Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

seamus · 26-03-2019 04:10PM

It sounds to me like ERG and DUP have blinked.

They seem to think that maintaining the hardline is running the risk of no Brexit at all rather than a no deal, so are willing to make deals with the figurative devil to avoid a no Brexit scenario at any cost.

This makes me cautiously optimistic.

BobbyBobberson · 26-03-2019 04:10PM

https://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1110558331599548422

Can you blame them?

Inquitus · 26-03-2019 04:12PM

seamus wrote: »

It sounds to me like ERG and DUP have blinked.

They seem to think that maintaining the hardline is running the risk of no Brexit at all rather than a no deal, so are willing to make deals with the figurative devil to avoid a no Brexit scenario at any cost.

This makes me cautiously optimistic.

Well the DUP have gone a different route to Mogg's portion of the ERG.

DUP - Delay for a year is better than signing up to the "backstop"
Mogg's ERG - Better get a Brexit of any sort now than risk a delay and losing Brexit
Francois and Hard ERG - The backstop is the worst of all world's and I am not voting for it full stop.

This split is definitely not enough to get the WA agreement over the line, to even have a chance they need all 10 of the DUP you'd think. 4-8 Labour rogues is not enough to bridge the gap.

ToBeFrank123 · 26-03-2019 04:12PM

Eod100 wrote: »

So looking like no Brexit is likelier over the short-term and possible long-term than no deal Brexit.

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1110542249715253249

Further can kicking with no guarantee anything better will result from it.

The DUP just don't want to do anything unpopular now or anything at all for that matter.

They are a party of indecisive Can Kickers.

Inquitus · 26-03-2019 04:21PM

Sammy's words of wisdom from the Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/26/wont-let-pm-remainer-horde-parliament-bully-us-backing-toxic/

Finally the announcement of the details of the no-deal Brexit arrangements by the Irish Republic at the weekend, when they confirmed that they can deal with Irish Border trade without any need for one stick of infrastructure along the border, is the final proof that the exit deal is based on one big con job. The Irish border was never an issue. It was used to secure a leaving arrangement which would dictate the restrictive terms of the UK’s future relationship with the EU.

The EU cat is out of the bag. There is no justification for the Withdrawal Agreement. The only thing that those of us who want to leave the EU have to fear is being locked into a deal which only the EU can release us from. This week's indicative votes are unlikely to present a negotiable way forward so let us not allow ourselves to be worn down by the relentless efforts of those who despise the 17.4 million people who voted to throw off the shackles of Brussels.

ShooterSF · 26-03-2019 04:22PM

mariaalice wrote: »

Does anyone know why the Queen as head of state could not in step at this stage?

She is the head of state above parliament.

Definitely won't happen but how hilarious would it be. Populous vote to leave the "undemocratic EU" and take back control of their country only to be reminded theyre servants to the crown

Inquitus · 26-03-2019 04:22PM

Edit though it's recently been clarified as not necessarily being the view of the DUP as a whole:

https://twitter.com/Laura_K_Hughes/status/1110556561246695429

Laois_Man · 26-03-2019 04:28PM

Inquitus wrote: »

Edit though it's recently been clarified as not necessarily being the view of the DUP as a whole:

https://twitter.com/Laura_K_Hughes/status/1110556561246695429

I was wondering about that - something bothered me about the idea of the DUP advocating a long extension. It didn't seem right. They need withdrawal done before any possibility of a general election which would very likely remove all and any influence they have on anything!

Anteayer · 26-03-2019 04:34PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

My mistake. We have an electoral commission.

They've had an Election Commission since 2000, but it's not really geared up to deal with something like the Brexit Referendum.

It deals with the mostly with the mechanics of elections and their financing - some of the roles that we tend to place with SIPO (Standards in Public Office Commission).

The Referendum Commission in Ireland does not stand permanently. A commission is established ahead of each referendum under the Referendum Act 1998 as amended by the 2001 act of the same name. These came about because of a successful Supreme Court challenge taken by Patricia McKenna in 1995 that ruled that the state could not spend public money supporting one side of a referendum.

It's chaired by either a retired Supreme Court Judge, a former or serving High Court judge and is made up of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Ombudsman, the Clerk of Dáil Éireann and the Clerk of Seanad Éireann. There are also some alternatives if any of those posts can't be filled by those people including: Secretary and Director of Audit of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Director of the Office of the Ombudsman, Clerk Assistant of Dáil Éireann, Clerk Assistant of Seanad Éireann.

The role has actually evolved a bit since 1998 and become slightly less proscriptive about setting out the argument, but the main purpose of the commission is to ensure balance and fairness and in someways it does actually prevent foul play and misinformation going unchallenged.

Ireland didn't arrive at this solution due to progressive legislators thinking this was a great idea, it was largely prompted by learning the hard way and ending up in the Supreme Court having mishandled past referenda, much like the UK has with this one.

I'd argue that both countries could learn from each other on this - a bit of exchange of ideas wouldn't be a bad thing!

Ireland could do with an Electoral Commission to make things more straight forward when it comes to regulating elections and the UK could certainly do with a concept of a referendum commission if it's planing to make referenda a regular part of their democratic process.

The handling of that Brexit referendum was a disaster from the very start. Even the question was ridiculous as nobody had any concept of what exactly Brexit meant. That's been the huge problem for the last two years. You cannot vote for something that is constantly being redefined. I mean one person's definition of Brexit is something akin to the EEA / EFTA while others want to cut all ties and go it totally alone. Then you've got a bizarre juxtaposition of protectionism on the one hand and absolute libertarian economics and somehow those two are coexisting side by side in the weird debate that's going on, despite the fact that they're completely contradictory.

An Ciarraioch · 26-03-2019 04:41PM

http://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1110553207854583809

Doesn't this method increase the risk of nothing gaining a majority?

Inquitus · 26-03-2019 04:44PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

http://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1110553207854583809

Doesn't this method increase the risk of nothing gaining a majority?

It does increase the risk, you would imagine people will vote Yes for their favoured option but no for all the other options, including those they deign to to be acceptable.

AV was the right way to go, properly explained beforehand as per what Ken Clark mooted a couple of months back.

Water John · 26-03-2019 04:44PM

One thing that has come through from the weekend chequers is that Raab and Johnson are watching each other as to who is the Hard Man of Brexit. Neither willing to blink from fear it damages their chances of becoming PM.
Some choice, Raab or Johnson.

I think the aim is to follow this indicative vote up next Monday with further votes.

26-03-2019 04:45PM

Well, pathetic, petty and insecure do not adequately describe this censorship. Look at the video of the performance underneath with the performance drenched in the Union Jack, and flags flying everywhere, and her dress is where the offence is: Royal Albert Hall singer asked to change 'pro-EU' dress.

It's hard to know what stage of English/British nationalism/imperialism these Brexiteers are at.

Anteayer · 26-03-2019 04:50PM

The whole thing's getting petty when it should be a debate about very substantive issues. What's worrying me is that it's very reminiscent of the kinds of 'debate' you get in Northern Ireland around symbols and symbolism instead of real issues that actually impact people's day to day lives.

It's no wonder the DUP feels right at home n the middle of it.

murphaph · 26-03-2019 04:53PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

http://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1110553207854583809

Doesn't this method increase the risk of nothing gaining a majority?

What on earth is wrong with these people? Can they not manage a simple "vote in order of your preference" like every Irish voter? What is so difficult about STV here? It's the most obvious use case!

Anteayer · 26-03-2019 04:56PM

murphaph wrote: »

What on earth is wrong with these people? Can they not manage a simple "vote in order of your preference" like every Irish voter? What is so difficult about STV here? It's the most obvious use case!

Well, I suppose it's a different use case in this scenario. They're not assigning weight to the options, just holding multiple votes on a whole pile of different proposals simultaneously to assess which has a mandate and which hasn't.

It's more of a survey than a vote. The terminology used in Westminster is just a bit archaic and eccentric.

Panrich · 26-03-2019 04:58PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

http://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1110553207854583809

Doesn't this method increase the risk of nothing gaining a majority?

They can vote yes to multiple options so there will be a majority for at least one you'd assume.

Water John · 26-03-2019 05:00PM

It will allow MPs to talk the first results over before having a second ballot. Think this more in terms of electing a Pope. It hopefully for many creates an evolving process.

Inquitus · 26-03-2019 05:02PM

Water John wrote: »

It will allow MPs to talk the first results over before having a second ballot. Think this more in terms of electing a Pope. It hopefully for many creates an evolving process.

Aye its is more "corruptable" than a single AV vote would be, allowing people to vote tactically and work with each other as rounds progress to try and shape the outcome in a way which reflects their intent more. You could deliberately vote against something to exclude it from progress for instance knowing when it came to a final vote it might garner a lot of support if it was the last remain option, for example you could try and get "revoke" off the table.

Spook_ie · 26-03-2019 05:10PM

Enzokk wrote: »

Well the problem with this is from the UK side and not the EU. The Brexiteers fought against leaving NI inside the EU basically and they were threatening to diverge from EU rules but take NI with them. So it doesn't take away the need for the backstop, it just means the backstop is the solution even if there is no-deal Brexit. This is because of the GFA. This was known before the referendum and never discussed.

The problem is the power the DUP has in the UK right now. Funny as ever that Sammy Wilson is quick to remind everyone that Brexit is a whole 4 nation affair but other stuff, like gay rights is not. He is British when it suits him and it depends on social issues.

No WA = no backstop, only the commitment to no new border infrastructure from Ireland and UK, which isn't compatible with the EU.

FrancieBrady · 26-03-2019 05:12PM

Panrich wrote: »

They can vote yes to multiple options so there will be a majority for at least one you'd assume.

But May has said the results will not be binding on the government, so who knows, it could just be another pointless talk shop.

ancapailldorcha · 26-03-2019 05:15PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But May has said the results will not be binding on the government, so who knows, it could just be another pointless talk shop.

That's only what she says. She still needs Parliament to vote through one option to avert no deal.

awec · 26-03-2019 05:15PM

Inquitus wrote: »

Edit though it's recently been clarified as not necessarily being the view of the DUP as a whole:

https://twitter.com/Laura_K_Hughes/status/1110556561246695429

I have to say, I was surprised when I saw the DUP prefer a 1 year extension, but it makes more sense that it was just Sammy Wilson blowing hard.

A lot can change in 1 year. The chances of the UK getting through a year without an election must be slim-to-none. In a year's time, chances are the DUP will be an irrelevance.

The DUP need a deal now while they still have an iron in the fire. Otherwise they'll be watching on as spectators.

Last night's vote must have spooked them. It has to have. If the indicative vote comes out with a result that the DUP are not warm to they are going to find it hard to spin. They must see there is a chance of parliament pulling the rug out from under them.

Inquitus · 26-03-2019 05:17PM

The official taking control document:

https://twitter.com/hilarybennmp/status/1110565759674212352

Water John · 26-03-2019 05:18PM

TM said at the Despatch Box 108 times that the UK was leaving the EU on the 29th March. TM says lots of things until they prove inoperable. What she says carries little weight any more. Events will push he along.

woohoo!!! · 26-03-2019 05:19PM

No deal is dead, just has to be formally buried. Whilst Mays deal has got a boost, I'm not seeing it getting the numbers although if you strip it down, it allows whatever version of Brexit or indeed remain, a means to an end. I'm seeing a long extension, a GE and a NI only backstop. Brexit is going to turn out to be a much softer exit than heretofore suggested in the UK.

As an aside, Westminster is dead to the norths nationalists, look at how the SNP are faring there for another reason. I'm told that both SF and the SDLP are firmly getting the message from their canvassing not to ever set foot in Westminster. Stormont is also dead, and look no further than the DUP for the reason. It'll take a huge change for Stormont to ever reopen. And they're all looking to Dublin.

Joe_ Public · 26-03-2019 05:21PM

Water John wrote: »

TM said at the Despatch Box 108 times that the UK was leaving the EU on the 29th March. TM says lots of things until they prove inoperable. What she says carries little weight any more. Events will push he along.

That’s very true. I am inclined to think she’d disrupt the indicative voting if it got in the way of her deal but that remains to be seen. It also seems likely she’ll announce her own leaving date tomorrow and that could be a gamechanger.

An Ciarraioch · 26-03-2019 05:26PM

More clarity now - runoff on Monday between the most popular options:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/mar/26/brexit-government-may-ignore-result-of-indicative-votes-process-says-hancock-live-news

Laois_Man · 26-03-2019 05:30PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

More clarity now - runoff on Monday between the most popular options

April 1st?

We'll be getting false news all day! :P

Loafing Oaf · 26-03-2019 05:31PM

Water John wrote: »

TM said at the Despatch Box 108 times that the UK was leaving the EU on the 29th March. TM says lots of things until they prove inoperable. What she says carries little weight any more. Events will push he along.

But it's still within her power to push through 'no deal', if that was what she wanted to do, assuming parliament is unable to agree on her deal or any other over the coming days. This is largely why people are making such an effort to parse her words. But it's looking increasingly like she doesn't want to drag her country over that cliff.

Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments