UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 498

On March 22 2019 09:30 pmh wrote:
May said that she would rather have a no deal brexit then joining the European elections (no source but this should be easy to find on the web). That would be somewhat worrying and make a no deal scenario more likely.
Delay till 26th may if parliament accepts the deal,delay till april 12 if parliament doesn't accept deal.
The delay till april 12 gives the uk the option to present a different plan for moving forward,which could probably trigger a further delay depending on what Britain comes up with.

Parliament can not vote out no deal but they made their intention clear that they do not want to leave without a deal. There are several options to achieve that,accept the deal,delay to negotiate a better deal (if Britain would go for a norway option then i think the eu will be happy to accept) or cancel the whole thing. They have to vote for something but by their own logic they should.


Delay delay delay until brexit is nay.

On March 22 2019 17:36 Pandemona wrote:

At this point it won't be cancelled i am afraid. Would make it a lot easier. The 2 options are No Deal or May's Deal, there is nothing else but the MPs in Parliament think otherwise for some reason.

On March 22 2019 18:36 Longshank wrote:

Shouldn't we have learned by now not to speak in absolutes in regards to Brexit? There are other options. Parliament will try, and from the looks of it most likely succeed, to take control of the process on Monday. If the MPs in Parliament think there are other options it's quite important if they will be the ones running the show from next week. Maybe they'll reach an agreement, maybe not, but to anyone who's been following the debates this winter it's very notable how the tone has changed in the last week. The positions aren't nearly as entrenched as they've previously been. Anyone proclaiming with great conviction how there are only two options is just trying to score easy e-debate points in the not unlikely scenario they are right. It doesn't make any more true though.

On March 22 2019 19:47 Gorsameth wrote:
Ok, so explain to me what Parliament taking control means.

The EU has once again made it clear, the current deal is final. They have no intention of renegotiating a new one.
So what is Parliament going to do when it takes control? Hold a vote over the only deal that is on the table just like before?

On March 22 2019 20:29 Xophy wrote:
So, since now everyone is chastising May for her inaptitude, let me present you complete different view on the whole Brexit process:
May is actually a strategic mastermind who is (and was) aiming to stop Brexit altogether!
Now, before you start shouting that this is hilarious and she just sucks at politics, grab your tinfoil hats and hear out my wonderful conspiracy theory.
First, let us start with a simple assumption: May is a remainer at heart. While this seemingly contradicts her behavior in the past years, just assume for now that it is true and at the end you will see how it is consistent with her actions and her overall strategy. Let us now consider all the things which have happened since the referendum on 23 June:


After the referendum (and Camerons subsequent resignation), it was clear to May that Brexit had to be avoided at all costs. Now, you might say that at this point it would have been possible to cancel Brexit by forcing the parliament to reject the result of the referendum. However, May realized that by doing so, she would supply the EU-sceptics a whole new bunch of ammunition, possibly resulting in an even stronger desire to leave the EU. Instead, she developed her most cunning plan: to reveal to the British people the consequences of Brexit by pretending to carry out all things necessary and then, when finally everyone has ackowledged the horrific state the UK would be in after leaving the EU, cancelling Brexit at the last minute.

The first thing she had to do was to recruit the most incompetent people possible to her cabinet. Luckily, Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox were only to willing to join the government in order to guarantee that their own ideas of Brexit were implemented; little did they know that they were just little chess pieces in a far greater masterplan. The idea behind recruiting hardcore Brexiteers into such important positions was twofold: first, they should be given the opportunity to embarass themselves publicly; a task in which they exceeded astoundingly. Second, May needed them in order to guarantee that plans for Brexit were not too soft (e.g. like the UK remaining in a customs union with the EU), since then, such a Brexit might indeed get a majority in the parliament.

Having succeeded with respect to the first part of her plan, she then started negotiations with the EU. One thing was clear from the start: negotiations had to eat up most of the two years until the Brexit date. This way, there would be no opportunities to come up with different, softer solutions which could be approved. Additionally, she would have to make sure to negotiate a deal which was approved by the EU, but for which she was certain she could never get it through parliament. Thus, it had to be too soft for MP's like the ERG members, but too hard for the opposition. This also explains the UK's insistance on including the Backstop in the withdrawl agreement; May most certainly knew that she was sending negotiations into a cul-de-sac.

Now, at this point I should mention the preponed general elections on 8 June, 2017: everyone claimed afterwards that it was an overwhelming loss for May; instead, it actually was a crucial victory she needed to push through her plan. By losing the majority in parliament, it was now clear that in order for Brexit to be approved, she would now need a compromise with the opposition; a scenario which she sought to avoid at all costs.

Let us now turn to the events since 10 December 2018: May knew that her deal would have been rejected by parliament (which was her penultimate goal), however, a rejection in mid December would have left too much time for parliament to clinch control of the negotiations. Thus, the vote was postponed and the deal was rejected for the first time on 15 January 2019. Since the subsequent events are probably still vividly present to everyone, I will not in detail explain the purpose of everything. One special event should still be analyzed: the vote against no-deal on 13 March 2019:

First of all, May decided to bring up a motion which should eliminate the possibility of Brexit on 29 March. This was done because she was still not sure if her ultimate goal (a revocation of article 50) would already have a majority. Instead, she went one step further by secretly instigating the Spelman-amendment (which was later only moved by Yvette Cooper after Spelman decided to withdraw it). This amendmet did two things: it allowed May to further infuriate members of her own party (and thus unifying the more moderate Tory MP's with MP's of the opposition against her) by whipping her MP's to vote against her own motion (you wonder why ministers who defied the whip never had to resign? this is the reason why!); and it allowed her to establish the fact that parliament would prefer every other outcome to a no-deal Brexit. I have to admit that she gambled there a little bit, but it paid off enormously.

Now, we are entering the endgame: letting MP's vote for a second time against her deal solidified the idea that the deal was basically dead. We should also analyze the role of the speaker of the parliament, John Bercow, in all of this. Knowing that Bercow is a dedicated remainer helps to understand some things. First, he put to vote the motion of having a 2nd referendum, knowing all too well that it would spectacularly fail. Since May does not necessarily want a 2nd referendum, this helped her immensely. Second, by refusing May to bring her deal to the parliament for a third time, he helped her waste a large portion of the time remaining.

May was certainly relieved that the EU did not grant her the extension of Brexit until June. Instead, now she can bring her deal to parliament for a third (and final) time next week. In order to waste some more time, I would not be supprised to wait until thursday to let MP's reject it. Then, parliament will have two weeks remaining to discuss all other options. We all know that nothing will come out of it. Then, on 11 April, the last sitting of parliament before the exit date, MP's will have a simple, binary choice: no-deal brexit or revocation of article 50. Since the vote against no-deal is already established, it is reasonable to assume that MP's will then take the only way out and cancel Brexit altogether.


Now, no matter how unlikely you think this all is, if Brexit gets cancelled on 11 April, the one thing you can be sure of is that I will say: "Told you so!"

On March 22 2019 19:47 Gorsameth wrote:
Ok, so explain to me what Parliament taking control means.

The EU has once again made it clear, the current deal is final. They have no intention of renegotiating a new one.
So what is Parliament going to do when it takes control? Hold a vote over the only deal that is on the table just like before?

On March 22 2019 21:49 Pandemona wrote:

That underhand comment is a bit harsh when every single countries politicians are exactly the same....

Also i don't feel the referendum vote being first is an issue either, you can ask the people if they want to leave but you just don't put a time frame on it until the deal is done and everything is ironed out.

On March 22 2019 21:49 Pandemona wrote:

That underhand comment is a bit harsh when every single countries politicians are exactly the same....

Also i don't feel the referendum vote being first is an issue either, you can ask the people if they want to leave but you just don't put a time frame on it until the deal is done and everything is ironed out.