Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[bjcb0]

Originally Posted by Meini Again

Silly, but understandable move by Corbyn, for a vote of 'No Confidence'.

Normally such a catastrophic defeat would see the resignation of the PM
~ no contender from Mogg to Bozza will want to stand if she renounced leadership ~ and supporting her with the DUP and the 118 Tories that voted against the Bill will see Corbyn's vote defeated.

In normal circumstances the Conservatives and the DUP would vote for the Government, since neither wants a general election or Corbyn. But, under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act a loss in this vote would not trigger a general election; instead there would be a two week period in which the Government gets one last chance to reconfigure, followed by another confidence vote. I can see Conservative MPs voting against their own Government today simply because it's one way to get rid of the otherwise unflushable May -- after all, they cannot challenge her leadership under party rules until next December. What happens next is then anyone's guess, although I would be very happy for a Remain coalition to retract Article 50, highly unlikely though that is. I agree that, sadly, our own Parliamentary inertia could now lead to no-deal Brexit, with all the problems that will bring.

[Mal Hombre]

If the Government loses the Confidence vote today and there was indeed an election, Mrs May would lead the Tories in that election.They would have to lose the election and even then I could see Her trying to stay on.

[westernlover47]

I think the biggest hurdle to any deal getting through Parliament was the Irish backstop, the minute the EU suggested it we should have legally challenged in the European courts (I don't remember if a challenge was ever made). Getting any concession on it now would be good but the EU will nor budge on anything, what it has to do help find a way forward that allows something through to allow March 29 happen with a smooth passage, but she has wasted 2 years of negotiating.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by westernlover47

I think the biggest hurdle to any deal getting through Parliament was the Irish backstop, the minute the EU suggested it we should have legally challenged in the European courts (I don't remember if a challenge was ever made)...

On what basis could they have challenged it?

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by palo5

On what basis could they have challenged it?

My guess would be that Article 50 negotiations are not subject to litigation, but no state has invoked Article 50 before.

[seany65]

I'd like to ask a few questions:

Just before Xmas, Mrs. May went to the EU to seek "Clarifications" on various things, mostly the "basckstop" to prevent a hard border in Ireland.

The EU basically said "No more negotations or clarifications". This was widely reported, and as far as I'm aware, from the time the deal was agreed they have always said no renegotiation.

What I'd like to know is, how can anyone say Mrs. May should get cross-party consultations going so that we can back to the EU to renegotiate?

[haunted]

Originally Posted by seany65

I'd like to ask a few questions:

Just before Xmas, Mrs. May went to the EU to seek "Clarifications" on various things, mostly the "basckstop" to prevent a hard border in Ireland.

The EU basically said "No more negotations or clarifications". This was widely reported, and as far as I'm aware, from the time the deal was agreed they have always said no renegotiation.

What I'd like to know is, how can anyone say Mrs. May should get cross-party consultations going so that we can back to the EU to renegotiate?

The EU issued reassurances about the backstop this week on the day before the vote on the deal
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...stop-1.3757217

[haunted]

Originally Posted by westernlover47

I think the biggest hurdle to any deal getting through Parliament was the Irish backstop, the minute the EU suggested it we should have legally challenged in the European courts (I don't remember if a challenge was ever made). Getting any concession on it now would be good but the EU will nor budge on anything, what it has to do help find a way forward that allows something through to allow March 29 happen with a smooth passage, but she has wasted 2 years of negotiating.

The UK government agreed to the backstop in December 2017 and again in March 2018. Whether it fully understood the implications of the backstop or the extent of antipathy towards it in her own party is another matter.
I'm not sure who would have challenged the legality of the backstop.
On what basis could it be found to be illegal?

It's hard to imagine why the EU would make any significant changes to the deal while the UK is going through it's biggest constitutional crisis in living memory and neither the UK parliament or the governing party can agree on their Brexit policy.
The EU are not going to give concessions when the government can't guarantee that a revised deal can get through parliament.

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by westernlover47

I think the biggest hurdle to any deal getting through Parliament was the Irish backstop

The Irish backstop is not the biggest hurdle for the simple reason that the British government and the EU agreed on it.
The biggest hurdle is May herself. She has no clue and has led the UK into a blind Brexit, which is unacceptable for a big majority in Westminster (see the result of Tuesday's vote).

Originally Posted by westernlover47

the minute the EU suggested it we should have legally challenged in the European courts (I don't remember if a challenge was ever made).

What do you want to challenge? You realise that the Irish backstop has been agreed to preserve the Good Friday Agreement?
The UK and the Republic of Ireland signed the Good Friday Agreement, the EU didn't (the EU only provided the framework for cross-border cooperation with the Single Market and the Customs Union). It therefore makes sense for the UK and Ireland to have a backstop if the UK and the EU can't agree on anything. The UK and Ireland have a moral and legal obligation to preserve the peace. Unilaterally pulling out of the backstop without having any alternative would be like tearing the Good Friday Agreement apart.

Originally Posted by westernlover47

Getting any concession on it now would be good but the EU will nor budge on anything, what it has to do help find a way forward that allows something through to allow March 29 happen with a smooth passage, but she has wasted 2 years of negotiating.

Quite the opposite. It's the UK that hasn't made any concession.
On the Irish backstop, the EU offered 3 options all rejected by the UK: 1. Special status for Northern Ireland remaining in the SM and CU; 2. Border checks in Northern Irish ports and airports (there are already checks there, but with Brexit they would significantly increase); 3. Border checks anywhere in the UK to avoid a different treatment between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK (much more red tape, but that's the price you pay for taking back control).

And on the Brexit negotiations, the EU has offered several options to the UK (the Norway model, the Switzerland model, the Canada model, the Turkey model, the Ukraine model), but each time the UK wanted to have special treatment ("have cake and eat it").

Originally Posted by seany65

I'd like to ask a few questions:

Just before Xmas, Mrs. May went to the EU to seek "Clarifications" on various things, mostly the "basckstop" to prevent a hard border in Ireland.

The EU basically said "No more negotations or clarifications". This was widely reported, and as far as I'm aware, from the time the deal was agreed they have always said no renegotiation.

What I'd like to know is, how can anyone say Mrs. May should get cross-party consultations going so that we can back to the EU to renegotiate?

There will be no renegotiation if May sticks to the same plan. Actually, the EU doesn't mind May's red lines.
The real problem here is that May doesn't understand the implications of her red lines. The only possible outcome with those red lines is the Canada model. That means finding a solution for the Irish border since the UK leaves both the SM and the CU according to May's red lines. And to preserve the Good Friday Agreement, May must choose between the 3 options suggested by the EU, because the UK's MaxFac solution doesn't work (the technology doesn't exist, and it can't replace human checks on animals and food).

Since the very beginning of the Brexit negotiations, the real problem has been on the British side: they don't know what they want. As long as there's still ambiguity from the UK government, the negotiations will fail.

Only clarity will break the deadlock in the UK. There are only two ways to achieve that: 1. MPs finally vote on whether the UK should leave the SM and/or the CU; 2. Another referendum on whether the UK should leave or remain in the SM and/or the CU and/or the EU.

Anyone complaining about those 2 solutions must understand that there's no majority for any kind of Brexit right now because there is no clear mandate. Once Westminster or the British people vote on the SM and the CU, the British government will have a clear and legitimate mandate.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by seany65

What I'd like to know is, how can anyone say Mrs. May should get cross-party consultations going so that we can back to the EU to renegotiate?

It's "negotiations for dummies" seany. She won't get a better deal with her arbitrary "red lines" (that no one voted for). She was told that more than two years ago:



With fewer dogmas, things get easier, as the chart shows. That's the purpose of negotiation

But it's so ridiculous now, that I kind of wonder if UK will talk about a North Korea++ package