Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sir Tigger KC]

MP's in the House of Fools have rejected every alternative option for BREXIT in tonight's indicative votes! 

The only thing that they did vote for was to extend A50 to 12th April or 22nd April if the WD is voted through, but that was largely procedural as the EUCO had already agreed to grant the extension. 

[zirk]

MP's in the House of Fools have rejected every alternative option for BREXIT in tonight's indicative votes! 

The only thing that they did vote for was to extend A50 to 12th April or 22nd April if the WD is voted through, but that was largely procedural as the EUCO had already agreed to grant the extension. 

No they didnt, they Voted Unanimously on all counts for -       None of the Above, 
You couldnt make it up if you tried, lets all vote to take control, oh, hang on, weve done that one, what now. 

[Andy H]

MP's in the House of Fools have rejected every alternative option for BREXIT in tonight's indicative votes! 

The only thing that they did vote for was to extend A50 to 12th April or 22nd April if the WD is voted through, but that was largely procedural as the EUCO had already agreed to grant the extension. 

No they didnt, they Voted Unanimously on all counts for -       None of the Above, 
You couldnt make it up if you tried, lets all vote to take control, oh, hang on, weve done that one, what now. 

If parliament is incapable of passing any new legislation in the next 48 hours does that mean that article 50 goes ahead as planned on the 29th?

[Sir Tigger KC]

MP's in the House of Fools have rejected every alternative option for BREXIT in tonight's indicative votes! 

The only thing that they did vote for was to extend A50 to 12th April or 22nd April if the WD is voted through, but that was largely procedural as the EUCO had already agreed to grant the extension. 

No they didnt, they Voted Unanimously on all counts for -       None of the Above, 
You couldnt make it up if you tried, lets all vote to take control, oh, hang on, weve done that one, what now. 

If parliament is incapable of passing any new legislation in the next 48 hours does that mean that article 50 goes ahead as planned on the 29th?

Fraid not Andy, as they've already extended A50 to 12th April or 22nd April if May's Deal is passed.  However if they are incapable of agreeing anything then we leave at 2300 on 12th April, except we won't as they'll kick the can further down the road.... 

[Rods2]

MPs this evening decided to collectively change their names by deed poll to Brian Rix.

Final indicative vote of the evening was for organising a drink in a brewery. MPs went home thersty.

[Varche]

 

What now?

[BazaJT]

Dream up any scenario you like Varche it'll likely be as good if not better than the ones we've got now

[Varche]

How about a pause?

Stay in the EU for another EU cycle ( five years?) but with a vote then enshrined in law which would be legally binding with the terms of leaving / staying being spelt out and agreed before the vote. What is “five” years compared to eternity?


Or just leave with no deal which would focus a few minds.

[Sir Tigger KC]

The next step is if Bercow allows a third 'meaningful' vote on the WA&PD and if so hopefully it gets defeated again, and for good this time as it really is the worst of all outcomes as outlined here.  I don't think the article is completely accurate but gives a good gist of things if the WA&PD is passed and we leave the EU on 22nd April under the 'deal'. 

I'm with Varche on this, and now believe we need a long extension which will be better then the so called 'Transition Period' anyway as we get to keep our MEP's, ECJ judge, Commisar, and the PM keeps the seat on the European Council. I think staying until the end of the current financial cycle should suffice though, which was the plan with the Transition Period anyway. 

I also think that we need to fight the European elections in May to give the establishment a nudge, as they seem to be thinking that a petition and march represents the will of the people.  Lets show them what people are really thinking at the ballot box! 

Farage's new Brexit Party is now ahead of UKIP in the polls and I hope that they can keep the crazies out that have dogged UKIP, and become a force in British politics.  I think that any moderate party that promises a clean break from the EU will do well in the elections! 

[LC0112G]

How about a pause?

Stay in the EU for another EU cycle ( five years?) but with a vote then enshrined in law which would be legally binding with the terms of leaving / staying being spelt out and agreed before the vote. What is “five” years compared to eternity?

Won't work. As I've said ad-nausium, Parliament is sovereign, and no Parliament can bind a future one. So if this parliament passed some half baked law requiring another referendum in 5 years time, the next parliament could repeal it. Lord knows which party will be in power in 5 weeks time, never mind 5 years or who will be PM.

Also AIUI the next parliament doesn't mean after the next General election, it means the next session - i.e. after the next Queens Speech which is typically yearly. That's what all the John Bercow fuss is about. Parliament can only vote once per session on any particular motion. Nothing to stop the Parliament passing a law this session, then repealing it next year/session.

[Kevin Wood]

Indeed. A "pause" would, on the other hand, allow all the factions of the current dysfunctional parties to be thrown into the air and be rearranged into alternatives, some of whom would no doubt make manifesto commitments to leaving, and some to remaining.

From that, maybe a majority government or coalitiion focussed on a clear course of action would emerge from an election, rather than one who are verbally committed to "honouring the result" of a referendum but ideologically committed to the opposite.

Then, once the flight plans are filed the pigs can take to the skies too...

[LC0112G]

Indeed. A "pause" would, on the other hand, allow all the factions of the current dysfunctional parties to be thrown into the air and be rearranged into alternatives, some of whom would no doubt make manifesto commitments to leaving, and some to remaining.

From that, maybe a majority government or coalitiion focussed on a clear course of action would emerge from an election, rather than one who are verbally committed to "honouring the result" of a referendum but ideologically committed to the opposite.

Then, once the flight plans are filed the pigs can take to the skies too...

I don't like the idea of a General election to sort this. Government of the country is (well should be!) about more than just Brexit. Even if Labour stood on a policy of repeal Art50 or another referendum I would really struggle to vote for them because I recon they'd crash the economy in short order anyway.

I've seen many claim that 80% of people voted for parties committed to "honouring the result" in their manefestos last time. Whilst it's technically true, realistically (in England at least) you had a choice of Labour or Conservative in most seats, and both of these were "honour the result" parties. The other option was LibDem who were remain, but they're toxic to many for reasons (mostly) unrelated to Brexit.

The same will apply next time. This idea of a GE allowing people to change their MP is bogus IMV. The constituency parties select the candidates, and you (generally) vote for the bloke/woman with the red/blue/yellow rosette. So unless the constituency partied junk their current candidate in favour of someone more Brexit minded, the parliamentary make up won't change. Constituency parties are unlikely to junk sitting MP's. A new UKIP style party might steal enough votes from the current MP, but they aren't going to get enough votes to get elected themselves so they just end up letting the other bloke wearing the other colour rosette in.

[Kevin Wood]

True. My scenario would require the traditional parties to implode, otherwise our electoral system doesn't give anyone else a look in, as you say.

[dave the builder]

all this debate because most of you and the politicians did not have the foresight to buy a stockpile of beanz , heinz or otherwise 
we could be left by now 

[Andy H]

Indeed. A "pause" would, on the other hand, allow all the factions of the current dysfunctional parties to be thrown into the air and be rearranged into alternatives, some of whom would no doubt make manifesto commitments to leaving, and some to remaining.

From that, maybe a majority government or coalitiion focussed on a clear course of action would emerge from an election, rather than one who are verbally committed to "honouring the result" of a referendum but ideologically committed to the opposite.

Then, once the flight plans are filed the pigs can take to the skies too...

I don't like the idea of a General election to sort this. Government of the country is (well should be!) about more than just Brexit. Even if Labour stood on a policy of repeal Art50 or another referendum I would really struggle to vote for them because I recon they'd crash the economy in short order anyway.

I've seen many claim that 80% of people voted for parties committed to "honouring the result" in their manefestos last time. Whilst it's technically true, realistically (in England at least) you had a choice of Labour or Conservative in most seats, and both of these were "honour the result" parties. The other option was LibDem who were remain, but they're toxic to many for reasons (mostly) unrelated to Brexit.

The same will apply next time. This idea of a GE allowing people to change their MP is bogus IMV. The constituency parties select the candidates, and you (generally) vote for the bloke/woman with the red/blue/yellow rosette. So unless the constituency partied junk their current candidate in favour of someone more Brexit minded, the parliamentary make up won't change. Constituency parties are unlikely to junk sitting MP's. A new UKIP style party might steal enough votes from the current MP, but they aren't going to get enough votes to get elected themselves so they just end up letting the other bloke wearing the other colour rosette in.

Maybe each party should be forced to field two candidates - one pro brexit and one pro remain