Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 11-25-2018, 05:28 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
As an American, I am confused about how May could possibly lose this vote in Parliament. I was under the impression that if you were an MP and you were one of the members of the majority that made up the government, you voted for the government's position or else brought forth a no confidence motion and held new elections.
The first problem is that her party does not have a majority. She had one, but she gave it up to get an even bigger majority in anticipation of it not being big enough to deal with issues such as this. That did not go well and now her job is even harder.

Second, her party has some pretty sharp internal divisions on this subject (which is how Britain got into this whole mess, as the referendum was intended to shut up the anti-EU wing of the party). Using the maximum level of pressure on her MPs would be a good way to get them to rebel in even more consequential ways (like by turfing her as party leader). She may even end up making it a "free vote," in which there is a promise of no retaliation against members who vote the wrong way.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 11-25-2018 at 05:33 AM.
  #252  
Old 11-25-2018, 05:36 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
As an American, I am confused about how May could possibly lose this vote in Parliament. I was under the impression that if you were an MP and you were one of the members of the majority that made up the government, you voted for the government's position or else brought forth a no confidence motion and held new elections.

IOW, I thought this is a superior feature of a parliamentary system in that there is no gridlock.
No, this is not how it works. MPs can, and do, vote against their own party on occasion, regardless of the party's wishes. More often they will fail to attend a vote, or abstain.

An MP's responsibility is to his constituents first, not to the party. Party 'whips' (a term from fox hunting) are responsible for keeping MPs in line and persuading or threatening them to vote the way the party wants. The worst a party can do to an MP is expel him, in which case he will still continue to sit in parliament as an independent, or join another party.

Government ministers are expected to support government policy, or else resign. If they resign, they leave office, but still sit in parliament.
  #253  
Old 11-25-2018, 05:38 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
As an American, I am confused about how May could possibly lose this vote in Parliament. I was under the impression that if you were an MP and you were one of the members of the majority that made up the government, you voted for the government's position or else brought forth a no confidence motion and held new elections.

IOW, I thought this is a superior feature of a parliamentary system in that there is no gridlock.
You're basically correct about much less gridlock under the Westminster parliamentary system, and generally (but not always and not automatically) a party holding a majority in the House of Commons can do whatever it wants within constitutional limits. The problem for May is that she currently has a plurality but not a majority and a lot of heavy opposition within her own party. But lack of unanimity doesn't in itself lead to a no confidence motion. It's more accurate to say that a government can be brought down either by being defeated on an explicit confidence motion, or by having a budget bill defeated. Obviously even a majority government can be defeated this way if enough of its own MPs vote against it, but MPs going against the party line and the defeat of any particular non-budget bill is not in itself considered a vote of no confidence.

I imagine if there's enough of a kerfuffle over the (likely) defeat of May's Brexit proposal, the opposition could call for a confidence vote over the issue. In fact this has been suggested, and one possibility might be that May resigns and is replaced by a new leader who tries to rework the Brexit terms. Another option I was just reading about is that, to forestall a general election, the opposition would have two weeks to try to form a government that could win a confidence vote, and would then govern for the duration of the fixed parliamentary term.

Someone with more detailed knowledge of the UK system specifically, or the Brexit fiasco in general, might be able to provide more detail or correct anything I got wrong.

Last edited by wolfpup; 11-25-2018 at 05:42 AM.
  #254  
Old 11-25-2018, 05:46 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
The first problem is that her party does not have a majority. She had one, but she gave it up to get an even bigger majority in anticipation of it not being big enough to deal with issues such as this. That did not go well and now her job is even harder.

Second, her party has some pretty sharp internal divisions on this subject (which is how Britain got into this whole mess, as the referendum was intended to shut up the anti-EU wing of the party). Using the maximum level of pressure on her MPs would be a good way to get them to rebel in even more consequential ways (like by turfing her as party leader). She may even end up making it a "free vote," in which there is a promise of no retaliation against members who vote the wrong way.
But, I thought this was a feature of a Parliamentary system, especially in the UK. Let's say I am a Tory MP and I don't like the budget bill (or the money bill? as you call it). I am supposed to vote for it anyways or else there will be harsh political repercussion for me and my district (riding?) in the next bill. I guess my questions are:

1) Why doesn't this type of coercion apply here?

2) If the answer to #1 is "because could possibly cost May her job" then why doesn't that apply in every close or hung Parliament, even with regard to money bills? Why don't I (in the hypo) tell the PM that if you threaten me or my district like that, I'm going to pop over to Labour who will give me what I want and good luck in your retirement?

3) If she loses this vote, does it not trigger a new election?

4) It does not seem that there is a majority on this issue for any single position. You have those who want a new vote, those who want May's plan, those who want a different exit plan, and so forth. What good would replacing May do to resolve this? Even if I am in a smaller minority party who voted to form this government, why would I be better off under a new leader?

5) Indeed, what good would a new election do? Is there any hope that a new election would give one particular position a majority regarding which exit plan to endorse?
  #255  
Old 11-25-2018, 06:53 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But, I thought this was a feature of a Parliamentary system, especially in the UK. Let's say I am a Tory MP and I don't like the budget bill (or the money bill? as you call it). I am supposed to vote for it anyways or else there will be harsh political repercussion for me and my district (riding?) in the next bill. I guess my questions are:
There certainly wouldn't be any repercussions for the MP's constituency. The repercussions for the MP personally might be anything from not being offered a position in government, or a position on committees, to the party putting up an alternative candidate in the next election, making it less likely that he will be re-elected.

The Budget is a yearly bill for government expenditure, so it's the most important bill that comes up regularly. That's why it's considered a matter of 'confidence' in the government for party MPs to vote for it. Other bills, and perhaps this Brexit bill, may also be considered matters of confidence.

If the government were to impose a 'three-line whip' - the strongest possible instruction for MPs to vote for the bill - and it was still voted down, the government would certainly fall. But if the government allows a free vote, then it's not clear what would happen. The joys of an 'unwritten' constitution.

The whole situation is a big mess. The Labour Party is also very divided, and some may well support the Brexit bill. The DUP (Northern Irish Party), which has so far been supporting the government and giving them a narrow majority, will probably withdraw support and vote against May's bill.

Last edited by GreenWyvern; 11-25-2018 at 06:54 AM.
  #256  
Old 11-25-2018, 08:37 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
1) Why doesn't this type of coercion apply here?
Party discipline is generally strong, unless the party is itself divided on an issue. That's exactly the problem May is facing: the Conservatives have always been internally divided on the issue of EU membership, and the BREXIT vote has brought that division to the fore. That means that May has to be very careful not to use the ordinary tools of party discipline too strongly. If she tries too heavy a hand, she could fracture the Conservative parliamentary group entirely.



Quote:
2) If the answer to #1 is "because could possibly cost May her job" then why doesn't that apply in every close or hung Parliament, even with regard to money bills? Why don't I (in the hypo) tell the PM that if you threaten me or my district like that, I'm going to pop over to Labour who will give me what I want and good luck in your retirement?
This is not an ordinary situation, because of the internal divisions of the Conservative party. Normally, in a minority situation, the members of the party in government close ranks and have a clear party line, to ensure they stay in power. Parliamentary parties generally have clear ideological positions, since they have all campaigned on the same basis. If there are differences on a policy issue, they're handled internally, with the party taking a united front in Parliament. But the issue of EU membership has always been a lurking issue for the Conservatives. They've papered it over for years, but now it's in full display.

That's not to say a party in a minority can't have defections. For example, several years ago the Martin Liberal government in Canada had a very tight minority government. They won a key procedural vote on a budget bill by the Speaker casting a tie-breaking vote, but knew that the Speaker couldn't vote for them on the final vote. They managed to pry an opposition MP loose from one of the opposition parties. She crossed the floor, entered Cabinet, and saved the Martin government (dumping her boyfriend, the leader of her former party, in the process). But that kind of floor-crossing isn't common.

Quote:
3) If she loses this vote, does it not trigger a new election?
Britain has entered the brave new world of fixed election dates. It used to be that a defeat on a major bill would be seen as a question of confidence, triggering an election, but under the new rules, that's no longer the case. The Government now can lose a major vote and yet stay in power.

In other words, the British Parliament voted to adopt one of the features of a congressional system which contributes to gridlock. Wankers.

Quote:
4) It does not seem that there is a majority on this issue for any single position. You have those who want a new vote, those who want May's plan, those who want a different exit plan, and so forth. What good would replacing May do to resolve this? Even if I am in a smaller minority party who voted to form this government, why would I be better off under a new leader?
Quite so. Which is why, for all their talk and bluster about triggering a leadership vote, May's opponents haven't been able to do so. There is no clear alternative leader, because the party is so badly divided internally.

Quote:
5) Indeed, what good would a new election do? Is there any hope that a new election would give one particular position a majority regarding which exit plan to endorse?

Good question. Doesn't seem likely, but the British Dopers would be best positioned to comment on this.
  #257  
Old 11-25-2018, 09:33 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,161
I'm gradually coming round to the view that May's deal, bad as it is, may be the best that can be done in the current situation.

The best would really be Remain, but that's off the table for all practical purposes.

Second best would be the Norway model, but that allows free movement of EU citizens, and curbing immigration is a big deal to Brexiteers. (The scare tactics about immigrants worked in the UK, as in the US.) Notably, the DUP has now said they would support the Norway model. I doubt whether parliament would get behind that, but there's a remote chance they might, if May's deal is voted down.

Third best, and probably the only practical way forward, is May's deal. It's a hodgepodge of a deal, with a lot of vagueness, but I doubt whether anyone could do better if free movement is off the table. I think most Tory MPs will eventually come round to supporting it, but whether that will be enough to get it through parliament is anyone's guess.
  #258  
Old 11-25-2018, 09:36 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,996
Could you elaborate - what's the Norway option? I've seen it mentioned but don't know what it is?

Thanks!
  #259  
Old 11-25-2018, 09:43 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,161
Brexit: What is the Norway model?

Last edited by GreenWyvern; 11-25-2018 at 09:43 AM.
  #260  
Old 11-25-2018, 09:57 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,996
Thanks - very helpful.
  #261  
Old 11-25-2018, 10:34 AM
Sandwich Sandwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sarf Lun'n
Posts: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
I'm gradually coming round to the view that May's deal, bad as it is, may be the best that can be done in the current situation.

The best would really be Remain, but that's off the table for all practical purposes.

Second best would be the Norway model, but that allows free movement of EU citizens, and curbing immigration is a big deal to Brexiteers. (The scare tactics about immigrants worked in the UK, as in the US.) Notably, the DUP has now said they would support the Norway model. I doubt whether parliament would get behind that, but there's a remote chance they might, if May's deal is voted down.

Third best, and probably the only practical way forward, is May's deal. It's a hodgepodge of a deal, with a lot of vagueness, but I doubt whether anyone could do better if free movement is off the table. I think most Tory MPs will eventually come round to supporting it, but whether that will be enough to get it through parliament is anyone's guess.
Of course, Mrs May's proposed withdrawal agreement just covers withdrawal. There is a short, vague, aspirational paper on the future relationship, but that isn't what people are arguing about now. If they mention it at all it is just to criticise it for being so short, vague and aspirational.

So the withdrawal deal which Parliament will shortly vote on does not preclude (or commit) the UK in the main negotiations, next year, to seek to rejoin the EU, or adopt the Norway model, or for Great Britain to adopt the Canada model, or indeed for Great Britain to leave the transitional period with WTO terms only.

Really, all this deal achieves is to confirm that we won't shaft each other's resident citizens (duh!), that the UK will pay off its bar tab, and that Northern Ireland will remain in the EU on broadly the Norway model, even if Great Britain does not. The last point is contentious, and for some reason is often described as a capitulation to EU bullying. This is perplexing since honouring the letter and spirit of the Good Friday Agreement is one of the UK Government's own red lines.

Remember, this isn't the end, the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning. It is just the preparatory work for us to get to the start line! We've got years more fun to enjoy yet before Brexit is settled. Fortunately, the UK has excellent negotiators, a clear vision of common purpose, and we hold all the cards and will be able to drive hugely profitable trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world, to make all this worthwhile.
  #262  
Old 11-25-2018, 11:47 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandwich View Post

Fortunately, the UK has excellent negotiators, a clear vision of common purpose, and we hold all the cards and will be able to drive hugely profitable trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world, to make all this worthwhile.
I think you might need to get your cheek looked at. I could swear I can see the tip of your tongue poking through it.
  #263  
Old 11-25-2018, 03:08 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
...An MP's responsibility is to his constituents first, not to the party....
Between those two, certainly. But his or her oath is to the Sovereign, and thus to the nation. The MP's ultimate responsibility is to the United Kingdom, not to his or her constituents.

And see: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found.../v1ch13s7.html
  #264  
Old 11-25-2018, 04:17 PM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,715
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
The best would really be Remain, but that's off the table for all practical purposes.
No it isn't. It's what the majority of the country now want, and the practicality of it consists in simply withdrawing the article 50 notification. The only practical thing standing against it is the hard left wing of the Labour party being pro-leave, if Corbyn and his cronies would stand with the majority of the party and the country, they could force an election, win, and remain in the EU, and it would all be sorted by the middle of January.

Say what you like about Tony Blair (and believe me, I have) we wouldn't be in this level of shit if he was still in charge.
  #265  
Old 11-25-2018, 04:59 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 30,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
So the people elected to represent the People want to Remain, but are afraid of the foolish People that elected them. Perhaps Churchill was right after all when he called "democracy the worst form of government."

How about that woman whose face appears on all your money? I assume she wants to Remain also. I'll repeat the same suggestion that has been made before in SDMB threads on this topic, but is always booed down. But remember: Difficult times may require extreme measures.

Elizabeth Dei Gratia performs a once-in-a-lifetime duty, demonstrating why Britain has retained its "obsolete" Monarchy. She dissolves Parliament, takes charge personally, and announces that the U.K. will Remain in the European Community. Members of Parliament pretend to be outraged, but smile inside, shrug their shoulders, and say "What can we do? The Constitutional Authority has ruled."

In the aftermath of this, Britain might throw off the royal yoke and become a Republic ... but nevertheless obey the pre-Revolution Command and Remain.

Far-fetched? Probably. But an "insoluble" crisis of such extreme peril may require an extreme solution.
phssssshhhyeah. Like TPTB in the powerful US Tabloid-Industrial Complex are EVER going to consent to the elimination of their Royal Family as their bread-and-butter.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 11-25-2018 at 04:59 PM.
  #266  
Old 11-26-2018, 04:40 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
As an American, I am confused about how May could possibly lose this vote in Parliament. I was under the impression that if you were an MP and you were one of the members of the majority that made up the government, you voted for the government's position or else brought forth a no confidence motion and held new elections.

IOW, I thought this is a superior feature of a parliamentary system in that there is no gridlock.
Normally, yes, what you describe would work. But we are not in normal times.

Normally MPs adhere to a party platform that they either wholly or broadly agree with, and get elected on the party platform. It's easy in that regard for them to sustain the party because they already agree with the platform already. There may be some issues on which they disagree, but they're going to be minor, or they'll hold their noses and support it anyway in exchange for support from the party for other issues.

With Brexit, many MPs are trapped between what they think is in the natural interest, what the party leaders think is in the national interest, and what their party members in their constituents think is in the national interest. Brexit has completely torn up the rule book, and we're facing an enormous upheaval of party divisions - from a sorta consensus on market liberalism and civil rights to a stark divide between nationalist fantasism and pan-nationalist liberalism. (yeah, I'm impartial, haha)

Eventually, hopefully, things will settle into a new normal. Here's hoping we can stop the country disintegrating in the meantime.
  #267  
Old 11-26-2018, 08:33 PM
filmstar-en filmstar-en is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 880
Looks like the day of reckoning in the UK Parliament for the Withdrawal Agreement is 11th December.

If it is rejected by the MPs, it will be time for Plan B.

Will May resign?

Will she take out a prepared plan for a Hard Exit from the EU? With no transition deal and instead some pre-arranged deals with countries like the US to boost trade and thereby offset the crisis that will result from having the legal basis for trade with EU suddenly being pulled like rug from beneath the feet of the economy?

Will she surprise us all by calling going over the heads of the MPs and calling a Peoples Vote on her plan?

Will she simply ask to extend the terms of Article 50 to buy more time so the UK can decide what to do next?

I would suggest she might try to get approval for a Hard Exit from Parliament. If that was also rejected. What could she or any other leader do?

  #268  
Old 11-26-2018, 08:52 PM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmstar-en View Post
Will she simply ask to extend the terms of Article 50 to buy more time so the UK can decide what to do next?
This: kick the can down the road as long and as far as possible to avoid dealing with the consequences of the decisions she is making.
  #269  
Old 11-26-2018, 08:59 PM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,095
Flash forward to 2069, when nobody can remember how it became a tradition for the British PM to visit Brussels every year to ask for a renewal of Britain's EU membership, with murmuring about how it must just be a weird quirk of the unwritten constitution.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 11-26-2018 at 09:03 PM.
  #270  
Old 11-26-2018, 09:16 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
This: kick the can down the road as long and as far as possible to avoid dealing with the consequences of the decisions she is making.

The decisions she is making, or the decision the voters made in 2016?
  #271  
Old 11-26-2018, 10:24 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
The decisions she is making, or the decision the voters made in 2016?
The former. While the voters approved a deliberately vaguely-articulated concept of Brexit in 2016, the Withdrawal Agreement just negotiated is the result of the "red lines" that May choose to adopt about seven months after the referendum, which determine the kind of Brexit that the UK can and cannot secure.

May could have targetted, and likely achieved, an entirely different form of Brexit, consistently with the referendum result.
  #272  
Old 11-27-2018, 12:38 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,161
John Crace's daily 'politics sketch' in the Guardian is always funny and entertaining, and well worth reading.

From yesterday's column about May's appearance in the Commons:

Quote:
There was a time when May used to endlessly repeat: “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” At some point over the past few weeks, her default settings have been rerouted to: “Everything has been agreed when nothing has been agreed.” No one should get hung up on the backstop arrangements that have been agreed because everyone had privately agreed they should never be used. This was the best deal because it was the only deal. People wanted certainty and she was giving them the guaranteed certainty of prolonged uncertainty. She sat down to near silence from her own benches.
  #273  
Old 11-27-2018, 06:04 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
I don't think no deal will happen, at minimum. Not only is it unacceptable to most MPs, much of the Cabinet would walk out, too, and I can't see May withstanding another Cabinet walk-out.

Something's going to give, and I think either MPs will cave on May's deal the second time it's offered, or a second referendum will happen with an extension to Article 50. With the latter, I think the Tories will splinter into two parties - ERG/UKIP, and the rest.
  #274  
Old 11-27-2018, 07:24 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
With the latter, I think the Tories will splinter into two parties - ERG/UKIP, and the rest.
The one thing the Tories historically shy away from is a formal split, unlike the Liberals and Labour; that's what comes of considering yourselves as the natural party of those entitled to govern. The Brexitmaniacs would simply lick their wounds and bide their time once again, as they did in 1992. Past battles over Tariff Reform/Imperial Preference didn't lead to a significant organisational split (but were punished by the voters, who tend to be turned off by disunity within parties).
  #275  
Old 11-27-2018, 08:42 AM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,860
I get the feeling that Labour's (or at least, the Leader's Office's) biggest interest in Brexit now is precisely this question of how much it will destabilise the Tories. It is pretty clear - and to a large extent it is fair enough - that Corbyn et al would rather have a bad/no deal Brexit and a Labour government than no/a good* Brexit and a Tory government.

To this end, they are unlikely to vote for the deal, because it's failure will destabilise May. Their ideal scenario is for May and the Tories to be seen to have failed to deliver Brexit because of their own in-fighting/incompetence, and for Labour to fight an election based on delivering a better Brexit without ever doing anything that would make them responsible for what has happened to that point, or discussing what they might have done differently.

So the question is, what is their strategy for the day after the vote on the deal? They can't force an election, and while the Tory party is split it will unite around the idea that none of them want to lose their jobs right now. They can argue for a second referendum. They've been shy of this so far, but in the circumstances of a lost WA vote, there is a strong case for saying that Parliament/the Government has failed to reach consensus and so the question should go back to the people. (I don't like this case personally, but it's there.). What kind of referendum they would ask for (Deal or No Deal; Deal or No Deal or No Brexit; Deal or Extend A50; ???) I wouldn't like to guess. Whatever has the best chance of splitting the Tories/boosting Labour's election chances, I suppose.)



*Yes, yes. Read, as good as it could be.
  #276  
Old 11-27-2018, 10:07 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 40,228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Frankly I think the EU pity us, and I can't blame them.
I think it's more a matter of "we're going to be dealing with each other for yoinks, we're going to have a bunch of them living here and a bunch of us living there, and we can afford to play nice, so we will. But playing nice doesn't equal dropping your pants and bending down."
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #277  
Old 11-27-2018, 12:45 PM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
The decisions she is making, or the decision the voters made in 2016?
Well, I think Parliament's response should have been "thank you for voting in this non-binding referendum, but the margin is too close for us to contemplate any drastic course of action," followed by something of an education campaign about how the EU works and what the UK's MEPs do.

But yes, as UDS said, it's the decisions made since the vote that have been either farcical, disastrous, or both.
  #278  
Old 11-27-2018, 01:04 PM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
followed by something of an education campaign about how the EU works and what the UK's MEPs do.
40-odd years too late for that, given the general obfuscatory inability/unwillingness of the political and media classes to do it effectively when it should have been done.
  #279  
Old 11-27-2018, 04:48 PM
psychonaut psychonaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 5,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
The one thing the Tories historically shy away from is a formal split, unlike the Liberals and Labour; that's what comes of considering yourselves as the natural party of those entitled to govern.
I'm not sure it has anything to do with that—the Tories' counterparts in other Commonwealth realms (such as the Canadian Tories) are notorious for splitting, reforming, and splitting again ad nauseam.
  #280  
Old 11-27-2018, 08:53 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 14,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmstar-en View Post
Looks like the day of reckoning in the UK Parliament for the Withdrawal Agreement is 11th December.

If it is rejected by the MPs, it will be time for Plan B.

Will May resign?...
I don't think there is a Plan B, and I could see May deciding to Hell with this crap and resigning (possibly without even sticking around as a caretaker while the Tories pick a successor) if she can't get Parliament to approve the agreement. I've said it before, but I'd kill to be able to listen in May's weekly audiences with the Queen.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
  #281  
Old 11-27-2018, 11:11 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by psychonaut View Post
I'm not sure it has anything to do with that—the Tories' counterparts in other Commonwealth realms (such as the Canadian Tories) are notorious for splitting, reforming, and splitting again ad nauseam.


True, but they've never had the "Canada's Natural Governing Party" thing going for them.
  #282  
Old 11-28-2018, 03:41 AM
psychonaut psychonaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 5,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
True, but they've never had the "Canada's Natural Governing Party" thing going for them.
Maybe, but that's not for want of trying.
  #283  
Old 11-28-2018, 04:28 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,136
Brexit: a shorthand notation for clusterfuck.
  #284  
Old 11-28-2018, 04:41 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaboi867 View Post
I've said it before, but I'd kill to be able to listen in May's weekly audiences with the Queen.
I rather suspect that HM harbours a secret desire to kill to get out of them. One would like to think they kick off their shoes, neck a glass or two of Pinot Grigio and go into a "Men! Huh!" rant, but more likely the Maybot is fully deployed on such occasions.

Last edited by PatrickLondon; 11-28-2018 at 04:41 AM.
  #285  
Old 11-28-2018, 08:12 PM
Dacien Dacien is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 268
https://i.imgur.com/BWFrluA.png

As someone on Twitter wrote, "This is how every time we argue about where to eat, we end up at Arby's, even though we all hate Arby's."
  #286  
Old 11-28-2018, 10:57 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,996
Abilene paradox - cited upthread

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox
  #287  
Old 11-29-2018, 08:34 AM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,860
Sadly, it turns out that chart is in error, and in fact May's deal beats both Remain and No Deal in a two-way match-up (May Deal should have the 56% in the first graph). But the question is based on ranking all three options, and if people are presented iwth that choice then Remain wins.
  #288  
Old 11-29-2018, 10:30 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
But the question is based on ranking all three options, and if people are presented iwth that choice then Remain wins.
Well yes, because you're splitting the Leave vote.
  #289  
Old 11-29-2018, 10:35 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
https://i.imgur.com/BWFrluA.png

As someone on Twitter wrote, "This is how every time we argue about where to eat, we end up at Arby's, even though we all hate Arby's."
Can I Remain, and have a jamocha shake?
  #290  
Old 11-29-2018, 10:52 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Well yes, because you're splitting the Leave vote.
But if you don't divide the Leave options, you end up with the Abilene paradox and people getting a form of Leave they wouldn't necessarily have voted for had it been set out explicitly.

I continue to believe that the "stop the clock" option is the best for all concerned now - continue negotiations but withdraw from Article 50 as crashing out with a "no deal" Brexit will be hugely damaging and we gain nothing from it.

Meanwhile, this still seems about right.
  #291  
Old 11-29-2018, 11:37 AM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Well yes, because you're splitting the Leave vote.
But that's the point: "Leave" isn't actually one choice. There were potentially lots of ways to Leave, and now there are two on the table. When people confront the reality of that, neither option is as popular as Remain.

Ditto, if you split "Remain" into "Join Schengen" vs "Cameron's 2016 deal" vs "status quo" you'd find that there were differing opinions among Remain voters. In a world of varying and multi-dimensional choices, referendums are blunt and useless tools.
  #292  
Old 11-29-2018, 12:02 PM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Well yes, because you're splitting the Leave vote.


Quartz, are you of the opinion it should be Brexit whatever the cost?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #293  
Old 11-29-2018, 12:55 PM
DCTrekkie DCTrekkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dorset, UK
Posts: 208
This is why we need to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting, or something similar. You rank the 3 options in preferential order, then when the votes are tallied and the least popular option gets split according to voters second choice. It's the only way I can think of to offer the 3 options without "splitting the vote". I do believe though that there are many people who voted leave, but would rather remain than crash out with no deal, and the only way we can know for sure what the people want is with a second referendum, with clear distinction on how we leave.
  #294  
Old 11-29-2018, 01:17 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malden Capell View Post
Quartz, are you of the opinion it should be Brexit whatever the cost?
I believe that the UK should respect the result of the referendum. If that means leaving with no deal, so be it. The UK is a democracy and we respect the will of the people. Brexit is a decision I respect, and polls like that one which employ stupid chicanery are easily exposed and thus do Remain a disservice.

No deal is better than a bad deal. Since I did not manage to wade my way through May's proposed deal I can't say whether it is a good or a bad deal, but I can say that it was a bad deal - Heath's - that got us into this mess in the first place.
  #295  
Old 11-29-2018, 01:22 PM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,136
We should be glad that May is being stupid enough to have Brexit still hanging over her head at the next election when it could have been done and dusted and in the past. I see an easy Labour victory.
  #296  
Old 11-29-2018, 03:04 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 30,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
No deal is better than a bad deal. Since I did not manage to wade my way through May's proposed deal I can't say whether it is a good or a bad deal, but I can say that it was a bad deal - Heath's - that got us into this mess in the first place.
You misspelled “Brexit.”

Along with neglecting the fact that no Brexit is also better than a so-called “good” deal.
  #297  
Old 11-29-2018, 03:08 PM
DCTrekkie DCTrekkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dorset, UK
Posts: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I believe that the UK should respect the result of the referendum.
The referendum did not ask if we wanted a "no-deal" brexit. In fact all the major figures on the Leave side were talking about a soft "Norway style" brexit. If we end up in a position where the only option to leave is to "crash out", why should the public not have the option to reconsider? No deal is not what most of them wanted or were promised.
  #298  
Old 11-29-2018, 04:22 PM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I believe that the UK should respect the result of the referendum. If that means leaving with no deal, so be it. The UK is a democracy and we respect the will of the people. Brexit is a decision I respect, and polls like that one which employ stupid chicanery are easily exposed and thus do Remain a disservice.

No deal is better than a bad deal. Since I did not manage to wade my way through May's proposed deal I can't say whether it is a good or a bad deal, but I can say that it was a bad deal - Heath's - that got us into this mess in the first place.
You can't respect a result that can't be delivered. Remember, Leave campaigned on the premise that Brexit can be done without any negative impact on the economy or other benefits that we currently enjoy as EU members.

That half of their campaign you ignore. But it is part of the Brexit mandate.

If Brexit can only happen by incurring harm, then it can never be delivered on the basis on which it was sold.

The best deal is Remain - remain wealthy, remain in control, remain strong.
  #299  
Old 11-29-2018, 05:19 PM
Dr. Drake Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCTrekkie View Post
The referendum did not ask if we wanted a "no-deal" brexit. In fact all the major figures on the Leave side were talking about a soft "Norway style" brexit. If we end up in a position where the only option to leave is to "crash out", why should the public not have the option to reconsider? No deal is not what most of them wanted or were promised.
But isn't Article 50 crystal clear on the subject of the procedure for leaving the EU? During the campaign, the information was that they would try to negotiate a deal, but that if they clock ran out it would be a hard Brexit. People were idiotic enough to believe that the clock wouldn't run out, or that the UK could win a game of brinksmanship against a larger entity who held all the cards, and voted accordingly. I'm having a hard time mustering outrage that they were misled. They weren't taking it seriously, is what happened.

In other words, if people voted based on beliefs and desires rather than the reality of the situation, they deserve what they get. Unfortunately, 48% of voters and majorities in large swathes of the country do NOT deserve that, and there's really no way to compromise.
  #300  
Old 11-29-2018, 05:53 PM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I believe that the UK should respect the result of the referendum. If that means leaving with no deal, so be it. The UK is a democracy and we respect the will of the people. Brexit is a decision I respect, and polls like that one which employ stupid chicanery are easily exposed and thus do Remain a disservice.

No deal is better than a bad deal. Since I did not manage to wade my way through May's proposed deal I can't say whether it is a good or a bad deal, but I can say that it was a bad deal - Heath's - that got us into this mess in the first place.
This is .... completely nonsensical

The UK is a parliamentary democracy, not a People's Republic dictatorship.

Having a 2nd consultation or vote or referendum is not in any way the contradiction of democracy, the contrary.

If only One True Vote is valid, then you are not in the logic of democracy at all (there should not be new elections ever then), you are in the logic of the "votes" of the kind the old Soviet Union and the China did for their satellites. One Vote and that is that, the Decision has been taken to join the East Bloc (ah sorry it is some pretend not really existing Anglosphere). This is not western democracy.

This position lacks any logical coherence.

Why over the years you have kept up pretending to be anything but in fact for the brexit while making the very thinly disguised brexit arguments is as strange to me as the weird solicitude for the feelings of Trump and supposed smearing against him. It's just very strange.

Last edited by Ramira; 11-29-2018 at 05:54 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017