with Sinn Fein people.

[BigFatCoward]

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

May just wants a side of criminality with her entree of destroying the U.K.

Let her have it.

She's just trying to get something better than 'fields of wheat' as the naughtiest thing she's ever done. 

[mormont]

Politico is suggesting that this is the list of options from which the Speaker must select about 6 for MPs to vote on.

I think he's going to have trouble coming up with that many, tbqh. At least if he wants to limit the discussion to sane things. 

https://twitter.com/DawnHFoster/status/1110818230346702849

[Which Tyler]

24 minutes ago, mormont said:

Politico is suggesting that this is the list of options from which the Speaker must select about 6 for MPs to vote on.

I think he's going to have trouble coming up with that many, tbqh. At least if he wants to limit the discussion to sane things. 

https://twitter.com/DawnHFoster/status/1110818230346702849

B - Leave the EU without a deal April 12

F&J - Leave the EU with a customs union

D - Common Market 2.0 / Norway+

G - Revoke article 50

 

L - Revoke article 50 in the event of a No Deal

M - Any withdrawal agreement must be put to a second referendum

 

Which we basically knew already; they just needed someone to actually propose them.

Interestingly, absolutely nobody has suggested May's deal

I quite like option A if he'd included the original referendum, and set the 2/3 majority "rule" for any future constitutional changes / referenda

[lacuna]

Still not sure why you guys should get a "plus" TBQH.

If anything, quitters should get a minus. 

[mormont]

I think the Speaker will be under pressure to include the Malthouse A 'compromise' option, despite the fact that if MPs vote for it you will be able to hear Michel Barnier screaming 'this fucking bullshit AGAIN?!?!' from clear across the Channel. 

[Which Tyler]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think the Speaker will be under pressure to include the Malthouse A 'compromise' option, despite the fact that if MPs vote for it you will be able to hear Michel Barnier screaming 'this fucking bullshit AGAIN?!?!' from clear across the Channel. 

Maybe, but if May's deal get rejected so thoroughly, the Malthouse would be by a much bigger margin (I think - I could be kidding myself though)

[Which Tyler]

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/237819

Allow all British citizens to vote should there be a new referendum on Brexit.

When the referendum on leaving the EU took place in 2016, a large number of British Citizens were not allowed to register their vote for a series of reasons laid down by the government. Obviously this matter affects ALL British citizens equally, therefore they should all have an equal right to vote

 

More details

British citizens living abroad for more than 15 years can’t vote.
I was one of the 700,000 British people denied a vote in the first EU referendum – that's why we need another Brexit vote

 

[Mosi Mynn]

Can British citizens who have lived abroad for 15 years vote on anything?

Was it the Tory government at the time that laid down arbitrary voting rules, or is it a legal thing?

[The Marquis de Leech]

My father's a British citizen - but he hasn't lived in the UK since 1981. Getting him to vote would be a bit... odd.

(He voted Leave in 1975, BTW, but is now an ardent Remainer-from-afar).

[Which Tyler]

34 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think the Speaker will be under pressure to include the Malthouse A 'compromise' option, despite the fact that if MPs vote for it you will be able to hear Michel Barnier screaming 'this fucking bullshit AGAIN?!?!' from clear across the Channel. 

On further thought - Malthouse may get the "No Deal" spot - as parliament has already voted to take "No Deal" off the table, Bercow would have good cause to not include it. It would be ballsy though.

 

16 minutes ago, Mosi Mynn said:

Can British citizens who have lived abroad for 15 years vote on anything?

Was it the Tory government at the time that laid down arbitrary voting rules, or is it a legal thing?

There was also a mess in that I have some friends in Romania and Austria; who didn't get their postal ballots until the day of the vote - so the day after postal ballots had to be returned by.

[mormont]

With apologies for the repeated raids on Twitter, this is gold:

'I haven't changed my mind'. 

[Mosi Mynn]

EU cannot betray 'increasing majority' who want UK to remain, says Tusk

I love this man.