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?

A week is a long time in Politics, 3.5 months away is far too soon for talk about a no-deal by default.

My money is on a revocation, she 'll say there is no support in Parliament for any other option (inc her deal) and she has to save the GFA. Yesterday, she emphasised the GFA and her deal, i felt she was preparing the HoC for this option.

the economy will fall off a cliff" and "the GFA cannot be properly honoured" sound like a good reasons, except those points were made by the remainers in the run up to the referendum and the leave vote still won.

Which just reinforces that the more people involved, the less quality in the end.

Just because "the public want", it shouldn't follow "the public gets".

How about a referendum to make "pi" exactly 3 - after all, who isn't fucked off with the intricacies of area and volume in circular shapes.

Even if 100% of people voted for, it would be just as impossible to deliver.

At least with Brexit, "impossible" was never claimed. Just "very hard work".

@EtVoilaBrexit, if by "looking after the country" you mean the "People's Vote" folks?... it's just you!

TM is a obviously woman, so is Andrea Leadsom, much though I don't like the latter.

Tatiana It's not enough if the HoC vote to Revoke, especially at the last minute
Only the PM can revoke

The HoC have no means to force her to do so,
other than a No Confidence vote and replacing her with another PM
AFter that, if it's in a rush, no time for a GE, just a cross-party alliance choosing a PM to Revoke,
then probably holding a GE and taking the can for it

Theresa, Arlene and Nicola all look like women, two of them are destroying the UK.
Not sure it 'proves' anything.

DGR re pi DH (French) and I have a similar disagreement on metric vs imperial. He reckons you just redefine everything in neat units of 10s. I counter that makes no sense when using my thumb to measure my knitting or tablespoons when baking.

Channelling my inner BoJo - The EU is adept at redefinition to the point of ridiculousness - Bendy bananas.

In seriousness if they actually wanted a Deal they would redefine their 4 pillars any way it suited - watch this space re Schengen etc.

Continuing farce with this govt:

"How can she get us out of the EU when she cannot even get out of her car"🤦🏻‍♀️

Just because "the public want", it shouldn't follow "the public gets".

On most issues I agree with you. I don't generally like referendums for this reason. However, as I understand it, we signed up to the common market on the basis of a referendum so refusing to pull out despite a referendum would be shakey ground imo.

if they actually wanted a Deal they would redefine their 4 pillars any way it suited - watch this space re Schengen etc

Are you for real? there is THE deal, both sides negotiated hard for it, both sides agreed & signed, one side had it approved across 27 counties...OUR side now want to renegade on the "deal"

why the FFFF did cabinet approve this deal if it were impossible to get approved ?

The EU cannot redefine their 4 pillars without rewriting the whole damn treaty, which is about 80,000 pages iirc.

They want a deal, but not sufficiently to reinvent the whole EU, just for the Britain.

Some Leavers still seem in the mindset of "they need us more than we need them"
Probably only No Deal will squash that sense of entitlement

DGR re pi DH (French) and I have a similar disagreement on metric vs imperial. He reckons you just redefine everything in neat units of 10s.

Ask him how the French decimal clock worked ....

@Bigchoc, re: Federal Britain. To your credit you have thought about this, clearly. To my mind what you are proposing has 2 immediately clear major issues. I'm sure there are others but anyhow...

1. Competing mandates and permanent coalition in one or both chambers. Each elected body will blame the other, no-one will be accountable and you'll very likely get "perma-coalition" in one or both.

2. Your suggested arrangement proposes a wildly disproportionate level of influence "over the whole" for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

An English assembly of proportionate size to Holyrood (129 seats), Stormont (90 seats) or the Welsh Assembly (60 seats) would need to be enormous, and regional assemblies are no equivalent I'm afraid.

Including an effective veto for 1 country against the wishes of the other 3 on shared matters, including in a time of war.....?! That prospect appals me TBH.

ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/12/11/1544504400000/The-only-Brexit-chart-you-need-to-see/
The only Brexit chart you need to see

BCF - I didn’t mention voting to revoke. Parliament would vote to bring the gov down via no confidence. New PM, possibly national government.

One constitutional lawyer claimed that, if necessary, Parliament passes a law requiring the PM - whoever they may be - to revoke A50 by sending a letter to that effect to the European Council should they fail to produce a withdrawal agreement acceptable to Parliament by mid-February. It is then up to the PM to either come up with an acceptable withdrawal agreement or revoke A50.

Ever closer union is explicitly all about incrementally redefining the 4 Pillars. Have you really never listened to GV?

Thinking if we do Revoke Jean Claude can just blame a bad bottle of Cognac.

{In seriousness if they actually wanted a Deal they would redefine their 4 pillars any way it suited - watch this space re Schengen etc.}

The height of 'exeptionalism'. The UK is no better than any other EU country. It is the UK that NEEDS a deal if it wants to survive at all as the 'leave' campaign don't actually have a plan apart from disaster capitalism, which is a pretty good plan if you are one of the few hundred who will benefit from it. Actually pretty shit for the other 65 million.
The EU WANTS the UK to have a deal as it is 'friends and colleagues' with many UK citizens but the NEED for a deal by the EU is receding by the day as it ramps up it's preparations for the UK leaving.
With a crash out on March 29th the UK becomes a third country, just like N Korea. If the WA gets passed, then departure day will be a few years after. The terms 'has been' and 'was' are gradually coming to the fore. The UK is putting itself in it's own niche in history as the only country to deliberately sabotage itself for no justifiable reason.

Louise I've applied the same principle for the senate as in the USA, where each state receives 2 senators, despite the huge variation in population.

Unlike the US, this would only be for defence, foreign affairs, international treaties etc

the HoC would have its seats for these issues with PR

England could choose whether it wants its national parliament to be 100 seats, or 500 which iirc is roughly the number of English seats in the HoC now,
or maybe even say 5 separate 100 seat parliaments for the main English regions.

I consider it essential if a federal system is to function, that each part of it can vote against starting / joining a war.
Otherwise, as now, England outvotes everyone

That's not the same thing at all about agreeing on steps during the war - politicians shouldn't micromnage that, anyway.

However, the decision to actually go to war, or for that matter join / leave an organisation like the eu, NAFTA, NATO needs to be unanimous among the nations, not just steamrollered through by England, as now.

The UK is one of the most centrally run countries in the developed world and the whole country suffers from inappropriate decisions made centrally at Westminster.

Maybe with these different levels of government, each with a lot of respon sibility, to make it worthwhile,
we could actually attract more competent, dedicated politicians,
instead of the current pathetic specimens

The EU does change slowly in its own interests, to develop,
it doesn't change itself to suit a medium-sized economy with delusions of grandeur.

and what the UK wants isn't incremental change, but a radical change
e.g. Cameron wanted the UK to be exempt from the ECJ and FOM, the right to vote on all the laws to bind everyone else, but the right to reject laws the UK didn't like

It's No Deal vs this WA vs Remain, with No Deal as the default if the PM and the HoC can't decide in time^
There is no cake
It's time Brexiters faced up to this and chose their Brexit

However, as I understand it, we signed up to the common market on the basis of a referendum so refusing to pull out despite a referendum would be shakey ground imo.

Then you misunderstand. Ted Heath took us into the Common Market after a rather surprising win in the 1970 election. He lost in 1974. Harold Wilson called for a Referendum on renegotiated terms in 1975. He then (wisely or craftily) stood aside, knowing that it would be a Referendum on his premiership if he were to get involved. The result was a convincing win to Remain in the EEC.

Tony Benn - RIP - often commented that there are other ways for countries to work together that are not federal (which was long his beef with the EU, as I recall).

He certainly suggested a Commonwealth system.

However, the problem in the UK is that any system has to have England as top dog - even if it's on a table of one.

Thanks peregrina. I wasn't alive in the 70s so am happy to admit that my understanding in this area is lacking. Thanks for having the patience to explain.

tatiana I've read that lawyer's opinion
but can't find others who agree.

Where do you find it in our constitution ?
The HoC chooses its PM;
it can pressure and threaten them with a vote of NC, but there is no mechanism for them to use the PM as a hand-puppet

e.g. if May is toppled and an ERM bod becomes PM, I can't find any means for the HoC to force them not to have the No Deal they want.
Grieve has also said that his machinations don't actually stop No Deal, just piles on political pressure.

It is dangerous to rely on a safeguard that doesn't appear to exist.

Where do you find it in our constitution ?

You mean our famously unwritten constitution ?

I voted in 1975, to Remain
(not to Join, because we had been IN the Common Market since 1972)

We won by 65% to 35%, but the CM officils were disappointed and worried if it would be enough

Useless reminiscences of trivia:

I remember Heath signing the Accession document, in Brussels iirc, then a British woman protester throwing ink all over his suit.
She couldn't be charged with outrage against a visiting head of state, because the PM isn't our HoS
She was a harmless Leave protestor

I also remember a French official publicly refusing to drink out of the same wine cup as iirc Geoffrey Rippon, the minister responsible for joining - didn't want Rippon cooties, don't blame him.