Our cousins across the pond are doing their best to help us look less foolish. Parliament voted on eight Brexit alternatives. None got a majority.
Of course, we in Santa Fe, who voted for our mayor last fall by ranked choice, stand wisely by and tsk-tsk that they should have done a ranked-choice vote.
This vote was indicative, not binding. I don’t know enough about how Parliament works to guess whether coalitions might be formed.
It’s been a busy day for me, and tomorrow will be worse, so I will try to use tweets to provide as coherent a story as can be had.
1. The Indicative Vote process is a useful means through which to narrow down Brexit options.
2. That this is only taking place so late in the process with absurd displays of bloody-minded incompetence by various MPs is worthy of barrages of snark.
3. 2 does not cancel out 1
— Alexander Clarkson (@APHClarkson) March 27, 2019
If her deal passes there is a breathing space before negotiations on next stage begin in earnest. So good time to get out. If deal doesn’t pass (still quite possible) then she will have to go anyway and that will be chaotic, although we’re likely to be still in EU.
— Lawrence Freedman (@LawDavF) March 27, 2019
As we have seen in last few minutes, no majority for that.
— Shashank Joshi (@shashj) March 27, 2019
With indicative votes in British Parliament tonight proving that #UK is utterly divided & deadlocked on #Brexit, keep in mind #EU has said cliff-edge not inevitable. If #UK describes a path forward, & commits to participating in European Parliament elex, a long extension possible
— David M. Herszenhorn (@herszenhorn) March 27, 2019
Indicative votes ranked from most aye votes to least pic.twitter.com/bln3Nvm1cx
— Marcus Shepheard (@MShepheard) March 27, 2019
As expected, no majority for any alternative Brexit option in Parliament tonight. But the options of another referendum and a permanent customs union were both more popular than May’s Deal when it was voted on previously.
— Sara Hobolt (@sarahobolt) March 27, 2019
At this point would it really be so bad if the Queen entered the stage and said, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHERF**KING MPS IN THIS MOTHERF*KING PARLIAMENT." https://t.co/eT4qgOnNH2
— Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) March 27, 2019
If may not look like it but this might be parliament’s finest hour, as long they avoid crashing out w/ no deal.
— Tom Wright (@thomaswright08) March 27, 2019
Kafka couldnt make this shit up.
I have a premonition the US will find a way to top this absurdity by 1/21/21
I don’t think it looks bad at all. One proposal very nearly passed, and that was with the SNP abstaining en masse. Three proposals got more Ayes than May’s deal, 5 got fewer Nays, and No Deal was clobbered. It looks like a deal could be negotiated in Parliament to get a soft Brexit with a referendum and that Parliament is likely to do so to avoid No Deal.
If I read it right, *all* the proposals failed by smaller margins than May’s deal did. LOL
I bet Trump can fix it right after he fixes health care.
It doesn’t, but I think I get his point. On an incredibly divisive topic, Britain’s parliament invoked an option that is normally unthinkable, yanking power away from the incompetent boob determined to destroy the country. Instead they started a systematic process of figuring out what the Hell to do. The indicative votes weren’t meant to decide anything. They were step one of negotiations, Where Do We Stand.
remember how dysfunctional the Republicans were in 2017 when they tried and kept trying and FAILED to kill Obamacare? I mean, it was good for the nation they failed, but the fact they couldn’t even type up the paperwork correctly was a glaring inability to get anything done.
Right now, the Tory Government of UK Parliament has got them beat in the dysfunction and stupidity department. THERE IS A GODDAMN SOLUTION RIGHT THERE CALLED “CANCEL” AND EVEN THEN THEY REFUSE TO REALIZE THAT IS THE ONLY OPTION THEY GOT LEFT. /headdesk
Swear to God, Queen Elizabeth needs to enter the House of Commons with her purse full of snooker balls and whack every MP on the noggin before sitting on her throne and shouting “You tossers are wrecking my nation, get the hell out of my house!”
right now, Guy Fawkes’ approval ratings are higher than all of Parliament’s.
At this point would it really be so bad if the Queen entered the stage and said, “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! I HAVE HAD IT WITH THESE MOTHERF**KING MPS IN THIS MOTHERF*KING PARLIAMENT.”
Or, in the words of another British leader ticked off at Parliamentary incompetence:
Begone, ye rogues, for ye have sate long enough for any good ye might have done!!
Of course, that being Cromwell who said it, maybe the current Royals wouldn’t want to quote him so much..
It looks like a customs union, which is to say about the softest possible Brexit, came pretty close to passing. Whether that means anything going forward, ????
@Frankensteinbeck: Definitely not Parliament’s “finest hour” but it could well be Parliament’s “good enough for now hour”.
Jared can do it in between his bringing peace to the Middle East.
I am reasonably confident that Trump thinks a hard Brexit is a great idea, because “Fuck off, you’re not the boss of me,” is his ideal of wisdom as long as it’s not being said to him. Go it alone. If you’re not in charge of a group, then that group is exploiting you.
Brit pipple: We want to name it Boaty McBoatface,….
UK Gov: No.
Brit pipple: We want to destroy the UK and crash the global economy,….
UK Gov: Okay.
@Cheryl Rofer: In all seriousness, one of the proposals was basically a “cancel” proposal and it lost pretty badly – although much less so than No Deal did. If the choice comes down to “Cancel or No Deal” Parliament probably *would* cancel – but it probably won’t come to that.
Warren on All In with Chris Hayes right now.
Gin & Tonic
@Fair Economist: Don’t know about you, but I really prefer this Parliament.
@PaulWartenberg: Because that worked out so well for Charles I! Seriously, either our elected representatives or the people have to work this out but time is not on our side. Parliament has to come up with a credible way forward in the next 2 weeks if we are to avoid the 3rd least popular option and crash out with No Deal.
@Jay: It’ll only crash the British economy. The rest of the world will barely feel it.
Yeah, but ‘give us political cover to cancel’ got the top results.
Major Major Major Major
There are of course other, different problems there…
@Fair Economist: I know, was told so on Twitter by my Brit friends.
I would like to know if there’s a faction that is voting no on everything and if they could be removed from the country themselves and put on one of those tiny islands in the North Sea.
According to twitter:
May’s soft Brexit beat no Brexit
Hard Brexit beat soft
No Brexit beat hard.
All cleared up and the way forward is now obvious.
@Frankensteinbeck: Yeah. The “referendum” vote was the closest, and that’s essentially a “everybody vote between the horrible deal and/or Brexit and cancelling.”
Because this time the Brexiteers can’t lie about what Brexit will actually mean.
@Major Major Major Major: It’s too late in the day for me to deal with Arrow’s theorem, but the way we did ranked-choice voting I think gets around that.
People rank their choices. First round: lowest-ranked candidate goes out and votes are redistributed to second choices. Same goes with the next round and the next, until there is a clear majority. Seems to me that that has to give a winner.
So, rock, paper, sissors, lizard, Spock?
@Mike J: I think that is wrong. Look at the totals up top.
[Or maybe you are trying to illustrate Arrow’s theorem.]
Stay the course. The next six months will be critical. Keep fucking that chicken!
@Mike J: Wow. 3 votes all of which seem to contradict each other. Don’t know how one squares that circle.
The DUP is close, and in general I think it would be good if they were out on one of those tiny islands. Oddly though, it might not be so bad to have them around right now because May’s deal is possibly the worst one for them so their interests push Parliament in the right direction.
This is another example that pluralistic democracy does *not* require everybody to be good guys – even if most are bad, the compromises of pluralistic democracy can often extract good results.
@Jay C: The Crown should, quite arguably, have intervened because the issues at stake are those of the sovereignty of Parliament, and that is the one thing they have — without that, they got nothin’, and they’re on track to learn that extremely painfully.
When you hear anyone talking about a second referendum, bear in mind that it would actually be the third; the first one (ever, on any topic) was in 1975. That was Her Majesty’s cue to “warn”, if ever. Asquith pointed out as long ago as 1912, when England was plunging toward civil war over Ireland, that “the referendum forms no part of the British Constitution”. He was right, and he was still right in 1975 (shame on Roy Jenkins, if only for once), he was still right in 2016, and he is still right today. The referendum, meaning any referendum, is flatly and utterly unconstitutional. The House of Commons is sovereign. What it can’t decide doesn’t get decided, full stop.
The British parties have spent sixty years trying to prevent a realignment over Europe. Preventing that realignment was never the right goal, or even a respectable or acceptable goal. The effort to prevent it has got messier and messier as the decades have fallen away. In 1971, in 1982, all during the Blair years, it always seemed like it couldn’t possibly get any messier than it already had — but then it did, and now it gets messier literally every single day.
If Labour had consistently rubbished the proposal for the referendum and its results (not just the voting per se, but the absolutely unconstitutional notion that the outcome should be binding), and if they had been out there every single day demanding the rescission of Article 50, they would today be on track to win 550 seats. But the epidemic of stupid, like the Medieval plagues, has spared no one.
Major Major Major Major
@Cheryl Rofer: Just being difficult; SF does the same thing for mayor. I think it still fails on
Would be funny if true, but it’s false. Soft Brexit beat hard Brexit, and resoundingly.
@Fair Economist: I think they are starting to turn away from utter disaster. And yes, I agree with your last. People talking to each other and negotiating, along with various pressures, can tend toward the best. There are times, however (the 1930s in Germany) when that can go badly wrong.
@Major Major Major Major: [I shouldn’t even try to do this, but] The ballots go to be counted once, with the sequence of preferences. Nobody changes votes, so I don’t see how that applies.
ETA: You probably shouldn’t even try to explain this. I am much too tired.
It’s going to blow up a lot of global supply chains.
Both May’s Not Really a Deal Brexit and a Hard Brexit have impact timelines far shorter than the complex timelines required to establish new supply chains.
So, where in the aftermath of the 747 MAX kaistocracy fail, Airbus was a big winner, they are going to have a hard time meeting orders.
@Fair Economist: Looks like a chunk of Labor sat on their hands on “Cancel” and voted en masse for Labor proposal, while the SNP abstained on “customs union.” Which is more likely, Labor turning in favor of “cancel” if Labor leadership whips them, or SNP backing “customs union?” The latter appears to have sufficient Tory support to win, but maybe some of that would go for “cancel” if the alternative is hard Brexit. Seems like either outcome would be acceptable.
@Fair Economist: None of these votes mean anything. The Prime Minister is not obligated to follow through on any of them. The EU has previously shot some of them down.
The various factions so far have refused to cooperate with one another.
They are still looking for a unicorn.
Major Major Major Major
@Cheryl Rofer: Wiki article on instant-runoff voting, Not-satisfied Criteria: Independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion.
ETA which uses a different lay summary than the one I quoted earlier, fwiw. Appealing to authority because I don’t want to try explaining it either lol
@Cheryl Rofer: This would be the sane and sensibly option, unfortunately the people voted to Leave in the Referendum. It was a close run thing to be sure but Leave won. Then, both main Parties promised to follow through on the Referendum result in their General Election manifestos.
This creates a problem with democratic accountability in the sense that how can you claim to be a democracy if you ignore what the electorate voted for, even if it’s the equivalent of sticking your head in a gas oven? Vox populi vox dei.
Think how you’d feel if a State Government refused to enact some Proposition that the people had voted for? I’ve read comments here about how disgusting the Republicans are in trying to get around the Felon Enfranchisement vote in Florida, for example.
That’s why I think the only way forward is for a 2nd Referendum.
If Parliament can figure out & pass a means to kick the can down the road a few months, HM Liz Too could in good conscience then sashay into Commons & prorogue its sorry arse. (And fuck the Privy Council if it won’t so advise her. Does it actually say anywhere in UK law that the PC must so advise her?)
Let the sorry wankers fight this one out before the voters & then deal with a new (& hopefully severely chastened) Parliament.
@Cheryl Rofer: I understand the Queen still owns a couple of islands in the Orkneys so desolate that even birds won’t nest there. The boobies could have their own colony…
1. The UK has never before done anything by referendum alone, and this one was close, as you note.
2. California, which is big on referenda, has had a number of them struck down as unconstitutional. Majority rule is not the final word.
3. People in the UK know a lot more now about the options than they did when they voted.
Other than that, I agree that a second referendum is one of the better ideas. The best would be for the PM or Queen to say “F**k this s**t.”
@dmsilev: I thought Jared already had his hands full solving the opioid crisis…
Falklands Is., South Shetland, South Sandwich, hell, St. Helena. Shanghai the dissembled MPs to the Falklands & then hand the dogforsaken rocks over to Argentina & let the tossers figure out how to get home.
@Cheryl Rofer: The PM is the person who should do this (but she won’t). I am a royalist but I am also a democrat. The Queen is the personification of the nation. She serves as a rallying point, much like your flag does. It cannot be right for an unelected, hereditary monarch to overturn the will of the people no matter how stupid and self destructive that decision was. If they could we would be no different from Saudi Arabia.
What the voters have decided, only the voters can undo.
I don’t think that there is enough time for this. The UK would have to remain in the EU for months. They might have to elect MEPs to the EU parliament, saying “we might want to leave, but in the meantime we want to be treated like full members.” Right now, no one wants this kind of arrangement.
May and some MPs have poisoned things to make a second referendum less than messy. It would take a lot of courage to push for it. And if the results were still leave? Super ugly.
There are some WWII era abandoned concrete flak towers in the Solient that are hazards to navigation. Exile them there.
Then recycle the towers.
Jared Kushner’s missing Israeli-Palestinian peace plan
Sarah Helm at Financial Times
Numbers, sorted by majority:
Here is how MPs voted: Yes No Total Majority
Customs-union membership 264 272 536 8
A new referendum 268 295 563 27
Labour’s alternative plan 237 307 544 70
A Common Market 2.0 “soft” Brexit 188 283 471 95
Revoke Article 50 to avoid no-deal 184 293 477 109
No-deal Brexit 160 400 560 240
A “managed” no-deal 139 422 561 283
Single-market membership via the European Economic Area 65 377 442 312
What it means is that it’s possible to have a spoiler candidate even in ranked choice voting. It seems like it shouldn’t be possible, but there are oddball cases where it is. My impression is that it’s mostly a theoretical problem. Yes, there can be a spoiler candidate, but it’s much harder to figure out in advance how to create a spoiler candidate in a ranked choice voting system than in a plurality voting system. In any case, using Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem to argue against ranked choice voting is crazy. Yes, ranked choice voting isn’t theoretically perfectly fair, but it’s way more likely to give a fair result than first-past-the-post.
The EU deadlines are April 12 for May’s Not Really Brexit to pass Parliament.
If it passes, then May 22, just before the EU vote to get all legislation passed and enacted.
The only things on the table as far as the EU is concerned, is May’s Not Really Brexit, and a Hard Brexit.
The UK Parliament just spent the day wasting more time chasing non-binding rainbow skittles farting flying pink unicorns.
Hkedi [Kang T. Q.]
I know it would never happen, but it would be AMAZING if the queen dissolved parliament, canceled article 50, called a general election, and then for the cherry on top, interned Nigel Farage in the tower of London for being a dangerous waste of protoplasm, and Theresa May for letting things get this bad.
It would probably end the monarchy, but if you are going to go (I hear her son is an idiot and the monarchy might not survive him), go out with a bang.
@Frank Wilhoit: Thanks. That has been my (poorly informed) feeling of what should happen, for quite a while.
I hope Parliament steps back from the brink, but they seem determined to sacrifice the country on the altar of Brexit.
@Sloane Ranger: Think how you’d feel if a State Government refused to enact some Proposition that the people had voted for?
Happens all the time.
@Sloane Ranger: As others have said, making the referendum binding after the fact was a huge mistake. But, as others have said, Parliament is soverign. It can change its mind anytime, and isn’t bound by previous decisions by Parliament.
But I want to argue with the premise. People voted to take the “350M pounds” that the UK “sends to the EU every week” and “spend it on the NHS”. That was a lie. There was never any plan to spend $18.2B pounds a year more on the NHS. That’s just one example. The referendum was a sham and shouldn’t have been held in the first place (voters can’t weigh the plusses and minuses of such complex policy questions – that’s what elected representatives (who can have hearings and commission studies and all the rest), but especially should not be regarded as “the will of the people” when it was so dishonestly waged.
I would like to think that a sensible result would be obtained on a 2nd (or 3rd) referendum, but it doesn’t solve the problem that it’s not a decision that should go to the voters.
Parliament needs to do their job and protect the country.
@Sloane Ranger: I think the most sensible solution is the confirmatory vote option. The problem with the first referendum is that no one understood the precise terms of what leaving actually meant, which is as if, to analogize to contract law, the parties never had a meeting of the minds on a definite set of terms. It is like everyone was looking at and voting on a different draft. Did they really mean THIS?
“It states if MPs vote against a no deal the Prime Minister has to revoke Article 50 — the legal process by which Brexit is happening. Proposes that the UK cannot ratify any Brexit deal “unless and until they have been approved by the people of the UK in a confirmatory public ballot.”
It’s another rainbow skittles farting flying pink unicorn.
As ususal, it pretends that there is no EU, and that the UK is the only entity with agency.
All the the EU has agreed to is:
May’s Not Really Brexit passing by April 12th, and until May 22 for the UK to pass and enact the required legislation to conform to May’s Not Really Brexit.
So it’s Hard Brexit April 12th.
The Pale Scot
As I understand it, Hard Brexit, Cancel Brexit and Mays deal are the only plausible options. I think a referendum would support Brexit. All the other proposals are unicorns. The MP’s are fixated on a customs union thinking if the UK avoids being subjected to tariffs on their exports to the EU everything will sort itself out. The reality is that international trade beyond the barest WTO situation relies on what’s called a Mutual Recognition Agreement. That means that 2 countries recognize that each other’s regulatory scheme is sufficient to allow their goods to be imported without being stopped and inspected for health and safety concerns. The whole point of the Brexiteers is that they do not want to be subjected to EU’s regulations, that they want to free of the bonds of a stifling bureaucracy. Tariffs are just an issue of price, this is far more complicated.
The hardcore Brexiteers made their money in finance. A couple of years ago the EU voted in rules that come down hard on tax havens. London is a laundromat for Russian mob money, that would hurt. The EU also said that those rules will apply to UK associated localities like the Isle of Guernsey and Bermuda, leaving no place for the bagman to operate and get the money safely into the western banking system where it can disappear.
Other than those creeps, UK exports IT services, specialized parts for airplanes and cars, and agri products. Uk gets a special dispensation allowing IT services to not be subjected to EU privacy rules. The manufactured goods rely on parts made in the UK being recognized by the EU as being compliant with their regs allowing them to cross the border without inspection. Some things like engine blocks are bounced back and forth between countries as they are created. Modern machining equipment is expensive, it’s easier to ship the parts around to specialized factories.
Agri is going to be the hardest hit. If they can’t ship their beef and lamb without inspection, and the EU is hardcore about food quality, the whole industry is in the crapper. They are especially concerned about the UK importing meat products from here and China and then repackaging them to send to the EU. American food products don’t meet EU standards, google chlorinated chicken and hormones in beef. After 3 years the UK government still has avoided dealing with these issues and a shitload of others.
Negotiating a trade deal that could resolve these issues will take years, the Brits don’t have the patience, and their economy would crash before it could be done. The EU no longer has patience with the UK, they are going to play hardball.
@Jay: Everything I have read suggests that the EU will provide more time if it thinks there is progress. They are rightfully exasperated at the magical thinking and gargantuan sense of entitlement on display by MPs, but there are negative consequences for the EU and EU nations, not just the UK, if there is a non-negotiated exit. They are sensitive especially to the impact on Ireland. ETA: I agree that the patience is limited at this point and it is amazing how many MPs act as if they are on both sides of the negotiation.
Steve in the ATL
You’re billing this time, aren’t you?
@Steve in the ATL:
@Sloane Ranger: You and I and the electrons know May and the Tories aren’t going to stand for that. May is hanging all her bread on her deal, which she is approaching evangelical levels for its passage. And the Tories are either no deal or extremely soft deal, so how this is going to work with so many heels dug in is beyond me.
@The Pale Scot:
I don’t think the No Brexit is on the table.
Put it this way,…..
The UK decided to divorce the EU,
So, the EU and the UK sat down at the table with their lawyers, to work out a divorce agreement.
Because the UK was completely ignorant of Divorce Law, they wasted over two years asking for the unposible and illegal,
Finally, they had a very generous Divorce Agreement in place, ( for them), with the EU actually agreeing to postpone some of the divison of property because the UK can’t get it’s shit together.
April 12th, the UK has to be out of the House, divorce signed and the first alimony and child support checks are due.
May 22, the UK has to get all of it’s shit out of the house, including the attic, basement and garage.
Today, the UK Parliament wasted the day voting for and against:
– No Divorce
– Signing the Divorce Papers
– renegotiating child custody
– ownership of the dining room suite
– swapping cars with the EU
– not paying their share of the vet bills
– living in the garage instead of moving out
– ignoring the restraining order
None of which passed.
@Jay: @The Pale Scot: Soft Brexit is still an option. It would require a long extension because it would have to be negotiated, but the EU has said they’d give it to negotiate a deal with substantively different red lines.
The Pale Scot
In theory, yes. But that is all based on tradition, the UK does not have a Constitution. In reality the sovereignty is held by the leader of the governing party, standing as the Queen’s representative. Historically, the UK politicos have worked within that framework. The shit hit the fan when shit hits the fan if a minority government is in power.
@The Pale Scot: Thanks.
My understanding is that the EU has no interest in making the process easy for the UK, or giving them (additional) special compensations and understandings, because they have no interest in having other countries look at the UK’s example and try the same thing. It’s in their pragmatic interest for the UK to suffer a great deal if they do leave the EU.
The whole process in the UK seems to be mostly driven by racism and trumped-up fear of non-white people. Economically, it’s obvious it’s going to be a disaster. Countries generally try to expand “free” trading opportunities because of the (general, with major exceptions and qualifications) economic benefits. Costs cannot help but go up if the UK leaves. Though May voted to remain, her record as Home Secretary seems to show that she has no qualms going after immigrants. If that’s the case, then it’s hard to see the dynamics changing soon (unless the Queen steps in and steals the Mace and refuses to give it back to Parliament until they promise to revoke Article 50 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act of 2018)… :-/
It’s an ugly chapter in the UK’s history. Here’s hoping they get their head together soon…
@Jay: I think the essential problem is that May has been trying to hold back the democratic tide by running down the clock and the democratically elected reps just have to have their say even if it is 30 seconds until midnight. To say that this whole process has been carried out with the cart being put in front of the horse is woefully understating the situation.
The Pale Scot
If you have the time, could you elaborate about that. Down here in Florida we have the “The Royalist Party of Florida” or some such. They’ve actually gotten on some ballots. This is back in time a bit I think
Umm, no. That’s difference between direct democracy and representative democracy. We have representatives in part because it’s their job to deal with all the details that most voters can’t possibly learn and apply their judgement.
Sometimes they’re assholes who abuse that power like the Republicans in Florida, but sometimes the majority of voters are assholes who spent get what they want, so it’s usually a good idea.
So I strongly disagree with the idea that democracy means they have to go ahead and do something even if the incredibly non-specific referendum and the fractured votes in Parliament make it abundantly clear that it will not be what a majority thought they were voting for.
@Another Scott: If you believe the couple I talked to while on a cruise, not dark people but foreigners generally, and especially Poles, who are not known for their dark skin and non-Christian traditions.
The Pale Scot
@Jay: So what are their options? I think that if there is a push for a long extension the government will fall into chaos. May’s deal is a nope just because it May’s. Not just Parliament, the bureaucracy will implode. No budget, no decisions. Shit might just unravel. The SNP would have a case for seceding.
Just One More Canuck
@PaulWartenberg: I bet she’s dying to go in there and say “OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!!!!”
@Barbara: Indeed. Thanks.
Neither May’s Not Really Brexit Deal nor No Brexit passed the informational ( non binding vote).
May has soverigninty and has stated that it’s her way or Hard Brexit.
The Speaker has said, no 3rd vote on May’s Not Really Brexit Deal unless there are significant changes to the deal.
Last week, May went to the EU demand significant changes to the deal, so she could have her third vote. The EU told her to get stuffed, but did give her another 13 day extention to get her act together and a 60 day extention for the UK to get it’s shit together and done.
At this point in time, it appears there are irreconcileable differences.
May’s revocation of Article 50, is nonbinding on the EU.
The EU’s already voted, May’s Not Really Brexit Deal, April 12, May 22nd.
Pretty sure if Britain wants to tear up the divorce papers, the EU’s gonna have some conditions before you can move back into the house. Anger Management Counciling, Therapy, etc.
James E Powell
@Just One More Canuck:
Or maybe a “We are not amused!”
The Pale Scot
I think the “EU wants to punish the UK is Brexiteer BS. A segment of the UK population believes that it can have tariff free and dismissal of regulations trade. The fact is that treaties and agreements prohibit the EU from allowing that kind of situation. Like Jay says, they’ve been more generous than they could have been. You watched that German show I posted. You’re on the bus or you off the bus
“Soft Brexit” is May’s Not Really Brexit Deal, and last week, when she went to the EU to get her homework assignment changed, to conform to the significant changes The Speaker demands for her 3rd vote,
The EU refused 27:0 to change her homework assignment, but gave her a tiny extension on the due date, not the after end of term dates she demanded.
And as we saw today, she doesn’t have the votes and the majority of the House are still chasing after rainbow skittles farting flying pink unicorns.
They are unlikely to return to reality by April 12th. They’ve had almost 3 years to embrace reality, and havn’t yet.
@The Pale Scot:
As we saw today, there’s no majority “for” anything, just majorities against everything in the House.
May’s clinging to her Not Really Brexit Deal, and trying to run out the clock hoping that fear of Hard Brexit will swing her the votes, but as we saw today, it won’t.
So April 12th, Hard Brexit.
Pretty sure the EU bureaucrats, who havn’t been farting around for over 2 years, have two sets of binders ready for April 13th, 7am.
One set’s May’s Not Really Brexit Deal rules and regulations.
The other is the standard set of WTO nonconforming Trade Rules and Regulations
Once the UK triggered Article 50, the EU had no responsibility to consider or entertain UK demands, just EU interests and EU laws and regulations.
Despite the UK’s petulant demands weekly for a pink pony, the EU bent over backwards, allowing the UK to kick major issues down the road and giving them extensions to deadlines.
The Pale Scot
This is the thing, that isn’t Brexit, it’s just a sets up a transition period. The hard shit hasn’t started yet. All these wankers are acting like they’re finished once this is dealt with. Willful ignorance, it’s going to be the death of us all
These guys need to get themselves to Jesuit stat and learn something about actions and causes
The EU may have binders, but they haven’t done the hiring and training. This could bring down the western alliance
@The Pale Scot:
Either way, the EU doesn’t have to do a lot of hiring and training.
May’s Not Really Brext Deal simply requires moving a few bureaucrats in the EU Rights Departments around for now.
A Hard Brexit, well the EU already has people in place at the entry ports to deal with WTO rules. British “trade” will just enter that queue instead.
The biggest problem with Brexit is that almost nobody in the UK knows what the EU is or the EU does other than legislating what is or isn’t a bananna,
and they know less now than they knew 3 years ago,
and that includes UK Politicians and Bureaucrats.
The Pale Scot
That’s not what I’ve been reading. I’ve been reading Richard North’s blog EU Referendum, who has been advocating leaving the EU for a decade. He’s a bit pompous, but he has been in various aspects of the export/import biz and knows what he is talking about. He breaks down tonnage and numbers of lorries and the regulation aspects. Ex. In a no deal Brexit all the meat products, live and manufactured have to inspected by a veterinarian, which France is only now just hiring. The inspection point at Calais handles a score of lories a month at the moment. No deal that turns into scores of lorries a day. English and NI lambing beef shipments spend hours at the port waiting to be inspected. That slows down the return trip time. Lorries from the EU that deliver to the UK need to be inspected when they return to the EU. It’s a huge drag on the system. The UK has plans to make sure that medicine and food get priority on incoming ferries, people are stockpiling insulin and other meds.
You heard about the government signing a 100 mill contract to provide extra ferries to a company that was just created and has no ferries of its own? There is no excess ferry capacity globally, but this company said they could lease ferries from other companies. The government has also designated other ports to service ferries, those ports don’t have roll on/roll off facilities, so they are useless. This is going to be a drag on all shipment operations, reducing total capacity. A ferry that usually goes to Dover does a 10 hour trip to Ramsgate instead of 2 hours.
Initially the EU will be flexible until they’re prepared, then the hammer is coming down
I’m calling it nite Jay, be good man, I’ll check up in the morn’
The EU courts ruled a revocation of Article 50 *is* binding on the EU. That said, the votes today indicate Parliament probably won’t go that route; they’ll allow a referendum instead, which is about 90% revocation from the way the polls are going.
Parliament has to do something by the 12th, even if that something is allowing a No Deal. The votes today show that the Parliament prefers almost everything to No Deal, so they are almost certain to pass something, and May’s deal is far back on the list – well behind a customs unions, Labor’s deal, and arguably even behind revocation. So that something is unlikely to be May’s deal. Based on the votes, it looks like customs union + a confirmatory referendum will be the winner.
May can only get her deal through by agreeing to a referendum – which would be pretty likely if she were sane, but I’m starting to think she isn’t.
@The Pale Scot:
Richard North assumes the supply chain will stay the same after a Hard Brexit.
Canada has a trade deal with the EU and a surplus of EU compliant meat products. BC Packers signed an “intent” contract with Carrefoeur to provide a million pounds of fish products per month 18 months ago, if there’s a Hard Brexit.
BC Meat Packers did the same. I’m pretty sure more of my cows will wind up in cryopacks on EU shelves by summer, than US or Canadian shelves. I’ve already been asked if I can grow more cows.
Anyhew, have a good sleep and try to get a tan, sometime soon.
“Based on the votes, it looks like customs union + a confirmatory referendum will be the winner.”
Which isn’t the deal the UK negotiated with the EU, and would require the EU to once again, toss aside the Article 50 deadlines and start negotiations over from scratch,
I don’t see May agreeing to that,
Or the EU agreeing to that,
Or even there being a majority vote for that.
More and more it looks like the UK will crash out, hard.
@Jay: The EU is not going to force out the UK on technicalities if the UK Parliament has a majority vote to negotiate a particular style of deal. No Deal is not nearly as bad for them as for the UK, but it’s still quite bad, and IMO more significantly it runs against the EU principles. The EU is about harmony and peace in Europe and kicking a critical European country into depression because you don’t want to bother with more negotiations does not work with that.
Who knows what May will agree to? But I’m not sure it matters much anymore. She’s a dead PM walking at this point – she can’t even keep her cabinet with her and she’s promised to resign whether her plan passes or not at this point. Besides, if Parliament has a plan, the EU is not going let May override them.
Looking at the details of the votes, I’m even more convinced there is a majority for soft Brexit + confirmatory referendum. The Customs Union proposal got 264 Ayes. BUT – the SNP and the Liberal Democrats abstained (43 votes, I think) and the Independent Group was opposed (11 votes). All those can probably be brought over with a confirmatory referendum, for 318 total votes. That is only 7 votes short. A little more whipping on Labor MP’s by public opinion, a little more weakness for May, a few more Tories afraid of Great Depression 2 (for Britain), or a deal to get the DUP on board and that ship is sailing.
“Besides, if Parliament has a plan, the EU is not going let May override them.”
May is the Government.
Parliament is the legislature.
That’s the problem.
The EU has made it very clear that they arn’t going to negotiate Brexit with the UK Parliament, only the UK Government, which is May.
It’s a stickey wicket.
The Pale Scot
Are Can. cows EU compliant, or use yours
The Pale Scot
Are all Can. cows EU compliant, or just yours”
fuck you WordPress
@The Pale Scot:
Only options that the UK can take unilaterally. May’s deal as a unilateral choice disappears at 11:00 pm Friday if not approved by then. Anything beyond those three requires the EU27 Council members to give unanimous approval.
Tusk and Juncker frequently say that a long extension is possible. I’m not sure they’ve got all 27 governments in their pocket, though. Some of the individual government leaders seem to be opposed to letting this drag on any longer, allowing the UK to elect some anti-EU members to the European Parliament (and there would almost certainly be some), etc. What the UK requests as a long extension, and what the EU27 offer back, are quite likely going to be different things.