Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

I’m not sure the monarch dying would do that much, seeing as they don’t do anything, but I’m a staunch Republican so I would say that.

Anyway, this just makes the idea of some Tory Brexiteers supporting May’s deal because she’s leaving more sickening. This is apparently a game to them, and the goal of the game is evidently how they can secure more power for themselves within their own party while they allow the country to hurtle off the cliff.

[RedKing]

Every. Single. Indicator. Vote. Got. Voted. Down.. O.o How.... just how does this happen? I'm a mix of O.o and WTF here, lol.

Since they don't want any of them, that kind of leaves the only option to either pull the plug (revoke article 50) or commit economic seppuku (Brexit crash through). Or maybe let the Queen decide if they're so helpless? I mean, Queen Elizabeth has gotta be seriously facepalming here.

Except that revoking article 50 (184-293) and crashing out with no deal (160-400) were two of the votes that failed.

Picture if you will, four Brits in a sinking rowboat. Each spots land in a different cardinal direction and proceeds to row as hard as they can in their chosen direction. Thus, the boat goes nowhere and eventually they're all going to drown, even though they've voted out drowning as an option.

Honestly, the Crown dissolving Parliament and retaking the reins of power would be hilarious at this stage. Let the Iron Fist of Windsor rule Brittania!

[smjjames]

The most that I can see Queen Elizabeth doing is giving Parliament a stern talking to, but from what I know of her, even doing that wouldn't be her style, at least not in a direct way.

[Kagus]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Doomblade187]

*America burns in the background*

I mean, do they have protocols for this shit? Maybe do a ranked choice vote, at least tear 1 or 2 options out?

[smjjames]

*America burns in the background*

I mean, do they have protocols for this shit? Maybe do a ranked choice vote, at least tear 1 or 2 options out?

Seems to have been the political equivalent of throwing food at a wall and seeing what sticks. No idea what their protocol for this kind of thing is, or how unusual the method of voting for several things at once like that is.

[hector13]

None of the things that were being voted on were legally binding regardless of whether or not they would’ve got a majority. it was basically parliament flexing its muscles because they have no confidence in Theresa May’s government even though they voted that they had confidence in Theresa May’s government.

They’re basically acknowledging no deal will be a shitshow, and they’re trying to look as though they’re doing something about it until the point they actually have to do something about. The last part is more of a hope than what will probably happen, because everybody’s playing stupid political games and not thinking about how fucking stupid they all look.

PPE: this was basically expected to happen. The last time indicative votes were used was in ‘03 for House of Lords reform. None of the proposed reforms got a majority, and no reform took place.

[Frumple]

... not thinking about how fucking stupid they all look.

Which is mildly odd, considering from a distance that seems to be literally the only thing they're actually accomplishing at the moment. Is there really no self-awareness as to how much of a farce all this is among the UK parliament?

[Loud Whispers]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47725529
God bless are based NIrish
The DUP are hammering the nails in the coffin. May will step down

[smjjames]

They're doing to do a debate on things tomorrow and possibly a new vote. Though both sound somewhat iffy whether they're going to happen or not, particularily the vote.

[TD1]

Unionists are quite fond of the old "No Surrender" mantra. I've been worried the DUP would stab us in the back by caving at some point, but much less worried about it than I would be about an equivalent English party.

[smjjames]

Speaking of the DUP, I saw some speculation that the DUP might split over a new vote due to, um, sheneinighans or something involving Therea May offering to resign or something with some of them backing out from what the party was going to do or something.

Just politics as usual I guess.

[Ametsala]

Soo.. If I'm understanding this tomorrow's brexit vote/debate thing correct, the parliament will debate, and I presume vote, on the withdrawal agreement but not the political declaration guiding the future relationship between UK and EU. So in effect the vote is going to be Theresa's deal without promise for future.

I need to go through this again, because this doesn't make much sense to me:

In order get the twice defeated deal through, the deal hasn't been altered at all.
Instead Theresa May has set a less vague date for her resignation (IIRC May had promised to quit before the next election anyway), and there's no longer a political declaration (i.e. fancy words) about being friends with the EU in the future.

I saw a headline about journalists in the EU getting popcorn ready for more of the brexit circus. I think they'll rather be getting something for a sprained brain, like alcohol, aspirin and amphetamines.

[hector13]

I'm assuming it's to get round Bercow's "no vote on substantially the same thing" ruling, even though it is exactly the same thing that was voted on and defeated a few weeks back, without another superfluous bit on it.

Opposition parties raging though, as they say they were promised a meaningful vote on both the withdrawal agreement and also the fancy shmancy "we shall remain friends" political stuff.

I think Theresa May should just double down on the obtuse political nonsense.

"You've already had your meaningful vote," she'll say, "I even allowed you two!" and they will be silenced because she is right.

"We want you out!" they will shout.

"Then pass my deal and I'll be gone." she will respond.

etc I'm too tired.

[smjjames]

Bercow has also been saying that he won't let the meaningful vote go through a third time without 'significant changes'.

Three different attempts to explain things:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2019/mar/28/brexit-latest-news-live-no-deal-on-12-april-most-likely-unless-mps-back-mays-deal-or-alternative-says-letwin-politics-live?page=with:block-5c9d0705e4b0b4d18bde1f81#block-5c9d0705e4b0b4d18bde1f81

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/28/why-are-mps-going-to-vote-on-just-the-brexit-withdrawal-agreement

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47739143

From what I can understand, the split is so that they can vote on the withdrawl agreement that extends the exit date to May 22nd (I think?) and if that vote fails, they're on an unstoppable path to no-deal Brexit crash through on April 12th, unless they revoke article 50. If it passes, the exit date gets extended to May 22nd. However, I'm not sure whether the May 22nd is supposed to be also no-deal or is going to be Theresa May's deal or if they still have to decide whether they want to have a no-deal exit or use May's plan for that date.

In order to extend it any further than May 22nd though, they'll have to decide whether to participate in the EU elections, which is counterintuitive to the point of Brexit.