10 ms·
UK parliament to get binding vote on final Brexit deal
- cjsuk 9y agoSo basically they can choose the colour of the glitter on the turd we're going to have to eat?
- johannes1234321 9y agoThey already voted on the fact that they want to leave (via referendum and votes in both Chambers and by royal approval) They could have voted on a more precise direction beforehand, but no "Brexit means Brexit" was the most precise they were willing to support ...
- blibble 9y agonot really sure why this is that interesting, the UK will still drop out of the EU in March 2019 even if Parliament rejects the deal so it's not a case of "Parliament rejects, UK stays in"
- QAPereo 9y agoIt’s news because this is part of May’s attempt to convince people that Brexit is set in stone, and irreversible. Edit: http://www.businessinsider.com/legal-advice-brexit-can-be-reversed-strategic-error-article-50-2017-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/legal-advice-brexit-can-be-re... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/brexit-date-is-not-irreversible-says-man-who-wrote-article-50-lord-kerr https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/brexit-date... More nuance: http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/63955?lang=en http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/63955?lang=en
- fridek 9y agoThis news doesn't mean it's reversible. If the parliament rejects the deal PM negotiates, UK will still leave the EU - just without said deal.
- QAPereo 9y agoThat isn’t what I said... rather that this is already a reversible process, and this is meant to make it look as though it is not, or make it irreversible.
- lurker456 9y agoBut it's not reversible. Triggering article 50 means leaving in 2 years or less, it has no provisions to pause or revert the process. The only way to rejoin is with the agreement of all other member states, on new and very likely less favorable terms.
- QAPereo 9y agohttp://www.businessinsider.com/legal-advice-brexit-can-be-reversed-strategic-error-article-50-2017-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/legal-advice-brexit-can-be-re... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/brexit-date-is-not-irreversible-says-man-who-wrote-article-50-lord-kerr https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/10/brexit-date... More nuance: http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/63955?lang=en http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/63955?lang=en In short, the author of Article 50 disagrees.
- Zenst 9y agoShame that said author and all the MEP's since the article was made into law have overlooked displaced nationals and not one of them have thought to address that oversight in article 50 and avoid chaos. That for me highlights how fickle many MEP's are when it comes to politics as they would rather retort to rabble rabble over fixing a long-standing and glaring issue. Shame on them I say.
- dsp1234 9y agoExcept that the author didn't actually write that it's reversible in any way. That may have been the intent, but that's not what the actual text says, and that's not what all of the Treaty of Lisbon's signers agreed to. Indeed, the text is so clear, it's hard to argue that there is any actual room for disagreement: 3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. The treaty will cease to apply upon a withdrawal agreement, or after 2 years, or after unanimous agreement to extend the period. The only action that ends up with anything reasonably resembling a "reversible" Article 50 is for the UK to somehow convince all of the EU member states to unanimously agree to an unending extension. Meaning that the UK would be in a permanent state of leaving the EU.
- untog 9y agoIt's interesting because it will allow debate, something that has been in very short supply during this whole process. The British people deserve to know what is going to happen to them in 2019, even if it's irreversible. The current government has made it quite clear they don't agree with that, so they'll have to be forced into it.
- sverige 9y ago> It's interesting because it will allow debate, something that has been in very short supply during this whole process. Are you referring to Parliamentary debate about whether some deal can be cut with the EU? I recall a lot of public debate before the vote itself, and a lot since, if that's what you're referring to.
- johannes1234321 9y agoThe debates before the referendum were imprecise and overloaded (politically) with other items (i.e. whether David Cameron can convince the people and lead the party) a debate on a Brexit law is on a precise working law.
- sverige 9y agoWell, sure, the b.s. was flying on both sides during the referendum, and of course it was political. That sort of debate is the very definition of politics. I don't see how the current debate is going to be any different in that regard. It's really just an extension of the referendum debate.
- matthewrudy 9y agoThis is only useful if the binding vote is to decide whether to accept the deal or revert Article 50.
- amyjess 9y agoEU rules don't allow article 50 to be reverted. The binding vote is between accepting the deal and a hard drop.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> EU rules don't allow article 50 to be reverted Those rules can be changed by the unanimous opinion of European states. Practically speaking, the deal Britain had before is gone. It might be able to re-enter if it gives up its asterisks, though. Bone-headed move by its people, either way.
- danpalmer 9y ago> Bone-headed move by its people By a minority I'd like to clarify. 51.8% voted for it, of a 72% turnout, of an electorate that is only around 69% of the population. That works out at around 25% of the population voting for it.
- Nursie 9y agoI dislike this argument. By that line of reasoning, every government we've had in my lifetime has been illegitimate, elected only by a tiny minority of the population.
- dragonwriter 9y agoThat argument sets no principle for declaring a government illegitimate, so you should really have started the second paragraph with “By my hostile reimagining of that line of reasoning...”
- 9y ago
- alex_duf 9y agoI feel like this makes the situation even worse as we either get access to what Europe and UK negotiated or we leave without a deal... It looks like a disguised way of putting at least some of the responsibility back into the parliament as a way to say "not my fault"
- eertami 9y ago>as a way to say "not my fault" This has been standard operating procedure for the last 7 years. It looks that way because it is.
- conatus 9y agoThe OP is a bit misleading. At the New Statesman George Eaton is reporting that the vote will be "take or leave it". Important. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/11/david-davis-still-denying-mps-meaningful-vote-brexit https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/11/david-davis...
- ealexhudson 9y agoNot just that, but Davis confirmed no deal == no vote. Indeed, it's difficult to see how they could have a sensible vote in the absence of a deal to vote on, but since this is the most likely outcome as we stand (the UK Govt have no solution to the Irish border issue, and there's a substantial rebellion in the Tory party against paying the EU any money) then the most likely outcome is still no vote :(
- laingc 9y agoActually, the UK government has a very good solution to the Irish border issue, which the Irish are in favour of. It is the EU that will not allow it.
- frandroid 9y agoI looked this up: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41183041 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41183041
- pwtweet 9y agoCan you provide a link? Considering I work in the Irish Government, Dept of Foreign Affairs, I would appreciate you providing what it is that HMG has offered, that we the Irish Government have accepted and that you claim the EU will not allow. Please I'll wait. (For those of you not aware the commentator is talking complete bollox.)
- s_dev 9y agoThats because it was always up to the EU and never up to Ireland. It's an EU border effectively. UK politicians before referendum pointed out that they were willing to preserve the CTA (common travel area between Ireland and UK) which predated -- but importantly doesn't supercede the EU. Irish politicians pointed this out but were largely ignored by UK press. >It is the EU that will not allow it. I suspect you're alluding that this is somehow the EU's fault. It really isn't -- and the finger points 100% at the UK. There are treaties and agreements going back decades including for instance the Good Friday Agreement on which all peace in N.Ireland is largely credited. The lack of a border is mandated by this international and binding agreement which UK seems happy to simply ignore.
- mbroncano 9y agoIt saddens me to no extent witnessing a formerly great country falling deep in the abyss of irrelevance, propelled and fueled by a remarkable societal and intellectual isolationism improper in this time and age. Not to mention the implicit bigotry, racism and xenophobia of the whole Brexit deal. Interesting times indeed. In a sense, social media et al. are fulfilling the place that widespread newspapers first, and later radio, played in the marxist and national socialist revolutions already a century and change ago. It seems to me more true that ever that societies that forget the History of Europe (that's of course my own take on the old adagio) are condemned to repeat it. What only remains to be determined now is if Brexit is the drama or the farçe.
- gruez 9y ago>Not to mention the implicit bigotry, racism and xenophobia of the whole Brexit deal explain?
- gejjaxxita 9y agoI am an EU citizen living in the UK for 11 years (my whole adult life) so this is from my perspective. The campaign and reasons given for leaving were extremely xenophobic. There was a lot of talk of EU citizens "clogging up" the healthcare system and emigrating to the UK to claim benefits instead of working. Almost none of this was based on fact but it almost certainly swung the vote. Other reasons such as sovereignty were also given but most polls indicate that unhappiness with immigration was the main reason people voted to leave the EU. This in itself isn't necessarily xenophobic, but given the enormous economic benefits of immigration into the UK it's difficult to conclude otherwise.
- Tech-Noir 9y agoBoth campaigns were guilty of misinformation but the most blatant outrage was the UK government itself spending £9 ($12) million of the British people's money producing and delivering one-sided pro-EU propaganda to every address in the UK. Edit: For people downvoting the above factual post: Government's £9m EU 'propaganda' leaflet has left public LESS well informed, study shows: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/governments-9m-eu-propaganda-leaflet-8044385 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/governments-9m-eu-propa... EU referendum: PM 'makes no apology' for £9m EU leaflets: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35984991 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35984991 The propaganda itself: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
- cletus 9y agoSo I've been watching (and shaking my head) at this whole Brexit fiasco with both some personal interest (UK and thus current EU citizen) and more general interest in that the Leave vote was basically a protest vote against immigration that seemed to basically get out of hand. We can peg a lot of the blame for this on David Cameron who initiated a referendum (I assume he thought would never pass) without any plan to move forward nor any clarity on whether the Commons needed to vote on Article 50 (so add a few months of uncertainty while that got litigated). May of course isn't short on blame either with her ridiculous snap election that weakened her position. So now we go to the negotiating stances of each party, most of which was obvious beforehand and it just makes the whole Leave campaign even more ill-conceived. For one, UK voters seem to primarily limit EU immigration, particularly from the poorer Eastern European states (Poland tends to get singled out here). While the EU (or EC or EEC or whatever it was at the time you want to talk about) was a collection of rich states, you didn't have a lot of problems that became problems once you had member states with a vast disparity in per-capita GDP. The net effect was a lot of poorer EU citizens did go to the UK to essentially go on welfare because it was more than they could reasonably earn (if they could even get jobs) in their home countries. And that situation is untenable. The EU however is committed to freedom of movement as a core principle so this was difficult to negotiate but I'm actually sure over time a solution could've been found to ameliorate anti-immigration sentient to some degree. See while the UK was in the EU they always had the threat of leaving as a negotiating tactic. The problem with pulling the trigger is you can no longer hang that threat over their heads. Anyway, the UK at the same time wants to limit immigration but retain freedom of movement and not hand over wads of money to the EU. Oh and let's have free trade while we're at it. If that sounds familiar it's exactly like the current (in the EU) situation except for limiting immigration. It's clear that the EU could never and would never agree to that. Nor would the UK get the Switzerland/Norway EFTA treatment either since the EU wants to discourage anyone else taking the UK's lead. So now the EU doesn't want any discussions on trade and other issues until the UK agrees to a "divorce settlement". The problems with this tactic are that the UK handing over huge sums of cash to the EU was second to immigration as a reason for people to vote Leave and, more importantly, how can you agree on a price for something and then go on to negotiate what you've bought? It doesn't make any sense. Like, would you buy a car for me when we first negotiate a binding agreement for you to pay me $50,000 and then we negotiate what you get for that? The EU actually needs the money from the UK to balance their own budget so the EU has got a lot to lose here. From the outside looking in however, it really looks like the UK's best option at this point is a "hard exit" since any deal at this point will probably be worse than staying in the EU would've been. I do wonder if it's possible for the UK and EU to back down and have a do-over on Article 50. I suspect it is possible but probably politically untenable in the UK. What a mess.
- mike-cardwell 9y agoThis is a goal for the Tories. Now the deal is going to be approved by parliament, so they can share around the full blame if it doesn't work out well. And if parliament votes against the bill, well the proceeding clusterfuck wont be the Tories fault, it will be everybody elses.