EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[YorkshireBear]

OK, so why didn't MPs vote for a managed exit when they had the chance - not just Theresa May's managed exit, but one of the 12 other options put to them?

A lot more voted for it than voted for no deal....

 

[krus_aragon]

There is, of course, a huge difference between a recess (for party conferences) and a prorogation.

I mentioned some of that in the very next sentence. But if there are other aspects that you feel I didn't highlight, please do share them!

 

[anme]

One flaw in that process was that each one was a yes/no so there's no concept of "least worst". There could do with being scope for "you have to pick one of these".

So far, if we assume that MPs should make the decision for us, they have failed to do so. They have not voted for a managed exit when given the chance.

What do you suggest is done to achieve a managed exit between now and the 31st October - which is obviously going to have to satisfy both the EU27 and parliament?

 

[krus_aragon]

OK, so why didn't MPs vote for a managed exit when they had the chance - not just Theresa May's managed exit, but one of the 12 other options put to them?

Some (Conservative) MPs refrained from voting for anything other than Theresa May's plan because they were on the Government payroll, and the Government hadn't decided to allow a free vote.

 

[anme]

A lot more voted for it than voted for no deal....

Not a majority.

 

[anme]

Some (Conservative) MPs refrained from voting for anything other than Theresa May's plan because they were on the Government payroll, and the Government hadn't decided to allow a free vote.

How do you solve that problem?

Seriously - we need solutions we can use now, not going over old history.

 

[mmh]

absolutely outrageous. This is an act that

... ordinarily takes place every year, and was already due to happen.

wouldn't look out of place in a dictatorship. Disgraceful.

 

[najaB]

OK, so why didn't MPs vote for a managed exit when they had the chance - not just Theresa May's managed exit, but one of the 12 other options put to them?

They did. Just no one option got more than 50%. If they had used a transferrable voting system (e.g. first and second choice) it's highly likely that there would have been a definitive outcome.

 

[Howardh]

So far, if we assume that MPs should make the decision for us, they have failed to do so. They have not voted for a managed exit when given the chance.
What do you suggest is done to achieve a managed exit between now and the 31st October - which is obviously going to have to satisfy both the EU27 and parliament?

A further extension for a general election; but that would be pointless if the Tories win and still insist on crashing out without a deal. Best way forward is to actually leave deal-less and let the country find out what no-deal looks like. Especially if and when the shelves become empty.

 

[najaB]

I mentioned some of that in the very next sentence. But if there are other aspects that you feel I didn't highlight, please do share them!

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So far, if we assume that MPs should make the decision for us, they have failed to do so. They have not voted for a managed exit when given the chance.

What do you suggest is done to achieve a managed exit between now and the 31st October - which is obviously going to have to satisfy both the EU27 and parliament?

It doesn't have to be achieved by 31st October. It can be delayed again.

 

[anme]

They did. Just no one option got more than 50%. If they had used a transferrable voting system (e.g. first and second choice) it's highly likely that there would have been a definitive outcome.

Do you think that could work now? Or is it better for the UK to crash out with no deal, for everything to be a disaster, and to rejoin again in a couple of years' time when the whole brexit thing has been thoroughly discredited.

Taking the long term view, the crash out and rejoin option could be quite attractive.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Not a majority.

So by that logic we should do absolutely nothing until we have a majority.

I agree.

 

[anme]

So by that logic we should do absolutely nothing until we have a majority.

I agree.

It's not my logic. It's the rules of the game. We can't do anything until we have a majority - except crash out with no deal.

I am not saying I like it, just explaining how it is.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think what is clear is that we need a written constitution. Most of the way the UK works is based on convention, and this has clearly not worked in such pressing circumstances.

The problem is, who would write it?

 

[Pyreneenguy]

Petition Do not prorogue Parliament
Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the Article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled.


https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157

 

[krus_aragon]

How do you solve that problem?

Seriously - we need solutions we can use now, not going over old history.

In the simplest manner, by having the Government allow a free vote. But I don't think this new Government is any more likely to do that than the previous one.

As for solutions to use now: oh, to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting yesterday. But as things look, the only way to get things resolved by the end of October is for the Prime Minister to whip a rabbit out of a bag and find a miracle compromise at the EU council summit in October (and present to MPs to vote on in the following two weeks), or to accept the October 31st date with no deal. I can't see any alternative solution being practical without extending the deadline again.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not my logic. It's the rules of the game. We can't do anything until we have a majority - except crash out with no deal.

I am not saying I like it, just explaining how it is.

Extensions seem to get a majority each time. Sorted.

 

[krus_aragon]

Extensions seem to get a majority each time. Sorted.

In the longer term, though, extension-after-extension is not a viable approach (especially when it requires the other side to agree to it each time).

 

[Howardh]

Petition Do not prorogue Parliament
Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the Article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK's intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157

Waste of time. People will be more inclined to direct action if the vibes on twitter, facebook and other forums are to be believed! Personally I'd go for a general strike and starve Brexit away. It'll just be like not having a deal with the EU!!

 

[Ianno87]

It doesn't have to be achieved by 31st October. It can be delayed again.

Better yet, withdraw A50, and come back when we have an actual credible plan (i.e. never).

 

[DarloRich]

... ordinarily takes place every year, and was already due to happen.

the timing is completely inappropriate. If you cant see that.......................

The session should be prorogued once Brexit has been delivered on 31st October. This mechanism should not be used now as tool to reduce the opportunity for scrutiny of and comment on the actions proposed by the government which is exactly the point of this decision.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the longer term, though, extension-after-extension is not a viable approach (especially when it requires the other side to agree to it each time).

A long extension to kick it off into the long grass may be no bad thing from a Remainer's point of view. But that aside, an extension with a plan would be a good idea.

 

[mmh]

Tbh, the only party that can win a majority in my opinion is the Tories, and they can only do that by neutralising the Brexit Party and crushing Labour. In the right circumstances that might happen, but I feel they’ve shot themselves in the foot with today’s antics. Their core vote will love it; everyone else, less so.

They'll neutralise perhaps half the Brexit Party vote by delivering Brexit, i.e. the Conservative-leaning who would currently vote Brexit Party. That should be enough to make the Brexit Party an irrelevance. They'll find it harder to crush Labour themselves, but luckily Labour will do that for them.

Labour can’t win a majority under Corbyn, he’s too toxic, but a rainbow alliance can be assembled to stop No Deal. It would be messy and would require another election after the crisis passes (although haven’t we been in crisis for nearly 3 and half years?)

Labour won't win a majority for another generation - Brexit has effectively killed any chance of that, and I reckon it'll take a few rounds of new voters without any historical connection to the Brexit era politics before they completely recover.

 

[Howardh]

Better yet, withdraw A50, and come back when we have an actual credible plan (i.e. never).

I don't mind leaving as long as there's a middle way (ie EEA) so we can keep our rights, movement, EHIC etc but don't have to pay in so much, and we can use the balance on public services (although in the great scheme of things it won't go far). If on referendum day, that was the plan, and put in law, I may have voted for it.

 

[edwin_m]

One flaw in that process was that each one was a yes/no so there's no concept of "least worst". There could do with being scope for "you have to pick one of these".

Exiting with a customs union and having a second referendum both got very close to a majority despite the payroll vote not being allowed to vote for them. In combination they might have succeeded.

How do you solve that problem?

Seriously - we need solutions we can use now, not going over old history.

By putting it back to the people.

Do you think that could work now? Or is it better for the UK to crash out with no deal, for everything to be a disaster, and to rejoin again in a couple of years' time when the whole brexit thing has been thoroughly discredited.

Taking the long term view, the crash out and rejoin option could be quite attractive.

A couple of pages back there was a bit of discussion on what Remainers might not like about the EU. One of those things is probably the extremely long time it is likely to take to re-admit a leaving member, even if Boris doesn't manage to get us out of alignment with EU rules and standards before he meets the fate he so richly deserves. There's also the tricky question of whether the UK would resume its various rebates and opt-outs. Together with a likely attitude in some countries not to want anything more to do with the troublesome Brits, I'd say the process of re-joining would be slow and painful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Labour won't win a majority for another generation - Brexit has effectively killed any chance of that, and I reckon it'll take a few rounds of new voters without any historical connection to the Brexit era politics before they completely recover.

Labour would win a landslide if they had a Blairite style (minus the wars) leader rather than Corbyn. Corbyn is all very well (and I do agree with quite a few of his policies, and on balance would vote for Labour under him myself) but he's too far left to win an election.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't mind leaving as long as there's a middle way (ie EEA) so we can keep our rights, movement, EHIC etc but don't have to pay in so much, and we can use the balance on public services (although in the great scheme of things it won't go far). If on referendum day, that was the plan, and put in law, I may have voted for it.

I agree. I would find that (basically a Switzerland/Norway like arrangement) an acceptable compromise outcome. In some ways I might prefer it to membership, and the possibility of such an outcome might well have caused me to vote Leave (though I feared the kind of mess that did happen, which meant I voted Remain).

It is my view that the EU should never have gone past being the EEC i.e. a trading bloc, all things considered.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

Waste of time. People will be more inclined to direct action if the vibes on twitter, facebook and other forums are to be believed! Personally I'd go for a general strike and starve Brexit away. It'll just be like not having a deal with the EU!!

Perhaps but still good to know our democracy has such mechanisms to illustrate the concern of the people.

 

[Howardh]

Labour would win a landslide if they had a Blairite style (minus the wars) leader rather than Corbyn. Corbyn is all very well (and I do agree with quite a few of his policies, and on balance would vote for Labour under him myself) but he's too far left to win an election.

I would vote Labour if they would get themselves a proper leader. Mind you, I'm in a Tory/Labour marginal so might have to hold my nose and still vote Labour to get rid of our Toryboy; unless the Libdems can really make an overall impact. Think in constituences like mine there will have to be tactical withdrawls to get the Tories out.