Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39200658

The government has been defeated in the Lords as peers backed calls for a "meaningful" parliamentary vote on the final Brexit deal by 366 votes to 268.

The House of Commons voted in favour of Theresa May's Brexit Bill, sending it to the upper chamber, the House of Lords. The Commons' version of the Brexit Bill gives almost all power to the Government, such as the ability to trigger Brexit negotiations and conclude the final deal.

The Lords have voted in favour of an amendment that would require any final deal to be voted on by Parliament, in an upset for the government. This amendment passed by 366 to 268, a significant defeat.

A bill is not passed into law until both the Lords and the Commons agree the same version, or the Commons' version remains the same for at least a year despite Lords' differences. This amendment means that the Commons will have to return to the Bill.

What are the consequences of this? First, the Commons could accept the amendment. This is very unlikely. Theresa May is worried about giving MPs power over the vote in case they try to draw out the process or try to prevent Brexit going ahead. Second, Commons could reject the amendment, and wait a year. This places May in a very difficult situation. The Brexit Bill would not pass until March 2018 at the earliest. Given negitations with the EU take two years, they would be concluding in March 2020 - two months before May would be obligated to hold a general election, potentially placing her in political hotwater with no time to improve the situation if negotiations don't go well.

Third, the Lords could simply fold, and this was absolutely nothing other than a symbolic act of flatulence from an outdated institution unfit for purpose.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

good

 

[kirblar]

This seems like a good thing?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Snap election time?

 

[pashmilla]

good.

get fucked, Theresa.

 

[killer_clank]

Reckon the lords will just fold when it gets to them again tbh, they won't want to be seen to be "holding up the will of the people" as we so often hear.

May not accepting these relatively minor amendments is an absolute joke though.

 

[Morat]

Sovereignty of Parliament is a bitch when it goes against you, huh.

 

[EBreda]

That seems it will inevitably block Brexit? If most congressman want the final word, it must mean they intend to overturn public vote, otherwise they would just leave it alone, I guess?

 

[pashmilla]

wait... could it be.... things are being decided for us by...... an unelected governing body?????????????? SAY IT AIN'T SO!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Snap election time?

Wouldn't necessarily help. The Lords only doesn't oppose manifesto commitments by convention, it's not a statutory imposition.

If she really wants to stick to her scheduled timetable, she has a choice between hoping the Lords fold or flooding them with a sudden enoblement of a ton of new Lords.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Sovereignty of Parliament is a bitch when it goes against you, huh.

Now we wait for the daily mail headlines tomorrow.

"GAY OLYMPIC FENCING OLD FARTS IN HOUSE OF LORDS HATE ENGLAND, DEMOCRACY AND EVERYTHING THE WHITE MAN STANDS FOR.".

That seems it will inevitably block Brexit? If most congressman want the final word, it must mean they intend to overturn public vote, otherwise they would just leave it alone, I guess?

Nah. The MPs in the UK are largely spineless cowards. There is zero chance that they block brexit at this point.

 

[Dabanton]

Semi good but still a hot mess.

Once again, I so damn happy I'm not actually living in the UK atm. As this will be stretched out over years.

I'm still betting Theresa May gets toppled in the next year by her lot. God knows what Tory plonker will take over then...

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That seems it will inevitably block Brexit? If most congressman want the final word, it must mean they intend to overturn public vote, otherwise they would just leave it alone, I guess?

eh. The Commons just voted against giving themselves the final word. The question is whether public sentiment will have changed. May is clearly worried it will, or she wouldn't be trying to oppose this. But if public sentiment has changed, and the Lords delay Brexit so it happens right before the next general election, she'd be in deep trouble either way. Really just depends on public sentiment, to be honest.

That said, the Lords will probably fold.

 

[killer_clank]

That seems it will inevitably block Brexit? If most congressman want the final word, it must mean they intend to overturn public vote, otherwise they would just leave it alone, I guess?

They just want parliamentary oversight, especially considering one of the main refrains of Brexit campaigners was to take back control and have full parliamentary sovereignty. Any vote that takes place will vote for the deal that's reached - unless things change the alternative will be crashing out of the EU without a deal which would be disastrous.

 

[mnz]

So...the triggering of article 50 depends on the outcome of the parliamentary vote? And this could take forever?

The way I (not a UK national) understood it was triggering article 50 would happen either way and the vote would be about the new UK-EU deal following Brexit. Is that wrong then?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Wouldn't necessarily help. The Lords only doesn't oppose manifesto commitments by convention, it's not a statutory imposition.

If she really wants to stick to her scheduled timetable, she has a choice between hoping the Lords fold or flooding them with a sudden enoblement of a ton of new Lords.

No, no. I simply mean to move the next election to 2022. That'd alleviate the tricky timing pointed out in your OP.

 

[pulsemyne]

That seems it will inevitably block Brexit? If most congressman want the final word, it must mean they intend to overturn public vote, otherwise they would just leave it alone, I guess?

Nope. If no agreement is reached on the deal then it just means full fat hard brexit. This is an attempt by the Lords to try and get the government to actually reach a somewhat sensible deal and not just drive us off a cliff or spend the next two years pissing about.

 

[SymbiantXenos]

If there's one phrase that annoys me its "will of the people"

 

[Deleted member 231381]

No, no. I simply mean to move the next election to 2022. That'd alleviate the tricky timing pointed out in your OP.

Oh, right, sure

Could well do, to be honest. Odds are much higher now than they were a week back.

 

[pulsemyne]

So...the triggering of article 50 depends on the outcome of the parliamentary vote? And this could take forever?

The way I (not a UK national) understood it was triggering article 50 would happen either way and the vote would be about the new UK-EU deal following Brexit.

No. Article 50 will be triggered in a few days time (at least by the end of the month). Then two years of negotiations begins as the government flaps around the place like a headless chicken. Then the parliament gets to vote on a deal (if one is reached). Even if the vote on the deal dies all that will happen is hard brexit. Basically it's happening in two years time no matter what. It's what kind of brexit that is up for grabs.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

No. Article 50 will be triggered in a few days time (at least by the end of the month). Then two years of negotiations begins as the government flaps around the place like a headless chicken. Then the parliament gets to vote on a deal (if one is reached). Even if the vote on the deal dies all that will happen is hard brexit. Basically it's happening in two years time no matter what. It's what kind of brexit that is up for grabs.

Article 50 can't be triggered until this bill passes. If the Lords continue to resist, Article 50 won't be triggered for quite some time (up to a year).

 

[Morat]

If there's one phrase that annoys me its "will of the people"

Agreed.

 

[mnz]

No. Article 50 will be triggered in a few days time (at least by the end of the month). Then two years of negotiations begins as the government flaps around the place like a headless chicken. Then the parliament gets to vote on a deal (if one is reached). Even if the vote on the deal dies all that will happen is hard brexit. Basically it's happening in two years time no matter what. It's what kind of brexit that is up for grabs.

Ok, so I did get that right. I was confused because people were talking like this would stop Brexit from happening.

 

[Jackpot]

This is why I defend the UK having an un-elected branch of government. Sounds bad in theory, but in practice has saved us countless times from bootlickers toeing the party line.

 

[Any Questions]

Semi good but still a hot mess.

Once again, I so damn happy I'm not actually living in the UK atm. As this will be stretched out over years.

I'm still betting Theresa May gets toppled in the next year by her lot. God knows what Tory plonker will take over then...

Plonker indeed. However as a remain man I am terribly formal about this and as such have to support the vote. We're out now so need to make the best of it. May is the best candidate to get us through this charade and I for one hope she does a good job. I am for Brexit now as despite not wanting to leave, the UK has to represent due process. The people (wrongly) voted out, now we need to make it work.

Am glad the lords have pulled this stunt as we shouldn't settle for anything other then what the best we can do is.

 

[Orbis]

No. Article 50 will be triggered in a few days time (at least by the end of the month). Then two years of negotiations begins as the government flaps around the place like a headless chicken. Then the parliament gets to vote on a deal (if one is reached). Even if the vote on the deal dies all that will happen is hard brexit. Basically it's happening in two years time no matter what. It's what kind of brexit that is up for grabs.

The Prime Minister cannot invoke Article 50 until this bill (or similar) is passed. The Supreme Court ruled as such. If the Lords continue to hold it up like this it just won't get passed. The Government then have two options; accept the Lords' amendment to the bill, or wait at least 1 year at which point they can utilise the Parliament Act to pass it without obstacle.

I predict that either the Lords buckle and drop the amendment next time around, or the Government accepts the amendment. No way they would drag this out for a year.

 

[Dougald]

Looking pretty tight to get Article 50 invoked by the end of the month if the government are going to contest this

 

[killer_clank]

Looking pretty tight to get Article 50 invoked by the end of the month if the government are going to contest this

The original plan was this week I think, and it's not entirely clear when another opportunity will arise. (Do you have to do it in person?). The next big EU meet up is the anniversary of the Rome treaty and doing it then is not a good look and just comes across as petty so it'll be another time.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

No. Article 50 will be triggered in a few days time (at least by the end of the month). Then two years of negotiations begins as the government flaps around the place like a headless chicken. Then the parliament gets to vote on a deal (if one is reached). Even if the vote on the deal dies all that will happen is hard brexit. Basically it's happening in two years time no matter what. It's what kind of brexit that is up for grabs.

Are you a member of the conservative party?

Spoiler

What you posted is exactly what they want to happen, not what is happening here

 

[Dougald]

The original plan was this week I think, and it's not entirely clear when another opportunity will arise. (Do you have to do it in person?). The next big EU meet up is the anniversary of the Rome treaty and doing it then is not a good look and just comes across as petty so it'll be another time.

Theresa could take a leaf out of our new best friends book and tweet it

 

[pulsemyne]

Are you a member of the conservative party?

Spoiler

What you posted is exactly what they want to happen, not what is happening here

God no I hate the tories with a passion. Still from my understanding all that is going to happen is that the amendments to the bill will be discussed and voted on, then it will come back to the house of commons where they will vote down every single piece the lords voted for and trigger article 50.
The Lords cannot delay things for very long. WE are probably looking at the end of the month for the triggering of article 50. Then the economic suicide begins!

 

[Vanguard]

Wasn't it said that they would get a vote on the final deal anyway? Or was that just the Commons and this amendment means that Lords must also have a say?

The article states this I think, but just wanted to be sure that that is the situation.

 

[Dougald]

God no I hate the tories with a passion. Still from my understanding all that is going to happen is that the amendments to the bill will be discussed and voted on, then it will come back to the house of commons where they will vote down every single piece the lords voted for and trigger article 50.
The Lords cannot delay things for very long. WE are probably looking at the end of the month for the triggering of article 50. Then the economic suicide begins!

The Lords can delay any bill for up to a year if they want before the government can push it through

 

[Plum]

Theresa could take a leaf out of our new best friends book and tweet it

"Friendship ended with EU. Now Trump is my best friend"

 

[Herr Schwarz]

It's too bad this current gen of boomer Tories will be dead of natural causes before Bastille day happens on Whitehall.

Viva something

 

[NekoFever]

Wasn't it said that they would get a vote on the final deal anyway? Or was that just the Commons and this amendment means that Lords must also have a say?

The article states this I think, but just wanted to be sure that that is the situation.

Their vote on the final deal would be either accept whatever deal they have or leave the EU with no deal. This amendment wants Parliament to be able to say both are stupid and the government has to go back and try harder.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Is there any indication that Art.50 is reversible? Could Parliament go 'fuck this, we're staying'? Queen May seems to want whatever she wants to be pushed through no questions asked regardless.

 

[pulsemyne]

The Lords can delay any bill for up to a year if they want before the government can push it through

In theory yes they can but it's already been agreed that it will not do such a thing regarding article 50 bill (Labour peers agreed to this). All that can happen will be a game of ping pong between the Lords and Parliament and that is unlikely to last more than a couple of days. The Tories have more than enough to dismiss any amendment and they could just stick it out and pressure the Lords into crumbling.
One the other hand they could accept the odd amendment like the EU citizens one and that would be enough.

 

[StayDead]

All I can say is I never thought I'd say this in my lifetime, but thank fuck the House of Lords exists.

We'd be royally in the shit if it wasn't for them.

 

[DBT85]

Is there any indication that Art.50 is reversible? Could Parliament go 'fuck this, we're staying'? Queen May seems to want whatever she wants to be pushed through no questions asked regardless.

I seem to recall reading something that suggested that there was nothing to stop us invoking it and then changing our minds. The article was put in just in case. Nobody expected anyone to actually use it.

 

[pulsemyne]

Is there any indication that Art.50 is reversible? Could Parliament go 'fuck this, we're staying'? Queen May seems to want whatever she wants to be pushed through no questions asked regardless.

Possibly yes. There is some split of opinion between government lawyers on this but most say it can be revoked at any time during the two year process. The treaty appears to support such a conclusion.

 

[Ushojax]

So there is a chance for us to end this madness. Hopefully we get a general election out of this, I know the Tories will crush Labour but the Tories have no right to plough head on with a hard Brexit after they pledged to stay in at the last election.

 

[NekoFever]

Is there any indication that Art.50 is reversible? Could Parliament go 'fuck this, we're staying'? Queen May seems to want whatever she wants to be pushed through no questions asked regardless.

There's nothing saying it isn't, which most legal experts think means it is. It would be pointless for Parliament to be able to reject a government deal if chucking the whole thing out wasn't an option.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Is there any indication that Art.50 is reversible.

We have no idea. It's very unclear. Normally, if a point of EU law is unclear, the government can ask for legal advice from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). But our government wants very hard to believe that Brexit is irreversible, so they are not seeking clarification. The only way to get that clarification would be for someone to bring a court case against the government, have that case rise to the level of the Supreme Court, and then have the Supreme Court go to the CJEU for clarification. In the meantime, everyone is proceeding as though it isn't irreversible, but most people I've talked to who are in a position of expertise on this think it probably would be ruled reversible in the end.

tl:dr we have no idea what we're doing.

 

[mrklaw]

No. Article 50 will be triggered in a few days time (at least by the end of the month). Then two years of negotiations begins as the government flaps around the place like a headless chicken. Then the parliament gets to vote on a deal (if one is reached). Even if the vote on the deal dies all that will happen is hard brexit. Basically it's happening in two years time no matter what. It's what kind of brexit that is up for grabs.

Article 50 seems a poorly thought out article with little clearly defined about it. Things such as going blindly into a hard two year deadline for exiting even though nobody has ever done it before and you can't agree or even start talking about options until you trigger it.

And isn,t most of it 'guidelines' anyway? A lot of it will require feeling things out as they go, and it could easily go beyond two years if both sides aren't finished by then

 

[pulsemyne]

Article 50 seems a poorly thought out article with little clearly defined about it. Things such as going blindly into a hard two year deadline for exiting even though nobody has ever done it before and you can't agree or even start talking about options until you trigger it.

And isn,t most of it 'guidelines' anyway? A lot of it will require feeling things out as they go, and it could easily go beyond two years if both sides aren't finished by then

The treaty stipulates a hard two year deadline. Once the two years are up it's pure hard brexit. It would require a treaty to be altered for there to be an extension on the deadline but that would have no chance of happening.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The treaty stipulates a hard two year deadline. Once the two years are up it's pure hard brexit. It would require a treaty to be altered for there to be an extension on the deadline but that would have no chance of happening.

You keep posting things which aren't right.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

You don't need a treaty change, just the agreement of the European Council. Of course, it is very unlikely you could get that unanimous agreement, but the point remains.

 

[Ashes]

What's the problem? All the lords are asking for now is what May already 'pledged' to do, to be legally binding instead of just a pledge.

Let the bill have some teeth. Not sure who the MPs think they are kidding. It's a perfectly legitimate request.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Slightly off topic, but I wonder what would happen if May just notified the EU of our triggering of A50 anyway. Yes, the Supreme Court ruled it needs an act of parliament but since A50 has no take-backsies, what could they do? Presumably the EU would interpret the head of the UKs executive saying "Yo, we're triggering" as triggering, even if they know the British supreme court had ruled it needs an act - that is an internal issue in the UK.

I'm not saying she will or should do this btw, I'm just curious.

Edit: On topic, I think the amendment is kind of dumb because at that point it's not like "keep negotiating" or "stay in" are options, so it's literally about parliament rubber stamping the deal vs them advocating a totally hard Brexit. Given we're basically going for a hard Brexit anyway, I don't see what difference it makes - there will be no grand oversight at the *end* of this process. That said, for the same reason, I don't see why May have enough of a shit to not include it. Still, I can now see the case for a snap election, huge Tory majority, electoral *and* political mandate for hard Brexit, Corbyn cries, Corbyn stays, it passes through the Lord's with or without the amendment (with a 100+ seT majority who cares) and we get the same result. There's no stopping this train.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

If Brexit is so popular like they seem to believe, what do they have to fear?