Brexit at Glasto?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, SwedgeAntilles said:

Don't think anyone expected the confirmatory vote to do as well as it did last night. 

I did.

I've said all the way thru that the main problem is that MPs don't want to have to take responsibility for choosing what are only shit options that they know will come back on them.

It's been obvious for ages that the only way to cover-off that fear is with another vote where the public are the ones who take the responsibility for the public's want.

(May had always hoped to use 'this is what the public wants' to cover the tory responsibility for brexit, but that ceased to be an option when tories wouldn't support her deal despite it being the only deal).

[Mr.Tease]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

so what you're saying is that Corbyn has been lying when he's said the WA is unsupportable?  

It's not just the others who've been trying to game it.

I know that, everyone has been trying to game it (and that's fair enough), problem is is that everyone still thinks they can get what they want, but no one has the numbers to win, and while some have folded, it's not been in enough numbers to get an outcome. 

If May added the customs union, Labour would pivot to single market membership (which May wouldn't support) and use that as a reason for voting against it, while the ERG would also oppose it. 

Like I said I really don't see a way out of this

[zahidf]

25 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The CU option - or Ken Clarke's SM 'Norway' option (that came closest to winning) - are currently unicorn options, that are ignoring the reality of the situation.

While the votes were close last night, I can't see either getting many more votes in a 'full vote' situation, while I can see the antis to those clocking up a fair few extra votes. 

There were LOADS of Mps abstaining though. Wouldn't take much to pass a couple of the motions.

 

[Mr.Tease]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I did.

I've said all the way thru that the main problem is that MPs don't want to have to take responsibility for choosing what are only shit options that they know will come back on them.

It's been obvious for ages that the only way to cover-off that fear is with another vote where the public are the ones who take the responsibility for the public's want.

(May had always hoped to use 'this is what the public wants' to cover the tory responsibility for brexit, but that ceased to be an option when tories wouldn't support her deal despite it being the only deal).

I agree, but the problem for a while has been that a lot of mps see backing a second vote as invoking their constituency's fury, and thats what's stopping a second referendum getting a majority. Maybe we'll reach a point where they realise the fury will be greater with the other options. 

I've thought for a long time that a soft brexit would be the path of least resistance, but seems like even that's blocked by the brexiteers and the remainers. 

[Mr.Tease]

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

There were LOADS of Mps abstaining though. Wouldn't take much to pass a couple of the motions.

 

Plus there was a lot of game playing - mps not acknowledging what they'd actually settle for if push comes to shove (and understandably so- if you really want x but say you'll settle for y, then you lessen the chances of getting x) 

[hfuhruhurr]

A remarkable turn of events that the DUP isn't trusting the ERG led by a staunch Catholic (who'd have guessed, it's amazing).
The ERG already said that the backstop would be removed with a border in the Irish Sea - IDS even let that slip on the weekend Marr show.

So, in the meantime get yourself some comedy gold from https://www.facebook.com/britainbitesbackofficial 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

There were LOADS of Mps abstaining though.

those were almost-all tory MPs with govt jobs, who were told to abstain as a trade-off to allow free votes. Very few of those will support options which weren't in the tory manifesto.

They might pivot a little bit, but not by much - and not by enough to get Jez's plan over the line. Jez can't even get his own MPs to vote for it (was it 54 who didn't?) .

[mcshed]

48 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

those were almost-all tory MPs with govt jobs, who were told to abstain as a trade-off to allow free votes. Very few of those will support options which weren't in the tory manifesto.

They might pivot a little bit, but not by much - and not by enough to get Jez's plan over the line. Jez can't even get his own MPs to vote for it (was it 54 who didn't?) .

But if these votes are about finding a way out of this mess, Theresa May now has 2 ways out as either a confirmation referendum or a customs union would pass with the support of those Government abstentions.

[eFestivals]

31 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Theresa May now has 2 ways out as either a confirmation referendum or a customs union would pass with the support of those Government abstentions.

Yeah, the tories will vote for Labour's plan just like Labour have been voting for the tory plan  

[mcshed]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yeah, the tories will vote for Labour's plan just like Labour have been voting for the tory plan  

Ken Clarke's plan if you please.

[eFestivals]

Just now, mcshed said:

Ken Clarke's plan if you please.

Ken's plan is a unicorn option, unless Northern Ireland is thrown off a cliff.

It's also those queues at Dover.

[mcshed]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Ken's plan is a unicorn option, unless Northern Ireland is thrown off a cliff.

It's also those queues at Dover.

Staying in a customs union means there's less chance of a distinction between NI and the rest of the UK.

Edited March 28, 2019 by mcshed
I had said the customs union not a customs union.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Staying in the customs union means there's less chance of a distinction between NI and the rest of the UK.

not true. NI needs to be in a number of aspects of the single market too for an open border.

Without those same SM aspects applying to the rest of the UK there's a border in the Irish sea (which is why Labour's plan is as it is*).

that issue also exists with the May's deal backstop plan, which is one of the reasons it's not got voted thru.

(*tho Labour's plan has other different unicron aspects).

Edited March 28, 2019 by eFestivals

[mcshed]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

not true. NI needs to be in a number of aspects of the single market too for an open border.

Without those same SM aspects applying to the rest of the UK there's a border in the Irish sea (which is why Labour's plan is as it is*).

that issue also exists with the May's deal backstop plan, which is one of the reasons it's not got voted thru.

(*tho Labour's plan has other different unicron aspects).

The exact specifics of these deals are of course vague as they haven't been hammered out with the EU. I believe a customs union could solve the border issue in Ireland but this is irrelevant to the point I was making.

With government backing there could be progress with a customs union or a confirmation referendum there are ways out.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, mcshed said:

The exact specifics of these deals are of course vague as they haven't been hammered out with the EU. I believe a customs union could solve the border issue in Ireland but this is irrelevant to the point I was making.

With government backing there could be progress with a customs union or a confirmation referendum there are ways out.

A CU can solve the NI issue, but only by having SM aspects - Labour's deal, essentially (but with Labour's unicorns removed). 

The govt will *NOT* back a CU option. It's entirely different to their primary manifesto policy - so if they did back a CU option most tory MPs wouldn't vote for it. It would be less supported by tories than May's deal.

Edited March 28, 2019 by eFestivals

[mcshed]

51 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

A CU can solve the NI issue, but only by having SM aspects - Labour's deal, essentially (but with Labour's unicorns removed). 

The govt will *NOT* back a CU option. It's entirely different to their primary manifesto policy - so if they did back a CU option most tory MPs wouldn't vote for it. It would be less supported by tories than May's deal.

It only needs 8 more votes are you telling me you don't think that if you added the backing of the government that there aren't 8 May loyalists or soft remainers.

[hfuhruhurr]

So, in simplistic terms:

Problem 1: Being in the EU is a fundamental part of the Good Friday peace process. There is no way to leave the EU without breaking that.

Problem 2: Solve, (1) and we move onto Scottish independence

There is no Problem 3.

 

[Mr.Tease]

Argh! What is the solution that can get a majority?! (not that you personally want) genuine question 

[eFestivals]

33 minutes ago, mcshed said:

It only needs 8 more votes

not correct. There were around 100 MPs who didn't cast a vote last night, and they need to be factored in.

And they'd mainly vote against or abstain. Not (necessarily) because they can't personally stomach it, but because it's very different to what they were elected on &/or what the voters and members in their constituency want.

 

33 minutes ago, mcshed said:

are you telling me you don't think that if you added the backing of the government that there aren't 8 May loyalists or soft remainers.

Apart from those who didn't vote last night, almost all of those who could vote in favour voted in favour.

And govt whipping isn't going to make much difference, for a variety of reasons. The whipping system has just about broken down anyway - for both parties - which is why we're where we are.

[eFestivals]

Just now, Mr.Tease said:

Argh! What is the solution that can get a majority?! (not that you personally want) genuine question 

I don't believe anything can, but if anything can it'll be for a version of brexit no one wants - which I reckon gives away why it won't happen..

Cos why would an MP compromise? They're already failures in the eyes of the public, and delivering a brexit no one (absolutely no one) wants won't undo that, it'll just be another failure rather than a compromise.

They only get to be absolved (as much as they're going to be) via another public vote. Which is why that'll happen, i reckon.

[DeanoL]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

just noticed there's a fair few tories that didn't vote in favour of anything.  What exactly do these people want to happen...?  

A lot of them are opposed to the idea of indicative voting in the first place I think...

There's been one consistent thing in all of this, and that is any chance to kick the decision making further down the line has been taken. So it seems to me that either we will get a long extension (2 years plus), with May stepping down and a general election, after which anything could happen.

Or May's deal gets passed with the statement of intent from our side removed, leaving the precise nature of what the final deal will be quite clearly back up in the air. Again, after which May steps down, probably an election, and all the options except remain being back on the table. Essentially, May rebrands her deal as a way of reaching any of five or six other options, including Corbyn's plan, Clarke's plan, etc. The only thing it rules out are Remain and No deal, the two least popular options. 

 

[GMF]

The CU is effectively the Norway solution, the issues with that from a tory/DUP viewpoint are

- Norway contributes to the EU budget 

- Norway allows free movement of people 

- Norway has a trade border with Sweden, therefore does not solve the Irish issue.

My view is that nothing will be agreed next week, they will vote for a longer extension, May will go and we will have a General Election in June (not the 27th hopefully) depending on the local and european results. My fear  is that this will result in a hung parliament and possibly a reinvigorated SNP.

Edited March 28, 2019 by GMF

[DeanoL]

It really shows how broken and inflexible the parliamentary system is really. You can't do preferential voting which is one thing, but also everything has to be a yes or a no.

MPs voted No yesterday to, when reaching the article 50 deadline, revoking article 50 unless there is no deal.

I'm sure had they been asked the opposite: if we hit the deadline and no deal is approved, should we crash out with no deal, they would also have voted No to that. Despite the fact that you have to do one or the other...

[Fuzzy Afro]

25 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It really shows how broken and inflexible the parliamentary system is really. You can't do preferential voting which is one thing, but also everything has to be a yes or a no.

MPs voted No yesterday to, when reaching the article 50 deadline, revoking article 50 unless there is no deal.

I'm sure had they been asked the opposite: if we hit the deadline and no deal is approved, should we crash out with no deal, they would also have voted No to that. Despite the fact that you have to do one or the other...

 

It's because everything has to be yes/no. Say it comes right down to the last minute and the EU refuse another extension and the final two options are to approve a no deal or unilaterally revoke article 50, you could run either option through the commons and get a no answer both times.

 

There's no allowance in the commons to offer MPs a straight choice of "would you rather do option A or option B"

[zero000]

Our parliamentary system has a huge amount to blame for the current system. Unrepresentative, divisive and unnecessarily adversarial. If only the Lib Dems hadn't spectacularly botched the Proportional representation debate with the shit show that was AV referendum.