Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Sweep]

You've lost me, here.

First vote, a free vote - tiny margin.

Revote almost instantly, Tories whipped - larger margin.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that I am sure I don’t really have to explain, but anyway.
The first vote was an amendment to the original motion. It passed. It largely made the second vote on the amended motion irrelevant but they had to vote because that was the vote on the motion. Remember the first vote was just an amendment.
Voting against the motion when the amendment had passed was only a protest vote as it was obvious it was going to pass as it had already been voted on, even though they tried to whip at the last moment. Until this point the Tories has said it was a free vote. Realistically they had no chance of whipping successfully as they would have had to practically drag people across the lobby.
So the first vote was not a vote on the motion. The second vote was. So one vote. Not two.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that I am sure I don’t really have to explain, but anyway.
The first vote was an amendment to the original motion. It passed. It largely made the second vote on the amended motion irrelevant but they had to vote because that was the vote on the motion. Remember the first vote was just an amendment.
Voting against the motion when the amendment had passed was only a protest vote as it was obvious it was going to pass as it had already been voted on, even though they tried to whip at the last moment. Until this point the Tories has said it was a free vote. Realistically they had no chance of whipping successfully as they would have had to practically drag people across the lobby.
So the first vote was not a vote on the motion. The second vote was. So one vote. Not two.

Congratulations on a post without mentioning Labour.

P.S. We wouldn’t of needed the last 3 months and amendments etc etc if the tories had got it right in the first place.

 

[Sweep]

Congratulations on a post without mentioning Labour.

P.S. We wouldn’t of needed the last 3 months and amendments etc etc if the tories had got it right in the first place.

Why would I mention Labour? according to you they are irrelevant and cannot be blamed under any circumstances. Ever. We must put cheese in our ears should anyone even dream of criticising comrade Corbyn et al 😀
As I said before, we wouldn’t have needed the last 3 months and amendments etc if we hadn’t ceded control of the negotiations and been able to negotiate a trade deal alongside the WA. Whether that is the fault of the Tories, the EU or both is a fair question. The result is bad for everyone, in the UK and the EU.

 

[Foxholer]

And that soft Brexit could well be Mrs May’s deal. And what is often forgotten is that Mrs. May herself is not that keen on it. It’s just the only thing she can get, because we allowed the EU to dictate the negotiations and couldn’t negotiate a trade agreement in tandem with the WA.
If we could have negotiated a trade agreement at the same time as all this, all these fears about the backstop would have been nullified.
It’s almost like all this chaos was planned to make leaving difficult.

I would agree with all of the above if the word 'suitable' (or 'appropriate') was inserted ahead of any mention of 'trade agreement'.

As it is, some sort of 'backstop' definitely IS required to ensure a 'proper' border exists between the UK and ALL EU countries - which really only means between Eire and NI, as that's a simple thing to achieve for other EU countries. It's only actually a 'problem' for that (Eire/NI) border because as part of the Good Friday agreement, it was agreed that there would be NO 'hard border'. So something has to give and the EU proposed that NI be (effectively) treated as if it was still in the Single Market and EU Customs area until a mutually satisfactory agreement is reached. That concept has been rejected by UK Parliament on the basis that it could tie UK to EU permanently! That seems to be the current impasse, even with approval by UK Parliament of an amendment to negotiate 'alternative arrangements' resulting in apparent intransigence from the EU negotiating team.

It seems to me that only a small nudge by any group could result in one of several results....

EU and UK teams could agree acceptable 'alternative arrangements' allowing May's deal to be approved by Parliament - resulting in Brexit happening as negotiated on 29/3
No agreement, so a No Deal Brexit happens by default on 29/3.
Brexit Day is moved either a small amount (say to June) or a further fairly large period to allow for 'alternative arrangements' to be negotiated - or maybe even a 2nd Referendum (with a 'Stay' result so Article 50 trigger is revoked!).

I don't think May's voice is going to return to normal for some time!

 

[Hacker Khan]

Speaker John Bercow has refused to call the cross-party amendment B rejecting a second referendum, despite the fact that it was signed by 127 MPs including the entirety of the DUP and had numerous Labour MPs as leading co-signatories including Caroline Flint, Gareth Snell and John Mann.


Conservative Mark Francois expresses anger that an amendment he supported, which rejects holding another referendum, has not been selected.
Mr Bercow says that MPs "do have to take the rough with the smooth". He adds that all MPs end up happy or unhappy depending on what amendments he has picked.
"The Chair has to make a judgement on a variety of criteria," he says.
"The Chair does his or her best to facilitate debate and to allow the House to speak," he adds.

Appreciate the quotes but anytime I see the words 'Conservative Mark Francois expresses anger' I think what is the swivel eyed loon ranting on about this time and does the day end in a Y

 

[Foxholer]

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that I am sure I don’t really have to explain, but anyway.
The first vote was an amendment to the original motion. It passed. It largely made the second vote on the amended motion irrelevant but they had to vote because that was the vote on the motion. Remember the first vote was just an amendment.
Voting against the motion when the amendment had passed was only a protest vote as it was obvious it was going to pass as it had already been voted on, even though they tried to whip at the last moment. Until this point the Tories has said it was a free vote. Realistically they had no chance of whipping successfully as they would have had to practically drag people across the lobby.
So the first vote was not a vote on the motion. The second vote was. So one vote. Not two.

Re the bold bit...
Unless they actually vote on the, now amended, motion, they have not voted on anything - except to amend a motion that has never been put! So certainly not 'irrelevant'! Maybe you mean 'the result of the vote on the amended motion obvious'?

And as the whole concept of the, now amended, motion had changed from what was originally tabled, it's totally reasonable that the original proposers/tablers could decide to vote against the, now amended, motion. This order and its consequence(s) is a fairly common in any 'approval by voting' process, both in Parliament or any other body.

 

[Hacker Khan]

And that soft Brexit could well be Mrs May’s deal. And what is often forgotten is that Mrs. May herself is not that keen on it. It’s just the only thing she can get, because we allowed the EU to dictate the negotiations and couldn’t negotiate a trade agreement in tandem with the WA.
If we could have negotiated a trade agreement at the same time as all this, all these fears about the backstop would have been nullified.
It’s almost like all this chaos was planned to make leaving difficult.

I've said it before and I'll say it again but as soon as TMay became PM the Tory party had it in completely their power with a 17 seat working majority to come up with a proposal that would have a working majority in parliament. That would have given us a very strong hand rather than people bleating about the German car manufacturing industry and threats of us walking away with no deals saving us. She knew the exit process, she knew what order things needed to be done in, it was all laid out for her.

But she inherited a fractured party on Europe where she tried to appease all sides, called an election, invoked article 50 and the rest has been painful for all to watch. Including I expect the EU. Yes of course the EU don't want us to leave and will put the interests of their remaining members first in any negotiations which some may well interpret as them being difficult. But by god have we played one of the worst hands in history.

 

[Foxholer]

I've said it before and I'll say it again but as soon as TMay became PM the Tory party had it in completely their power with a 17 seat working majority to come up with a proposal that would have a working majority in parliament. That would have given us a very strong hand rather than people bleating about the German car manufacturing industry and threats of us walking away with no deals saving us. She knew the exit process, she knew what order things needed to be done in, it was all laid out for her.

But she inherited a fractured party on Europe where she tried to appease all sides, called an election, invoked article 50 and the rest has been painful for all to watch. Including I expect the EU. Yes of course the EU don't want us to leave and will put the interests of their remaining members first in any negotiations which some may well interpret as them being difficult. But by god have we played one of the worst hands in history.

I don't believe that '17 seat' majority was enough! You only need to look at the results of the Commons votes in to see she needed a bigger majority - and those additional seats needed to be willing to back her!

Fractured party on Europe indeed. But so is the country! And, I believe, so is Labour!

 

[Hacker Khan]

I don't believe that '17 seat' majority was enough! You only need to look at the results of the Commons votes in to see she needed a bigger majority - and those additional seats needed to be willing to back her!

Fractured party on Europe indeed. But so is the country! And, I believe, so is Labour!

The labour thing is just prime whataboutery as they were not in power. And a 17 seat majority is more than enough to get the vast majority of legislation through that a government wants to pass. It is only not enough if your party can not agree on your policy or approach to a subject. And if that is the case then one might ask why the chuff did you tell the public that you are able to enact their wishes on that subject.

 

[Foxholer]

The labour thing is just prime whataboutery as they were not in power. And a 17 seat majority is more than enough to get the vast majority of legislation through that a government wants to pass. It is only not enough if your party can not agree on your policy or approach to a subject.

And that's certainly the case on EU membership!

The ERG members, for instance, could easily frustrate any 'non-pure' Brexit! And there are plenty of Remainers who could (and have) voted against many Brexit bills/votes!

 

[Foxholer]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47543540/corbyn-extending-article-50-is-now-inevitable

Apart from a couple of 'policy' details, imo probably Corbyn's best speech to the House!

Still a pretty lousy speaker and NOT someone I'd like to see as PM though!

 

[IanM]

Frustrate, delay, cancel.

Plan executed. And some people think the negotiations have been badly handled. Nope.

 

[Sweep]

I've said it before and I'll say it again but as soon as TMay became PM the Tory party had it in completely their power with a 17 seat working majority to come up with a proposal that would have a working majority in parliament. That would have given us a very strong hand rather than people bleating about the German car manufacturing industry and threats of us walking away with no deals saving us. She knew the exit process, she knew what order things needed to be done in, it was all laid out for her.

But she inherited a fractured party on Europe where she tried to appease all sides, called an election, invoked article 50 and the rest has been painful for all to watch. Including I expect the EU. Yes of course the EU don't want us to leave and will put the interests of their remaining members first in any negotiations which some may well interpret as them being difficult. But by god have we played one of the worst hands in history.

I don’t really think the EU insisting on us not being allowed to negotiate a trade deal in tandem with the WA had anything to do with the governments majority in the UK Parliament, though it is certainly true that calling an election was an arrogant mistake that weakened our government significantly. Whilst it’s hard to comprehend the reasoning behind the EU’s insistence, I think they would have tried it anyway. Of course we should have refused to negotiate in this way. But this was at the time when the UK was making all the proposals and the EU was just batting them away. We should have been stronger.
As for triggering A50, that was one of the votes in this whole saga that practically the whole house agreed upon.
If someone on the remain side was to suggest that we have been shown up to be terrible negotiators and that this does not bode well for the UK negotiating trade deals with the rest of the world, I think that would be a perfectly valid point to make.
Whatever the outcome of Brexit, the UK needs to sharpen up its act and quick. We deserve better.

 

[Taz]

this is where we went wrong :

Trump on Brexit, as per @Reuters: – A second Brexit referendum would be 'unfair' – Says Brexit is 'complex' – Says May 'did not listen' to his suggestions on how to negotiate Brexit – Says he's 'surprised' by how bad Brexit negotiations have gone.

 

[Hacker Khan]

this is where we went wrong :

Trump on Brexit, as per @Reuters: – A second Brexit referendum would be 'unfair' – Says Brexit is 'complex' – Says May 'did not listen' to his suggestions on how to negotiate Brexit – Says he's 'surprised' by how bad Brexit negotiations have gone.

Christ on a bicycle, as if it couldn't get any worse we are now being patronised by the orange faced Man Child.

 

[Sweep]

Frustrate, delay, cancel.

Plan executed. And some people think the negotiations have been badly handled. Nope.

Actually I think we are both right. I agree that there is no will on behalf of either side to reach the best agreement for the people of both sides. Both sides have ulterior motives that are more important to them.
But even so, the negotiations have been badly handled. The point many miss about Brexit being cancelled is what our place will be like within the EU after all this. The UK had a perfect opportunity to show strength of character, leadership and clear business principles. Probably all things we prided ourselves on in the past. In falling over ourselves to show a willingness to do a deal at all costs we now appear weak and unprincipled. And we are still doing it. Last night is proof. We more or less begged the EU for a deal. Any deal will do. No matter how bad. That is what we said. It’s the kind of thing only a country defeated in war would usually be forced to concede. I for one never thought I would see the day.
By negotiating so badly we have damaged our place in the world and if we were to stay, within the EU as well.
I don’t believe this was an intended consequence.

 

[Sweep]

this is where we went wrong :

Trump on Brexit, as per @Reuters: – A second Brexit referendum would be 'unfair' – Says Brexit is 'complex' – Says May 'did not listen' to his suggestions on how to negotiate Brexit – Says he's 'surprised' by how bad Brexit negotiations have gone.

He also says he looks forward to doing incredible trade deals with the UK

 

[Sweep]

Christ on a bicycle, as if it couldn't get any worse we are now being patronised by the orange faced Man Child.

An orange faced man child who knows how to negotiate a deal better than us. We deserve it.

 

[Taz]

An orange faced man child who knows how to negotiate a deal better than us. We deserve it.

like his deal with the Mexicans over the wall 😁

 

[Deleted member 16999]

An orange faced man child who knows how to negotiate a deal better than us. We deserve it.

Probably because he only considers himself and what he wants and sees as a good deal.