EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[404250]

Let another MP have a go and take credit for compromise

 

[nidave]

German car industry voicing serious concerns.....

https://europe.autonews.com/automakers/german-auto-jobs-risk-hard-brexit
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...warn-hard-brexit-would-be-fatal-idUSKCN1PA173

No. Noo. Just nope. According to others on here its not Brexit. Not at all. Its diseal. Nothing else.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This is of course the reason why Nick Boles quite Tory party last night, an inability of his party to compromise. It was quite a moment!

I sympathise with him, but I wonder if that was a well advised move. I would guess it means that, if we do end up with a snap general election, he has almost no chance of being re-elected to Parliament, and chances are the local Tories would select a hard no-deal Brexiteer as their candidate in a very safe Tory seat, making any compromise in the future even less likely.

On the other hand, if he'd held his nose and stayed on - then he'd probably remain an MP after any snap election and be able to continue to argue his case.

Similar logic applies for most of the TIG/ChangeUK MPs - particularly the ex-Tories, who again are likely to be replaced by hard Brexiteers given the current state of the Tory party.

 

[404250]

It's at a stage now where it really is May's deal, no deal, or long (2yr?) extension to renegotiate (a softer deal?). A 2nd ref is also an option but not sure how long the extension would be needed for this, and a deal would have to be agreed 1st to put in it.

No deal would be chaos in the short term, a delay to renegotiate would be bad for business as is more uncertainty. The only option I feel is for MPs on both sides to back the deal, and THEN have a parliamentary vote as to whether to request an extension from the EU to put it in a referendum.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's at a stage now where it really is May's deal, no deal, or long (2yr?) extension to renegotiate (a softer deal?). A 2nd ref is also an option but not sure how long the extension would be needed for this, and a deal would have to be agreed 1st to put in it.

No deal would be chaos in the short term, a delay to renegotiate would be bad for business as is more uncertainty. The only option I feel is for MPs on both sides to back the deal, and THEN have a parliamentary vote as to whether to request an extension from the EU to put it in a referendum.

But accepting the deal, then delaying it's implementation pending a referendum will likely have the same effect as simply requesting an extension will it not? There is going to be uncertainty no matter what the scenario until a firm decision is made. At this stage I can't help be feel that the two remaining options are to customise the May deal with a Customs Union bolt on, or simply withdraw & reboot the whole process at a later date.

 

[Howardh]

As I see it (and it's very blurry!) if parliament finally accepts the deal, parliament has no say in the future relationship negotiations, meaning they could vote the deal through, and then still end up with the equivalent of no-deal if the likes of Mogg, Johnson etc become PM and have no powers to stop that senario?? If that's the case remainers and moderates will never vote the deal through - is the answer to stage 2 a cross-party committee form all sides; and if so what happens when they fundamentally disagree??

This is why the deal and an absolute future relationship should have been voted on by us to take that away from the future relationship as we would know, in stone, what the future holds?

 

[Groningen]

Jacob Rees-Mogg retweeting something from a far right German party member. So there you have it. That is how we show the British people that we will be independent in the future from other countries in the world.

 

[dgl]

Jacob Rees-Mogg retweeting something from a far right German party member. So there you have it. That is how we show the British people that we will be independent in the future from other countries in the world.

He's probably still bitter with Europeans as he can remember when the romans and Vikings invaded and hasn't gotten over it.

 

[Senex]

As I see it (and it's very blurry!) if parliament finally accepts the deal, parliament has no say in the future relationship negotiations, meaning they could vote the deal through, and then still end up with the equivalent of no-deal if the likes of Mogg, Johnson etc become PM and have no powers to stop that senario?? If that's the case remainers and moderates will never vote the deal through - is the answer to stage 2 a cross-party committee form all sides; and if so what happens when they fundamentally disagree??

This is why the deal and an absolute future relationship should have been voted on by us to take that away from the future relationship as we would know, in stone, what the future holds?

I think that's right. Assuming that they can win confidence votes, the Tories and DUP are potentially in place till the early summer of 2022—in other words, for the first three years of negotiations on the post-Brexit arrangements. And if we also assume that May goes, she is almost certain to be replaced by a Brexiter, probably one at the harder end of the spectrum. With parliament having no say in what goes on a vast amount of further damage could be done in those three years in the shaping of the future relationship.
But I wonder if nevertheless the time has come that MPs are so fed up with the whole process that they are coming to the point of voting May's deal through just to avoid the "no deal" scenario. We all know it's a lousy deal and only the sheer stubbornness of May has kept it alive as long as it has, but given that the Tories are making sure there can be no agreement on anything else, what options are left? (One trivial reason why I should hate to see it go through is that that b**** would no doubt claim bragging rights about how she'd been doing the right thing all along—and might even be tempted to try to stick around as PM rather longer.)
Or shall we attempt to be optimistic and hope that MPs come to their senses tomorrow and realise that they have to sort something out and that time has almost run out. Labour seems to be shewing some signs of flexibility; many of the Tories seem to be rejoicing in their reluctance to negotiate with any other parties.

 

[dgl]

I suppose most MP's are in a bit of a bind, in one way they want to be seeing to be upholding the result of the referendum and at the other end they want to do what's best for Britain, unfortunately these two are mostly incompatible and that is why we are getting the results in the commons that we are getting.
They don't want no-deal or even to leave at all really but have to be seen to be doing what the electorate supposedly voted for, so by voting down everything they are both trying to be against leaving/no-deal but at the same time trying to show brexiteers that they re also against staying/a customs union whilst just causing confusion all round.

 

[Howardh]

I think that's right. Assuming that they can win confidence votes, the Tories and DUP are potentially in place till the early summer of 2022—in other words, for the first three years of negotiations on the post-Brexit arrangements. And if we also assume that May goes, she is almost certain to be replaced by a Brexiter, probably one at the harder end of the spectrum. With parliament having no say in what goes on a vast amount of further damage could be done in those three years in the shaping of the future relationship.
But I wonder if nevertheless the time has come that MPs are so fed up with the whole process that they are coming to the point of voting May's deal through just to avoid the "no deal" scenario. We all know it's a lousy deal and only the sheer stubbornness of May has kept it alive as long as it has, but given that the Tories are making sure there can be no agreement on anything else, what options are left? (One trivial reason why I should hate to see it go through is that that b**** would no doubt claim bragging rights about how she'd been doing the right thing all along—and might even be tempted to try to stick around as PM rather longer.)
Or shall we attempt to be optimistic and hope that MPs come to their senses tomorrow and realise that they have to sort something out and that time has almost run out. Labour seems to be shewing some signs of flexibility; many of the Tories seem to be rejoicing in their reluctance to negotiate with any other parties.

Frankly there's more chance of me winning Miss World than MP's coming to their senses. Even a general election won't solve the mess they've created.

 

[edwin_m]

Frankly there's more chance of me winning Miss World than MP's coming to their senses. Even a general election won't solve the mess they've created.

Even though narrowly short of a majority some of yesterday's options have done much better than May's deal, and Parliament has done more in two days than the governement managed in eight months. It's the government that needs to come to its senses.

May could have given up the deal as a bad job last summer, when it was pretty clear it was never going to pass and changing it within her red lines and the DUP's has proved impossible. The twin policy of running down the clock and putting party before country has been going on ever since.

By changing the red lines and putting the weight of the government behind it, one or more of yesterday's narrowly defeated options would have had a good chance of getting through, and possibly still does although the draining of credibility from May now makes that doubtful.

 

[Howardh]

Latest is that Bercow might not allow MV3.5 unless there is significant change, which might be the customs union attached (thus triggering the nuclear ERG button). It's also been suggestedon the BBC that tomorrow there will be in place a motion to make leaving without a deal illegal (Cooper/Letwin) so, with a bit of luck, half-a-dozen of them might end up behind bars. How ironic if they had to go screaming to the European Courts of Justice that they got rid of

 

[dosxuk]

I sympathise with him, but I wonder if that was a well advised move. I would guess it means that, if we do end up with a snap general election, he has almost no chance of being re-elected to Parliament, and chances are the local Tories would select a hard no-deal Brexiteer as their candidate in a very safe Tory seat, making any compromise in the future even less likely.

On the other hand, if he'd held his nose and stayed on - then he'd probably remain an MP after any snap election and be able to continue to argue his case.

Similar logic applies for most of the TIG/ChangeUK MPs - particularly the ex-Tories, who again are likely to be replaced by hard Brexiteers given the current state of the Tory party.

Nick Boles was already facing deselection by his local party after another alleged UKIP infiltration (see Dominic Grieves). It's very unlikely he was going to be up for re-election under any circumstances.

 

[bramling]

Latest is that Bercow might not allow MV3.5 unless there is significant change, which might be the customs union attached (thus triggering the nuclear ERG button). It's also been suggestedon the BBC that tomorrow there will be in place a motion to make leaving without a deal illegal (Cooper/Letwin) so, with a bit of luck, half-a-dozen of them might end up behind bars. How ironic if they had to go screaming to the European Courts of Justice that they got rid of

What certainly is a national embarrassment is having the future direction of the country potentially shaped by Oliver Letwin. Not so many years ago the guy was a complete figure of fun (a more dopey and less accomplished version of Boris Johnson), and doesn’t seem to have done much of merit in the meantime.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One think that is puzzling me is how John Bercow's ruling about not bringing substantially the same motion twice to the House applies to these indicative votes. I'm assuming there must have been some legitimate reason in the Commons rule-book why that ruling didn't apply to those votes, as otherwise the Rees-Mogg/Johnson/etc. mob would have been in uproar about having a second round of votes yesterday, but I'd love to know that the actual situation is in that regard.

 

[nlogax]

I'm assuming there must have been some legitimate reason in the Commons rule-book why that ruling didn't apply to those votes, as otherwise the Rees-Mogg/Johnson/etc. mob would have been in uproar about having a second round of votes yesterday, but I'd love to know that the actual situation is in that regard.

They weren't all the same proposals. Some of those that 'won' last week were reworked over the weekend in an attempt to foster more support from MPs. Naturally that effort was all for nought.

 

[ainsworth74]

Nick Boles was already facing deselection by his local party after another alleged UKIP infiltration (see Dominic Grieves). It's very unlikely he was going to be up for re-election under any circumstances.

I also feel that at some point there has to come a stage where you cannot stand for what an organisation you're associated with is doing. The cold and logical arithmetic is that his seat is going to go to a Brexiteer (probably a UKIPer in disguise) so it's better to stay in post for as long as possible. But can he live with being associated with the Party and what its doing to the Country? Politics isn't just about logic.

One think that is puzzling me is how John Bercow's ruling about not bringing substantially the same motion twice to the House applies to these indicative votes. I'm assuming there must have been some legitimate reason in the Commons rule-book why that ruling didn't apply to those votes, as otherwise the Rees-Mogg/Johnson/etc. mob would have been in uproar about having a second round of votes yesterday, but I'd love to know that the actual situation is in that regard.

My understanding is that the difference is that the motion that was passed last week to give us the indicative votes was always intended to take effect over two days so yesterday wasn't a motion on the same issue. It was a continue of the previous motion from last week.

 

[Howardh]

They weren't all the same proposals. Some of those that 'won' last week were reworked over the weekend in an attempt to foster more support from MPs. Naturally that effort was all for nought.

Not really, one got very close and if just a few of the abstentioners got off their backsides and voted for it the Clarke effort would have won a majority. It's got closer (twice) than May's deal (thrice).

 

[bnm]

One think that is puzzling me is how John Bercow's ruling about not bringing substantially the same motion twice to the House applies to these indicative votes. I'm assuming there must have been some legitimate reason in the Commons rule-book why that ruling didn't apply to those votes, as otherwise the Rees-Mogg/Johnson/etc. mob would have been in uproar about having a second round of votes yesterday, but I'd love to know that the actual situation is in that regard.

Indicitive votes aren't motions.

 

[Giugiaro]

Weren't the indicative votes supposed to be a process of elimination, rather than the usual motion voting we are used from the Government proceedings?

 

[edwin_m]

Weren't the indicative votes supposed to be a process of elimination, rather than the usual motion voting we are used from the Government proceedings?

I must admit I'm rather confused, as most of yesterday's motions were very similar to those that had failed to be passed already. The main difference seems to have been the removal of the lower-rated ones, which may have focused some people's minds and led to the narrower defeats this time when some people could no longer pick the one they liked most. A transferrable vote process could probably have done that in less time (although I shudder to think how long it would have taken to count it, new skill that seems to have baffled the authorities last night even for a simple paper ballot). I was expecting new or modified options to develop such as a combo of the referendum and the customs union, which I still think has a decent chance of passing.

I get a bit fuzzy at this point about what happens if and when something is agreed. Presumably the process is to get the EU to write whatever is agreed into the political agreement then get this passed by Parliament along with the withdrawal agreement. Hence the eventual objective of negotiation is written into UK law and must be followed unless later repealed. By then we would probably have an ultra-Brexit Tory leader, who would be responsible for delivery, but if they refused to do so it then we go into even more uncharted territory. The result could be an election and/or a government formed by the majority in support of whatever was agreed, regardless of which party they came from.

So even on the most optimistic projection we're not out of the woods yet.

 

[Dave1987]

Well it’s pretty clear that the Tories are hell bent on leaving with no deal. I saw watched Mark Francois on the Beeb news saying “let’s just leave” after he had voted against everything that would have meant us leaving with deal. I think the Tory Brexiteers basically want to shove two fingers up at the EU at the moment. Remind me who our biggest trading partners are Mr Francois? Ow yeah the EU. Trading with other nations around the world comes with costs attached.

 

[AM9]

Well it’s pretty clear that the Tories are hell bent on leaving with no deal. I saw watched Mark Francois on the Beeb news saying “let’s just leave” after he had voted against everything that would have meant us leaving with deal. I think the Tory Brexiteers basically want to shove two fingers up at the EU at the moment. Remind me who our biggest trading partners are Mr Francois? Ow yeah the EU. Trading with other nations around the world comes with costs attached.

He's still smarting after he was made to look a fool by Will Self last week.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well it’s pretty clear that the Tories are hell bent on leaving with no deal. I saw watched Mark Francois on the Beeb news saying “let’s just leave” after he had voted against everything that would have meant us leaving with deal. I think the Tory Brexiteers basically want to shove two fingers up at the EU at the moment. Remind me who our biggest trading partners are Mr Francois? Ow yeah the EU. Trading with other nations around the world comes with costs attached.

Internally the Tories are close to meltdown, and are seemingly hell bent on bringing the rest of us with them, buoyed on by the fact that Corbyn and his inner circle of cronies stand not a cat in hell's chance of forming an effective government. It is literally a fire sale now, everything must go to secure Brexit before the champagne Charlies are found out, cash in their hedge bets and do a Farage to take up work with Trump across the pond.

Our only hope is that enough MPs break rank on either side of the House, hold their nerve and see through the proposed bill to prevent a no deal situation and force a pause in proceedings to gather breath & rethink. I am not holding my breath...

 

[433N]

I really don't understand the No Deal zealots. They want to disrupt a major part of our trade and then think that the EU will happily enter into talks about a trade deal. The EU have said that any such negotiations are dependent upon resolving the issues which Parliament can't resolve at the moment ... and its hardly like we'd be negotiating from a position of strength ... "Make us a deal or we'll trade with ... errr ... errr ... [mumbles] ... instead".

Frankly I'd like to see ...
May say "I'm sorry, we've tried to Brexit but despite long deliberations and our best efforts we can't whilst preserving a healthy economy"
Article 50 revoked
The services that have been suffering through this pantomime attended to (NHS, policing ...) and put on an even keel
Everyone calm down and then have a good long think about how Brexit can be made to work
Then have another referendum

But too many egos would be bruised and too many nutters have been allowed free reign recently, so it won't happen - although it seems the only sensible thing that should happen IMHO.

... Oh, I'd also like a double page spread outlining Rees-Mogg's tax position and Liam Fox explaining why it hasn't been the easiest deal ever so that no one ever listens to those idiots again ... special place in hell indeed. No one should listen to Johnson anyway.

 

[Howardh]

So she's now pleading for Corbyn to help her out. She hasn't spread her wings to any of the opposition, now I wonder if they will kick her in the face?

"Yes, we'll help, now call an election first".

 

[edwin_m]

Yvette Cooper's current bill just seems to dictate that the PM goes to Brussels and asks for an extension.

PM: I've come to ask for an extension
Barnier: What is the good reason for us to grant one?
PM: Parliament told me to ask because they can't agree on a plan
Barner: Well that's a no-deal then

It really needs the nuclear option of revocation behind it to make it effective, but as far as I can see that's not included.

 

[DarloRich]

An 8 hour cabinet meeting and the best Teresa May can come up with is I am going to have a chat with Jeremy Corbyn! Ffs
Could we mot have tried this 18 months ago?

Then if we cant agree we will offer some votes to parliament. Wtf. Watf have you been doing you bloody muppet?

 

[nidave]

An 8 hour cabinet meeting and the best Teresa May can come up with is I am going to have a chat with Jeremy Corbyn! Ffs
Could we mot have tried this 18 months ago?

8hrs to invite Corbyn round for tea and cake. She must really like him if it took that long to plug up the courage to ask him out on a date.