blandy

Should I stay or should I go now - U.K. in/out of the EU (contd.)

Recommended Posts

Thanks. I think the underlying point would stand though, that Australia isn't likely to be getting many awards for compassion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Thanks. I think the underlying point would stand though, that Australia isn't likely to be getting many awards for compassion.

Indeed, the policy is heartless. Essentially using a handful of people to make an example of for others. 

However the first controversial point I mentioned (no asylum in Aus if you arrive by boat) has bipartisan support from both major parties, you would need to vote Greens to see a policy shift on that. 

The second point (not giving the legacy refugees in those camps a decent way out) is Conservative party policy. I believe the Labor Party would allow NZ to take them and clear the camps. It is likely that Labor will win the next election so it will be interesting to see if there is some progress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen Bush remaining pessimistic about parliamentary arithmetic:

Parliament can agree that it doesn't want a no deal Brexit, but that's it

'Theresa May has become the first British Prime Minister for 41 years to lose a vote on a finance bill after 20 Conservative MPs rebelled against the party whip and backed Yvette Cooper’s amendment, which sharply limits the government’s tax-raising powers in the event of a no deal Brexit. What does it mean for the resolution of the Brexit crisis?

Although Cooper’s amendment was billed as “preventing no deal”, as she herself freely conceded in the House, the amendment itself does no such thing. In fact, by limiting the government’s powers to raise revenue, it sharpens the rocks at the bottom of the ravine rather than pulls the country away from the cliff edge. But the amendment has two important implications. The first is that it gives Parliament an opportunity to avert a no deal exit at the eleventh hour if the need arises. The second is that, as it was billed and seen by MPs as an opportunity to demonstrate the strength of the parliamentary majority against a no deal exit it gives us a sense of the size of that majority – and its limitations.

First, to the size. It’s a small majority: just seven votes, with 303 votes in favour of Cooper’s amendment, and 296 against. But we can fairly say that it would be a little bit bigger in a hypothetical “no deal versus x” vote (x being “whatever the alternative to no deal is”), for several reasons. The first is that ultimately this vote is not going to prevent a no deal exit, and there is not the immediate risk of one, which means that we should regard 20 as the lower end of the potential Conservative rebellion. We can add at least six votes from MPs currently in ministerial offices, as several MPs would resign from the government rather than allow a no deal exit to occur. (The total number of possible resignations is bigger than six, but it’s a universal truth that not everyone resigns when pushed.) We can also fairly add a handful of extra votes from the backbenches of MPs in marginal constituencies who do not have religion on the European issue and wouldn’t, when push comes to shove, risk a no deal exit.

But it isn’t enough for Parliament to vote against a no deal exit – it has to vote for something to have in its place, whether that is another referendum, an early election, the withdrawal agreement as currently written or the withdrawal agreement following revisions to the political declaration, or simply to revoke Article 50 without a referendum. Can those 303 votes be marshalled in favour of any of those options?

Well, it certainly isn’t a majority for another referendum, let alone revocation without one. Cooper’s amendment only passed thanks to the support not only of the Labour frontbench, but also because of the seven pro-Brexit Labour MPs, only three voted against, with the rest of them either voting for Cooper’s amendment or abstaining. Stephen Lloyd, elected as a Liberal Democrat but currently sitting as an independent, has pledged his constituents that he will vote for Brexit but voted for Cooper’s amendment.

On the Conservative side, Nick Boles, Nicky Morgan and Jonathan Djangoly have all publicly opposed a second vote.

Take away those votes, and before you have even factored Labour’s EEA rebels – Labour MPs who backed a Remain vote in 2016 but refused even to abstain on a vote to take the United Kingdom into the EEA – and the majority on Cooper’s amendment has disappeared. (And don’t forget that Remainers need not only an enduring majority to pass a referendum bill but one big enough to resist amendments that would add a turnout threshold or other measures that could act as a poison pill to any referendum re-run.)

But the bad news is that a Norway Plus Brexit – the proposal put forward by Nick Boles, Stephen Kinnock and others whereby Parliament would amend the political declaration to signal the UK’s intent to join the European Economic Area and then pass the withdrawal agreement unchanged – wouldn’t, on these numbers, be able to pass either.

Why? Because if you take away the votes of supporters of a second referendum who have declared their opposition to an EEA Brexit – Mary Creagh, Chris Bryant, Wes Streeting, Peter Kyle, Mike Gapes from Labour, Sam Gyimah from the Conservative Party – then, once again, the majority for Cooper’s amendment vanishes. And that’s before you take away the 11 Liberal Democrat MPs, who have pledged to seek an “exit from Brexit” via a public vote, too. There are significantly more votes from within the Conservative Party for this flavour of exit than a second referendum but there may not be enough without at least some of the vocal pro-European critics of an EEA Brexit having to eat their words.

(It’s worth noting that most MPs backing a second vote have behaved more carefully as far as the EEA option is concerned, but that doesn’t matter in this case because the MPs who have come out in opposition to it are numerous enough to imperil an EEA Brexit.)

As for the withdrawal agreement, we know that has no chance of passing the House of Commons.  Now, of course, one can reasonably argue that when given a choice between the cliff-edge and any of those options, most MPs will fall into line behind any option. But that hasn’t happened yet and not enough MPs on any of the three sides seeking an alternative to a no deal Brexit – not supporters of May’s deal, not advocates for an EEA Brexit, and not the People’s Vote campaign – have yet shown any willingness to sacrifice their political objectives to prevent a no deal Brexit.'

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2019/01/parliament-can-agree-it-doesnt-want-no-deal-brexit-thats-it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The optimistic take about yesterday (maybe much too optimistic?) is that it increases the likelihood of the sequence:

May loses WA vote - May revokes article 50 - May resigns - Tories hold leadership election - New leader calls GE

Ha! I should be so lucky. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stephen Bush is always worth listening to on matters such as this and there is nothing at all that he's written there that I disagree with.

But I still fall on the side of positivity that Parliament is finally coalescing around doing whatever it has to to prevent the absolute worst option, even if it can't quite decide yet which of the other terrible options it wants instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Tories cutting police funding and then moan about a lack of protection, hilarious irony.

Seeing lots of discussion about this here and elsewhere.

Reckon the angle that seems to be being overlooked is that the police hate the Tories too.

Entirely reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Genie said:

2 months to go and the mess shows little sign of clearing.

Extension and a 3 question referemdum is my guess at what they will do in the end,  it's a right cuffuffle make no mistake.  I am not sure they have anywhere else to go now.

Unless,  she has a (Secret) deal with the EU,  once we get to the cliff so to speak they will give her something regarding the border and something else that will grab headlines.  They look (EU) a bit more bendy and she looks like she was tough and they both get out of the sticky situation by pre-planning it all.  She is not going back and forth for nothing I suspect.

It's quite unique now as everything they do from now on will probably be the wrong thing to do but they are optionless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the main sticking point with MP's approving May's "deal" the Irish border? If the EU concede a little bot of flexibility there at the 11th hour then will it go through the commons?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Genie said:

Is the main sticking point with MP's approving May's "deal" the Irish border? If the EU concede a little bot of flexibility there at the 11th hour then will it go through the commons?

They think about themselves more than the country IMO,  if it's good for them in their mind then that's the way they will go in the end.  They still get paid no matter what deal we get and are probably thinking about their seats as MP's in an election.

The people shouting at a few MP's and them feeling a bit "Threatened",  A&E staff get that everyday for example but it's big news if it happens to them.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bercow has selected the Grieve amendment (as per snowy's post above), seemingly against Parliamentary norms.

That's going to be like chucking a live grenade in there. 

Edited by ml1dch
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fairly obvious that Bercow, now he's committed to going soon and clear that a bunch of MPs just want rid of him, no longer gives a **** about upsetting people. He's been a pretty good Speaker.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barry the Gardener confirming that Labour are reading to table a vote of VONC when May (as expected) loses the "meaningful debate" next week

So in the bizarre times we live in, we'll have a govt losing the vote on the most important piece of legislation in the last 50 years, they will then face a VONC which they will in all likelihood survive. So in effect parliament will say that it doesn't like the legislation the government is bringing forward but has every confidence in that government to run the country whilst still objecting to nearly every piece of law it tries to make

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, bickster said:

The bloke I share my office with - notionally my boss, has just declared that he wants Brexit to go ahead, so we can then do what the Australians do and turn these bastards around in the channel and point them back to France, thats what Brexit is all about to him in a nutshell

Makes me very sad

 

Making people travel in any nut based transport is never right either. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Move over Danny Dyer, there's a new remoaner hero in town now...

Quote

...(Jeremy) Clarkson, whose Amazon Prime series TheGrand Tour relaunches on Jan. 18, strongly supports the European Union and clearly wishes the referendum never happened. Britain is due to leave the EU at the end of March and Clarkson, whom thousands once backed to become prime minister, has no idea how he would sort out the mess if given the chance.

“I would have just thrown my hands up and just gone, ‘oh for f***'s sake I can’t be bothered with all of this,’” he admitted. “I don’t think there’s supercomputer on Earth that could [work it out.] Europe has to punish us—they can’t allow us to leave without being damaged because then everyone will want to go. We don’t want to go if we’re going to be damaged.

“We can’t stay, we’ve got Ireland, we’ve got the customs union and I’m still not certain what that means. This is why I said I wanted to stay, I feel European. It’s just b****y sad, that’s what it is, and Christ knows how it’s going to be resolved in my lifetime.”

 

More on link:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/jeremy-clarkson-trump-is-bad-but-brexit-is-a-thousand-times-worse/ar-BBRXKH1?ocid=st

Edited by ml1dch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like bedlam in the Commons again. Grieve has tabled an amendment that means once the meaningful vote happens, and is inevitably rejected, the Government has to return within 3 days to tell everyone where they plan to go next. Bercow accepted the amendment and a lot of the Tories are going mental about it. That about sum it up?

Seems like a sensible precaution for the speaker of the house to take when it's obvious to all that the Government are deliberately stalling for time in order to make their dog's dinner deal look better, when it would see us either held to rules that we had no hand in making in perpetuity, or the economic annexation of a part of the UK. They're complaining about him not being impartial but it's difficult to be when his job is to uphold the integrity of the house and the Government are intent in sidelining it at every opportunity or holding a revolver to its member's heads.

Edited by desensitized43

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and the amendment passes. Surely this increases the likelihood that the meaningful vote will be delayed again. They won't want to have the vote knowing they only have 3 days to draw up a "Plan B"

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites