-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM
- Thread starter Hasney
- Start date
- Status
That will never happen. It's like banning unhealthy options in school dinners and the parents handing their kids bags of greasy chips through the school gates.
People will find a way.
People in Ireland would also suffer with a further price hike just for the privilege of it passing through Britain.
Freddo bars 70c each
So word is that Theresa May has scheduled a major commons statement for Tuesday and she'll use it to trigger Article 50. The EU have even scheduled a formal meeting on 6th April to respond to it being triggered.
Uhhhh...How? She has no parliamentary approval to do so due to the amendments by the Lords, and I somehow doubt she can push the bill through by Tuesday.
Could May seriously be a thinking of going against the supreme court, parliament and the Lords?
Uhhhh...How? She has no parliamentary approval to do so due to the amendments by the Lords, and I somehow doubt she can push the bill through by Tuesday.
Could May seriously be a thinking of going against the supreme court, parliament and the Lords?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I think the word must be wrong. No way that is happening. And even if it did it would not be a valid triggering of art 50 because of the constitutional requirements clause.
Maybe she's decided to have an early GE.
It looks like the amendment is due to return to the commons on Monday and the expectation is that it'll be passed again by the commons by Monday evening, which opens the potential for the Lords to pass it on Tuesday if they just wave it through....
To be honest, I almost hope May does just go completely against the courts, parliament and the Lords and tries to unilaterally trigger Article 50, just for the shitstorm it will cause against her.
May can't actually call a General Election, the lib dems introduced the Fixed Term Parliament Act which means an act of parliament is required to call an early election.
It certainly could be passed. The amendments are being discussed on Monday, and if they're rejected in the Commons and the Lords back down, Royal Assent of the Bill could happen minutes after the final vote, sometime late on Monday, or even in the early hours of Tuesday.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well they don't really need to do anything. The commons just ping it back over to the Lords with no change to the last time they did it (refusing to vote on the Lords amendments) and so the Lords are back to where *they* were too, which is one vote away from it passing. It's (potentially) quick because they aren't actually doing anything they haven't already done
CyclopsRock
Member
"I've got a gun. A real life gun. It's ok, this is the country, it what farmers do. They go round shooting crows, and badgers and - eventually, because of the EU - themselves."
This line from Peep Show is basically the main reason I believe what I believe. FYI.
This line from Peep Show is basically the main reason I believe what I believe. FYI.
They can call one early if 2/3rds of MPs agree to it (or if they vote to repeal it).
CyclopsRock
Member
Appealing shouldn't take long all, given how bad the optics of not giving the electorate a change to demonstrate either a future plan or bouy up the previous governments' pans, May probably wouldn't even need to whip
which is the same as saying that can't call a GE. It costs too much political capital and no one wants to launch a campaign under a cloud.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Lords might get a bit arsey.
CyclopsRock
Member
I *think* that the vote of no confidence is actually an Early Day Motion? And thus isn't actually related to the Lords, but I could be talking bollocks.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It's not related to the Lords at all, whether it starts as a Early Day Motion or not.
CyclopsRock
Member
Plus, imagine the snafu if the unelected Lords was prohibiting the election commons from calling an election.
Yeah, the Commons will vote down the amendments and the Lords will then pass the unamended Bill.
I suppose it's not pointless to remind May that there's a majority in Parliament in favour of certain things, such as guaranteeing EU citizens rights and ensuring that Parliament has a meaningful vote at the end of all this. It's not much, but it's something.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if May has made threats behind closed doors about potentially flooding the Lords with new Pro-Brexit Tory peers, before then putting a focus on abolishing them altogether as a punishment if they defy "the will of the people" again.
It is pointless, because she doesn't care.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
For a supposed 'Remainer', May is going all out on this brexit thing, it's pretty clear now that she never supported remain because that would interfere with her human rights abolishing ways
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't think that this is the most obvious reading of the situation. It's far more likely that she did originally think we should stay in but now, with the referendum vote being what it is, the most politically astute thing to do is to pursue a relatively hard Brexit with specific agreements for specific areas (by the time everyone's used to a hard Brexit, any "deal" she gets will seem as a softening or a bone thrown to those that want to remain or have a soft Brexit). Ultimately between the three camps - remainers, soft Brexit and hard Brexit, none of them have a majority of support.
PdotMichael
Banned
We call such people opportunists.
It's sad that people voted her for a position of power... oh wait.
It's sad that people voted her for a position of power... oh wait.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
It may not be complete co-incidence that at 9:45 on Tuesday the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs is taking oral evidence on the following topic:
... An effective Second Chamber? The size and composition of the House of Lords
That's what we call them if they are on the opposite side of the chamber. If they are on our side we call them Visionary Statesmen Who Have The Interests of the Country At Heart and Have not lost the Common Touch.
CyclopsRock
Member
What's a better solution, though? We have David Davis running the show on the grounds he picked the right side in the referendum? There is still a lot more to politics and life in the UK than Brexit (by which I mean the bills being passed etc), it's not obvious to me why we should have a PM that voted Leave.
A general election would have allowed all the parties to go to the country with their post-Brexit plans. Which would have been the best thing, I think. As it is, we're about to give May the power to change some of the fundamentals of the UK, and no one's voted for her plans.
Imo a new election would have been the best thing.
All parties would have campaigned for the brexit they want (soft or hard brexit most importantly).
Instead you have a unelected PM which opts for hard brexit even though everyone always spoke about a soft brexit (norway style) during the referendum.
May has the mandate to go through with Brexit but the hard brexit (or even worst case WTO) we are heading for were not properly explained during the referendum imo
Leaked Treasury report warns of painful 'economic shock' if Britain crashes out of the EU without a deal
I'm totally shocked at this brand new information.
I'm totally shocked at this brand new information.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I really don't think that would have been politically feasible, not straight off the back of a referendum. "Look electorate, we've asked you directly whether you want to leave the EU and you said yes - so we'll now have a general election so that you can vote again, only less directly and so you don't make the same stupid mistake you just did". That is how it would be spun.
It would be a pretty useless vote though because negotiations will have to be done after 1 1/2 years at the latest because every EU parliament still has to agree.
Even if there is a deal within 1 1/2 years and parliament declines it the UK basically goes to WTO rules after 2 years.
I agree but this shows you how stupid the referendum was in the first place. Neither the remain or the leave side were prepared for the brexit outcome and did not prepare any strategies.
I don't hide that i think Brexit is the single dumbest political decision in atleast the last 20 years but even if you go through with the referendum both sides should have layed out clear strategies on what happens with either outcome.
Basically people voted on a simple yes/no question without really knowing what happens after and Mays goverment seems to more wing it than have a good strategy at the moment (though it got better than the shitshow we had last fall).
Royal_Phalanx
Member
Doing the "politically astute" thing is the problem here. Working for the benefit of all your citizens in something like this is essential. A soft brexit is the most balanced solution you can have to this issue. Remainers don't lose their EU rights and leavers can be out of the EU and can trade with anyone everywhere and have their "new internationalism" which some of them like to say for some reason.
Amusingly Mass Effect and Deus Ex seems to have predicted the future. In both universes the UK is separate from the EU.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think this would have been the ideal solution but a) I think it's politically unfeasible for the reasons Phisheep said and b) we'd have ended up with the same government anyway, only with a larger majority, so I can't get *too* worked up about it.
I really don't think this is true at all. Take a look through the government's pro-remain leaflet that they sent to every household you'll see the whole thing is arguing against a hard brexit, not a soft one. It talks about how important the single market is as a trading partner and literally says "Losing our full access to the EU's Single Market would make exporting to Europe harder and increase costs."
There's no point - there won't be any checks and balances anyway. You'd have a vote between whatever's negotiated and literally no deal at all. Given that this is basically "the floor" in terms of what we can have, there's still no choice but the negotiated deal.
CyclopsRock
Member
Sorry, only just saw this. I don't think a lot of leavers would have been happy with a Norway-style solution, which basically *is* EU membership in all but name.
Theonik
Member
Hey Greece did exactly this and they actually had a referendum landslide that allowed the elected officials to stay on in theory.
I disagree, though a lot of that would depend on how the parties approached any election. There's lots of different ways to leave the EU, after all.
At least with an election May would have a mandate to crash us out to WTO rules, which increasingly looks like an option that May's Government would favour. Boris was saying that would be 'perfectly OK.' I wouldn't be surprised if the talks turned acrimonious, especially around the exit bill figure, and we ended negotations early and just crashed out.
Why are you talking like a lot of leavers had any idea whatsoever what the EEA or single market even was until after the referendum?
As for Xando's point about the single market narrative before the vote, that came from the Leave side. To remind you of what was actually said at the time...
Leave campaigners: let's stay in the Single Market
Please stop trying to argue that the goalposts haven't shifted, when clearly they have. There was never a strong argument or anything approaching a mandate for a hard brexit. All you had was a ridiculously over-simplified 'Yes or No' question which idiots responded to accordingly.
A soft brexit would have been the obvious choice to honour the verdict of the referendum without sending the country up shit creek, and would also have been a balanced outcome that reflected the very slim margin of victory for Leave.
Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, and one of the few guys with genuinely good contacts in both UK and the EU Member States, reckons the chances of a deal are reasonably low despite being initially optimistic post-Brexit. He reckons that any transitional deal will require too many compromises from the UK (ECJ oversight, payments etc) for it to be politically palatable to May, and without a transitional deal any FTA would be near a decade in the making.
She's going to give an ultimatum to May. Sturgeon has to be seen to give May every possible chance to listen to Scotlands wishes and for May to continually ignore that.
There's another poll today suggesting that support for independence is around 48% which is obviously not enough, but is in the region where Sturgeon may just roll the dice. A few in the SNP have conceded they'll probably not get the 55% plus they'd like as a starting point in the next 5 years.
Yes the remain side warned against this all the time before the referendum.It was called "project fear" at the time.
Leave campaigners always argued that Brexit = Access to free market without tarifs.
Here you have Boris talk about it. Here you have gove talking about being in a free trade zone from iceland to the russian border (guess what this is called in the EU).
To further my point watch this video on how leading leave campaigners talked about staying in the single market or using the norway deal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY
My favourite quote:
"Only a madman would leave the single market"
Edit:
Even if this whole "Better no deal than a bad deal" is negotiation tactics it's foolish to think the EU will not call your bluff. Just ask Greece about what happened during the crisis in 2015
I'd recommend reading this about the whole "Better no deal than a bad deal" rhetoric
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Yes, but they also argued - and rather more tangibly - a whole bunch of other things that were incompatible with the free market. Such as controls on immigration, such as £350m a week for the NHS, such as no longer being subject to judgments of the ECJ, such as no longer having to comply with the zillions of laws made in Brussels/Strasbourg.
May seems to judge - I think rightly - that these are the things that will be noticed by the electorate - and that therefore default to a hard Brexit is the only thing that will make Europe go away as an issue.
Well that is the problems we have right now. May and her people are arguing to jump off a economic cliff for lies (350m a week) or ideologic hatred against the EU.
I don't think the goverment has appropriately explained what a hard brexit or even worse no deal means for people which is why i'm arguing there should a an GE for every party to present it's Brexit model and explain to people what actually happens incase of soft,hard brexit or no deal. Because let's face it they're not gonna learn it from the British media.
In the end, these people will complain because there food got more expensive and their jobs are getting outsourced
The EU will still be blamed for eternity by the UK government, media and some people. It's not going away because they will always pass the blame onto the EU for not giving the UK the best deal ever, stop being successful EU, stop competing, it's not fair! It's going to be embarrassing and people will lap it up. That's not the only people they'll blame, just wait and see the anger that rises up again, the disabled, poor, non white people, foreigners still in the UK. Taking responsibility, yeah right.
I don't think she will have a chance to win until people see the outcome of Brexit. I'm not sure if that helps with staying in the EU at all, is that why she wants a vote sooner rather than later. It's unknown how that would even work. UK leaves, Scotland remains. UK leaves, Scotland try to rejoin. Perhaps it's not being involved with untangling from the EU only to tangle back in again which be even more of a mess than becoming independent.
She only needs just over 5% to win. Base support for independence seems relatively secure. Anecdotally, although backed up with some data, there's a significant amount of soft support for the union.
CyclopsRock
Member
Well yeah, but May is pursuing the Brexit direction she is and the Tories are 16 points up in the polls, so I struggle to see that it'd make a significant difference if there'd been a referendum.
17.5 million people voted to leave - what their reasons and what they new can't really be distilled into a simple check list.
Eh? But I didn't say the remain side never talked about staying in the single market. It was you who said "everyone always spoke about a soft brexit (norway style) during the referendum" which evidently wasn't true, since the government's own leaflet was clearly about convincing people that a Hard Brexit wasn't in their best interests (an action they failed at, incidentally). All the talk of controlling our borders necessitates removing one of the four pillars which basically necessitates removing them all (lest they not be pillars). I never made any sort of claim about the arguments of the leave side one way or the other.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked