Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed Aug 21 19:54:54 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Brexit deal rejected 202-432
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Tue Jan 15 14:46:07
Vote of no confidence for MAy shortly.

Brits stockpiling food and other EU goods

Paramount
Member
Tue Jan 15 14:47:12
Mayday?
Rugian
Member
Tue Jan 15 15:07:22
May will probably survive. Nobody wants to see Comrade Corbyn have a shot at becoming Supreme Leader of the People's Republic of Britain. She just won't be running anything.

Hopefully her "alternative plan" consists of a title change and switching from Arial to Times New Roman font.
Paramount
Member
Tue Jan 15 15:20:40
I think Corbyn should be given the chance to fix Britain. To make it great again.

He wants Britain to remain in the EU, yes?

I think he would also try to even out the class gaps. Is that a correct term in english? You know, the gap between the poor and the rich. I think Britain is in desperate need of a more equal distribution policy.
yankeessuck123
Member
Tue Jan 15 15:35:15
This was basically inevitable. May was in a no-win situation from the start. The hard Brexiteers want a deal that has never been on the table. A fantasy. And they will accept nothing less. But May can't move forward without their support. A more courageous politician would have called their bluff long ago, and given them the opportunity to negotiate the deal they wanted, and when they utterly failed to get it, she could have come in and delivered a compromise.
murder
Member
Tue Jan 15 15:52:36

"May will probably survive."

I don't see how. According to the BBC ...


"Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal has been rejected by 230 votes - the largest defeat for a sitting government in history."

I don't see how she can remain after that.

Paramount
Member
Tue Jan 15 15:58:59
The small Northern Irish DUP party, which props up May’s minority government and refused to back the deal, said it would still stand behind May in the no-confidence vote.

http://www...es-in-parliament-idUSKCN1P90P1
Rugian
Member
Tue Jan 15 16:01:33
Murder,

Voting down the Brexit deal doesnt bave the potential to hurt the Tory-DUP majority. Voting down the government does.
Paramount
Member
Tue Jan 15 16:01:58
“This deal is dead,” said Boris Johnson, the Conservative Party’s most prominent Brexiteer, who urged May to go back to Brussels to seek better terms.

- -

I don’t think she is going to get a better divorce deal than this. They have been negotiating this for what... two years? This is the deal. Or was, since they said no to it now.
Im better then you
2012 UP Football Champ
Tue Jan 15 16:08:05
The fact that no one wants to be PM is the only thing that saves May. There is no way to get "better terms" UK =fucked.
Seb
Member
Tue Jan 15 16:37:04
Paramount:

No, Corbyn wants to leave also.

Yankee:

She tried that with David David but he failed invisibly. In the end, she couldn't get him to put a deal together, he believed he could call the EUs bluff at the last minute, but that would be disastrous. So she had to step in and take control of negotiation about nine months ago. Unfortunately that means David Davis and Brexiteers can claim that May undermined them.

What she should have done is what she is doing now. Before A50, made parliament decide what brexit it wanted. Had she done so, we'd probably right now be exiting with this deal, possibly without the backstop which only became necessary (or let's say, defendable) from the EU side after ministers like David Davis, Give and Johnson all made various statements indicating they'd violate the withdrawal agreement as soon as it became convenient.

The reason the deal is collapsing now is because May pegged her entire authority on the referendum, then sought her own in a GE she lost. But no particular form of brexit has any mandate, and work has been done to build legitimacy and consent.
This was a predicted error at the time and is now destroying her.

But May is instinctively authoritarian and believes she and the govt alone have the special mandate to deliver brexit. She even responded to a point in the commons during the debate where it was pointed out that the govt is the servant of the house with the line "no, the govt is the servant of the people". This is constitutional nonsense. Parliament represents as is answerable to the people, the govt serves as long as it has parliaments confidence.



Murder:
She feels no shame, has no honour. So feels no need to stand down. The Tories can't now swap her because of the erg failed no confidence motion in her as leader. And nobody wants a general election.

So she'll stay.

God knows what happens next.

murder
Member
Tue Jan 15 16:42:44

I'll believe it when I see it. Continuing to back May would be a vote to govern and negotiate from from a place of incompetence. May just spent the past 2 years negotiating this mess ... I refuse to believe that her own party thinks that she can negotiate something better in a matter of weeks.

It would be Darwin Awards level stupid.

jergul
large member
Tue Jan 15 16:53:12
Politics? The nerve of some people.

The EU is pretty clear on there being no renegotiation and has invited the UK to consider the only alternative to a hard exit if the current deal is discounted:

1. Remain in the EU permanently.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Jan 15 17:06:08
Before this Brexit shit happened, I was seriously contemplating moving the family there. So, choose wisely Britain.
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jan 15 17:38:37
Between the trumps and the sebs, the average voter is basically demanding that their voting and speaking rights be taken away. Universal suffrage might have been the greatest mistake of all time.
Seb
Member
Tue Jan 15 18:30:22
Murder:

The conservatives have a rule that if you win a no confidence vote for party leadership, you are safe for a year. A few months ago, the hard Brexiteers no confidenced her and she won

So while obviously they can keep pressuring her to quit, formally, unless she quits, they can't actually force her out any time soon.

Plus, who world actually want to stand right now?

Quite the conundrum.

There's no current constitutional method for parliament to remove a PM without removing the govt. And while the UK is generally very good at "discovering" new precedents that were there all along if you look at it the right way, anything touching the role of the PM as an individual but not the govt is tricky.

There are a class of solutions that might involve in some way formally petitioning the Queen, who notionally invites the leader of the party who commands the confidence of parliament to form a govt as pm. A mechanism for accessing these sorts of powers was recently rediscovered to compel the govt to publish documents - the Humble address. However the palace doesn't like it as it starts to bring the Queen into politics which is just a bad idea all around. Using it as a vehicle for parliament to request the Queen appoint a different PM without a formal no confidence vote seems dire.

The other options all involve a motion of no confidence under the Fixed Term Parliament Act, causing the govt to fall, snd then forming another govt and passing a motion of confidence within the 14 days allotted under the ftpa. This is very very uncertain given the Tories wafer thin minority assuming the DUP can be kept on side. Who is it theyd nominate as their PM? And would the Brexiteers vote for this? They'd feel the risk of Tory remainers, labour, SNP etc producing a coalition with a fee Tory remainers, cancelling brexit, then causing a general election.

You couldn't control/predict the outcome.

So better the devil you know.

The FTPA probably needs to be abolished. I, and many others, thought it a good idea but in practice it unbalances the UK constitutional framework in strange ways that throw up lots of ways to get zombie/lame duck govts like Mays, which couldn't previously exist.

Seb
Member
Tue Jan 15 18:35:57
Murder:

The conservatives have a rule that if you win a no confidence vote for party leadership, you are safe for a year. A few months ago, the hard Brexiteers no confidenced her and she won

So while obviously they can keep pressuring her to quit, formally, unless she quits, they can't actually force her out any time soon.

Plus, who world actually want to stand right now?

Quite the conundrum.

There's no current constitutional method for parliament to remove a PM without removing the govt. And while the UK is generally very good at "discovering" new precedents that were there all along if you look at it the right way, anything touching the role of the PM as an individual but not the govt is tricky.

There are a class of solutions that might involve in some way formally petitioning the Queen, who notionally invites the leader of the party who commands the confidence of parliament to form a govt as pm. A mechanism for accessing these sorts of powers was recently rediscovered to compel the govt to publish documents - the Humble address. However the palace doesn't like it as it starts to bring the Queen into politics which is just a bad idea all around. Using it as a vehicle for parliament to request the Queen appoint a different PM without a formal no confidence vote seems dire.

The other options all involve a motion of no confidence under the Fixed Term Parliament Act, causing the govt to fall, snd then forming another govt and passing a motion of confidence within the 14 days allotted under the ftpa. This is very very uncertain given the Tories wafer thin minority assuming the DUP can be kept on side. Who is it theyd nominate as their PM? And would the Brexiteers vote for this? They'd feel the risk of Tory remainers, labour, SNP etc producing a coalition with a fee Tory remainers, cancelling brexit, then causing a general election.

You couldn't control/predict the outcome.

So better the devil you know.

The FTPA probably needs to be abolished. I, and many others, thought it a good idea but in practice it unbalances the UK constitutional framework in strange ways that throw up lots of ways to get zombie/lame duck govts like Mays, which couldn't previously exist.

Seb
Member
Tue Jan 15 18:37:25
Shannon must be dying of a rage induced embolism somewhere.

Hi Shannon, if you are listening.

Told you you were going to get disappointed.
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Tue Jan 15 18:56:42
david cameron ,you're needed.
can't let putin win.
Dukhat
Member
Tue Jan 15 19:40:19
Brexit has been canceled due to technical issues. Sorry for the inconvenience and your referendum will be refunded and will be redeemable for a complimentary fish and chips at your local pub.

Pip pip cheerio.
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 16 02:05:50
We are a long way from brexit being cancelled.

We leave on the 29th by automatic operation of both UK and EU law unless something else is done.

However, we might now see an extension of a50 and a new referendum.
Hrothgar
Member
Wed Jan 16 10:52:38
Time to return the Monarchy to full power!
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 16 11:22:33
That will only be possible after reversing some ill-concieved compromises made by mad King George III.
Rugian
Member
Wed Jan 16 11:31:19
I don't trust the queen. She is a German after all.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 16 11:40:16
Less so that your current regent
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 16 13:55:28
And may wins the confidence vote.

FTPA Really needs to go.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 16 14:10:59
Seb
It is, like the referendum, all inner conservative party politics.

May cannot be removed because conservative party rules will not let her be challenged for a full year after the last challenge in December.

I am frankly quite unsure of what an election is supposed to achieve.
Paramount
Member
Wed Jan 16 14:48:04
I wish Monty Python would make a sketch about this.
Rugian
Member
Wed Jan 16 14:50:21
-Gets a boner over Bercow arbitrarily changing parliamentary precedent to screw over the government
-Thinks May should adhere to a long-dead constitutional convention

Classic Seb.
murder
Member
Wed Jan 16 16:38:32

"And may wins the confidence vote."

Amazing! I don't think I've ever witnessed a major country break into an execution chamber and strap themselves to the electric chair before.

Usually they go kicking and screaming.

Seb
Member
Thu Jan 17 01:48:55
Rugian:

The overriding constitutional principle is that the crown can rule only with the consent of parliament and the crown's ministers must have the confidence of parliament.

Precedent on parliamentary procedure is merely about how best to enact that principle. Don't confuse the two.

A minority govt using procedural rules to ignore or circumvent parliament is anathema (and would never arise without the FTPA).

The precedent Bercow ignored dates to 1880 and was created to er... stop Irish MPs using procedural issues to disrupt parliament. And the speakers job is precisely to ensure the house isn't pushed around by the executive.

At least May didn't have her head cut off like the last executive that tried to rule without parliament.


Murder:

What would a GE solve?
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 17 02:15:10
Murder:

The house has no majority for any option on an issue of vital importance which cannot be fudged.

May has been terrible, doing now, with only a few days left, the work that should have been done before A50.

But the damage is done.

And in any case the issue is less May and more the fundamental problems with brexit.

And harder, and the risk of conflict in NI means Ireland blocks the deal seeking a softer brexit. And softer and the UK becomes a rule taker, which isnt what people were looking for.

But this was precisely what I said was the case in the referendum. It's precisely what Cameron said, though people interpreted his comments on Ireland as saying WW3 would break out.

These fundamental issues remain even with a GE. And in fact are obscured by other issues.

The key issue here is the mandate of the referendum. May is trying to use the referendum plus the FTPA to rule as an executive separate from parliament. But even if she were not, I don't think any other govt would fair better here. The fundamental contradiction of brexit remains.

So the only purpose of a GE would be to either get a strong mandate for a specific brexit proposal, or to extinguish the old one.

In that case, a referendum is best, as the issue is clarified, not obscured by other issues as it would be in a GE.

And then, we should resolve never to hold another referendum.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 17 04:09:17
"we should resolve never to hold another referendum. "

You should hold a referendum on that.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 17 07:12:18
Jergul:

Proverbs 26:11
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 17 07:15:26
heh
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 17 07:19:22
Personally, I think your politicians are being shoehorned by a blatantly false representation of what an advisory referendum is.

Leaving the EU has been explored. The viable options that remain are either a customs union with the 3 freedoms intact, or simply staying in the EU.

No new referenda or election will change that.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 17 11:01:20
The population at large generally doesn't seem to feel that the referendum should be seen as advisory.

Irrespective of it being so couched. Not helped at all by Cameron promising before the vote to immediately give it force.

So while legally any govt withdrawing the A50 notice can cite the non binding nature, it's not a good reason.

The reason would have to be along the lines of "we truly explored the option, but it's just not good enough".

However, having booted the issue to the people before, I fear not asking the people to settle the issue looks very much like the political class attempting to overrule the population, which is corrosive to trust.



jergul
large member
Thu Jan 17 11:30:43
There are two downsides to that position.

One is codifying referenda as the ultimate arbitrator of political decisions.

The second is of course a hard brexit. The public might opt for that.

It is a dereliction of duty to even allow for that possibility.
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 18 08:07:15
jergul:

Codifies in what sense? Parliaments actions are not justiciable.

What it boils down to is that by treating it this time as binding when it is not, next time it will... also be seen as binding.

What matters in the UK system is perception of legitimacy. Parliament generally calls a referendum when it needs to create legitimacy beyond that conferred by a General election.

So treating a referendum as non-binding will simply damage trust, unless a strong case can be made to the public otherwise.

"The second is of course a hard brexit. The public might opt for that."

Then don't put that as an option.

Referrendum choice:

We leave with May's deal (or any tweaks agreed thereof*), or we remain.

*Labours Customs Union policy is a red-herring. We are only voting on the Withdrawal Agreement, and anything from Canada through to EEA membership is negotiable (backstop notwithstanding) during the transition period. Therefore it is a tweak to the WA.



jergul
large member
Fri Jan 18 08:24:13
Seb
In sense of creating a insurrmountable series of precedents that would in turn become part of your unwritten constitution.

There is no way to a perception of legitimacy from here.

That will definitely not be the referendum wording.

In Norway, referendums are used to bypass the 2/3rds paliamentary majority constitutional change demands.

The labour thingy is not a red herring. A clear plan that is acceptable to the EU renders the backstop moot. It is almost indifferent if A-50 is extended until negotiations are concluded.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share