Westminstenders: A vote too far?

[RedToothBrush]

The ECJ have ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke A50.

There maybe lots of other news today, but that's the big one.

May has her big vote tomorrow. Or does she.

Will she survive until the end of the week?

I was hoping no deal was off the table and I was happy to live in denial until January then step up stockpiling. But...DP from his chronically ill slumber has said (after watching morning tv) that he's worried it's looking like a No Deal.

Y'know when disabled people or sick people hear no deal they hear hey we don't care if you die because you cost money to honest, hard working tax payers honest and hard workers never get sick do they?

Anyway she says trying hard not to rant

Any sound bites I can say to DP to reassure him? That are vaguely true?

I said the revoke ruling was important and could stop no deal and that was very much on the table. is it?!

I'm floundering.

Sorry to hear your dilemma, @Hazardswan .
I remain () convinced that Parliament will avoid No Deal. Despite brinkmanship of TM and JC being shit.
Let's hope that even the biggest gobs about Leave are quietly putting a little extra food by to keep the unlikely scenario of No Deal tolerable. So that they will keep out of the way and the emergency services can focus on people who actually need it.

Howabout The backstop IS a genuine problem and the EU bent over backwards trying to help the RoI there.

In fact, the UK has tried to use NI to leverage its cake options without the 4 freedoms;
the WA does succeeed in this to a small extent - hence some members claiming Barnier gave away too much.

The only border solutions are:
a) Technical magic which hasn't been invented
b) A trade deal with frictionless borders
c) NI to bugger off to the Republic or elsewhere out of the UK

The ERG brought in some customs bod, who just spoke to the HoC on his subject, NOT on the phyto-sanitary checks etc which are the main problem for the RoI

However, the main problem is the UK wants to leave - but keep all the bits it likes,
e.g. frictionless trade for JIT, faming & agriculture, also passporting, flights, Galileo, electricity connectors ....

Barnier showed his menu of options, with the choice of option depending on UK red lines

The only option that satisfies all UK red lines is Canada+,
in which case we need NI to bugger off, or maybe have joint rule with the RoI

However, the govt hated Canada+ anyway, because of all the trade benefits we would lose

Read veteran Leaver R North who is a genuine expert on food checks
He explains why the ERG are spouting lying bollocks about the border and where checks have to be carried out.

The UK can revoke & invoke until it makes itself dizzy .... or the ECJ tells it to stop the abuse of A50

However, the RoI will not renegotiate the GFA to allow a harder border
and the EU will not abandon the RoI
The problem is that the GFA was agreed by all parties, assuming that both the UK and RoI would remain EU members

My suggestions:

1. have a vote in NI on the backstop
   • opinion polls suggest there is a good majority in favour, just not the fucking DUP dinosurs OR
2. work on joint rule with the RoI so that NI can belong to both the Uk and the EU The EU already has made exceptions for NI, both because of the GFA and because it is such a tiny % of the EU economy.

Terms of the GFA
https://www.britishirishcouncil.org/about/british-irish-agreement

In the preamble before article 1:

"Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the close co-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours
and as partners in the European Union"

I frequently hear politicians on the radio saying they have to respect the result of the referendum because otherwise "people will lose faith in politics and politicians". They must be deluded to think anyone has faith in politicians, numerous surveys have demonstrated the opposite.

@BigChocFrenzy - I think TM hinted at an NI only referendum of some kind when she talked about taking into account and respecting the views of NI.
Maybe I read too much into that.

I agree, born. I don't think they could do anything to make us have LESS faith.

They definitely could act such that I'd have less faith in them, I'm afraid. No Brexit after all this would kill off any remaining confidence I have in our parliament.

On the basis that so many have told lies that have been proven to be lies and that some have said they would renege on any bits of 'agreement' they wanted to change it is difficult to take many at their word.
A 'Truth and reconciliation' committee would stumble at the first word.

bellini I assumed that meant getting her orders by phone from Arlene and shelling out bungs

But surely an NI only referendum is effectively giving NI a final say on Brexit ? What if NI says "fuck off Theresa" ?

The NI majority was Remain.

Ref BCF
{b) A trade deal with frictionless borders}
Oh look, that's handy as it is laid out in the WA, why don't we try that?

Why isn't Scotland getting bungs?

Louise That's the biggest argument for the WA
It's respecting the vote to leave, because it is the best deal that satisfies as many red lines as possible.

At least it's Brexit, with time in transition to negotiate a better deal ... if we ever get a serious govt

I want to Remain, but I understand that POV

They definitely could act such that I'd have less faith in them, I'm afraid. No Brexit after all this would kill off any remaining confidence I have in our parliament.

I'm afraid I agree with this - with the hefty caveat that no brexit following a second referendum now it is clear what our options are would be acceptable. I also take on board what others said about GE being about more than one issue, so I can see why that wouldn't work.

And (again, for the record) - I am most definitely pro-remain. But to do so against the referendum with no clear justification other than "we know what is best for the electorate and don't trust them anymore" would erode any respect I have for the parliamentary system itself.

NI and the backstop is a cul-de-sac. Anything which looks like stand alone negotiating for them immediately leads to a Hard Border at Gretna Green.

There were a lot of SNP voices in the HoC yesterday - seems like no-one was listening.

Leclerc If there is a GE and Labour need SNP Confidence & Supply,
then maybe Scotland will get bungs too - now the shameless precedent has been set.

More likely, NS would demand the Indie2 vote

I wonder if Westminster would let Scotland keep ll the UK benefits, if it chooses to Indy ? 🤔

We need a federal UK, with an upper chamber of 25 senators for each member country
and everything except defence & foreign affairs to be decided at country level

Otherwise, we may lose Scotland
So much open contempt for Scotland by a succession of Tory govts

It is the refusal by all to actually discuss properly but find any excuse to delay things. Maybe Phillip May will be sending a note to the EU on March 29th saying that unfortunately Theresa will be a bit late as she has a cold and hasn't quite finished her homework.

@BigChocFrenzy , I used to think that was crazytalk ...
Used to.

IsobelKarev, I think the grown-up thing to do (and of course it won't happen) would be for the government to admit that the referendum was itself an aberration and contra to the usual parliamentary system of the UK. And that the way it was funded and run throws into grave doubt its integrity.

We are not like other countries where referendums are common. We had the referendum on a much bigger, more emotive and more complex issue than many referendums are on. Cameron and his goons did not put any checks in place (advisory, super-majority) to protect us against the potential vagaries and downsides of this most unusual event. We are a representative and not a direct democracy, and so our MPs should take some responsibility for guiding the direction of the country and guarding against economic and social disaster.

Personally I'd have MORE respect for and faith in our parliamentary system and our politicians if this came to pass, not less.

We agree Bigchoc

The next stage of the Scottish case which led to the ECJ's ruling yesterday is to ask the Scottish Courts to rule on how the UK should unilaterally Revoke - if that goes ahead and contradicts the Supreme Court Gina Miller case then there may be an Appeal back to the Supreme Court - the point where English and Scottish legal systems intertwine.

It seems more likely the Question will be superseded by events OR the Court of Session takes a safety first approach and rules in line with Gina Miller (ie Parliamentary approval required)

Paraphrasing David Allen Green:

Since we are British we can simply Revoke and never speak of it again and the Germans will never mention ze Brexit. (I assume that leaves the French being French as per)

@BigChoc, interesting thought re: a "Senate" 25 x 4 would be very "un-proportionate" but the US senate functions on a similar basis - 2 per state regardless of population. The catch is, the US elects it's executive via a separate mandate and has a separate House of Representatives, again all with an individual mandate.

I can see some issues, how would such a body work with an elected House of Commons? or are you suggesting it would replace them? Particularly if the HoC and Senate had "majorities" of different groupings.

If under your suggestion the HoC still exists, then I assume that the PM would continue to be the leader of the largest party in the HoC. If there were a senate with a competing electoral mandate (again I'm making an assumption that you are in favour of 25 x 4 senators being elected, not appointed) how would the PM effectively function as an executive?