The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[MANTIS01]

but peoples are too stupid and too ignorant to grasp the complexity of said issues yah?

[Jon MW]

F***ing peoples vote!!!! Yes Tikay, they're exclamation marks. I believe they're warranted based on how loud I'm screaming these words in my head.

It really winds me up. It's a second vote because loads of people aren't happy with the outcome of the first one.

Why do you have to gloss it up by making it sound like it's something different to the first vote? Was the first one a toadstools vote or something?

The toadstools got it wrong, let's ask the people now instead.

Utter bo****ks!!! (More entirely warranted exclamation marks).

PS: This isn't aimed directly at Sheriff, he's just the latest person to mention it. It's mainly aimed at that smug c**t Linekar who was the first person I heard say it.

And breathe.......

We've long had the idea that it's normal to check what government people want after 4 or 5 years; doesn't seem that much of a stretch to ask again about this after 3.

[aaron1867]

I have said this over and over again, but if you want Brexit to happen, or to stay in the EU, then the only way past all of this is go to the people. Yet, brexiteers wont have it and will ultimately faced with no Brexit at all. It is the way foward and if all the legislation isn't passed for it anytime soon, then we will still be be here in 2020.

This April 12th thing is vital, I can't see us going to the 22nd may. You are left with either Revoke v No deal (and May will not vote for No Deal) or ask for a longer extension where the EU have forced the country into an election or second ref. These new votes on Wednesday are a distraction too, I don't see any being able to get a majority and therefore we are in the same position as last week.

Let's just get on with the people's vote and end all of it.

Slightly puzzled by this.  You want a people's vote (as do I, FWIW) but your post seems to imply that it's feasible without a longer extension being agreed first, which isn't the case.  To legislate for it, we need to get the long extension (or Revoke A50) and to participate in the Euro Elections prior to it happening.  April 12th is our deadline to ask for this.  May 22nd becomes a dead duck date by the end of this week unless we've passed May's deal by then, which seems unlikely to even be voted on at the moment.

I'm also puzzled by the comment regarding May not voting for No Deal, but she doesn't need to vote for it.  We do need to take some positive action prior to April 12th to stop it happening as the legal default on that date, which they kind of committed to doing last night in the discussion around Beckett's amendment, but would have been mandated to do so had that vote also passed.

The biggest unanswered issue with the People's Vote is that there's no clear idea as to what should be asked on it at the moment.  The most likely option as it stands would be May's deal vs Remain, but I doubt this satisfies the Brexiters if we reach that stage.  The question is, assuming that a 2nd ref does happen, what version of Brexit do they want to be the option on the ballot?

I'm trying to say that we do need a longer extension to be able to have another vote and I think that will only happen when May has to go back to the EU. They'll demand something more and that surely would have to be some sort of an election. That is how I see another vote coming about. But looking at today's landscape of these new votes, it seems that she could get her deal over the line, potentially, if she adds the "confirmatory vote" option. There was also media coverage today that said whichever one of these votes seems most popular (or gets a majority) has to be enforced as it's law. I didn't know that & she had said earlier that it doesn't mean anything. I genuinely think that the amendment for the vote, will be close, but not close enough. But I am not sure how it all works, as apparently it might role into next week, yay.

What I meant about May, is that on April 12th, she could potentially be faced with the no deal option or revoke. I genuinely can't see her going for the no deal option.

What is also very puzzling is that she has been told by Bercow that there must be significant change or MV3 can't happen. But yet, it's planned for Friday. As for Bercow, he's been good with the amendments, but some of the arguments he's been getting into in the commons is just dreadful.

[aaron1867]

but peoples are too stupid and too ignorant to grasp the complexity of said issues yah?

That reminds me, when did Adz last post?

[StuartHopkin]

This thing is turning into something completely dreadful & John Bercow, what a clown.

Bercow has been fantastic in dealing with this so far, particularly in recent weeks.  Why do you think he's a clown?

How has he been fantastic Sheriff?

I am only basing my view on what I have read in the papers but he appears to have been choosing what can be voted on for his on amusement and blocking progress (however unlikely) for his own agenda.
His little speech about the MP's not being to blame because they are doing a good job last week is just one of the worst things I have ever seen. Don't worry about Theresa guys, you have all achieved nothing but here is a pat on the back.

He is the epitome of everything that is wrong with Parliament.

[Sheriff Fatman]

How has he been fantastic Sheriff?

I am only basing my view on what I have read in the papers but he appears to have been choosing what can be voted on for his on amusement and blocking progress (however unlikely) for his own agenda.
His little speech about the MP's not being to blame because they are doing a good job last week is just one of the worst things I have ever seen. Don't worry about Theresa guys, you have all achieved nothing but here is a pat on the back.

He is the epitome of everything that is wrong with Parliament.

I'd say Theresa May is the epitome of everything that is wrong with Parliament, far more than Bercow is.  She's the one who's tried to steamroller Brexit through Parliament without any proper scrutiny, and Bercow has played an important role in preventing her from doing that.  During the process she's allowed the Government to have been found to be in contempt of Parliament, purposely delayed the process on numerous occasions to prevent Parliament holding the Meaningful Votes earlier, publicly blamed MP's rather than acknowledging her own responsibility in the process, and is currently trying to breach the rules of Parliament by bringing the same business back to Parliament to be voted on again during a Parliamentary session.

Perhaps the perception of Bercow's selections being less favourable to the Government side is a reflection of his and Parliament's frustration with the Government's general attitude to the process of trying to run down the clock in an attempt to pressurise them to accept her deal as an alternative to the cliff-edge of no deal.

He was my constituency MP for a while, during which time I met him when he visited our factory in Buckingham.  Personally, I thought he was an odious little twerp at the time, and he appears no less smug and arrogant these days.  However, as a former Conservative MP acting in the role of Speaker, I think he's been incredibly effective at keeping an even hand on matters, particularly once the Parliamentary mathematics changed to that of a hung Parliament/minority Government.  I'm not talking here about the specific way he's carried out the role, as he's attracted controversy, particularly with reference to claims of bullying, but I'm looking at the end result of the decisions he ultimately makes.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I'm trying to say that we do need a longer extension to be able to have another vote and I think that will only happen when May has to go back to the EU. They'll demand something more and that surely would have to be some sort of an election. That is how I see another vote coming about. But looking at today's landscape of these new votes, it seems that she could get her deal over the line, potentially, if she adds the "confirmatory vote" option. There was also media coverage today that said whichever one of these votes seems most popular (or gets a majority) has to be enforced as it's law. I didn't know that & she had said earlier that it doesn't mean anything. I genuinely think that the amendment for the vote, will be close, but not close enough. But I am not sure how it all works, as apparently it might role into next week, yay.

What I meant about May, is that on April 12th, she could potentially be faced with the no deal option or revoke. I genuinely can't see her going for the no deal option.

What is also very puzzling is that she has been told by Bercow that there must be significant change or MV3 can't happen. But yet, it's planned for Friday. As for Bercow, he's been good with the amendments, but some of the arguments he's been getting into in the commons is just dreadful.

From what I've read the story about anything from today being enforceable by law is a red herring, similar to the argument being made by Cash and others that the decision to extend A50 was somehow illegal too.  Today will produce a series of votes which they can choose to ignore, should they be so minded (but this will come with a political cost, not a legal one).  I believe they're also voting on the Statutory Instrument today which will clear up the issue that Cash is complaining about anyway, but it's effect is to make the legal situation on extension less messy by ratifying what is already in effect under EU law.

On the April 12th issue, if it came down to No Deal default (not an option, still requires something to stop it happening) or Revoke at that stage I think May is bloody-minded enough to choose No Deal over revocation, as she'll be politically dead by then anyway.  Plenty of MPs seem to fear the same thing, hence some of today's amendments looking to put blocks in place to prevent it.

I hope Bercow sticks to his guns on MV3, unless there's a change to the deal being voted on (which seems extremely unlikely).  May seems to be going for the approach that she'll try to argue that the 'change' when it's brought back is that it has a chance of success, but if this change is brought about via 'buying' votes with the promise of a resignation date, or similar, then it's exactly the situation that the Erskine May ruling is designed to prevent happening.

[StuartHopkin]

How has he been fantastic Sheriff?

I am only basing my view on what I have read in the papers but he appears to have been choosing what can be voted on for his on amusement and blocking progress (however unlikely) for his own agenda.
His little speech about the MP's not being to blame because they are doing a good job last week is just one of the worst things I have ever seen. Don't worry about Theresa guys, you have all achieved nothing but here is a pat on the back.

He is the epitome of everything that is wrong with Parliament.

I'd say Theresa May is the epitome of everything that is wrong with Parliament, far more than Bercow is.  She's the one who's tried to steamroller Brexit through Parliament without any proper scrutiny, and Bercow has played an important role in preventing her from doing that.  During the process she's allowed the Government to have been found to be in contempt of Parliament, purposely delayed the process on numerous occasions to prevent Parliament holding the Meaningful Votes earlier, publicly blamed MP's rather than acknowledging her own responsibility in the process, and is currently trying to breach the rules of Parliament by bringing the same business back to Parliament to be voted on again during a Parliamentary session.

Perhaps the perception of Bercow's selections being less favourable to the Government side is a reflection of his and Parliament's frustration with the Government's general attitude to the process of trying to run down the clock in an attempt to pressurise them to accept her deal as an alternative to the cliff-edge of no deal.

He was my constituency MP for a while, during which time I met him when he visited our factory in Buckingham.  Personally, I thought he was an odious little twerp at the time, and he appears no less smug and arrogant these days.  However, as a former Conservative MP acting in the role of Speaker, I think he's been incredibly effective at keeping an even hand on matters, particularly once the Parliamentary mathematics changed to that of a hung Parliament/minority Government.  I'm not talking here about the specific way he's carried out the role, as he's attracted controversy, particularly with reference to claims of bullying, but I'm looking at the end result of the decisions he ultimately makes.

Mr Fatman I think you are far more knowledgeable on this subject than I!

On Theresa though, I think the complete lack of progress for the first 2 years is the main issue once you get to October 2018 I don't really see what other options she had available.
For me Article 50 was actioned without a plan, and if it was me I would have said we have 3 months to agree a deal if its not done we have 21 months to prepare for no deal. Lego.

Obviously a lot easier to say sat at my desk clicking keys like a wizard.

As for the People's Vote, I think we should do it just so Mr Pie can listen to people campaign about the options for 6 months!
I don't think it is just about people not liking the original outcome, there is obviously a whole wealth of new information available that we can all misinterpret!

[Sheriff Fatman]

Mr Fatman I think you are far more knowledgeable on this subject than I!

Not so sure about this.  I'm certainly not a politics nerd to the extent of Mr Prew, but I'm fascinated by how this shit-storm is progressing, whilst remaining hopeful that the ultimate train wreck is avoided at the end of it.

On Theresa though, I think the complete lack of progress for the first 2 years is the main issue once you get to October 2018 I don't really see what other options she had available.
For me Article 50 was actioned without a plan, and if it was me I would have said we have 3 months to agree a deal if its not done we have 21 months to prepare for no deal. Lego.

Don't forget though, that she was the one responsible for triggering it in the first place, so the timing is down to her.

For anyone who hasn't seen it, this ongoing thread on Twitter is a brutal summary of how the Brexit timescale has been handled.  Well worth 5 minutes of anyone's time.

https://twitter.com/SnoozeInBrief/status/1096131414540673024

[Sheriff Fatman]

I hope Bercow sticks to his guns on MV3, unless there's a change to the deal being voted on (which seems extremely unlikely).  May seems to be going for the approach that she'll try to argue that the 'change' when it's brought back is that it has a chance of success, but if this change is brought about via 'buying' votes with the promise of a resignation date, or similar, then it's exactly the situation that the Erskine May ruling is designed to prevent happening.

He's just announced from the chair that he won't accept any 'paving motions' to try and bring this back (basically anything trying to trigger a vote to overturn his decision) and he expects the Government to meet the test of substantive change if it tries to go ahead with MV3.

A timely example of why I like him as a Speaker.  He will no doubt enjoy the side-effect of it putting him front and centre into the story too, but the decision is entirely consistent with his previous ruling.

[Woodsey]

Guardian: Parliament finally has its say: No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. 

[Longines]

Guardian: Parliament finally has its say: No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. 

The good news is that parliament was consulted well in advance of the leave date so there is plenty of time to work out which is the least worst option.

[RED-DOG]

I have a question.

How come parliament get to vote on something multiple times and yet we get one chance three years ago.

[Sheriff Fatman]

This is the easiest visual I've found so far of the breakdown of the indicative votes.

I'm intrigued as to whether the Tories voting against every option were all ones who voted for May's deal previously.  Would love to find one who didn't.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2019/mar/27/how-did-your-mp-vote-in-the-indicative-votes

[Doobs]

This is the easiest visual I've found so far of the breakdown of the indicative votes.

I'm intrigued as to whether the Tories voting against every option were all ones who voted for May's deal previously.  Would love to find one who didn't.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2019/mar/27/how-did-your-mp-vote-in-the-indicative-votes

It wan't just tories, Stephen Hepburn and Frank Field voted against all alternatives.