Brexit On The Brink...

[BoSoxGal]

Now even one of May’s ministers is suggesting another referendum is worth considering, and some are linking support for an exit deal to a referendum of the people:

One million people, organizers claimed, marched through London demanding a second referendum on Saturday, and almost 5 million have signed an online petition urging the government to revoke Article 50 and cancel the Brexit process altogether.
Those heightened calls for a so-called "People's Vote" could also provide May's Brexit deal an unlikely lifeline, with some senior opposition figures suggesting they would vote in favor of the plan if it were then put to the people in a confirmatory referendum.
"I will help you get it over the line to prevent a disastrous no deal exit. But I can only vote for a deal if you let the people have a vote on it too," Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson told Saturday's rally.

[Gob]

Tom Watson is an opposition politician.

[BoSoxGal]

That's just part of an article I read which started out talking about one of May's ministers saying 'perhaps a second referendum must now be considered', then went on to the bit I quoted. Sorry for the confusion, I should have quoted the whole article but it's a pain in the ass on my phone which is where I read and post from most often.

[Econoline]

They should probably hold a referendum to decide the question of whether or not to have another referendum.

[Lord Jim]

More theater, still no way forward:

MPs take control of the Brexit process in a rebuke to Theresa May

It’s not yet clear what MPs want to do with their control, however.

The House of Commons has voted by a decisive margin to hold a series of indicative votes on the ways out of the Brexit crisis, in the single biggest rebellion to soften Brexit since the vote of June 2016.

The government was defeated by 329 votes to 302, setting up votes on Wednesday to find out what kind of Brexit has most support among MPs. [Yeah, good luck with that]

Theresa May has said there is no guarantee she will abide by their wish.

Thirty Tory MPs voted against the government, including three ministers.

The manner of the defeat, as well as the defeat itself, is a bitter blow for the government. Not only did they lose, but three ministers quit the government to vote against the whip, while Bob Neill and Nicky Morgan, two former perennial rebels who government whips hoped they had got back on side, recorded their first rebellions of 2019.

More significantly still, Parliament has broken the taboo and taken control of the legislative timetable from the executive for the first time in a little over a century. One reason why the whips of both parties like to avoid forcing MPs to rebel is that rebellion tends to become a habit. A Parliament that has voted to reject the executive once is more likely to do so again.

What does it mean for Brexit? Well, that’s less clear. While it puts Parliament on course to decide on its own how best to resolve the Brexit crisis, there is as it stands no viable path to a parliamentary majority for any of the Brexit outcomes. The majority for indicative votes was reliant upon a host of MPs who have vowed not to block Brexit, and a host of MPs who have vowed to find any means to prevent it. Take away either and there is no majority for anything.

Underlying the difficulty that MPs have in reaching concrete steps, Margaret Beckett’s amendment to force the government to hold votes seeking an extension if the United Kingdom gets within seven days of a no-deal Brexit was narrowly defeated. MPs still have a large appetite for taking control of Brexit in theory that ebbs away when they are presented with opportunities to do so in practice. It’s not yet clear whether that has changed.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/s ... heresa-may

This looks like an excellent example of how desperation can produce really foolhardy actions...

A majority of the Parliament, unable to vote in favor of any thing else has now voted to put its complete paralysis on full display, as it will now take public votes to vote down every available course of action...

Which is virtually certain to happen in the votes that will take place today, since this grand stand play has done nothing to change the underlying political dynamics...

This is a move that basically says, "Just in case you were still in doubt that we have become completely incapable of doing our jobs, please let us prove it to you."

[liberty]

Why do you all care so much that the Brits stay in the European Union? If they were some African country would you be opposed to their independence? And why is it racist if the Brits want to slow down immigration to their country? If they think that is in their best interest it is in their right to do it.

Would you think it was racist if there are Africans countries that don’t allow whites to own land?

Whether or not the Brits stay in the European Union is entirely the business of the Brits.

[RayThom]

... Whether or not the Brits stay in the European Union is entirely the business of the Brits.

No comment other than "you're an idiot."

[Scooter]

Africans countries that don’t allow whites to own land

Must have heard about them from the same moron who told him that Europeans don't eat corn, and that Canada was an ally of the Soviet Union.

[liberty]

... Whether or not the Brits stay in the European Union is entirely the business of the Brits.

No comment other than "you're an idiot."

Do you have a reason for saying that or does it just feel good which would be the sign of a shallow intellect?

[RayThom]

... Whether or not the Brits stay in the European Union is entirely the business of the Brits.

No comment other than "you're an idiot."

Do you have a reason for saying that or does it just feel good which would be the sign of a shallow intellect?

lib, purely word economy.

[Lord Jim]

Like David Spade used to say in the Capitol One commercials...

"The answer's always no"...

MPs reject all alternative Brexit options

A first attempt by MPs to find a consensus route forward for Brexit has ended in deadlock and confusion after the Commons rejected every option put forward, albeit with a near-even split on the idea of joining a customs union.

Oliver Letwin, the veteran Conservative MP who led the process which allowed backbenchers to seize control of the order paper to hold a series of indicative votes, said the results were “disappointing” but he hoped a new round of votes would be held on Monday.

The Speaker, John Bercow, said he would allow this to take place, prompting shouts of protests from many MPs.

The Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, said the results strengthened the government’s view that Theresa May’s Brexit deal was the best and only way forward.

On the lack of a majority for any of the eight alternatives put to the vote on Wednesday, he said: “It demonstrates that there is not easy option here, that there is no easy way forward.”[There's that famous British understatement again...The end of that sentence should actually read, "there is no way forward."]

More:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... it-options

May even offered to quit if her Brexit deal was approved, and even that deal sweetener couldn't corral a majority...

[Burning Petard]

I am profoundly ignorant about the actual details of Brexit. If Britain will not join a customs union, does that mean I will no longer be able to buy really cheap obscure music cd's via Amazon that actually come from some store in England? There is always customs paper work on the outside that says it is exempt.

snailgate.

[Lord Jim]

Brexit latest news: Theresa May's deal defeated again by 58 votes - PM hints at general election to break deadlock

MPs reject Theresa May's Withdrawal Agreement

Deal defeated for third time: 344 votes to 286, majority of 58

34 Tories voted against the deal, five Labour MPs backed it

PM hints at possible general election and long Brexit delay

Donald Tusk immediately calls emergency EU summit on April 10

ERG deputy chairman calls on PM to quit: Deal is finished

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ithdrawal/

[Big RR]

That would be interesting; as I recall, it would require a 2/3 vote in Parliament to get a new general election--I wonder if she could put that vote together. From what I have read and seen, I would lean toward No.

ETA: I guess the other way is to have a no confidence vote, but it would be surprising for the tories to support that as I doubt a new election would be good for their party. I'm not sure what would happen if she were to resign, but I doubt it would trigger another election. Also, I guess the Queen could call for a new election, but I wonder how this would play with the populace and whether she'd take that chance.

Does anyone who knows the British system have some insight?

[Lord Jim]

And of course given the nearly even split divisions reflected in the polls, a new general election would likely produce a Parliament that looks numerically very much like the current one (despite all of the Conservative Party's troubles, because of Corbyn the Tories continue to lead Labour.) and therefore absolutely no resolution to the Brexit issue...

[BoSoxGal]

TIME FOR A SECOND BREXIT REFERENDUM!!

[ex-khobar Andy]

That would be interesting; as I recall, it would require a 2/3 vote in Parliament to get a new general election--I wonder if she could put that vote together. From what I have read and seen, I would lean toward No.

ETA: I guess the other way is to have a no confidence vote, but it would be surprising for the tories to support that as I doubt a new election would be good for their party. I'm not sure what would happen if she were to resign, but I doubt it would trigger another election. Also, I guess the Queen could call for a new election, but I wonder how this would play with the populace and whether she'd take that chance.

Does anyone who knows the British system have some insight?

You're right. It used to be that the interval between general elections could not be more than five years, but the PM could, if he or she saw a potential advantage, call a GE at any time. Thus we had one in 1964 - won by Labour's Harold Wilson with a very small majority - and another in 1966 - because Wilson saw, from opinion polls, that he was likely to increase his majority to something more workable. He went from a majority of four seats to 98. In 2011 they changed the rules so that the PM could no longer do this without the approval of Parliament with a 2/3 majority. May, after taking over from Cameron who bolted for the hills after losing the Brexit referendum, ill-advisedly called an election in 2017, long before the five year cycle, to which Parliament assented. May's reasoning, and the opinion polls bore her out, was that she would get a larger majority in Parliament and this be playing with a stronger hand when negotiating Brexit. To everyone's surprise, including mine, that's not what happened and she lost her overall majority and had to make a bargain with the devil (aka the hardline Northern Irish Protestant party) to stay in power.

The Queen cannot call a GE. It has to come from Parliament. I suppose that in the end if the PM did not call one when it was time - i.e., went over the year limit - she could pull rank, but that would never happen.

A major balls up from all angles.

[Big RR]

The Queen cannot call a GE.

I thought the monarch can dissolve parliament (which would trigger a GE), or is that no longer the case? I seem to recall the Australian Parliament being dissolved by royal decree (or decree of the governor general) a number of years ago.

Now I imagine that the Australian PM was involved in that situation (I really don't know) and I do think that it could trigger a lot of other problems if te queen did this, but my understanding of the Parliamentary system is that she technically has that power--or am I mistaken?

ETA: Well, I guess I should have checkd; it appears the Queen lost the power to dissolve Parliament without a 2/3 vote in 2011. If I recall, the Australian government was dissolved in the 1970s or 80s.

[Scooter]

They may have learned from the Canadian example. The royal prerogative was written explicitly into our constitution, and can only be altered accordingly. Our fixed elections statute says that it is not intended to interfere with the discretion of the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, and everyone agreed in any case that the G.G. would need the power to call an election if, say, a minority government was defeated on a matter that conventionally triggers its resignation and the opposition was unwilling or unable to form a government in its place. Everyone seemed to have a common understanding that a government would otherwise be constrained from requesting early dissolution. Two years into its mandate, the PM asked the GG for a dissolution without even the pretext of having lost the ability to govern. A court ruled that there was no language constraining the PM's ability to advise the GG, and it would probably impair the GG's powers if there were.

A situation that does not appear to have been addressed, is what would happen if a government resigned without the House voting non-confidence? If there is no viable alternative, there is nothing to allow for an early dissolution, so does that mean the country will have no government until the next scheduled election? Would the Queen have to reclaim personal rule?

[Gob]

TIME FOR A SECOND BREXIT REFERENDUM!!

And if "remain" win that then it's a draw, one referendum each. So we then have a decider...