The Will of the People

[Jeffstclair]

I think terms like majority and minority are insufficient to describe the gordian knot that exists in the UK parliament and in the UK as a whole just now ....there must be three options at least ...and within those there are maybe other divisions.

[Kamisiana]

Where is Jason J Hunter now with his Three Blokes In A Pub.
Meanwhile back in Europe the Center Right in Italy take more votes the anti EU movement gains momentum across Europe EU elections are going to be fun in May.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... icata-vote

[Kilkis]

Salvini, who the article is mostly about, is the leader of Lega and you cannot really describe that as a "Centre Right Party". Because of Italy's voting system people stand for election under the banner of an alliance of parties and the alliance of which Lega is a part is usually described as centre right but Lega itself isn't. It's allies across Europe are the National Front in France, the Freedom Party of Austria, the Party for Freedom in Holland, AfD in Germany and VOX in Spain, all far right parties.

I am sure you are right, Kamisiana, Europe would be a much better place if it was completely controlled by the far right. It worked really well last time.

Warwick

[George]

The right honourable member for the 18th century is now saying May's deal is better than no Brexit. Could we see another MV tomorrow with the tories united?

[scooby]

I can't see any of the proposals to be put forward getting a majority in the house and it's just possible May's deal could get through although it will be very tight, the DUP don't seem to want to budge but the alternatives i.e election or referendum, European elections could just twist their arms. Not perfect but we can then move on if it goes through. Still has a chance.

[Kilkis]

I think a key issue is how the indicative votes are carried out. The usual procedure is to have a neutral motion and a number of amendments. The Speaker decides the order of the amendments. You could get a situation where some MPs vote against an amendment they aren't completely opposed to because there is another later in the list that they prefer. If that later amendment then gets defeated, because other MPs don't like it, you end up with an amendment that might be the only one that could have commanded a majority, i.e. the first one, being thrown out because MPs were waiting for their top preference, which they then didn't get.

An alternative would be to treat them as simple options, have ballot papers with all the options on them and each MP votes for one preference. The votes are counted and the one with the least votes gets eliminated. Repeat until you are down to two and then it is a straight vote between those two. A similar method involves MPs rating their preference for each option and then you can do the same elimination process from a single ballot by transferring votes based on preferences. The two methods don't necessarily achieve identical results. In the first case each MP knows which options have been eliminated and can alter his preferences at each subsequent vote. In the second case he has to decide his preferences at the beginning not knowing how choices will be eliminated.

Whichever method is used these are still only indicative votes. You could end up with a preferred option being something that the EU would never agree to. The only two options that we are certain that they would agree to are May's deal and revoking Article 50 and they can't stop no-deal. The rest are just ideas. May could refuse to put a formal vote on the selected preferred option, although I think she would struggle to win a confidence vote if she did that. Even if it is put forward to a formal vote it might not actually carry a majority. MPs might vote for option A as opposed to option B when they are deciding which is the better, or least worst, of two options but some might still not be prepared to vote option A into law. It sounds bizarre but in this parliament nothing would surprise me.

I could be wrong but if a majority decision is reached wouldn't the resulting Bill also have to be approved by the House of Lords? As far as I can tell they are very pro-remain.

Warwick

[bobscott]

1. I may be wrong, but

This is just an observation, but it's becoming a bit like 'I have been perfectly clear'. Bob.

I may be wrong, but I think you mean to say that I say this quite a bit, and by being said often, it is without meaning. Those two things are not auxiomatically connected.

I am conscious that it is very hard to be correct, whatever correct means, and very easy to be wrong. This is generally true, and so a statement to that effect is normally needed. I could omit it, but then I begin to write that something *IS* so, when in fact, I do not think so, and I could be completely wrong.

When people tell us someting IS so, we find it slightly offensive. The example comment you give is of that nature and indeed is even worse, since it is not talking about a neutral matter, but asserting something about the listener themselves - *I* have it right, *you* are confused. It verges on arrogance.

To tell people however *you, the author, may be wrong*, surely is to verge on being modest, which seems in general to do no harm to others, and, I have found, by removing the faint pressure of arrogance, makes conversation less fraught and more open, because we all respond negatively to being *told* something is true.

I am all in favour of modesty, and it was only an observation! Bob.

[Kilkis]

Most of what everybody writes is an opinion. For me, and I suspect for most people, the opinion is based on experience or on some form of evidence. That doesn't necessarily make it correct. People's experiences differ and that can colour their opinions. Situations change over time and your experience may not be up-to-date. In some cases the opinion comes first and then people choose evidence to suit their opinion. In some cases there is no right or wrong. In some cases you cannot distinguish who is right or wrong but it may become clear later. For example Scooby thinks if we keep slamming the EU with no-deal they will cave in on some of the conditions in the Withdrawal Agreement in order to protect their trade. I don't. Two opposite opinions. We both have access to the same information. We both have quite similar experiences, at least in recent years. If the UK continues down the no-deal road we will eventually find out which one of us was correct. If the UK doesn't then we will never know and they will remain two opposite opinions.

I certainly don't use the phrase out of modesty or to avoid being offensive. I used to be modest but I worked hard to correct that flaw in my character and now I'm perfect. What's wrong with being offensive? I use it as its meaning implies, i.e. when I think something is true but I am not completely sure, as in my previous post. If I didn't think it was true then I wouldn't post it at all. I am pretty sure that once parliament reaches a consensus on some deal or no-deal it will require Acts of parliament to enact it in UK law. It cannot be done with Statutory Instruments. Acts of parliament go through an approval process from the House of Lords. The devil however is in the detail and that is not always immediately clear. Constitutional precedence is a labyrinth that would defeat Theseus. Could the House of Lords completely block it or delay it? Normally they cannot completely block but somehow or other they seem to manage it from time to time. Would Brexit be such a time? I understand completely the basics of how it works but not the intricacies.

It's always good to know that MPs don't know either. Many were told in interviews that the EU had already implemented the delay in the Article 50 process to 12 April or 22 May so that was now set in International law. If the UK did not amend the EU Withdrawal Bill, which specifies 29 March, would the UK leave on 29 March or not. They all gave different answers.

Warwick

[scooby]

I thought it a bit “off “ that the EU suddenly announced that all their preparations for a no deal were completed very close when thought May’s deal would go back to the house, maybe I am being too sceptical. However, it seems that they are not quite, they are now in intense talks with Ireland about a soft border in case of no deal, something they said was unworkable in the negotiations? And that it was a UK problem.

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-and- ... uk-brexit/

[Toebs]

I think a key issue is how the indicative votes are carried out.

Yes, absolutely so.

Bercow will know this though.

Whichever method is used these are still only indicative votes. You could end up with a preferred option being something that the EU would never agree to. The only two options that we are certain that they would agree to are May's deal and revoking Article 50 and they can't stop no-deal.

I think long extension would be fine so long as there is a clear, concrete, chosen way forward. If the UK said, for example, Norway model and we've voted for it and it's on, if they trusted the UK to stick to it I think they'd go for it.

May could refuse to put a formal vote on the selected preferred option, although I think she would struggle to win a confidence vote if she did that.

Concur. Let's hope so anyway.

Even if it is put forward to a formal vote it might not actually carry a majority. MPs might vote for option A as opposed to option B when they are deciding which is the better, or least worst, of two options but some might still not be prepared to vote option A into law. It sounds bizarre but in this parliament nothing would surprise me.

Ain't over 'till etc.

I could be wrong but if a majority decision is reached wouldn't the resulting Bill also have to be approved by the House of Lords? As far as I can tell they are very pro-remain.

Interesting - I'd not thought about that at all.

My main fear is there's no majority for -anything-, which is to say, Labour screw things up, but I think there's enough smaller parties that if the Cons go for it (barring pro-brexit) they'll get everyone else with them, and it'll be enough.

Conservative 314
Labour 245
Scottish National Party 35
Independent 21
Liberal Democrat 11
Democratic Unionist Party 10
Sinn Féin 7
Plaid Cymru 4
Green Party 1
Speaker 1

anti-Brexit Cons = 30
SNP, LD, TIG, Ind, Plaid and Green all pro-Brexit = 67
pro-Brexit Cons = 40 (I think?)
Sinn Fein doesn't take its seats
There's a couple of Labour which vote against the party but only a few.

If Cons vote for a "democratic event", that's 314 + 10 (DUP) - 40 (pro-Brexit Cons) + 67 = 351

That's a pretty large margin over Labour.

If Cons whipped to vote no, and Labour votes for (they won't), then;

For = 245 + 30 + 67 = 342, with Cons at 314 - 30 = 284.

Well, who knows what will happen.

[Toebs]

I thought it a bit “off “ that the EU suddenly announced that all their preparations for a no deal were completed very close when thought May’s deal would go back to the house, maybe I am being too sceptical.

Indeed. I mean, everyone has been caught on the hoof by this. No one has really had time to prepare. Having said this I think they mean the bare-bones agreements on a couple of core, large, highly visible problems like air traffic control.

However, it seems that they are not quite, they are now in intense talks with Ireland about a soft border in case of no deal, something they said was unworkable in the negotiations? And that it was a UK problem.

They will want to mimimize border installations, because anything there will be subject to attack, and will act against the Good Friday agreement.

Terrorism in NI will return if there is a border. A hard border will exist (you do your best to make it as soft as possible but it's there, a border, with border installations, customs checks, the lot) and that is going to see the slow build up of domestic terrorism. People are going to start being mained and killed.

The old and rich pro-Brexit people I know don't worry about this because they say there won't be a hard border, even with a no-deal exit.

[Guy M]

A perspective on what is happening.

Conservative party members are much more pro Brexit than Conservative MPs.

Conservative party members get the final say in who is leader (and hence PM).

May has likely been persuaded to set a date for leaving quite soon in return for her deal being voted through -she’s addressing the backbench 1922 committee tomorrow.

The two main contenders are Johnson and Raab. Neither will risk commiting to supporting May’s deal before the other as then they will look less pro Brext and won’t win any leadership contest after May resigns.

So, country is in a state of paralysis until this is resolved. Party and self interest trumps country every time.

[scooby]

Meanwhile the EU parliament has voted and passed the controversial directive from the commission on copyright law, even though over 5 million people signed a petition against (largest petition in the EU's history) and despite hundreds of thousands of people marching through cities in Europe. First time you have heard of it until recently? me too. I haven't seen any British mainstream media commentating on this subject up until today when it has already been passed. This is why I feel people are feeling more and more distant from the machine in Brussels, we don't have enough information on what is happening. Let's be honest here, both remainers and leavers, who keeps abreast of what is actually happening in the EU parliament and the laws that are coming through (apart from the Father of the house on here ), yet we sort of just go along with everything that goes on. I feel people are quite happy if they have free movement and can get healthcare, everything else seems to be insignificant.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/26/tech ... index.html

[Kilkis]

...they are now in intense talks with Ireland about a soft border in case of no deal, something they said was unworkable in the negotiations? And that it was a UK problem...

I am not sure that they said it was unworkable. They said that a workable system didn't currently exist, which is true. In the Withdrawal Agreement there is a transitional period of 20 months during which the UK effectively stays in all the common market institutions, e.g. the customs union and the single market. Because of that the Irish border is not an issue during that period. After that the UK moves to a free trade deal system, details to be agreed, in which customs checks would be needed. In accepting that agreement the EU is conceding that a workable system can be implemented at some point. The backstop, of staying in the customs union for longer, was included because the EU weren't sure if a working system can be implemented in the 20 months. They are not saying it can't, just including contingency in case it can't. The ERG and the DUP are portraying it as locking the UK into the EU for ever.

The EU are highly pragmatic. They show far more empathy with the Irish border issue than most MPs do. The Republic of Ireland is part of the EU so they will do whatever they can to try to resolve the problem. At the same time they will not give up control of the EU border, part of which will be between Northern Ireland and the Republic. When they talked about trying to find solutions to the Irish border problem they also said that EU law must be respected. Funnily that doesn't seem to get the same attention.

Even if the EU decides to ignore the border for a period of time while a solution is found other countries might not. If the UK has left the EU with no deal on 12 May but effectively goods are moving between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, i.e. between the EU and the UK, with no tariffs and no customs checks every other member of WTO can demand that they have the same access to the UK market.

Warwick

[scooby]

...they are now in intense talks with Ireland about a soft border in case of no deal, something they said was unworkable in the negotiations? And that it was a UK problem...

I am not sure that they said it was unworkable. They said that a workable system didn't currently exist, which is true. In the Withdrawal Agreement there is a transitional period of 20 months during which the UK effectively stays in all the common market institutions, e.g. the customs union and the single market. Because of that the Irish border is not an issue during that period. After that the UK moves to a free trade deal system, details to be agreed, in which customs checks would be needed. In accepting that agreement the EU is conceding that a workable system can be implemented at some point. The backstop, of staying in the customs union for longer, was included because the EU weren't sure if a working system can be implemented in the 20 months. They are not saying it can't, just including contingency in case it can't. The ERG and the DUP are portraying it as locking the UK into the EU for ever.

The EU are highly pragmatic. They show far more empathy with the Irish border issue than most MPs do. The Republic of Ireland is part of the EU so they will do whatever they can to try to resolve the problem. At the same time they will not give up control of the EU border, part of which will be between Northern Ireland and the Republic. When they talked about trying to find solutions to the Irish border problem they also said that EU law must be respected. Funnily that doesn't seem to get the same attention.

Even if the EU decides to ignore the border for a period of time while a solution is found other countries might not. If the UK has left the EU with no deal on 12 May but effectively goods are moving between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, i.e. between the EU and the UK, with no tariffs and no customs checks every other member of WTO can demand that they have the same access to the UK market.

Warwick

But doesn't it still beg the question, who is going to put up a hard border? Answers on a postcard. If there was no deal and the UK don't do anything about a hard border then it is up to the EU to find a solution?