UK General Discussion: 2019 and onwards, The End of May

[IceAgeComing]

The only people with a say are the 27 members of the European Council; who're the ones who seem to have the toughest view on whether Article 50 should be extended and who really aren't very happy.  The Commission would do it overnight if they could; the Council need a lot of convincing.

[IceAgeComing]

Notwithsatnding the inevitable controversy-  is it not actually pretty unambiguously The Law that you can't just bring back the same bill in the same sitting multiple times?

Things like this aren't the subject of Law but instead a combination of Parliament's standing orders, past precedent and Erskine May (which is the handbook of parliamentary procedure in the British Parliament).  For this its a combination of all three - here is a tweet with the relevant page from Erskine May:

1105876037236412418

The Speaker hasn't denied parliamentary time for a motion on these grounds since 1943 but that doesn't seem to be because Bercow has changed procedure but instead because past governments have generally tolerated it whenever parliament has rejected legislation (plus also for most of that time you had much higher levels of party discipline and single party majority governments which made government defeats on the same measure not overly likely).

In terms of ways to get around it: the government could prorogue parliament - end the session early to start another - which has been done by governments in the past to get around rules limitations (last time in the UK I think was Attlee trying to pass the 1949 Parliament Act had to have a short session to meet the rules in order to pass it under the 1911 Parliament Act which was legally questionable and is still occasionally the subject of debate; the Canadian Parliament did it once very recently when the opposition threatened to vote in down in a Vote of Confidence which was not overly popular); I think that they could vote to suspend the Standing Orders to allow a debate on a third meaningful vote but I don't know that - it would only take a majority of MPs I'm sure so if they had a deal majority they could go down that route.  The other options of amending the standing orders would have to go through the procedure committee and generally a government forcing through amendments to the standing orders to limit the powers of the Speaker would not be seen as being overly positive by opposition and backbench government MPs.  I guess that if you're a parliamentary procedure fanatic then this is all really rather interesting!

[IceAgeComing]

There is precedent for it though - although its a massive expense just to override the ruling of the speaker just to lose by 70 votes this time

[IceAgeComing]

Is it worth mentioning that petition now has over 4 million signatures?

It only takes 100,000 to have a referendum here, and even factoring in population differences...

100,000 signatures only guarantees that Parliament will consider the petition in a debate, not that a national referendum will take place lol

He's talking about the laws in Switzerland there, not the UK ones.

[IceAgeComing]

I think they should leave on No Deal. That’s what the people voted for.

51.7% of the country vote to leave; and the idea of what that meant in 2016 was nothing like No Deal.  There is nothing like a majority in the country for leaving without a deal and to pretend that there is is not a good thing to do.

[IceAgeComing]

I don't see how that would be possible though; would require a treaty change which well they take forever.

[IceAgeComing]

I thought No Deal meant using WTO rules?

Its a lot more complicated than that.  The EU goes far beyond trade and a lot of other industries in the UK rely on EU-related laws and schemes to do business across Europe.  For example in the case of a no-deal Brexit you'd need some sort of deal on financial services in order for the City to continue trading in Europe without having to go through the processes that companies from other third companies need to go through; the UK would be out of the EU data protection area so significant amounts of bureaucracy would be required to buy or sell data to and from Europe (and remember that is a growing industry and is increasingly important to be able to do; and that the EU are very strict on enforcing data protection legislation); you have issues when it comes to allowing shipping between the south coast and France and the significant queues that would occur if the correct paperwork (that most companies haven't needed to follow since 1992 due to the Single Market) wasn't always used etc etc.

Add in the complex nature of the Northern Ireland body and the need to set up customs and border controls on either the border (which would anger the Republic of Ireland, Catholics in Northern Ireland as well as anyone living on the border who often need to cross the border regularly as part of their day to day life) or on the Irish Sea (angering Unionists all over the UK especially in Northern Ireland) and the need to do that as soon as possible to prevent smuggling and people trafficking and, well, you can see how complex this all in.  Especially when you add in needing to adapt to the loss of freedom of movement and the implications that has both on EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens living in other EU member states; its not just "WTO!!!".  The relationship between the UK and EU is very different to the relationship between two random countries and that's why there's a need for some sort of transitional arrangement and close future partnership if we do leave the EU.

Add in the fact that WTO terms are incredibly bad trading terms; and that the UK wouldn't just be losing the advantage of the Single Market but also lose most of the trade deals that the EU has negotiated with the rest of the world (some have been bilateralised; most haven't) and you create a situation which is nasty for everyone.

[IceAgeComing]

Lmao Tories.

They would likely form a coalition with Brexit

Considering that Labour would certainly be the largest party and most probably be close to a majority in that situation; and that you'd have a million Lib Dem and SNP MPs who'd certainly not back a Conservative government at this time: I doubt that'd work out for them.

[IceAgeComing]

Its not even really factionalism based on meaningful policy differences on domestic policy - as far as substantive policy proposals a Labour party lead by Corbyn would have similar policies to one lead by a potential future leader who comes from somewhere further right in the party - I'll use Emily Thornberry as a possible example here.  Its based on a mixture of historical differences and foreign policy more than anything - which is probably why it appears so bad since for most people its bickering about things that the people don't really see as important.

[IceAgeComing]

Labour didn't win the old Uxbridge seat in 1997 (missed out by a few hundred in the general election and then in the by-election later that year there was a swing towards the Tories - I believe that the Tory candidate in the General Election had some... personal difficulties that resulted in a negative personal vote) and the new one is safer for the Tories so I think that its probably out of reach: especially when you factor in the Labour performance in London over the last few elections.  I don't think its impossible if they royally screw things up though!

[IceAgeComing]

Nah; behind large chunks of England.  I imagine that this is a Brexit motivated change that is temporary although who knows: especially if things go downhill in the long run.  Certainly good news for Plaid if they can manage to utilise it to their advantage.