Brexit - the next steps

[wigginhall]

I just noticed that Sturgeon has said, May will listen, but "only if we agree with her".  It would be funny, if it wasn't so ghastly.  (Twitter).

Yet Hammond seems to be going round, saying that no deal will be off the table.  Eh?

[Spud]

The reason she won't rule out No Deal might be that she's using it as a negotiating card?

[ad_orientem]

Don't worry, no one's going to run out of baked beans.

[jeremyp]

The reason she won't rule out No Deal might be that she's using it as a negotiating card?

I was kind of hoping that her whole plan is a clever way to stop Brexit altogether i.e. get to the point where the only two options are No Deal and No Brexit and then "reluctantly" choose the latter for the sake of the country.

Can she withdraw Article 50 without a vote?

[Udayana]

I was kind of hoping that her whole plan is a clever way to stop Brexit altogether i.e. get to the point where the only two options are No Deal and No Brexit and then "reluctantly" choose the latter for the sake of the country.

Can she withdraw Article 50 without a vote?

hmm... you've obviously not understood her at all. Faced with such a choice she would choose no-deal - for the sake of the Conservative party.

Latest on twitter is that those MPs who went to talk have been told that organising another referendum would take a year and no other new ideas were put forward.

JC might be infuriating but May would need to be sent back to a factory for reprogramming.

[wigginhall]

Or May is pulling a stunt.

[Udayana]

Or May is pulling a stunt.

She is. I'm not expecting any changes from her. Mind you, so is Corbyn. I think in theory it would be possible to accept the withdrawal deal and then go on to negotiate customs union membership as part of the longer term deal.

...
Can she withdraw Article 50 without a vote?

AIU - she can't - it would need further legislation to be passed as the March leaving date is fixed in legislation.

[Gordon]

A year to arrange a second referendum isn't what a report last year said - it said 22 weeks was needed.

[wigginhall]

Yes, a lot of posturing.  Mind you, both May and Corbyn have a lot to fear from cooperation.  The Tory right wing would have hysterics, and all Labour leaders have the words Ramsey McDonald burned on their foreheads.  They need and fear each other as enemies.

[jeremyp]

hmm... you've obviously not understood her at all. Faced with such a choice she would choose no-deal - for the sake of the Conservative party.

How do you know it's not you that has misunderstood her?

Latest on twitter is that those MPs who went to talk have been told that organising another referendum would take a year and no other new ideas were put forward.

There's a one page document written by the government which explains why it would take so long to organise a referendum. It has to be bullshit though because they can organise a general election in a few weeks.

[Gordon]

An interesting option: let England and Wales exit the EU but not us or NI.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/semi-brexit-england-wales-leaving-eu-solution

[Nearly Sane]

An interesting option: let England and Wales exit the EU but not us or NI.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/semi-brexit-england-wales-leaving-eu-solution

Impossible on levels of impossibility never imagined when someone imagined a life without cheese.

[Spud]

I was kind of hoping that her whole plan is a clever way to stop Brexit altogether i.e. get to the point where the only two options are No Deal and No Brexit and then "reluctantly" choose the latter for the sake of the country.

Can she withdraw Article 50 without a vote?

To be honest, she is at that point (No Deal or No Brexit) because the only other option was the deal parliament rejected. She says that revoking article 50 would overturn the referendum result and believes that would be wrong. So she will now only go to the No Deal option, unless Parliament can force her to revoke Article 50.

When the EU says "this is the only deal" does that mean they won't consider a Norway model this side of March 29? Looks like it. Maybe Corbyn is hoping for a postponement and renegotiation without the conservatives' red lines... but I've just read that his plan involves retaining the benefits of the single market but also ending freedom of movement. But would the EU agree to that? Labour's plan seems to be DOA too- apparently it has been rejected as 'cakeism'.

The PM replied to J Corbyn today:

"I note that you have said that 'ruling out' no deal is a precondition before we can meet, but that is an impossible condition because it is not within the Government's power to rule out no deal.
"Let me explain why. Under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and the Withdrawal Act 2018, we will leave the EU without a deal on 29 March unless Parliament either agrees a deal with the EU or the UK revokes article 50 and chooses to stay in the EU permanently.
"So there are two way to avoid no deal: either vote for a deal, in particular a Withdrawal Agreement, that has been agreed with the EU, or to revoke Article 50 and overturn the referendum result.
"I believe it would be wrong to overturn the referendum result."

So as I see it, the only way for May to "rule out No Deal" is to revoke Article 50. But Corbyn doesn't get that because he thinks we can negotiate a better deal.

[Gordon]

Impossible on levels of impossibility never imagined when someone imagined a life without cheese.

I thought so too: but in these days of ifs, buts and what the fucks!

[Spud]

With May refusing to revoke 50, the only way out of no deal Brexit is a second referendum, which Dominic Grieve has tabled. Luckily

[ad_orientem]

Funny. Those on the Remain side, as well as those on the Leave side, said this was a one off vote. Now the Remainers lost they want a new vote. Maybe they were talking bollocks.

[SteveH]

Funny. Those on the Remain side, as well as those on the Leave side, said this was a one off vote. Now the Remainers lost they want a new vote. Maybe they were talking bollocks.

I don't recall anyone saying that.

[ad_orientem]

You can find the videos on the net.

https://twitter.com/BermondseyBoy68/status/1085384292925087744?s=19

https://twitter.com/BermondseyBoy68/status/1085293090888470529?s=19

[SteveH]

On the other hand, Fartage famously said before the referendum, that if the result was 52%-48%, "It would be unfinished business by a long way".

[Harrowby Hall]

As has been said already, Theresa May is putting the problems of managing the Conservative Party before the needs of the nation. It could be, of course, that she is so ingrained in party politics that she perceives the two to be the same thing.

Perhaps what is really needed is for a major financial contributor to the Conservative Party to announce that it will no longer support the party.

[Udayana]

As has been said already, Theresa May is putting the problems of managing the Conservative Party before the needs of the nation. It could be, of course, that she is so ingrained in party politics that she perceives the two to be the same thing.

Perhaps what is really needed is for a major financial contributor to the Conservative Party to announce that it will no longer support the party.

imo. That is possible but unlikely to help.

As the largest contributors to Con. Party funding are the wealthy hedge funds and investment bankers in the finance sector if some of those drop out because of the adverse effects of a no-deal brexit, wouldn't they just be replaced by those who gain from it? The wealthiest will always donate to try and ensure that the people in power are from their camp.
 

[jeremyp]

An interesting option: let England and Wales exit the EU but not us or NI.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/semi-brexit-england-wales-leaving-eu-solution

It's based on a false premise: that nations voted in the referendum. They didn't.

[jeremyp]

Funny. Those on the Remain side, as well as those on the Leave side, said this was a one off vote. Now the Remainers lost they want a new vote. Maybe they were talking bollocks.

I can't speak for other Remainers, but I never said it was a one off vote. For a start, it was already the second referendum.

[ProfessorDavey]

I can't speak for other Remainers, but I never said it was a one off vote. For a start, it was already the second referendum.

Nor me - and although I'm not sure I made this point in relation to the brexit referendum, on the Scottish Indyref I was clear that a a2 stage process made most sense - the first vote to agree independence in principle (or brexit by inference) and therefore to allow a negotiated settlement to be agreed by both sides. Then a ratifying vote either to agree to the negotiated settlement for independence (or brexit by inference), with the alternative being the status quo - in other words remaining in the UK (or EU by inference).

For these kinds of decision it seems the only sensible approach - firstly because you cannot know the real details at the point of the first vote. And secondly the time taken from first vote to actual enactment makes the original democratic mandate unsafe as there is too much risk of people changing their minds in the intervening period, plus the major issue for the brexit vote of demographic shift (older proportionately more brexit voters dying, younger proportionately more remain people reaching voting age).

For such a critical decision that will define the UK for decades it seems to me essential that there is a clear democratic mandate for the actual deal (not a theoretical one) at the time that it is actually enacted (not 2+ years previously).

[Harrowby Hall]

Did anyone hear the interview of John Major this morning, on the Today programme?

He made some very cogent points - particularly about the 48% who voted to stay in the EU and the 63% of the electorate who did not vote for "leave".

It should be available on iPlayer (or "Sounds").