European Union Referendum

[Laker]

No confidence vote triggered at 8pm this evening. I reckon she might hold on - needs 158 Tory votes to oust her which is a massive increase on the 48 letters. She seems like the sort of person who’d cling on even if she had 157 votes against her.

 

[Gassy]

Can't see her losing this one tbh - 158 is a hell of a lot.

Perhaps someone can correct me though on the following;

If she wins is she immune from being challenged outside of the Conservative party?

My thought pattern is that this was quite a smart move from the Tories if so. There were talks of Labour, DUP, Lib Dems, SNP etc getting ready to vote no confidence in her but wanted to do it after the MPs vote.

With the in party vote, if she wins she can't be challenged for 1 year, so I guess this means from the other parties too? So win/win for the Tories if true - either they topple May and get a new leader, or they guarantee power for another year at least

?

 

[Super_horns]

She is right - not great timing but then since when the Tories been united and working together for the best of the British public?

 

[silkyman]

It’s a good job there’s nothing important going on so we can concentrate on whether a daft old twat said something mean about a xenophobic fuckwit.

 

[Habbinalan]

Can't see her losing this one tbh - 158 is a hell of a lot.

Perhaps someone can correct me though on the following;

............................With the in party vote, if she wins she can't be challenged for 1 year, so I guess this means from the other parties too? So win/win for the Tories if true - either they topple May and get a new leader, or they guarantee power for another year at least

?

You've probably work out by now but no.

The in party vote was just about Tory leadership and has no direct effect on parliament/government.

By the way, I'm good at lip reading and I'm sure Jezzer was muttering:

Stupid EVANS!!

 

[Gassy]

You've probably work out by now but no.

The in party vote was just about Tory leadership and has no direct effect on parliament/government.

By the way, I'm good at lip reading and I'm sure Jezzer was muttering:

Stupid EVANS!!

All came clear the next day cheers!

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

MPs blocking preparation spending for a possible no-deal Brexit seems a bit irresponsible.

 

[PuB]

MPs blocking preparation spending for a possible no-deal Brexit seems a bit irresponsible.

Completely agree.

 

[Benji]

MPs blocking preparation spending for a possible no-deal Brexit seems a bit irresponsible.

Like cutting off your foot after you've been shot in the head.

 

[Red]

Farage has apparently told Sky News that he thinks last night's rinsing of May increases the chances of a 2nd ref.

 

[PuB]

He said the same yesterday before the vote too, quite why anyone's still talking to him completely baffles me though.

 

[Benji]

He thinks he can get another payday from Russia.

 

[Laker]

This forum pisses me off. There were some decent posts on here this afternoon which have just disappeared.

 

[Benji]

They had server issues and restored it to a more recent date than they had managed before. Annoying that we lost a FINE afternoon of great posts, but probably better than losing a month where I made several very key observations.

 

[silkyman]

Last time I looked there apparently hadn’t been any posts since late December.

But this brexit thing is going amazingly well, isn’t it?

 

[PuB]

Last time I looked there apparently hadn’t been any posts since late December.

But this brexit thing is going amazingly well, isn’t it?

My passport is looking more blue by the day.

 

[Fompous Part]

Last time I looked there apparently hadn’t been any posts since late December.

There were half-a-dozen or so posts about possible ways forward, the legal/procedural dimension of extending or nixing the Article 50 process, and the wording of any 2nd referendum question. It was quite a nice change from 'wiseacre' comments and shopworn "this is fine" memes, which makes the content loss particularly frustrating.

Do you have any view on the most likely and/or desirable way forward?

 

[smat]

There were half-a-dozen or so posts about possible ways forward, the legal/procedural dimension of extending or nixing the Article 50 process, and the wording of any 2nd referendum question. It was quite a nice change from 'wiseacre' comments and shopworn "this is fine" memes, which makes the content loss particularly frustrating.

Do you have any view on the most likely and/or desirable way forward?

Why are you asking him? He's a fucking idiot.

Ask me. Okay, so I don't think another referendum is a good idea. There is no mandate for it, and the practical considerations are bewildering. It is also irrelevant because of the a] current views of the basically intransigent Tory leadership, and b] the views of the Conservative membership, in case a new leader is sought. It is impossible to imagine a Conservative leader pursuing another referendum.

It's equally impossible to imagine the Labour party winning a general election with a referendum as part of their manifesto. The best we could hope for would be another hung parliament, but with the Tories siphoning off Northern towns in the manner of the SNP taking Labour's Scottish seats in 2015, which would be a complete disaster. The gains in liberal areas would not be worth it (see Lib Dems' 8-10% polling).

I think the #PeoplesVote campaign - and the persistent Remain movement at large - serves the dual purpose of letting comfortable middle class Europhiles like my mum (who seems chiefly annoyed because she has a house in France) vent some political anger for a change*, but also to undermine the leadership of the Labour party on behalf of the centrists who are behind it.

Crucially, I don't think the polls have shifted enough for a second referendum to have democratic credibility.

I don't think there is a good potential outcome (and since the referendum, there never has been). There is a least-worst outcome, which is to leave but remain close to the EU (possibly closer than people like you will be happy with), but with the current government it is sort of impossible to imagine how that might happen, as it would involve trampling over their own self-imposed red lines.

I think they - the government - have to choose between a general election and no deal. And while my heart says Labour would win a majority in a general election, that's far from certain. Even if they did, how much could the PLP be relied upon to vote through any legislation brought forward by a Corbyn government?

It's a fucking mess!

What do you think will happen?

*A friend observed that anyone who went on the People's Vote march, who had never previously been involved in any kind of activism, should be shot.

 

[Fompous Part]

Why are you asking him? He's a fucking idiot.

He can be a weapons grade numptie on this subject, but he’s probably not a bad egg overall. Perhaps it’s the half bottle of Baron de Sigognac talking, but I fancy trialling the idea of not being a sarcastic c*** every time he posts something objectionable about Brexit. So, my question to him stands. I'd like to know his opinion.

Welcome back!

What do you think will happen?

I honestly don't know. I think it should be No Deal, and I actually think that’s the most likely option because it’s the legal/procedural default – i.e. what exists in lieu of anything else – and the only one that doesn’t require parliamentary approval. But I certainly wouldn't put any money on it.

Your point that the government has to choose between No Deal and a general election is very interesting.

It's certainly true that May needs to drastically change the parliamentary arithmetic to get her current deal approved. Gaining a workable majority is literally the only way she could regain control of the parliamentary process.

But what about the timescales? We're scheduled to leave in fewer than 70 days. An Article 50 extension is possible but requires unanimous agreement from the EU27. Would they agree when all it would allow is an election that might deliver a hung parliament and solve nothing?

I can easily imagine them agreeing to extend Article 50 in exchange for a second referendum, but obviously that's a much more toxic proposition for the government. I don't need to explain why because you've already done so.

I might come back to this when I'm not half cut.

(Nice to have you back).

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The Labour plan to take No Deal off the table is utterly insane when you really think about it. The EU would have absolutely zero incentive to concede a thing.

 

[Gladders]

I agree with the above. The most likely thing to happen is no deal because its the only thing that doesn't require a vote.

Parliament is so fucked right now because there is no majority for any of the options. So the only other likely option is a general election which will more than likely solve nothing as it will just move a few seats around and there will still be no majority for anything.

Also as Ebenezer says taking no deal of the table right now would be idiotic as the EU will never have to budge on anything.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

What is "utterly insane" is to contemplate the possibility of a No Deal Brexit; to want to remove it from the table is eminently sensible. You're both guilty of misreading the situation. No Deal ceased to be a useful negotiating tool a while ago - the EU have been clear with their red lines from the start and there is no possibility of extracting further meaningful concessions. Both it and Remain are now there to serve as a threat to the Commons and the warring factions in the Conservative Party - as the clock runs down and the likelihood of either outcome increases May will hope to bounce MPs into supporting her deal.

As things stand, there's no majority in parliament for any sort of deal (I suspect there actually might be a majority for some sort of Customs Union + arrangement but this won't fly with a majority of Tories so it probably won't be a viable option). While a GE may yet happen I really don't see how it's a useful means of addressing this particular situation - the likelihood is the electorate will just return a parliament with a similar makeup. I don't like referendums but I'm struggling to see beyond a 2nd ref as the best way of resolving the impasse. It won't, I don't think, come to fruition because of the parliamentary arithmetic but it is to my mind the best solution (even if its advocates apparently haven't yet earned their professional protester badges).

 

[Fompous Part]

It is not within the government’s power to take No Deal off the table. No Deal is the legal/procedural default position as per Article 50 and the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018.

Parliament has two options if it wishes to avoid No Deal. The first is to give approval for unilaterally revoking Article 50. There is no majority for that, because neither Labour nor the Tories (who have approx. 80% of the seats between them) want to take responsibility for overturning the referendum result.

The second is to approve a withdrawal deal before the 29 March 2019 deadline. Parliament has comprehensively rejected May’s deal, so an alternative is needed. Corbyn is currently refusing to engage in cross-party talks towards that end unless an impossible precondition is met.

P.S. Since you favour a second referendum, what question would like on the ballot paper?

 

[Laker]

I’m intrigued what happens if we have a second referendum if leave wins again - it’s just a waste of time, something we don’t really have. If remain wins then I don’t know how the public will react.

I’m personally in favour of postponing article 50 (for a year or something) and having a general election next month (or asap). We need a shift in Parliament dynamic to find a majority of some sort there. The current cabinet is ineffective and the current parliament numbers are incapable of coming to any sort of agreement on anything.

 

[Fompous Part]

Parliament has two options if it wishes to avoid No Deal. The first is to give approval for unilaterally revoking Article 50. There is no majority for that, because neither Labour nor the Tories (who have approx. 80% of the seats between them) want to take responsibility for overturning the referendum result.

I should make clear that this argument is based on an assumption that is possibly wrong but probably isn't. I have, of course, assumed that the government would need parliamentary approval before revoking Article 50.

The ECJ recently ruled that Britain has the power to revoke Article 50 but only following “a democratic process in accordance with national constitutional requirements”. A little vague, but back in 2017, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Article 50 process could only be initiated following a parliamentary vote; therefore, it is very likely that it would need to be revoked by a parliamentary vote too. That's certainly the most logically consistent way to look at it.

But I suppose all of that, as it stands, falls short of it being an absolute legal, procedural, constitutional requirement.

So yeah... maybe the government isn't completely powerless to take No Deal off the table. It might be able to take it off the table (and smash the table to smithereens for good measure) by nixing the Article 50 process completely, and doing so in a way that bypasses Parliament.

I don't think they would try (for the reasons given previously) and there would almost certainly be a legal challenge if they did, but still...

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

What is "utterly insane" is to contemplate the possibility of a No Deal Brexit; to want to remove it from the table is eminently sensible. You're both guilty of misreading the situation. No Deal ceased to be a useful negotiating tool a while ago - the EU have been clear with their red lines from the start and there is no possibility of extracting further meaningful concessions.

I think you're being very naive if you're genuinely just taking their word for it. I think it's much more likely that the left wants to remove the possibility of No Deal Brexit because they know that any legislation introduced to that end would force the Tories to overturn the referendum result for them, because the current May/EU deal will never be approved and the EU will probably not vote unanimously to extend negotiations. The only sensible way forward that I see is for May to set the ability to negotiate our own trade deals and an end to freedom of movement as red lines, let the deadline run down, and then negotiate the best relationship with the free market she can from there. It's true that No Deal hurts Britain more than it hurts the EU, but it still hurts the EU when it needn't do. Maybe the French would come to the table when two thirds of their entire nations fishing haul disappears overnight, for example.

 

[Benji]

Congratulations Dyson on your new home.

 

[smat]

While a GE may yet happen I really don't see how it's a useful means of addressing this particular situation - the likelihood is the electorate will just return a parliament with a similar makeup. I don't like referendums but I'm struggling to see beyond a 2nd ref as the best way of resolving the impasse. It won't, I don't think, come to fruition because of the parliamentary arithmetic but it is to my mind the best solution (even if its advocates apparently haven't yet earned their professional protester badges).

I surely don't have to reel off a list of humiliations and outrages visited upon the most vulnerable in our society to make my point here. It's perfectly fair game to giggle at how middle-class liberals like my mum can be driven to the streets over membership of a political and economic union by an astroturfed campaign powered by Roland Rudd (live from Davos), when she'll just tut over her Guardian about, e.g., Windrush. And I'm a remainer ffs.

Maybe the French would come to the table when two thirds of their entire nations fishing haul disappears overnight, for example.

I hear they're right behind the German car manufacturers in the queue.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

It is not within the government’s power to take No Deal off the table. No Deal is the legal/procedural default position as per Article 50 and the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018.

Parliament has two options if it wishes to avoid No Deal. The first is to give approval for unilaterally revoking Article 50. There is no majority for that, because neither Labour nor the Tories (who have approx. 80% of the seats between them) want to take responsibility for overturning the referendum result.

The second is to approve a withdrawal deal before the 29 March 2019 deadline. Parliament has comprehensively rejected May’s deal, so an alternative is needed. Corbyn is currently refusing to engage in cross-party talks towards that end unless an impossible precondition is met.

P.S. Since you favour a second referendum, what question would like on the ballot paper?

I'm not absolutely sure as to whether revocation would require parliamentary approval but whichever way you look at it May would surely be able to provide some assurances in this regard if she so wished ie by indicating she would seek an extension to the transition period and/or revocation of Article 50 in the event that parliament fails to approve a WA.

There's an argument for saying that Corbyn should have engaged with May but, personally, I think he was right to be wary. If May genuinely wanted to cultivate a cross-party agreement she'd have done so a long time ago (ideally from the very outset) and wouldn't have consistently attempted to sideline parliament throughout the process. All of her moves, from her foolish self-imposed red lines, to the constant pandering to a small faction of Brexit fundamentalists, has been in an attempt to preserve Conservative Party unity at the expense of all else. Even when she was talking about engagement she was sounding inflexible - restating red lines and extolling the virtues of her monumentally unpopular deal. This was not someone acting in good faith.*

It's a good question re referendum wording. In truth, although I've seen some suggestions that I think might be palatable, I don't know if I can give a definitive answer to this at the moment. I know that's a bit of a cop-out but I generally try to resist thinking about things that appear unlikely, especially where Brexit is concerned. Without sufficient numbers of people buying-in to the concept it seems a bit of a futile endeavour.

*the government's latest masterstroke seems to be to back a backbench amendment, which effectively has them reneging on what they've already signed up to, which wants the backstop replaced with unspecified "alternative arrangements". I really do not know what planet these people are on.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

I must admit i voted remain and didn't' want to leave but the more and more this goes on i'm sort've hoping we leave on a no deal and say 'f*ck them'

the entire stuff the last few months has just got right on my nerves, full of mass threats, moaning, whinging and sulking, demands that this, that and other doesn't happen and the EU frankly constantly trying to throw us under a bus.

Never expected a deal in the first place and think the biggest error our side is spending 2 years getting a deal from an EU who could never ever give one......sheer waste of time leaving us with no time now for anything.

but on flip side, I don't understand any logic to this 'peoples vote' we all damn well knew what the consequences could be of voting leave, we had threats shoved at us daily for months and months.................its why i voted remain as i didn't feel it worth all the consequences, you cannot now turn around and say 'ah well people never knew' when we had lots of threats previously.......people still wanted out.

and the biggest worry of everything is we sit here after 3-4 years of debate and i have yet not really ever heard an actual 'positive' on staying in the EU.......its always about the negatives of leaving.