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

https://www.facebook.com/IRBF.org.uk/videos/1061205684065560/

{{ Well yesterdays play in the Commons went as predicted- they had four votes on four alternatives- a Norway style Brexit, a people vote, a proposal to leave and stay in common market, and a proposal to leave and stay in common market plus free movement of people.

Now that last one is the really interesting one, as it was proposed by a Tory but supported by Labour and SNP.

Out of the options the peoples vote and this one came closest, in fact though there was not a majority for any option again the Tory amendment came within 3 votes of doing so- far, far closer than Mays deal ever got to one.

Of course its a complete nonstarter for the Tory Brexit bunch- it involves staying in the customs union, something they said they would leave to allow free trade deals, and it retains free-movement of people, which the government (rightly) says was one of the main things those voting leave were voting to stop.

So by a strange and unearthly coincidence the option most favoured so far by the House (mainly its opposition parties) is also the one most likely to do the maximum damage to the government and split the Tory party apart!

There seems no end at the moment to the political manoeuvring in place of serving the country's interests best. }}}

{{ I think today may surpass all others yet!

Today MP's are voting on a bill which would make it law that if the only choice facing the UK is a no-deal Brexit, then it will automatically seek to extend Article 50 as a matter of law to prevent it.

Now this might not sound particularly different from the other exploratory votes they have been holding, only this isn't one, nor is it an amendment, its a Bill. If it passes it becomes the law.

Under normal circumstances only a Government can bring a Bill to Parliament for a vote as only they can propose new laws. These are not normal circumstances, in the slightest.
What instead has happened is that backbench MP's got together to pass a vote which  gave control of the House business to the House for 1 day.
In short for today the government is effectively no longer in charge. The House has now fully seized control from the elected government and has set the business of the House and what bills may be considered or laws changed- which of course is this vote to prevent no-deal as a matter of law. Something the government and the Brexiteers of course are angrily opposed to.

May is giving a statement shortly- should be very interesting indeed. }}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ What instead has happened is that backbench MP's got together to pass a vote which  gave control of the House business to the House for 1 day.  }}}

How is that even possible?!?

{{ Ultimate political power lies with the House- which is why the House also has the ability to get rid of a government entirely without an election first by holding a vote of no confidence in the govenrment. Even the government is ultimately beholden to the House (parties can get rid of leaders too without bothering the public, even sitting PM's, we've had a few served as PM who were never elected, Major, Brown, and of course May herself). Even when they want to pass Bills and stuff, the time allocated to debate, the amendments accepted on it and the like is selected not by the government but by the Speaker of the House.
In theory MP's represent their constituents so MP's always have to in the end have the final power, that way the will of the people via their MP's is always dominant even over the power of the government. Not how it works in-practise of course but its a nice idea. }}

why the hell couldn't May and Corbyn compromise 2 years ago? she must be desperate. looks like a soft brexit on the cards.

{{ To correct an earlier mistake I made- the vote on the Bill is tomorrow not today.

Which explains that speech from May Figg, she is pre-empting Parliament taking control by finally just giving it up!

Here are the key bits from her speech-

"I know there are some who are so fed up with delay and endless arguments that they would like to leave with no deal next week. I've always been clear that we could make a success of no deal in the long term...But leaving with a deal is the best solution. So we will need a further extension of Article 50, one that is as short as possible and which ends when we pass a deal..."I'm offering to sit down with the Leader of the Opposition to try to agree a plan that we would both stick to, to ensure that we leave the European Union and that we do so with a deal....Any plan would have to agree the current withdrawal agreement...Crucially, the government stands ready to abide by the decision of the House, but to make this process work, the opposition would need to agree to this too...This is a decisive moment in the story of these islands and it requires national unity to deliver the national interest."

Few obvious things here right off the bat- she is insisting her deal has to be part of any deal they agree- despite her deal being roundly rejected several times and the DUP committed to oppose it along with a number of Tory MP's and all the opposition parties.

By accepting whatever the House decides May has effectively thrown in the towel in trying to remain in control of the Parliamentary agenda as a normal govenrment would. So she is not therefore likely to now oppose or challenge the backdoor usurping of power by backbenchers tomorrow. And if the vote goes through presumably the govenrment will not impede the Bills progress, even if it doesn't endorse it.

But mainly it all strikes as way too little, way too late. She needed to be doing this cross-party talk stuff starting 2 years ago, not waiting until after we are supposed to have left to start thinking she maybe ought to have compromised a bit and tried to find a consensus first.

In the short term at least it looks like the departure date will get kicked down the road again if the EU agrees to extend it further, which they probably will.
And the looming question of what happens when the Eu elections start soon is also pressing on matters.
Its not that we are not out the woods yet,we havent even got the car to start driving across country to get to the woods to get in them yet!  }}

she is trying to get her deal in by the back door, Stella Creasy mentioned that Barclay was insinuating that nothing had changed. they haven't changed, they are just desperate. Corbyn had better move carefully and secure what he wants otherwise the next ERG PM will just tear up any agreement, he needs it to be made law if possible. Corbyn now holds the whip hand, he must secure the softest mushiest brexit possible with a final peoples vote. if he does that he will be doing very well.

{{ Agreed Figg- if they agree to what she is currently saying then they are agreeing to accept her deal as part of it, even though she cant get it through the House- I see that as pointless, all she seems to be doing is trying to get Labour to support it having given up on trying to get her own party and the DUP to support it.

And shockingly you are also Figg in agreement with Sturgeon    - }}

'Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon says Jeremy Corbyn and Labour should be "wary" of Theresa May's offer to discuss the next steps on Brexit..."Even after the withdrawal agreement has been defeated three times in the House of Commons, this all appears to be about getting people to sign up to that and take their chances with the future relationship, and I think the House of Commons and all MPs have to be very, very careful about that."

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Agreed Figg- if they agree to what she is currently saying then they are agreeing to accept her deal as part of it, even though she cant get it through the House- I see that as pointless, all she seems to be doing is trying to get Labour to support it having given up on trying to get her own party and the DUP to support it.

And shockingly you are also Figg in agreement with Sturgeon    - }}

'Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon says Jeremy Corbyn and Labour should be "wary" of Theresa May's offer to discuss the next steps on Brexit..."Even after the withdrawal agreement has been defeated three times in the House of Commons, this all appears to be about getting people to sign up to that and take their chances with the future relationship, and I think the House of Commons and all MPs have to be very, very careful about that."

yikes that is shocking   who'da thunk it. But who in their right mind would trust that lot? not me that's for sure.

{{ Well it was another fun packed day in the Commons!

The Bill proposed by backbenchers to prevent no deal Brexit passed by a single vote. Completing successfully Parliaments unprecedented in modern times seizing of power from the government.
So now it goes onto the Lords before it can become law.

Meanwhile Corbyn is still playing silly-buggers.
He met with May- they put out a statement saying things were promising, then afterwards he said May had not moved as much as hoped.

But more importantly he is under strong pressure from his party, backbenchers and even his own cabinet to make a confirmatory vote, basically a 2nd referendum with a less troubling sounding name, part of any agreement-

'shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry said not backing a confirmatory vote would be a "breach" of the policy agreed by party members at its last conference.'

And has Corbyn made a 2nd vote part of it? Not so far, not even mentioned it. He really doesn't want a 2nd vote.

And finally as a result of all of this 2 more Tory ministers have resigned in protest. May's grip on her own party only lessens, but then she seems to have given up all hope in them backing her anyway. }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{So now it goes onto the Lords before it can become law.}}

As I understand it, in normal times the House of Lords' approval is mostly a formality, right?
But as you've pointed out before, these are NOT normal times.  
So what are the odds of the Lords speaking up and giving the Brexit pot a stir while they've got the chance, I wonder?

{{ The Lords is a revision chamber- its main job is to study legislation to make sure its fit and workable to be law. They cant stop laws, only Commons can make or get rid of laws, but they can refuse to pass it up to three times in a row and send it back with recommended changes- something they do often, after 3 times the will of the Commons prevails regardless of the Lords objections if it still has them.
But the Lords is at least as remain dominated as the Commons so I find it unlikely they will oppose it, its possible they might send it back if they find some technical issue. And there will certainly be those who oppose the manner in which its been done- in theory the Lords could pass it today- in which case a Bill will have been written, legislated for, voted on and  approved by both chambers and will have passed into law in the extraordinary time of 2 days. }}

They can recommend changes but if the House is free to ignore them what kind of check is that?

The Conservative Lords can filibuster but they usually get told to button it. I reckon if Corbyn is afraid of a peoples vote losing him core supporters all he has to do is insist as a condition of his helping her is for May to immediately halt Universal Credit, that way he gets kudos for halting it.

{{ Halfy- in practise it works surprisingly well, which is one of the main reasons numerous attempts to 'reform' the Lords have failed- no one can think of a better way to do it, whilst everyone agrees having an unelected Chamber is bad- problem is it also works most of the time.

It looks at legislation passed, debates it and tries to find flaws, constitutional issues (the most likely reason they will send this Bill back if they do, the haste with which it was passed in an unconstitutional method), the government can then make the recommended changes or just send it back as is if they really want to- but this is usually political difficult if its been rejected.
The three times rule is so that the will of the elected Commons is always in the end superior to the unelected Lords. If the Commons really want to get something passed the Lords unchanged they can just keep sending it back till it becomes law- but as I say in practise this doesn't happen too often as most commonly whatever issues the Lords find with a Bill are genuine issues and need addressed to make it good law.
And as the Lords is full of former civil servants, lawyers, MP's and the like but without the same adherence to party line and no longer concerned with trying to climb the greasy pole as the Commons they are surprising skilled and good at scrutinising legislation.

Figg- problem with unravelling Universal Credit at this point is that it would cost as much and be just as messy, and be somewhat akin to asking someone in the middle of making an omelette to give you the individual eggs back.
Corbyn's simple problem is that his party up to an including members of the Shadow Cabinet and the Deputy Leader are all strongly in favour of a peoples vote, and Corbyn simply isn't. If he does finally try to negotiate for it it will be with one arm twisted up his back I fear.}}

I was talking with my parents earlier and both said that if a second referendum was held, they'd vote remain now instead of their original Leave vote...but I didn't get the impression either had really changed their view of/knowledge about what the EU actually does and how it benefits the UK, it seems more a case that both of utterly fed up/appalled with how badly/drawn out the negotiations have been and they are starting to realize the very real costs that a no deal brexit could bring, they just want it over and done with either way.

My main point being that even if a second referendum was to happen, I'm not so convinced remain would win this time around, many people in the UK just aren't that bothered or fond of the EU, my parents seem to want to stay now largely because of the hassle leaving involves, not because they are suddenly fond of the EU. Indeed the only person I know who has seriously changed his mind went from Remain to eave, he feels we should just make a clean break now whilst we can and put the issue to bed, and as bad an idea as I think Brexit is, he does have a good point that it was by turnout the largest ever democratic vote in this country, a no deal brexit could ruin the economy and leave the forgotten areas of this country even more destitute, but if they feel the UK goverment can't do much for them, why should they believe that a remote EU goverment could do better.

Not sure if that makes sense, just some random thoughts...

{{ I too have severe reservations of a 2nd referendum Malick.

I agree its not clear the outcome would change, and if it did I fear the shift would be similar the other way- a very small margin. I doubt the result would change the fact the country is just as divided, and not just along party lines but along national lines, class lines and urban/rural lines, with England and Wales in favour of Leaving and Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar all strongly in favour of remain. The UK is split along its borders over this.

Of course had the UK government adopted the proposal put before the referendum by the devolved administrations and Gibraltar that as well as a straight majority a majority of the UK nations had to be in favour too, we'd not be in this mess (remember when they told us Scots during the indie referendum our voice was equal?)

Attentively there is something to be said for a 'minimum threshold' in a referendum. In the 70's when Scotland got its first chance to vote for a devolved parliament it passed with a majority, but failed to become law because it did not meet the threshold of over 70% the Tories set. Now that was a trap, Thatcher set the bar higher than any government had ever got in an election.
But a more fair level of say 60% assures that whatever decision is reached represents a clear majority view.

The other issue with a 2nd referendum is what do you ask? How many questions?

Brexiteers will not accept a leave/remain choice, they will fight to have no remain choice at all I'll bet.

The SNP and Libs and Greens and the Labour party if not its leader, will want a 2nd vote to include some sort of remain option. So there is another long fight.

Does May's withdrawal bill go on the referendum? Alternatives to the NI border issue? The customs union? Free movement of people? Where do you stop asking? Which are the really important questions to ask and which arent or are they all the important questions? How will Parliament even decide what goes in a 2nd referendum given the current climate there?

And what if the result is the same? You would still have a populace saying leave and a poltical class saying it would be really bad to leave. Same stalemate we are in now. }}}

{{ Well the Lords are moving apace, sort of! After a morning of debating and arguing about the procedure and constitutional implications of how this has all come about the Speaker in the Lords called it to a halt, announced none of what was being debated had any real relevance to the question being asked of the House- the actual Bill. Adjourned things, then it was announced the Bill would essentially move to the vote stage without a debate, called for if there was consent for it, got more yeahs than nays shouted back and now they are off to vote and now they off to vote again on an amendment to the Bill put forward by a Baroness (which is the sort of sentence you can find yourself writing when talking about UK politics!)!  

meanwhile in the Commons, a motion to hold more indicative votes was defeated by 1 vote, cast by the Speaker as the result was tied and going with precedent in such circumstances the Speaker votes with the nays.

edit add- oh and the DUP have said they oppose Mays deal, a 2nd referendum and any sort of customs union! }}}}

{{ So basically the Lords have agreed to get on with the actual Bill and turned down an amendment to block it on the basis its being rushed through in a day.
The argument in the Lords so far is largely hinging on the 'opposition' benches saying the Lords has no right in this matter to defy the will of the elected chamber. And the Tories arguing that the very purpose of the Lords is to scrutinize legislation and putting it through in a day is not doing that. }}

I am all in favour of a second vote and if this time young people 16-18 years old and expats have the right to vote, I think that would swing it heavily. Its horrible to say it but as the boomers are replaced by people not fed on the gutter press anti-EU propaganda there will be more positive attitude to the EU. its very important that the pro-EU campaign educates people about the many positive things about being a member as I think there are a lot of half truths and myths about the practical realities. unfortunately the leave campaign were excellent at misinformation and downright lies. we have to counter attack with the truth or we are fuqed. if after 3 years people are still chuntering on about the EU parliament being an unelected dictatorship then something is badly wrong. I mean what the fuck are MEPs if not elected representatives, the average Daily mail reader doesn't even know or care about the basics.

{{ I am not opposed to the idea of going back to the people Figg, its just I am finding it hard to see how it could be accomplished in practise. }}

{{ This will be sure to sink your faith in Labour even lower I'm afraid Figg- }}

' it has emerged that party chairman Ian Lavery offered to quit the shadow cabinet, after twice defying orders to vote in favour of another referendum... 25 Labour MPs - including former minister Caroline Flint and a number MPs for Leave-voting seats in the North and Midlands - have written to Jeremy Corbyn, saying another referendum should not be included in any compromise Brexit deal...They wrote: "Delaying for many months in the hope of a second referendum will simply divide the country further and add uncertainty for business.
A second referendum would be exploited by the far right, damage the trust of many core Labour voters and reduce our chances of winning a general election."

well I expect Flint and Mann to be afraid of losing their seats.