EU referendum are you in or out

[tufty]

[Absolute_Zero]

She apparently plans to hold a fourth Parliamentary People's Vote on it next week.

You're joking, surely?

3rd "meaningful vote," yesterday was the Withdrawal Agreement alone.

Here follows Labour's official objections to the WA...
*crickets*

Their part-contrived reason for voting noes yesterday: uncertainty surrounding the Political Declaration. e.g. what would a new Brexiteer PM do with the PD?

Monday: Parliament is very likely to support a Customs Union. The EU have said that they could bolt it onto the Political Declaration overnight.

If she accepts the CU into the PD, it will clear Bercow's bar and sail through the HoC... albeit with major repercussions for the Tories. But hey, both main parties are in the shite come a possible GE.

[KlaxonCow]

Then again, nothing in the original referendum vote said anything about leaving the customs union or leaving the ECJ.

Those were "interpretations" of what she reckoned the Leave vote represented that May added on herself.

A customs union would pass Bercow's test of a material change. It would be welcomed by the EU. It would solve the Irish border issue and require no backstop. Businesses would be happy, as trade can mostly carry on as before. It's about goods and services, so it wouldn't row back on "take back control of our borders" immigration.

And to Brexiteers like Jacob Rees Mogg, who's already conceded that he had to hold his nose and vote for May's deal last time, the message is that this ensures Brexit does happen - albeit, yes, in a slower phased manner. Once out of the EU, you can campaign thereafter for also eventually pulling out of the customs union. But this makes Brexit happen, where otherwise this "stalemate" will potentially force a revocation of Article 50 altogether, as the clock runs down.

This is really what should happen, as it makes good sense as a compromise. Therefore, let's just sit back and watch how it doesn't happen, and everything goes to Hell in a handbasket instead...

[Absolute_Zero]

@Cloudane, it should be noted that there remains the slight (IMO) possibility that one or more of the 27 says: we've had enough, you're out with no-deal... as the necessary extension requires unanimous consent.

However, even then, there remains the nuclear option of revoking A50 before Apr 12. Facing no-deal, I don't doubt that Parliament would vote to press the red button. Some short-sighted remainers might think this the best of all possible outcomes, they should think again.

[zip accident]

Some short-sighted remainers might think this the best of all possible outcomes, they should think again.

It seems to be the best available outcome. What do you think is horribly wrong with it?

Riots in the streets seem possible either way, riots without a brexit seem superior to riots with brexit.

[Cloudane]

Don't forget though that exiting without a deal remains the legally binding default outcome - the only way to change that without getting a long extension (i.e. revoking instead) is with an Act of Parliament, thereby obviously requiring a majority in parliament. Even under a last second choice of "revoke or exit without a deal" on the 11th, I think it'd be a long stretch to get enough support for it as the narrative of "this was the will of the people and MUST be respected no matter how much it hurts us" is very strong in both parties and because of how it works, it can't be phrased as "which do you prefer" (if it could we'd be out of the deadlock by now), but rather "do you support the proposal to revoke". Especially if one or both parties is whipped against the vote to revoke, which I could see either of the stubborn leaders doing.

[KlaxonCow]

Apparently, the Independent Group of MPs has applied to the Electoral Commission to call themselves "Change UK".

So, don't worry, they're clearly not serious about sticking around or obtaining power at any point, as no political party with any self-respect would give themselves such an ephemeral name as "Change" and feel the pointless need to insert "UK" into it as well.

I mean, if they, one day, won and became the government, how exactly would "Change" work then, eh? It's certainly a nice set-up for all the "yeah, if only we could 'Change' our government!!" jokes that will inevitably pour out.

And of course you're "UK". Because you're on the ballet sheet for being MPs in Westminster. A total bloody redundancy, that.

(Yes, "UKIP" has "UK" in their name but, one, they always were a single issue party - and we can now, indeed, ask ourselves what'll be the bloody point of them, if and once Brexit occurs - and, two, it's actually instrumental in defining what that single issue was - "United Kingdom Independence" - so that makes sense in that instance. Also, they're all a bunch of "dog whistling" jingoistic racists anyway, so they're not the role model to look to for anything approaching common sense or making wise decisions on naming choices.)

It's especially stupid when, basically, they're all centrists - that's how their left and right can meet, because they feel they share more in common in not being the far left of Corbyn or the far right of the ERG, who's take over of their former parties prompted their own exit - and surely careful centrist incremental politics is the antithesis of what "Change UK" implies?

I guess it doesn't matter as, if they do stick around, they'll probably merge with the Lib Dems anyway. Because if they feel centrism is more important than socialist or conservative values to leave their former parties, then they joined up with the wrong party in the first place.

[Absolute_Zero]

Don't forget though that exiting without a deal remains the legally binding default outcome - the only way to change that without getting a long extension (i.e. revoking instead) is with an Act of Parliament, thereby obviously requiring a majority in parliament. Even under a last second choice of "revoke or exit without a deal" on the 11th, I think it'd be a long stretch to get enough support for it as the narrative of "this was the will of the people and MUST be respected no matter how much it hurts us" is very strong in both parties and because of how it works, it can't be phrased as "which do you prefer" (if it could we'd be out of the deadlock by now), but rather "do you support the proposal to revoke". Especially if one or both parties is whipped against the vote to revoke, which I could see either of the stubborn leaders doing.

No-deal indicative vote: rejected 400 votes to 160. If it comes to it I'll offer odds of 10/1

[Absolute_Zero]

Some short-sighted remainers might think this the best of all possible outcomes, they should think again.

It seems to be the best available outcome. What do you think is horribly wrong with it?

Riots in the streets seem possible either way,

Not to me, I don't see any potential violence within remain as a position.

I'm more concerned about...
a) the consequences for our democracy.
b) the far right forces you'll unwittingly unleash.

[edit]
To be clear. There's a big difference between being forced into revocation of A50 because Macron says non, and targetting that outcome as a deceptive referendum-defying strategy. My earlier comments apply to the latter.

[PFVA]

Is this a possibility?

General election a strong prospect as Theresa May’s Brexit deal defeated for third time

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/general-elect ... 00280.html

[tufty]

Not to me, I don't see any potential violence within remain as a position.

No?

A Brexit of any form is going to piss off the ~ 50% of the population who voted to remain, and bearing in mind that ~ 1M of them made the trip to London to march in the streets the other week, there's a decent part of that population who are mobilised against both the Tories and Labour, who have left them in the fucking gutter whilst they wank on about "the will of the people". They'll riot, especially if there's a no deal.

It will also piss off a pretty large proportion of the other ~ 50% who voted for Brexit. Partly because it won't be the type of Brexit they thought they were being offered when they voted, but also because whatever option is chosen, it's going to make things much worse for everybody on the low end of the pay scale, exactly the sort of people who voted for Brexit. Who are they going to blame? The EU, "remoaners", the darkies who are coming in to replace the EU immigrants, and, above all, the politicians who enabled the whole shambles. Farage might only have managed to get a couple of hundred on his counter-march, but once Brexit really bites, maybe 6 months in, they'll be on the streets baying for blood.

Brexit Britain will be ungovernable, with something like 85% of the population hating the major parties. Extremists will make headway.

Remaining in the EU, on the other hand, will piss off those who voted to leave, but there will not be the compounding issue of them not being able to put food on the table. Some of them will care enough to go out on the streets, but without actual poverty egging them on, it'll be a rerun of Farage's pub crawl. Blame will be put onto the EU, "remoaners", darkies, EU citizens and, of course, politicians, and there will almost certainly be a rise in racially motivated attacks.

However, UnBrexit Britain will almost certainly remain governable, although, again, most likely, extremists, particularly on the far right, will make headway.

One thing is absolutely certain - Brexit has driven a wedge through society, the resulting split will take generations to heal.

The Tories and Labour are toast in either case.

[Cloudane]

Apparently, the Independent Group of MPs has applied to the Electoral Commission to call themselves "Change UK".

I think I'm pretty much a "centrist" (so despised by basically everyone, it does seem to be a swear word here and other left leaning forums) so I like the idea of a party that can learn to compromise instead of taking far-left and far-right positions and yelling at each other as everyone does nowadays. But yeah they really didn't think their name through - see also the likelihood not long after Brexit that we'll simply be England as the other countries nope their way out of the Union, and the way it can be abbreviated to something very similar to a modern alt-right pejorative for lefties (CUK).

No-deal indicative vote: rejected 400 votes to 160.

Yeah but the thing about these vo.... ah never mind. There's no point in repeating myself over and over

[Ollie]

Apparently, the Independent Group of MPs has applied to the Electoral Commission to call themselves "Change UK".

So, don't worry, they're clearly not serious about sticking around or obtaining power at any point, as no political party with any self-respect would give themselves such an ephemeral name as "Change" and feel the pointless need to insert "UK" into it as well.

One might wonder whether any particular one of them pushed harder for the name than the rest, noting that it is not unlikely to result in some people calling them the "Chukas" for short.

[phattslagg]

I think I'm pretty much a "centrist" (so despised by basically everyone, it does seem to be a swear word here and other left leaning forums) so I like the idea of a party that can learn to compromise instead of taking far-left and far-right positions

Which of Labour’s policies are too far left for you to support?

[zip accident]

Which of Labour’s policies are too far left for you to support?

Brexit