
No-deal Brexit opponents defeat government - petewailes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49573555
======
mumblemumble
It seems like it's well past time for a 2nd referendum. And I don't buy this
hogwash about undercutting democracy and the people having spoken.

If my partner and I decide together to buy a car, and then find out later that
we can only get financing at 20%, then it is no way disingenuous to have
another talk about whether we really need a new car. On the contrary, I would
be _quite_ peeved if my partner went ahead and blithely signed a 20% loan for
a car without further discussion, and defended that decision by saying, "We
already talked about this."

~~~
hanoz
It's not democracy if you repeat the process until you get the right answer
then stop. And the EU has plenty of previous on this.

And you can argue that the facts on the ground have changed, but the powers
offering the referendum are the ones changing the facts.

~~~
belltaco
1.4M new voters would be newly eligible to vote.

Why should they be disenfranchised for a long time when they have to face the
consequences for much of their lifetime, unlikely the very old?

Not to mention that there is no Brexit in heaven or hell, so the votes of the
deceased shouldn't haunt people from their graves.

>And you can argue that the facts on the ground have changed, but the powers
offering the referendum are the ones changing the facts

You mean like the 350 million pounds a year for NHS lie? Or the complete
failure of the Brexiteers to offer a decent solution to the Irish border mess?
How are those remainer's fault again?

What about the fact that the courts have found that the Brexit campaign
violated campaign laws, and the reason a new referendum won't be forced is
that the vote was non-binding?

Sounds like Brexiteers are actually afraid of democracy.

~~~
fetbaffe
> 1.4M new voters would be newly eligible to vote.

That is an argument you can make for every election.

~~~
dagw
_That is an argument you can make for every election._

And that is why we hold new elections every few years, instead of just
sticking with the people we picked last time.

------
enitihas
One thing I don't understand out of this entire process is, since it is very
clear the British parliament will not allow the government to go with a no-
deal, how much leverage will the Government even have in any negotiation?
Since the EU knows that the UK has to have a deal, can't they get away with
offering not the best deal possible, since there is no EU wide similar law
binding the EU to stay away from no deal.

Obviously, no deal is bad for the UK and the EU too, but how can the UK
Government negotiate with their hands tied?

~~~
GVIrish
> Obviously, no deal is bad for the UK and the EU too, but how can the UK
> Government negotiate with their hands tied?

You have succinctly described one of the devastating flaws in the Brexit idea.
The UK has very little leverage and the EU has a lot of incentive to make it
very painful for the UK, as a warning to other would be EU deserters.

~~~
beaner
When you put it that way it makes it sound like an organization that just
strongarms others into joining it, rather than it maybe actually being in
their best interest.

~~~
GVIrish
It's not quite that in my opinion. At the time the original union was thought
to have big benefits for all members, and it did. Strongarming wasn't driving
things as much as perceived mutual benefit.

But now with one of the biggest countries in the union looking to leave, it
threatens the entire idea. Kinda like if the United States actually left NATO.
In both cases it is in the alliance's best interests to 'keep the band
together'.

Brexit was sold to voters with the promise that somehow the UK could work out
a comparably favorable trade deal with the EU without having to agree to
freedom of movement, EU regulations, payments to the EU, etc. If EU gave them
such a deal, why should any other country abide by the requirements of the
union?

------
vr46
This the funniest stuff I have seen in Parliament. The PM lost his first vote,
his majority, control of parliament and now they’ve withdrawn the whip from 21
of their own MPs. All because of two political geniuses who decided to
prorogue parliament. Brilliant. ORDER!

------
edh649
Both sides are now at a point where they feel like the other is trying to
stage a coup.

The remainers believe it is a coup that the PM has suspended parliament
seemingly in an effort to bring the country closer to a no-deal Brexit.

The leavers believe it is a coup that there is a bill with a very real chance
of passing that would make leaving without a deal illegal, therefore leading
closer to not leaving the EU at all.

~~~
gweinberg
I'd phrase it slightly differently: The leavers believe ignoring the results
of the referendum is essentially a coup. The remainers think respecting the
results of the referendum is essentially a coup.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I'd phrase it this way: The remainers think that _bypassing Parliament_ in
order to implement the results of the referendum is essentially a coup.

------
bencollier49
Looks like we'll have an election now as a proxy second referendum.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Wasn’t there already an election? Can you explain why there is a second proxy
referendum and what the two outcomes would be?

I assume it’s Wait for Deal Brexit or Doing It Now Brexit, ya?

~~~
bencollier49
There are now a fairly large number of MPs who are no longer aligned to the
policies of their party, or who have moved party. An election should shake all
of that out.

This, combined with the speaker's constitutional innovations have led to a
situation where we have a government which can't govern. Again, an election
should sort this (and may allow the removal of an activist speaker as well).

And yes, it will be about voting for a party which matches your preferred
strategy. Tory = no deal. Libs = remain. Labour = ??? + radical socialism.

------
novaRom
Thanks to the demolition job performed by David Cameron, Theresa May, and
finally by Boris Johnson, British society no longer believes in much of
anything or takes anything seriously.

~~~
klwejchkwejrhc
Tony Blair probably didn't help by joining the US' lies-based Iraq war.

------
inflatableDodo
In reality, if the UK does not have a trade deal in place by the time it
leaves the EU, it will still need to get one later and it will still contain
the same requirements on respecting existing commitments to the the Irish
Border. And this also happens to be a condition of getting a US trade deal
through.

No Deal Brexit, is in fact, No Deal until utterly desperate for Any Deal.

The idea that the UK could just not have to ever agree to a trade deal with
the EU is the purest of fantasies, and the idea that leaving first and kicking
the can down the road will strengthen the UK's negotiating position is almost
as delusional.

~~~
faissaloo
I see a very simple solution to the Irish Backstop: Give Ireland back.

~~~
inflatableDodo
To unify Northern Ireland with the Republic, I think there are a few people
that have to be asked first.

I mean, it would be somewhat in character for the UK to attempt to achieve
that unilaterally and with no consultation, but I think that to try and just
'give it back' as a solution to Brexit is, while no doubt well intentioned,
still representing a bit of a colonial point of view.

~~~
faissaloo
I don't think you need to ask anyone to return something you took.

~~~
inflatableDodo
Well, you can go tell the Irish that their constitution is wrong, if you like.

 _" It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to
unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all
the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united
Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a
majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the
island."_

[http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html](http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html)

------
jxcl
Is there any chance of Brexit being stopped, instead of just delayed?

~~~
Spearchucker
In a word, yes. Would require another postponement and then followed by the
election as a proxy second referendum. Which _could_ lead to scrapping Brexit
alltogether.

------
tanilama
Wow...The drama just keeps getting wilder...

------
Causality1
I wish my high school had covered parliamentary systems. So many things about
it seem batshit insane. The government can expel MPs who vote against it? The
prime Minister can seize power by suspending the entire parliament?

~~~
pjc50
Parties can expel members who vote against the party; this is normal. The
suspension of parliament trick was not normal, is currently subject to legal
actions, and may be rendered moot by Parliament having taken control of the
order paper this evening.

~~~
Causality1
>Parties can expel members who vote against the party; this is normal.

If they're required to vote with the party then why are they there at all
instead of a single party representative casting multiple votes? How does a
party ever change its mind about anything if its members can't make their own
decisions?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
There's a scale to these things.

A free vote allows an MP to vote against their party with no consequence.

at the other extreme we have:

A three line whip, which is literally underlined three times, are votes and
proceedings the government considers important. Traditionally manifesto
promises and last votes on major bills. Voting against a three line whip can
result in removal of the whip, ie expulsion, but traditionally even this has
been rare. Parties have usually had a few MPs well known for voting against
them on some issues, and managed to keep them on as MP. Throwing out 21 when
you lose your very first vote is unprecedented.

Mind you, losing your very first vote as PM is unprecedented. :)

[https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-
lords/principal/whip...](https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-
lords/principal/whips/)

------
busterarm
The people voted for it. Just give it to them. If the outcome is bad, that's
just a lesson in consequences...for everyone. Hope they vote better the next
time...if you feel that it was the wrong choice.

The amount of contempt being expressed, from many sides, for democratic
process is disgusting.

~~~
gambiting
The argument here is that I literally don't believe anyone in this country has
voted for a no deal brexit. I fully accept the result and I don't even care
about remaining anymore - but leaving on WTO terms has no mandate, that's not
what anyone has voted for and while the government has the responsibility to
implement the will of the people it also has the responsibility to not wreck
the country in the process.

~~~
nailer
The ballot question was:

> Do you want Britain to remain or leave the EU?

With the accompanying pamphlet stating:

> The government will implement what you decide.

This includes the government negotiating with the EU. If the government must
accept any deal the EU offers (because someone dislikes No Deal being on the
table) then the EU will offer the worst deal possible, and has done so (the
current deal has been rejected by parliament three times).

~~~
NeedMoreTea
There was, and is, no legal obligation on a UK government to take note of a
referendum. They're just a big opinion poll, legally speaking. In some ways
that's a big part of the problem.

Other countries, e.g. Switzerland, that use referenda have rules about super-
majorities, campaigning and spending, when and if they will become law and so
on. Ensures that you don't get vague hand-wavy referendum that is campaigned
as "we'll get a deal easily" morphing into WTO terms hard brexit some painful
time later.

~~~
nailer
That is correct. There obligation is moral.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Point being there is _no_ moral mandate on such a thin margin of the minority
who voted when there were laws broken in the campaign finance, the claims made
and so forth.

At least elections have the veneer of election law behind them. Referendum
nations have a similar veneer behind referenda - to decide whether it was
fairly arrived at, etc. Switzerland not long threw out a result because the
electorate had been given some sort of misleading information in the campaign.

~~~
nailer
Well we lost by something like 1.5 million people. Overturning the referendum
result because of campaign finance law seems somewhat excessive.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Perhaps so, but I think it would be better to have had those parameters
established beforehand, and where the limits of what was considered fair under
law were. Maybe people could consider it settled even if they didn't like the
result

Anything would be better than how we did do it, really. :)

