27 ms·

Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes

83 points by late 8y ago

KSteffensen 8y ago
You have to admire May for being stubborn. I'd have thrown up my hands and said 'OK, you figure it out then. Have fun!'
- retrac98 8y ago
  Yeah, but she did nominate herself for the job after the vote. Still, better than Cameron.
  - nkkollaw 8y ago
    I wonder why though, since she voted to stay..? I wouldn't be that excited about carrying out my competitor's plans (unless of course I wanted to sabotage them, which sometimes I wonder if she wanted to do).
    - retrac98 8y ago
      I’ve nominated myself for work stuff I really didn’t agree with in the past, it was because I thought I could help said stuff not be a total disaster. Leading a country through brexit is a hell of a sword to fall on though. :/
      - nkkollaw 8y ago
        I see. Makes sense I guess :-)
- billfruit 8y ago
  But I do feel she tried too much for too long, and things seems not to be working, perhaps she should let someone else take an attempt at the problem.
- stevesimmons 8y ago
  Is it stubbornness or stupidity? You can't admire her for invoking article 50 without a plan, declaring undeliverable red lines, failing to build bridges with her opponents, and then ignoring the very real constraints of her own making for two years.
robin_reala 8y ago
Timeline for the next days is at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the-brexit-state-of-play-a-guide-to-next-weeks-crucial-votes https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the-brexit-...
pmyteh 8y ago
The current BBC headline is "Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes", which is a better summary of the situation. For a variety of reasons (legal, procedural, and political) MPs can't simply resolve to reject Brexit, and didn't do so today. What they can do is reject the exit deal that May has negotiated. Some of them have voted to do this because they want a 'softer' Brexit with a closer ongoing relationship with the EU, or no Brexit at all. Others because they think the deal is insufficiently 'hard', as it envisages some kind of ongoing relationship and they'd rather see a clean break and then deal with the consequences. The upshot is that we leave at the end of the month with no deal unless something happens, there's currently no majority in Parliament for any of the options, and we look like international idiots.
- nkkollaw 8y ago
  Do you personally think that the UK will actually end up leaving the EU in 10 days? If yes, what are the chances of that happening?
  - nicoburns 8y ago
    It's not impossible, but probably not. I'd give it maybe a 10% chance. There's a clear majority of MP's who don't want a No Deal scenario. Most likely there will be a postponement of some kind, but probably a short one. What happens at the end of that period is entirely unclear at this point. Leaving without a deal is still a distinct possibility, but probably not the most likely one. I'd give about even odds to some kind of deal being wrangled, and there being another referendum. Of course, even another referendum doesn't necessarily resolve things. The vote is likely to be close again.
    - nkkollaw 8y ago
      You mean there's only 10% chance than the UK will leave the EU? That's pretty low!
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
TicklishTiger 8y ago
Why do politicians always seem so uncivilized to me? Both sides of an argument always argue as if they believe the other side is stupid and they know for sure they are right. That is the biggest stupidity in itself. Why are there no politicians that spend their time on trying to understand the other side, rather then shouting out their own message? Those would be the ones I would vote. But they simply do not exist.
- rb808 8y ago
  Yeah I despair at this too. One problem a sensible moderate person who can work with people doesn't generate headlines, which means no one knows about them and no one votes for them. You get someone who "fights for what is right", "takes a stand" and "doesn't back down" you'll get well known and people will vote for you. Sad state of affairs, I dont know what to do to change it.
  - eropple 8y ago
    The gray fallacy/golden mean problem is real. A "sensible moderate person" frequently, in the terms of those bemoaning the lack of them, privileges "moderate" over "sensible", implicitly wishing that someone would look at "let's eat babies" and "let's not eat babies" and conclude "let's eat some babies."
- antocv 8y ago
  How would you know that one party understands the other side? Because they went silent? How would you know one party understands the other side, and continues to talk about their own politics anyway? That would again seem like they are just talking and not understanding each other.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    You'd know because they can explain the other side's position in terms that the other side recognizes as accurate, rather than a strawman - and then explain what they believe is mistaken about it. If you're really right, you shouldn't have to strawman your opponent's position in order to show that you're right.
SolaceQuantum 8y ago
I've said this before so I'll ask this again- I'm an American and I'm entirely ignorant on UK politics. I've followed the headlines and I am still confused why Brexit is happening. It seems no one wants Brexit as it has been suggested by the political leadership of UK, and the majority want to avoid no deal at all. I do not understand why not call the entire Brexit thing off; why is that political suicide?
- schintan 8y ago
  because if Parliament overturns the people's vote it sets a dangerous precedent.
  - tedivm 8y ago
    It was a non-binding referendum. It wouldn't be "overturning" anything. A delay plus a new vote (now that people are more educated on things) seems like the most democratic way to handle this.
    - kadabra9 8y ago
      "people didnt vote the way I wanted them to vote, so they must either be uneducated or the process is undemocratic!"
      - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
        That does seem to happen sometimes in connection with the EU, doesn't it? But I don't think it quite fits here. The people of the UK voted for an abstract Brexit - one in which everyone could pin their dreams for what it would be. When there is a concrete Brexit plan - the best negotiated deal, hard Brexit, or whatever - when it's no longer something amorphous that you can imagine is whatever you want, but is instead something specific that you can't change, the people do in fact know more. They know what the deal actually is. Letting them ratify the actual deal rather than an abstract one seems quite reasonable to me.
    - vkou 8y ago
nkkollaw 8y ago
I've had the feeling that the UK won't actually leave the EU for a while, now. Does it look like that feeling is going to turn to be right, or we just don't know..?
- benj111 8y ago
  Well there seems to be a majority of MPs against no deal, theres a vote on that tomorrow. So that would mean May going back to the EU to ask for an extension. That would seem most likely to be until May, before the EU elections. I can't see that being more than a temporary date though. Any other option has to take more time than 2 ish months. That's where my crystal ball goes cloudy.
napo 8y ago
It's getting closer and closer to a no-deal, and yet the pound doesn't really go down. Does anybody understand why?
- hlnas 8y ago
  Why should it? I think a no-deal should make it go up.
  - chc 8y ago
    Because a no-deal exit would do lasting damage to the British economy (this is a fairly uncontroversial point even among Brexit proponents), and a nation's currency tends to track its economy.
- jedberg 8y ago
  No deal Brexit has already been priced in. It's already taken the hit. If anything, a "with deal" Brexit or a withdrawal from the exit process (no exit) will probably make the pound go back up.
- jerf 8y ago
  It's hard to read the market's mind, but apparently the market doesn't think this is an apocalyptic event, or indeed, ultimately even likely to be that big a deal economically. There's no guarantee it is correct. But it is worth considering as a data point, keeping in mind its (anthropomorphized) perspective, as well as the other perspectives and where they are coming from as well. (This includes the predictions of apocalypse. There are many actors who are well motivated to predict that regardless of their own personal beliefs. This doesn't make their predictions false, either. I'm just an advocate of applying "follow the money/motivation" everywhere, even and at times especially to people who agree with your current perspective.)
- rtkwe 8y ago
  I think the consensus is they will just extend instead of actually going through a 100% no-deal Brexit. Seems like a fairly safe bet given the UK can do it unilaterally and how bad it would be.
walrus01 8y ago
I wonder how many currency speculators have just revised their positions against the pound.
osrec 8y ago
I think this just goes to show that maybe the entire Brexit option was not a good one. I mean, why would Theresa May not try and get a good deal - she is trying her level best, powering through defeat after defeat in the house! One could conclude that, perhaps, there just isn't a good deal to be had. Brexiteers seem to have this "it'll be alright on the night" attitude - as if they want to leave without weighing up the pros and cons of both sides - their staunchness confuses me and reminds me of this Charles Bukowski quote: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence." I can see this going to another referendum soon. May even trigger a general election. Fun times! Edit: there is an overwhelming belief amongst Brexiteers that a second referendum would be undemocratic. But how can it be? It represents the most up to date public opinion. If they're so confident that it's what the people want, why will it make a difference? If anything, it'll just help quell any uncertainty. What is truly undemocratic is manipulation of the electorate. Manipulation happened on a large scale during the referendum, and there is a fair bit of proof to back up this claim, including blatant lies, social media and other advertising campaigns.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mrec 8y ago
  > I mean, why would Theresa May not try and get a good deal May has two contradictory goals. She doesn't want to really leave the EU - I think absolutely everything about her staff picks, negotiating non-strategy and Cabinet management supports that - but she's a genuine Tory loyalist who needs to maintain enough of a fig-leaf of Leaving that her party doesn't get utterly obliterated by irate voters at the next election. That's a tough needle to thread, and she's completely failed to thread it. She's achieved her first goal by abandoning her second. > as if they want to leave without weighing up the pros and cons of both sides - their staunchness confuses me I don't think "staunchness" is quite the word. They want to leave, and they don't see the WA as leaving. (Nor does the general population; I think the last poll showed only 12% thought the WA respected the referendum result.) The talking point being pushed hard by No 10 has been "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good", implying that the ERG etc are blocking the WA because they think, unrealistically, that they can get a harder exit by holding out. That may be true for some. But I think many genuinely do believe that the WA (effectively non-voting membership with no safeguards and no way out) is worse than staying in the EU (as a voting member with the option of going Article 50 again). Many have said so. Some observers may dismiss that as rhetorical, but I don't think it is.
ddebernardy 8y ago
I followed the Commons debates during both votes. It's just surreal. It's as if the UK was living in some kind of bubble where just about anything happening outside of it had no existence let alone importance whatsoever. If I were a UK voter I'd be extremely angry. As an EU citizen I sincerely hope the outcome will be the UK ultimately staying in -- if only because of the outright lies during the referendum and the suspicion of Russian influence in the Leave vote. On a positive note, May mentioned a People's Vote was an option tonight. Insofar as I'm aware that's a first.
- sparkling 8y ago
  > As an EU citizen I sincerely hope the outcome will be the UK ultimately staying in -- if only because of the outright lies during the referendum and the suspicion of Russian influence in the Leave vote. What if i told you that crying "b-but the other side lied!" and talking about "russian hackers" do not outweigh a fair, free, democratically held vote? Imagine the vote was vice versa and the right-wing would be crying about unfair campaign ads and Brussel influence, not one person would take them seriously.
  - ddebernardy 8y ago
    > do not outweigh a fair, free, democratically held election In case it needs reminding, those elections did occur, and May ended up needing to go in bed with the DUP to stay in power. Edit: ok, I see what you've done with your edit... > Imagine the vote was vice versa and the right-wing would be crying about unfair campaign ads and Brussel influence, not one person would take them seriously. Everyone would have correctly raised that it's horse shit, because the EC is fairly transparent in what it does if you bother to take a look. The real wtf in recent decades has been that Brussels is a perfect scapegoat: as a national politician you can go to the European Council and promote what have you; EC and EP pick it up and deliver; and then you can turn around and tell voters "see it's Brussel's fault" because national newspapers aren't reporting enough on what's going on in the EU. And just to be clear, this is nothing new. It already was a problem 20 years ago. And insofar as I've been made aware by the law teachers I had back then, 40 years ago as well.
hacker_9 8y ago
Oh wow, if we vote NO two more times this.. could all be over? Ia this real? Could it truly finally end?
amriksohata 8y ago
No deal looks increasingly on the table, what I fear most is it forces another general election that brings a party like ukip back to the fore. It is in both parties interests to vote for a deal, but their selfish bickering has already seen a fracture in labour and you could see more splitters and divided coalition parties building an alliance with ukip to get a majority
- sparkie 8y ago
  It is in both parties interest to uphold the result of the referendum which was held in 2016, and which they pledged to implement in their election manifestos in 2017, because if new general election comes about, their constituents will remember their betrayal, and then it will be no surprise they will vote for somebody else. May's deal is not what the people voted for, and so, the house of commons is full of lying politicians who will have exhausted their careers on the gamble that they could stop Brexit from happening.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > It is in both parties interest to uphold the result of the referendum which was held in 2016, and which they pledged to implement in their election manifestos in 2017, because if new general election comes about, their constituents will remember their betrayal If their constituents viewpoints have moved since 2016/2017, they won't view it as a betrayal; more precisely the concern is that each major party is concerned that their own Leave faction will be more likely to abandon them than Remain-leaning voters outside will be to come over if their party is the one that flips.
benj111 8y ago
I liked the Jon Snow exchange on twitter Jon Snow (British journalist): "A Lawyer contact tells me that the legal world is aware that the Attorney General said NO last night to the validity of Mrs May's 'new EU deal'...he been told to go away and find a way to say YES: A cohort of lawyers has been summoned" Attorney General: "Bollocks"
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  "You know nothing, John Snow."
weinzierl 8y ago
> MPs voted down her deal by 391 to 242 - a smaller defeat than when they rejected it in January. > The PM said MPs will now get a vote on whether the UK should leave without a deal on 29 March and, if that fails, on whether Brexit should be delayed. What happens if they vote "No" three times in a row (no deal, no no-deal, no postponement)? If this wasn't politics I'd say: See if you can simplify this function, bonus points if you can avoid error conditions too: func brexit(){ if(deal){ exit(deal); } else { if(!deal) { exit(null); } else { if(postpone){ wait(TIME); brexit(); } else { throw new handsInTheAir(); } } } }
- simook 8y ago
  tempting
- pmyteh 8y ago
  I think 'handsInTheAir()' got thrown a while ago; the trouble is that the government's error handler sucks, and so does its parent's (Parliament). But, by design, exceptions don't automatically propagate from Parliament to its parent (the citizens) so the process is currently wedged in some kind of undefined behaviour. And no-one has the privileges to HUP the job.
  - marssaxman 8y ago
    The Queen does not have root?
    - pmyteh 8y ago
      You're quite right, the Queen does have root. But she's not allowed in the server room after That Incident with Charles, one of her predecessors in the job. And it's been so long since her personal credentials were needed that nobody's quite sure where they are...
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
dotdi 8y ago
I'm a bit confused as to why politicians always bring up ‘ignoring the will of the people’ when it's been shown that ‘the people’ have been lied to on a grand scale and there is evidence that Cambridge Analytica had worked pro-Brexit. I guess nowadays you cannot convince people with facts anymore. You can only convince them with covert, subliminal ads on their social media feeds.
- cheeseomlit 8y ago
  I guess nowadays all you have to do is run some Facebook ads and spin up some Twitter bots and that's enough to convince people this whole democracy thing is a sham. Unless of course the people vote for the right result, then all the social engineering and censorship on social media is a-ok
- atombender 8y ago
  As recently as one year ago [1], polls indicated that sentiment in favour of Brexit was still strong enough that another referendum might have resulted in another "leave" vote. A more recent poll [2] shows that this is now much less likely, but there's still strong support among a huge portion of the population. As much as I agree that the Brexit leave campaign was fraudulent and the whole referendum tainted, I don't think it's as clear-cut as you want. At what point do decide a vote that was made through a legal process should be rejected? You can't run the "will of the people" through some kind of legitimacy filter to weed out the ones that have been unduly influenced by political forces. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/jan/26/guardian-icm-brexit-poll-full-results https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/jan... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-eu-want-second-referendum---poll.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-st...
  - dotdi 8y ago
    > At what point do decide a vote that was made through a legal process should be rejected? When it's fundamental premises are shown to be fraudulent. As you said. Also, don't ignore the fact that the wording of the vote had a big impact. It was `remain` vs. `literally everything else with the only constraint being "not in the EU"`.
samsonradu 8y ago
The Brexit vote happened to precede a period of sustained global growth, mostly throughout the year 2017, which overshadowed its economic implications. Despite that, UK GDP growth lagged behind other developed countries but it was not enough for the UK citizens opinion to change. As soon as it starts biting people's pockets, which might happen pretty soon according to Central banks/IMF economic forecasts, I believe a new referendum will be called and the decision will be reversed. There might not be time for that to happen though.

83 points by late 8y ago

KSteffensen 8y ago

You have to admire May for being stubborn. I'd have thrown up my hands and said 'OK, you figure it out then. Have fun!'

retrac98 8y ago
Yeah, but she did nominate herself for the job after the vote. Still, better than Cameron.
- nkkollaw 8y ago
  I wonder why though, since she voted to stay..? I wouldn't be that excited about carrying out my competitor's plans (unless of course I wanted to sabotage them, which sometimes I wonder if she wanted to do).
  - retrac98 8y ago
    I’ve nominated myself for work stuff I really didn’t agree with in the past, it was because I thought I could help said stuff not be a total disaster. Leading a country through brexit is a hell of a sword to fall on though. :/
    - nkkollaw 8y ago
      I see. Makes sense I guess :-)
billfruit 8y ago
But I do feel she tried too much for too long, and things seems not to be working, perhaps she should let someone else take an attempt at the problem.
stevesimmons 8y ago
Is it stubbornness or stupidity? You can't admire her for invoking article 50 without a plan, declaring undeliverable red lines, failing to build bridges with her opponents, and then ignoring the very real constraints of her own making for two years.

robin_reala 8y ago

Timeline for the next days is at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the-brexit-state-of-play-a-guide-to-next-weeks-crucial-votes https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/08/the-brexit-...

pmyteh 8y ago

The current BBC headline is "Brexit: MPs reject Theresa May's deal by 149 votes", which is a better summary of the situation. For a variety of reasons (legal, procedural, and political) MPs can't simply resolve to reject Brexit, and didn't do so today. What they can do is reject the exit deal that May has negotiated. Some of them have voted to do this because they want a 'softer' Brexit with a closer ongoing relationship with the EU, or no Brexit at all. Others because they think the deal is insufficiently 'hard', as it envisages some kind of ongoing relationship and they'd rather see a clean break and then deal with the consequences. The upshot is that we leave at the end of the month with no deal unless something happens, there's currently no majority in Parliament for any of the options, and we look like international idiots.

nkkollaw 8y ago
Do you personally think that the UK will actually end up leaving the EU in 10 days? If yes, what are the chances of that happening?
- nicoburns 8y ago
  It's not impossible, but probably not. I'd give it maybe a 10% chance. There's a clear majority of MP's who don't want a No Deal scenario. Most likely there will be a postponement of some kind, but probably a short one. What happens at the end of that period is entirely unclear at this point. Leaving without a deal is still a distinct possibility, but probably not the most likely one. I'd give about even odds to some kind of deal being wrangled, and there being another referendum. Of course, even another referendum doesn't necessarily resolve things. The vote is likely to be close again.
  - nkkollaw 8y ago
    You mean there's only 10% chance than the UK will leave the EU? That's pretty low!
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago

TicklishTiger 8y ago

Why do politicians always seem so uncivilized to me? Both sides of an argument always argue as if they believe the other side is stupid and they know for sure they are right. That is the biggest stupidity in itself. Why are there no politicians that spend their time on trying to understand the other side, rather then shouting out their own message? Those would be the ones I would vote. But they simply do not exist.

rb808 8y ago
Yeah I despair at this too. One problem a sensible moderate person who can work with people doesn't generate headlines, which means no one knows about them and no one votes for them. You get someone who "fights for what is right", "takes a stand" and "doesn't back down" you'll get well known and people will vote for you. Sad state of affairs, I dont know what to do to change it.
- eropple 8y ago
  The gray fallacy/golden mean problem is real. A "sensible moderate person" frequently, in the terms of those bemoaning the lack of them, privileges "moderate" over "sensible", implicitly wishing that someone would look at "let's eat babies" and "let's not eat babies" and conclude "let's eat some babies."
antocv 8y ago
How would you know that one party understands the other side? Because they went silent? How would you know one party understands the other side, and continues to talk about their own politics anyway? That would again seem like they are just talking and not understanding each other.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  You'd know because they can explain the other side's position in terms that the other side recognizes as accurate, rather than a strawman - and then explain what they believe is mistaken about it. If you're really right, you shouldn't have to strawman your opponent's position in order to show that you're right.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago

I've said this before so I'll ask this again- I'm an American and I'm entirely ignorant on UK politics. I've followed the headlines and I am still confused why Brexit is happening. It seems no one wants Brexit as it has been suggested by the political leadership of UK, and the majority want to avoid no deal at all. I do not understand why not call the entire Brexit thing off; why is that political suicide?

schintan 8y ago
because if Parliament overturns the people's vote it sets a dangerous precedent.
- tedivm 8y ago
  It was a non-binding referendum. It wouldn't be "overturning" anything. A delay plus a new vote (now that people are more educated on things) seems like the most democratic way to handle this.
  - kadabra9 8y ago
    "people didnt vote the way I wanted them to vote, so they must either be uneducated or the process is undemocratic!"
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      That does seem to happen sometimes in connection with the EU, doesn't it? But I don't think it quite fits here. The people of the UK voted for an abstract Brexit - one in which everyone could pin their dreams for what it would be. When there is a concrete Brexit plan - the best negotiated deal, hard Brexit, or whatever - when it's no longer something amorphous that you can imagine is whatever you want, but is instead something specific that you can't change, the people do in fact know more. They know what the deal actually is. Letting them ratify the actual deal rather than an abstract one seems quite reasonable to me.
  - vkou 8y ago

nkkollaw 8y ago

I've had the feeling that the UK won't actually leave the EU for a while, now. Does it look like that feeling is going to turn to be right, or we just don't know..?

benj111 8y ago
Well there seems to be a majority of MPs against no deal, theres a vote on that tomorrow. So that would mean May going back to the EU to ask for an extension. That would seem most likely to be until May, before the EU elections. I can't see that being more than a temporary date though. Any other option has to take more time than 2 ish months. That's where my crystal ball goes cloudy.

napo 8y ago

It's getting closer and closer to a no-deal, and yet the pound doesn't really go down. Does anybody understand why?

hlnas 8y ago
Why should it? I think a no-deal should make it go up.
- chc 8y ago
  Because a no-deal exit would do lasting damage to the British economy (this is a fairly uncontroversial point even among Brexit proponents), and a nation's currency tends to track its economy.
jedberg 8y ago
No deal Brexit has already been priced in. It's already taken the hit. If anything, a "with deal" Brexit or a withdrawal from the exit process (no exit) will probably make the pound go back up.
jerf 8y ago
It's hard to read the market's mind, but apparently the market doesn't think this is an apocalyptic event, or indeed, ultimately even likely to be that big a deal economically. There's no guarantee it is correct. But it is worth considering as a data point, keeping in mind its (anthropomorphized) perspective, as well as the other perspectives and where they are coming from as well. (This includes the predictions of apocalypse. There are many actors who are well motivated to predict that regardless of their own personal beliefs. This doesn't make their predictions false, either. I'm just an advocate of applying "follow the money/motivation" everywhere, even and at times especially to people who agree with your current perspective.)
rtkwe 8y ago
I think the consensus is they will just extend instead of actually going through a 100% no-deal Brexit. Seems like a fairly safe bet given the UK can do it unilaterally and how bad it would be.

walrus01 8y ago

I wonder how many currency speculators have just revised their positions against the pound.

osrec 8y ago

I think this just goes to show that maybe the entire Brexit option was not a good one. I mean, why would Theresa May not try and get a good deal - she is trying her level best, powering through defeat after defeat in the house! One could conclude that, perhaps, there just isn't a good deal to be had. Brexiteers seem to have this "it'll be alright on the night" attitude - as if they want to leave without weighing up the pros and cons of both sides - their staunchness confuses me and reminds me of this Charles Bukowski quote: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence." I can see this going to another referendum soon. May even trigger a general election. Fun times! Edit: there is an overwhelming belief amongst Brexiteers that a second referendum would be undemocratic. But how can it be? It represents the most up to date public opinion. If they're so confident that it's what the people want, why will it make a difference? If anything, it'll just help quell any uncertainty. What is truly undemocratic is manipulation of the electorate. Manipulation happened on a large scale during the referendum, and there is a fair bit of proof to back up this claim, including blatant lies, social media and other advertising campaigns.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mrec 8y ago
> I mean, why would Theresa May not try and get a good deal May has two contradictory goals. She doesn't want to really leave the EU - I think absolutely everything about her staff picks, negotiating non-strategy and Cabinet management supports that - but she's a genuine Tory loyalist who needs to maintain enough of a fig-leaf of Leaving that her party doesn't get utterly obliterated by irate voters at the next election. That's a tough needle to thread, and she's completely failed to thread it. She's achieved her first goal by abandoning her second. > as if they want to leave without weighing up the pros and cons of both sides - their staunchness confuses me I don't think "staunchness" is quite the word. They want to leave, and they don't see the WA as leaving. (Nor does the general population; I think the last poll showed only 12% thought the WA respected the referendum result.) The talking point being pushed hard by No 10 has been "don't make the perfect the enemy of the good", implying that the ERG etc are blocking the WA because they think, unrealistically, that they can get a harder exit by holding out. That may be true for some. But I think many genuinely do believe that the WA (effectively non-voting membership with no safeguards and no way out) is worse than staying in the EU (as a voting member with the option of going Article 50 again). Many have said so. Some observers may dismiss that as rhetorical, but I don't think it is.

ddebernardy 8y ago

I followed the Commons debates during both votes. It's just surreal. It's as if the UK was living in some kind of bubble where just about anything happening outside of it had no existence let alone importance whatsoever. If I were a UK voter I'd be extremely angry. As an EU citizen I sincerely hope the outcome will be the UK ultimately staying in -- if only because of the outright lies during the referendum and the suspicion of Russian influence in the Leave vote. On a positive note, May mentioned a People's Vote was an option tonight. Insofar as I'm aware that's a first.

sparkling 8y ago
> As an EU citizen I sincerely hope the outcome will be the UK ultimately staying in -- if only because of the outright lies during the referendum and the suspicion of Russian influence in the Leave vote. What if i told you that crying "b-but the other side lied!" and talking about "russian hackers" do not outweigh a fair, free, democratically held vote? Imagine the vote was vice versa and the right-wing would be crying about unfair campaign ads and Brussel influence, not one person would take them seriously.
- ddebernardy 8y ago
  > do not outweigh a fair, free, democratically held election In case it needs reminding, those elections did occur, and May ended up needing to go in bed with the DUP to stay in power. Edit: ok, I see what you've done with your edit... > Imagine the vote was vice versa and the right-wing would be crying about unfair campaign ads and Brussel influence, not one person would take them seriously. Everyone would have correctly raised that it's horse shit, because the EC is fairly transparent in what it does if you bother to take a look. The real wtf in recent decades has been that Brussels is a perfect scapegoat: as a national politician you can go to the European Council and promote what have you; EC and EP pick it up and deliver; and then you can turn around and tell voters "see it's Brussel's fault" because national newspapers aren't reporting enough on what's going on in the EU. And just to be clear, this is nothing new. It already was a problem 20 years ago. And insofar as I've been made aware by the law teachers I had back then, 40 years ago as well.

hacker_9 8y ago

Oh wow, if we vote NO two more times this.. could all be over? Ia this real? Could it truly finally end?

amriksohata 8y ago

No deal looks increasingly on the table, what I fear most is it forces another general election that brings a party like ukip back to the fore. It is in both parties interests to vote for a deal, but their selfish bickering has already seen a fracture in labour and you could see more splitters and divided coalition parties building an alliance with ukip to get a majority

sparkie 8y ago
It is in both parties interest to uphold the result of the referendum which was held in 2016, and which they pledged to implement in their election manifestos in 2017, because if new general election comes about, their constituents will remember their betrayal, and then it will be no surprise they will vote for somebody else. May's deal is not what the people voted for, and so, the house of commons is full of lying politicians who will have exhausted their careers on the gamble that they could stop Brexit from happening.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It is in both parties interest to uphold the result of the referendum which was held in 2016, and which they pledged to implement in their election manifestos in 2017, because if new general election comes about, their constituents will remember their betrayal If their constituents viewpoints have moved since 2016/2017, they won't view it as a betrayal; more precisely the concern is that each major party is concerned that their own Leave faction will be more likely to abandon them than Remain-leaning voters outside will be to come over if their party is the one that flips.

benj111 8y ago

I liked the Jon Snow exchange on twitter Jon Snow (British journalist): "A Lawyer contact tells me that the legal world is aware that the Attorney General said NO last night to the validity of Mrs May's 'new EU deal'...he been told to go away and find a way to say YES: A cohort of lawyers has been summoned" Attorney General: "Bollocks"

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
"You know nothing, John Snow."

weinzierl 8y ago

> MPs voted down her deal by 391 to 242 - a smaller defeat than when they rejected it in January. > The PM said MPs will now get a vote on whether the UK should leave without a deal on 29 March and, if that fails, on whether Brexit should be delayed. What happens if they vote "No" three times in a row (no deal, no no-deal, no postponement)? If this wasn't politics I'd say: See if you can simplify this function, bonus points if you can avoid error conditions too: func brexit(){ if(deal){ exit(deal); } else { if(!deal) { exit(null); } else { if(postpone){ wait(TIME); brexit(); } else { throw new handsInTheAir(); } } } }

simook 8y ago
tempting
pmyteh 8y ago
I think 'handsInTheAir()' got thrown a while ago; the trouble is that the government's error handler sucks, and so does its parent's (Parliament). But, by design, exceptions don't automatically propagate from Parliament to its parent (the citizens) so the process is currently wedged in some kind of undefined behaviour. And no-one has the privileges to HUP the job.
- marssaxman 8y ago
  The Queen does not have root?
  - pmyteh 8y ago
    You're quite right, the Queen does have root. But she's not allowed in the server room after That Incident with Charles, one of her predecessors in the job. And it's been so long since her personal credentials were needed that nobody's quite sure where they are...
matthewmacleod 8y ago

dotdi 8y ago

I'm a bit confused as to why politicians always bring up ‘ignoring the will of the people’ when it's been shown that ‘the people’ have been lied to on a grand scale and there is evidence that Cambridge Analytica had worked pro-Brexit. I guess nowadays you cannot convince people with facts anymore. You can only convince them with covert, subliminal ads on their social media feeds.

cheeseomlit 8y ago
I guess nowadays all you have to do is run some Facebook ads and spin up some Twitter bots and that's enough to convince people this whole democracy thing is a sham. Unless of course the people vote for the right result, then all the social engineering and censorship on social media is a-ok
atombender 8y ago
As recently as one year ago [1], polls indicated that sentiment in favour of Brexit was still strong enough that another referendum might have resulted in another "leave" vote. A more recent poll [2] shows that this is now much less likely, but there's still strong support among a huge portion of the population. As much as I agree that the Brexit leave campaign was fraudulent and the whole referendum tainted, I don't think it's as clear-cut as you want. At what point do decide a vote that was made through a legal process should be rejected? You can't run the "will of the people" through some kind of legitimacy filter to weed out the ones that have been unduly influenced by political forces. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/jan/26/guardian-icm-brexit-poll-full-results https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/jan... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-eu-want-second-referendum---poll.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/06/britons-would-now-vote-to-st...
- dotdi 8y ago
  > At what point do decide a vote that was made through a legal process should be rejected? When it's fundamental premises are shown to be fraudulent. As you said. Also, don't ignore the fact that the wording of the vote had a big impact. It was `remain` vs. `literally everything else with the only constraint being "not in the EU"`.

samsonradu 8y ago

The Brexit vote happened to precede a period of sustained global growth, mostly throughout the year 2017, which overshadowed its economic implications. Despite that, UK GDP growth lagged behind other developed countries but it was not enough for the UK citizens opinion to change. As soon as it starts biting people's pockets, which might happen pretty soon according to Central banks/IMF economic forecasts, I believe a new referendum will be called and the decision will be reversed. There might not be time for that to happen though.