Brexit - the next steps

[torridon]

4 million signatures now ...

[Roses]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/22/uri-geller-promises-to-stop-brexit-using-telepathy

I suppose we need a giggle where Brexit is concerned!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/22/uri-geller-promises-to-stop-brexit-using-telepathy

So what if he fails...………

It's the thought that counts.

[Udayana]

And let us always remember that the WA is the easy bit.

It should be easy but is confounded by too many other issues being brought in. They could separate out the parts: 

A binding vote on the divorce agreement  this essentially fixes whether we leave with a deal as opposed to remain or leave with no deal.

If the first part is passed, debates on amendments to the political declaration to be put to the EU.
 

[Roses]

Those in support of Brexit will soon start to complain when they discover what a disaster it will be.

[Spud]

I've had a few conversations with Leave voters, and they both used the 'Leave won, so we should leave' argument. I think this can be answered by the fact that the option to revoke article 50 is officially permitted. Just as a general election win can be overturned by a later election, so they can legitimately overturn the referendum result.

[Sassy]

Those in support of Brexit will soon start to complain when they discover what a disaster it will be.

You can see how you thinking is completely unreasonable.
NO GOVERNMENT past or present would have allowed a BREXIT VOTE has such a think been possible.

Truth is that Brexit is best for our companies and our farmers and it makes us independent spending the billions on our people and country rather than the EU countries.
The cost of bail out is too much and the fact we have seen countries like Greece really struggle shows no countries can be unequally yoked.

I guess you follow the sheep to the slaughter house...

[Sassy]

I've had a few conversations with Leave voters, and they both used the 'Leave won, so we should leave' argument. I think this can be answered by the fact that the option to revoke article 50 is officially permitted. Just as a general election win can be overturned by a later election, so they can legitimately overturn the referendum result.

They are different types of election because one changes from election to election.
This is a vote to leave something permenantly... it cannot be overturned without a change of law and making the United Kingdom a laughing stock and untrustworthy.

It is the best thing which can happen to our country and will save and lead the way for others to follow.

I am surprised at the number of people who are lying about what they voted.  I know friends who failed to tell others in their circle they voted to leave.  It is a fact a lot of those who have businesses want to leave because it opens up a wider market abroad for them.

This has more to do with holidays etc than common sense of what is best for the country as a whole.

We are British and want to keep our identity and our history as being just that.

[Nearly Sane]

So the indication is that Johnson will vote for May's deal as long as she resigns after it is ratified. No principles - just a dishonest shyster. It's either worth voting for or not. Making it all about his personal ambition shows what a dangerous and lying piece of stinking cockcheese he is

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So the indication is that Johnson will vote for May's deal as long as she resigns after it is ratified. No principles - just a dishonest shyster. It's either worth voting for or not. Making it all about his personal ambition shows what a dangerous and lying piece of stinking cockcheese he is

Recent headlines about BloJo suggest he is concentrating on panache and wants a ''Sir Francis Drake at Bowling'' moment when the call comes for him to take the reigns.

You can almost hear him think ''Shall I be at a Party or on a beach or On the job''. Calling him stinking cockcheese is a slur on and insult to stinking cockcheese IMV.

[jeremyp]

You can see how you thinking is completely unreasonable.
NO GOVERNMENT past or present would have allowed a BREXIT VOTE has such a think been possible.

Really? You can look at the British government over the last five years and still believe it is competent enough not to cause disaster.

Truth is that Brexit is best for our companies and our farmers and it makes us independent spending the billions on our people and country rather than the EU countries.

What billions? You know the government has already spent something like five billion on Brexit. Companies are leaving the country in droves and the EU CAP is practically all that stops some farmers from going to the wall.

The cost of bail out is too much and the fact we have seen countries like Greece really struggle shows no countries can be unequally yoked.

Greece's troubles don't stem from being in the EU, the stem from being in the Euro.

I guess you follow the sheep to the slaughter house...

Slaughter has been postponed to April 12th.

[jeremyp]

So the indication is that Johnson will vote for May's deal as long as she resigns after it is ratified. No principles - just a dishonest shyster. It's either worth voting for or not. Making it all about his personal ambition shows what a dangerous and lying piece of stinking cockcheese he is

That encapsulates Brexit completely. If MPs had done what they think is right instead of looking out only for personal or party ambition, we wouldn't be here now. Margaret Beckett in 2017:

"Although I accept that decision and I will vote for the Bill, I fear that its consequences, both for our economy and our society, are potentially catastrophic"

Why? If you believe Brexit is going to be catastrophic, why vote for a bill enabling it? It's shear cowardice.

Boris Johnson is the worst of them though. It's always been about being Conservative Party leader and prime minister for him. It looks like he'll be leader of a smouldering pile of wreckage though.

[Roses]

You can see how you thinking is completely unreasonable.
NO GOVERNMENT past or present would have allowed a BREXIT VOTE has such a think been possible.

Truth is that Brexit is best for our companies and our farmers and it makes us independent spending the billions on our people and country rather than the EU countries.
The cost of bail out is too much and the fact we have seen countries like Greece really struggle shows no countries can be unequally yoked.

I guess you follow the sheep to the slaughter house...

In my opinion Brexit will ruin this country, we need to be in the EU. The UK is far too small to stand alone in the 21st century. We won't have billions to spend if it goes through. Britain has been built on incomers, most people in the UK have ancestors who weren't born here.

[Spud]

They are different types of election because one changes from election to election.
This is a vote to leave something permenantly... it cannot be overturned without a change of law

Agreed, but it's written into EU law that the UK can change its mind and stay in. While we're in the EU we have the right to change UK law and remain.

and making the United Kingdom a laughing stock and untrustworthy.

It is the best thing which can happen to our country and will save and lead the way for others to follow.

I am surprised at the number of people who are lying about what they voted.  I know friends who failed to tell others in their circle they voted to leave.  It is a fact a lot of those who have businesses want to leave because it opens up a wider market abroad for them.

This has more to do with holidays etc than common sense of what is best for the country as a whole.

We are British and want to keep our identity and our history as being just that.

Unfortunately the Leave side is divided into those who want "no-deal" (and thereafter a renegotiation of the trade agreement, where we end free movement but keep free trade... which is not possible... we would end up trading by WTO rules) and those who see that such a renegotiated deal is impossible and so want to stay in a customs union - a soft Brexit.

But those who want No deal would rather remain in than agree to the soft Brexit option. Those who want a soft Brexit will not agree to No deal.

So the idea that there are two camps is an illusion because there are three.
The majority of the British public voted to Leave, which means there are 17 million wanting either a hard or a soft Brexit, and 16 million wanting no Brexit.
If the 17 million are split into opposing groups then I suppose any referendum should be to decide which Leave group wins. But don't forget that most hard brexiters would rather Remain in than have a soft Brexit, and a lot of soft Brexiters would rather remain in than have a hard Brexit.

So analysis of the referendum results shows that Remain probably has the overall majority; it should be re-run using questions that reflect the three-way nature of the decision.

[Harrowby Hall]

 ... The majority of the British public voted to Leave ...

No they did not. The majority of those voting voted to leave. In terms of the total electorate - which is the closest you could come to "the British public" - a minority voted to leave.


End of pedantic objection.

I do agree, however, with your analysis of the existing situation. I think that a further referendum is essential to sort the May mess out. Then there should be a Constitutional determination that referenda will never be used again by the government of the United Kingdom.

[Spud]

I expected to be corrected in some way, HH. Ta. I think actually a straight revoking of Article 50 would be better than a referendum, but while the very difficult woman is at the wheel and not for revoking or allowing indicative or free voting, it's looking like a clock-running-down session is going to again drive us all mad and give us colds, even with Spring here. She's saying deal or no deal (wigginhall has it, wigginhall has it).

[Spud]

Interesting comment on LBC by a DUP person yesterday: he said something about, I think it was the EU, preparing for "in-country checks" in a no deal situation (checks on goods away from the N Ireland border). He said if these are fine, why is there a backstop?

[Nearly Sane]

So the choices for the indicative votes are:


No Deal (B) – John Baron (Conservative)

Agrees to leave the EU on 12 April without a deal.

Common market 2.0 (D) – Nick Boles (Conservative)

Government joins the European Economic Area (EEA) through the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and negotiates a temporary customs union until alternative arrangements can be found.

EFTA and EEA (H) – George Eustice (Conservative)

Remains in the European Economic Area (EEA), and applies to re-join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

Declines to form a customs union but seeks “agreement on new protocols relating to the Northern Ireland border and agri-food trade”.

Customs union (J) – Ken Clarke (Conservative)

Enshrine the objective to form a customs union in primary legislation.

Labour’s alternative plan (K) – Jeremy Corbyn

Negotiate changes to the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration to secure Labour’s position, and pass these objectives into law.

Revocation to avoid no deal (L) – Joanna Cherry (SNP)

If the Withdrawal (Agreement) Bill has not been passed before exit day, the government will ask MPs to approve no deal. If this does not pass, the government will revoke Article 50.

Confirmatory public vote (M) – Margaret Beckett (Labour)

Government cannot implement or ratify the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration unless and until they have been approved in a referendum.

Contingent preferential arrangements (O) – Marcus Fysh (Conservative)

Malthouse Plan B: The UK makes its budgetary contributions to the EU to the end of 2020 and agrees with the EU a period of two years in which UK goods have full access to the EU.


As seen elsewhere B, D, H, J, K, L, M, O: 'Tough Scrabble hand'

[Nearly Sane]

And Bercow insisting that any MV3 must meet his test of change.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Margaret Beckett's speech (she's arguing for a yes to May's deal but only if then approved by a referendum) is worth watching. My view is that the exit referendum was so corrupted it should be re-run anyway, but it felt as though there was finally a grown up in the room. Very good. 

[SusanDoris]

And Bercow insisting that any MV3 must meet his test of change.

that man does seem to be very much puffed up with his own self-importance.

Now that my Alexa is accessing BBC Radio again, I have been listening to a bit more news and am hopeful that the deal on offer will get through.

[Roses]

Theresa May has promised Tory MPs she will stand down if they back her EU withdrawal deal.
She told backbench Tories: "I am prepared to leave this job earlier than I intended in order to do what is right for our country and our party."
The PM said she knew that Tory MPs did not want her to lead the next phase of Brexit negotiations "and I won't stand in the way of that".
She did not name a departure date at a packed meeting of the 1922 committee.

[Gordon]

Glad to see the back of the useless May: now we just need to see the back of this particular Tory government, and this Brexit madness.

[Nearly Sane]

So no indicative vote wins though two got more than May's MV 2, and Customs Union was only down by 8. I note Labour didn't support as a whip the revocation of Art 50 if we have no deal 4 days before exiting, despite supporting that unananimously in the Scottish Parliament today.


Damn you l'esprit de l'escalier, just realised that they should have held the indicative voted with big lights saying Yes, No, Abstain, and John Bercow, in the Mike Reid role (not the calypso racist) shouting 'Runaround Now!'

[Nearly Sane]

Looking like Labour abstentions on a second referendum meant it didn't pass despite being whipped for.