UK Politics: What Goes DUP Must Come Down

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Neither the CU, nor a 2nd referendum are close to a majority.  On a whipped vote, the majorities against both are over 60.

The CU got within 3 votes and Ref3 got within a dozen, so no. The ability of the whips to impose order on the situation is breaking down (especially with the Tory chief whip going on TV to yell about how shit the Prime Minister is being). I can see CU passing on another try with other alternatives taken off the table.

[SeanF]

11 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The CU got within 3 votes and Ref3 got within a dozen, so no. The ability of the whips to impose order on the situation is breaking down (especially with the Tory chief whip going on TV to yell about how shit the Prime Minister is being). I can see CU passing on another try with other alternatives taken off the table.

Senior ministers did not take part in the indicative votes - if the whip applies, they will.   

I think a CU could win a majority, but only if MP's who want a second referendum are willing to support it.  Currently, TIG, most Lib Dems, 3 Conservatives, and 33 Labour did not.

[SeanF]

45 minutes ago, Nothing Has Changed said:

John Rentoul's assessment;

''To conclude for tonight. Those hard Remainers right to hold firm. Chance of no-deal Brexit still low: Commons won't allow it; EU won't abandon Ireland to it. Either deal goes through or EU grants long extension & we fight Eur Parl elections.''

I think he's right. I certainly hope so anyway. 

Hard Remainers and Hard Brexiters both believe they can win total victory, and therefore risk total defeat.

I would settle for what I could tolerate.

[williamjm]

Just now, SeanF said:

Senior ministers did not take part in the indicative votes - if the whip applies, they will.   

I think a CU could win a majority, but only if MP's who want a second referendum are willing to support it.  Currently, TIG, most Lib Dems, 3 Conservatives, and 33 Labour did not.

I think the SNP abstained on that one as well.

[SeanF]

Potentially, then, CU could have healthy lead, but many anti-Brexit MP's hate it.

[ants]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

Potentially, then, CU could have healthy lead, but many anti-Brexit MP's hate it.

I'm not sure why anyone actually likes it.  Beyond stopping immigration, it seems the worst of all possible worlds.  On goods the UK would be a rule taker from the EU for most important things, and be blocked from negotiating their own trade deals.  On services (which is a HUGE part of the UK economy) they're fucked.  And everyone knows to keep prices down and things running immigration would have to be about the same level anyway.

It literally does nothing to placate either side.  I'm confused as to why it is getting any support at all, let alone being one of the leading candidates.  

[Mosi Mynn]

7 hours ago, SeanF said:

So, the three options remain what they have been for months.  Pass the WA, a No Deal Brexit, or passing a VONC in the government to instal a government that will revoke A50.

Can a government revoke A50? Would the HoC have to vote on that too? Would they need a second referendum? 

[Rorshach]

13 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Yup, but I genuinely don't know if that actually matter, or if so how much. My understanding now that they have identical deals with the EU, rather than being in "a club" together, negotiating as a group.

I just don't know, whilst I think it is what would likely have been proposed 2 years ago had any attempt at consensus/cooperation actually happened; I won't claim to know the ins and outs.

We are a club: the remains of EFTA. 

Also Liechtenstein and Switzerland, but the latter isn't all that involved. My old professor used to joke about this being the only place Norway was a superpower.

 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Mosi Mynn said:

Can a government revoke A50? Would the HoC have to vote on that too? Would they need a second referendum? 

No second referendum is needed.  Lawyers are divided whether the government would need Parliament's consent to revoke A50, or if they could use the Royal Prerogative.

[Werthead]

9 hours ago, ants said:

I'm not sure why anyone actually likes it.  Beyond stopping immigration, it seems the worst of all possible worlds.  On goods the UK would be a rule taker from the EU for most important things, and be blocked from negotiating their own trade deals.  On services (which is a HUGE part of the UK economy) they're fucked.  And everyone knows to keep prices down and things running immigration would have to be about the same level anyway.

It literally does nothing to placate either side.  I'm confused as to why it is getting any support at all, let alone being one of the leading candidates.  

I get the impression that quite a few MPs are now under pressure to get anything passed whatsoever just to end the fucking nightmare. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if we had "Brexit in name only" but which still allowed us to say "We've left the EU", quite a lot of people who voted Brexit (who didn't particularly understand the details of WTF was going on) would be satisfied with that, as long as our day-to-day quality of life was not impacted.

With the CU option is that is highly debatable, of course.

[Werthead]

The British government has just said fuck it and is now doing things that outright breach the Good Friday Agreement.

[Nevarfeather]

44 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The British government has just said fuck it and is now doing things that outright breach the Good Friday Agreement.

The hostile environment spreading to Irish citizens isn't really a surprise
but I can't understand why the UK gov never seems to understand the obligations the GFA places upon them, from borders to citizens it's like the GFA is treated like it's a suggestion rather than a binding peace treaty. Appalling. 

[karaddin]

You'd think these people that were adults though the last decades of The Troubles would have more concern about inviting them back, but they seem so colossally entitled they can't fathom Irish not subordinating themselves. It's bizarre.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

17 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Do they actually get a say in the matter? I would think the EU is free to negotiate its relationship with any nation and only the EU members get a say in the nature of that relationship.

The EFTA countries Norway, Iceland Liechtenstein (I think it's those three, I am too lazy too google, so if they are incorrect somebody feel free to correct me) are sort of an organization in itself. So if they strongly and loudly say no. I don't see the UK getting in there.

 

16 hours ago, Werthead said:

She can also just resign, but I can't see a single one of the prospective replacements doing anything other than being even more intransigent, so even less will get done. They can try to crash us out without a deal, but Parliament seems dead-set against that as well.

I was dead-set against the Twilight movies or 50 shades of grey. Didn't make a ton of a difference. The Cherry proposal could'Ve actually done something about it, but MPs decided they don't need an insurance. Personally I think after this spectacle yesterday the odds of no-deal have gone up significantly. We will know next week. EU special summit, however, if Tusk really wants to know in advance where the UK thinks this shit is going, I am not sure what the answer to this is. I know the PM will say, I will bring my deal back to a vote and I intend to win it. Hopefully not paired with a 90 minute speech.

 

15 hours ago, williamjm said:

I think the SNP abstained on that one as well.

No, I think the SNP and Labour (who would'Ve thought) were the ones voting for alternatives, the adults in the room if you will. This time it was the TIGers (or Change UK or whatever they call themselves), Tories (duh), and LibDems who messed this up.

[A wilding]

So May now wants Corbyn to sign up to asking for a "short extension" to the Brexit deadline during which MPs are to agree to her deal.

Is she delusional, or is this just a cynical attempt to pin the blame for no deal Brexit on him? 50-50 in my opinion.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, A wilding said:

So May now wants Corbyn to sign up to asking for a "short extension" to the Brexit deadline during which MPs are to agree to her deal.

Is she delusional, or is this just a cynical attempt to pin the blame for no deal Brexit on him? 50-50 in my opinion.

Of course she would do that, you could see this was gonna happen when the results came in yesterday and they showed May with that weird mixture of half smile half grin on her face.

Anyway, the EU won't play ball with the "short extension". It can't, because of the EU elections. That's why I think we are headed for no-deal after last night.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, A wilding said:

So May now wants Corbyn to sign up to asking for a "short extension" to the Brexit deadline during which MPs are to agree to her deal.

Is she delusional, or is this just a cynical attempt to pin the blame for no deal Brexit on him? 50-50 in my opinion.

Why not both?

Regardless though she has to know her time in office is running out. There’s no way for her to survive, so she might as well do the right thing and stop playing these cynical political games.   

[Heartofice]

So after all this time and pointless votes.. THIS is where we end up?! What a joke.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Ehm. Is it just me or DID she get a short extension, during which parliament DID vote on her deal? A vote she lost, for the third time. What's the point in doing it all again? What makes her think she'll win the vote this time?

[Maithanet]

Just now, Erik of Hazelfield said:

What's the point in doing it all again? What makes her think she'll win the vote this time? 

Because all options other than passing her deal are worse for her and the Tory party.  So she keeps bringing her deal back from the dead and hoping that this time she won't have to face the degree to which she and her party have led Britain into catastrophe.