When MPs vote on December 11th-what are the possible outcomes?!(82 Posts)
If enough people (more than half) agree the plan, Brexit goes ahead and Theresa May and the conservatives remain in power.
If not enough people vote yes, then what? What actually happens? Does that count as a vote of no confidence in the PM or not? Does Brexit still go ahead anyway?
Apologies if those are stupid questions that have been done to death.
That's just bravado and I feel a bit like that myself. It's a lot better than whining in my book. We farming folk have been bombarded with info from NFU etc. To say they know nothing about it is rubbish.
Admittedly alcohol had been consumed but there were many “It’s not going to affect us, we’ll just keep doing what we’ve always done, we were fine before the EU and we’ll be fine after it” comments.
I spent time with my brexiteer family this week- farming folk, very rural. They have absolutely NO understanding of how Brexit (deal or no deal) is going to affect their industry. Pull the other one
THe Labour Party made the wrong call, possibly because JC has always been a closet brexiter. The fact is that most Labour Ms, most LP members and most LP voters voted REMAIN.
@LouiseCollins28 Well, I think Labour was partly making a political choice in 2017 because large numbers of voters in some Labour seats voted Leave. And of course Corbyn is pretty anti-EU. Plus they probably didn't realise themselves how difficult it would be to make a success of Brexit!
As to how 'no Brexit' is respecting the result, it isn't - unless there is a follow-up referendum, which is why I personally support one. Failing that, Labour could make a case for a very soft Brexit inside SM and CU if they ditch Theresa May's red lines around free movement. However, to do that, they first have to defeat the withdrawal agreement.
@cuppaqueen. thanks for kind words, and your response. I partly agree with you that the Labour party committed itself to different things in 2017.
If, as you suggest, No Brexit is the best way of "putting the national interest first" then why, I wonder, did the Labour party commit to anything else in 2017?
If "No brexit" is the optimum outcome, how does that meet the "respecting the result" bit?
@LouiseCollins28 Thanks for sharing your letter.
Personally, I think Labour committed to two conflicting things here: 'Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.'
The 'deal' May has done is demonstrably NOT in the national interest. It will hamper our economy, with all the negative consequences for jobs and services, leave us as rule-takers not rule-makers for a currently unlimited period of time, and curtail opportunities for millions of Britons.
At the moment Labour policy is to fight for an alternative vision of Brexit, inside the SM and CU. Personally I think that's also daft when we'd be better off staying in, but it's possible to argue that it is still respecting the result.
(Although I fail to see why accepting the referendum result precludes asking a follow-up now the terms of the real 'deal' are on offer. It's hardly a re-run when the question is different and, crucially, much of the bullshit is removed.)
A bad 'deal', which May's is, may be better than no deal (she's changed her tune though!) but both are demonstrably worse than no Brexit. No Brexit is the best way of meeting the other half of Labour's promise!
Thanks for responding @blackcurrantjam - it's an interesting debate!
Re the whip, the point I was trying to make is it won't be an effective deterrent to MPs voting against the withdrawal agreement because there's too many rebels for May to punish without shooting down her own majority. That's why many MPs no doubt feel they can vote against and get away with it (and to be fair, probably feel more strongly about this issue than many other parliamentary debates).
I suspect the EU is quite happy with the backstop. It would keep the UK in an effective customs union indefinitely (so much for all those free trade deals) and, more importantly, the British government's fear of it happening gives the EU an upper hand in negotiating the actual future deal. Although I do think the backstop will be hard to avoid. Trade deals are rarely closed in two years, especially when one side, the U.K., still doesn't really know what it wants.
You could be right about whether enough MPs will support a 2nd ref - time will tell! But they have few other options to prevent a default 'no deal' which most sensible ones are horrified by. Being able to withdraw Art 50 might be a get-out clause depending on the EU ruling on the 4th. I think it's probably cost the U.K. a hell of a lot more money so far than it has them.
As to making a mockery of the whole thing, surely this withdrawal agreement and pie-in-the-sky 'deal' is the ultimate mockery of voters, giving neither Leavers nor Remainers what they wanted. I don't see how it's undemocratic to say to people, forget the promises, this is what you'd actually be getting, do you definitely want this?!?
But it does prevent government support of industry - which is what Coryn and Macdonnell want to do
Thats not what you first said.
Thank you, and we think voting for unicorns is crazy!
I suppose once you are completely submerged in shit it hardly matters if it is 1 foot or 100 feet above you.
I suppose he could get a big loan from China or the IMF or Wonga to achieve it, but all lose the 'sovereignty' feel.
THe plan (before he actually could be held to his word) was
- to allow all rail franchises to lapse and then nationalise the railways (actually that one is a real vote winner)
- to nationalise all utility companies
- to cancel all PFI contracts
- to choose to subsidise certain industries like steel
- to bring in more of a controlled industrial economy (Allegros all round)
Before we get too far into the idea of 'nationalising industry', maybe we should reflect on what industries are actually 'UK'.
Practically all car manufacture is foreign owned. as is water, electricity, transport, gas?, I expect many others but can't think now.
Principally the Tories have sold them all off so before they could be 'nationalised' they would have to be bought back.
Being in the SM doesn't stop a Gov nationalizing an industry or owning shares in private companies
But it does prevent government support of industry - which is what Coryn and Macdonnell want to do.
believers do not let facts get in the way of faith
belief that Brexit is a panacea
No need to be rude is there?
Being in the SM doesn't stop a Gov nationalizing an industry or owning shares in private companies.
Corbyn is anti EU as you correctly sight his voting record, however in the here and now, he supports staying in the SM and the CU, he and his parties policy is to support a 2nd vote, if there is no prospect of a GE, that is factual & not bollox!
Corbyn repeatedly says he wants a SM/ CU deal with EU and has no issue with FOM.... so softest of brexits!
He wants to be able to nationalise industries and bring in state control
that CANNOT be done inside the SM
He called for A50 to be invoked the day after the referendum
look at his voting record over the last 30 years
Momentum is anti brexit and pro 2nd vote!
Corbyn repeatedly says he wants a SM/ CU deal with EU and has no issue with FOM.... so softest of brexits!
Mays deal gives us potential anything inc a hard brexit, stuck in a CU with the EU that we can never ever leave!
My MP is anti Brexit
he is threatened with deselection by Momentum.
Corbyn wants a hard Brexit - he has always hated the EU
Brexit is bad for the UK
I have prepared a letter to my MP ahead of 11th December. Thought the MN Brexit thread posters might be interested to see what I have written.
Dear MP Name
I am writing to you regarding the forthcoming debate and voting in parliament on the Government’s withdrawal agreement negotiated with the European Union.
Following the publication the Labour Party manifesto for the General Election in 2017 I was pleased to learn that “Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.” I am also pleased to confirm that I voted for you to be my MP largely based on this commitment.
Clearly, at that time, the party had also to be true to its values and offer something different from Brexit than the Conservative party, as indeed it did. However, at the said election, a Labour government was not returned.
Nonetheless, a commitment that the party “accepts the referendum result” is one I think it remains reasonable to hold the Labour party to nationally, and to hold you to personally as my MP.
I hope you will take any opportunity afforded to you to be present, speak in the debate if possible and vote positively so that the electors of Constituency Name will have a public record of your vote on this crucial agreement.
The situation is now different than it was in 2017. Then, it was entirely proper to offer competing visions of Brexit while committing to “accept the referendum result”. Now, as we begin December 2018 and with the vote 10 days away, a withdrawal agreement deal has been made between the Government and the EU-27. For myself, I am firmly of the view that “a” deal is better than “no deal”; I am equally firmly of the view that “this deal” is better by far than a “no deal” Brexit next March.
I urge you to vote in favour of the withdrawal agreement so that the Labour party’s 2017 commitment can be honoured and an orderly withdrawal from the EU can begin next year. More than this though, I urge you to consider the views of all your constituents, to speak, and to vote positively so your stance on this agreement will be a matter of record that you can be held to at a future election.
Had they moved to unleaded petrol at that stage?
Don't diss the Allegro. I had two. My mate Jon had the one with the square steering wheel. The Maestro was its worthy successor.
Maryjoyce is looking forward to the reintroduction of the Austin Allegro.
1. Indeed. So do Tory MPs really want to go independent over this?!
2. Nobody wants the backstop, least of all the EU, so everyone will be working hard to secure a deal after March and before the end of 2020. EU won't have any access to our fishing waters if we go into backstop, for example, so highly unlikely. Agree DUP a problem if the WA and backstop cannot be separated.
3.I don't believe they'll be a majority for another EU ref given the amount of people who voted in the ref, and the amount of people who voted Leave, and the fact that MPs voted something like 6 to 1 to hold it in the first place and the debates went on for ages. It seems to me implausible and would make a mockery of everything, surely. But this is just my opinion - lots of this thread is simply that, opinion.
4. I'm not sure it matters that there's no parliamentary majority for no deal. Art 50 already triggered... by parliament - Gina Miller?? EU surely under no obligation to carry on partnership after March. It'll be interesting to see if EU say we can unilaterally rescind Art 50 after this whole thing has cost millions. EU countries will be pretty hacked off at that.
Another tweak needed to teach Maryjoyce when to use "to" not "too"
As for "rubbish cars" - if we are subjected to a no-deal brexit none of us will be able to afford a car.
What rubbish cars are those, @Maryjoyce .
By the way, I'm English we say "their rubbish cars" not "there rubbish cars". Need to ask your bot supervisor to tweak your device.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.