Discussion

Main Board| Accommodation Wanted| Accommodation Offered
Start a new discussion on this board

Let your next career move come to you.

Cabinet meeting today-being reported by ministers that TMPM to press ahead with third vote

Meanwhile Barnier has confirmed an extension might be given provided the government can meet 6 conditions. Jesus these people do know there is only 15 days left.

Looks like TMPM will get her Brexit after all.

Presumably she will be cahoots with the EU to put pressure on one or the other of the breximorons or Labour & Co -  eg Extension plus referendum or the deal (to scare the ERG) or no extension - no agreement no deal (to scare Labour et al)

ebitda, these are extraordinary times, I really don't know how you can be so confident that the house would prefer no deal to a second referendum if it came down to it.  I am pretty confident they would choose a 2nd referendum (although of course accept that might not be the choice)

it is the emperors new clothes that it is "undemocratic" to go back to the people.   It is chanted like a mantra for those determined to press Brexit through but it is clearly not undemocratic to check if people have re-assessed on new information.  If they haven't - fine, we Brexit, but if they have then why should we?  Circumstances have changed dramatically - the biggest being parliament cannot agree on any form of Brexit.

Also a slew of people on the Victoria darbishire show saying they will vote against no deal being removed from the table . This vote maybe closer than many imagine .

besides if no deal is taken if the table it is :

a) not binding on TMPM and 

b) is only temporary 

so what is the point of this vote 

May wants and will have brexit at any cost 

The current danger is today's vote, which addresses the question of whether the House wishes to maintain a hard brexit as an option or hold that whatever else happens, no deal brexit is a no no.

How you answer that depends on whether you are an MP voting to maximise perceived "negotiating" strength vis a vis the EU (per DUP and ors) or one voting to safeguard the UK's economic prospects ahead. You might hope that all would attend to the latter responsibility, but no.  ERG, DUP and various lunatics think that holding the loaded gun of No Deal Brexit in one hand maximises the opportunity to shake hands on a deal with the other hand.

This is entirely misjudged. The negotiations - to the extent anything in the withdrawal agreement was not a fait accomplis and was in fact negotiated (which I doubt) - (a) are complete and exhausted (b) were never a product of threatening behaviour. The EU just doesn't do this. it takes a position of principle to protect the Project and then stands firm. A few details may be moderated to smooth matters but there is no "oh well that sounds threatening so we will back down" behaviour.

MPs need to stop fooking around voting against things and vote for something.

They shouldn't be allowed to vote to "take no deal off the table". It should be a binary choice between "no deal" and "we will not be leaving with no deal which means we will be revoking Article 50/asking for an extension in order to hold a second referendum".

And May shouldn't be allowed to bring the same fooking deal back again. Jesus fooking Christ.

why does anyone fvcking care whether mps vote against no deal? no deal is going to happen whether they like it or not if the UK doesn’t come up  with a credible and deliverable alternative which is acceptable to the EU

Even if no deal is taken off the table in the vote today, it is meaningless, we can still leave with no deal. 

They should just have back to back votes on the same date, time is really short now . I do think TMPM has finally clocked negotiations are now at an end . In the unlikely event a extension is given , what is she going to do with those extra 3 months? There will be no GE, nor referendum, nor renegotiations so utterly pointless.

I think the House would rather revoke A50 than go to no deal - although I agree it is unlikely to come down to that choice (but it could if EU chose to play serious hardball)

There is absolutely no way the house is going to vote to direct the government to revoke Art 50 ffs. That would be full on constitutional crisis territory.  That matters much more than the risks posed by a hard brexit. 

We have had the referendum and almost every MP in the house was elected on a platform that they would deliver Brexit.  I don't like it, but that is still reality. 

You need a new democratic mandate to reverse Brexit. 

wot anna said, also the House may well conclude that the political difficulties of revoking A50 are outweighed by the economic difficiulties of no deal

I don't think it will happen (if no other reason than the DUP and ERG are likely to fall in line if they though this threat was real) but it is certainly not impossible if the House was backed into a corner.  It would probably be accompanied by an undertaking to grant a new referendum on the basis of a50 being served again on basis of the negotiated deal or not bothering.

I would be fine with a GE or a referendum, tbh (as long as the referendum question wasn't a stitch up).

If it is the former, would May be obliged to resign. I seem to remember something about her promising she would not lead the party into the next GE as a condition for getting votes to support her at the 1922 committee vote of no confidence. Although, that might have been worded sneakily as the next GE after Brexit or something. She would probably be nuts enough to believe that she could lead the Tories into a GE.

Plus FPTP.

A general election is a terrible idea. It wouldn't resolve the issue at all. Even if one party got a majority (which I doubt they would), they wouldn't have more than 50% of the vote.

There is absolutely no way the house is going to vote to direct the government to revoke Art 50 ffs. That would be full on constitutional crisis territory.  That matters much more than the risks posed by a hard brexit. 

Why would revoking A50 be a worse thing to do than a hard brexit?  I seriously do not understand this.

TMPM and others are still wibbling on about the will of the people in 2016.  Well that vote was based on lies, as we all know.  And why is the "will" of 17.4m people (a) worth more than what anyone else wants, and (b) being allowed to prevail in the face of many, many facts pointing towards economic disaster? 

Why does the govt not just stand up and say: We had an advisory ref in 2016. We listened to the result of that.  It was very close, but we have tried to implement it.  On the way, the UK car industry has been decimated, a lot of money and resources have been wasted, many facts have come to light (etc) that show that to implement brexit would not be in the interests of the country.  We therefore aren't doing it. 

Cue unrest from the usual suspects, but so what in the scheme of things.

The prospect of an imminent election is why Corbyn is so reluctant to utter the R word, even now, with two weeks to go, he is trying to ride the remain and brexit horses.  It is really hard to decide which party is worse on this (well it isn't it is the Tories this whole shitshow is about resolving their internal divides and ironically it seems likely to split them once and for all).

It would probably be accompanied by an undertaking to grant a new referendum on the basis of a50 being served again on basis of the negotiated deal or not bothering.

I thought the ruling was pretty clear that wouldn't be a valid Art 50 revocation. 

Really?  How is what government promises to its electorate relevant to the validity of A50 revocation?  Surely it cannot be the case that once revoked A50 can never be served again.   

Anyway, I am sure the EU would allow it if it meant another referendum could take place - these things are all ultimately political rather than legal. 

The judgment said that the right to revoke Article 50 couldn't be used abusively, i.e. you can't revoke and then trigger it again just to buy yourself more time.

i.e. to buy yourself more time "for a re-consideration".

I really don't think that would fly.

Nothing to stop you serving it and then offering up a new ref in the manifesto for the next election though, but I do think if we're in a situation where they'd refused to extend and we tried to revoke Art 50 whilst publicly stating we'd be having another ref then they'd tell us to do one.

We can revoke A50 unilaterally.  That would have to knock the issue of leaving on the head, though, for quite some time.  Which I think is the right thing to do.   

Let's face it, no-deal is a terrible idea.  And it will get voted down tonight.  

The House of Commons won't approve May's pig of a deal.  

There is no time to negotiate a new deal, even a crude one, and the EU has said they won't do this anyway.  

That leaves either and extension to the Art. 50 period or a revocation of Art. 50.  

Extension requires EU agreement from each of the 27 countries.  They will not give this lightly.  

Revocation on the other hand is politically unpalatable to the current HofC.  

So my money is on a vote against no-deal tonight followed by a request tot he EU to extend time based on a General Election, followed by a LONG extension, followed by a second referendum which will produce a REMAIN vote, followed by a revocation and in the end NO BREXIT.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

There won't be any renegotiation. The options are this deal, no deal, or revoke and remain. (Not revoke and renegotiate.) We probably don't need to revoke Article 50 to have a second referendum, because I think they would give us an extension for that. The idea is that if we revoke it is because we intend to remain. Of course that can't mean indefinitely, but it should mean that the subject is not revisited in the near future.

The interesting question from a legal point of view is how you determine whether a member state has acted abusively, and if they have, what the consequences are. If the effect of revocation is that you return to the status quo ante, before Article 50 was triggered, then from a legal point of view everything goes back to the way it was. We are full members of the EU, we retain our existing opt outs and rebate, and the wording of Article 50 remains unchanged.

So if we were to revoke and then trigger Article 50 six months later, that would almost certainly be deemed abusive, but what is the effect of that finding? Would the revocation be treated as invalid (which would mean we crash out with no deal, but from what date?), or would the re-triggering be treated as invalid? How could it be treated as invalid if we had triggered it in accordance with our own constitutional requirements? (Thanks to Miller, we now know beyond a doubt what these are.)

The whole thing is a minefield.

 

All valid points, but as I say, it is not really a legal issue, it is a question of political will on both sides.  They wont let the European Court stop something both sides want to happen.

Anyway, I think revocation of A50 whether for a referendum or otherwise is pretty unlikely tbh.

Well if we had a referendum and the result was to remain then we would still have to actually revoke after that.

So it's either revocation (either now or following an extension and second referendum) or crash out.

I am not convinced that the arithmetic for a general election is that clear cut. It could be interesting. Especially if there is a new Tory Party leader going into it. It's not a GREAT idea but none of the options are particularly enticing. If this is the avenue we go down , it's not worth getting upset about. Another referendum is more likely but a GE is just about the only other feasible option.

As for the court stopping something both sides want to happen, I'm pretty sure that if we revoked Article 50 and then triggered it again, the EU would be happy to let us crash out. They've made much more progress with their no deal preparations than we have anyway.

if they called another GE I would be up for a civil war and I assume there are many with a lower threshold than me

gutting that me and ducks are going to have to become mortal enemies tho

I'd make it quick

One way through this is for May to offer Corbyn a general election in exchange for supporting the withdrawal arrangement.  Both parties could then campaign for the sort of substantive deal they want to negotiate during the transition.

 

the withdrawal agreement allows for staying in the customs union, it allows for most things, that is what most people don't seem to understand - it doesn't say much at all about the post transition arrangements.

and he is not pretending to want a GE - this will be a single issue election and those polls will move fast when an election is called - outcome is entirely up in the air.

I think you could get the majority of the party to support a EEA style soft brexit if it got the party into power.   I am a hard core remainer but could be persuaded to fall behind that.

I would support a Labour government on that basis too. We need a solution to the Brexit problem and a permanent customs union is actually a viable solution.

worth a shot, Guy

Bercow stating that if TMPM keeps asking for a vote on the same question she's on the naughty step

although according to Gove the deal is 'significantly different' to the one in January

the utter gall of these people

Gove will be first against the wall when the revolution comes, he has no idea what’s waiting for him. 

TMPM plainly doesn’t realise her cough is in fact a herald for the wraiths that are circling in Mordor for her

There are two Britains going forward - one for those who caused this mess and want Brexit, and one for the rest of us who are going to crack on in utter contempt of the first lot.

There are two Britains going forward - one for those who caused this mess and want Brexit, and one for the rest of us who are going to crack on in utter contempt of the first lot.

If only.

Join the discussion

Login Register