What will the UK do wrt Brexit?

[UDS]

@Northern_Piper

Based on those votes, it seems to me that the EU made the correct decision. They have concluded that U.K. politics is completely dysfunctional on Brexit, so best to get it over with as quickly as possible.

Purpose of the votes was not to secure a majority for any option - the more options you offer, the less likely that one of them will secure >50% support - but to guage the releative popularity of the options, to see where there is scope for building a consensus.

In that regard the exercise has been helpful. What the pattern of voting shows is that the Commons divides into:

• a smaller group (about 25%) who vote for either or both of the options that are harder than the negotiated deal and generally reject (or at least do not support) other options), and

• a larger group (about 75%) who vote either for second referendum/revocation or a Brexit softer than the negotiated deal, but will not suppor the harder options.

Significantly, those who support softer brexit are very open also to supporting a second referendum, indicating perhaps that they think their favoured approach can command public support, while the very hard brexiters are not, indicating the opposite.

Also significantly, “permanent customs union” and “second referendum” both secured higher “yes” votes than the negotiated deal has managed on either of its outings.

What this suggests is that, given the sentiment in the Commons, there is scope for building a sufficient consensus around a softer Brexit, possibly with the endorsement of a second referendum. To my mind the only thing that would prevent the Commons arriving at a consensus along these lines would be opposition from the leadership of one or both parties.

[Northern_Piper]

I’m afraid you’re more optimistic than I am.

However, Dr Johnson probably would approve of the EU’s action.

[Steophan]

@MichaelEmouse

Steophan,

Maybe I’m wrong about the following but I thought I’d check: If your goal in participating in this thread is sharing your Brexit-related anxiety and getting empathy, that’s a completely understandable need. I might feel it just as keenly as you if I were in your position. This thread is probably not a good place for it and blaming the EU is not a good way of getting a sympathetic ear. A thread that focuses on the emotional and practical effects of Brexit might be more helpful.

If it’s not clear, I blame the UK government and media more than I blame the EU, but were I in the position of some people I know, non-British EU citizens living here, I might feel the opposite.

I don’t generally come to this board looking for sympathy, I come for intelligent and challenging discussion. It may not seem like it, but I’ve read and considered every post here that’s criticised and opposed me. You may well be right that I should stay out of this thread for a bit though.

Thank you for the kind words.

[GreenWyvern]

The best cartoon about the choices last night:

Steve Bell on Theresa May's Brexit menu – cartoon

[Gyrate]

I was going to ask if it was possible to hold a vote of no-confidence in the entire fucking Parliament but then I realised that’s just a general election. Still, the thought of the Queen kicking in the door of the Commons and bitchslapping everyone on the front benches is a comforting one.

@Steophan

But the certainty of something bad is not better than uncertainty which may lead to a better outcome. The problems at the moment would be magnified tenfold under a no-deal Brexit.

You’ve said this before, and I’ve already explained in great detail why this is incorrect.

@Steophan

I’ve no money to stockpile anything, so I’ll probably be swinging from the rafters shortly.

Please don’t do that. This too shall pass.

[GreenWyvern]

@Gyrate

I was going to ask if it was possible to hold a vote of no-confidence in the entire fucking Parliament but then I realised that’s just a general election. Still, the thought of the Queen kicking in the door of the Commons and bitchslapping everyone on the front benches is a comforting one.

Of course there’s always the Oliver Cromwell solution.

In 1653, Parliament (purged of Royalists) had been in session for many years without an election due to the Civil War. They had become corrupt and ineffectual. They kept promising to hold an election, but it never happened, mainly because they knew that practically all of them would be voted out.

After yet another broken promise to hold elections, Oliver Cromwell, C-in-C of the army and a member of parliament himself, came to parliament on 20 April with an escort of soldiers. They waited at the door while Cromwell sat in the chamber and listened for a few minutes.

Then he stood up to speak, starting quietly, but gradually working himself up into a tremendous rage. He denounced individual members by name, calling them dishonest, fools, whoremasters, thieves, drunkards. He said, “You are no longer a Parliament, I say you are no Parliament. You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

Then he called in his soldiers, and, indicating the mace (symbol that Parliament is in session) told them, “Take away that fool’s bauble!”

The Speaker was dragged out of his chair, and the chamber cleared. Members were escorted out of the building, the doors were locked, and guards were stationed outside.

That night someone wrote graffiti on the walls: ‘House to let, unfurnished.’

[PatrickLondon]

@GreenWyvern

Of course there’s always the Oliver Cromwell solution.

Except that he couldn’t find a “strong and stable” replacement either, the whole thing crumbling into rivalries between different factions in Parliament and the Army, and ultimately military coups. I think what you mean is the General Monck solution!

[MrDibble]

Guy Fawkes solution…

[Malden_Capell]

@GreenWyvern

Of course there’s always the Oliver Cromwell solution.

In 1653, Parliament (purged of Royalists) had been in session for many years without an election due to the Civil War. They had become corrupt and ineffectual. They kept promising to hold an election, but it never happened, mainly because they knew that practically all of them would be voted out.

After yet another broken promise to hold elections, Oliver Cromwell, C-in-C of the army and a member of parliament himself, came to parliament on 20 April with an escort of soldiers. They waited at the door while Cromwell sat in the chamber and listened for a few minutes.

Then he stood up to speak, starting quietly, but gradually working himself up into a tremendous rage. He denounced individual members by name, calling them dishonest, fools, whoremasters, thieves, drunkards. He said, “You are no longer a Parliament, I say you are no Parliament. You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

Then he called in his soldiers, and, indicating the mace (symbol that Parliament is in session) told them, “Take away that fool’s bauble!”

The Speaker was dragged out of his chair, and the chamber cleared. Members were escorted out of the building, the doors were locked, and guards were stationed outside.

That night someone wrote graffiti on the walls: ‘House to let, unfurnished.’

Kind of. Apparently the Rump was preparing to hold elections but they were uncertain how to vet the elections.

This was because the Commonwealth wanted to ensure only men of quality who weren’t royalists were elected.

The Rump wanted to vet the elections itself - kind of like how the House of Representatives in the US oversees election counting - but the Army were insistent they should do the counting to ensure good Independents (non-Anglican protestants) got a majority.

That was the breach, if I’m remembering my history right…

And then Cromwell brought in the Barebones Parliament, which was a farce and a half.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GreenWyvern]

Bercow has accepted MV3, minus the political declaration. So it’s Groundhog Day again.

“Watch out for that first step. It’s a doozy!”

[Steophan]

@GreenWyvern

Bercow has accepted MV3, minus the political declaration. So it’s Groundhog Day again.

“Watch out for that first step. It’s a doozy!”

As I understand it, and I’m honestly not sure I do, they are currently debating whether to vote tomorrow, and will be voting on that sometime.

[Malden_Capell]

It doesn’t make sense as they don’t have the numbers. Downing Street has no idea what else to do I suppose.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Inner_Stickler]

I’ve been trying to follow the guardian’s live page on this and I must admit I’m a little confused about what is happening.

My understanding is that the PD is non-binding so I’m surprised that leaving it off would constitute a significant enough change to warrant a vote. But then the motion Leadsom read out says, “notes that this approval does not by itself meet the requirements of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act;” which sounds to me like even if it passes, it’s not actually resolving anything? I appreciate any clarification.

[GreenWyvern]

Without the political declaration, it’s technically not a meaningful vote.

It handles the initial exit from the EU, but without setting any direction for subsequent negotiations during the transition period. It would be enough to get an extension to May 22, but Parliament would still have to vote again on the political declaration. However, this raises legal questions about fulfilling the condition of a meaningful vote. The legal situation is far from clear.

It it passes, Theresa May will resign, and someone else - perhaps a hardliner - will be in charge, without any political declaration agreed to. This makes the whole thing even more dubious. A lot of people are going to be less likely to vote for it than before. The DUP still won’t vote for it, and part of the ERG won’t vote for it - so it’s still highly unlikely that May will succeed.

She seems to think that if she keeps banging her head against the brick wall, eventually the brick wall will give way. I’m betting it won’t.

[kenobi_65]

@GreenWyvern

The DUP still won’t vote for it, and part of the ERG won’t vote for it - so it’s still highly unlikely that May will succeed.

Yesterday afternoon (US time), I’d been listening to the BBC World Service on my satellite radio, and I’d heard the announcement that the DUP wouldn’t be backing May’s proposal. I’d been curious if the removal of the PD from her proposal would change that – it sounds like it didn’t.

[Dr.Drake]

So trying to read between the lines here, it sounds like we’re either heading for No Deal on 12 April, because Parliament is completely off the rails dysfunctional, or we’ll somehow wind up with May’s deal for 22 May, because it’s the only one the EU will back, but each MP will be able to maintain plausible deniability and claim that he/she did not support it in any sort of serious binding vote.

Rescinding Article 50, though by far the best solution, sounds like it’s off the table.

[kaylasdad99]

Not a question of what she SHOULD do, just a question of what she CAN do: CAN the PM simply pick up the phone, call Brussels, officially declare A50 to be rescinded, and then resign? That is, would such a rescinding stick?

ETA: Because if she CAN, that’s what she SHOULD do. There’s no question about that.

[MichaelEmouse]

@kaylasdad99

Not a question of what she SHOULD do, just a question of what she CAN do: CAN the PM simply pick up the phone, call Brussels, officially declare A50 to be rescinded, and then resign? That is, would such a rescinding stick?

ETA: Because if she CAN, that’s what she SHOULD do. There’s no question about that.

May invoked Article 50 with Parliament’s approval but it wasn’t necessary* which suggests it’s not needed to rescind it either.

That is what she should do. It’s the best option but it would mean a lot of unpleasantness in the short, especially immediate, term. She has a choice between her Prime Ministership being reviled in history but getting there ounce by ounce vs having made some beneficial contribution but enduring the most adversity now. Like someone with gangrene who can never commit to cutting off what’s gangrenous so it spreads wider and the prospect of cutting that off becomes ever worse.

The high delusions and low impulse control of Brexit are the very opposite of the stiff-upper-lip “keep calm and carry on” I’ve always liked imagining the British are like. You guys better pop out another Beatles or Monty Python to give the world to make up for your embarrassing discombobulation.

• United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union - Wikipedia

[Inner_Stickler]

Surely the worry would be that outrage over the audacity of unilaterally revoking A50 would result in a new hardliner Brexiter PM to re-invoke A50 and not even bother with a deal?

[MichaelEmouse]

@Inner_Stickler

Surely the worry would be that outrage over the audacity of unilaterally revoking A50 would result in a new hardliner Brexiter PM to re-invoke A50 and not even bother with a deal?

You’re right. The drama in the Tory party must be as surreal as that of the White House.