16 ms·

For those who don't follow British politics this is very significant. - Invocation of Article 50 is likely to be delayed from Q1 as the legislation will go thr

• SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
  MP's are in a hard place because of this. The majority of them are pro-remain, having concluded that brexit is damaging and dangerous and cannot result in a better deal. ... but they will be whipped into line by government (Tory) and party leadership (Labour) insisting that they follow the settled will of the clear majority of the people ... but the will of the people is neither settled nor a clear majority.
  • gpderetta 10y ago
    It seems that new elections with a clear mandate would be the best solution... except that the first-past-the-post system could possibly lead to a very different outcome than the purely proportional referendum.
  • emp_zealoth 10y ago
    How can they be whipped into pary line? Isn't the worst that can happen to them exclusion from said party?
    • lmm 10y ago
      "Whip" is a term of art here. Yes, they could choose to leave the party. Even if they don't feel any duty to said party or to the constituents they're representing (who, realistically, voted on party lines, despite nominally voting for an individual representative), that still means leaving their whole career behind. I would be extremely surprised if we saw more than a handful of MPs do it.
    • pjh68 10y ago
      Or become party leader, as in the case of Jeremy Corbyn who defied the labour whip over 500 times.
      • akhatri_aus 10y ago
        Labour party members voted for him, not necessarily the leaders of the party.
  • agd 10y ago
    I think it's still likely that they will vote to invoke Article 50, but the leeway they have is with amendments. E.g. Is there enough support for an amendment requiring the UK to stay in the customs union? Possibly.
    • gsnedders 10y ago
      Staying in the EUCU requires consent of the Council of Europe—Parliament can put in primary legislation that they wish to remain in the EUCU, but they have no power to enact it. You cannot make Article 50 conditional, as once the notification is sent you cannot unsend it—you are stuck with whatever is agreed between the state and the Council of Europe (or nothing, if no agreement is made within two years, or longer with unanimous agreement).
      • blue1 10y ago
        The European Council. The CoE is another body, not part of the EU.
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  • midgetjones 10y ago
    I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such.
    • elcct 10y ago
      But whatever they call it, it is majority indeed and that's the democracy - you either accept that majority wins or well... don't know
      • throwaway-hn123 10y ago
        Or realise that the 52-48 reflects a point in time, that things change and therefore it's perfectly ok to campaign against brexit, and try to stop it. Or do you subscribe to the point of view that we should only have had a single general election and abide by that result for all time?
        • dasboth 10y ago
          > the 52-48 reflects a point in time The number of people who claimed to wish they could change their vote after the result was surprising. How many referendums do we need before people decide they've voted "properly"?
          • sasvari 10y ago
            The number of people who claimed to wish they could change their vote after the result was surprising. How many referendums do we need before people decide they've voted "properly"? Maybe that's the reasons why direct democracy by means of referendums is [considered to be] not always a good idea.
            • mixedCase 10y ago
              Of course, not always. It is only a good idea when you can agree with the result, of course.
        • 10y ago
  • zimpenfish 10y ago
    ...and the referendum was purely advisory which means they can do whatever they wish.
    • zigzigzag 10y ago
      Theoretically, yes. That's sort of like saying the British army ultimately answers to the Queen so the Queen could run the country as a dictatorship if she wanted to. It's not an argument rooted in the real world though. Queenie would be gone tomorrow if she tried that. The vast majority of the British voters do not like the EU. Most voted out and of those who voted remain, about half were motivated by simple fear of economic consequences like higher prices rather than any actual support for the project. Given that the EU wants the UK out ASAP without any kind of concessions at all, the people who want a "soft brexit" (whatever that means) are likely to be disappointed as such an option will not be on the table at all. If MPs attempt to ignore or roll back the referendum in the face of an EU that's already committed to screwing the UK, Farage will return to UKIP and UKIP will absolutely slaughter the other parties. It'll still happen, it'll just take longer.
      • sasvari 10y ago
        in the face of an EU that's already committed to screwing the UK Would you care to elaborate?
        • zigzigzag 10y ago
          If the EU was in any way serious about continuing to collaborate with the UK after the vote, they'd be willing to start talks now, pre-notification, as the guy who wrote Article 50 has said it was deliberately designed to never be used. It's not a workable mechanism for leaving. In fact they are acting as if the vote never happened and refusing to talk about anything at all until notification, thus doing their utmost to ensure the 2 years elapse with nothing done. They're also briefing about "dirty brexit". Google it.
          • DocTomoe 10y ago
  • _benedict 10y ago
    If you translate votes into parliamentary seats, the majority was much larger than the tally of the referendum. So it is very likely to happen with or without party whips, as the MPs would be denying the decision of most of their constituents still which would be damaging at election time. But this may result in a more moderate, softer Brexit.
  • DominikR 10y ago
    What does a "clear majority" even mean? A majority that you personally would accept? Like a majority of your favourite TV celebs and comedians like John Oliver agreeing that Brexit is a good thing? The rules for the referendum have been set by the government therefore it has committed to follow these rules regardless of outcome. And the outcome has been clear for anyone who understands basic arithmetic. This whole debate about how to best screw the voters reminds me of Stalin's attitude towards democratic elections. The right wing in Europe is calling the EU the EUSSR for a very good reason!
    • pjc50 10y ago
      This referendum was not set up as binding or self-executing. If you can find where in the rules the government committed to any particular course of action, you're welcome to quote them.
      • DominikR 10y ago
        Yeah this is the kind of legalese bs that leads to violent overthrows of governments. If you believe that this will stop Brexit you are living in phantasy land.
        • tobltobs 10y ago
          This kind of "legalese bs" happens all the time in Switzerland and you won't find a lot of people believing Switzerland is on a brink of a violent government overthrow. Referendums are usually a mandate to the parliament to implement something.If the referendum idea turns out to be impossible (like eating and having your cake) then the parliament will dismiss or water down this mandate.
          • DominikR 10y ago
            There is nothing impossible about leaving the EU. It's not like the Referendum demanded the UK to colonise Pluto. And its the government itself that initiated this on its terms so it should follow through on it. Not a fringe party but the ruling government parties.
• jlangenauer 10y ago
  The problem is, of course, that how "hard" Brexit is, is not really up to the UK, or its parliament. It'll depend what sort of deal the rest of the EU is willing to strike, and unless either the UK is willing to compromise on allowing free movement of people, or the EU is willing to compromise on the indivisibility of the "four freedoms" - neither of which seems likely - then the Brexit is, in fact, going to be quite hard.
  • _delirium 10y ago
    There are a reasonable number of MPs who support compromise on free movement, i.e. leave the EU but reach an agreement with the EU similar to the ones that non-EU members Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have signed. That's one of the "soft Brexit" options. It's not guaranteed that the EU would accept this proposal, but it's something the British government could choose to seek. Whether this is consistent with the referendum result is arguable either way I think. The majority of pro-exit campaigners, and most likely of Leave voters, were against free movement, with regaining exclusive UK control over immigration being one of the foremost demands. So a soft Brexit that retains free movement could be seen as not following the spirit of the outcome, even if it follows the letter of it (by formally leaving the EU). On the other hand, the Leave majority was quite slim, and a subset of the Leave voters, probably at least 10%, in fact did think they were voting for a soft exit to more of a Switzerland-style status. So it is probably the case that while Brexit, when asked about in general terms, had 52% support, if you explicitly specify "hard Brexit" including exit from the common market, support would drop. But none of this was made precise in the referendum question, so what the referendum outcome gave a mandate for is what's now being debated.
    • zigzigzag 10y ago
      There are no soft brexit options. Anyone who thinks this hasn't been paying attention and isn't aware of the facts (ironic, considering how often such people accuse others of not knowing the facts). No such offers are on the table anymore, not even to Switzerland, which has been told by the EU that there will never be any more negotiations unless they agree to replacing their current arrangements with a new one that's basically EU membership by another name. Additionally the Swiss also voted to impose immigration quotas years ago and the deadline for that referendum (a legally binding one) is February. The EU have told them to vote again. The Swiss Parliament is now desperately pretending that a law change that doesn't involve quotas is sufficient to satisfy a referendum that specifically asked the population about implementing quotas. Even Switzerland is no longer able to get a Switzerland style agreement. The chances of the UK getting one are zero. The UK has to accept that the EU is now an enemy of the country and is fully committed to the impoverishment and exclusion of the British people. There won't be any cooperation on anything with the EU ever again, and not because the UK doesn't want it but because the EU is held together by fear.