Perhaps May is some House of Cards-esque genius, who just railroaded democracy into accepting something no one wanted with some long-term 4d chess?
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
She voted against her own motion.
Once the WA was agreed, there were always only three options against a rapidly closing window.
- Accept the deal
- No Deal
- Revoke A50.
In the end, she actually voted against no-deal being ruled out because she didn't like the amendment that had been tacked onto her motion.
Are who wrong mate?
It's about time for a change, no more of these assholes who role out of university, into some cushy little research job mummy.or daddy sorted for them then into politics
The people running the country should have actually done something in life. Worked their way up a career ladder not involved in politics, run a business (not just sat on the board of directors)
Put a former doctor in charge of the NHS, an account in charge of the excheqor etc. And send these inbred halfwits back to their country estates out of the way. Or give them a nice wall to lean against, a cigarette and a blindfold.
So let me get this straight - ministers are in trouble because they defied the whip and voted for the proposal put forward by their own prime minister that she wanted to defeat?
How has she not been toppled yet?
Won't be the last time she puts forward her deal to vote on either.
How has she not been toppled yet?
Won't be the last time she puts forward her deal to vote on either.
With any luck the speaker will declare another deal vote attempt out of order and it won't even be able to take place. Bercow more than entitled to do that, the rules are there to stop the government browbeating parliament, exactly what they are attempting.
Parliament already rejected no deal, twice.
That would only leave option than number 3.
I don't think he'll do it and if he did wouldn't it leave 2 & 3 as options given that no deal is still the legal default in the event of no other alternative being agreed?
There’s a decent chance that he might do it too. He’s not usually afraid to stand up to the government, why is why his former party hate him so much.
Hammond sometimes comes across as the sensible voice within his parliament but his interviews this morning on why he didn't vote against no deal is pathetic.
He now says no deal isn't enough and they need to say what they're for, yeah well get your government to actually ask then dickhead you control the business!
He now says no deal isn't enough and they need to say what they're for, yeah well get your government to actually ask then dickhead you control the business!
If there's a chance it will pass (I think it will), I don't think there a hope in hell, he'll block it.
Yes no deal is default without parliament action.
However, given parliament has clearly expressed it will not accept no deal, if Bercow applies the rules properly and declares another deal vote out of order, the government (with or without May as leader) would be forced to have a vote on 3. I wouldn't even see it as Bercow standing up to the government, the rules are clear. Even allowing the second vote with such minor tweaks was generous.
If you read the procedure for it in the erksine May, if he follows procedure he should refuse it. That does not mean it would definitely happen though obviously. I can't see how the potential result of the vote is relevant in the slightest. Main thing is does Bercow want to allow the government to break the rules and does he want another 2+ years of this nonsense?
Other possibility is maybe ask for an extension for a second referendum, parliament hopefully more likely to go for straight revocation though.
However, given parliament has clearly expressed it will not accept no deal, if Bercow applies the rules properly and declares another deal vote out of order, the government (with or without May as leader) would be forced to have a vote on 3. I wouldn't even see it as Bercow standing up to the government, the rules are clear. Even allowing the second vote with such minor tweaks was generous.
If you read the procedure for it in the erksine May, if he follows procedure he should refuse it. That does not mean it would definitely happen though obviously. I can't see how the potential result of the vote is relevant in the slightest. Main thing is does Bercow want to allow the government to break the rules and does he want another 2+ years of this nonsense?
Other possibility is maybe ask for an extension for a second referendum, parliament hopefully more likely to go for straight revocation though.
No chance Bercow doesn't allow it. The discretionary power isn't one thats intended to be used for business of this scale and they'll find an adjustment to put it to the house if neccesary.
EU should offer a long extension (with full participation in the EU elections) or no extension at all. This might force the issue.
On the one hand it might bring the ERG/DUP on board for her deal. On the other it will make no-deal (the legal default) more likely and Labour MPs could be minded to support her.
She needs at least 75 MPs to change their minds and I don't think she really cares now where they come from.
On the one hand it might bring the ERG/DUP on board for her deal. On the other it will make no-deal (the legal default) more likely and Labour MPs could be minded to support her.
She needs at least 75 MPs to change their minds and I don't think she really cares now where they come from.
Will May need Parliament to approve a long extension? Tusk has said he will persuade leaders to approve a long extension if MPs don't approve a deal.
I think it will be approve May's deal or face a long extension. Question is, will this be enough to give May a majority?
Furthermore, will Bercow allow a 3rd vote. If May doesn't amend the deal and there is little to indication that a significant amount of MPs will vote differently then it shouldn't go ahead. Not sure what Bercow will base his decision on but if a 3rd vote will have the same outcome as the other 2 then it is a waste of time.
I think it will be approve May's deal or face a long extension. Question is, will this be enough to give May a majority?
Furthermore, will Bercow allow a 3rd vote. If May doesn't amend the deal and there is little to indication that a significant amount of MPs will vote differently then it shouldn't go ahead. Not sure what Bercow will base his decision on but if a 3rd vote will have the same outcome as the other 2 then it is a waste of time.
I think there's few pics of me in the LondonCaf thread
Or...or... give it a 2-year delay, do nothing in the meantime and wait until everyone is so sick of it hearing about Brexit they will just about accept any outcome.
Talk now of something called Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
I posted the relavent bit of Erskine a few pages ago, but the issue i think is more that the precedent is so old (because nobody has treated Parliament with as much contempt as May since) that it would seem arcane to invoke it.
Edit:
It is also pretty clear that it applies only to one session of Parliament though, and a new session is due to start in April. So if there was a short extension then she could bring it back after the new opening and try again.
Last edited:
This is cretinous and desperate. Even if this was a thing that we could do, why on earth would we scorch-earth our relationship with the EU, the economic superpower on our doorstep? I can't believe serious people would consider such a stupid and dangerous idea.
There seems to be 4 factions to me
ERG/DUP who want to crash out
The cabinet who want May’s deal
Some Labour and Tories who want a softer brexit
The rest of labour and all the smaller parties who want to revoke article 50.
The thing is no one seems to be willing to compromise.
It's not new and it's totally irrelevant, the problem isn't legal but political. All treaties can be unilaterally broken, the issue is when you need to subsequently interact with the other side.
That, nevertheless, is legal assurance (albeit mad) isn't it? And that is what the headbangers want. Just tell them they can rip it all up if they want.
Cox already addressed this in his statement to the commons. He advised against using it for obvious reasons, perhaps he can add some wording in but it'll be in line with what he previously said and that doesn't seem to hold any sway.
Just Mogg thinking he's a fecking mastermind
Here you go …
Does anyone have any idea what Corbyn means when he says 'close alignment to the SM'?
No because it was never the subject nor the problem. What they want is to have no political responsibility, they want to be able to point the finger at someone when needed, in this case if Ireland or the EU accept the idea of an unilateral withdrawal, it gives the opportunity to claim that Ireland were totally okay with the idea of breaking the GFA.
Cake.
All the benefits but none of the responsibilities , cake and unicorns part 2.
No she didn’t. She voted for a no deal brexit and whipped her MP’s to vote for a no deal brexit.
Bingo, the DUP and the ERG both want rid of the GFA for different reasons but they don't want it to appear like it was the British that broke the agreement.
She is a ****.
Sorry but I thought the context here was that if the UK felt that the WA was not being honored i.e. the EU were deliberately trying to prevent the UK from leaving with a FTA, then the UK could unilaterally leave because there had been a fundamental change in the basis of consent.
That's the problem, right there.
The UK don't need basis to leave unilaterally, that's the one thing that you need to keep in mind. From that point, ask yourself why they want to put a time limit on a backstop that initially didn't include GB and only included NI and ROI who both have an agreement that doesn't have time limit. Surely you see that something is wrong here?
To make it simple, GB can leave tomorrow and negotiate the FTA that they want with the EU while NI could join GB if they decide that they don't want the GFA. Ask yourself this question why are they talking about unilaterally leaving the backstop if the EU acted in bad faith when they could just avoid the entire thing by taking a decision right now?
Yeah she is such a lady.
Leadsom's Commons business timetable for next week 