Parliament won’t support a referendum yet. Parliament is split three ways right now. But over time one of those options will be removed - presumably the WA, but my moneys on No Deal being utterly unacceptable to everyone but the most feverish Brexiters.
Assuming the WA is shot in the head, I can see a compromise for those MPs without a backbone would be to fob the decision off to the pubic. And the ground game would be very different this time round. Remain is energised, angry, more young people have the vote, and with No Deal the default, can put a positive case for Remaining…Leave has little to hide behind, with dodgy money being exposed, with a definite Leave scenario rather than the all-things-to-all-men of 2016, many Brexiters having died…
There’s one notable thing about the leading Brexiteers - they are also climate change deniers, supporters of a smaller welfare state, privatisation, lower taxes, fewer regulations, etc. It’s all part of one connected group of people.
When Ress-Mogg et al. held their press conference recently, the logo behind them was ‘Global Vision’. Global Vision is based at 55 Tufton Street, which is also the address of several other organisations, as is 57 Tufton Street next door. This is the centre of all evil, the Mordor of Britain.
Also based at the same address are:
Global Warming Policy Foundation - climate change denial and anti-climate-change propaganda.
Taxpayer’s Alliance - camapaign for lower taxes, especially for the wealthy. Has also criticised renewable energy.
Big Brother Watch - privacy of personal data, especially dodgy financial transactions, front companies, and details of tax havens.
UK2020 - promotes fracking and nuclear reactors.
Business For Britain - anti-EU
European Foundation - anti-EU
Civitas - right-wing think tank, wants to reduce the NHS and all welfare.
This is nothing like a comprehensive list. Various other organisations seem to and come go at this same address. Reportedly, all the groups hold regular combined meetings together. The same interconnected web extends to Nigel Farage, Steve Bannon, supporters of populist parties in Europe, Trump supporters, etc.
The dodgy funding, lies, and underhand methods that went into the Brexit campaign are gradually becoming more apparent.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the basic reason all these people want Brexit is to be able to screw the plebs more effectively, free from EU constraints. Everything else is just propaganda.
Read ‘The Sovereign Individual’ by William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson (1997).
It’s a full explanation of what Mordor is after. And therefore, an explanation of Brexit.
Here’s an Amazon review (apologies to the reviewer):
An extreme far right libertarian dystopian view of the future that his son JRM appears to be willing along with his WTO no deal Brexit plans. Yes…the information age is upon us and the impact of governments being unprepared has led to western liberal democracy being challenged. This has resulted in a rise of nationalism across the globe. If you voted Brexit because you believe Britain can be a great sovereign state outside the EU…then read this book and you will find that WRM is predicting, with relish at the thought of monetary gains from no taxation, the demise of the nation state, including government services like the welfare state and NHS. Of course, we are just tax slaves and how much better off we will be when we are liberated from taxation and no longer have to pay for the services provided to the less well off in society…except you…yes you who voted Brexit…will be one of the less well off rather than a sovereign individual.
That would seem to be the case. Of course, it’s full of blatant lies, but so is the whole Brexit project.
Note to the UK :- we here in the EU have some of the best trade negotiators on the planet working for us. They are not going to be outfoxed by ultra wily Oxford PPE graduates (who don’t understand how EU law or international trade works anyway).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Why doesn’t this type of coercion apply here?
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?
If she loses this vote, does it not trigger a new election?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good question. Doesn’t seem likely, but the British Dopers would be best positioned to comment on this.
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.
