[Discussion] Brexit means Brexit

Discuss the political fallout and other issues around Britain's exit, Brexit for short, from the EU.

For the sake of clarity, I'm including the full text of Article 50.

Article 50 wrote:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

The Tories have pressed the "All scale preparation for No deal" button today. Which is a little alarming. A couple of Tories have already said they'll vote against the government to prevent that from happening if they can - i.e. when Corbyn finally calls his vote of no confidence if (when) Mays deal gets voted out and if they then decide No Deal is now the only option.

What. A. Mess.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/MNh2XBF.png)

Does anyone understand what is going on? Why is the BBC putting David Davis on Radio4 Today after the 8am news to talk utter crap about how the EU is just waiting to cave on everything? If they were so willing why didn't you bloody do so originally? Why is anything David Davis (SAS Reservist) says news? Exactly how much rice and dried pasta should I stockpile?

Sorry guys, I'll go back to keeping calm and carrying on now. Time to catch up on the News Quiz.

Got my annual tax summery in today...

UK Contribution to the EU budget : £22

Amusing the way they had placed the EU and Overseas aid together on the pie chart at the 12 o'clock spot.

DoveBrown wrote:

Does anyone understand what is going on? Why is the BBC putting David Davis on Radio4 Today after the 8am news to talk utter crap about how the EU is just waiting to cave on everything? If they were so willing why didn't you bloody do so originally? Why is anything David Davis (SAS Reservist) says news? Exactly how much rice and dried pasta should I stockpile?

Sorry guys, I'll go back to keeping calm and carrying on now. Time to catch up on the News Quiz.

The BBC has been so compromised by the last couple of governments they can’t really enforce their supposed impartiality any more. This is why they allow conspiracist Climate Change deniers air time for example.

John Bercow has played a blinder today in the Brexit fiasco. He’s allowed An amendment on a business motion about how long Teresa May will have to return to Parliament with a new deal, in the (likely) event her current deal gets rejected by MPs. Usually that’s not allowed, but Beecow has thrown precedent out of the window and allowed it because otherwise he believes it would be parliament’s primacy being over ridden by the government - at least that’s his argument (and a good one) but you’d suspect there is a certain amount of ‘f**k you’ in there after some fairly underhand attempts to get rid of him by some members of the Tory party.

The admendment is to force May back to Parliament within 3 days of her deal getting rejected with a way forward, rather than ‘within 21 days’. The is to prevent a default no-deal going through because time for debate runs out (I’d argue it’s alreay run out but that’s just my opinion)

The brexiteers are up in arms, because one of their central arguments about the primacy of Parliament being undermined by Brussels being a good reason to leave is being used to stop the probability of a default no-deal. It just happens to be something they don’t agree with.

The is a also a very great deal of irony in Andrea Ledsom demanding the legal advice the speaker received being published in public, which is the very point of order this government was held in contempt for when they failed to publish their Brexit legal advice, despite being ordered to do so.

Politics in this country is an absolute sh*t show, but at least it can be occasional highly entertaining. Not just knives but WMDs will be put for Bercow after this, a lot of Tories are absolutely livid.

While it was amusing on one level, what exactly does amendment actually change? I suspect you agree with me, Sorbicol, but I couldn't help but notice that Dominic Grieve seemed to think he'd done something very clever but not entirely sure what it was. He may have but I'm at a loss as to how this changes anything.

Worryingly there seems to be a narrative taking hold that us Micks over here will see sense and back down on the backstop, pun intended. This and other wishful thinking seems to be taking hold that another deal can be negotiated. Anything to avoid the fact that the options are there, in black and white, and nobody wants to even select one.

Basically, it's about trying to make sure that the Government (or at this point basically Theresa May) cannot run down the clock to March 29th - which is when, by law (as per the withdrawal Act) that the UK will leave the EU, regardless of whether there is a deal or not. I think there is some credence to the idea that May's current strategy is to get to a point were she can say "you either accept my deal or it's a default no-deal" and hope that's enough to get people to vote for her deal (even if it gets reject on Tuesday, which as this point is pretty much a forgone conclusion)

The amendment only allows her 3 days to come up with a plan B, whatever that might be and report back to parliament, rather than, say, twiddling her thumbs and coming back to parliament and saying "Remember that deal you rejected? Do you want to vote for it again?" the day before we Brexit down to the total lack of alternative options.

Now there are a host of factors and variables in play at this point. There is no parliamentary desire for a No-Deal Brexit other than in the most ardent Brexiteers who are a very distinct, if vocal minority - I suspect some might disagree with me there but after all their bluster, Rees-Mogg's failed attempt to oust May should tell you they just don't have the numbers to force anything at this point and can, more or less, not be taken too seriously.

The majority of Brexit supporting MPs are much of the opinion that leaving with No Deal is not tenable. Some would even rather cancel Brexit than exit with no deal. The problem, of course is that May has a deal (that nobody likes) and the EU have made it pretty clear they are unwilling to renegotiate it [i]unless[i] the UK fundamental alters it position - like, say wanting to be in the Customs Union and Single Market and willing to concede about free movement of EU citizens.

At the moment I think the likely scenarios are: May's deal gets rejected. There is no other deal so there has to be a plan B. The only plan B that's really feasible at this point is to delay Brexit, have a second referendum and go from there. The only other "option" is default No Deal because legally, that's what is going to happen anyway.

Which brings me to my next thought. I think, if it looks like a default No Deal is the only remaining scenario in play - this is only situation where Corbyn's vote of no confidence has any hope of succeeding. He has to hope there will be enough conservative MPs who don't want a No Deal willing to vote with Labour (and everyone else) and remove the current government. That would have to include an extension to the Brexit date, and so No Deal would be averted at least in the short term.

I'm speculating at this point for sure, (and I'm going nowhere near who might "win" another General Election) but I suspect we'll get a second referendum for the same reasons I've stated before: it's the only outcome that allows politicians to completely absolve themselves of the consequences of the final outcome to all of this. It's also the only outcome that guarantees the Tories remain in power at least until the end of their current parliamentary term. Do not underestimate the political appeal of that. If we vote for no deal, then we voted for it. If we vote to remain, well that's the will of the people (again) and so it's not really a betrayal of the result of the original, legally non-binding referendum that got us into this mess in the first place. Politicians can sit back, relax, point the finger at the electorate and say "this was your choice".......

May seems to be saying that a "No Brexit" is more likely than a "No Deal". Sounds like wishful thinking.

Paleocon wrote:

May seems to be saying that a "No Brexit" is more likely than a "No Deal". Sounds like wishful thinking.

She's trying to scare the hardest brexiters into voting with her on her deal.

This is after they ramped up the "no deal" is more likely than "no brexit" retoric in order to scare the remainers into voting with her on her deal. That didn't seem to work either.

They really are just throwing sh*t at the wall now and hoping something will stick.

If you are going to play chicken, it doesn't work when the cars are three miles apart. It only works when you can see the whites of their eyes. May has been hopeless at this whole process. From triggering to early, the red lines and the crap general election she has been just hopeless at almost every part. If her plan was to run the clock down and present a last minute vote, well that's now over.

On the bright side, maybe that's a good sign for women. They can be sh*t political leaders just like men?

Dear Britain,

Please show us that even after you've voted in a horrible mistake in part because your voters were manipulated and lied to that you can eventually correct that mistake based on new information rather than double down.

Sincerely,

Your friends in the United States looking for more example to rally around.

Rahmen wrote:

Dear Britain,

Please show us that even after you've voted in a horrible mistake in part because your voters were manipulated and lied to that you can eventually correct that mistake based on new information rather than double down.

Sincerely,

Your friends in the United States looking for more example to rally around.

you missed the fact that half (well, actually probably more than half) of the British electorate are as thick as pig sh*t and actually believe the drivel they are fed by the Rupert Murdoch controlled press we have in this country.

Still, to give some of our politicians credit they do actually appear to be doing their very best to prevent it with some degree of success. We'll wait and see. There are going to be lot of very cross people at the end of the process regardless of what happens however. Brexit has completely split this country and it's not going to recover from it for decades.

It failed, as expected.

Now what?

No confidence vote and debate on May tomorrow, apparently. From the Guardian:

Corbyn says he has already tabled no confidence motion for debate tomorrow

Jeremy Corbyn is speaking now. He says this was the biggest defeat for a government since the 1920s.

He says the government has consistently failed to reach out to other parties.

He says the government should accept that the UK will stay in the customs union for good, that a no-deal Brexit is not an option and that the rights of EU nationals will be accepted.

He says he has tabled a motion of no confidence. It will be debated tomorrow, he says, so MPs can express their views about the incompetence of the government.

It’s the end of May, I’m not sure it’s the end of the Tory government. To be honest I think Corbyn needed to be certain that a default no deal was the only option left, he’s banking on the DUP voting against her now. It’ll remain to be what the Tories will offer them to remain voting with the government.

I think he’s blow it. We’ll see.

This is so crazy to watch.
Seems unlikely the government will fall. And isn't May immune to being thrown out (against her will at least), after surviving the recent vote against her?
Does Corbyn actually accept staying in the customs union and EU citizen rights, or is that too tactics?

I still dont like Corbyn anyway, but it at least sounded better than what May offers.

Well it's made both No Deal insane suicide Brexit and lets call the whole thing off more likely. I have no confidence in Labour doing anything useful given their response has been "get rid of May, vote us in and get a unicorn Brexit"

Shadout wrote:

This is so crazy to watch.
Seems unlikely the government will fall. And isn't May immune to being thrown out (against her will at least), after surviving the recent vote against her?

Yes but this is confidence in the government. She will remain leader of the party regardless.

DUP will support the government.

Have to agree with you onewild. Corbyn has only called the motion of no confidence due to the pressure from his membership and MPs. He'd prefer to leave the EU but is happy to let the Tories do it.

Axon wrote:

Yes but this is confidence in the government. She will remain leader of the party regardless.

Yeah, I was thinking about Sorbicol saying it was the end of May, but not the government. Can they get rid of May without a new government? Outside of her leaving on her own that is.

Shadout wrote:
Axon wrote:

Yes but this is confidence in the government. She will remain leader of the party regardless.

Yeah, I was thinking about Sorbicol saying it was the end of May, but not the government. Can they get rid of May without a new government? Outside of her leaving on her own that is.

Not that I'm aware of but we are deep into UK constitutional law here

I was under the (quite possibly mistaken) impression that it’s the party who controls who its leader is. Voters elected a Tory government. The Tory party picked May as their leader, so she’s Prime Minister. The party could get rid of her and put someone else in place as their leader, and de facto, the Prime Minister.

That’s what happened with the Blair-Brown transition, no?

Shadout wrote:

Does Corbyn actually accept staying in the customs union and EU citizen rights, or is that too tactics?

Axon wrote:

Corbyn has only called the motion of no confidence due to the pressure from his membership and MPs.

Whatever Corbyn thinks of the EU, for both these points, all he is doing here is executing Labour party policy that the Labour members voted for, which is what he's said he was going to do all along.

For all the hand wringing in the press about Labour's stance, Corbyn and Starmer have been quite clear all along that the Labour party would always vote against any Tory deal that didn't fulfill Labour's tests. And that if that vote was a great enough defeat they would push for a new General Election (i.e. vote of no confidence). And if they are unable to secure another GE they will throw their weight behind a 2nd ref.

This has always been the plan, they've stated it repeatedly, it is written down. There is no mystery here. The idea that something nefarious is happening or there is any subterfuge is... well I don't know, looking for bad acting because you don't like Corbyn.

Now you could argue this is tactically naive (perhaps) but it is kind of playing out how they said it would. And you could argue they should have always been pushing for a 2nd ref. Personally I think Labour would have been eviscerated by the press for backing a 2nd ref from day one. But really Labour party members didn't manage to make that party policy at the last Labour party conference(s). And I think this plan has worked out well for Labour in that it makes the Tories own every little bit of the failure, there's been little chance for the Tories to try and claim Labour have been working against leaving.

So what happens next? If Labour can secure a GE and win it then they get their chance to renegotiate a "better deal". Lots of punditry seems to reckon the better deal would be some kind of Tory-lite cakeism but I suspect it would be little more than returning to the EU and saying "we'd like to stay in the CU and maintain EU citizens rights". And I can't imagine the EU would do anything other than wave that through. In the end of the day it is the most sensible first step towards fully leaving at some future point or seeing the error of our ways and fully returning.

And 2nd referendum I think would be a much more chaotic path, the press would go crazy, what options would be on the ballot, what happens if Leave win it again given we now know there is zero political will for actually leaving.

Jonman wrote:

I was under the (quite possibly mistaken) impression that it’s the party who controls who its leader is. Voters elected a Tory government. The Tory party picked May as their leader, so she’s Prime Minister. The party could get rid of her and put someone else in place as their leader, and de facto, the Prime Minister.

That’s what happened with the Blair-Brown transition, no?

Party who won the election gets to nominate any individual citizen to be Prime Minister. By convention that is their party leader but I don't believe there is any prohibition from nominating literally anyone. Basically the winning party tell the Monarch who to appoint as their Prime Minister.

I'm not aware that someone who isn't a party leader has ever been made prime minister. And I think if they were not at least an MP it would make all sorts of parliamentary business exceptionally hard to organise (PMQs etc...)

stupid double

DanB wrote:

So what happens next? If Labour can secure a GE and win it then they get their chance to renegotiate a "better deal". Lots of punditry seems to reckon the better deal would be some kind of Tory-lite cakeism but I suspect it would be little more than returning to the EU and saying "we'd like to stay in the CU and maintain EU citizens rights". And I can't imagine the EU would do anything other than wave that through. In the end of the day it is the most sensible first step towards fully leaving at some future point or seeing the error of our ways and fully returning.

Probably the best outcome, outside of
IMAGE(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/ed/66/23/ed6623230a78a536c41d8001aed2a6e4--satire-hands-on.jpg)

But that proces would presumably take far longer than the March deadline.

Shadout wrote:

But that proces would presumably take far longer than the March deadline.

Well yes. But I think the EU have said they would extend the deadline to take account of substantive political change and I think time to have a 2nd ref or a GE would count there? Maybe not.

DanB wrote:
Jonman wrote:

I was under the (quite possibly mistaken) impression that it’s the party who controls who its leader is. Voters elected a Tory government. The Tory party picked May as their leader, so she’s Prime Minister. The party could get rid of her and put someone else in place as their leader, and de facto, the Prime Minister.

That’s what happened with the Blair-Brown transition, no?

Party who won the election gets to nominate any individual citizen to be Prime Minister. By convention that is their party leader but I don't believe there is any prohibition from nominating literally anyone. Basically the winning party tell the Monarch who to appoint as their Prime Minister.

I'm not aware that someone who isn't a party leader has ever been made prime minister. And I think if they were not at least an MP it would make all sorts of parliamentary business exceptionally hard to organise (PMQs etc...)

While you are both correct let me just clear up the confusion.

Tory party rules dictate that the leader can only be challenged once every 12 months. May won her challenge back in December. She will be Tory party leader for 2019 at the very least unless she chooses to step down.

Edit: Just to make things doubly clear, here are the relevant sections in the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011

Section 2 of the Act also provides for two ways in which a general election can be held before the end of this five-year period:
  • If the House of Commons resolves "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", an early general election is held, unless the House of Commons subsequently resolves "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty's Government". This second resolution must be made within fourteen days of the first. This provision recognises that in a hung parliament it might be possible for a new government to be formed, commanding a majority.
  • If the House of Commons, with the support of two thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election".