Neverending Story 3: The Ongoing Brexit Thread

If she does what she says and listen to other parliamentarians, including labour, the snp, etc., then she might be able to pass something. There's vague talk of indicative votes in the commons to provide some guidance as to a way forward so we'll see what happens.

My guess is she'll simply ignore everyone and just blunder on but, hey... maybe she'll surprise me.

 

So, if we're going by numbers, it's the equivalent of a House vote losing 296-139 including 87 out of 235 Democrats voting against. While I'm sure there are examples of this in the past, i'd imagine it would be hard to find an equivalent in recent history considering how homogeneous the parties are nowadays when they try to make sure they can pass bills only with the votes of the majority, I'm not sure?

 

It's not really analogous because congresspeople break from their party all the time. MPs don't for typical votes.

 

They used to. Not so much anymore. You might get enough breaking to cause a bill to fail (the Freedom Caucus caused several of Sryan’s budget bills to fail), but you’ll rately get 38% of the majority party breaking from the Speaker.

 

Shouldn't the UK focus on managing a no deal exit? Not much time left.

 

Nah they'll ask the EU for an extension at the last minute.

 

Mine too. I don't think she gives up anything. I read a Guardian piece a while ago that intimated she was pretty xenophobic as a person and wanted to end freedom of movement no matter the cost.

 

and yet it seems like that's what is going to happen

 

I'll be honest, I don't know what to make of her. She was always called 'submarine May' because she went under the water and didn't engage, even with people in her own party.

What's the word? 'Clubbable'??? Mind you, I think someone should try with a really, really big club


Edit: Just watching Hennesy on the beeb and he mentioned a fella that said to him that he'd come to the conclusion that 'The British constitution is what happens', which I interpret as saying 'We make this shit up as we go along.'

BTW saw Boles on Sky earlier and he was saying that he thinks, as do I, that there's only about 70 hardline 'WTO terms brexit' tories. I suspect there are maybe some more who will end up being pushed to that position because of the idiotic 'red lines' they've already given but, again, we're talking a couple of dozen... maybe?

 

Exactly right.

At this stage it won't be a 'Managed no deal', it will be an 'UN-managed no deal'.

TBH, it's likely that there would have to be a delay in the date, almost regardless of what we do.

 

they're going to continue to dick around until there's no time left and ask for an extension

 

I've been arguing for 2+ years that we shouldn't have a 2nd ref because, as you say, it would be divisive but, in the present context, that's a ship that's already sailed.

In the absence of the commons managing to decide what to do it's hard to think of an alternative.

But, under those circumstances, what it asks is the issue at hand and IMO it HAS to be an AV style question where people give each option a 'score' as to their preference, the first option that gets more than 50% wins.

IMO the available options should be...

1. Leave under WTO terms.
2. Leave and trade with a Canada-style deal.
3. Leave under a Norway-style.
4. Remain.

The implications of each would have to be given. The first 2 imply an end to EU FoM, for instance, which itself implies labour shortages for many industries. The last 2 imply FoM carries on much as before but also mean that trade is interrupted.

But WHATEVER we ended up with at least more people would understand what they being asked, not this 'free unicorn' crap we asked last time.

If people voted for Leave under WTO terms, so be it.

IMO it's only by asking the people what they want that people's trust in democracy can be maintained because the alternative is for politicians to 'install' some sort of deal which people will feel doesn't reflect what THEY think they voted for last time.

Of course, if the HoC actually manage, even at this late stage, to come together and sort out a deal with which the majority can agree then maybe it won't be necessary but the way it's going it doesn't seem likely.

 

Can the UK do two-part votes? As in:

Question 1: Should the UK remain in the EU or leave?
Question 2: If the UK were to leave the EU, which arrangement should the UK have?

And then list the available options.

The issue with the first referendum is that it was so haphazardly put together. It would be like having a referendum in Puerto Rico that asked "Should PR remain a part of the US, yes or no" and then not detailing what arrangement a yes vote leads to. Same status, free association, statehood, etc, would be totally unclear from that question, which makes the whole thing a mostly useless exercise.

 

Well, that's what an AV vote is. The point is you ask people for their preferences and let THEM decide what they want but they're asked at the same time.

 

Right.

Alternative voting for MPs got crushed in a referendum in 2011 though, so I don't know that they're open to it. Having a two-part question seems like it would be more superficially palatable, even if it gets to the same place in the end.

 

Like this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

 

LOL

Posted without seeing your post. Sorry.

Yes, it wasn't popular then for various reasons but, in the present context of the EU deal where pretty much EVERYONE that's liable to vote has at least some sort of understanding of the available options, it does provide a way forward and NOBODY could claim, after the event, their favoured option wasn't given to the public.

But, TBH, choosing a candidate for a parliamentary seat is TOTALLY different to making a choice about the EU.

 

1085537035388178432 is not a valid tweet id

 

Yeah but that's not entirely fair. That happens to EVERY French President. It's remarkable he's above 20% given how long he's been in office.

 

I'm just making the point he's making these statements now for his own political purposes... which is fair enough. But let's not pretend he has some extraordinary prescience about the issues involved.

He's also woffling on about this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46264303

The waters around all the EU's member states, up to a limit of 200 miles, are effectively "pooled" when it comes to fishing. It means boats from one country can fish in another's seas.

When the UK leaves the EU, barring any new agreements, those waters will exclusively become the UK's again, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.​

He seems to imply that the EU can unilaterally decide what happens but that's clearly not correct.

It's all part of this megaphone diplomacy we all detest when the brexit loonies do it. I don't see why Macron should be allowed to get away with it any more than Boris Johnson does.