In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
On April 02 2019 07:18 Velr wrote: I will just quote that one random drunk guy i met in dublin 5 years ago:
"Burn everything British except their coal".
Just get out, and suffer. Seriously, my country isn't even in the EU and there are actually important matters to take care of for the EU. You voted these guys in, eat it. Just fuck off.
On April 02 2019 06:50 Zaros wrote: They are all fighting for what they believe in, the main problem is lack of leadership creating this massive vacuum for people like Mogg, Baker, Boles, Benn, Cooper etc. If we had a functioning PM or leader of the opposition who didnt come from the 1970s then this wouldn't be happening, can blame Letwin too and his stupid fixed term parliaments act without which we would have had a new parliament by now which could probably agree on something (just.)
That doesn't matter. They're supposed to be fighting what's best for the country, i don't give a shit what someone like Mogg is fighting for/believing in (and i certainly haven't forgotten his background or the books his father has written).
And no, the main problem is that the UK is utterly incapable or governing itself if there's no vast majority to push shit through. The second people are expected to work together, something that dozens of other countries do on a daily basis and is absolutely not a unique situation, everything falls apart.
Why? Because everyone thinks that his opinion is the hot shit instead of understanding that his "view" or "belief" doesn't mean jack shit if they can't get it passed.
I don't disagree on Corbyn, he's worthless and indeed a hindrance to Labour, even though he's for some undefinable reason assumed to be the second coming or something.
It's not "lack of leadership" (well, to be fair, that's true too, but wouldn't matter) preventing progress, it's precisely what you described. No politician currently hushed about as next PM would've done a better job in these circumstances. You don't have a majority, so you need to unite the house behind you, at least the majority of it. This isn't happening. Both Labour and Tories "fight for what they believe for" instead of indeed finding a compromise. It's ridiculous. And on top of that, the Tories are split in like seventytwelve fringe groups, everyone pushing for something else.
Many MPs seem to have forgotten that the first and most severe duty of his is to advance and protect the country (and by extention it's unity, since that's threatened too). Not "getting" what they want.
edit: Nick Boles is gonna sit as an Independent Progressive Conservative. Something i indeed would myself describe as, coming to think of it.
You seem not to understand that they believe they are doing what is right for the country they just think that is a different thing to everyone else. ERG think No deal is right for the country and if they can't get that then most of them voted for May's Deal but they wont go for anything else not when May's deal is coming back a 4th time.
That's a pretty big claim for someone who looked at a tweet and suggested the EU is throwing Ireland under the bus. I absolutely understand what many (not all, but many) are doing. ERG doesn't think "No Deal" is the best thing for the country, it's the best thing for Tories (in their view). No Deal is proven beyond doubt to be a shitshow for "the average joe", with drawbacks vastly outweighing the upsides. If they indeed look at the evidence and still claim that this would be the best outcome for the countryespecially while looking at the border issue in Ireland and the fact that Scotlands vast majority feels european, i mean, yeah. I guess they're disciplined then. Biggest idiots to ever sit in parliament, but "principled". Apart from the obvious business interests of Mogg for example, who made millions on Brexit already, and ironically has a father who wrote a book on how to make money in a country where political chaos is ruling. But sure. He's principled.
Most conservatives agree with the ERG but the other way round Mays Deal first but then No deal, 30 or 40 want a softer brexit, and you have the awkward squad of less than 10 that want to cancel brexit. If you think No Deal is the best outcome for the country then you don't need a majority, you need to stop there being a majority for anything else or convince the PM to prorogue parliament until the 12th/13th April.
And rip the country apart in the process. I don't understand how this is so hard to understand. Hell, the DUP would rather stay in the EU than having any of it.
Now you're in the situation of arguing that the views and problems of two countries that form part of the UK simply don't matter, and that Scotland as well as Ireland just go "well, guess back to daily business then".
You do understand that there's still years to come where you have to interact with these two countries, and indeed the EU too? I mean, it might look reasonable or "principled" to you to burn every bridge you have, especially considering that the UK really has jack shit to show for after "negotiating" for almost three years, but that's not reality, and that's not how the rest of the world is going to see this.
On April 02 2019 06:39 Zaros wrote: Looked petulant to me but I guess im a brexiteer so I would see it that way. I like Nick I agree with him on a lot of issues and he is a very good MP but hes got it wrong on Brexit.
Apparantly 200 conservative MPs have signed a letter to the PM asking her to push through a managed no deal, Cabinet meets tomorrow to discuss this and I expect she might go for it.
'Managed no deal' is chimeric - 200 MPs is all the government will be able to rally behind such a plan, and I suspect the non-lunatic Tories would vote to bring the government down rather than support no deal. The three paths the country still has are: May's deal (almost certainly not going to pass) or an election or a referendum. Election is the option that I think is likeliest out of these, but I think there's also a surprising appetite for a referendum from the Tories because they are woefully unprepared for an election and would get eviscerated.
And how do option 2 and 3 work in relation to the 11 days the UK has until Brexit?
On April 02 2019 06:39 Zaros wrote: Looked petulant to me but I guess im a brexiteer so I would see it that way. I like Nick I agree with him on a lot of issues and he is a very good MP but hes got it wrong on Brexit.
Apparantly 200 conservative MPs have signed a letter to the PM asking her to push through a managed no deal, Cabinet meets tomorrow to discuss this and I expect she might go for it.
'Managed no deal' is chimeric - 200 MPs is all the government will be able to rally behind such a plan, and I suspect the non-lunatic Tories would vote to bring the government down rather than support no deal. The three paths the country still has are: May's deal (almost certainly not going to pass) or an election or a referendum. Election is the option that I think is likeliest out of these, but I think there's also a surprising appetite for a referendum from the Tories because they are woefully unprepared for an election and would get eviscerated.
And how do option 2 and 3 work in relation to the 11 days the UK has until Brexit?
I edited my post out because I don’t think it grasped reality very solidly at all (it didn’t include the potential for more indicative votes on Wednesday for example), but what I’d reply to that is I think the EU would accommodate as much as reasonably is possible the UK trying to come to a positive political solution to the current crisis (I.e stumping FOR something), and both an election and a referendum are in my view the only way in which that solution will come about.
Random question from someone who doesnt have time to read everything Brexit-related: There are several votes about (more or less) the same proposal despite it being rejected every time. But May and others keep bringing them forward again and again in hope that, next time, they will be accepted. But is there any reason why this could not be done the other way around? So if one of the proposals would be accepted, is there any reason why they should stop having votes? I mean, what would prevent the opponents of said proposal from putting it up for vote again?
On April 02 2019 06:39 Zaros wrote: Looked petulant to me but I guess im a brexiteer so I would see it that way. I like Nick I agree with him on a lot of issues and he is a very good MP but hes got it wrong on Brexit.
Apparantly 200 conservative MPs have signed a letter to the PM asking her to push through a managed no deal, Cabinet meets tomorrow to discuss this and I expect she might go for it.
'Managed no deal' is chimeric - 200 MPs is all the government will be able to rally behind such a plan, and I suspect the non-lunatic Tories would vote to bring the government down rather than support no deal. The three paths the country still has are: May's deal (almost certainly not going to pass) or an election or a referendum. Election is the option that I think is likeliest out of these, but I think there's also a surprising appetite for a referendum from the Tories because they are woefully unprepared for an election and would get eviscerated.
And how do option 2 and 3 work in relation to the 11 days the UK has until Brexit?
I edited my post out because I don’t think it grasped reality very solidly at all (it didn’t include the potential for more indicative votes on Wednesday for example), but what I’d reply to that is I think the EU would accommodate as much as reasonably is possible the UK trying to come to a positive political solution to the current crisis (I.e stumping FOR something), and both an election and a referendum are in my view the only way in which that solution will come about.
I agree that another referendum, with valid options and a clear path to a solution (i.e. clear rules on how to proceed afterwards), might be a way to solve this problem. I don't see how another election is remotely helpful in this situation. All it will do is stall the process for months and then there will be a new house that can start over again. The UK would be wise not to push for a new election and the EU would be wise to not accept one as reason for a brexit delay.
On April 02 2019 15:10 Mafe wrote: Random question from someone who doesnt have time to read everything Brexit-related: There are several votes about (more or less) the same proposal despite it being rejected every time. But May and others keep bringing them forward again and again in hope that, next time, they will be accepted. But is there any reason why this could not be done the other way around? So if one of the proposals would be accepted, is there any reason why they should stop having votes? I mean, what would prevent the opponents of said proposal from putting it up for vote again?
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but May can, by being in control of the order paper as the government ordinarily is, in theory bring her deal up for votes as many times she likes. The speaker has however ruled that she's not allowed the bring the same deal back multiple times unless the deal has changed. That's why last time she cut the political declaration from the vote. If she is to bring it back again she will have to come up with some substantial change to either the deal(will not happen) or the context. She will have to be creative to do that.
The other options voted on are part of a process that needs a majority in parliament to happen. If May's deal would get a majority, the process with indicative votes would not.
On April 02 2019 15:10 Mafe wrote: Random question from someone who doesnt have time to read everything Brexit-related: There are several votes about (more or less) the same proposal despite it being rejected every time. But May and others keep bringing them forward again and again in hope that, next time, they will be accepted. But is there any reason why this could not be done the other way around? So if one of the proposals would be accepted, is there any reason why they should stop having votes? I mean, what would prevent the opponents of said proposal from putting it up for vote again?
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but May can, by being in control of the order paper as the government ordinarily is, in theory bring her deal up for votes as many times she likes. The speaker has however ruled that she's not allowed the bring the same deal back multiple times unless the deal has changed. That's why last time she cut the political declaration from the vote. If she is to bring it back again she will have to come up with some substantial change to either the deal(will not happen) or the context. She will have to be creative to do that.
The other options voted on are part of a process that needs a majority in parliament to happen. If May's deal would get a majority, the process with indicative votes would not.
That's pretty much correct, legally she's not forbidden to try to bring back the vote, but there's a guide-book sort of thing, which is nicknamed "May's law" (not Theresa May, but a 19th century guy, Erskine May, and it's not a law but a set of practices) so the speaker can (and did) refuse to have a new vote on the same thing. I think this explains way better than i could>
The channel in general is the absolute best source for brexit updates imo, just skip the plug at the beginning/end of the videos, and you could catch up on brexit in 2-3 hours, if you're interested.
If she would have passed it the first or second time around, the opposition couldn't have brought it back a 3rd "meaningful vote". I'm not entirely sure what would have happened if this 3rd vote would have passed, since it wasnt a "meaningful vote" iirc.
On April 02 2019 15:10 Mafe wrote: Random question from someone who doesnt have time to read everything Brexit-related: There are several votes about (more or less) the same proposal despite it being rejected every time. But May and others keep bringing them forward again and again in hope that, next time, they will be accepted. But is there any reason why this could not be done the other way around? So if one of the proposals would be accepted, is there any reason why they should stop having votes? I mean, what would prevent the opponents of said proposal from putting it up for vote again?
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but May can, by being in control of the order paper as the government ordinarily is, in theory bring her deal up for votes as many times she likes. The speaker has however ruled that she's not allowed the bring the same deal back multiple times unless the deal has changed. That's why last time she cut the political declaration from the vote. If she is to bring it back again she will have to come up with some substantial change to either the deal(will not happen) or the context. She will have to be creative to do that.
The other options voted on are part of a process that needs a majority in parliament to happen. If May's deal would get a majority, the process with indicative votes would not.
If she would have passed it the first or second time around, the opposition couldn't have brought it back a 3rd "meaningful vote". I'm not entirely sure what would have happened if this 3rd vote would have passed, since it wasnt a "meaningful vote" iirc.
My understanding is that it would have given the UK to 22nd May to agree with itself on the political declaration in order to ratify the deal. If they weren't able to do that, the UK would leave with no deal(or revocation). Any option needing a longer extension would no longer be available since the UK didn't partake in the European elections.
On April 02 2019 06:39 Zaros wrote: Looked petulant to me but I guess im a brexiteer so I would see it that way. I like Nick I agree with him on a lot of issues and he is a very good MP but hes got it wrong on Brexit.
Apparantly 200 conservative MPs have signed a letter to the PM asking her to push through a managed no deal, Cabinet meets tomorrow to discuss this and I expect she might go for it.
'Managed no deal' is chimeric - 200 MPs is all the government will be able to rally behind such a plan, and I suspect the non-lunatic Tories would vote to bring the government down rather than support no deal. The three paths the country still has are: May's deal (almost certainly not going to pass) or an election or a referendum. Election is the option that I think is likeliest out of these, but I think there's also a surprising appetite for a referendum from the Tories because they are woefully unprepared for an election and would get eviscerated.
And how do option 2 and 3 work in relation to the 11 days the UK has until Brexit?
I edited my post out because I don’t think it grasped reality very solidly at all (it didn’t include the potential for more indicative votes on Wednesday for example), but what I’d reply to that is I think the EU would accommodate as much as reasonably is possible the UK trying to come to a positive political solution to the current crisis (I.e stumping FOR something), and both an election and a referendum are in my view the only way in which that solution will come about.
I agree that another referendum, with valid options and a clear path to a solution (i.e. clear rules on how to proceed afterwards), might be a way to solve this problem. I don't see how another election is remotely helpful in this situation. All it will do is stall the process for months and then there will be a new house that can start over again. The UK would be wise not to push for a new election and the EU would be wise to not accept one as reason for a brexit delay.
If another referendum would happen and it would go sth like this
1. Brexit, this deal 2. Brexit, that deal 3. Brexit, no deal 4. No Brexit
I'm pretty sure 4. would win this handily. Since the votes are so split on "Yes Brexit". Might be a problem
On April 02 2019 06:39 Zaros wrote: Looked petulant to me but I guess im a brexiteer so I would see it that way. I like Nick I agree with him on a lot of issues and he is a very good MP but hes got it wrong on Brexit.
Apparantly 200 conservative MPs have signed a letter to the PM asking her to push through a managed no deal, Cabinet meets tomorrow to discuss this and I expect she might go for it.
'Managed no deal' is chimeric - 200 MPs is all the government will be able to rally behind such a plan, and I suspect the non-lunatic Tories would vote to bring the government down rather than support no deal. The three paths the country still has are: May's deal (almost certainly not going to pass) or an election or a referendum. Election is the option that I think is likeliest out of these, but I think there's also a surprising appetite for a referendum from the Tories because they are woefully unprepared for an election and would get eviscerated.
And how do option 2 and 3 work in relation to the 11 days the UK has until
I edited my post out because I don’t think it grasped reality very solidly at all (it didn’t include the potential for more indicative votes on Wednesday for example), but what I’d reply to that is I think the EU would accommodate as much as reasonably is possible the UK trying to come to a positive political solution to the current crisis (I.e stumping FOR something), and both an election and a referendum are in my view the only way in which that solution will come about.
I agree that another referendum, with valid options and a clear path to a solution (i.e. clear rules on how to proceed afterwards), might be a way to solve this problem. I don't see how another election is remotely helpful in this situation. All it will do is stall the process for months and then there will be a new house that can start over again. The UK would be wise not to push for a new election and the EU would be wise to not accept one as reason for a brexit delay.
There are so few votes in each vote another election could easily end up in a majority for e.g customs union. Also it would solve the difficulty in what mandate the government as well as the opposition actually has with regards to whether implementing a custom union is legitimate etc.
On April 02 2019 06:39 Zaros wrote: Looked petulant to me but I guess im a brexiteer so I would see it that way. I like Nick I agree with him on a lot of issues and he is a very good MP but hes got it wrong on Brexit.
Apparantly 200 conservative MPs have signed a letter to the PM asking her to push through a managed no deal, Cabinet meets tomorrow to discuss this and I expect she might go for it.
'Managed no deal' is chimeric - 200 MPs is all the government will be able to rally behind such a plan, and I suspect the non-lunatic Tories would vote to bring the government down rather than support no deal. The three paths the country still has are: May's deal (almost certainly not going to pass) or an election or a referendum. Election is the option that I think is likeliest out of these, but I think there's also a surprising appetite for a referendum from the Tories because they are woefully unprepared for an election and would get eviscerated.
And how do option 2 and 3 work in relation to the 11 days the UK has until
I edited my post out because I don’t think it grasped reality very solidly at all (it didn’t include the potential for more indicative votes on Wednesday for example), but what I’d reply to that is I think the EU would accommodate as much as reasonably is possible the UK trying to come to a positive political solution to the current crisis (I.e stumping FOR something), and both an election and a referendum are in my view the only way in which that solution will come about.
I agree that another referendum, with valid options and a clear path to a solution (i.e. clear rules on how to proceed afterwards), might be a way to solve this problem. I don't see how another election is remotely helpful in this situation. All it will do is stall the process for months and then there will be a new house that can start over again. The UK would be wise not to push for a new election and the EU would be wise to not accept one as reason for a brexit delay.
There are so few votes in each vote another election could easily end up in a majority for e.g customs union. Also it would solve the difficulty in what mandate the government as well as the opposition actually has with regards to whether implementing a custom union is legitimate etc.
Would it tho? It's not as if either party has a clear singular proposal. Tories have MPs ranging from no-deal hardliners to MPs wanting to cancel Brexit altogether. Labor isn't much better. The only parties with a clear singular proposal are some small ones that don't want to Brexit like LibDems and that new block that split off from Labor. Oh, and SNP, but they only exist in Scotland.
So let's say you have a new election and Labour wins. Clearly May's deal is dead. But what replaces it? Norway? Remain? Some new thing that Corbyn will have to negotiate?
Let's say the Tories win. Is that good for May's deal? Or hard Brexit? Or customs union? Or what?
On April 02 2019 06:39 Zaros wrote: Looked petulant to me but I guess im a brexiteer so I would see it that way. I like Nick I agree with him on a lot of issues and he is a very good MP but hes got it wrong on Brexit.
Apparantly 200 conservative MPs have signed a letter to the PM asking her to push through a managed no deal, Cabinet meets tomorrow to discuss this and I expect she might go for it.
'Managed no deal' is chimeric - 200 MPs is all the government will be able to rally behind such a plan, and I suspect the non-lunatic Tories would vote to bring the government down rather than support no deal. The three paths the country still has are: May's deal (almost certainly not going to pass) or an election or a referendum. Election is the option that I think is likeliest out of these, but I think there's also a surprising appetite for a referendum from the Tories because they are woefully unprepared for an election and would get eviscerated.
And how do option 2 and 3 work in relation to the 11 days the UK has until
I edited my post out because I don’t think it grasped reality very solidly at all (it didn’t include the potential for more indicative votes on Wednesday for example), but what I’d reply to that is I think the EU would accommodate as much as reasonably is possible the UK trying to come to a positive political solution to the current crisis (I.e stumping FOR something), and both an election and a referendum are in my view the only way in which that solution will come about.
I agree that another referendum, with valid options and a clear path to a solution (i.e. clear rules on how to proceed afterwards), might be a way to solve this problem. I don't see how another election is remotely helpful in this situation. All it will do is stall the process for months and then there will be a new house that can start over again. The UK would be wise not to push for a new election and the EU would be wise to not accept one as reason for a brexit delay.
There are so few votes in each vote another election could easily end up in a majority for e.g customs union. Also it would solve the difficulty in what mandate the government as well as the opposition actually has with regards to whether implementing a custom union is legitimate etc.
Would it tho? It's not as if either party has a clear singular proposal. Tories have MPs ranging from no-deal hardliners to MPs wanting to cancel Brexit altogether. Labor isn't much better. The only parties with a clear singular proposal are some small ones that don't want to Brexit like LibDems and that new block that split off from Labor. Oh, and SNP, but they only exist in Scotland.
So let's say you have a new election and Labour wins. Clearly May's deal is dead. But what replaces it? Norway? Remain? Some new thing that Corbyn will have to negotiate?
Let's say the Tories win. Is that good for May's deal? Or hard Brexit? Or customs union? Or what?
Labour is relatively united over what it does want, and very united over what it doesn’t want. If there’s a new election and Labour wins then the outcome will be Labour’s Brexit proposal (which is concrete, you can read about, and the EU have made favourable noises about) and likely s confirmatory vote. The combination of deal + vote in a new Parliament would probably command a majority. This obviously relies on the political will of the EU, and it’s that uncertainty that makes all this so high octane within domestic British politics.
If the Tories win and don’t get a big majority we’re fucked with regards to Brexit.
On April 02 2019 06:39 Zaros wrote: Looked petulant to me but I guess im a brexiteer so I would see it that way. I like Nick I agree with him on a lot of issues and he is a very good MP but hes got it wrong on Brexit.
Apparantly 200 conservative MPs have signed a letter to the PM asking her to push through a managed no deal, Cabinet meets tomorrow to discuss this and I expect she might go for it.
'Managed no deal' is chimeric - 200 MPs is all the government will be able to rally behind such a plan, and I suspect the non-lunatic Tories would vote to bring the government down rather than support no deal. The three paths the country still has are: May's deal (almost certainly not going to pass) or an election or a referendum. Election is the option that I think is likeliest out of these, but I think there's also a surprising appetite for a referendum from the Tories because they are woefully unprepared for an election and would get eviscerated.
And how do option 2 and 3 work in relation to the 11 days the UK has until
I edited my post out because I don’t think it grasped reality very solidly at all (it didn’t include the potential for more indicative votes on Wednesday for example), but what I’d reply to that is I think the EU would accommodate as much as reasonably is possible the UK trying to come to a positive political solution to the current crisis (I.e stumping FOR something), and both an election and a referendum are in my view the only way in which that solution will come about.
I agree that another referendum, with valid options and a clear path to a solution (i.e. clear rules on how to proceed afterwards), might be a way to solve this problem. I don't see how another election is remotely helpful in this situation. All it will do is stall the process for months and then there will be a new house that can start over again. The UK would be wise not to push for a new election and the EU would be wise to not accept one as reason for a brexit delay.
There are so few votes in each vote another election could easily end up in a majority for e.g customs union. Also it would solve the difficulty in what mandate the government as well as the opposition actually has with regards to whether implementing a custom union is legitimate etc.
Would it tho? It's not as if either party has a clear singular proposal. Tories have MPs ranging from no-deal hardliners to MPs wanting to cancel Brexit altogether. Labor isn't much better. The only parties with a clear singular proposal are some small ones that don't want to Brexit like LibDems and that new block that split off from Labor. Oh, and SNP, but they only exist in Scotland.
So let's say you have a new election and Labour wins. Clearly May's deal is dead. But what replaces it? Norway? Remain? Some new thing that Corbyn will have to negotiate?
Let's say the Tories win. Is that good for May's deal? Or hard Brexit? Or customs union? Or what?
Labour is relatively united over what it does want, and very united over what it doesn’t want. If there’s a new election and Labour wins then the outcome will be Labour’s Brexit proposal (which is concrete, you can read about, and the EU have made favourable noises about) and likely s confirmatory vote. The combination of deal + vote in a new Parliament would probably command a majority. This obviously relies on the political will of the EU, and it’s that uncertainty that makes all this so high octane within domestic British politics.
If the Tories win and don’t get a big majority we’re fucked with regards to Brexit.
It seems to me that Labour is more united on what they can accept, not necessarily on what they want. There is still a majority of MPs that want remain/referendum. I'm not sure what would benefit them more, the 48% seems to have grown and it would be problematic if none of the major parties were to represent those. Then again it's Corbyn and honoring the referendum...I think there would be lively internal discussions on what position to take in a GE.
EPT
