Brexit process

[vtsnowedin]

Again you are insulting my intelligence instead of discussing the issue. Thereby you admit defeat so now go away.

[raspberry-blower]

For those of you interested in the topic of money and society IFLAS run a 4 week MOOC - unfortunate timing as the most recent started on 17th Feb.

Some details here: http://iflas.blogspot.com/2014/12/money ... -mooc.html

Either try and see if you can do a catch-up or the next course will start in August.

[Lord Beria3]

https://www.eurointelligence.com/public ... ff114a09e5

Both the Guardian and the Times report this morning that Jeremy Corbyn is leaning towards a second referendum. We have argued before that at some point he could end up supporting it - as a kiss of death. We see no majority for a second referendum in the House of Commons and there is substantial opposition to it even among Labour MPs, especially those holding narrow majorities in pro-Brexit constituencies. We agree with the source cited by the Times that Labour's own proposal of a customs union would have to be formally defeated in a Commons vote before a new policy could be adopted.

So, is Corbyn backing a 2nd referendum to prove that it lacks a majority in the Commons? Up to now he has been hostile to the idea.

Channel 4 reporting that no majority within Commons for a 2nd vote. Large numbers of Labour MP's hostile and few Tories back it.

[Lord Beria3]

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/j ... on-brexit/

Now, Labour’s backing of a public vote doesn’t mean it is suddenly going to pass the Commons. There are a chunk of Labour MPs who won’t vote for a ‘public vote’ and it is hard to see more than a handful of Tory MPs backing this kind of second referendum amendment.

So if the amendment fails what happens next?!

[Lord Beria3]

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... m-are-slim

The biggest barrier to another referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union is that most MPs don’t want one. 21 Labour MPs have voted against measures to make Brexit softer for fear of being seen to block Brexit, while seven Labour MPs have voted against measures to a softer Brexit due to an ideological commitment to Brexit as a political project. By my count, 43 have publicly committed to opposing another referendum, and that number is certainly too low as I have only been able to add to that as and when MPs, activists or aides have sent me the relevant election literature.

On the Conservative side, the overwhelming majority of Tory MPs are committed to delivering Brexit. Just 26 current Conservative MPs (plus Anna Soubry, Heidi Allen, and Sarah Wollaston, who have since defected) have rebelled against the whip to make Brexit softer. Just nine, including Soubry, Allen and Wollaston, are publicly committed to a second vote.

[clv101]

After Tusk's remarks today, I would now put the probability of no deal at >99%. I can see no way that any other outcome is possible. The EU now looks like it has accepted no deal will be the outcome, and is preparing for it. The tory party has also accepted it, and nobody else has the power to stop it.

Still think >99% no deal??

[UndercoverElephant]

After Tusk's remarks today, I would now put the probability of no deal at >99%. I can see no way that any other outcome is possible. The EU now looks like it has accepted no deal will be the outcome, and is preparing for it. The tory party has also accepted it, and nobody else has the power to stop it.

Still think >99% no deal??

I think we will find out on Wednesday. This is the fork in the road. Either parliament moves decisively to prevent no deal on Wednesday or it doesn't. This is probably going to require Rudd, Gawke and Clarke to vote against the government and take a significant chunk of anti-no-deal tories with them. They are all likely to face deselection if they do.

If no deal is still on the table at the end of this week, I think it won't be stopped. If it is stopped on Wednesday then all hell is going to break loose, politically.

[stumuz1]

]
Still think >99% no deal??

You still have not stated what you think is going to replace Section 1. European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Remember it will need another primary act of parliament before the 29th.

At the moment, no deal is the law of the land.

[stumuz1]

BTW

Just heard a talking head on the radio saying it will take 5 months to agree a QUESTION!!!!! for a second ref.

[RevdTess]

Just heard a talking head on the radio saying it will take 5 months to agree a QUESTION!!!!! for a second ref.

I can well imagine this. Even the simplest question I would be happy with involves three options (Leave with May's deal, Leave with No Deal, Remain) ranked using a single transferable vote system.

Even if this were agreed, you'd then need to argue about the exact wording used to describe each option. How would May's deal be fairly described so that everyone knew what they were voting for? Same question for 'No Deal'. E.g. "Leave on WTO Terms" sounds a lot less scary than "Leave with No Deal", and "Leave with the deal agreed by the govt with the EU" sounds more convincing than "Leave with May's deal".

Then you'd have to talk about what other options might legitimately have a claim to be included. Norway+, Canada+ etc. And how would these be explained on the ballot paper in such a way that most people could understand what they were voting for?

I suspect that the more options you allow, the more likely Remain would win, as it may well be a mid-ranking choice for many - not as good as their preferred way of leaving the EU, but better than some others.

Given the complexity of all this, I wouldn't be surprised if the only viable options are a two-way fight between Remain and May's deal, or a three way fight by including the WTO Leave option. If 'No Deal' gets taken off the table this week then I wonder if the ERG might even support a referendum if it meant 'No Deal' comes back as a possibility.

But I can certainly understand why many MPs look with horror at a new referendum. The scrutiny on the choices and wording would be overwhelming and utterly divisive (for them). Ironically, once the vote had occurred, I think the country would be more able to move on, whatever the result, but getting there would be a massive nightmare.

Having said all this, I think a 2nd ref is still a very remote possibility and although I would be delighted and relieved, I'm not holding out much if any hope. I can only see it happening as a way of getting MPs to vote for May's deal if it has to be ratified by the electorate.

I do think it's likely that May will be forced to take 'No Deal' off the table as an negotiating option. I guess we'll see whether that happens today and tomorrow. It was always a way of putting pressure on the EU to blink, but it's clear now that they're totally willing to go with no deal rather than shift on the backstop and so those who see 'no deal' as the worst possible outcome (a majority in parliament) will now act to prevent this being deliberate government policy.

The trouble with an A50 delay for three months is that it's not enough time to make any changes. You can't arrange a referendum that quickly, and you can't renegotiate from scratch, and there doesn't seem to be much appetite for a fundamentally different approach such as Canada+ etc. It just seems like it would prolong the pain and divisiveness. The govt are right about this.

I'm much more impressed by the apparent EU suggestion that the delay should be for 21 months during which time the full post-Brexit trading agreement could be negotiated and the backstop would therefore be irrelevant. Except that it breaks May's red line that we leave on 29th March come what may, I can't see any downsides; we just wait to leave after the full negotiations, not just with the withdrawal agreement of vague promises that we have now. We could even have a referendum towards the end of the 21 months to ratify or cancel A50.

Anyway, let's see what May comes up with in today's cabinet meeting. It's like Russian roulette trying to predict this stuff.

[adam2]

Any second vote will need VERY careful planning so as to ensure that it does not go wrong like the first one.

The obvious way to get the right result would be to offer 3 choices, remain in, leave under the deal on offer, or leave without a deal.
That would split the leave vote between two choices and thus almost promise a remain result.
This might however be considered a bit too obvious, and something more subtle might be better, so long as it gives the right result.
Most of the political elite want to remain, and need to find a way to overturn the result of the referendum, whilst dressing this up as being "what the people really want"

And project fear, V2.1, will need more funding.

[RevdTess]

The obvious way to get the right result would be to offer 3 choices, remain in, leave under the deal on offer, or leave without a deal.

Straw man argument.

[Little John]

Oh yeah. In what way is that a straw man argument?

[RevdTess]

Oh yeah. In what way is that a straw man argument?

It's suggesting that a referendum would be given three options to split the Leave vote, therefore a referendum couldn't be fair and shouldn't happen.

But no one is suggesting that a three way referendum could work like this. It would need to use a ranked voting system e.g STV so that those who wanted to leave could vote for all the leave options in order of preference and ignore remain. A first-past-the-post referendum would be a total travesty and I'd be shocked if anyone suggested it. To raise it here is just project fear - attacking an argument that no one is making. Heck, even I'd be outraged and protest if anyone tried to suggest it.

[RevdTess]

From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47373996

Theresa May is to promise MPs a vote on ruling out a no-deal Brexit or delaying the UK's departure, if they reject her deal next month.

Theresa May is making a statement to MPs on Brexit, amid the threat of a revolt by Remain-supporting ministers.

The prime minister is expected to promise MPs a meaningful vote on her Brexit deal by 12 March.

She is attempting to head off a rebellion from senior ministers including Home Secretary Amber Rudd.

The BBC's Political Editor Laura Kuenssberg said Mrs May would allow MPs to slam the brakes on the Brexit process if MPs do not approve her deal next month.

Mrs May will make three further commitments - a meaningful vote by 12 March, then, if that falls vote on 13 March on whether MPs would support leaving with no deal - and, if MPs reject no deal, a vote on extending Article 50

They still haven't answered what "a vote on extending A50" means. If it means "asking the EU politely for a 3 month extension" then the EU can still say no, and then what happens? No deal by default? Or is the govt mandated to cancel A50 altogether?

Still clear as mud.