British Politics Guide

[Salmoneus]

The problem here is that this is precisely the sort of thing the roman republic had the office of dictator for, which may applied for, but she did it in a manner so offensive to the senate parliament that she was refused. So now they're stuck in diplomacy-by-committee, where the members of the committee are dispatched by around five different factions with five different positions that are mutually incompatible and that they fear being punished for deviating from.

Not in the slightest, no. The furthest the 'committee' has gotten is managing to be allowed to hold a non-binding, quick show of hands on suggestions.

[Salmoneus]

May's deal failed for the third time, 344-286.

Next week should be interesting.

I think that was merely an 'indicative vote' - had it passed, Brexit would have been delayed until 22 May, but the deal would not have been ratified, as the vote didn’t include the 'political statement', so technically it wasn't MV3! Terminologically interesting times!

Well, it wasn't just indicative - it would have been binding - but it's not clear what it would have bound. The law says, nothing - previous legislation says that both the WA and the PD must be approved in order for the deal to be ratified. However, the government was saying that this vote would ratify it. It might just have tried to brazen it out in the law courts... or it could have changed the law to saw that that vote was sufficient. Or it could just have passed the PD separately, which presumably would have been sufficient. Ironically, it's the WA, which they tried to vote on, that contain the controversial stuff.

[Salmoneus]

Anyway, it's all over now. As a result of the defeat of NMV3, the Prime Minister has now recognised that "an alternative way forward" is needed.

It's believed that the alternative way forward will be to submit the same deal to Parliament again, in what will not officially be called MV4, as the strong support for the deal in previous votes has persuaded the government that it's sure to pass next time. Or perhaps the time after that. Apparently they're considering a non-binding NMV4 as one of the indicative votes on Monday; then, when that wins mass approval, they'll move on to a more formal NMV5 later in the week.



-------------------

Meanwhile, the TIG have formally applied to become an official political party. Their name will be "Change UK", because of course it would be. They say they'll be ready to stand in the European elections (if they happen); they don't have any candidates or members yet, of course, but the election's weeks away, so no worries. They say they want to avoid having politicians standing for them (other than themselves, of course), but that they will instead bring in candidates from outside westminster (i.e. a slate of rich businessmen who need a hobby, and one token single-mother nurse from the northeast, or equivalent). However, they've argued strongly against a general election - since that of course would put them all out of a job.

[alice]

A newspaper from this coming October fell into my lap via a warp in the space-time continuum. The headline: "Theresa May tries to get her deal through Parliament for the eighth time". Apparently the seventh time it fell short by 12 votes.

[Raphael]

I doubt that the EU will have that much patience.

[Salmoneus]

Addendum on TIG: their name change is proving controversial, and change.org is threatening litigation.

[Kuchigakatai]

From the beginning of the thread, back in July last year:

You might enjoy Charlie Stross's predictions on what will happen in the likely case of a no-deal Brexit. Spoilers: nothing good.

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-st ... .html#more

We are now 25 months on from the Brexit referendum. Theresa May filed notice of departure from the EU under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty on 29 March, 2017: on 29 March, 2019 (in 8 months' time—approximately 240 days) the UK, assuming nothing changes, will be out of the EU.

From the Wikipedia article United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union:

Invocation of Article 50 occurred on 29 March 2017, when Sir Tim Barrow, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the European Union, formally delivered by hand a letter signed by Prime Minister Theresa May to Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council in Brussels.[2] The letter also contained the United Kingdom's intention to withdraw from the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom). This means that the UK is scheduled to cease being a member of the EU at 00:00, 30 March 2019 Brussels time (UTC+1), which would be 23:00 on 29 March British time.[3][4]

[...]

On 4 December 2018, the responsible Advocate General to the ECJ published his preliminary opinion that a country could unilaterally cancel its withdrawal from the EU should it wish to do so, by simple notice, prior to actual departure.[94] While not being a formal ECJ judgement, it was seen as a good indication of the court's eventual decision.[95] On 10 December the ECJ decided that a notice of withdrawal can be revoked unilaterally, i.e. without approval by the other EU members, provided that the decision to revoke is made according to the country's constitutionally established procedures.[96] The case now returns to the Court of Session, to apply this ruling. The British Government immediately affirmed that it did not intend to propose revocation.[97]

I notice that the Wikipedia article seems to have no updates since that bit from early December. I just looked at the calendar and clock and it seems the time is now past. Can anybody explain to me what the situation is regarding article 50? I admit I haven't been following this Brexit thing at all.

[Salmoneus]

...not sure if serious?

If so, there's 38 pages of background reading in this thread alone. To be fair, probably only 36 or 37 are about Brexit, but even so.


Short version: Brexit hasn't happened.
Longer version: Brexit has not yet happened.

EDIT:
Even longer: Brexit is now happening on the 12th April. It may be postponed again, but, if so, it will almost certainly be for a rather longer period, in order to have certainty over whether we'll be participating in the next round of EU elections.

[Kuchigakatai]

EDIT:
Even longer: Brexit is now happening on the 12th April. It may be postponed again, but, if so, it will almost certainly be for a rather longer period, in order to have certainty over whether we'll be participating in the next round of EU elections.

Yeah, I was just able to find about that on Google. Hmm.

[mèþru]

What does "the PD" mean?

[Ketsuban]

The Political Declaration is a document setting out the UK's new relationship with the European Union.

[chris_notts]

It occurred to me that there is one major benefit to delaying no-deal Brexit. TM originally set up Brexit to happen in the hunger gap, which is not great if the south coast turns into a lorry park and there's a temporary shortage of some fresh produce. Shifting the exit day a couple of months will increase the availability of local seasonal produce.

You'd think Prime Ministers would consider the agricultural year when scheduling their JIT supply shocks.

[KathTheDragon]

You'd think Prime Ministers would wait until there was a plan in place before invoking Article 50.

[chris_notts]

Has the world gone mad? The Umbrella Academy is being accused of antisemitism because one of the villains uses a single Yiddish saying in its 10 hour run-time:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/8 ... i-semitic/

By that standard, Johnny English was one long piece of anti-French hate speech (the villain was John Malkovich doing his worst impersonation of a Frenchman).

[Salmoneus]

Welp, the papers are having a breakdown today. The Sunday Times is even reporting that, yes, the Queen may be asked to intervene.

The PM has told the house that she feels "we are reaching the limits of this process in this House" - which people have read as saying we may need a new House (i.e. a snap election). Labour would back this, since polls put them five points ahead*. Furthermore, the EU have now said that, unless May has a really amazing plan to win MV4, they won't allow any further Brexit extension unless May promises either fresh elections or a second referendum (because from their point of view, they believe that unless something changes May will never be able to get her deal through, and if there's going to be a no deal brexit they'd rather have it now rather than torture everyone by postponing it two weeks at a time for the next three years). May doesn't want a second referendum, so that makes snap elections seem the least-worst option.

But that option makes Tories freak out. They're already five points behind in the polls, and last time Theresa May was allowed to run an election campaign they lost a twenty point margin over the course of the campaign. The party could be wiped out. Or it could lose the plurality. Or even if it stays the largest party, they're only clinging on with DUP votes as it is, and if they lose any more seats at all they could really struggle to find a majority. Frankly, given the ERG, even if they did relatively well and gained a tiny majority, it wouldn't really help them. And of course, if they lose power, they could lose Brexit, or at least the Brexit they want.

So her cabinet have apparently told her elections are out.

Then there's the problem of the customs union. It's now expected that the House will vote for a customs union tomorrow. This will in theory be 'indicative', but once the house has demanded something it'll be extremely difficult to not deliver it. Apparently some think even the indicative vote will be in some way legally binding; even if it isn't, there'll be enormous pressure to bring a binding vote to the table, and it's quite possible MPs will just take matters into their own hands and do it.

Should May accept this? 170 Tory MPs, more than half her party, have written a letter demanding that she doesn't. There are threats of mass defections, multiple cabinet resignations, and possibly a new party being formed. But how could she stop it? Hence the Queen - Brexiteer experts have advised no 10 that the PM can ask the Queen to withhold her consent from a bill that is passed against the wishes of the PM - but that of course would cause a constitutional crisis (who should the Queen obey - the PM, or Parliament? The question is never normally able to arise...).

Or we could have No Deal. At least six cabinet ministers have promised to resign if that happens.

[Raphael]

Furthermore, the EU have now said that, unless May has a really amazing plan to win MV4, they won't allow any further Brexit extension unless May promises either fresh elections or a second referendum

So, do I get this right - are you saying that the EU has said that, if May would hold either a new election or a new referendum, they would allow another Brexit extension? Interesting - they seem to be more patient than I am.

[Salmoneus]

Not formally,I don't think, but apparently they've conveyed that idea, yes. It's always possiblet that one country might baulk at the last moment, but...


[they really don't want no deal. Ideally they don't want brexit at all, and either a referendum or an election might deliver that, or at least a softer brexit, so there's an appetite for those ways forward.]

[Raphael]

Ah, thank you.

[Richard W]

It's now expected that the House will vote for a customs union tomorrow. This will in theory be 'indicative', but once the house has demanded something it'll be extremely difficult to not deliver it. Apparently some think even the indicative vote will be in some way legally binding; even if it isn't, there'll be enormous pressure to bring a binding vote to the table, and it's quite possible MPs will just take matters into their own hands and do it.

Someone (I hope it's me) is very confused here. If one just wants a customs union and doesn't mind not being able to exit it other than by agreement, then May's agreement delivers that by default. This vote would be May's MV4 victory.

If one just wants a custom union that one can exit unilaterally, then hasn't the EU already refused this? If May could have amended her deal to allow the fallback to be exited unilaterally, then we would already have at least this, with modifications to be agreed in future negotiations.

Is Parliament choosing to humiliatingly force May to do what she's already offered to do and can do? Are they just rejecting her the post-Brexit deal with the EU now?

[Salmoneus]

Well, there's certainly a large element of factional politics at play. Labour's position isn't actually all that different from the PM's position, but they won't vote for anything the PM puts forward because she's Tory and they're Labour. The good of the country is an issue, but has to be seen in the broader context of Tories Bad Labour Good. Labour have a lose/lose situation if they back the PM on anything - if it works, people will like her (and the Tories) more and won't vote Labour, and if it doesn't work, people will blame Labour for allowing it and won't vote Labour. It's very much in their interests to keep the Tory PM in an impossible position.


There is also a policy issue too, though. May's deal envisages us leaving the customs union at the end of 2020, if the EU let us. That's unpopular with people who want to leave the customs union, because they don't like the "if the EU let us" part. But it's also unpopular with people who do want the customs union, because they don't like the "leave at the end of 2020" part. They want to just have a permanent customs union (or, at least, for the foreseeable future). Agreeing to that would also make all the divisive stuff about northern ireland less sensitive - there could still be a backstop that keeps NI in the single market but not the customs union, and the DUP would still hate that, but it wouldn't be as inflammatory as putting up customs checks down the irish sea.

So if you add the people who want a customs union, and the people who are OK having a customs union for now and then maybe leaving that later in a later round of negotiations, and the people who just want it all to end, and the people who will vote for anything that's not no deal so long as it's not got the PM's signature on it, you might be able to get a majority.

On the other hand, Brexiteers who hate the idea that we MIGHT not leave the customs union in two years hate even more the idea of declaring that we WON'T leave the customs union in two years.