draxen
3987
Seems perfectly clear to me, we should… errrr… yeah… errrm… hmmm
wavey
3988
Well she did lose the last one by 149 votes. A lot of the switching we’ve seen since her resignation offer has been from the ERG, which like you said would likely not be in play if a no-deal was on the cards.
So presuming this clown bus continues to decide nothing and Hard Brexit lands on April 12, what does entry to the UK look like the next day?
I mean process wise, do they have any IT systems in place now, or is the whole thing one guy with a monocle examining and hand-stamping papers while a line forms that takes 12 hours to process through?
I take off for the UK on April 12 and land April 13, which should be exciting. I’m a UK citizen, but I’ll be travelling with some of those foreign types and while I don’t have too much concern about them getting into the country once they get to the head of the line, I do worry about how long that part might take if the country is on B-Day+1.
Any ideas on what arrivals and customs may look like at that point?
Aceris
3990
I think it is now clear that in a ranked preference vote, the deal-as-is would win. (Remember non-indicative votes against the soft brexit options would be whipped, which might still count for something. There would certainly be another 15 or so votes against from the cabinet)
- There are more MPs who prefer the deal as-is to Common market 2.0
- There are more MPs who prefer the deal as-is to Deal + 2nd ref.
- Most MPs prefer the deal-as-is to No Deal.
The question is how does May get there from here. I’m not sure she can. Bercow and Letwin can ensure that those specific votes never happen.
(On reflection I’m not sure that’s as clear as I thought, in particular I don’t know how many votes against CM 2.0 came from hardcore remainers)
Aceris
3991
Also there’s talk of Raab or Johnson as a TMay successor. I think either of those would have trouble reaching the final two, but I actually believe the Tory pro-europeans would no confidence their own government at that point. Thoughts?
I think she has given up with that. Can the next Conservative leader? Maybe.
Bercow & Letwin have no power over this. Its entirely on the government to go bring a new proposal.
Aceris
3993
I believe Bercow would block the government trying to use any kind of irregular procedure, if one outcome is the deal-as-is.
Letwin can use irregular procedure on Monday.
Irregular procedure could be used to make the houses relative preferences more clear.
That’s why I mention Bercow/Letwin.
draxen
3994
Am I the only one who finds it disgusting that they are able to subvert procedure in this fashion?
Well I dont. I find it admirable someone is standing up for our democracy in the face of a government which has abdicated its role.
I do find the governments attempts to get around the constitution disgusting though.
Letwin in particular has only done this to try and help the government do its job. It should have been done two years ago.
There are many heroes in the piece both Remain & Leave, but May is most definitely the main villain in my mind.
draxen
3996
That’s a fair enough criticism. Ramming through her deal in this fashion is disgusting too.
Aceris
3997
On the contrary, some kind of mechanism for helping MPs work out what they want is clearly necessary. If the government could pass anything this would never have happened.
The problem is the mechanism is in the hands of people who have a strong preference for specific outcomes.
Aceris
3998
There’s a lot of bullshit being talked about the constitution on both sides - even by people who should know better. Trying to notify A50 without a vote was crazy bad; I’m not sure what they’ve done since then that is “getting around the constitution”
Its their job to bring forward proposals to be voted on in the house. If they are rejected its their job and duty to abandon that plan or to come up with something new. Instead they have simply repeated their plan.
Now I admit this has another party involved (the EU) who they cannot speak for but still. The answer is clear. Go away and come up with something else. They have tried all sorts of bullying, maneuvering and in May’s case publicly attack Parliament in an attempt to reduce confidence in the UK’s democracy. When you have an unwritten constitution built on trust and precedent that is a constitutional crisis which they alone have caused.
Aceris
4000
Also customs union (which doesn’t solve any of the border issues and screws over trade policy and services) got 80+ more votes than Common Market 2.0 (which solves the border issues and is good for services, but has free movement).
The various opposition parties don’t want to vote for free movement either.
Looking at the votes more closely it looks like WA + Customs Union is more popular than WA. But of course the person who will run the trade negotiations for the EU has already announced that the WA leads inevitably to a customs union anyway. Noone in the HoC knows how to take a win.
CraigM
4001
That’s the fundamental insanity, triggering A-50 without laying out the terms for exactly what that looked like, based on a split refferendum with horrendous framing.
Seriously, the whole ‘will of the people’ thing is dumb, considering the complete lack of defining what Brexit meant for the purposes of the vote. It certainly wasn’t an affirmative vote for hard Brexit.
Plus making such monumental changes on a slim majority is insane. As frustrating as may be, there’s a reason why major legislation in the US requires 60% votes, and amendments have an even higher bar to clear at 3/4 of the states! Making a change so grand with a 51% vote isn’t just stupid, it’s obscenely reckless. Especially with the hardline insistence of the far right groups on hard Brexit.
Aceris
4002
One might argue it’s their responsibility to propose an alternative, and I wouldn’t disagree. But it’s not their constitutional responsibility. They have no constitutional obligation to pass any kind of WA at all.
Aceris
4003
At least they had a referendum this time, unlike in 1986, 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2007. You can’t apply this argument to only changes in a direction you don’t like.
Then we agree.
If they had walked away and said “sorry EU this isnt going to work we need to work something else out” then it would have been fine. Many Brexiters explicitly voted against her deal to give her this ammunition in negotiations.
Instead they brought it back twice and now want to try the same thing again.
When I say unconstitutionally I mean to say this government has thrown out the window the way we do business. Rhetoric is high these days you are right, but its arguably too kind in its criticisms of this governments handling of Brexit.
Their hands were not tied either. Brexit could have meant anything within reason in 2016, in 2017 and in 2018 and if this had been approached in a reasonable consensus based manner we wouldnt be here today.
draxen
4005
The problem is that the issue cuts across party lines. May couldn’t have negotiated a soft Brexit without a massive rebellion. It would have split the party. Indeed, even with the path she chose it split it anyway. With the DUP providing the majority she’s been stuck between a rock and a hard place.
CraigM
4006
Look dude, I got no skin in the game. I’m not British or European. And I don’t know the procedural parts of EU integration before. Presumably there were still votes for MPs and those votes were often predicated with this as one of the defining issues?
Still, I find the idea of such broad changes on narrow margins insane.
