The pound also rose against the euro, and the rally really got going at 1810 UTC. That sort of makes it seem connected to the vote to me.
Revocation is ever-so-slightly more likely?
Yeah, it might have to do with the vote today saying that a no-deal won’t happen. But it’s non-binding, from what I understand, so it might just be the market being hopeful. But you are probably right…they do seem linked. I hadn’t looked at the news in a few days so I missed this vote.
The link between the pound and the lower chance of no deal is fairly obvious.
Yesterday morning there was a similar hike when the DUP en ERG were openly discussing the possibility of voting in favor of May’s deal… that evaporated once the attorney general made his conclusions public (still a legal risk of getting stuck in the back stop).
Even if it does do that, which it may well do, then so what? That doesn’t actually force the government to act, and as far as I know there is no mechanism to force them to do so, only the threat of removing them. By which time it would be too late.
I’d say it’s somewhat analagous to the US government shutdowns, in that all it sometimes takes is inaction for pretty unpleasant and undesired things to happen. We’re at the point of relying on the good faith of people who may well be realising their careers are crashing down around them.
Usually when playing Deal or No Deal it’s bad strategy to keep saying ‘No Deal’ after all the good cases have been opened and discarded. And this kind of Schroedinger-esque No Deal and no-No Deal is explicitly forbidden by the rules.
I guess the Mother of all Parliaments is less rational than a tawdry game show.
Possibly you’re reading about Norway from, um, sources with a line to push? They don’t seem to be giving you a balanced or accurate picture of what Norway’s EEA membership involves.
Norway does not act in an absolutely identical way as an EU member. They are bound by 20 - 30% of EU legislation, mostly the bits which constitute (parts of) the Single Market; the remaining 70 - 80% does not apply to them. They have their own fisheries grounds, and their own fishing policy, for example. They do not participate in the Common Agricultural Policy, or in the Single Market for food and beverages. They have their own trade policy and set their own customs tariffs. They aren’t, except to an extremely limited extent, subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. They have no obligation to adopt the euro, either now or in the future, and no political commitment to “ever closer union”. They do participate in several non-Single Market aspects of the EU, like the European Defence Agency, Europol,. etc, but they are under no obligation to; they take a case-by-case decision on whether they want to negotiate an involvement for themselves. Etc, etc.
While it’s true to say that they have no representation in the EU, they do get consulted on the development of EU legislative proposals that will affect them and they have a voice both directly, and through the EEA Joint Committee. When proposals are legislated, if they create significant new obligations the Norwegian parliament gets to vote on whether they will be implemented in Norway. (They invariably vote to implement them, since the consequences of not implementing them would be reduced participation in EU programmes, which would be disadvantageous to Norway. But the point is they have the option to do that.)
They contribute financially only to the programmes in which they participate, and their contributions to those programmes are calculated on the same basis as the contributions of EU member states. If they contribute more per capita than other states, that’s not because they are not EU members; it’s are a wealthy country. and the contribution formula reflects this. If they were to join the EU they would pay more overall, not because the basis of calculating their contributions would change, but because they would be participating in, and therefore contributing towards, more programmes. (Of course, they would also be benefiting from more programmes, including receiving money under them, but the overall effect of joining would be an increase in their net contribution to the EU.) It’s nonsense to suggest that they pay more as an EEA member; they pay less than they would pay as an EU member.
As for whether anybody who voted Leave might have wanted a Norway-type relationship, it was widely touted as an option by Leave campaigners during the referendum, so evidently they thought it might garner votes. And of course the people with actual experience of EEA membership, the Norwegians, generally seem very supportive of it, while continuing to oppose EU membership by a large majority. Obviously they think it’s a good deal. I don’t see any a priori reason to exclude the possibility that it might suit the UK quite well.
It is strong language, but at most it can be read as a signal that the Commons would vote to revoke Art 50 notification if that were the only way to avoid a no-deal Brexit. Signalling that you would vote for something is not the same thing as actually voting for it. So if the Commons wants to stop a no-deal Brexit ultimately they have to follow through and either vote to accept a deal [that is actually on offer], or vote to revoke Art 50 notification.
So, if I understand this, does this analogy work:
A group goes to a restaurant for a meal. The restaurant serves chicken, steak, or fish and the group must agree to a dish or else there will be no meal. They may also choose to return home and eat.
So May has proposed chicken for the dish and the group rejects that. However it decides that “no meal” is not an option. But importantly, it does not specify what IS the option. It doesn’t propose steak or fish or going home. It continues to insist that “no meal” is not an option despite the fact that if they don’t agree on steak, fish or going home, then “no meal” is exactly what will happen no matter how many times they pass “no meal” resolutions.
Is that about right?
One doesn’t create justiciable legislation by implication. Politically, that’s what it implies: but no-one has explicitly voted to approve amended wording or repeal of the relevant legislation: as ever, the devil us in the detail.
Not quite. I think this is closer:
A group orders a takeout dinner to be delivered this evening. The order specifies pizza, but this can be changed to Indian or Chinese at any time before delivery, or it can be cancelled. The group decides that they absolutely do not want pizza, but they cannot agree either on Chinese or Indian, or on cancelling the order, so they do not communicate with the restaurant at all. Pizza will therefore be delivered (and charged for) as initially ordered.
Or try this:
I notify my phone-and-internet provider that I am cancelling my contract with effect from the end of the month. My provider will port my number either to New Provider A or New Provider B, if I so direct. I can also countermand the cancellation at any time before it takes effect. I don’t want to lose my number or be left without a service, but I cannot decide whether I prefer New Provider A or New Provider B so I do not givea notification to port to either of them. I also do not countermand my cancellation instruction. At the end of the month I have no service, and I lose my number.
So…MV3? MV4? May is still there, and refusing to change her red lines and wants parliament to vote again on her already twice-defeated deal. Unbelievable.
I keep hearing contradictory things about what the ERG will do - some say they’ll cave and vote for to at least get a Brexit, others saying they’ll never vote for a shit deal. But either way I can’t see the DUP voting for it, ever. And with enough Tory rebels, it simply doesn’t get passed, a third or a fourth time.
May told the House last night that if the House didn’t agree a deal, she’ll have to ask for a long extension. So if the EU agrees - and they’ll want something to show for it - we’re going to participate in the EU elections.
Possibly the first time ever anyone’s given a shit about them.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This repeats a common misunderstanding which often confuses these discussions. Freedom of Movement was one of the most important issues during the first referendum campaign. It has nothing at all to do with the passport controls at international borders.
Freedom of Movement is the right of every EU citizen (with only a few very limited exceptions) to live and work in any member state while enjoying substantially the same rights (again with a few limited exceptions) as citizens of that member state.
Border controls vary from border to border within the EU, but where there are controls then everyone has to go through them, obviously.
¿Qué? 
Thank you very many lots to those who explained, but please, try to remember most of us don’t speak UK-government.
Am I wrong in thinking that one of the outcomes from last night is that we now know that the Parliamentary Conservative Party has basically ceased to exist?
In Parliament, the point of parties is that they group together people who share the same policies and, with occasional minor exceptions on minor issues, vote the same way. What we saw last night was a group of MPs who are nominally of the same party voting every which way on a major issue, with those in charge of making sure they vote the party line totally unable to do so. Nor indeed was there a clear party line. Senior members of the party who are ostensibly collectively responsible for setting its policy abstained on a key vote with, as yet, no consequences. This is not, in fact, a parliamentary party. I don’t what it is. But whatever it is, it plainly cannot command a majority of the House of Commons.
In previous circumstances, that obvious truth would be enough to trigger a collapse of the government and the emergence of a new one, either through rapid re-organisation of loyalties among MPs, or by a general election. (Or, the fact that this was the obvious consequence of this scale of failure would have brought MPs into line and avoided the mess.)
In current circumstances, due to the new Fixed Term Parliament Act, that isn’t happening. An actual formal motion of No Confidence has to be called, and Tory MPs who despise May and fundamentally oppose their own party’s policy will line up to vote against it in the interest of holding on to their jobs and power. Following that, if it happens, they will then continue to vote against their own party.
It’s fair to say that a general election might not improve the situation. Brexit causes intra-party conflict and inter-party agreements. There probably is a majority of MPs in the House at this point for a Norway-ish deal, but they need to co-ordinate to get behind a serious proposal for that, which means they need breathing room, which means a long extension to A50, which the EU would only agree to if there was a serious proposal backed by a majority of MPs.
A 3rd vote on the May deal? Really? But a 2nd referendum would be a betrayal of democracy and go against the will of the people?
I guess it’s because the 1st two votes were so close and the referendum was such an overwhelming majority. /sarcasm
Did anyone see Jess Philips during the debate? A speech full of honesty and integrity that literally brought a tear to my eye. We either need more MPs like her, or she needs to adopt me.
OK, perhaps “no passport checking” is not the right phrase - “no passport barrier” then? The point is still that Freedom of Movement for EU citizens is part of the Switzerland and Norway models, and that that was a complete no-go for the Brexit supporters. At least up until now.
Which is why the whole “no hard border in Northern Ireland” is a complete contradiction, because if you’re going to say “we will not accept EU Freedom of Movement”, and the Republic of Ireland is an EU member state and Northern Ireland is part of the UK, how do you not have a hard border?
Brexiters have to choose one of:
- Accept a hard border as part of the price
- accept a Norway Model type deal (derided as “second class EU citizen”)
- Release Northern Ireland to be a special case that is “technically part of the UK but operated like the EU is” (and then the monitoring of Freedom of Movement concerns gets transferred to “immigration control checks” on ferries and flights between NI and the rest of the UK)
The whole “backstop” option that is already baked into the original May proposal is a de facto #3 on this heading, isn’t it? Which was rightly criticised by the DUP as something that had no foreseeable conclusion other than eventual full integration into the RoI.
The Freedom of Movement issue isn’t about someone crossing a border. The principle does apply to visa-free travel between EU countries for EU citizens, but that will almost certainly be the case under whatever post-Brexit (or non-Brexit) scenario occurs. Freedom of Movement means that almost any EU citizen has the right to come to the UK to seek work. They’re also entitled to welfare benefits, although those are more restricted.
In 2004, there was an EU expansion that brought ten northern and eastern European countries into the EU. That expansion brought a large number of job seeking immigrants into the UK. The Leave clampdown on Freedom of Movement is basically backlash against that wave of immigration. Nobody really cares if someone wants to fly from Sofia to Dublin and then catch a train to Belfast.
Her last throw of the dice might be to demand of her party support her Withdrawal Agreement as it stands or accept a delay of a year or more to develop another deal. A long extension would provide time enough to explore other possible solutions to the Brexit Question, there are many alternatives to consider.
She will need a credible reason for an extension to A50 for the EU to agree. That would have to be something like a General Election or another Referendum. They are not likely to accept negotiating another Withdrawal Agreement as a reason. It did not work last time, what hope that it would work a second time with the minority government in place at the moment? Would the Brexit faction and DUP accept that her current WA is the best they can hope for?
She could call a General Election while Labour are themselves in very divided state. But that would be risky and a Labour Party in power led by Corbyn is the stuff of nightmares.
Both parties are both being led by radical factions and are the centrists in both parties are a silent majority. The parties have already started to split. It could get a lot worse. The Brexit faction really need to be in their own party rather than hijacking the Conservative party. Pity is that more did not defect to UKIP.
This has got to change if we are to get back to rational political policy rather ludicrous escapades like Brexit.:dubious:
By the way, for those following along, there will be a vote on a second referendum tonight. Speaker Bercow selected a second referendum amendment (amendment h) to be voted on as part of the consideration into the government’s motion on the extension of the leave date.
“instructs the Prime Minister to
request an extension to the Article 50 period at the European Council in March 2019
sufficient for the purposes of legislating for and conducting a public vote in which the
people of the United Kingdom may give their consent for either leaving the European
Union on terms to be determined by Parliament or retaining the United Kingdom’s
membership of the European Union.”.
I’ll be curious to see if Jeremy Corbyn has the courage to have Labour back the amendment. Bet he waffles instead.