Forget the headbangers. No Brexit will ever be Brexity enough for them. There's 40 or so of them. Ignore what they say and actually listen to what the remaining nearly 600 MPs would countenance.
This should have been done 2 years ago. A better PM would have.
2 years ago, many of those 600 others still believed in Remain. You talk about 40 or so for whom no Brexit will ever be Brexity enough, how many are there for whom any Brexit is too Brexity?
It seems odd to criticise her for agreeing to talk to those who actually wanted Brexit to happen, in preference to talking to those who fundamentally didn't want Brexit. Congratulations, you lost the referendum, now how would you like to proceed? Seems a loopy notion.
It's a hung parliament. Which part of British parliamentary democracy do you not understand?
Mostly the part where lots of MPs, having agreed to hold a referendum and thereby having significantly abdicated the role they might otherwise have had in fundamental policy discussion, now don't want to face up to the consequences of the result of that referendum because they never guessed what the result would be and they don't like it.
If you want to talk about "British parliamentary democracy" you need to start by talking about the point where every party bar the SNP decided to screw parliamentary democracy and go for direct democracy instead. If people were going to stick with, and invoke, the "British parliamentary democracy" system that's been around for quite a while, then they bloody well needed to do it when the departure from that system was on the table. Not try to move back into that mode after direct voting didn't give them the desired answer.
"British parliamentary democracy" was abandoned as the primary mode of decision-making when it came to Brexit when the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was passed.
FYI: Am watching "World News Now" on our ABC network. The news crawl at the bottom of the screen says Ms. May "is expected to survive a no-confidence vote".
The referendum was always advisory, the Government did not have to accept the result. Although having run the damn thing, they would have had a hard time not doing something in response. But the referendum was David Cameron's miscalculation.
FYI: Am watching "World News Now" on our ABC network. The news crawl at the bottom of the screen says Ms. May "is expected to survive a no-confidence vote".
Are similar things being said in the UK?
Yes. I don't think any of the talking heads think she will lose.
The referendum was always advisory, the Government did not have to accept the result. Although having run the damn thing, they would have had a hard time not doing something in response. But the referendum was David Cameron's miscalculation.
In a hung parliament they can't deliver it. But they can't not deliver it either.
Interesting fantasy land you've created where May AGREED to "burn this fucker down" and not go with sensible trading relationships. Anyone would think from that paragraph that she's negotiated with the EU for a hard Brexit.
The only people she talked to were those who wanted the hardest of Brexits. She promoted the referendum result as the British (actually just the English) wanting a hard Brexit. She gave cabinet positions to hard Brexiters.
So yes, she went with the 'burn this fucker down' model early, and has stuck with it throughout. Maybe she thought that everyone agreed with her, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. At least half the UK population wouldn't on principle, and those who voted Leave had very mixed motivations for doing so. Presenting something softer - customs union, single market - would have made much more sense, and could be sold as a potential stepping stone to either rejoining or moving further away, depending on the political mood in say, 10 years.
Certainly the arguments one hears from the idiot in the street make one wonder about the sanity of the general public. Like the fool who voted Leave because the UK has three-pin electrical plugs (yes, really!); or the substantial number who voted Leave to stop Asians coming to the country; or because they want the passports to have blue covers (which they could have had anyway).
But I suppose there are similar fools everywhere. I submit The Donald as supporting evidence.
May I please interrupt the intelligent discussion to utter an incoherent howl of existential anguish? I have nothing else to add but I’d quite like to add that…
I can start applying for a French passport in 118 days from now (why yes, I have counted, and very inconveniently just after the deadline). The British Consulate website rather sweetly talks about the deal all over its advice, but some help would be appreciated in the increasingly likely event that it’s all going to hell. Also my parents are supposed to be travelling here in early April for an important family event and I am PISSED OFF. I hate you very much, the Tory party.
FYI: Am watching "World News Now" on our ABC network. The news crawl at the bottom of the screen says Ms. May "is expected to survive a no-confidence vote".
Are similar things being said in the UK?
Yeah May will survive.
It's very unlikely that any Tory MPs would vote against her and at this point in time the DUP has indicated that they will support her too. That gives her a majority.
FYI: Am watching "World News Now" on our ABC network. The news crawl at the bottom of the screen says Ms. May "is expected to survive a no-confidence vote".
Are similar things being said in the UK?
Yeah May will survive.
It's very unlikely that any Tory MPs would vote against her and at this point in time the DUP has indicated that they will support her too. That gives her a majority.
OK, so what will happen after May has survived the VNC? It looks like the Brexiteers are disruptive enough to vote against the government's line but not to vote against the party line. Keep the Tory government in, even if it is spectacularly impotent.
Mind you, I'm not impressed by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposiion. Voting against the Government may be the Done Thing, but voting down the best deal we are likely to get is little better than the action taken by the rebel Tories.
FYI: Am watching "World News Now" on our ABC network. The news crawl at the bottom of the screen says Ms. May "is expected to survive a no-confidence vote".
Are similar things being said in the UK?
Yeah May will survive.
It's very unlikely that any Tory MPs would vote against her and at this point in time the DUP has indicated that they will support her too. That gives her a majority.
OK, so what will happen after May has survived the VNC? It looks like the Brexiteers are disruptive enough to vote against the government's line but not to vote against the party line. Keep the Tory government in, even if it is spectacularly impotent.
Mind you, I'm not impressed by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposiion. Voting against the Government may be the Done Thing, but voting down the best deal we are likely to get is little better than the action taken by the rebel Tories.
It's not the best deal we can get. It is the best deal possible with Theresa May's Red Lines.
Whilst Labour Party Policy suffers from a logic issue it does mean a better deal is possible. As confirmed by Barnier this morning.
The logic problem is that Labour's 6 tests are sound and good policy. But the only conclusion from following through with that is to end up in A position where Remain is the logical conclusion. And Labour haven't said that.
However, it's a changing situation and I do believe that's where Labour will end up. Or rather policy will be for a public vote with the party supporting Remain.
It would have been very odd if Labour had supported this deal.
Whilst Labour Party Policy suffers from a logic issue it does mean a better deal is possible. As confirmed by Barnier this morning.
In theory.
I wouldn't read too much into Barnier's statement. He's saying nothing more than "we'll be sorry to see you go, and we'd prefer it if you did so on our negotiated terms, or better still stayed", but all the onus on achieving any of this is and will remain on the UK's side, and time (as Barnier has also said) is running out fast.
(French news mentioned this lunchtime that EU sources indicated no approach had been made to the EU to extend the Article 50 deadline, by the way).
Certainly the arguments one hears from the idiot in the street make one wonder about the sanity of the general public ... because they want the passports to have blue covers (which they could have had anyway).
What they can't have though are the old board covers - nothing to do with the EU but AFAIU a worldwide decision made by the Montreal Convention.
Margaret Beckett confirming on the WatO that as one of Labour's most 'senior parliamentarians', she, and no one she knows of, have been approached by the government for talks about breaking the deadlock.
Margaret Beckett confirming on the WatO that as one of Labour's most 'senior parliamentarians', she, and no one she knows of, have been approached by the government for talks about breaking the deadlock.
Utter, shameful, shambles.
I suppose May has it all locked down. Red lines intact, no contacts with opposition. Basically, l'etat, c'est moi. I am the state, and I am the interpreter of Brexit. How did such a serially dishonest person attain such high office? Well, look at the others.
Did anyone else notice May's face when challenged by Corbyn on the increase in the number of people using food banks and the fall in the number of police officers?
She sneered and laughed at him. Lord above, how hateful she is.
I often notice that, absolute scorn on her face. I suppose her relations with Corbyn are very poor, but it's an integral part of her politics as well. The idea of her reaching out is farcical.
I often notice that, absolute scorn on her face. I suppose her relations with Corbyn are very poor, but it's an integral part of her politics as well. The idea of her reaching out is farcical.
Her relations with her conscience must be shaky too.
I often notice that, absolute scorn on her face. I suppose her relations with Corbyn are very poor, but it's an integral part of her politics as well. The idea of her reaching out is farcical.
Her relations with her conscience must be shaky too.
Not sure about that. If she is convinced that she is right, then her own incompetence and dishonesty just won't register on the radar. But maybe this is an important qualification in being a politician.
What you set out involves Parliament "outlining a position". This simply isn't what Parliament normally does and its mechanisms aren't designed to formulate policy parameters in this way. Parliament votes on the text of legislation, yes or no, and the reasons why particular MPs voted the way that they did or what they were thinking get buried in the collective decision.
The (usual) process is that the government puts forward policies (there are occasions when private members may do that) which are then debated by Parliament with various amendments tabled and voted on before a vote on the final version. A sensible government will put forward policies that are supported by their own party, and so can count on the support of most of their own MPs who would have been elected on a platform that includes that policy (especially in the case of flagship policies that were major parts of the election campaigning). And, would spend time consulting others such that they identify potential disagreements in advance. Of course, for most Parliamentary business that leads to a final and full text of legislation. In the case of authorising the government to negotiate with other nations that's only going to be an outline - because the full and final agreement will be between the government and the other nation(s) they're negotiating with. The outline originates from the manifesto of the party of government, is expanded on my government, but it's Parliament that puts in the final amendments and has the final approval. And, if there's to be a referendum to confirm that the people as well as Parliament are authorising the government to enter negotiations that outline approved by Parliament will be the document presented to the people starting with the words "if you vote 'yes' you will be voting for ...". In the case of Scottish Independence (probably a simpler issue than Brexit) that outline was a mere 670p.
Margaret Beckett confirming on the WatO that as one of Labour's most 'senior parliamentarians', she, and no one she knows of, have been approached by the government for talks about breaking the deadlock.
Utter, shameful, shambles.
Yes, because the Labour politicians are all tied to their chairs and can't possibly go and approach the government folks, who, you know, might be pretty busy right now.
Nope. They can just sit there. And then say "no-one has approached me".
But it is in the hands of the government to make something happen. That means they need to take the initiative. They need to set out the terms, invite others to discuss, and find an answer.
As this would involve compromise, I don't expect it. We are fucked utterly, unless there is radical change in direction.
What you set out involves Parliament "outlining a position". This simply isn't what Parliament normally does and its mechanisms aren't designed to formulate policy parameters in this way. Parliament votes on the text of legislation, yes or no, and the reasons why particular MPs voted the way that they did or what they were thinking get buried in the collective decision.
The (usual) process is that the government puts forward policies (there are occasions when private members may do that) which are then debated by Parliament with various amendments tabled and voted on before a vote on the final version. A sensible government will put forward policies that are supported by their own party, and so can count on the support of most of their own MPs who would have been elected on a platform that includes that policy (especially in the case of flagship policies that were major parts of the election campaigning). And, would spend time consulting others such that they identify potential disagreements in advance. Of course, for most Parliamentary business that leads to a final and full text of legislation. In the case of authorising the government to negotiate with other nations that's only going to be an outline - because the full and final agreement will be between the government and the other nation(s) they're negotiating with. The outline originates from the manifesto of the party of government, is expanded on my government, but it's Parliament that puts in the final amendments and has the final approval. And, if there's to be a referendum to confirm that the people as well as Parliament are authorising the government to enter negotiations that outline approved by Parliament will be the document presented to the people starting with the words "if you vote 'yes' you will be voting for ...". In the case of Scottish Independence (probably a simpler issue than Brexit) that outline was a mere 670p.
You're still talking about a process where the Parliament is "authorising the government to negotiate", and what I'm saying to you is that this a concept that would have been, until now, unknown to the Parliamentary system.
If the UK wants to move to that kind of constitutional arrangement (which it might well do once the implications of that Supreme Court decision are worked out, although from what I remember it's cast as if the EU treaty is some special kind of treaty that and "normal" treaties aren't affected. But will any government want to risk discovering that another treaty is "special"?)...
If the UK wants to move to that kind of constitutional arrangement then there really isn't anything stopping it, especially given that you don't have a typical written Constitution. But, I reckon it's going to be fiddly and slow, and crucially I suspect it would make other countries less keen to negotiate with you. The prospect of negotiating with UK governments but having the UK parliament hovering in the background might not be attractive.
Having said that, there might be countries that already have some sort of equivalent set-up. But they've probably worked it out and written it down some time ago.
But it is in the hands of the government to make something happen. That means they need to take the initiative. They need to set out the terms, invite others to discuss, and find an answer.
Bullshit. It's in the hands of the House of Commons to make something happen. If we can't grasp at this moment the difference between "government" and "parliament" then we never will.
The government HAS set out the terms. The terms of an agreement with the EU. The House of Commons has said no. Now the House of Commons has to set out what it actually fucking wants so that the government can go back to the EU to explain what the hell that it is.
People continue to think of this as if it's purely an internal UK matter where a statement like "it's in the hands of the government" might make sense. It might also make sense in a purely international matter. But it sure as hell doesn't make sense when the government is required to simultaneously satisfy 2 dance partners, it's in fact satisified one of them, but the 2nd is sulking and won't explain exactly what's wrong.
Meanwhile, Labor is demanding that the no leave "option" is taken off the table as if that's a proposal rather than a consequence. They know damn well that taking it off the table is impossible other than by stopping Brexit completely. It's along the lines of demanding a promise that gravity will stop working. And they're going to use it as an excuse all the way to the next UK election.
Yes, because the Labour politicians are all tied to their chairs and can't possibly go and approach the government folks, who, you know, might be pretty busy right now.
Nope. They can just sit there. And then say "no-one has approached me".
It's juvenile.
Labour have talked to every other party. It's the Tories who refuse to talk to them. Juvenile is right.
If parliament voted to rule out a no-deal "option" would that provide the government with a legal basis for withdrawing Article 50?
The ECJ ruling last year mean that the government have a legal basis to withdraw Article 50. The question is whether there's a political basis to do so.
I'm wondering about the basis in British law. Does May need a [new] act of parliament to withdraw, or does she already have the legal authority to do that without anything more from parliament?
You're still talking about a process where the Parliament is "authorising the government to negotiate", and what I'm saying to you is that this a concept that would have been, until now, unknown to the Parliamentary system.
That would mean that the various debates in Parliament over decades or more were mere courtesy. I recall, for example, debates about whether to join other nations in applying sanctions (or removing them) against other nations, or even to declare war. Or to ratify treaties (I accept that's in retrospect ... but, isn't a Parliamentary vote on ratification not what we effectively had this week, with a vote not to ratify it?). There are very few examples in recent UK history of the government entering negotiations, since the EU institutions took the lead in such negotiations on behalf of all the nations in the EU. In 2014 we had a vote in Parliament that authorised the Scottish government to enter negotiations for independence, subject to approval of the people of Scotland through a referendum, with an approved outline of what the government should seek to achieve.
@W Hyatt @orfeo will probably throw a fit telling you that before misguided Remainers mounted a legal challenge putting such decisions in the hands of the legislature instead of the executive, she might have, but it's all irrelevant now.
It's not going to happen.
She has consistently stood by the outcome of a majority referendum vote in favour of Leave, and is continuing to do so while staring into the abyss.
I'm wondering about the basis in British law. Does May need a [new] act of parliament to withdraw, or does she already have the legal authority to do that without anything more from parliament?
There is an Act of Parliament which says that the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March 2019. Any change in that will require a new Act of Parliament - whether an extension (also requiring consent from the rest of the EU, which isn't guaranteed) or withdrawal.
There is one group who by rights should be more angry and more worried by a no-deal than anyone else.
Citizens of the RoI. If there is a no-deal, they are totally fecked in many different ways. Stuff is going to be hard to get to them. Cross-border business will, I'm sure, be extremely difficult even if there is no physical border. RoI citizens in the North will likely be harassed (already happening, I've heard).
There will likely be a sudden loss of their main export market in areas like meat and dairy.
You're still talking about a process where the Parliament is "authorising the government to negotiate", and what I'm saying to you is that this a concept that would have been, until now, unknown to the Parliamentary system.
That would mean that the various debates in Parliament over decades or more were mere courtesy. I recall, for example, debates about whether to join other nations in applying sanctions (or removing them) against other nations, or even to declare war. Or to ratify treaties (I accept that's in retrospect ... but, isn't a Parliamentary vote on ratification not what we effectively had this week, with a vote not to ratify it?). There are very few examples in recent UK history of the government entering negotiations, since the EU institutions took the lead in such negotiations on behalf of all the nations in the EU. In 2014 we had a vote in Parliament that authorised the Scottish government to enter negotiations for independence, subject to approval of the people of Scotland through a referendum, with an approved outline of what the government should seek to achieve.
Yes, most of those debates WERE "courtesy", in the sense that they were legally unnecessary. They were most probably politically necessary. The consequence for a government that enters into an unpopular treaty has historically (before things got deeply weird) been at the ballot box.
There has also been the potential that the domestic legislation needed to implement an international treaty in practice would not get passed, which would expose the UK to international trouble when it hadn't fulfilled the terms of its deals. I live in a federal country where the the national government often talks to the States about these things because the domestic legislation would be within the competence of the States and it would be deeply embarrassing if a State refused to pass the necessary legislation. This in no way means the States have a legal role in entering international treaties.
A vote about Scottish independence is a vote about the internal affairs of the United Kingdom and has precisely nothing to do with the UK government's conduct of international relations.
A vote about Scottish independence is a vote about the internal affairs of the United Kingdom and has precisely nothing to do with the UK government's conduct of international relations.
But, it is about the Scottish government's conduct of international relations. It was about the relations between the Scottish nation and the nations of England, Wales and N Ireland - plus relations with the rest of the EU, NATO, the UN and other nations around the world.
A vote about Scottish independence is a vote about the internal affairs of the United Kingdom and has precisely nothing to do with the UK government's conduct of international relations.
But, it is about the Scottish government's conduct of international relations. It was about the relations between the Scottish nation and the nations of England, Wales and N Ireland - plus relations with the rest of the EU, NATO, the UN and other nations around the world.
There is one group who by rights should be more angry and more worried by a no-deal than anyone else.
Citizens of the RoI. If there is a no-deal, they are totally fecked in many different ways. Stuff is going to be hard to get to them. Cross-border business will, I'm sure, be extremely difficult even if there is no physical border. RoI citizens in the North will likely be harassed (already happening, I've heard).
There will likely be a sudden loss of their main export market in areas like meat and dairy.
Brilliant, well done everyone.
Yes, but Priti Patel has suggested that we should blockade Ireland and starve the Irish Government into giving us what we want. That's the quality of debate in the present Cabinet.
If you were Corbyn, would you waste your energy talking to this nest of halfwits? Better spend the time working on your allotment (aka The Communist Plot).
If you were Corbyn, would you waste your energy talking to this nest of halfwits? Better spend the time working on your allotment (aka The Communist Plot).
I think if I was Corbyn, I'd suddenly decide to support the draft deal.
And then I'd sit back and watch as the Tory party and Tory government self-destructed.
If you were Corbyn, would you waste your energy talking to this nest of halfwits? Better spend the time working on your allotment (aka The Communist Plot).
I think if I was Corbyn, I'd suddenly decide to support the draft deal.
And then I'd sit back and watch as the Tory party and Tory government self-destructed.
What I would do if I were Corbyn would be to present May with a list of (a) policies to reduce the impact of Brexit on the low paid, unemployed, sick etc. (b) assurances that her government will not remove the protections currently enjoyed by employees under EU law, (c) policies from the Labour manifesto which aim at undoing the worst excesses of the last eight years of coalition rule and (d) some policies under the guise of (c) that actually she'll never agree to, like cancelling Trident, that I can backtrack on to look like I'm negotiating. If she agrees to a-c, agree to whip the Labour members into supporting her deal.
This might of course be why it's a damned good job I'm not the leader of the Labour party, I don't know.
I think a-c is pointless. Get the Tories to self-destruct then all the other nonsense becomes moot.
Fat chance. We have seen in the last few days that the Tories will argue policy and vote against the government but when it comes to staying in power, they will meekly lick some low part of the party's anatomy and, yet again, put party before country.
No constructive contribution whatsoever, just selfish grandstanding.
I think a-c is pointless. Get the Tories to self-destruct then all the other nonsense becomes moot.
Fat chance. We have seen in the last few days that the Tories will argue policy and vote against the government but when it comes to staying in power, they will meekly lick some low part of the party's anatomy and, yet again, put party before country.
No constructive contribution whatsoever, just selfish grandstanding.
I don't know. I've watched a lot of the recent debates - and I strongly believe that the DUP would stop supporting the Tory government if the draft deal passed. On top of that there are maybe 20-30 who might have serious doubts about whether to remain in the Tory party.
Comments
Referendums are not primary. The end.
The official statement from the Government this morning says that she is reaching out to other parties in Parliament to find a deal.
Firstly, this should have been done 2 years ago, but more to the point. This apparently does not include the Leader of HM Official Opposition.
Whatever one thinks of Corbyn personally that it a profoundly inappropriate way for the Prime Minister to behave.
AFZ
But one can't say that a referendum binds parliament. Because it doesn't.
Are similar things being said in the UK?
Yes. I don't think any of the talking heads think she will lose.
In a hung parliament they can't deliver it. But they can't not deliver it either.
So yes, she went with the 'burn this fucker down' model early, and has stuck with it throughout. Maybe she thought that everyone agreed with her, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. At least half the UK population wouldn't on principle, and those who voted Leave had very mixed motivations for doing so. Presenting something softer - customs union, single market - would have made much more sense, and could be sold as a potential stepping stone to either rejoining or moving further away, depending on the political mood in say, 10 years.
I stand by my original assessment of May.
But I suppose there are similar fools everywhere. I submit The Donald as supporting evidence.
I can start applying for a French passport in 118 days from now (why yes, I have counted, and very inconveniently just after the deadline). The British Consulate website rather sweetly talks about the deal all over its advice, but some help would be appreciated in the increasingly likely event that it’s all going to hell. Also my parents are supposed to be travelling here in early April for an important family event and I am PISSED OFF. I hate you very much, the Tory party.
Yeah May will survive.
It's very unlikely that any Tory MPs would vote against her and at this point in time the DUP has indicated that they will support her too. That gives her a majority.
What @Doc Tor said. Spot on.
AFZ
OK, so what will happen after May has survived the VNC? It looks like the Brexiteers are disruptive enough to vote against the government's line but not to vote against the party line. Keep the Tory government in, even if it is spectacularly impotent.
Mind you, I'm not impressed by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposiion. Voting against the Government may be the Done Thing, but voting down the best deal we are likely to get is little better than the action taken by the rebel Tories.
It's not the best deal we can get. It is the best deal possible with Theresa May's Red Lines.
Whilst Labour Party Policy suffers from a logic issue it does mean a better deal is possible. As confirmed by Barnier this morning.
The logic problem is that Labour's 6 tests are sound and good policy. But the only conclusion from following through with that is to end up in A position where Remain is the logical conclusion. And Labour haven't said that.
However, it's a changing situation and I do believe that's where Labour will end up. Or rather policy will be for a public vote with the party supporting Remain.
It would have been very odd if Labour had supported this deal.
AFZ
I wouldn't read too much into Barnier's statement. He's saying nothing more than "we'll be sorry to see you go, and we'd prefer it if you did so on our negotiated terms, or better still stayed", but all the onus on achieving any of this is and will remain on the UK's side, and time (as Barnier has also said) is running out fast.
(French news mentioned this lunchtime that EU sources indicated no approach had been made to the EU to extend the Article 50 deadline, by the way).
Utter, shameful, shambles.
I suppose May has it all locked down. Red lines intact, no contacts with opposition. Basically, l'etat, c'est moi. I am the state, and I am the interpreter of Brexit. How did such a serially dishonest person attain such high office? Well, look at the others.
She sneered and laughed at him. Lord above, how hateful she is.
Her relations with her conscience must be shaky too.
Not sure about that. If she is convinced that she is right, then her own incompetence and dishonesty just won't register on the radar. But maybe this is an important qualification in being a politician.
The country is still in the safe hands of our weak, but stable, government. Faffing around will continue as per usual.
Yes, because the Labour politicians are all tied to their chairs and can't possibly go and approach the government folks, who, you know, might be pretty busy right now.
Nope. They can just sit there. And then say "no-one has approached me".
It's juvenile.
As this would involve compromise, I don't expect it. We are fucked utterly, unless there is radical change in direction.
You're still talking about a process where the Parliament is "authorising the government to negotiate", and what I'm saying to you is that this a concept that would have been, until now, unknown to the Parliamentary system.
If the UK wants to move to that kind of constitutional arrangement (which it might well do once the implications of that Supreme Court decision are worked out, although from what I remember it's cast as if the EU treaty is some special kind of treaty that and "normal" treaties aren't affected. But will any government want to risk discovering that another treaty is "special"?)...
If the UK wants to move to that kind of constitutional arrangement then there really isn't anything stopping it, especially given that you don't have a typical written Constitution. But, I reckon it's going to be fiddly and slow, and crucially I suspect it would make other countries less keen to negotiate with you. The prospect of negotiating with UK governments but having the UK parliament hovering in the background might not be attractive.
Having said that, there might be countries that already have some sort of equivalent set-up. But they've probably worked it out and written it down some time ago.
Bullshit. It's in the hands of the House of Commons to make something happen. If we can't grasp at this moment the difference between "government" and "parliament" then we never will.
The government HAS set out the terms. The terms of an agreement with the EU. The House of Commons has said no. Now the House of Commons has to set out what it actually fucking wants so that the government can go back to the EU to explain what the hell that it is.
People continue to think of this as if it's purely an internal UK matter where a statement like "it's in the hands of the government" might make sense. It might also make sense in a purely international matter. But it sure as hell doesn't make sense when the government is required to simultaneously satisfy 2 dance partners, it's in fact satisified one of them, but the 2nd is sulking and won't explain exactly what's wrong.
Meanwhile, Labor is demanding that the no leave "option" is taken off the table as if that's a proposal rather than a consequence. They know damn well that taking it off the table is impossible other than by stopping Brexit completely. It's along the lines of demanding a promise that gravity will stop working. And they're going to use it as an excuse all the way to the next UK election.
Labour have talked to every other party. It's the Tories who refuse to talk to them. Juvenile is right.
It's not going to happen.
She has consistently stood by the outcome of a majority referendum vote in favour of Leave, and is continuing to do so while staring into the abyss.
There is an Act of Parliament which says that the UK will leave the EU on the 29th March 2019. Any change in that will require a new Act of Parliament - whether an extension (also requiring consent from the rest of the EU, which isn't guaranteed) or withdrawal.
Citizens of the RoI. If there is a no-deal, they are totally fecked in many different ways. Stuff is going to be hard to get to them. Cross-border business will, I'm sure, be extremely difficult even if there is no physical border. RoI citizens in the North will likely be harassed (already happening, I've heard).
There will likely be a sudden loss of their main export market in areas like meat and dairy.
Brilliant, well done everyone.
Yes, most of those debates WERE "courtesy", in the sense that they were legally unnecessary. They were most probably politically necessary. The consequence for a government that enters into an unpopular treaty has historically (before things got deeply weird) been at the ballot box.
There has also been the potential that the domestic legislation needed to implement an international treaty in practice would not get passed, which would expose the UK to international trouble when it hadn't fulfilled the terms of its deals. I live in a federal country where the the national government often talks to the States about these things because the domestic legislation would be within the competence of the States and it would be deeply embarrassing if a State refused to pass the necessary legislation. This in no way means the States have a legal role in entering international treaties.
A vote about Scottish independence is a vote about the internal affairs of the United Kingdom and has precisely nothing to do with the UK government's conduct of international relations.
It's delightfully quaint of you to believe that.
Yes, but Priti Patel has suggested that we should blockade Ireland and starve the Irish Government into giving us what we want. That's the quality of debate in the present Cabinet.
If you were Corbyn, would you waste your energy talking to this nest of halfwits? Better spend the time working on your allotment (aka The Communist Plot).
I think if I was Corbyn, I'd suddenly decide to support the draft deal.
And then I'd sit back and watch as the Tory party and Tory government self-destructed.
What I would do if I were Corbyn would be to present May with a list of (a) policies to reduce the impact of Brexit on the low paid, unemployed, sick etc. (b) assurances that her government will not remove the protections currently enjoyed by employees under EU law, (c) policies from the Labour manifesto which aim at undoing the worst excesses of the last eight years of coalition rule and (d) some policies under the guise of (c) that actually she'll never agree to, like cancelling Trident, that I can backtrack on to look like I'm negotiating. If she agrees to a-c, agree to whip the Labour members into supporting her deal.
This might of course be why it's a damned good job I'm not the leader of the Labour party, I don't know.
Fat chance. We have seen in the last few days that the Tories will argue policy and vote against the government but when it comes to staying in power, they will meekly lick some low part of the party's anatomy and, yet again, put party before country.
No constructive contribution whatsoever, just selfish grandstanding.
I don't know. I've watched a lot of the recent debates - and I strongly believe that the DUP would stop supporting the Tory government if the draft deal passed. On top of that there are maybe 20-30 who might have serious doubts about whether to remain in the Tory party.
That's enough to bring the government down.