Zompist Bboard Again

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:33 pm [sidenote: apparently the leading Brexiteers refer to themselves as "The Grand Wizards"]

uh

That's super unfortunate to the degree that you can't help but wonder if it's a deliberate Klan reference made in the hopes that no one will catch it.

mèþru wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:02 am That's super unfortunate to the degree that you can't help but wonder if it's a deliberate Klan reference made in the hopes that no one will catch it.

The ERG does often seem to be more like a cult than a faction in a political party. It doesn't surprise me that they're adopting the naming conventions of extremist organisations. Perhaps after Brexit they'll dedicate themselves to telepathically fighting body thetans or Xenu?

It is true. You couldn't make it up; anyway indicative votes are on. There's a catastrophic failure to understand that a people's vote is not an alternative to any of the substantive things they might vote on - like Norway, Norway Plus, Norway minus (for those who aren't up that's a customs union but not the single market). My guess is everything is soundly defeated.

The only way out is a general election, a referendum or both

I am just waiting for Britain to go on full Mad Max after a no-deal Brexit, all thanks to the hardline Brexiteers who don't realize they're destroying rather than freeing their country.

evmdbm wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:00 pm It is true. You couldn't make it up; anyway indicative votes are on. There's a catastrophic failure to understand that a people's vote is not an alternative to any of the substantive things they might vote on - like Norway, Norway Plus, Norway minus (for those who aren't up that's a customs union but not the single market). My guess is everything is soundly defeated.

The only way out is a general election, a referendum or both

A "people's vote", in my opinion, should ideally be a separate issue, e.g. the Commons should vote on what sort of "deal" they want to make with the EU, and decide separately whether they want the opinion of the wider population on whatever "deal" they might eventually decide on trying to go forward on.

The fact that this sort of procedure hasn't been how the Government has gone forward with this completely blows my mind. I'm sure May and her ever-changing cabinet and Brexit team have actually been doing some level of work behind the scenes, but from the outside it looks like it's been two years of utter nonsense, hidden moves, and a complete lack of progress which has led to everyone declaring, at the very last minute, that she's done a horrible job

I'm really not sure how the indicative votes will go, but I'm relieved that they're happening at all.

And it looks like May doesn't even have enough support to resign.

It seems there's no majority in Parliament for any option, the ERG now want to bulldoze the place ( they only wanted to restore sovereignty to themselves, not to all the other remainer traitor MPs), and MV3 is almost certainly doomed to failure. Brexit has broken the British system of government.

Her Majesty must have Opinions about all of this, so absolute monarchy when

For fuck's sake people you were only even being asked to express an opinion it wasn't even binding...


ahem. sorry.

Anyway, yes, we had a free vote on eight different options - and through negotiation it was agreed that government ministers would abstain on all of them.

And they didn't - five of them refused to abstain, and instead voted for a customs union.

Which made no difference other than the government looking even more incompetant and everybody being angrier (because a bunch of ministers would have eagely voted against the customs union if they'd known that some of their colleagues were going to be allowed to vote for it).

In the end, every single option was rejected.

We're now scheduled to have more indicative votes on Monday. Not sure if these will be the same votes again, or the same options rephrased as new votes... I think the idea is that the less popular options will be eliminated, to see whether a consensus could be formed on those that came closer to passing.


Customs union ended up eight votes shy. Second referendum got more votes, but ended up shyer.


So anyway, we've finally gotten there: the PM has offered to resign, in return for getting her deal passed (apparently MV3 may be on Friday, though the Speaker continues to insist that, without changes, it won't be). But the DUP obviously don't care who the Tory leader is. In theory, she might be able to pull together enough rogue Labour/TIG votes for her deal... except that the ERG hate to be seen as less extreme than the DUP, so the DUP's recalcitrance makes it harder for the ERG to to back down themselves. And she pretty much needs ALL the ERG to have a hope of passing her deal.

Specifically, ERG's response? Their deputy chairman, Steve Baker (who basically seems like the steady governing hand behind Rees Mogg's flamboyant PR) has described himself as "consumed with a ferocious rage" tonight. So... lots of compromise likely there, then!

It's likely that her offer will win her a lot more votes. But of course, she was starting from such a deficit that it may still not be enough.

I do like tomorrow's Guardian headline:

Parliament finally has its say:
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

To be fair to parliament, that's what a lot of us have been chanting for years now...

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:01 pmAnyway, yes, we had a free vote on eight different options - and through negotiation it was agreed that government ministers would abstain on all of them.

And they didn't - five of them refused to abstain, and instead voted for a customs union.

Which made no difference other than the government looking even more incompetant and everybody being angrier (because a bunch of ministers would have eagely voted against the customs union if they'd known that some of their colleagues were going to be allowed to vote for it).

In the end, every single option was rejected.

I had assumed it would have been a sort of "run-off" vote, where with each successive round, the least popular option was eliminated. Is there something in parliamentary procedure that prevents that sort of voting, or was it just not an idea considered by the Government or the Commons?

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:01 pm So anyway, we've finally gotten there: the PM has offered to resign, in return for getting her deal passed

So, to be dramatic, she's potentially holding the Commons, and, by extension, the people hostage with her premiership in exchange for her deal? How very nice of her...

Just went to Wikipedia to check what Baker's other policy positions are. The ones listed include:

• Returning to the gold standard
• Austrian economics
• Climate change scepticism
• The "denationalisation" of marriage

I have no particular objection to the last one since I don't even know what it means (we start talking of civil partnerships instead?), but the first three are crazy. The gold standard and hard currency in particular were partly the cause of the very unstable boom - bust economics of the 19th century, and Churchill's decision to return to it after WWI caused major problems for the British economy. And the less said about an ability to ignore the vast amount of scientific evidence on climate change, the better.

Can anyone sum up exactly where we stand at the moment? As far as I can tell, we've got:

1) The Commons will not allow the UK to leave the EU with "no deal"
2) The Commons can't agree on what sort of "deal" the UK should leave with (at least as of yet)
3) The Commons has voted to extend the deadline for leaving the EU if we get within a week of any deadline for leaving the EU (assuming, of course, that the EU permits the requested extensions, if the Government requests them)

So... what? We just keep kicking Brexit down the road until we either give up and leave, finally give in to literally any deal, or we give up on Brexit all together?

sangi39 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:19 pm So... what? We just keep kicking Brexit down the road until we either give up and leave, finally give in to literally any deal, or we give up on Brexit all together?

Don't worry, the EU get fed up of giving us extensions at some point and end the cycle.

Wow, this is completely absurd. Parliament basically rejects everything. Details from the BBC:

Customs union - For: 264 Against: 272
Confirmatory referendum - For: 268 Against: 295
No-deal exit on 12 April - For: 160 Against: 400
Common Market 2.0 - For: 188 Against: 283
EFTA and EEA membership - For: 65 Against: 377
Revoking Article to avoid no deal - For: 184 Against: 293
Labour's Brexit plan - For: 237 Against: 307
Malthouse Plan B - For: 139 Against: 422

Also,

Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay said the results strengthened ministers' view their deal was "the best option".

Hahahaha. Good one, Steve. Reportedly a couple dozen MPs would change their vote on MV3— but the DUP is still resolutely against, so it probably wouldn't be even as close as the customs union vote.

Has anyone told Parliament that, if they can't actually pass a proposal, they get No Deal?

chris_notts wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:17 pm Just went to Wikipedia to check what Baker's other policy positions are. The ones listed include:

• Returning to the gold standard
• Austrian economics
• Climate change scepticism
• The "denationalisation" of marriage

I have no particular objection to the last one since I don't even know what it means (we start talking of civil partnerships instead?), but the first three are crazy. The gold standard and hard currency in particular were partly the cause of the very unstable boom - bust economics of the 19th century, and Churchill's decision to return to it after WWI caused major problems for the British economy. And the less said about an ability to ignore the vast amount of scientific evidence on climate change, the better.

As far as I can tell, "denationalisation of marriage" would mean that the state would have little to know involvement in marriages, leaving the institution within the hands of organisations (either religious or secular) or individuals (potentially with solicitors involved in drawing up contracts relating to the various legal rights of spouses over things like property, finances, children, pets, etc. in which case those contracts, assuming they are legal, would be recognised by the state), although I think it depends on which ideological direction you come at it from. It also, I think, comes with the removal of things like tax incentives and child support for married couples, but opens up "marriage" to same-sex couples and those who desire more formal recognition of polyamorous relationships.

zompist wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:24 pm Has anyone told Parliament that, if they can't actually pass a proposal, they get No Deal?

I suspect that kind of rationality went out the window a long time ago, especially since the centre is now dead. The days when the party leaderships had control and were so desperate to appear centrist that Labour could love bankers and Conservatives could hug a hoodie are long gone.

When you've spent the last 2 or 3 years fighting people and proposals you regard as mad, bad or dangerous, then saying yes to even the least bad of the other tribes is a big emotional barrier to overcome. It's much easier to keep saying no, and if the end result is bad you can always say that's not what you fought for and it's the all the fault of those evil people you were fighting.

I hate to sound like a broken record here but AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Anyhow, onto actual discussion

Travis B. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:47 pm I am just waiting for Britain to go on full Mad Max after a no-deal Brexit, all thanks to the hardline Brexiteers who don't realize they're destroying rather than freeing their country.

And I would not particularly like to live here when that happens, but I'm also stuck, guess I was born a couple of years too late to graduate before Brexit.

Halian wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:45 pm Her Majesty must have Opinions about all of this, so absolute monarchy when

I have actually expressed this opinion already tonight as it happens. Only problem is that'd probably result in the UK being kicked out, because we'd be breaking the democracy criterion for EU membership.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:01 pm Specifically, ERG's response? Their deputy chairman, Steve Baker (who basically seems like the steady governing hand behind Rees Mogg's flamboyant PR) has described himself as "consumed with a ferocious rage" tonight.

He's from the right wing of a right-wing political party. Is there ever a time when he's not consumed with a ferocious rage?