What will the UK do wrt Brexit?

[Malden_Capell]

@Wrenching_Spanners

You forgot to mention that the person who wanted to take the original route has been crying and throwing a temper tantrum ever since the car changed directions.

Because there’s a CHASM.

The whole ‘Remainers are just sore losers’ trope is stupid, false, and overdone.

[UltraVires]

@UDS

Did you mean to say “. . . nobody gets everything they want” here? Because, if you did, I agree. But if you meant what you wrote, no, I disagree. Brexiters get an actual Brexit; the UK ceases to be a member state. And they get at least some of the outcomes for which they consider Brexit to be desirable. And, while remainers don’t get what they most want, continuing membership, they do get to avoid some of the worst anticipated consequences of Brexit.
How does it command a majority in Norway?

It could command a majority very easily. A large (but minority) group of remainers might support it because they regard it as the best attainable outcome, “Remain” being precluded by the referendum result/attitudes of the leadership in both parties/other unpleasant political realities. And Brexiters might support it either because it actually addresses the reasons they support Brexit (if “ever closer union” etc is their particular bugbear) or because they regard it as suboptimal but still preferable to a no-deal Brexit. And those groups together could easily be a majority of the Commons.

I meant to say that nobody gets anything they want. After reading several articles about how Norway interacts with the EU (and again, that’s the extent of my knowledge) it just seems like they act in an absolutely identical way as an EU member except:

1. They get to say that they are not part of the EU
2. They get no representation in the EU
3. They pay more per capita as a result of this bastardized system for EU services.

I can’t imagine that anyone who voted Leave would have wanted this system. It would be like if I resigned from the local gym but still paid 1.5 times the membership fee and still got to use their facilities. I don’t think the Leave voters just wanted some personal satisfaction that came by simply being able to say that they were not part of the EU.

[UltraVires]

btw…what time is the vote today?

[GreenWyvern]

Polls are now showing that Remain would win comfortably in a new referendum. That shows a significant number of people have changed their minds.

Eurotrack 13 Feb 2019 (Results from 74 polls)

***If there was a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, how would you vote? ***

Leave 38%
Remain 45%
YouGov 23 Feb 2019

In hindsight do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?

Right 40%
Wrong 48%

[Baron_Greenback]

@UltraVires

btw…what time is the vote today?

Around 19:00 GMT - there’ll be votes on amendment too

[GreenWyvern]

@UltraVires

btw…what time is the vote today?

7pm UK time. Vote on two amendments (Spelman and Malthouse), then the main vote.

[UltraVires]

@Baron_Greenback

Around 19:00 GMT - there’ll be votes on amendment too

Ah, so that is 3pm my time. What amendments have the Right Honorable Mr. Speaker Bercow tabled?

Sorry if I could easily find this somewhere else. I can’t find it.

[robardin]

@Malden_Capell

No.

Something like EEA/Norway/Switzerland would have been a compromise.

Theresa May’s Deal is a hard Brexit.

Really? I thought the whole “Norway model” was “too soft” of a Brexit for the True Be Leavers?

@UltraVires

After reading several articles about how Norway interacts with the EU (and again, that’s the extent of my knowledge) it just seems like they act in an absolutely identical way as an EU member except:

1. They get to say that they are not part of the EU
2. They get no representation in the EU
3. They pay more per capita as a result of this bastardized system for EU services.

I can’t imagine that anyone who voted Leave would have wanted this system. It would be like if I resigned from the local gym but still paid 1.5 times the membership fee and still got to use their facilities. I don’t think the Leave voters just wanted some personal satisfaction that came by simply being able to say that they were not part of the EU.

That was my understanding as well.

May was told to get a “MORE independent” deal with the EU than Norway or Switzerland has got, as both of those countries allow free movement of people and goods over the borders with the rest of Europe (no passport checks), which is one of the key things the UK Brexit is based on (“control our borders”).

EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean now - her Brexit is “harder” than the Norway/Switzerland model, yes, but that’s because her own party forced those parameters and don’t appear to be backtracking on that, in fact they seem to be going in the other direction where there are more people willing to go with a no-deal Brexit than to sign on for being a de facto “passenger only” passive EU member.

[Baron_Greenback]

@UltraVires

Ah, so that is 3pm my time. What amendments have the Right Honorable Mr. Speaker Bercow tabled?

Sorry if I could easily find this somewhere else. I can’t find it.

BBC summary here

Brexit amendments: What will MPs vote on?

(as an aside - check the fucking state of Edward Leigh in the bottom photo)

[UltraVires]

@Baron_Greenback

BBC summary here

Brexit amendments: What will MPs vote on? - BBC News

(as an aside - check the fucking state of Edward Leigh in the bottom photo)

The amendment (a) from Labour MP Jack Dromey and Conservative Dame Caroline Spelman changes the wording of the government motion to “this House rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship”.

Does this language have any binding effect?

I assume the second amendment is non-binding?

[GreenWyvern]

Spelman rejects a no-deal Brexit at any time and under any circumstances. Binding, as far as I know.

Malthouse has already been totally rejected by the EU as delusional.

[Baron_Greenback]

@UltraVires

Does this language have any binding effect?

It’s as binding as the government motion unamended would be, so yes. (I think :o )

[Malden_Capell]

It’s not binding. It would require a statutory instrument to amend the exit date, which I understand would be laid tomorrow.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Steophan]

@GreenWyvern

Spelman rejects a no-deal Brexit at any time and under any circumstances. Binding, as far as I know.

It’s not binding in a meaningful sense, as there’s no way to enforce it, what with no-deal being the default. Unfortunately, we are currently in a position where, if the current government wishes it, nothing can prevent leaving without a deal. Parliament made that so by having confidence in the government to manage this.

That is, unless anyone besides the Government can withdraw Article 50, which as far as I know they can’t.

[Baron_Greenback]

@Malden_Capell

It’s not binding. It would require a statutory instrument to amend the exit date, which I understand would be laid tomorrow.

Pretty sure the PM said (well, croaked - her voice has truly gone) yesterday that the instrument would be laid if that’s how the House voted. So, effectively binding?

[Voyager]

@Wrenching_Spanners

It depends on the text of the motion presented to Parliament. I don’t think it’s been published yet. Possibly, it’s still being worked on, or simply is waiting for final approval. My prediction is that it will be a motion to require that any exit from the EU must occur under a legislated withdrawal act. That will take no-deal off the table. It’s been announced as a free vote, at least for the Conservatives.

What it won’t do is overturn the invocation of Article 50. I’m guessing there will be an amendment, probably from the SNP, that will seek to do so. I don’t think such an amendment would pass. Instead, Parliament will vote for an extension of the Leave date on Thursday. That should pass, but the EU could very well make counter-demands before agreeing an extension. Who knows what happens at that point. Basically, the government moved itself into a self-contradictory position, and needs to hire Schrodinger’s descendant to explain a path out.

Thanks. That makes a bit more sense. Though would the EU agree to the requirement for a legislated withdrawal, since that seems like a unilateral delay of withdrawal on the UK side.

[Malden_Capell]

@robardin

Really? I thought the whole “Norway model” was “too soft” of a Brexit for the True Be Leavers?

Not based on what polls and Brexiter literature said during and immediately after the referendum. Since then, Brexiters have become radicalised. Not. Helped by May’s self-imposed red lines.

That was my understanding as well.

May was told to get a “MORE independent” deal with the EU than Norway or Switzerland has got, as both of those countries allow free movement of people and goods over the borders with the rest of Europe (no passport checks), which is one of the key things the UK Brexit is based on (“control our borders”).

EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean now - her Brexit is “harder” than the Norway/Switzerland model, yes, but that’s because her own party forced those parameters and don’t appear to be backtracking on that, in fact they seem to be going in the other direction where there are more people willing to go with a no-deal Brexit than to sign on for being a de facto “passenger only” passive EU member.

Leave campaign literature was internally contradictory. It spoke multiple things to all kinds of voters, who seized on what they liked to hear and ignored everything that contradicted it.

It’s the only way Leave won the vote. If they’d specified, they’d have lost.

If May after she became PM had opted to the widest common denominator with a demoralised Remain and a Leave that was still a broad church, she could, maybe, have won through a Norway or Switzerland style deal months ago.

But she put party before country instead.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[UltraVires]

@Steophan

It’s not binding in a meaningful sense, as there’s no way to enforce it, what with no-deal being the default. Unfortunately, we are currently in a position where, if the current government wishes it, nothing can prevent leaving without a deal. Parliament made that so by having confidence in the government to manage this.

That is, unless anyone besides the Government can withdraw Article 50, which as far as I know they can’t.

Well, again, I am not a UK parliamentarian but if the Commons votes that “this House rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship” doesn’t that then repeal by implication its earlier authorization of Article 50 invocation? I mean…this House rejects…it is pretty strong language.

[Voyager]

@Steophan

It’s not binding in a meaningful sense, as there’s no way to enforce it, what with no-deal being the default. Unfortunately, we are currently in a position where, if the current government wishes it, nothing can prevent leaving without a deal. Parliament made that so by having confidence in the government to manage this.

That is, unless anyone besides the Government can withdraw Article 50, which as far as I know they can’t.

It seems to me kind of like a bunch of people jumping out of a plane without a parachute, and then voting that they aren’t going to hit the ground.

[UltraVires]

Division! Clear the lobby!