Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Clytus wrote: »

As much as I detest Alister Campbell, he's the only one making sense of this in commentary terms.

What a failure the indicative votes have been! This should have given Macron reason to be a little more flexible on a final Brexit day.

I may have also been hoping for more clarity but even if one of the options had succeeded it would not have become law or something the EU could have acted on as it is not government policy. It is what it says on the tin, indicative votes to show what parliament may be thinking. Instead of having to spend time listening to MPs talking about Malthouse or no-deal it has now been dismissed again quite convincingly. But there are 2 options that may have a chance of gaining support if discussions are had on them and this should be further explored.

This will now happen on Monday, if parliament still doesn't vote for something and May's deal either will not get through or even be voted on then the only options are no-deal or revoke or general election.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So am I right in thinking that that no deal is still on the table despite what many people are saying it's off the table. The default position without Theresa May deal is passed the UK will leave the EU with no deal on April 12th, 2019 regardless what the commons votes to avoid a no deal.

It will always be the default option as the way article 50 is written I think. The only way to ensure it doesn't happen was to support her deal or revoke. That has not changed.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Not binding vote though.

Yes, MPs may vote against no-deal itself time and again but they will need to vote for a deal or to revoke to ensure it happens. I mean I could vote to save money every month but it will not happen, unless I physically start saving money (yeah, I know a crap analogy).

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Not binding vote though.

That’s true but as much as I would rule anything out it’s no deal. Absolutely nobody beyond a few extremists wants it and they can’t - won’t - make it happen. In the event it’s still alive, I believe they can, with a house majority, make an appeal to the crown to stop it and such appeals, while also not binding, are never in practice denied. So I’ve read anyway.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Anybody know why the votes aren’t binding?

It's an indicative vote.

It was no big surprise that all 8 votes were rejected tonight, this is after all a process.
The fact that the customs union one only lost by 8 votes, and the confirmatory vote also received good support is encouraging.
It is still impossible to know what the govt will do in the event of mv3 failing. Surely a long extension with a general election is the only other option at this stage.

May should either leave with no deal on April 12th or else withdraw article 50, to prolong this messing for another few months or years is unacceptable

joe40 wrote: »

It was no big surprise that all 8 votes were rejected tonight, this is after all a process.
The fact that the customs union one only lost by 8 votes, and the confirmatory vote also received good support is encouraging.
It is still impossible to know what the govt will do in the event of mv3 failing. Surely a long extension with a general election is the only other option at this stage.

I think there was a gap in explaining what tonight was about. I wasn't fully aware of it either until the speaker confirmed that they will have more time on Monday to try and find consensus again and they will do that by eliminating the options that had the least support.

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes, MPs may vote against no-deal itself time and again but they will need to vote for a deal or to revoke to ensure it happens. I mean I could vote to save money every month but it will not happen, unless I physically start saving money (yeah, I know a crap analogy).

This is true. There is Deal or No Deal...everything else is internal British politics and is really of no consequence outside Britain, entertaining as it is.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s not really an explanation. Just another way of saying it.

Anyway the real question is whether a proper binding vote can be held on the top two performing votes today. I think so but it’s not totally clear.

As for no deal if the WA is rejected or even not debated the exit date is 12 April, unless it is accepted then it’s May 22. All moot if the commons asks for another extension.

The government doesn't have to act on them. There is the possibility of the 2 parts of the executive facing off here, i.e. utter utter chaos.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s not really an explanation. Just another way of saying it.

Anyway the real question is whether a proper binding vote can be held on the top two performing votes today. I think so but it’s not totally clear.

As for no deal if the WA is rejected or even not debated the exit date is 12 April, unless it is accepted then it’s May 22. All moot if the commons asks for another extension.

It's not another way of saying it, that's literally what those votes are called. I think a motion carries more weight against the government but honestly I'm not sure and over the past few years I've learnt far more about the inner workings of the HoC than I ever thought or wished I would.

woohoo!!! wrote: »

So what's the way forward? No deal and the WA are dead, finito. All leads to an extension request and a GE, perhaps at same time as European elections.

An election can be called by a two thirds majority or the PM losing a vote of confidence and 2 weeks later, confirmation that an alternative government/PM cannot be formed and therefore GE automatically called.

A long extension request, if granted, will have a shorter and a longer deadline (both over a longer period than the existing deadlines), on the same principle as the existing deadlines. EU whilst staying they prefer remain, will accept a softer Brexit but that depends on who/What party or parties are in power.

Labour have been calling for a GE all along. But I think they could get a rude awakening. They will never win a majority as long as Corbyn is leader. He is the most inept leader since Michael Foot. The vast majority of Brits are conservative, (some with a small c and some with a big C). Labour only wins when the leader is a moderate.
The most optimistic outcome of a GE for Labour would be another hung parliament with the possibility of forming a coalition with the SNP to make up a small majority. Even this would be an outside bet.

It is time the UK were cut loose. The whole thing is a farce.

Cut them adrift and we will survive.

This crap cant go on any longer.

Theyve surely robbed society of at least 2 years of progress.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Unlikely when Labour in Scotland advocated tactical voting to deny SNP seats which then result in Tory seats!

Politicians have very short memories when the prospect of power presents itself.

Kh1993 wrote: »

Mogg now saying on Peston that he will have to vote with the DUP

He'll have a different opinion by lunchtime. Jacob's noble stance reminds me of a quote from Groucho Marx: "These are my principles and if you don't like them....well I have others."