What will the UK do wrt Brexit?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Steophan

But what if that strange woman turns out to be Teresa May?

Throw the sword back in the lake, saunter away nonchalantly, and forget it ever happened.

It does seem she did the best she could in an impossible situation, with the EU negotiations - no other PM could have reached a more favo(u)rable agreement for the UK and still have something that could be called Brexit, could they? It’s only her unaccountable determination *not *to get it ratified by referendum that has brought the country to the brink.

[PatrickLondon]

@ElvisL1ves

It’s only her unaccountable determination *not *to get it ratified by referendum that has brought the country to the brink.

Hardly “only”. The lack of a parliamentary majority, especially one that could outweigh the ERG and DUPs is her primary problem. Ratification by referendum, even if parliament passed the relevant legislation, wouldn’t get the legislation for implementation approved.

[UDS]

@RTFirefly

It doesn’t sound like the EU is particularly eager to consider a different ‘leave’ plan. Didn’t one of their officials say in the last couple of days that the only things the EU was likely to grant more time for were (a) more time to prepare for an exit either under the negotiated plan or under no plan at all if a decision has been arrived at, or (b) for a new referendum.

In truth, they’d be quite keen to consider a different ‘leave’ plan for a much softer Brexit, if the UK were to seek one. But they see no point in saying so; politically that seems a wildly unlikely turn of events, and for the to be seen to “demand” it at this point would be counterproductive. So what the EU says here is on the unspoken but understood assumption that the UK isn’t about to rethink its approach to Brexit, suddenly drop its red lines, and come back and look for a soft brexit deal.

[GreenWyvern]

Best Brexit analogy:

Dutch PM compares Theresa May to Monty Python limbless knight

[UDS]

@GreenWyvern

Best Brexit analogy:

Dutch PM compares Theresa May to Monty Python limbless knight

Best Brexit analogy was awarded some time ago to this twitter thread by Hugo Rifkind, and I’m afraid the award is perpetual and irrevocable.

[Nava]

@PastTense

The EU is definitely not as well prepared as they can be: the specific point which comes to mind is they have not yet hired an adequate number of customs officials.

The EU wouldn’t be hiring customs officials. Each country would. And for example in the case of Spain there is no such thing as a job as “customs official”: it’s part of the job of our military and police, mainly the Guardia Civil.

[Steophan]

Bercow rules out another vote on May’s deal, Parliament’s rejection of it is binding.

[GreenWyvern]

A significant development, that I predicted last week.

Bercow has announced that he will refuse to allow May’s withdrawal agreement to be voted on again if it is ‘substantially the same’.

“If the government wishes to bring forward a new proposition that is neither the same nor substantially the same as that disposed of by the house on 12 March, this would be entirely in order. What the government cannot legitimately do is to resubmit to the House the same proposition or substantially the same proposition as that of last week, which was rejected by 149 votes.”

From the Guardian live feed a few minutes ago:

John Bercow, the Common speaker, is making a surprise statement to MPs.

He says there has been much speculation about another meaningful vote.

On 13 March Angela Eagle, the Labour MP, asked if it would be proper for the government to keep putting the same motion to a vote. He says MPs from both sides of the House, and from both sides of the argument, have expressed their concerns to him their concerns about MPs voting on the same thing over and over again.

Erskine May, the parliamentary rulebook, says an issue that has been decided in substance cannot be brought back to the Commons. Bercow says ultimately it is for the chair to rule on this.

This convention dates back to 1604, he says. He says Chris Bryant, the Labour MP, gave examples in a speech last week examples of speakers ruling a motion could not be brought back because it had already been decided. Erskine May refers to 12 such rulings before 1920.

This is a necessary rule to ensure the sensible use of the house’s time, and proper respect for what it decides.

He says the absence of rulings since 1920 is due not to the lapse of the convention, but to compliance with it.

Bercow wants to summarise the chronology of events.

He says the EU withdrawal agreement was published on 14 November. The agreement was endorsed by the European council on 25 November. The first scheduled vote on the deal was due to take place on 11 December. But, on 10 December, the vote was postponed after 164 speeches had been made over three of the five days alloted for the debate.

“That postponement was not caused by me, nor the house, but by the government.”

Bercow says he said at the time MPs should get a vote on the postponement. But they did not get one.

The first meaningful vote was on 15 January. It was lost by 230 votes. The next one was due in February. It was postponed, and the vote took place last week. That vote was lost too.

Bercow says the vote last week did not go against the “no repeat votes” (my paraphrase) rule. There had been changes to the legal agreement. And three new documents had been published, he says. He says in procedural terms it was quite proper that the debate and second vote took place. The government responded by scheduling debates on a no-deal debate and on an article 50 extension.

Bercow says it has been rumoured third, or possibly fourth, votes may be scheduled. So he is setting out his views.

If the government brings forward a new proposition, that would be in order. But the government cannot bring back “the same proposition”, or “substantially the same proposition”.

He says this is not his final ruling on the matter. He is just setting out the test the government must meet.

…

Labour’s Hilary Benn, the chair of the Brexit committee, asks if Bercow’s statement means the government would have to get the EU to agree to changes to the agremeent. Or would it be enough for the government to offer concessions to a party in the Commons (ie, the DUP).

Bercow says, thinking off the top of his head, “in all likelihood, the answer to [Benn’s] question is yes”.

A change of opinion about something is not the same as a change to the offer, he says. He says he would have to look at this. Fundamentally, for something to be different, it has to be fundamentally different. Not just different by wording, he says; different by substance.

The EU will certainly never agree to any ‘substantial differences’ in the agreement. So it looks like Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement is finally… finally… finally… dead and buried. Perhaps it will now be possible to make some reasonable progress.

[gracer]

@UDS

Best Brexit analogy was awarded some time ago to this twitter thread by Hugo Rifkind, and I’m afraid the award is perpetual and irrevocable.

Brexit = a limbless knight building a submarine out of cheese.

[filmstar-en]

@GreenWyvern

Best Brexit analogy:

Dutch PM compares Theresa May to Monty Python limbless knight

I seem to remember Cameron drawing on the same sketch to describe the travails of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who is also the leader of a very fractious party.

Cameron, despite is appalling judgement, was quite an entertaining performer at the weekly bunfight that is Prime Minister Question Time.

Both the Conservative and Labour parties are both in dreadful state with weak leadership and challenged to dealing with answering a political question on which there is no clear agreement. It is painful to watch.

The British political system relies on one party having a big enough majority to pursue a political programme. It really does not work very well with minority governments dependent on doing deals with other parties that is normal on the Continent. They usually spend many months, sometimes years negotiating until they come with a working coalition. Consequently they will be highly doubtful that a short extension of Article 50 will be at all useful.

The politicians in many EU states are quite used to horse trading with other parties and I can understand their exasperation at how May is handling this. But then they have probably not had to deal with the DUP and the stubborn, uncompromising attitudes for which they are famous.

[GreenWyvern]

Guardian article and video of Bercow.

Brexit: John Bercow rules out third meaningful vote on same deal

He’s shot the WA with a silver bullet, driven a stake through its heart, and buried it at the crossroads.

[PastTense]

@Nava

The EU wouldn’t be hiring customs officials. Each country would. And for example in the case of Spain there is no such thing as a job as “customs official”: it’s part of the job of our military and police, mainly the Guardia Civil.

You are being pedantic. Previously in this discussion the EU has referred to both the EU governmental organization and the countries which make up the EU. For example posters have said that not only the UK but also the EU will have significantly increased trade costs. But did you bother to explain to them that the EU doesn’t have trade costs, only the residents and businesses of individual countries?

[robardin]

@GreenWyvern

The EU will certainly never agree to any ‘substantial differences’ in the agreement. So it looks like Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement is finally… finally… finally… dead and buried. Perhaps it will now be possible to make some reasonable progress.

And what “progress” would that be?

To my observation, the most likely “progress” towards Brexit, now that there has been an significant expression of will from Parliament that a “no deal” exit must not be allowed, that it’s either The Only Deal They’ve Ever Put On The Table To The EU, and to agree to it by March 29th; or to do a retraction of Article 50.

Any other option, like “extension while we keep talking about it”, is just more limbo time that the EU has said they won’t accept.

I do think it’s fair to put it to a “third vote” if it were made clear that the realistic options are the May Terms for Brexit, or no Brexit at all, and see where the vote goes - as the “No Deal is better than a Bad Deal” option was killed (wasn’t it?), it’s proper to allow the significant proportion of such voters to get to name their backup option.

Just what did that “cannot leave without a deal” resolution ultimately mean, anyway?

[GreenWyvern]

@robardin

Any other option, like “extension while we keep talking about it”, is just more limbo time that the EU has said they won’t accept.

Nonsense, the EU has said it will be happy to grant an extension if the UK will do something reasonable with it - like a second referendum, or taking the Norway option, or anything else constructive, like a general election.

If Labour supports a second referendum - and it seems likely they will - then there’s no doubt it will pass, because a number of Tories will support it too. Theresa May’s attempt to blackmail parliament into accepting her deal has failed.

[ruadh]

@GreenWyvern

The EU will certainly never agree to any ‘substantial differences’ in the agreement. So it looks like Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement is finally… finally… finally… dead and buried. Perhaps it will now be possible to make some reasonable progress.

Bercow suggested during the Q&A that it could possibly pass the “substantial difference” test if a confirmatory referendum was promised. I don’t know how realistic a possibility that is.

[kaylasdad99]

1.) Has EU indicated that a “Norway deal” would be acceptable to them?

2.) Your antecedents need clarifying. If Labour were to propose a second referendum, what exactly would be sure to pass? The proposal for a new referendum, or a referendum calling for a Brexit?

[UltraVires]

@Steophan

Bercow rules out another vote on May’s deal, Parliament’s rejection of it is binding.

Question for you and any other helpful posters. Does the Commons have the U.S. equivalent of “Appealing from the Decision of the Chair”?

IOW, if Bercow says that we cannot vote on this or that, can an MP review his decision by presenting it to a vote of the Commons?

[Steophan]

@UltraVires

Question for you and any other helpful posters. Does the Commons have the U.S. equivalent of “Appealing from the Decision of the Chair”?

IOW, if Bercow says that we cannot vote on this or that, can an MP review his decision by presenting it to a vote of the Commons?

There’s a few articles on the BBC website explaining what could happen next. The short answer is no, his decision is final. The long answer is that his prohibition of another vote is perhaps narrower than it seems - one suggestion is that a vote on the deal with a referendum to confirm it would be sufficiently different to be acceptable.

Other possibilities would be to amend the rules of Parliament to allow another vote, but that would require a majority vote by the House, and couldn’t be imposed by the Government. Also, the rule is that another vote on the same measure can’t be held in this session of Parliament, meaning that theoretically this session could be prorouged and another started in which the vote could legitimately be held. I’m not clear on exactly how that would be accomplished, though.

Ultimately, this is a strong reminder to May and the Government that they work for Parliament, and not the other way round, and that she must remember that when going to the EU for an extension later in the week.

[Malden_Capell]

I’ve been trying to game-plan the possible outcomes.

If MV3 were to take place after a prorogation, I could see an amendment to approve the deal as long as it’s ratified in a referendum with Remain as the other option passing.

If it were a general election, I think that would just cause more chaos. The opinion polls are belying the fact that the Tories are barely a single party any more. Brexit cuts across party lines, and while labour will be similarly muffled in their campaigning, I would not be surprised to see the Tories actually splitting one way or another.

Even if they stay together by some miracle I doubt it will clarify matters one jot. Tactical voting will be insane.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GreenWyvern]

@kaylasdad99

1.) Has EU indicated that a “Norway deal” would be acceptable to them?

2.) Your antecedents need clarifying. If Labour were to propose a second referendum, what exactly would be sure to pass? The proposal for a new referendum, or a referendum calling for a Brexit?

1.) Yes

2.) The former