Brexit

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Re: Brexit

Postby Pedgerow » Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:03 am

Some boss Brexit bants from badman Bercow: he will not allow parliamentary time for a third vote on Theresa May's deal, unless it is "substantially different" from the deal that has already been voted on twice.

Given that it's her deal, no deal or no Brexit, this means that we are now looking at no deal or no Brexit and that's it. Or, alternatively, perhaps an entirely new deal can be arranged over the next 262 hours, yes, hours. But what we're really looking at is a long extension to the Article 50 procedure, because we all knew there would be an extension, and John Bercow has also made the "short technical extension" utterly pointless.

By the way, if I was the president of Lithuania or Cyprus or somewhere, then I'd be able to veto any Brextension (that's my word, I made it up, it's mine, but you can borrow it if you like) and I would also be very sad that the UK was leaving the EU, given how much investment they give to my country. So frankly, I'd be pretty terrible at my job if I didn't tell Theresa May that unless she promised to keep up the investment in my country after Brexit, I would send her out next week with No Deal and she'd go down in history as a catastrophic failure. She's already bribed Northern Ireland to keep her job; it's payday, baby!
  • 4

Pedgerow
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:09 am
Show rep
Title: PWOT refugee

Re: Brexit

Postby Askias » Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:14 pm

The first delay has been voted through. It's a two-way conditional one: either the UK Parlement gets through May's deal, which has already been defeated twice and not by small margins, in which case the deal will take effect on May 22nd, separating the UK from the EU. That date is pretty meaningful because it's the last day before EU elections. The UK will not vote in the EU elections on that timetable. If it's delayed further, that'll have to change.

If the UK can't agree on anything, the delay will only be two weeks, April 12th. No deal will take effect, releasing the UK from all EU legislation and obligations, also separating them from the EU. 'No use waiting if nothing is happening' is honestly more pressure than I expected, but in my defence it's not easy to predict 27 states trying to move as a bloc.

There's no step forward here. It just adds time to the clock everyone has been running out on purpose for the last year.


Further extensions require full agreement by all parties. As for Marcuse's suggestion that the UK may withdraw Article 50, that's legally possible, though YMMV whether it's politically viable. It's also the only option on the table besides No Deal that's unilateral. The EU need not approve and cannot refuse it.
  • 6

If there be here lesson or moral, it lies beyond the competence of him who wrote this post.
(Jack Vance, Emphyrio)
User avatar
Askias
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:40 pm
Location: Under the Sea
Show rep
Title: Night Owl

Re: Brexit

Postby Pedgerow » Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:58 pm

There is currently an online petition doing the rounds to just give up and revoke Article 50. I saw it shared on Facebook by a Remain-supporting friend last night, and clicked the link, but did not sign because a petition needs 100,000 signatures to be considered for parliamentary debate, and it was up to 150,000 already, so my signature would have added nothing. It was also going up by a few hundred each time the page refreshed itself; it appeared to be going viral.

Anyway, it's now up nearly four million votes, and its popularity crashed the website for all government petitions earlier today. I eventually decided to hop on the bandwagon and sign it too, but your signature does not count until you verify it through your email address, and I haven't received the email yet because of the backlog, so God knows how many people have tried to sign it now. Andrea Leadsom has quipped that she might consider asking for it to be debated if it can get 17.4 million signatures to match the 17.4 million votes to leave, and that was pretty clever around the 200,000 mark, but at 3,822,258 signatures as I type this, plus mine, there's going to come a point where people might start to really go for it.
  • 3

Pedgerow
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:09 am
Show rep
Title: PWOT refugee

Re: Brexit

Postby gisambards » Thu Mar 28, 2019 12:14 am

After rejecting May's deal, MPs have now rejected every other possible outcome as well, including leaving without a deal and having another referendum. The petition to revoke Article 50 and just not leave is yet to be discussed, but that will almost certainly be rejected as well. Maybe this means MPs will just bite the bullet and vote for May's deal when it gets brought out again, but even that's not definite.

As I think I've said before, I think Theresa May, who seems to get the most flak, actually is one of the few people who deserves some credit for actually trying to offer a way forward, even if it's not a great one. The actions of the hard Brexiteers in parliament has been shameful - I think it's telling of their cowardice that for all their sniping, no-one has yet stepped forward to offer an actual clear vision of how the no-deal Brexit Britain they want will actually function - but I actually think the most scorn really should be aimed at the Labour leadership. In a time of looming national crisis, they have obstinately refused to try and cross the divide to find the best way forward for the country, despite being more Brexit-sympathetic than the current Tory leadership, and instead have focused on trying to force their way into power. Of course, they'll probably continue to get away with acting like they somehow hold the moral high ground, but I really think they're the most at fault in this situation right now.
  • 8

User avatar
gisambards
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2068
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Brexit

Postby Pedgerow » Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:22 am

Entertainingly, it's possible that the very most extreme part of the government, the absolutely Froot-Loops Orangemen of the DUP, could wind up thwarting Brexit altogether. I agree that Theresa May has orchestrated a perfectly acceptable compromise that delivers on the referendum without destroying the economy; it's just that, well, as a Remainer, I don't want that and I still believe Brexit can be stopped. And if she didn't need the votes from the DUP, her deal would have been accepted by now, in my opinion. But because nobody wants No Deal, and the DUP reject any deal that tries to prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland, the only possible Brexit options keep getting voted down. And coincidentally, Northern Ireland did actually vote to Remain. It's 4D chess here, people.

Also, where the bloody hell is Jeremy Corbyn for any of this? Every time there is a vote in the House of Commons, on anything, the government will set out what they want, and then John Bercow always unfailingly says, "Point of order, Angus Robertson" and Angus Robertson of the SNP has to step in and oppose the government. Jeremy Corbyn never bothers. I'm starting to wonder if he even turns up sometimes. He is just so woefully ineffectual as an opposition leader. He's like Labour's very own pet Invisible Man; he does nothing. Occasionally, in the middle of Brexit talks, he decides to call for a general election, to no effect. But because Brexit is such a tightrope for both of the major parties, hardly anyone is willing to stand up and criticise anything the government does, in case it's seen as a betrayal of Brexit. Apart from Angus Robertson and his SNP buddies, who are the only Remainers who say anything at all nowadays.

I also really think that one of today's amendments for the indicative votes should have been, "In the event that no other proposals are supported, a referendum should be called." Because it is now clearer than ever that Parliament cannot get anything through, and nothing can be agreed on, so it's time to offer the decision to someone else. The Queen might be able to choose what to do, but I imagine that would cause a serious constitutional crisis, so we can't have that. And if the Prime Minister can't do it, and all MPs together can't do it, and the actual head of state can't do it, and for some reason nobody is asking the House of Lords, then that only leaves us to do it. We are the only hope of avoiding No Deal at this stage.
  • 2

Pedgerow
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:09 am
Show rep
Title: PWOT refugee

Re: Brexit

Postby CarrieVS » Thu Mar 28, 2019 8:54 am

Pedgerow wrote:I also really think that one of today's amendments for the indicative votes should have been, "In the event that no other proposals are supported, a referendum should be called."


I'm not sure that's really feasible now. If we don't pass the deal we're out on our ear in just over a fortnight, unless we revoke Article 50 entirely. Unless we were to revoke it and then have another referendum about whether to invoke it again, which I feel would be best described as a complete bloody shambles.

I suppose we could go cap in hand to the EU for another extension but the bare minimum referendum period allowed by law is ten weeks, and that's ten weeks from after legislation for the referendum is passed (they could probably speed that up) and the exact question decided upon (usually 12 weeks, but not actually required to be by law.) The Electoral Commission recommends a full six months from legislation to poll to allow adequate preparation, although it's not a required minimum and could no doubt be cut down in an emergency. And that's before we think about time to do anything about the result. I do not think it would be granted.
  • 4

The Dungeon Master wrote:Those who don't want to be baptised, make a dexterity saving throw.
User avatar
CarrieVS
TCS Redshirt
TCS Redshirt
 
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:43 pm
Location: By my wild self in the wet wild woods waving my wild tail
Show rep
Title: Swamp Thing

Re: Brexit

Postby cmsellers » Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:01 pm

I think an extension for a referendum would be granted, because a referendum which either endorses May's deal or argues for revoking Article 50 would save everyone a lot of headache. But it only takes one of the EU's 27 other countries to gum up the works, so such an extension is by no means guaranteed. Parliament could also revoke Article 50, hold a referendum, and reinvoke it if it passes, but that seems likely to piss off nearly everyone and could lead to the EU saying that May's deal is no longer on the table second go-round.
  • 1

User avatar
cmsellers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 8708
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Three miles from the bat bridge
Show rep
Title: The Bad Bart of Ruddigore

Re: Brexit

Postby Marcuse » Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:14 pm

There's a huge push not to agree a further extension beyond the 22nd May because this would be when the UK would be obliged to participate in European Parliament elections. Teresa May has been adamant that this would not be acceptable, and for once the opposition parties have not made a serious dissent to this.

The...bizarre travesty of parliament wresting the business agenda from the government for Wednesday then failing utterly to reach a consensus on 7 remain plans and no deal has been replaced by MV3 - Meaningful Vote Three on the withdrawal agreement, which is planned for tomorrow.

It's important to note that in order to circumvent the Speaker's ridiculous quotation of 400 year old precedent he immediately allowed yesterdays business to ignore, the vote will only be on the withdrawal agreement and omit the political declaration on the future relationship. This is important because it marks Teresa May's withdrawal from the ongoing process of negotiating Brexit. She's probably going to actually resign if this withdrawal agreement passes, and likely leave politics altogether. She's washing her hands of it in the same way David Cameron did when he failed over the referendum.

Angus Robertson of the SNP has to step in and oppose the government


Just FYI, Angus Robertson lost his seat in 2017, the current leader of the SNP in Westminster is Ian Blackford.
  • 2

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6577
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Brexit

Postby Marcuse » Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:29 pm

MV3 has failed. The deal that Teresa May has staked her career and the country's future on has failed to pass the House of Commons three times. This means that right now the legal default position (ie. what happens unless something else is put in place) is for the UK to leave the EU on the 12th April (14 days away) without a deal. No alternative gathered enough support in the Commons on Wednesday, and parliament seems no closer to reaching any consensus on the way forward than the government is.

Parliament has, in indicative votes, shown it doesn't want a no deal Brexit, but has failed to unite to put anything else on the table to replace the default which is no deal. I'm not sure how things are going to progress now. It's pretty obvious that Teresa May intended to pass the withdrawal agreement without the accompanying political declaration and then wash her hands of the process by resigning on the grounds that people don't rate her negotiation skills.

It's worth noting that despite this, one of the options on the table only two days ago was a motion to cancel article 50 (which the UK can do unilaterally, which has been determined by the ECJ in a case brought by the SNP) if it gets to the day before Brexit without a deal. It didn't succeed, meaning even such a plan to "stop Brexit" can't be said to command majority support in the Commons.

I'm at a loss at this point. Sack them all and start again.
  • 7

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6577
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Brexit

Postby cmsellers » Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:41 pm

What about removing Northern Ireland from the EU and leaving the rest of the UK in?

After all, the key to a good compromise is that no one is happy.
  • 0

Last edited by cmsellers on Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
cmsellers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 8708
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Three miles from the bat bridge
Show rep
Title: The Bad Bart of Ruddigore

Re: Brexit

Postby Crimson847 » Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:40 pm

The customs union plan almost passed Parliament (264-272). Any reason they can't try to peel off a couple extra votes there to get to a majority?
  • 0

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3187
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Brexit

Postby Marcuse » Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:59 am

Crimson847 wrote:The customs union plan almost passed Parliament (264-272). Any reason they can't try to peel off a couple extra votes there to get to a majority?


Remaining as part of the Customs Union would, in the eyes of the government, fail to respect the result of the referendum. Being a Customs Union member would disbar the UK from making its own trade deals around the world, which was one of the things we were told would be an advantage of Brexit. It would also necessitate paying into the EU budget but lose a say on how that money was spent and future contributions. It would be economically useful but politically odious.
  • 2

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6577
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Brexit

Postby Krashlia » Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:01 pm

Marcuse wrote:
Remaining as part of the Customs Union would, in the eyes of the government, fail to respect the result of the referendum. Being a Customs Union member would disbar the UK from making its own trade deals around the world, which was one of the things we were told would be an advantage of Brexit. It would also necessitate paying into the EU budget but lose a say on how that money was spent and future contributions. It would be economically useful but politically odious.



Kinda chopping off your own balls from the sound of it. If you want sovereignty (costly as that might be), you can't half-ass it by asking to be part of some lesser union, like what Florida should become after we make Pueto Rico a proper state.
  • 1

User avatar
Krashlia
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1979
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:44 am
Show rep

Re: Brexit

Postby cmsellers » Sun Mar 31, 2019 11:56 pm

The Norwegians and Icelanders do it because it preserves their right to set their own fishing regulations, and the Swiss do it because ... I'm honestly not sure why.
  • 0

User avatar
cmsellers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 8708
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Three miles from the bat bridge
Show rep
Title: The Bad Bart of Ruddigore

Re: Brexit

Postby Pedgerow » Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:19 am

Crimson847 wrote:The customs union plan almost passed Parliament (264-272). Any reason they can't try to peel off a couple extra votes there to get to a majority?


If you monitor Brexit news closely over the next 24 hours, this is exactly what they're going to try and do. It seems like the current plan is to just have all the indicative votes again, and see if anything gets a majority this time. My hot genius prediction: nothing will.
  • 2

Pedgerow
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:09 am
Show rep
Title: PWOT refugee

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests