UK General Discussion: 2019 and onwards, The End of May

[MillennialModerate]

Mark my words. May’s HORRIFIC deal will pass.

[Coastal Elitist]

No deal really won't be as bad as everyone is trying to make it out to be

[Silent Hunter]

Can't they chose their favourite votes via preferential ballot or something?

They already have the option to vote for as many options as they want, and are just trying to game the system by voting down options that they actually could live with so they can get their preferred option. However, there may some validity to the argument that it is naive to expect parliament to solve Brexit in a week when the government couldn't do it in nearly three years. If Theresa May hadn't made leaving the customs union a red line then perhaps a less divisive and easier Brexit would have been possible, however after the last 3 years trying to get a compromise from scratch is much harder in 2019 than it would have been in the aftermath of the referendum.

The thing is, for May's 'red lines', her Withdrawal Agreement doesn't actually deliver on any of them except for ending Freedom of Movement from the end of 2020, because of the backstop...

[Joe Republic]

I thought for sure Customs Union and Common Market 2.0 would pass ... what happened  ?

Lots of Remainers didn't support them.  Both would have passed, for example, if the 11 TIGgers and four or five Lib Dems who voted against it had abstained.

I fear this was a mistake.

Basically remainders are trying to get rid of all options other than No Deal and Remain and then force a choice between them.

That’s about as sound a strategy as Democrats hoping for Trump to win the GOP nomination in 2016.  Such a horrendous possibility would be guaranteed to lose, you see.

[Pericles]

It happened again! See 0:48, someone goes "Yes!" after Bercow says "280" but before he says the Noes were 292.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqH3-ERw8Ls

[Blair]

No deal really won't be as bad as everyone is trying to make it out to be

Do you have any experience working in EU-UK trade, policing, or imports? Because frankly unless you do, or unless you've spend the last 6 months sitting through briefings and meetings then I'm not gonna be that certain to take your word as gospel.

To give one example, the police currently use a range of databases to track criminals across the EU- as you can imagine our Serious Violent Crime has links to Spain, Holland etc and other places. A no-deal Brexit would see us not only lose access to these databases, but also lose access to the European Arrest Warrant- you heard that, we'd lose the right to easily arrest criminals across 27 other countries! Do you have any idea how insane that is? The most senior counter terrorist police officer has said it will make the public less safe, and greatly increases the risks of violent crime?

I haven't even covered the impact on the NHS (who's running costs would increase by over £2 billion by day), the impact on Trade (it would kill the car manufacturing industry which supports entire cities) or the impact on imports (70% of our pharmaceutical imports come from the EU, including HIV/AIDS medicine, and vital cancer medicines).

It would not only have serious short term impacts, and would cripple the governments output, but would seriously harm our economy for the next 10 years.

[Silent Hunter]

It would not only have serious short term impacts, and would cripple the governments output, but would seriously harm our economy for the next 10 years.

Or until we rejoin the European Union, with Schengen, the Euro and all.

[Former President tack50]

No deal really won't be as bad as everyone is trying to make it out to be

Do you have any experience working in EU-UK trade, policing, or imports? Because frankly unless you do, or unless you've spend the last 6 months sitting through briefings and meetings then I'm not gonna be that certain to take your word as gospel.

To give one example, the police currently use a range of databases to track criminals across the EU- as you can imagine our Serious Violent Crime has links to Spain, Holland etc and other places. A no-deal Brexit would see us not only lose access to these databases, but also lose access to the European Arrest Warrant- you heard that, we'd lose the right to easily arrest criminals across 27 other countries! Do you have any idea how insane that is? The most senior counter terrorist police officer has said it will make the public less safe, and greatly increases the risks of violent crime?

I haven't even covered the impact on the NHS (who's running costs would increase by over £2 billion by day), the impact on Trade (it would kill the car manufacturing industry which supports entire cities) or the impact on imports (70% of our pharmaceutical imports come from the EU, including HIV/AIDS medicine, and vital cancer medicines).

It would not only have serious short term impacts, and would cripple the governments output, but would seriously harm our economy for the next 10 years.

Yeah, no deal pretty much guarantees the UK and the EU going into a recession

The economy has already slowed way down, that would be the final nail in the coffin

[Helsinkian]

So, after a seven hour cabinet meeting Theresa May said that she wants a short extension to leave with a deal. Not many specifics. The EU had earlier suggested that any further extension would have to be a longer one, but May does not want to take part in the EP elections.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Not sure if the EU goes along with prolonging this thing every two weeks now... certainly not if you'd ask Emmanuel Macron. It could come down to a "either no-deal Brexit now or extension till December 31 with participation in the EP elections" offer.

[brucejoel99]

So, after a seven hour cabinet meeting Theresa May said that she wants a short extension to leave with a deal. Not many specifics. The EU had earlier suggested that any further extension would have to be a longer one, but May does not want to take part in the EP elections.

This is 100% just May & Cabinet trying to shift the responsibility for a no-deal Brexit on April 12th to to Labour, since May said it's no-deal unless Labour negotiates responsibly.

[Middle-aged Europe]

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1113140013263400962


https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/1113136822937440256

[MillennialModerate]

I think they should leave on No Deal. That’s what the people voted for.

But then a General election is needed cause clearly there is no confidence in the Government.

This is the Tories putting their party ahead of the country... this is harder to do in our system,
one reason I don’t like the Parliament system that Canada and the UK have.

[IceAgeComing]

I think they should leave on No Deal. That’s what the people voted for.

51.7% of the country vote to leave; and the idea of what that meant in 2016 was nothing like No Deal.  There is nothing like a majority in the country for leaving without a deal and to pretend that there is is not a good thing to do.

[brucejoel99]

I think they should leave on No Deal. That’s what the people voted for.

The people didn't vote for no-deal.

No-deal was never seriously discussed in the referendum. People were told during the referendum campaign that getting a deal would be easy & that the UK would hold all the cards. Options like Norway & Switzerland were thrown around as the viable options by leavers. No one thought that leaving without a deal was a realistic prospect.

So how is leaving with no-deal what the people voted for?

This is the Tories putting their party ahead of the country... this is harder to do in our system,
one reason I don’t like the Parliament system that Canada and the UK have.

It is not hard whatsoever to put party over country here in the US, as the last 3-&-a-1/2 years go to show. Through one audacious & shameless Trump moment after another, Republicans have & will repeatedly put party over country, always willing to rationalize or look the other way.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think they should leave on No Deal. That’s what the people voted for.

But then a General election is needed cause clearly there is no confidence in the Government.

This is the Tories putting their party ahead of the country... this is harder to do in our system,
one reason I don’t like the Parliament system that Canada and the UK have.

Your idiotic, ignorant and completely clueless comments are really not welcome. This is serious, a really serious issue that could potential cause serious damage to the lives of a lot of people, not a fycking game.

[Blair]

Yes I’m not sure who can look at how Mitch McConnell runs the Senate and sas ‘yes this is a system of government that puts national interest first’.

[CumbrianLefty]

I think they should leave on No Deal. That’s what the people voted for

Why even bother making such a comment that is so staggeringly ignorant in every way?

[AndyHogan14]

I think they should leave on No Deal. That’s what the people voted for.

But then a General election is needed cause clearly there is no confidence in the Government.

This is the Tories putting their party ahead of the country... this is harder to do in our system,
one reason I don’t like the Parliament system that Canada and the UK have.

It's harder to do in our system? What universe do you live in!? Have you heard of one Mitch McConnell?

Anyway, no one voted for no deal...as a matter of fact, those that say that there is any kind of national consensus in the UK over Brexit in any form is ridiculous. A vote with just barely a majority should not be enough to make such a dramatic constitutional change. From the get-go, David Cameron should have said that his government would not trigger article 50 without a clear (60%+) majority and at least 3/4 of the constituent countries of the UK agreeing (I believe a supermajority should be required for Scottish independence as well). Unfortunately, he gambled with the welfare of the country to placate his backbenchers and will be remembered as the worst PM in British history as a result. If the union ends up dissolving, it will be squarely on the shoulders of David Cameron.

In the end, parliament needs to do its job and protect the interests of the British state (and that includes Scotland and Northern Ireland) by revoking article 50. Parliament has more of a democratic mandate than the referendum and it is time that they acted like it.

"Party over country" is mindless dictum of course, but even more laughable is the idea of anyone with something so much as resembling a commitment to democratic ideals could sincerely make the case that the American political structure is superior to that of a Westminster system. It's simply not a position worthy of entertainment.

This. While it clearly has its flaws (and they are on full display right now), the Westminster system is so far superior to the American system in promoting an upholding democracy that it is not even funny.

[Devout Centrist]

"Party over country" is mindless dictum of course, but even more laughable is the idea of anyone with something so much as resembling a commitment to democratic ideals could sincerely make the case that the American political structure is superior to that of a Westminster system. It's simply not a position worthy of entertainment.

It is, however, an entertaining position

[Middle-aged Europe]

Junior minister for Wales Nigel Adam has resigned in protest over May's decision to seek a deal with Labour.

Oh noes, seeking a compromise with the leader of the opposition in times of a national political crisis! We can't have any of that!

Seriously, some people in the cabinet seem to have become totally disconnected from reality.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well with both the Tories and most of the media having portrayed him as the personification of evil since September 2015, any actually taking Corbyn seriously takes some getting used to

[Silent Hunter]

And some in the British Army have literally used his picture for target practice!

[CumbrianLefty]

Second minister (Chris Heaton Harris) quits over the May "offer".

[Helsinkian]

There was a motion to have further indicative votes next monday. The motion was tied 310-310. Speaker Bercow had the right to cast a tiebreaker and he did so to vote "no", arguing that it was not right for a Speaker to create a majority for a motion when one did not otherwise exist. The last time a Speaker got to cast a tiebreaker was apparently in 1993.

Edit: And the motion to debate Yvette Cooper's amendment (forcing May to ask for an extension) is passed by a majority of 1 vote...

Edit: The amendment itself passed also with 1 vote.