Support NeoGAF

[Sheentak]

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.

Can the house of Lords put forward a vote of no confidence in the government? I dont know

 

[CyclopsRock]

Can the house of Lords put forward a vote of no confidence in the government? I dont know

Nope. The PMs position is by virtue of them commanding a majority in the Commons, and the Commons only. It's actually very common for the Lords to have more MPs of other parties that of the government, owing to the miracle of modern medicine and a lack of elections.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Can the house of Lords put forward a vote of no confidence in the government? I dont know

They could, but Votes of No Confidence are entirely coventional - there's no statute governing them (aside from the recent Fixed Term Parliament Act) - and the convention that losing one means the government dissolves is associated with the Commons only, so it would be an entirely pointless gesture.

 

[Maledict]

I don't think the EU would accept May triggering Article 50 unilaterally. May doesn't have the power to do so, she ultimately her attempting to do it on her own next week would count for as much in British law as me doing it would.

Mind you, she wouldn't do it either because it would blow up the rule of law in the country.

 

[Ashes]

She'd completely balls up brexit by fighting the courts.

You really don't want to be doing this illegally.

 

[massoluk]

Will of the people, except people of Scotland and Northern Ireland

 

[Uzzy]

While this is undoubtedly a good thing (anything that binds May's hands is), I don't see the Government backing down and accepting the two amendments. So that leaves two paths forward, neither good.

The Commons vote against the two amendments and at some point soon, the Lords back down having done their job (getting the Commons to rethink) but not wanting to appear as if they're standing in the way of democracy. The Bill passes and May gets unlimited power to reshape the future direction of the county.

Or, enough Tory MP's rebel and the amendments are accepted. May, not wanting her hands to be tied, pulls the bill, and repeals the Fixed Term Parliament Act to call a snap election. Labour and moderate Tory MP's get smashed and a clear majority of Tory MP's are elected on the basis of giving May unlimited power to reshape the future direction of the country.

It's not looking good.

 

[kirblar]

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

Losing power.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Two other amendments, btw, which the LDs put forward in the HoL were shot down by Labour - giving the public a vote on the final deal, and remaining in the single market.

This presumably means Labour are opposes to the single market now, despite what they voted at their conference back in the Autumn...

This lead to the LDs voting against the bill as a whole, which apparently is unusual in the HoL.

Anyway, a snap election once again rears its head as a threat.

 

[Joni]

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

It is not poorly thought out if you consider that is written like this to ensure that nobody actually wants to do it. It is just unexpected a country was foolish enough to take it up. It can indeed go beyond 2 years, but that means keeping every country happy.

 

[Arksy]

From what I remember reading somewhere in my piles and piles of books is that there's a provision in a piece of legislation somewhere where the Commons can ram through a piece of legislation without the consent of the lords. If I recall, that's what happened with Blair's fox hunting ban. Not sure if it's an option here or anything, I need to dig that info up.

 

[daviyoung]

It is not poorly thought out if you consider that is written like this to ensure that nobody actually wants to do it. It is just unexpected a country was foolish enough to take it up. It can indeed go beyond 2 years, but that means keeping every country happy.

"Foolish"

You serve to frustrate the Wilberforce of the People!

 

[Dougald]

From what I remember reading somewhere in my piles and piles of books is that there's a provision in a piece of legislation somewhere where the Commons can ram through a piece of legislation without the consent of the lords. If I recall, that's what happened with Blair's fox hunting ban. Not sure if it's an option here or anything, I need to dig that info up.

You're talking about the Parliament act, but the government can only use this to bypass the Lords after a year. You're right in that the last time it was used was the hunting ban

 

[Huw_Dawson]

From what I remember reading somewhere in my piles and piles of books is that there's a provision in a piece of legislation somewhere where the Commons can ram through a piece of legislation without the consent of the lords. If I recall, that's what happened with Blair's fox hunting ban. Not sure if it's an option here or anything, I need to dig that info up.

Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Should the House of Lords hold up a bill for more than a year, the bill can become law without their consent.

May has a few options:

1. Flood the HOL with Tory peers.
2. Accept the amendments.
3. Call an election via triggering a vote of no confidence in herself and put A50 on her manifesto.
4. Scrap the whole idea.

4 is the best option but because Britain is currently run by clowns, 1 or 3 are the likely outcomes.

 

[Arksy]

If May were to flood the Lords, would there be any option other than creating a vast number of life peers? Sounds rather like playing with fire to me.

 

[Dougald]

I suppose May could also just ignore all the amendments, send the bill back to the lords again, and hope they'll accept it this time?

Personally the first amendment seems reasonable and this second one fairly pointless. Considering all the bluster about staying in the single market, the compromises that actually did get on the bill here are lip service at best

 

[Joni]

"Foolish"

You serve to frustrate the Wilberforce of the People!

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

If May were to flood the Lords, would there be any option other than creating a vast number of life peers? Sounds rather like playing with fire to me.

Nope, she'd just create a vast number of life peers, then probably abolish the Lords afterwards (as at that point it would be a rump rubberstamp).

 

[daviyoung]

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Sounds like something an elitist Remoaner would say

 

[Uzzy]

Flooding the Lords would solve her problem, but it'd take too long and the Lords would probably back down if it were threatened by May.

 

[JonathanEx]

Is there any chance more MPs will back these amendments now? Like, the Lords can effectively take the blame for it rather than be "MPs frustrating the process", they're just doing what needs to be done to get it through.

Haha like that'd happen.

You'd think Theresa should get used to compromising, that's kind of important in negotiations, it's give and take not just stand there shouting "NO DO IT MY WAY". Still, sign of things to come I guess.

 

[twobear]

The country is being held hostage by a small number of frothing Brexiters in the higher echelons of the Tory party, it seems. Polls seem to indicate broad support for parliament being in a position to reject a 'bad' deal that May brings before parliament (source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...uk-public-oppose-prime-minister-a7614526.html). But the government seems to think that a 52% leave vote in the referendum gives them carte blanche to arrange any deal they feel like and get it passed without opposition.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The country is being held hostage by a small number of frothing Brexiters in the higher echelons of the Tory party, it seems. Polls seem to indicate broad support for parliament being in a position to reject a 'bad' deal that May brings before parliament (source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...uk-public-oppose-prime-minister-a7614526.html). But the government seems to think that a 52% leave vote in the referendum gives them carte blanche to arrange any deal they feel like and get it passed without opposition.

It does seem a bit like the people they ask don't really understand the situation, though. Yeah, parliament could reject a bad deal but not in favour of a good deal, in favour to no deal. I struggle to see how that's much better.

 

[twobear]

It does seem a bit like the people they ask don't really understand the situation, though. Yeah, parliament could reject a bad deal but not in favour of a good deal, in favour to no deal. I struggle to see how that's much better.

The poll asked whether they would prefer to leave with no deal (and revert to WTO trading), whether May should go back and renegotiate the terms of Brexit, or whether we should at that point choose to stay in the EU with either new or current terms. The first of these is May's stated position (that we'd leave on WTO terms and we'd become the Tory's mythical Jerusalem of tax havens and demolished public services), but the latter two options have a greater level of support.

Of course the question of whether A50 can be taken back after notification has been given is still an open one (and the government presumably would prefer to keep it that way so as to bolster their 'our way or the highway' standpoint, as Crab pointed out), but the point remains that the poll indicates that there's not a hugely significant public appetite for giving May total and unrestrained control over the terms of our divorce from the EU.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The poll asked whether they would prefer to leave with no deal (and revert to WTO trading), whether May should go back and renegotiate the terms of Brexit, or whether we should at that point choose to stay in the EU with either new or current terms. The first of these is May's stated position (that we'd leave on WTO terms and we'd become the Tory's mythical Jerusalem of tax havens and demolished public services), but the latter two options have a greater level of support.

Of course the question of whether A50 can be taken back after notification has been given is still an open one (and the government presumably would prefer to keep it that way so as to bolster their 'our way or the highway' standpoint, as Crab pointed out), but the point remains that the poll indicates that there's not a hugely significant public appetite for giving May total and unrestrained control over the terms of our divorce from the EU.

Whether there is an appetite or not is irrelevant - I think the opinion that we *could* take it back is an incredibly nichely-held one that's not given much serious consideration. I mean, the 2-year deadline wouldn't mean much if you could just take it back after 1y 364d and then trigger it again the next day. I'm sure the public would love those latter two options, but of the three, only the first one is actually possible which is what I mean when I say that I don't think people really understand what they're being asked, or at least that the person doing the asking is being riotously optimistic in asking it. Of course this is the EU and this is an unprecedented situation so maybe someone will basically make up an interpretation on the hoof, but again I think that's wishful thinking.

IMO we have two options: to accept whatever deal we have after 2 years, or bail out to WTO. Parliament can have a nice little chat about that if it makes them feel better, but those are the two options and I can't imagine what May would have to do to make the latter a more appealing prospect.

 

[twobear]

Whether there is an appetite or not is irrelevant - I think the opinion that we *could* take it back is an incredibly nichely-held one that's not given much serious consideration. I mean, the 2-year deadline wouldn't mean much if you could just take it back after 1y 364d and then trigger it again the next day. I'm sure the public would love those latter two options, but of the three, only the first one is actually possible which is what I mean when I say that I don't think people really understand what they're being asked, or at least that the person doing the asking is being riotously optimistic in asking it. Of course this is the EU and this is an unprecedented situation so maybe someone will basically make up an interpretation on the hoof, but again I think that's wishful thinking.

IMO we have two options: to accept whatever deal we have after 2 years, or bail out to WTO. Parliament can have a nice little chat about that if it makes them feel better, but those are the two options and I can't imagine what May would have to do to make the latter a more appealing prospect.

I think you're overstating the A50 case; the reality is that nobody knows whether it can be taken back and there's no clause that says it cannot be (because, as is now infamous, the person who wrote it didn't actually consider that any country would invoke it).

As for what they'd have to do, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that their intention is to get a deal that's as close to leaving on WTO rules as possible without actually leaving on WTO rules. There's no point in drumming up a hard Brexit and making excited mewling noises about being 'the new Singapore' if that's not at all close to your actual intention.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Should the House of Lords hold up a bill for more than a year, the bill can become law without their consent.

May has a few options:

1. Flood the HOL with Tory peers.
2. Accept the amendments.
3. Call an election via triggering a vote of no confidence in herself and put A50 on her manifesto.
4. Scrap the whole idea.

4 is the best option but because Britain is currently run by clowns, 1 or 3 are the likely outcomes.

Also 5.: wait for the Lords to fold like a deck of cheap cards.

 

[Arksy]

Also 5.: wait for the Lords to fold like a deck of cheap cards.

What's the chances of that happening? If high, why?

 

[killer_clank]

What's the chances of that happening? If high, why?

Pretty damn high. They're unelected and don't want to be seen to "frustrate democracy", and the government will be making angry noises about them and their future if the continue to try to amend the bill and they'll eventually give up.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What's the chances of that happening? If high, why?

Moderately high. If Labour peers are really obstructive, May will probably hold a snap GE, in which Labour would get absolutely battered, and Labour peers would rather avoid that. I think the Lords are hoping if they put the amendment in, kick up a bit of fuss, and push it back down, then Tory MPs will rebel and back it, and then May has a bigger problem. If May can control her backbench, though, the Lords will probably roll over. She has all the cards.

 

[faridmon]

The country is being held hostage by a small number of frothing Brexiters in the higher echelons of the Tory party, it seems. Polls seem to indicate broad support for parliament being in a position to reject a 'bad' deal that May brings before parliament (source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...uk-public-oppose-prime-minister-a7614526.html). But the government seems to think that a 52% leave vote in the referendum gives them carte blanche to arrange any deal they feel like and get it passed without opposition.

well they do represent the people of UK since the majority of them did vote for Brexit.

 

[Veidt]

I thought the house of lords was unelected. What do they care whether labour does well in elections next time?

Labour is dead for the next 10 years, and dead for a lot longer if Scotland leaves, so why are they not accepting it and doing whatever they possibly can to save the country.

 

[twobear]

well they do represent the people of UK since the majority of them did vote for Brexit.

Of course; but those people didn't say anything about the terms of Brexit in the referendum because they couldn't. It was a simple yes/no question. So it's quite possible that the majority wants Brexit but at the same time for only a minority to want a Hard Brexit completely orchestrated by the May government with no input or oversight from the commons.

 

[disco]

Will of the people, except people of Scotland and Northern Ireland

And London!!

 

[Uzzy]

Moderately high. If Labour peers are really obstructive, May will probably hold a snap GE, in which Labour would get absolutely battered, and Labour peers would rather avoid that. I think the Lords are hoping if they put the amendment in, kick up a bit of fuss, and push it back down, then Tory MPs will rebel and back it, and then May has a bigger problem. If May can control her backbench, though, the Lords will probably roll over. She has all the cards.

The DUP alliance helps May out a lot. Her majority might only be 17 on paper, but the DUP have 8 MP's and will back May. Add in Carswell and some of the Labour Brexit supporters and you've got a majority of around 30.

So that means you'd need at least 16 Tory MP's willing to throw their careers away to see May defeated on this. So far there's Ken Clarke.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Ken Clarke isn't even really a Tory MP these days. If the Liberal Democrats replaced Farron for him, they might actually get somewhere.

 

[Uzzy]

Ken Clarke isn't even really a Tory MP these days. If the Liberal Democrats replaced Farron for him, they might actually get somewhere.

Now that would be something. If only Clarke was ten years younger.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think you're overstating the A50 case; the reality is that nobody knows whether it can be taken back and there's no clause that says it cannot be (because, as is now infamous, the person who wrote it didn't actually consider that any country would invoke it).

Well there's no provision for it, and the EU has absolutely no incentive to allow "take backsies" given a) sentiment against the UK across the continent and b) given the fact that Leave won and, thus, a re-triggering is just around the corner. Even if there was a 50/50 chance of them allowing it, that's not great odds. Like I said, I don't really have a problem with the amendment precisely because it's an irrelevance, but it is an irrelevance.

As for what they'd have to do, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that their intention is to get a deal that's as close to leaving on WTO rules as possible without actually leaving on WTO rules. There's no point in drumming up a hard Brexit and making excited mewling noises about being 'the new Singapore' if that's not at all close to your actual intention.

But WTO refers to some trading rules, but there's far more to negotiate than that. Financial passporting, the status of EU nationals in the UK, the status of UK nationals in the EU, border with Ireland/Good Friday Agreement stuff, security and intelligence arrangements etc etc. It's unlikely we'll get a free trade agreement with the single market, so it's really all these other things that will be the differentiator between "this deal" and "no deal" that the MPs would be voting on.

 

[Halph n Halph]

And London!!

And Manchester, Liverpool ,Newcastle .

 

[Joni]

But WTO refers to some trading rules, but there's far more to negotiate than that. Financial passporting, the status of EU nationals in the UK, the status of UK nationals in the EU, border with Ireland/Good Friday Agreement stuff, security and intelligence arrangements etc etc. It's unlikely we'll get a free trade agreement with the single market, so it's really all these other things that will be the differentiator between "this deal" and "no deal" that the MPs would be voting on.

Iirc WTO rules also only cover goods, while a lot of what the UK exports are services.