5 ms·

Just to be clear, article 50 hasn't been revoked, the UK will still leave the EU with no deal on March 30th. This vote is very damaging to the government's pos

Just to be clear, article 50 hasn't been revoked, the UK will still leave the EU with no deal on March 30th. This vote is very damaging to the government's position, but as it stands there's been no move, assurance, or guarantees, to stop article 50. If article 50 is activated it starts a two year countdown as the UK slowly moves out of the EU. Even if the government loses the no confidence vote, there's still no implied action on article 50.

shmerl 8y ago
If they are smart, they'll axe Brexit completely now and admit how they misled everyone about its benefits.
- zimpenfish 8y ago
  If they were smart, we wouldn’t have spent the last two years on this xenophobe-appeasing nonsense.
ineedasername 8y ago
This might, however, be the next step in the political game being played by factions interested in having a new referendum.
tunesmith 8y ago
What I don't understand (and I am very ignorant!) is why the initial vote can't just be looked at as a stage in the decision process. Time has gone on, and the public has become more educated as to what the true effects of Brexit will be. Even leaving aside the question of how dishonest the pro-Brexit arguments were. It just seems reasonable to have another vote.
- kodablah 8y ago
  > It just seems reasonable to have another vote. It seems absolutely unreasonable to me. It's hard to measure how certain tactics influenced the vote on either side. The voting process needs to be done with confidence and we should not so easily assume our peers are misinformed and/or so easily swayed. The efforts put forth by legitimate actors to campaign for their cause goes for not, as does confidence in the democratic process, when the outcome is just thrown away.
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    The voting process does need to be done with confidence. In the first vote Leave were referred to the police for illegality, and they still haven't provided a full account of their funding - at least some of which seems very likely to have come from foreign sources. This is explicitly and very clearly not legal, because foreign money has no business trying to influence the vote in a sovereign British matter. So a People's Vote would be the first honest vote.
    - moduspol 8y ago
      Cases like these could be made after any election ever, and we're going down a dark road by presuming this time is any different.
- MatekCopatek 8y ago
  Because this would imply a public referendum is impotent - if you don't like the outcome, you can just keep campaigning and try again later.
  - zimpenfish 8y ago
    It was a non-binding referendum - they could have “carefully examined” the result for a week and then tossed it in the trash, politely declining the “advice” of the populace.
    - refurb 8y ago
      Oh yes, that would have gone over incredibly well.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        As if what they did instead has gone over any better.
        refurb 8y ago
        Bungling the split up a union is far better than ignoring the will of your constituents.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        Assuming that a narrow result on a yes/no vote on a general concept means that the “will of your constituents” falls on one side of a complex policy issue irrespective of details of the concrete policies embedded in the available concrete realization of the broad concept that were not known at the time of the vote is quite ludicrous, even without the side that ultimately won using specific concrete descriptions as a sales pitch that conflict with that reality. That's especially true when equally non-binding but current polling of your constituents on the same question shows that the opposite side quite likely leads now that the concrete options are known. It's a well-established British Constitutional principal that a Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. Why would one view the public will ant differently, even if it were fully informed?
- noir_lord 8y ago
  It can but no politician wants the right wing press to go all "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" on them. It was a non-binding referendum, a glorified opinion poll and that was before we found out about the lying, the financial irregularities and external interference. Shrugs, I'm resigned to whatever happens happening at this point.
- severino 8y ago
  And then, if this second voting yields a different result, shouldn't they hold a third referendum afterwards? And maybe a few more, as you can always say the last one was not the genuine one.
  - aurailious 8y ago
    Replace "should" with "could" and you'd be right. Each vote would be genuine if its conudcted according to law.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - sparkie 8y ago
      If there's always another vote, no vote needs to be implemented. What's the point of voting then? Kids learn at an early age that when you lose, you lose. They usually grow out of "best of 3" or "best of 5" before age 10. Even a 5 year old knows that "best of 2" doesn't work.
      - vkou 8y ago
        A vote is not a suicide pact that binds you to a decision from now, until the heat death of the universe.
      - aurailious 8y ago
        > If there's always another vote, no vote needs to be implemented. What's the point of voting then? Most democracies have regular periods where you vote. Are you suggesting that since there will be a new US Presidential election in 2020 that Trump is now no longer legitimate? How would that circumstance be any different that a referdendum? Voting isn't wrong. What is the implication of you trying to tie the institution of democracy to childhood antics? Are you suggesting that a vote is no different that chance? That the opinion's of people that change are no longer legitimate?
      - stordoff 8y ago
- beefield 8y ago
  I think the issue is that once you have had a referendum with outright dishonest arguments and likely manipulated by foreign states and one side wins by a couple of perentage points, the outcome is ironclad will of the people and even if these dishonest arguments turn out to be to many people's surprise wrong, it will not change what is the will of the people. Vice versa, any notion of asking people what they like about the actual outcome is considered pretty much hostile against democracy. Or something like that. I really can't claim to understand the argument properly.
- kansface 8y ago
  Just like science - run the experiment until you get the right results to publish!
scarmig 8y ago
Yes, but there was no chance of article 50 being revoked while May's deal was still on the table. Now it's a choice between revoking it and a hard Brexit. Which is the only way we'd ever get to a state where it might be revoked. EU courts have, IIRC, ruled that Britain can unilaterally revoke article 50, so now it's all up to elected MPs to figure out a way forward. So the fate of the UK rests on the good judgment and sensibility of Jeremy Corbyn.
- PaulRobinson 8y ago
  Rescinding it would require a vote of Parliament on a motion to revoke it. Such a motion is unlikely to be carried right now.
- RugnirViking 8y ago
  I'm just hoping Jeremy Corbyn is playing the long game of claiming to be one way but then acting another to fake out the prime minister. Same as he did with stating that he was not going to be appearing on the televised debates like may, until changing his mind at the last second, showing up anyway and showing her up.
SiempreViernes 8y ago
Yes, the deal was likely scrapped for the retarded reason that half of its proponents figured the deal wasn’t brexit enough, and saw the opportunity to shoot it down with no care for what to do with the resulting mess.
switch007 8y ago
> Just to be clear, article 50 hasn't been revoked, the UK will still leave the EU with no deal on March 30th. I don't feel you clarified anything. Do you mean if article 50 isn't revoked that the UK will leave the EU (true if nothing else happens) or that there are no circumstances under which the UK can remain in the EU?
- MatekCopatek 8y ago
  Revoking article 50 means canceling brexit. They can still do it, but no major party currently supports it. If they don't revoke it, they have to leave on March 30th. This can happen through some kind of deal with EU (a potential one was negotiated but shot down by todays vote) or without any deal.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  The House of Commons need to vote to rescind Article 50 before March 30th otherwise the UK will automatically leave the EU with no deal. There's currently no legislation, implied legislation, promises, or assurances from either the government or opposition to do so. Essentially until Article 50 is withdrawn, the UK continues to march forward towards hard Brexit. A successful vote today on Theresa May's deal would have assured a hard Brexit. The vote failing however hasn't resulted in "remain," it has simply placed the UK into an unknown state with automatic hard Brexit still lurking on the horizon.
TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
A motion to suspend A50 will be tabled in the next week or so. Yvette Cooper (Lab) asked the Speaker about it - most likely as a way of tipping off the public - and the Speaker said that if a motion is tabled, he will allow a vote on it. It's now very unlikely that the UK will be leaving the EU. Only a tiny minority of zealots in Parliament want No Deal. The most likely alternative is a People's Vote and a win for Remain.
RugnirViking 8y ago
bookies odds are at 83% for the uk to remain in the EU past march, and the pound is up following the annoucement. Add to this the fact that the SNP and most remain voting MPs voted against this deal, and I reckon theres a significant likelihood of at least something happening

shmerl 8y ago

If they are smart, they'll axe Brexit completely now and admit how they misled everyone about its benefits.

zimpenfish 8y ago
If they were smart, we wouldn’t have spent the last two years on this xenophobe-appeasing nonsense.

ineedasername 8y ago

This might, however, be the next step in the political game being played by factions interested in having a new referendum.

tunesmith 8y ago

What I don't understand (and I am very ignorant!) is why the initial vote can't just be looked at as a stage in the decision process. Time has gone on, and the public has become more educated as to what the true effects of Brexit will be. Even leaving aside the question of how dishonest the pro-Brexit arguments were. It just seems reasonable to have another vote.

kodablah 8y ago
> It just seems reasonable to have another vote. It seems absolutely unreasonable to me. It's hard to measure how certain tactics influenced the vote on either side. The voting process needs to be done with confidence and we should not so easily assume our peers are misinformed and/or so easily swayed. The efforts put forth by legitimate actors to campaign for their cause goes for not, as does confidence in the democratic process, when the outcome is just thrown away.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  The voting process does need to be done with confidence. In the first vote Leave were referred to the police for illegality, and they still haven't provided a full account of their funding - at least some of which seems very likely to have come from foreign sources. This is explicitly and very clearly not legal, because foreign money has no business trying to influence the vote in a sovereign British matter. So a People's Vote would be the first honest vote.
  - moduspol 8y ago
    Cases like these could be made after any election ever, and we're going down a dark road by presuming this time is any different.
MatekCopatek 8y ago
Because this would imply a public referendum is impotent - if you don't like the outcome, you can just keep campaigning and try again later.
- zimpenfish 8y ago
  It was a non-binding referendum - they could have “carefully examined” the result for a week and then tossed it in the trash, politely declining the “advice” of the populace.
  - refurb 8y ago
    Oh yes, that would have gone over incredibly well.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      As if what they did instead has gone over any better.
      - refurb 8y ago
        Bungling the split up a union is far better than ignoring the will of your constituents.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        Assuming that a narrow result on a yes/no vote on a general concept means that the “will of your constituents” falls on one side of a complex policy issue irrespective of details of the concrete policies embedded in the available concrete realization of the broad concept that were not known at the time of the vote is quite ludicrous, even without the side that ultimately won using specific concrete descriptions as a sales pitch that conflict with that reality. That's especially true when equally non-binding but current polling of your constituents on the same question shows that the opposite side quite likely leads now that the concrete options are known. It's a well-established British Constitutional principal that a Parliament cannot bind a future Parliament. Why would one view the public will ant differently, even if it were fully informed?
noir_lord 8y ago
It can but no politician wants the right wing press to go all "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" on them. It was a non-binding referendum, a glorified opinion poll and that was before we found out about the lying, the financial irregularities and external interference. Shrugs, I'm resigned to whatever happens happening at this point.
severino 8y ago
And then, if this second voting yields a different result, shouldn't they hold a third referendum afterwards? And maybe a few more, as you can always say the last one was not the genuine one.
- aurailious 8y ago
  Replace "should" with "could" and you'd be right. Each vote would be genuine if its conudcted according to law.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - sparkie 8y ago
    If there's always another vote, no vote needs to be implemented. What's the point of voting then? Kids learn at an early age that when you lose, you lose. They usually grow out of "best of 3" or "best of 5" before age 10. Even a 5 year old knows that "best of 2" doesn't work.
    - vkou 8y ago
      A vote is not a suicide pact that binds you to a decision from now, until the heat death of the universe.
    - aurailious 8y ago
      > If there's always another vote, no vote needs to be implemented. What's the point of voting then? Most democracies have regular periods where you vote. Are you suggesting that since there will be a new US Presidential election in 2020 that Trump is now no longer legitimate? How would that circumstance be any different that a referdendum? Voting isn't wrong. What is the implication of you trying to tie the institution of democracy to childhood antics? Are you suggesting that a vote is no different that chance? That the opinion's of people that change are no longer legitimate?
    - stordoff 8y ago
beefield 8y ago
I think the issue is that once you have had a referendum with outright dishonest arguments and likely manipulated by foreign states and one side wins by a couple of perentage points, the outcome is ironclad will of the people and even if these dishonest arguments turn out to be to many people's surprise wrong, it will not change what is the will of the people. Vice versa, any notion of asking people what they like about the actual outcome is considered pretty much hostile against democracy. Or something like that. I really can't claim to understand the argument properly.
kansface 8y ago
Just like science - run the experiment until you get the right results to publish!

scarmig 8y ago

Yes, but there was no chance of article 50 being revoked while May's deal was still on the table. Now it's a choice between revoking it and a hard Brexit. Which is the only way we'd ever get to a state where it might be revoked. EU courts have, IIRC, ruled that Britain can unilaterally revoke article 50, so now it's all up to elected MPs to figure out a way forward. So the fate of the UK rests on the good judgment and sensibility of Jeremy Corbyn.

PaulRobinson 8y ago
Rescinding it would require a vote of Parliament on a motion to revoke it. Such a motion is unlikely to be carried right now.
RugnirViking 8y ago
I'm just hoping Jeremy Corbyn is playing the long game of claiming to be one way but then acting another to fake out the prime minister. Same as he did with stating that he was not going to be appearing on the televised debates like may, until changing his mind at the last second, showing up anyway and showing her up.

SiempreViernes 8y ago

Yes, the deal was likely scrapped for the retarded reason that half of its proponents figured the deal wasn’t brexit enough, and saw the opportunity to shoot it down with no care for what to do with the resulting mess.

switch007 8y ago

> Just to be clear, article 50 hasn't been revoked, the UK will still leave the EU with no deal on March 30th. I don't feel you clarified anything. Do you mean if article 50 isn't revoked that the UK will leave the EU (true if nothing else happens) or that there are no circumstances under which the UK can remain in the EU?

MatekCopatek 8y ago
Revoking article 50 means canceling brexit. They can still do it, but no major party currently supports it. If they don't revoke it, they have to leave on March 30th. This can happen through some kind of deal with EU (a potential one was negotiated but shot down by todays vote) or without any deal.
Someone1234 8y ago
The House of Commons need to vote to rescind Article 50 before March 30th otherwise the UK will automatically leave the EU with no deal. There's currently no legislation, implied legislation, promises, or assurances from either the government or opposition to do so. Essentially until Article 50 is withdrawn, the UK continues to march forward towards hard Brexit. A successful vote today on Theresa May's deal would have assured a hard Brexit. The vote failing however hasn't resulted in "remain," it has simply placed the UK into an unknown state with automatic hard Brexit still lurking on the horizon.

TheOtherHobbes 8y ago

A motion to suspend A50 will be tabled in the next week or so. Yvette Cooper (Lab) asked the Speaker about it - most likely as a way of tipping off the public - and the Speaker said that if a motion is tabled, he will allow a vote on it. It's now very unlikely that the UK will be leaving the EU. Only a tiny minority of zealots in Parliament want No Deal. The most likely alternative is a People's Vote and a win for Remain.

RugnirViking 8y ago

bookies odds are at 83% for the uk to remain in the EU past march, and the pound is up following the annoucement. Add to this the fact that the SNP and most remain voting MPs voted against this deal, and I reckon theres a significant likelihood of at least something happening