Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Akrasia · 28-03-2019 12:13PM

lawred2 wrote: »

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?

Referendum on her deal v remain, her deal loses, therefore remain

Sam Russell · 28-03-2019 12:14PM

demfad wrote: »

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.

Well, three of the votes had an absolute majority vote against them so they should be eliminated.

Zubeneschamali · 28-03-2019 12:14PM

On the indicative votes, an interesting question is are there enough abstentions to get the proposition to pass if the abstainers back it?

In other words, is Yes+Abstain more then No?

366 - 272 Customs Union
355 - 283 Common Market 2.0
349 - 293 Revoke to avoid No Deal
342 - 295 Referendum
341 - 307 Labour plan
260 - 377 EFTA and EEA
237 - 400 No Deal
209 - 422 Standstill

From this you can see that if push came to shove, No Deal and EEA would still lose, but there are enough MPs floating to give a possible majority for any of the plans above EFTA.

murphaph · 28-03-2019 12:19PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is remarkable that indicative votes on basic things like CU weren't done two years ago.

Or even before the referendum.

mazwell · 28-03-2019 12:37PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Sorry, what's the WM? On Monday they are going to vote again on the most popular motions that went through the indicative vote process yesterday. I assume there'll be a process for this, but not sure what it is or when it will be carried out. As far as I know, the house is not sitting on Friday.

Sorry WA

bob mcbob · 28-03-2019 12:37PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

On the indicative votes, an interesting question is are there enough abstentions to get the proposition to pass if the abstainers back it?

In other words, is Yes+Abstain more then No?

366 - 272 Customs Union
355 - 283 Common Market 2.0
349 - 293 Revoke to avoid No Deal
342 - 295 Referendum
341 - 307 Labour plan
260 - 377 EFTA and EEA
237 - 400 No Deal
209 - 422 Standstill

From this you can see that if push came to shove, No Deal and EEA would still lose, but there are enough MPs floating to give a possible majority for any of the plans above EFTA.

Especially when you look at who abstained. The most pro-EU parties (SNP, LibDem & PC) abstained on pretty much everything except revocation.

Eod100 · 28-03-2019 12:37PM

Political speak for ''would ye make up yer fecking minds?!''. Looks like failure to pass WA this week is only extension to 12th April alright

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1111228988297486337

Akrasia · 28-03-2019 12:43PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

On the indicative votes, an interesting question is are there enough abstentions to get the proposition to pass if the abstainers back it?

In other words, is Yes+Abstain more then No?

366 - 272 Customs Union
355 - 283 Common Market 2.0
349 - 293 Revoke to avoid No Deal
342 - 295 Referendum
341 - 307 Labour plan
260 - 377 EFTA and EEA
237 - 400 No Deal
209 - 422 Standstill

From this you can see that if push came to shove, No Deal and EEA would still lose, but there are enough MPs floating to give a possible majority for any of the plans above EFTA.

Labour whip 'recommended' abstain against the revoke amendment

ShooterSF · 28-03-2019 12:44PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Referendum on her deal v remain, her deal loses, therefore remain

Should and I'm sure would be seen as highly undemocratic. To go back to a population that voted to leave and offer them an unpopular deal or cancel the whole thing when a lot want to leave without mays deal is stacking the referendum in remains favour.
You can say people can't be offered no deal because it is too dangerous but either you trust the people and your ability to argue your case to them or you don't go back to them at all.
I'm pro eu but the willingness of other pro eu people to subvert and manipulate the system to keep the UK in is appaling to me. If the same referendum was mays deal or no deal you'd rightly be outraged too.

Donald Trump · 28-03-2019 12:44PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

UK has a form of representative democracy. Politicians are elected to reflect and communicate their constituents views.

From the point of view of the HoC, Northern Ireland is 91% Brexit supporting and not concerned about a hard border.

(There are 11 politicians in the HoC representing NI. 10 of them are in the DUP. One isn't)

HoC needs to get a majority. People/politicians/idealogies who don't use their vote don't count. Those who use their vote, do.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

On the indicative votes, an interesting question is are there enough abstentions to get the proposition to pass if the abstainers back it?

In other words, is Yes+Abstain more then No?

366 - 272 Customs Union
355 - 283 Common Market 2.0
349 - 293 Revoke to avoid No Deal
342 - 295 Referendum
341 - 307 Labour plan
260 - 377 EFTA and EEA
237 - 400 No Deal
209 - 422 Standstill

From this you can see that if push came to shove, No Deal and EEA would still lose, but there are enough MPs floating to give a possible majority for any of the plans above EFTA.

Fair enough, 7 votes wouldn't bridge the gaps, but those 7 voices might help persuade some others to change theirs!

BonnieSituation · 28-03-2019 12:46PM

Eod100 wrote: »

Oof.

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1111196735613874176

It does somewhat stick in the craw that they had done that but Sturgeon really is on another level.

Pure class.

Also Ian Blackford is tip top too.

Eod100 · 28-03-2019 12:46PM

Another not very helpful comment from France

https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1111226149319950338

Sam Russell · 28-03-2019 12:47PM

Eod100 wrote: »

Another not very helpful comment from France

https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1111226149319950338

That is one way to boost the Remain vote.

Eod100 · 28-03-2019 12:49PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is one way to boost the Remain vote.

Seems odd to say that holding a new vote would be anti-democratic. Pretty much what May has been saying all along

joe40 · 28-03-2019 12:51PM

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Who was the one DUP MP who went rogue on the No Deal vote and voted No instead of abstaining?

I can understand the DUP opposition to the WA but it beggars belief that the DUP would abstain on the "No deal"

Either they genuinely believe "no deal" is a viable option which makes them criminally negligent in my opinion and do not deserve any say in the running of northern Ireland.

Or they still think the UK are horse trading with the EU and the prospect of "no deal" will make EU relent on the back stop at this late stage.

That would be an embarrassing level of stupidity from them.

I would be so ashamed to be a DUP supporter right now. But guess what none of this will affect their electoral support. That speaks volumes.

28-03-2019 12:54PM

Eod100 wrote: »

Another not very helpful comment from France

https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1111226149319950338

Deeming that unhelpful is kind of an admission that countries retain their voice and sovereignty as members of the EU. If it was all Brussels, that opinion would be worth nothing.

Eod100 · 28-03-2019 01:06PM

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1111237341832773633

A Dub in Glasgo · 28-03-2019 01:08PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It does somewhat stick in the craw that they had done that

Not to go off topic but Labour has been blaming the SNP for decades about putting Thatcher in Government and it has been debunked loads of times but the LP keep repeating it. There are some interesting insights in James Callaghans memoirs which effectively demolish the argument as he blames his own backbenchers for creating the turmoil

Inquitus · 28-03-2019 01:12PM

https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1111235331947417600

robinph · 28-03-2019 01:15PM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Should and I'm sure would be seen as highly undemocratic. To go back to a population that voted to leave and offer them an unpopular deal or cancel the whole thing when a lot want to leave without mays deal is stacking the referendum in remains favour.
You can say people can't be offered no deal because it is too dangerous but either you trust the people and your ability to argue your case to them or you don't go back to them at all.
I'm pro eu but the willingness of other pro eu people to subvert and manipulate the system to keep the UK in is appaling to me. If the same referendum was mays deal or no deal you'd rightly be outraged too.

If there was a defined version of what leave meant then fine, but there isn't. If leave can come up with a single option that they can get behind and put that up against remain then I'd be more than happy to put that back to the people and take the consequences of the result, whatever way it falls.

It just can't be a vague idea of unicorns though which leave select.

robinph · 28-03-2019 01:17PM

Inquitus wrote: »

https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1111235331947417600

With any luck he is adding the 2nd referendum as the requirement.

May obviously won't make that change herself, but would she refuse to bring the MV3 back if someone else has forced that change on her as the only way it can be brought back?

lawred2 · 28-03-2019 01:18PM

Inquitus wrote: »

https://twitter.com/carldinnen/status/1111235331947417600

I didn't really believe that when push came to shove that he was really going to block a third vote..

this will be a window dressing exercise

28-03-2019 01:19PM

robinph wrote: »

If there was a defined version of what leave meant then fine, but there isn't. If leave can come up with a single option that they can get behind and put that up against remain then I'd be more than happy to put that back to the people and take the consequences of the result, whatever way it falls.

It just can't be a vague idea of unicorns though which leave select.

Could a referendum have multiple questions I wonder? Each against remain. And then a final one about no deal.

Eod100 · 28-03-2019 01:20PM

robinph wrote: »

With any luck he is adding the 2nd referendum as the requirement.

May obviously won't make that change herself, but would she refuse to bring the MV3 back if someone else has forced that change on her as the only way it can be brought back?

That would be fairly significant change alright!

FrancieBrady · 28-03-2019 01:22PM

lawred2 wrote: »

I didn't really believe that when push came to shove that he was really going to block a third vote..

this will be a window dressing exercise

Agree. They'll agree a form of ladder to climb down.

Laois_Man · 28-03-2019 01:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Could a referendum have multiple questions I wonder? Each against remain. And then a final one about no deal.

There's absolutely no point in having a second referendum until the people of Britain have a decent "leave" option that they can choose - May's withdrawal agreement doesn't cut it. It needs a new PM with a new WA negotiated with the May red lines off the table

Seth Brundle · 28-03-2019 01:26PM

Laois_Man wrote: »

There's absolutely no point in having a second referendum until the people of Britain have a decent "leave" option that they can choose - May's withdrawal agreement doesn't cut it. It needs a new PM with a new WA negotiated with the May red lines off the table

Why does it not cut it?

Joe_ Public · 28-03-2019 01:26PM

Only thing stopping me from remortgaging and putting the lot on pm deal losing is prospect of May allowing second referendum as a way not just of getting around bercow but also of getting it through the house. Hard to see any other reason to move it again other than to finally put it out of its sorry existence.

28-03-2019 01:28PM

Laois_Man wrote: »

There's absolutely no point in having a second referendum until the people of Britain have a decent "leave" option that they can choose - May's withdrawal agreement doesn't cut it. It needs a new PM with a new WA negotiated with the May red lines off the table

I disagree. I think she did as best she could to be honest. She's a mess, but it's not an entirely bad deal. They can't do trade deals if they're in the CU. That's what her focus has been.

BonnieSituation · 28-03-2019 01:30PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Not to go off topic but Labour has been blaming the SNP for decades about putting Thatcher in Government and it has been debunked loads of times but the LP keep repeating it. There are some interesting insights in James Callaghans memoirs which effectively demolish the argument as he blames his own backbenchers for creating the turmoil

You're right but don't get me wrong, as it's that they remained in power til 97 that really created the myth from the POV of Labour.

Coupled with the Falklands victory of course which changed Thatcher's perception.

But nobody was to know that these things would happen.

The biggest issue for the SNP then was how they drifted thereafter.

That's the craw into which it sticks which tbf shows just how principled the SNP have been despite the potential damage to their party.

Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments