Brexit.

Da5id Weatherwax

New member
Sep 22, 2018
57
Edinburgh
<<< confused but does enjoy hearing him yell "DIVISIOOOOON CLEAR THE LOBBY"
No matter who it's been, the speaker has always been "the star of the show" when being entertained by parliamentary antics. They have all the opportunities to deliver the best one-liners with the best timing. And, with great reliability, they do.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Daniel Voyager

New member
Sep 20, 2018
49
The PM has lost control of her cabinet and trust of the country.

It's all up to the meaningful vote 3 next week. Extension of Article 50 is looking most likely now.

It's a big mess.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Brenda Archer

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Sep 20, 2018
1,353
I'm not even trying to sort out what happened today in Westminster.
What a mess.
There's a good explainer here: Another day of Brexit votes: what they mean and what comes next

Briefly, Parliament today agreed to seek to delay the date on which the UK leaves the EU.

They decide next week how much extra time they need to ask the EU27 to grant the UK.

If Theresa May manages (third time lucky) to get the Withdrawal Agreement approved by Parliament before March 20 (probably in a vote early next week) then she'll ask for a brief extension -- up to June 30 -- in order to pass the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, which is necessary to give the Agreement legal force in the UK.

If she is unsuccessful in securing support for the Withdrawal Agreement, then the government have promised to hold a series of indicative votes in which MPs will have to say what sort of Brexit agreement they are for rather than what they're against. It's at this point that Labour intend to press for a vote on having a referendum to ratify whatever the agreement turns out to be. Once that's settled, they'll go back to the EU27 and ask for considerably more time -- probably the best part of two years.

All this, though, is in the hands of the EU27. As a matter of both EU and UK law, the UK will leave the EU without a deal at the month unless either the EU27 agree to allow more time or unless the UK withdraws the A50 notification.
 

Ariane

New member
Jan 3, 2019
22
If she is unsuccessful in securing support for the Withdrawal Agreement, then the government have promised to hold a series of indicative votes in which MPs will have to say what sort of Brexit agreement they are for rather than what they're against. It's at this point that Labour intend to press for a vote on having a referendum to ratify whatever the agreement turns out to be. Once that's settled, they'll go back to the EU27 and ask for considerably more time -- probably the best part of two years.

All this, though, is in the hands of the EU27. As a matter of both EU and UK law, the UK will leave the EU without a deal at the month unless either the EU27 agree to allow more time or unless the UK withdraws the A50 notification.
The math has already been done and even if all the "no brexit" people decide to vote for WA because it is "better than nothing", there still aren't enough votes. So lets assume WA will not pass on the third try. The EU is going to want a really good reason before they allow any extension, especially one as long as two years. It seems to me that there is no way that the UK can come up with a plan in what little time is left, and any lengthy extension is going to force the UK to prepare for European elections. So it seems to me, that the only way to get the long extension AND have enough time to really discuss what kind of Brexit the Parliament wants, is to withdraw A50, and only implement it after it can be decided AND a second referendum is held.

The real problem with THIS WA is how it was negotiated with a lot of red lines to satisfy Tory minorities. If there is enough support to try again, the "red lines" need to be decided ahead of time BEFORE a second referendum. I assume this video was posted before, but it points out why May's Brexit was destined to fail:

 

Tigger

not on speaking terms with the voices in my head
Sep 24, 2018
437
The real problem with THIS WA is how it was negotiated with a lot of red lines to satisfy Tory minorities. If there is enough support to try again, the "red lines" need to be decided ahead of time BEFORE a second referendum. I assume this video was posted before, but it points out why May's Brexit was destined to fail:
Once she'd lost her majority, it was clear she could be held hostage by any group within her own party. Everyone knew the ERG would, but I also expected remain supporting Tories to do the same - they never did.

So the ERG held all the power and she spent all her time trying to appease them. But what they want is no deal. They were always going to screw over her deal. Without getting support from outside her own party in numbers great enough to overwhelm the ERG spoilers she had no chance. But she never, never attempted to bring anyone but extremist anti-EU tories on board. It was doomed to fail, it could only ever fail.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Sep 20, 2018
1,353
The math has already been done and even if all the "no brexit" people decide to vote for WA because it is "better than nothing", there still aren't enough votes. So lets assume WA will not pass on the third try. The EU is going to want a really good reason before they allow any extension, especially one as long as two years. It seems to me that there is no way that the UK can come up with a plan in what little time is left, and any lengthy extension is going to force the UK to prepare for European elections. So it seems to me, that the only way to get the long extension AND have enough time to really discuss what kind of Brexit the Parliament wants, is to withdraw A50, and only implement it after it can be decided AND a second referendum is held.

The real problem with THIS WA is how it was negotiated with a lot of red lines to satisfy Tory minorities. If there is enough support to try again, the "red lines" need to be decided ahead of time BEFORE a second referendum. I assume this video was posted before, but it points out why May's Brexit was destined to fail:

I've never understood why the UK's participation in the elections for the European Parliament is supposed to be such an insuperable obstacle. It'll be a nuisance for all concerned, but the possibility is already well covered by existing EU law, as the British Advocate-General at the ECJ, Eleanor Sharpston, argues in a lengthy twitter thread (part 1 and part 2). It's an inconvenience, that's all.

One danger inherent in the EU27 either refusing to grant an extension at all or, if they do grant an extension, gtanting only a very short one, that, I think, needs to be born in mind by all concerned is that it would very likely end up with the government being forced to withdraw Article 50.

While in many ways I would welcome this, it cannot be denied that it will leave all the pro-Brexit people, and a lot of others who simply want to cover their backs, complaining vociferously that the EU bounced us into staying, in defiance of the will of the people. It also, to put it at its lowest, makes the implosion of the Conservative Party no less likely than does any other outcome of Brexit (that is, I struggle to see how the Conservatives can hold together much longer, whatever happens, but if Theresa May is forced into withdrawing Article 50, then the fireworks will really start).

So the EU would now have the UK back as a full member, with much the country very relieved but with the politicians at each other's throats and most of them blaming the perfidious EU for their troubles.

Personally I think that giving the UK plenty of time to come round either to remaining or to some sort of acceptable withdrawal agreement without all these red lines with which Theresa May painted herself into a corner (usually when speaking to Conservative Party audiences) is the safest long-term solution for all parties.

Anyway, we'll see soon enough. Only two weeks to go and we have no idea what's happening next.

The only good idea that occurs to me is that the last time the governance of the country broke down completely, in 1688, we had to ask the Dutch to come and take over running the country and sort things out for us.

I wonder if they would be prepared to do it again. Sid, if you're reading this, what do you think?
 

Sid

Not lazy, but in energy saving mode.
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Sep 20, 2018
1,205
Limburg, NL
The only good idea that occurs to me is that the last time the governance of the country broke down completely, in 1688, we had to ask the Dutch to come and take over running the country and sort things out for us.

I wonder if they would be prepared to do it again. Sid, if you're reading this, what do you think?
Well, we do have a William of Orange available again at the moment. :)