UKC

Sorry for another Brexity thread, and please don't turn this into another argument about what the government should do or who lied etc, but I don't understand why they are splitting the withdrawal agreement for another vote. Why are they bringing the bit of it (backstop) which seemed to be the bit that was objected to most? Surely that is guaranteed to be rejected? What am I missing?

Also, why does May think that the promise of her quitting will encourage people to vote for her deal when no one wants the poisoned chalice, and those who want a no deal Brexit would be tied to the deal they are so fiercely against?

What is the thinking behind any of these things?

Apparently she's also said she'll call a general election if she loses the next vote.

I see that as a way of frightening her MPs and the DUP into voting for her deal. None of the tories want to risk being punished for not facilitating Brexit, whatever the result of the next GE the DUP are extremely unlikely to end up holding the balance of power again and finally she doesn't give a phuq any more.

I'm sure now that we've all been misinterpreting her actions in that we thought she was talking to us when in fact she's mainly been talking to her own party.

She had to do something different to get the Speaker to allow the vote at all, she'd been told by the EU leaders that renegotiation was out of the question, and this was probably the only way she could think of to modify it sufficiently to bring it to a MV3.

Obviously hoping the bribes and blackmail will encourage enough MPs to turn a blind eye to their responsibilities to the electorate!

My understanding (quite possibly flawed understanding) was that the future relationship would be easier to push through than the backstop though, so why not bring that first and get people on side with SOMETHING before bringing the more controversial one?

You ever played Chicken?

Well TM is playing with rules off the scale. And rather than playing for pride, TM has an awful lot more at stake.

General election would also force a longer extension to article 50?

Sod Brexit for a while, in other news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47734733

Employment at an all time high, my arse!
When will this government (hahaha, that's stretching the meaning of the word) go?

If you want more or better jobs, stop supporting brexit! 

It's OK, it's not you it's me. Or them. Or them. Or those other them. Or someone else. Or ....

It's a good question and I don't have a good answer, just ideas: 

1. She felt she had enough support to get away with doing it the 'right way around'.
2. Bringing the PD vote ahead of the WA one would be such a transparent ruse that even the Brexit-friendly media might feel obliged to question it.
3. She secretly doesn't really want to see it passed.

Place your bets...

Yes, maybe a year. The EU said they'd extend further in those sort of circumstances.

FWIW, I think the PM wants to narrow down the options for parliament.

There are only three real choices: remain, leave with a deal, leave without a deal.

Most of what parliament does is to postpone this choice. A second referendum is in principle also just postponing this choice.

All the possible "leave with a deal" options require parliament to vote for the withdrawal agreement.

Theresa May wants to enforce this choice.

BTW, separating the WA from the PD was somewhat suggested by the EU. They wrote in the extension specification that acceptance of the WA is required for an extension to May 23.

Like what?

Voting against the WA is a very dangerous course of action (if parliament does not directly votes to revoke a50).

To the EU the WA means acceptance of the commitments the UK has in binding international treaties with respect to citizen's rights, financial settlements, and the Good Friday Agreement.

If parliament votes against the WA, it will need a plan before april 12 for another extension. For this plan to convince the EU, it will have to make clear that the UK intends keep its international commitments. And this is not easy if parliament has just voted against it....

This is just a technical device to circumvent the Speaker's previous ruling on having another vote on exactly the same question.

Presumably the government thinks it does now have the numbers to get a 'yes' vote for the withdrawal agreement, and then they know that  a later vote on the associated political declaration will also pass.

If so, then it's all finished. We shall know later on today.

As it stands there's no chance of MV3 getting passed. No DUP support, no opposition support apart from maybe a few Labour rebels and not even full support from within the Tory party.  We stagger towards April 12th and a hard Brexit. 

Back to my popgun comments, earworm time ...

The cabinet and ERG in a kind of Spitting Image portrayal all singing

"I'll be riding pop-gun underneath the hot sun
Feeling like a someone
I'll be riding pop-gun underneath the hot sun
Feeling like a someone"

I suspect the bloc opposed to the WA isn't exactly the same bloc opposed to the PD, by splitting the votes she gets one or two extra votes for each half that she wouldn't get for the whole. Also it bypasses the speaker's previous ruling. Some will believe once the WA is passed the PD can be shredded and a new one dictated to Brussels to beckon forth the socialist/libertarian utopia they dream of. Some on the other hand will have little objection to the PD but can't countenance voting for the WA (fewer I'd guess in this camp), however once it's passed they may as well make the best of a bad lot.

The GE threat is obviously yanking the DUP's chain, they stand to lose the balance of power if they don't wield it right now. I think they miscalculated what any practical implementation of brexit would do for them and have ended up having to oppose it, I don't think they'll come round though I'm sure the profiteers like Mogg and Johnson will regardless, their credibility is shot with those paying attention but they're getting something they want and most of the public don't care.

jk

I think there is an argument that the withdrawal agreement contains nothing (or very little) that is at odds with labours official position. So labour should back the withdrawal agreement. 

But in reality if labour did back it, with no agreement on future arrangements, they would lose any negotiating power they had, and open up the prospect of an ERG future deal.

If the WA is passed is it compatible with a customs union? (Assuming that option gets the extra 8 votes it needs on Monday.)

Here's an interesting graphic of the indicative vote results showing how polarised the house is but also that there odd weird threads of connection between the polar extremes, it's these oddballs I suspect May is hoping to exploit by splitting the votes.

https://alexandreafonso.me/2019/03/28/mapping-preferences-over-brexit-in-th...

LOL, I just hit ctrl-v and instead of the link it inserted the word 'contemptible', I guess last time I spellchecked something it was government related.

jk

There'll be no IV Monday if the WA passes.

jk

Thanks l hadn't realised that. I haven't been keeping up this week. 

This precisely echoes the wider situation: If Labour definitively backs Brexit at all, they would lose most of what limited support their unelectable Leader still has, and open up the prospect of an ERG future government.

No need for immediate IVs, but a CU could of course be negotiated during the transition phase following the WA. 

I hate writing in acronyms, bust spelling that stuff out is even worse!

CB

Who has... it's a roller-coaster ride that's run out of track!

jk

I think so. The withdrawal agreement holds us in the single market and customs union during a transition period. And further holds us in the customs union beyond that date if Ireland isn't resolved. So I think it is compatible with a long standing customs union.

No they don't.  If they don't vote for the withdrawal agreement they can go back and ask for a longer extension to Article 50 if they give a reason and hold EU elections in May.

Voting for the WA is suicidal when May has already said she will resign and the new Tory leader is likely to be an even more hard-line leaver.  It's the exact same trap as the first referendum.

MPs need to hold their nerve.  Kill May's deal and make the cliff edge decision about Remain vs hard leave which is an easy win for Remain.  F*ck the Brexiters.

May offered to stand down as a sop to the ERG because they want to run and define the next stage to get a harder brexit.

She is splitting the bill for a few purposes: eg get around John Bercow's ban on reintroducing it, diluting the poison in it for remains and brexiteers, FUD, to reveal cracks in the opposition and running down the clock.

Her offer to stand down <after> her bill is accepted is, of course, bullshit.  She has to resign whatever and she knows it.  This is part facing saving nonse.

Not true at all. All the posturing from Mogg, Johnson, Raab, Gove, Javid and others is precisely because they are lining themselves up as potential leadership candidates. 

Sadly  it seems that neither an understanding of the situation, an ability to tell the truth, nor any record of competency are necessary or even desirable for someone to be considered a potential candidate for prime minister of this country.

In Johnson's and Gove's case, their very support of brexit was entirely due to their personal career ambitions. They recognised, and went on record to say, that remaining was preferable to leaving but changed their position when they saw an opportunity to advance their personal fortunes. 

It is a poisoned chalice in that delivering a brexit that is better than what we already have or that fixes the divides in the country or the Conservative Party is impossible. But the first rules of populism are:

1) promise the impossible

2) have someone to blame when you are unable to deliver the impossible.

So far, they have blamed the EU and remainers for their inability to deliver. If they take over as PM, they will be able to add May and her terrible deal as another scapegoat (a deal which they are mostly now indicating they will support despite going on record previously saying that the deal is worse than remaining in the EU).

Like this you mean?

youtube.com/watch?v=7NszQ7dFaDk&

I was listening to the debate earlier and will go back soon.

I'm not sure if others have made this point. As I understand it passing the WA today means we leave on 22 May, probably without a clear idea of the direction of travel. (The political declaration in its current form doesn't really give that, and parliament probably won't agree that anyway). May will then resign and the more important next stage of the negotiations will be left to a Johnson, Raab or Davis to lead on. 

Rejecting the WA today means we leave on 12 April with no deal unless we Revoke A50 or the EU 27 agree a long extension eg for a General Election, a People's vote, and/or a re-negotiation of a softer Brexit without the May red lines. So it's a strategy with considerable risks but one which I think it takes us closer to the better outcomes - a softer EEA + customs union style Brexit, or a harder Brexit conditional on a People's Vote with Remain as the alternative on the ballot paper, or an emergency Revoke at the last minute to avoid No Deal. 

I say "better outcomes" appreciating that that's not the view of everyone on here.

Martin

Thanks for all the responses. I still feel like the world has gone mad, but you have at least clarified that there is some sort of vague method in the madness! 

How did we get here?! (No, please don't go down that line! It's rhetorical!! Lol)

Cameron was afraid of losing the racist Tory voters to UKIP and he thought he was golden after winning a Scottish Referendum.

Thanks, obvious when you put it like that. My brain seems to have packed it in on this subject. 

Pity that amendment didn't pass. 

Thank you so much for that! 

Exactly. Of the 570 pages in the withdrawal agreement only 17 are about what happens after the two year separation period and they are predictably vague. Once the withdrawal agreement is passed we will be locked into leaving the EU without knowing what the long term relationship will be or even, who will be Prime Minister when the negotiations start.

So? Then there is an extension. The extension will have a deadline. At this deadline the same question remains: vote for no deal, vote for this withdrawal agreement, revoke a50.

EU27 has said repeatly that the WA is not up for renegotiation, and they are serious about it.

Parliament still has all the power. It can vote for the deal and impose its will on whoever is the government afterwards with regards to the PD.

A long extension is all that's needed.  The dynamic is against Brexit, a year from now more of the old people who voted for it will be dead, more young remainers will be in the electorate and a fair number of Brexiters will have given up.  Many of them are already getting bored.

They've also said that they are open to the UK taking all of Theresa May's red lines off the table and asking for something like EFTA.

Parliament is divided and sh*t because Jeremy Corbyn won't fight against Brexit and the Tories have control of the agenda.   Parliament will have less leverage against a crazy Brexiting Tory Prime Minister after the WA is passed than it does against Theresa May before it is passed.   The revoke article 50 option will be gone after the WA is passed.

and why should he? He, and many Labour people want out of the political union and want the Common Market 2.  Sounds reasonable to me.

Why would a man who wants Brexit fight to stop Brexit?

And you are correct, the Tories have control of the agenda. However come an election, and if Labour do win, then they will also make a pig's ear of Brexit because they will want to control the agenda.

Brexit crosses all political boundaries, and as such will require all Parties to solve this issue together. And there is the problem because all Parties do not play nicely with each other.

And Brexit means Brexit = Brexit means?

Hi. First of all, happy non-brexit day!

The trend is there. But it is glacially slow. And quite some of it is explained by non-voters switching to pro-EU instead of leavers changing opinion. And it is hard to see how a pro-EU majority with executive power can emerge in the HoC.

And from the EU's side there is also a problem that part of the Remain/PV/pro-EU campaign does not seem that pro-EU. E.g., Gina Miller/Tony Blair arguments about reforming FoM. Also the whole "lead not leave" instead of "we'll be in the EU just as all the other countries are".

Anyway, the upshot is that the April 10 Council decision about the extension is not a given. If parliament finds a majority for a softer brexit deal, sure. But a PV or GE option? There is a lot of risk in the EU for this. (for example B. Johnson as PM with a veto on the next EU budget cycle).

It is quite a common view here that 5 years of transition and then a rejoin through article 49 is preferable. See e.g., https://twitter.com/anbusch/status/1111727660193984513

But I do think a way for a longer extension will be found....

Of course, but EFTA can be done with the current WA. The whole document is written such that all ramps towards softer brexit are fine and harder one are impossible.

Revoke is there until the UK actually leaves the union. Parliament can (in theory) vote for a complete deal and then say "surprise! we revoke at the last minute"

He should fight against Brexit because more than half the people of the country are now against Brexit, there are only two political parties with a chance of forming a government and the other one is rabidly pro-Brexit.

There is zero point in having an election unless the two parties with a chance of winning take opposite sides on the most important issue. 

Personally I think deciding this through a GE will be deeply damaging for the country, we have so many issues that need campaigning for

Austerity 

NHS

policing and crime

taxation

poverty

housing

all these topics need debating and voting on and will be lost in the noise about Brexit so not really helping us take back control, more  taking your hands off the steering wheel and rummaging around the footwell whilst driving down the motorway.

The troubling thing is those politicians that called most loudly for Brexit will have their harsh domestic policies further advanced by the lack of debate and scrutiny caused by the Brexit car crash.

It's pointless, we face at least a decade of all consuming and corrosive wrangling to achieve a relationship slightly worse than that which we have today.

Jk

Labour aren't going to win an election, Corbyn's failure to lead on brexit has destroyed them. Likely we just get another Conservative minority but a harder edged one with many pro-EU cons hounded out.

Jk

We'll never rejoin. The next decade of negotiations will be so costly and humiliating there will be no way back, frankly it'll be a job to keep a lid on calls for war from the angrier fringes. That and the deal has changed, Euro, Shenghen, loss of discount, opt outs on closer union... No way after a bruising decade where the EU will be portrayed as the enemy without will we be able to go back. We have two weeks to decide.

Jk

That is not a very good argument at all.  If the % should change again should labour policy work, or do you have to become a conservative.  Perhaps parties should campaign on what's right rather than pandering to public opinion

To jkarran - I fear you are very right there.  Corbyns reputation isis mudamagedby his fence sitting and lack of any real ideas

Brexit is a messy business not defined by parties, but also shoes the folly of referenda

No, it shows the folly of mixing two incompatible systems.

Parliament requires a majority for a single manifesto. The referendum provided a new manifesto, to leave. A parliament that does not have a majority to leave should never have been involved. 

Maybe what we need is for everyone who's for Remain in Scotland to vote SNP, and those in England and Wales to vote LibDem.

The problem is with the first past the post system in this country, even if voting happened in that way the national share of the vote for Lib Dem would be way up (ie the number of people voting for them), but most constituencies would still return an MP from a Brexit supporting party.

Not the case.  https://www.bestforbritain.org/brexit-shift-2

"Our August 2018 research showed that 112 Parliamentary constituencies had switched from majority leave to majority remain support, with another 81 seats revealed in our new report. This makes a total of 193 switch seats.

"All constituencies in Great Britain have moved towards backing the public having a final say on Brexit

"A continuation of our research from August, it is clear evidence of changing attitudes on Brexit at a constituency-by-constituency level in the UK."

That was from last summer, and other polls consistently indicate a continuing trend towards Remain since then.

and other polls consistently indicate a continuing trend towards Remain since then.

Hence the rather rabid wish from Leave persons to crash out immediately, with no deal or discussion wanted.