UK in/out referendum on the EU (Brexit vs Bremain)

What are the chances of the May government being out if she loses the vote?

I am rather envious of the parliamentary system where you can chuck out leadership at any time. Here we just have grit our teeth and outlast it to the next election cycle. Even impeachment only gets rid of the president (after a lengthy process that doesn't end with the vote of impeachment), the rest of the government remains in place.

{{Remember those Letters of no confidence put in by the Tories? Well they never reached the threshold number to oust May as leader, but they are still sitting there waiting to be tipped over that line. My guess is if she loses the vote that will happen.
But that's just an internal Tory affair- it will only force a leadership contest within the Tory party (in which May can stand still and defend herself and hope to win) if that happens and she loses its more likely we will get a hard Brexit leader who will throw May's plan out and say we just leave without a deal on WTO rules- but there's a hurdle to that too now, as the vote yesterday in the Commons gave Parliament an effective veto over a no-deal- a no-deal would have as little chance of getting through Parliament as May's does.

The other option is May gets an extension on Article 50, delays the Brexit vote, and says she will renegotiate the backstop- that's a possibility but at the moment the EU don't seem in the mood to reopen negotiations.

There could be a vote of no confidence in Parliament in the government- that would force a general election, or May herself may decide to call one.
But as neither of the big two parties are standing on a remain platform I don't see how that would help resolve anything, its different shades of Brexit, and Labours version, whatever it is as it's so anomalous its hard to tell on any given day what their policy is, is probably worse than May's in terms of being acceptable to Parliament and winning a vote.

The other final option is a second referendum on the deal and if we want to go ahead with it- but May has already torpedoed that saying no chance. }}

she might say no chance but she may be out, therefore its up to the new leader. In Italy collapsing governments happen every month and they have a handy way of getting round things, which is a technical government which in theory is not political but made up of politicians who are just there to get things done on a day to day basis. They normally are more successful than the argy-bargy of left and right, and just get shit done. If the British government could just elect someone who is just going to do what is in the best interests of the country instead of power games we might be able to do business with the EU, such as ask for an extension of Article 50 until a referendum can be held. Or they might say fuq a referendum we are ripping up Article 50 and that's the end of it.

As far as I recall, from memory, the Labour solution is to call off article 50 to enable a longer period of negotiations, so that a deal will be done before the UK leaves the EU. Yanis Varoufakis has also argued for such a solution. This is going of some statements of Corbyn's however, and I don't have the details fresh in mind.

This is the most coherent I have heard him on the issue:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:For those (like Blue- wherever he is- who might find the full legal advice interesting you can read the 6 page letter here-  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/761852/05_December-_EU_Exit_Attorney_General_s_legal_advice_to_Cabinet_on_the_Withdrawal_Agreement_and_the_Protocol_on_Ireland-Northern_Ireland.pdf   }}}

Thank you, not quite my field, but might be an interesting read if I have the time.

Only 2 days before Brexit goes bye byes.

talking of which   Andy Serkis does us proud.

{{{ May it seems has blinked first! }}

'Theresa May is to call off Tuesday's crucial vote on her Brexit deal in the face of what was expected to be a significant defeat by Tory rebels.
Government sources have said the prime minister is set to tell MPs about the delay in a statement at 15:30 GMT.
Downing Street had been insisting the vote would go ahead..Mrs May's Commons statement will be followed by a statement from Commons leader Andrea Leadsom - and then a statement from the Brexit secretary Stephen Barclay on Article 50 - the legal mechanism taking the UK out of the EU on 29 March...'- BBC

Important development from the Court of Justice of the European Union. The UK can withdraw art. 50 unilaterally until a withdrawal agreement is concluded or the (extendable) two year period after notification has expired.

https://www.europeansources.info/record/case-c-621-18-wightman-and-others-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union/

"[T]he answer to the question referred is that Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1178994

Will see if I can get around to reading the judgment in full later.

what utter despicable cowards, how dare that woman delay the vote.

{{Well seems May's gamble to delay the vote has resulted in a no confidence vote from her own party in her- the 48 letters are in and later today she will face the vote- she loses then she is out and the Tory's elect a new leader, she wins then not only does she stay they cant touch her for another year.

As I said before I dont see how it changes anything even if she goes- we are more likely to get a hard Brexit voice in her place, and if we do they wont be able to get a hard brexit vote through any more than May could her plan, and if a stronger remainer than May gets in, well that will split the Tories in half I reckon.

Interesting day ahead!


edit add- should have the result of the vote about 9pm GMT}}}

after what this grotesque shower has done to the UK they are finished. if there is any justice.
The only hope is Keir Starmer taking control of the Labour party and their faffing about. before its too late.

{{So May survived as I suspected she would- what was of more interest is how many of her own party would vote against her- that turned out to be just over 100 of them- more than double the amount that was needed to call the leadership challenge. So there is no doubt she has been damaged by this happening at all.
It is also clear on those numbers in her own party not supporting her there is no way to get her Brexit plan as is through the House- there is simply not the votes to pass it.
In effect this has changed nothing- the same stalemate exists her plan is DOA, all this vote has really done is give as better idea of by how many it will fail by and how much ground she will need to make up to get a bill passed.}}

{{Well this is classic Westminster and how they treat the Scottish parliament.

Bit of background- while back the Scottish Parliament passed a Brexit Bill of its own-

'The Bill - known as the "continuity bill" - was passed with only the Conservatives and a single Lib Dem MSP voting against it.
It was drafted as an alternative to Westminster's EU Withdrawal Bill, which MSPs refused to give their consent to following a row over how powers currently exercised from Brussels will be used after Brexit.'

Now Westminster challenged this bill on the basis it was 'outside the competency of the Scottish Parliament' and it has finally got to the Supreme Court. This is where it gets interesting, and dodgy.

The verdict was -

'The judges said the bill "as a whole" was within Holyrood's competence, but that MSPs had acted outwith their powers in relation to one section.'

And the one section is where the dodgy is- you see the one section, that section said MSP's had to give their consent to any Brexit bill passed at Westminster.

That was the bit the government didn't like at all.

So it being struck down has been hailed by the Scottish Secretary as providing-

 '"much needed legal clarity" that the bill "goes beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament"..."This demonstrates clearly that it was the right thing for the UK government to refer the bill to the court.
"It is now for the Scottish government to consider how to proceed, and we hope Holyrood will take a pragmatic approach and work constructively with us as we leave the EU."

Problem is, that bit wasn't beyond the competency of the Scottish Parliament when they passed it. The government changed the law after the bill had passed-

'Lady Hale said the judges had unanimously rejected many of the UK government's arguments...she pointed out that the UK government had subsequently made changes to its legislation which add it to a protected schedule of the Scotland Act, meaning it cannot be altered by MSPs.
This means the bill was largely competent when it was passed by MSPs in March - but that a number of sections now could not stand.'

The Scottish Government response is-

'Scottish Brexit Secretary Mike Russell said the UK government had "changed the rules of the game midway through the match" in an "act of constitutional vandalism".'

Yup, that about sums it up- they changed the law after the bill had been passed in order to make the bit they didn't want illegal! Better Together! Equal Partners! Fuck Me! }}

but what are the ramifications?

{{Effectively that it curbs the powers of all the devolved administrations within the UK to take decisions reflecting the wishes of their people- if its on the Westminster list of things we aren't allowed a say in. And if its not on the list, but the government at Westminster don't like it, they can just change the law so it is added to the list.

We had a say in this when the Scottish Parliament drafted and passed the bill, but we didn't by the time the UK government took it to court because they passed legislation to add it to the banned list after the Scottish Parliament drafted and passed it, but before it reached the Supreme Court. And now that's the law, so we won't get our say in our parliament on the Brexit deal- whatever Westminster passes now basically all the devolved admin have to just accept it without debate, or vote or amendments.

There is little point in having devolved administrations if Parliament can simply change the laws to make anything they do it doesn't like illegal. It undermines utterly the trust that is required between devolved administrations and Parliament, which is why lawyers representing the Northern Ireland assembly and the Welsh Parliament were also present to back the Scottish Parliament position. This is a serious legal undermining of devolution as a principle. And it has not gone unnoticed by all three devolved administrations.}}

{{{ The farce that is May's Brexit rumbles slowly on to its demise.
The EU sent her home empty- handed after she failed to convince them changing anything would actually help in any real way.

So most May has to offer her rebellious MP's is some vague promises of intent- I don't see that changing the Parliamentary arithmetic anytime soon.
She is saying she will bring the bill back to the house for the vote in January- but honestly hard to see what is likely to change inbetween now and then and seems a waste of time, and cowardice, to not put it to the vote sooner. }}

Its very embarrassing to be English at the moment.

so the deal will fail, what the hell will happen next. They are talking about military officers planning for chaos. I have an idea people will be buying yellow high-viz jackets soon. Better stock up before they sell out.

{{ I think May is trying to pull a rather devious move. I think she is now just trying to just delay the vote as late as possibly, she is already talking January, my bet is it wont be early January either. I reckon her plan is to push it as close to the leave date as possible, minimising the time Parliament will have to do anything else. Meaning they will be left with only two choices- no deal or her deal.
As there is only a small vocal minority of MP's in the House actually advocating no deal I think she is gambling her deal will pass as the lesser of two evils. }}

I think its obvious to everyone what she is doing, and what still blows my mind is the fact even in the face of overwhelming evidence, she is ploughing on regardless in the teeth of reality. what kind of person does that. Its gone way past determination and 'duty' because the brexit deal is obviously dead. what kind of leader does that? its the kind of leader who has dictatatorial tendencies, never listens, wants to win at any cost, thinks they have a god-given mandate, and hurts the populace in the process. its barking mad. and the terrible thing is Parliament cant seem to stop her.

{{ I think  this is why she went tonto on Blair for so publicly advocating another referendum (is going tonto a racist phrase now? Bugger it probably is!) another referendum is the biggest threat to her 'dont the give them any other choice but mine' plan. }}

Also recall the Court of Justice jugdment.

Bluebottle wrote:Important development from the Court of Justice of the European Union. The UK can withdraw art. 50 unilaterally until a withdrawal agreement is concluded or the (extendable) two year period after notification has expired.

https://www.europeansources.info/record/case-c-621-18-wightman-and-others-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union/

"[T]he answer to the question referred is that Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State — for as long as a withdrawal agreement concluded between that Member State and the European Union has not entered into force or, if no such agreement has been concluded, for as long as the two-year period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU, possibly extended in accordance with that paragraph, has not expired — to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner, by a notice addressed to the European Council in writing, after the Member State concerned has taken the revocation decision in accordance with its constitutional requirements. The purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the Member State concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end."
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=208636&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1178994

Any new UK government can now unilaterally withdraw the art. 50 notice, and restart negotiations and serve another notice at the time it sees fit. The thought that May might be stalling, to avoid any chance of a new government or a general election before March is an interesting one.

she is denying Parliament sovereignty and yet has the brass cohones to call Blair a threat to democracy.

{{ Labour is the problem right now mind you. For there to be any chance of another referendum Labour have to back one, and they arent. And the reason they aren't is that a large slice of their traditional working class vote in England and Wales voted for Brexit. And Labours game plan at the moment is to force a general election through a vote of no confidence in the govenrment. They therefore dont wish to risk losing any potential votes first.

They seem to be following a plan of frustrate whatever deal May gets and refuse to vote for it in the hope enough on her own benches won't vote for it either, defeating the bill and then allowing Labour to table a motion of no confidence when the govenrment is at its weakest and Tory rebels their most emboldened. This is why they are so strongly urging May to have the vote this week or next week not in January.

So forgetting the content of the Brexit deal, and the EU side of things, or the arguments about in or out the politics alone are currently-

May wants to delay the vote as late as possible to force a stark choice between her way or no deal. Some in her own party want her to have the vote soon, the ones who just tried to oust her, in the belief it will fail and they can force her to resign instead, allowing a Brexiter to assume control. Some of them are advocating for a second referendum as they believe Remain might win this time solving the problem for them, and they were remainers first time out- your Ken Clark side of the party- the moderates and pro-European wing.

Labour won't back a second referendum out of fear of alienating a section of their own working class base, and are going to refuse to vote for May's bill no matter what it is in order to defeat the government and table a no confidence vote. But they don't actually have a Brexit plan of their own or solution to questions such as the Irish border because in truth they are just split down the middle over the issue as the Tories are. So besides the Labour leadership plan to force a general election there are also Labour members advocating for a second referendum.

Just the domestic politics of it alone makes it a clusterfuck of unsolvable proportions before you even start on the actual content of the Brexit Bill, which seems less important than the political games being played around it anyway. }}

Basically its Corbyn and mcDonut. They are holding out for a GE, and Corbyn is a brexiteer deep down. The only hope is if pressure from the young members and Momentum and Starmer make it impossible for them to flim-flam about. if he betrays the young membership will fall so he has to decide whether to betray the young and 48% of the population who voted, or the gammons. anyway 17 million is NOT the will of the people, there are 67 million+ people in the UK.