Brexit: A change of heart??

Lewian wrote: lazland wrote: Put your money on her putting the deal to Parliament again next week up against whatever option is chosen on Monday in the indicative votes. In other words, a penalty shootout. All good fun You're right, she may well try again. I don't see her winning though. I don't think she should have tried the third one without having a proper chance of winning. I think it could've been just about tolerated to get this through in the third attempt with all that time pressure and after parliament couldn't find a majority for anything else, however after the third defeat a fourth attempt now looks really ridiculous and everyone who votes for it and hadn't before will look as spineless as a worm.  PS: I don't think parlamentary rules allow a shootout. You can ask for one thing yes or no, I don't think you can ask for one or another.

It is not quite as simple as you suggest in your last sentence.

Basically, the U.K. does not have a written constitution, so many of the rules are made up as they go along. The unwritten rule for over 100 years is that Government sets the agenda in Parliament. That is why they hate the Letwin process so much of the MPs setting the agenda last week, and this forthcoming week.

The Speaker is the ultimate arbiter of what gets debated and voted upon. Bercow is not well disposed towards either the government or his old party. He was also a keen Remainer, so it is entirely possible that he will continue to insist that May cannot bring the same old deal back for what would be a fourth time now. Equally, Parliamentary procedures are so arcane that it is more likely that Government will find a way around this, and finally bully their lot to support her deal as opposed to the likely soft Brexit, or second referendum, MPs will vote for next week.

Nobody, least of all those in power, have a clue what is going to happen next. Whatever does happen, this farce will dominate our politics for years to come.

My hunch is that Labour may well offer to support May's deal subject to it being put to the people for a confirmatory referendum. The other choice would be remain.

Having said that, my hunch could be absolutely wrong.

Not one of us knows. What a mess.......

lazland wrote: Put your money on her putting the deal to Parliament again next week up against whatever option is chosen on Monday in the indicative votes. In other words, a penalty shootout. All good fun

Lewian wrote: Lewian wrote: May may still get her deal through in the end, which would be quite an achievement... losing her way to victory. Of course the whole thing is a shambles, but if May gets through all this humiliation, and in the end it turns out nobody has a better plan than her, I'll raise my hat to her. Surely now the lady has overplayed her hand and that was that. Last chance to get this through and for her to turn this mess into a success is gone now.

Nope. Put your money on her putting the deal to Parliament again next week up against whatever option is chosen on Monday in the indicative votes. In other words, a penalty shootout.

All good fun

Chaser wrote: So, the "indicative votes" indicated nothing at all, as all options were rejected. They don't want another referendum, they don't want a general election, they don't want a Norway option, they don't want no deal, they don't want May's deal, and they don't want to revoke Article 50. Meanwhile the Maybot has offered to send herself to the junkyard, but only if they vote for her deal. It's one minute to midnight and we're still sat in the Hotel California on mind bending drugs with no idea and no clue and having lost all touch with reality.

How did these folks become politicians without learning how to cut deals and work out compromises? Let this serve also as a wake up call to the millions infatuated with fringe ideologies. Centrism may have got complacent and greedy but it got things done. There's nothing wimpy about consensus. It is a necessary condition for a lawmaking body to retain relevance, else this is what you get.

A more cynical interpretation could be that they have all set up big shorts on the pound which they can't afford to wreck now by passing a deal. So no deal it will have to be.

Edited by rogerthat - March 28 2019 at 04:04

The NuLabour machine was a powerful one, with some fairly dark characters in the background, pulling strings and greasing poles. They were a very media friendly entity, and Blair was admired on the world stage. He was a talented politician, I'll give him that, and I gave him my vote in 1997. Their time in office was very carefully choreographed.

He actually was doing ok on the home front, I guess and the UK needed a change of government badly.

Blair and Cameron, though were cut from similar cloth. They were a pair of free market fanatic, small c conservatives, who hid their capitalist vulgarities, and war mongering inclinations behind a veil of liberal arbitrary diversity quotas.

Chaser wrote: The cliff appears to have moved (a little) More time for the UK to debate should we stay or should we go...

Europe will now be banking on one of,two outcomes:

1. We crash out without a deal
2. May is toast, and we either hold a general election, fresh referendum, or someone new asks for a lengthy extension to negotiate a new deal. The latter is most unlikely if there is no election, as there is no way the Tories will elect a pragmatist as leader in these times

I cannot see May's deal going through, even if Bercow does allow it to be heard. She is a shrivelled husk of a PM, a zombie stalking the corridors of Westminster and Whitehall. As for whoever the people are who advise her, it beggars belief. There was a funny article in The Guardian, in which Marina Hyde (correctly) stated that David Cameron now had a very good chance of being remembered as only the second worst Prime Minister in history. Just about sums it up nicely.

What an unutterable mess.

Total mess by our incompetent government!

I can see why we wanted to get rid of those EU bureaucrats and put control back in the hands of our so much more competent government and parliament.

What we should have had is Donald Trump to sort it all out for us (apparently)

Hi,

micky wrote: wow man.. I mean really..  just when you think it can't even worse.  I'll admit to being blindsided by this.. but I ain't a limey.. nor a MP...  seriously man..  there should be riots in the streets and a few torches and pitchforks. 1604 you say.. and none of the MP's.. . or the damn government took this into account. hard to come up with adjectives that make jumping off a cliff without a parachute worse...  but way to go Britain.. you've topped that...  making even that seem o.k.. but to get more stupid than that.. no words.. just  speechless.. I thought this.. and the that one reply sums things up perfectly.  It seems no one really is thinking over there. Makes our clown show here look .. downright responsible.  And that is saying something... http://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1107701904426102784

Same thoughts here. I have a specific hatred for Modi and dislike Indian politicians per se. In Suketu Mehta's delightful book Maximum City, an underworld Don the writer spoke to described politicians as even worse than gangsters. With all that, I don't think even our Parliament is so incapable of coming together in a time or crisis, whatever be their differences otherwise. What's going on in Britain seems to be everybody would rather stick to their view on Brexit rather than a compromise. The time for hardball is over long since. The most sensible thing for Parliament to do was pass May's deal even if it wasn't the best thing to do in ideal circumstances.

Looks like Bercow's blocking another vote on the deal unless it's substantially different from last time (which it almost certainly won't be)

Now the sh*t's really hitting the fan!