Why is there a second vote on a general election in Parliament today?

[whatshallIdo1]

when there was one last week which MPs voted against.

Is the voting mechanism different today?

Would love to better understand the workings of Parliament.

Why didnt the last labour government shut these loopholes down.

Because the current tax loopholes didn't exist none years ago.

Looking forward to the post where you criticise Labour for not being able to see into the future!

• nine years ago, not none

(Tax avoidance schemes have become particularly prevalent in recent years.)

If it was so good why was it rejected. Tax loopholes have been around for a long time.

If it was so good why was it rejected

Every sodding option was rejected. It was a particularly dismal week for politics in a year of considerable competition.

MPs voting along party lines instead of thinking about what was actually good for the country and would move the process forward.

@Incandescentwithage it's not about do we need/want a second ref. It's that Johnson is saying he's calling an election so that the people can vote (in other words he's asking them to vote again based on the same subject). However that can't be totally true because, if he truly wanted to ask the people what they want now, he could do it via a second ref.

The advantage of a second ref over an election would be that we are not then stuck with a government who has been elected based solely on one point. This is why we have referendums, so we can gauge the people without turning the country over to a one trick pony.

It's not a revoke/remain/leave argument. It's an argument for looking beyond the end of your nose and realising that this country has other things it needs a government for besides this clusterfuck of a situation.

I wonder how much cash Bozo has resting on a no deal. It would be nice to know it would all come out in the wash. However, as per past Tory investigations they'll probably just lose the paperwork.

Buffer. You could argue remain had a second bite of the cherry when may called a general election.

You could argue remain had a second bite of the cherry when may called a general election.
in what way?

What?! Its not about cherry biting? Or who had more chances over whom. Its purely and simply that the country cannot withstand this ongoing battle. Do you have any idea what has happened in government over the last few years besides this? Most people don't have a clue because all we have done is argue black is white amongst ourselves for 3 years!

I repeat, it's no longer about an argument between two or three "sides" and the longer people sit on their sides and battle the deeper into the shit we sink.

It is universally understood that a government elected on one policy is dangerous for a country. Don't you think our country has suffered enough already?

You could argue remain had a second bite of the cherry when may called a general election

And she lost her comfortable majority as a result of campaigning to get Brexit done 🤷🏻‍♀️

So I’d argue there’s even less of a mandate for Brexit than some may assume.

John Bercow has announced he'll step down. I think that was his original plan anyway wasn't it?

Didn't Boris, Mogg & others vote against TM's withdrawal agreement? And now here they are sacking people from their party for voting with their conscious. Twerps.

It was what Bercow had previously said yes.

Brexit should never have happened like this. It should never have been set up in such a way it could be used for political point scoring and election campaigning. We had a referendum, the government at the time choose to abide by it. Fine, not in my name but I cast my vote like so many other people. At that point a proper cross party team should have been set up to negotiate with the EU for a deal that best serves the country - not one party or another, the whole country. This is not like an election where, if we get it wrong, we can pop back to the polls in a couple of years and try again. This is long term and far reaching with none of the safety measures of parliamentary process or anything else. Why it was allowed to be handled by one party I have no idea. Personally I'd have like to see the EU request a cross party group for negotiations in the first place.

Oh, and article 50 should not have been invoked until that agreement was in place.

Bloody idiots the lot of them imo.

Agree on cross party but dont think the present parliamentarians could hold one together

At that point a proper cross party team should have been set up to negotiate with the EU for a deal that best serves the country

Or a completely independent one - you don’t have politicians negotiate such a thing; they’re too biased.

I can see why article 50 was revoked to put a time limit on it but Theresa’s mistake was being personally involved in negotiations. All of that work needed to be done by the civil servants who then take it back to a non-partisan group to approve.

But instead we have what we have.

I think they need to just go with the deal that we had from TM with a clause to renegotiate at set stages if necessary.

But we are too intertwined with the EU for there to ever to be an easy solution before we even get to politics.

Iggly “I think they need to just go with the deal that we had from TM with a clause to renegotiate at set stages if necessary”

OP, I wasn’t going to ask this here but I hope you won’t mind as now others have mentioned it

From what the Irish PM said earlier today, he was also all right with TM and her WA. So how on earth did we get here? I felt like we were told the backstop was the problem?

It’s not the Irish who have a problem with the backstop. It’s hard core Brexiters like Jacob Rees-Mogg who have a problem with the backstop.

Basically, there can’t be a hard border in Ireland under the GFA. During the transition period goods will move freely. If at the end of the transition period, a solution to the free movement of goods hasn’t been found (e.g. a technological solution to checking goods allowing free flow of traffic), the backstop will kick in. This will mean that standards between the EU and the UK will have to be aligned to allow free movement of goods to continue until the problem is solved.

JRM and co think that this unacceptably ties us to EU standards and this could continue indefinitely.

If the problem of goods crossing the Irish border is solved within the transition period, the backstop never kicks in. That’s why it’s called a backstop. A safety net for Ireland.

noble thank you.

And more argh from me. I’ve been in hiding a bit from politics so I thought the backstop was a concern for Irish people, it seems I have been very dense.

JRM and co think that this unacceptably ties us to EU standards and this could continue indefinitely

I’m not sure that that this is their reason. I wonder if it’s another reason - JRM doesn’t strike me as someone who would give a shit about EU standards when it comes to trading. Maybe it’s the tax laws coming in from the EU that they’re worried about.

Just a quick read. Theresa May’s agreement has a transition period of two years. During this two years, we’d still have to follow EU law (as the agreement allows us to gradually transit out of the EU as opposed to crash out).

So it makes sense why JRM doesn’t want the withdrawal agreement to happen. They’re probably shitting it about the tax transparency rules which would mean revealing all of the tax dodging.

This is what I don’t understand... People don’t want a second referendum, but it’s OK to have another vote on whether to have a GE, despite there being one only last week.

The whole system baffles me.

I think that if we leave the EU, most people will think we have left the EU. There will be no EU flags in the UK, we'll have our own passports and there won't be freedom of movement.

Most people don't know the ins and outs of trade deals, customs unions or what's going on really. A simple soundbite of "Today we have left the EU" is probably going to work for most people. The complex reality of customs unions will escape most people.

I think we should get as good a deal we can with the EU.

I say this as a Remainer. I think we should stay - but I recognise how divided we are. No Deal is no good.

I also say this with knowing how much the average person knows about economics, the political process and the EU / UK relationship.

A solution needs to be found that encompasses as many people as possible. Those who recognise Leave won and those who recognise that many people wanted to Remain.

As Calvin and Hobbes says:

“So it makes sense why JRM doesn’t want the withdrawal agreement to happen.”

But in general, why were MPs against it?

I feel as if there was a lot of them ranting about how TM’s negotiations were poor....so now it seems they want us to have no deal

because....because what?

But in general, why were MPs against it

Some MPs were unhappy because it had the backstop - which would have meant the UK was still linked to the EU and its rules. - those would be the hard Brexiteers.

Some MPs were unhappy because it didn't have a single market / Customs Union in - so it was too hard a Brexit for them as the single market was important to them - probably described as soft leavers.

Some MPs were unhappy because they wanted to Remain and think that the referendum was based on many lies and that the deal should go to a People's Vote - Remainers.