Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus wrote: »

The deal is that if WA is approved by 29 March, EU has said that UK will get extension to 22 May.

If WA is not passed by 29 March, UK has until 12 April to make a plan and then ask for a longer extension to execute the plan. No guarantee that the longer extension will be given; depends on the plan, and on what EU thinks of it.

One possible scenario is that WA gets approved after 29 March, and then UK goes to EU and says "Here's our plan; we'll implement the WA. How about it?" And I would think their prospects of getting an extension to 22 May in that case would be pretty good.

I guess she may be gambling on the indicative process failing, or even subverting it in some way, and then WA making a lazarus like return as the only show in town other than no deal or a divisively long extension. Problem with that is there are much more popular options than her deal now, denying them proper due process would not go down well with parliament.

lawred2 wrote: »

Tony Blair's Labour party contributed to the success of the GFA.

The Tories are doing what they have always done with NI. Treating it as either a pawn in their political games or just something to be ignored and treated with contempt in equal measures.

To be fair - John Major's Government had laid some of the first steps towards the GFA with the 1993 Declaration.
His Government weren't perfect in how they addressed the North, but they showed a significant shift in attitude compared to Thatcher's attitude prior to that. It was only when he lost his majority and became reliant on UUP votes in Westminister that the wheels came off the progress Major had started to make

I was on the ferry from the UK this morning and there was some strange activity while I was queued. The incoming ferry was docking and a large van pulled up at the end of the ramp. They set up cones and magnetic blue and red flashing lights. There was a crew of three. They had "Border Force" on their high-viz jackets.

Two of the team stood at the cones and observed all the cars coming off the ferry while one sat in the van, she was looking at a monitor and communicating with one of the team by radio. They stopped no cars and packed up and left when all the cars had disembarked.

I use this ferry route regularly and have never seen this happen.

No deal preparations perhaps?

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Are we even clear that Bercow will allow MV3 on foot of May's agreement to resign?

Yesterday before the debates about the indicative votes, Bercow explicitly said he will only allow another vote on Theresa May's deal if there is a substantive change to the previous motion. This is extremely unlikely to happen now from the EU side, so she may be forced to include something from the HOC side to change the motion, something like attaching a referendum. Of course, May wouldn't agree to this, so she'd probably just allow the UK to crash out in 2 weeks rather than climb down and propose her own deal being put to a referendum.

Akrasia wrote: »

Yesterday before the debates about the indicative votes, Bercow explicitly said he will only allow another vote on Theresa May's deal if there is a substantive change to the previous motion. This is extremely unlikely to happen now from the EU side, so she may be forced to include something from the HOC side to change the motion, something like attaching a referendum. Of course, May wouldn't agree to this, so she'd probably just allow the UK to crash out in 2 weeks rather than climb down and propose her own deal being put to a referendum.

Well realistically where would that take the process? It must be odds on that a referendum on May's deal would be defeated. Then what?

Silent Running wrote: »

I was on the ferry from the UK this morning and there was some strange activity while I was queued. The incoming ferry was docking and a large van pulled up at the end of the ramp. They set up cones and magnetic blue and red flashing lights. There was a crew of three. They had "Border Force" on their high-viz jackets.

Two of the team stood at the cones and observed all the cars coming off the ferry while one sat in the van, she was looking at a monitor and communicating with one of the team by radio. They stopped no cars and packed up and left when all the cars had disembarked.

I use this ferry route regularly and have never seen this happen.

No deal preparations perhaps?

Looks like it could well be. Some activity at Eurotunnel this morning too. Not sure who's benefit it's for

https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1111210715636031488

Sam Russell wrote:

John Major was reported to be the only man to run away from the circus to become an accountant.

Edwina Currie seemed to find him interesting enough.

Analysing the Indicative votes at this stage it be more useful to look at the votes AGAINST than FOR in the indicative votes keeping an eye on abstentions:



Some Indications: (assuming abstain = Potential yes)

1-Five options (all soft/ref/revoke) could have potential majorities when Abstains added.
2-Hard Brexit dead
3-DUP abstaining on SOFT options.
4- If UK parliament ever stumbles into Deal V Revoke: It would be easy majority for Revoke
5-A simple Irish style PR vote (1-8 Pref with eliminations and subsequent redistribution) could whittle it down to any number and would provide far deeper indication analysis.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Does Theresa May even have time to vote through her deal tomorrow? It needs to be substantially different and since the EU are done facilitating her silly games, that means she'll have to attach either a general election or a confirmatory referendum to it to get past the speaker considering the dearth of support for the deal. She seems to have underestimated the DUP. Saying "NO!" is the one thing they do consistently. They're not going to change the habit of half a century.

It has to be lodged with the speaker today if it is to be voted on tomorrow apparently.

Gosh, you would'nt miss Bertie Ahern's man of the people, international diplomat spiel.

He was on S'O'R and was handing out brickbats to May, Andrew Brickens, and the DUP for 'at least' 'being consistent'.
But apparently SF's policy of abstensionism is to be regretted and will need review when the dust settles.
Having abstentionism as a policy since the foundation of the party, is apparently not a 'consistent' position for bertie.

robinph wrote: »

Is there something that prevents them having an option A v option B vote?

There hasn't been any talk of such a vote so far, and if they are only allowed to have option A (y/n) and separately option B (y/n) then we'll never be able to get past this point.

The weakness of the indicative votes is how to analyise and act on the indications. They need a system to whittle choices down.

A straight PR system 1-8 on the ballot would work. Lowest eliminated and votes redistributed based on next preference.

Maybe for an amendment in future.

There is a lot to be learned from this for MPs.
The hardest remaining realistic Brexit is the WA with the PD as it is now.
So does the likes of Steve Baker (The worst Baker since the guy who burned London down in 1666)..he must choose between the WA or its massively likely there will be something softer or ever more likely with a long extension: No Brexit.