Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

robinph wrote: »

The 200 that voted for her tonight are certainly not all going to be voting for her deal if that eventually makes it up to be voted on. They just don't want to have anyone else in the PM job for now.

Yes, I agree she has a lot more MPs to convince than 127, but one thing is almost certain, those 117 who voted against her in the NCV will vote the same way against the deal in the absence of legally binding concessions from the EU.

Parliament, except 60 Brexiteers won't countenance a Crash out Brexit. Parliament will extend Art 50.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Imagine a train. Imagine that for some reason the line splits and a democratic vote is taken amongst the passengers which way to go and they voted for left.
After a short distance it turns out that going left leads to a straight 100 meter plunge off a cliff, but turning right takes them safely to their destination.
Is it unreasonable to hold a second vote which will yield a different outcome based on new information that wasn't available at the first vote?
I think not.
.

In Britain they would have a vote to make the train fly and carry on towards the cliff.

prawnsambo wrote: »

Parliament can unilaterally withdraw the A50 notice. The ECJ just ruled on that this week. They'd also have to repeal the EU withdrawal act, but they could do that in the same motion.

Yes PARLIAMENT can repeal the EU Withdrawal Act. That's precisely my point. The OP seemed to suggest that Teresa May can do it of her own volition!

awec wrote:

Ultimately what I think will happen is things will trundle on for another month or so, then the EU and the UK will come up with some superfluous change of wording that allows May and the EU to sell it as a new agreement, but really contains no substantial change, and will allow MPs who have been so outspoken about not voting for the agreement to vote for the new version and save some face, once it finally sinks in that there is no alternative.

Not at all. I listened to the HoC debates for several hours yesterday when the vote on the deal was cancelled. There are several factions and none will buy any reassurances May may secure from the EU unless the WA is amended.

The factions can be summarised as follows:
SNP - challenging Corbyn to call no confidence vote, Tories are bad, advancing the Scottish cause
Plaid Cymru - pointing out damage to the Wales under any Brexit scenario, asking Labour to call for a no confidence vote
DUP - burn the backstop, conspiracy theories, delusions, calling for a hardest of Brexits, talking about union which no one else mentions
Lib Dems - pointing at the deadlock and impossibility to deliver Brexit, calling for second referendum
Tory A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Tory B - May needs to renegotiate the deal
Tory C - May can't get anything renegotiated, anything she brings back is worthless, solution not offered
Tory D - let's be pragmatic, this is the only deal we will get, so we need to compromise
Tory E - Tory D + threat of Corbyn government
Tory F - let's be pragmatic, the HoC can't agree on anything, let's put the matter back to the people (Grieve)
Labour A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Labour B - Tories are in shambles, let's put Brexit back to the people
Labour C - pointing out poverty, public services cut, May's deal doesn't help with any of the these, solution not offered
Labour D - May's deal is bad for jobs, she needs to renegotiate
Labour E - May's deal is bad jobs, she needs to make way for me to renegotiate (Corbyn)

I was laughing, shaking my head and shouting at times whiles watching that. If it wasn't for real it would have been a spectacular drama. The Parliament is effectively hung and paralysed. There are several opinions and none of of them commands a majority. Labour aren't offering anything, Tories are split into at least three or four factions.

McGiver wrote: »

Not at all. I listened to the HoC debates for several hours yesterday when the vote on the deal was cancelled. There are several factions and none will buy any reassurances May may secure from the EU unless the WA is amended.

The factions can be summarised as follows:
SNP - challenging Corbyn to call no confidence vote, Tories are bad, advancing the Scottish cause
Plaid Cymru - pointing out damage to the Wales under any Brexit scenario, asking Labour to call for a no confidence vote
DUP - burn the backstop, conspiracy theories, delusions, calling for a hardest of Brexits, talking about union which no one else mentions
Lib Dems - pointing at the deadlock and impossibility to deliver Brexit, calling for second referendum
Tory A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Tory B - May needs to renegotiate the deal
Tory C - May can't get anything renegotiated, anything she brings back is worthless, solution not offered
Tory D - let's be pragmatic, this is the only deal we will get, so we need to compromise
Tory E - Tory D + threat of Corbyn government
Tory F - let's be pragmatic, the HoC can't agree on anything, let's put the matter back to the people (Grieve)
Labour A - people voted leave, we have to get on with it, solution not offered
Labour B - Tories are in shambles, let's put Brexit back to the people
Labour C - pointing out poverty, public services cut, May's deal doesn't help with any of the these, solution not offered
Labour D - May's deal is bad for jobs, she needs to renegotiate
Labour E - May's deal is bad jobs, she needs to make way for me to renegotiate (Corbyn)

I was laughing, shaking my head and shouting at times whiles watching that. If it wasn't for real it would have been a spectacular drama. The Parliament is effectively hung and paralysed. There are several opinions and none of of them commands a majority. Labour aren't offering anything, Tories are split into at least three or four factions.

Excellent summation.

Thank goodness for PR and Coalitions here.
At least things get thrashed out and (eventually) agreed.

The Lib Dems kept Cameron on the straight and narrow. May needs a long spoon with the DUP.

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

Rees-Mogg is spot on.
She needs to go and make way for somebody who might actually get something done.
She's both a lame-duck and a headless chicken imo. Quite a feat eh?

What's Rees Mogg's big idea if he is so smart?

I'm not sure any other politician could have had things turn out any differently than the way they have so far.

Laois_Man wrote: »

Well for starters, a decent PM could have brought home the 20+ point lead they had on the day the 2017 General Election was called which would have translated to an overall parliamentary majority of more than 100 seats.

Or could have had the sense to not call the needless General Election in the first place.

At least that decent PM would have a decent chance of getting a deal through parliament!

That could be a post straight from the Brexiteers playbook.
It sounds closer to a Daily Express Op-ed than the realities of the people and the circumstance involved.

Who do you think could have been that decent politician? Who did Theresa May lock in a box and prevent from getting a fair shot at this.

Tell me how wrote: »

That could be a post straight from the Brexiteers playbook.
It sounds closer to a Daily Express Op-ed than the realities of the people and the circumstance involved.

Who do you think could have been that decent politician? Who did Theresa May lock in a box and prevent from getting a fair shot at this.

I was responding to the hypothesis that no other politician could possibly have made things any better. The OP wasn't about names. The fact is, when you're in an election, and starting with a 20-point lead, and the leader of the opposition is Jeremy Corbyn, it's very clear that a far better performance cannot at all be regarded as implausible, as was implied.

Obviously, it has to be speculative; you only get to run history once. We can never know whether, e.g., Andrea Leadsom would have secured a better outcome for the UK than May in fact has secured, though we can have the pleasure of arguing about it endlessly.

It's worth noting, though, that those who argue in favour of dumping May are mostly advancing fantasy arguments in support of the view that an outcome they regard as better could be obtained. Essentially, the arguments are some flavour of "May asked for X and the EU refused, but if Raab/Davis/Rees Mogg/Corbyn asks for it with sufficient true belief, the EU will grant it". That's complete balls. Plus, those advancing such arguments conspicuously ignore the repeated statements from the EU side about what could enable a different deal - viz., drop some red lines.

Essentially, much of the opposition to May is driven by wishful thinking. Say what you like about May - and I do - but she has at least brought home sign-up from the EU to a deal which secures some of what Brexiters want (like an end to freedom of movement), and she has got the EU to climb down and grant things which, initially, they were not prepared to grant (like a UK-wide backstop, and a high degree of market access for goods). The positions advanced by her opponents in the Tory party seem likely to produce worse outcomes than this, not better.

I think Jeremy Corbyn wants the UK to have the hard brexit so he can implement his own hard left policies like mass nationalisation and he sees himself as a bit of a modern Clement Atlee, he only half heartedly supported remain and his hardcore base of poor working class tended to back brexit as they have been destroyed by freedom of movement.

judeboy101 wrote: »

Pm advises monarch on Anglican hierarchy, Catholics can't do that, pm can't delegate that responsibility therefore Catholics can't be pm

Jim2007 wrote: »

And you got this from their constitution, the unwritten one, the one they make up as they go along, combined with a bit of interference from the Supreme Court/Law Lords from time to time.

What is the legal basis for you assertion? What case are you referring to? Or is it just your opinion?

The Queen always acts on the advice of ministers, including in relation to her role in the Church of England. It's convention, not law, that the minister who advises her in relation to church matters is the Prime Minister. There is a law forbidding Catholics from advising the monarch in relation to church matters. I think the workaround, if there were ever to be a Catholic Prime Minister, would be for another minister, not a Catholic, to take on the function of advising the monarch on church matters - e.g. the Lord Chancellor.