As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] My Better Brexit Deal Goes To Another School

1888991939499

Posts

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Nutjobs on Fox News are not the topic of the thread.

  • JazzJazz Registered User regular
    Apologies.

  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Tarantio wrote: »
    On that point: May has type 1 diabetes.

    Hopefully she'll continue to be able to obtain sufficient insulin to eat that jam.

    The rich and powerful will still be able to get all the medication that they need and all the food they want. None of the ill effects of Brexit will touch them, so why do they care? They'll sit in their mansions eating imported fruits and delicacies while telling people to tighten their belts and stiffen their upper lips because they won't starve; people are dying from lack of medicine faster than they can starve to death!

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Tarantio wrote: »
    On that point: May has type 1 diabetes.

    Hopefully she'll continue to be able to obtain sufficient insulin to eat that jam.

    The rich and powerful will still be able to get all the medication that they need and all the food they want. None of the ill effects of Brexit will touch them, so why do they care? They'll sit in their mansions eating imported fruits and delicacies while telling people to tighten their belts and stiffen their upper lips because they won't starve; people are dying from lack of medicine faster than they can starve to death!

    My guess is that, if things go poorly, the UK's wealthy will decamp to Europe and rule the island from afar. You'll also start getting a lot of politicians quietly spending a lot more time in their "holiday" homes abroad.

  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    i think the best example of this overall was the article 24 GATT thing - a year or so ago this was huge, it was going to make no deal so easy, but nobody is talking about it any more and indeed liam fox a few days ago completely ruled it out as an option because hey, its for a specific subset of interim agreements that fill in when a trade negotiation is almost finished, it gives everybody else a veto, etc, but you had fuckin rees-mogg on the bbc pulling out his phone to read from the article while talking to lorand bartels as if his raw interpretation of the text would compel the wto to do the right thing

    he was so confused he actually confused bartels, because he ended up saying "it's all conditional on us getting an agreement" to which bartels, perplexed, said "i mean, of course..."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRt7eTU-Je4

    EDIT: for those wondering

    The kerfuffle with the Scottish Orange Lodge UKIP candidate goes in exactly the direction ScotNats were allegeding.

    He was specifically invited onto the show despite not being from the locality to " add a right wing voice" as the local area was too SNP favourable.

    In the name of both entertainment and pseudo-balance the QT audience selection, supposedly a random selection representative of the area, is subverted.

    I have a thoughtful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/

    I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.

    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Why is english jam mouldy? It's literally a preserve.

  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    That's the innovative feature!

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    i think the best example of this overall was the article 24 GATT thing - a year or so ago this was huge, it was going to make no deal so easy, but nobody is talking about it any more and indeed liam fox a few days ago completely ruled it out as an option because hey, its for a specific subset of interim agreements that fill in when a trade negotiation is almost finished, it gives everybody else a veto, etc, but you had fuckin rees-mogg on the bbc pulling out his phone to read from the article while talking to lorand bartels as if his raw interpretation of the text would compel the wto to do the right thing

    he was so confused he actually confused bartels, because he ended up saying "it's all conditional on us getting an agreement" to which bartels, perplexed, said "i mean, of course..."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRt7eTU-Je4

    EDIT: for those wondering

    The kerfuffle with the Scottish Orange Lodge UKIP candidate goes in exactly the direction ScotNats were allegeding.

    He was specifically invited onto the show despite not being from the locality to " add a right wing voice" as the local area was too SNP favourable.

    In the name of both entertainment and pseudo-balance the QT audience selection, supposedly a random selection representative of the area, is subverted.

    yeah the number of snp baiting audience members in the recent qt was absurd...

    obF2Wuw.png
  • Anarchy Rules!Anarchy Rules! Registered User regular
    PLA wrote: »
    Why is english jam mouldy? It's literally a preserve.

    All jam will go mouldy if it's left exposed to the air. May does have a point in that the moulds are unable to penetrate into the jam, so removing the top ~1cm effectively removes all the mould and spores.

    English jam isn't as well preserved as it used to be. With all the healthy eating campaigns most jams you buy in the supermarket have far less sugar in them than if you were to make the jam at home. It's healthier for you, but with less sugar, microorganisms find it easier to grow on it.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    PLA wrote: »
    Why is english jam mouldy? It's literally a preserve.

    All jam will go mouldy if it's left exposed to the air. May does have a point in that the moulds are unable to penetrate into the jam, so removing the top ~1cm effectively removes all the mould and spores.

    English jam isn't as well preserved as it used to be. With all the healthy eating campaigns most jams you buy in the supermarket have far less sugar in them than if you were to make the jam at home. It's healthier for you, but with less sugar, microorganisms find it easier to grow on it.

    You can also lop off moldy bits on hard cheeses and still eat the rest. Just be sure to cut a wide berth around it in an abundance of caution.

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular


    I feel this wasn't the innovative jam we were promised

    It's the one we deserve

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Tarantio wrote: »
    On that point: May has type 1 diabetes.

    Hopefully she'll continue to be able to obtain sufficient insulin to eat that jam.

    The rich and powerful will still be able to get all the medication that they need and all the food they want. None of the ill effects of Brexit will touch them, so why do they care? They'll sit in their mansions eating imported fruits and delicacies while telling people to tighten their belts and stiffen their upper lips because they won't starve; people are dying from lack of medicine faster than they can starve to death!

    My guess is that, if things go poorly, the UK's wealthy will decamp to Europe and rule the island from afar. You'll also start getting a lot of politicians quietly spending a lot more time in their "holiday" homes abroad.

    Just as it used to be.

  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Tarantio wrote: »
    On that point: May has type 1 diabetes.

    Hopefully she'll continue to be able to obtain sufficient insulin to eat that jam.

    The rich and powerful will still be able to get all the medication that they need and all the food they want. None of the ill effects of Brexit will touch them, so why do they care? They'll sit in their mansions eating imported fruits and delicacies while telling people to tighten their belts and stiffen their upper lips because they won't starve; people are dying from lack of medicine faster than they can starve to death!

    My guess is that, if things go poorly, the UK's wealthy will decamp to Europe and rule the island from afar. You'll also start getting a lot of politicians quietly spending a lot more time in their "holiday" homes abroad.

    Just as it used to be.

    Ruled from Europe if you do, ruled from Europe if you don't.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    PLA wrote: »
    Why is english jam mouldy? It's literally a preserve.

    All jam will go mouldy if it's left exposed to the air. May does have a point in that the moulds are unable to penetrate into the jam, so removing the top ~1cm effectively removes all the mould and spores.

    English jam isn't as well preserved as it used to be. With all the healthy eating campaigns most jams you buy in the supermarket have far less sugar in them than if you were to make the jam at home. It's healthier for you, but with less sugar, microorganisms find it easier to grow on it.

    You can also lop off moldy bits on hard cheeses and still eat the rest. Just be sure to cut a wide berth around it in an abundance of caution.

    Also, mould that grows on preserved foods is overwhelmingly not dangerous, and not an indication of anything else which is. Botulism is dangerous, but is completely invisible, tasteless and you will have no idea that it is there. In fact, mold growing on something is likely a sign that its not dangerous since mold requires air, and botulism grows where there is no air.

    Hard cheese is pretty much indestructible unless it reaches a temperature where the fat can liquify, which will then cause it to become rancid. It would STILL be pretty much safe to eat in that state, but it would taste utterly foul. Soft cheeses can go bad at much lower temperatures and grow things which are dangerous internally, but again, become rancid long before that happens. Unpasteurized liquids are where you are looking at real concerns at room temperature. Ground raw meat too. Both of those can be dangerous even after cooking but not taste bad.

    Modern fears about food shelf life are primarily false concerns created by the food industry in the 60s and 70s to make us buy more fridges and throw away decent food. Fridges are awesome, fresh food is best, and food will eventually become dangerous to eat, but things last a LOT longer than their packaged dates say they will and many things need far less refrigeration than we think. Eggs in the US for example, need to be refridgerated due to an acid wash step which exists to remove salmonella, BUT, eggs themselves are perfectly shelf stable for a week or so. They don't need to be refrigerated, unless you wash them, but the fact that people in the US need to keep their eggs in the fridge means that fridges started to have slots for eggs, and now people keep their eggs in the fridge even though outside the US most people don't need to.

    People in the UK will have an opportunity to learn about all sorts of these things when the power starts turning off as the interconnectors to the EU which transport gas and electricity shut down. Exciting times.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/18/brexit-looming-energy-sector-builds-new-links-europe

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/63/6308.htm

    I think that the very worst 'serious' predictions for a no deal Brexit are genuinely still underestimating the effects. I think

    -> supermarkets will begin to run low on food due to ports being overwhelmed, perhaps only 80% of their orders are arriving on time
    -> leading to panic buying of all remaining items
    -> leading to massive amounts of additional orders from the EU being funneled into the UK's already overwhelmed ports
    -> leading to complete collapse of the customs systems at the port
    -> leading to trucks turning back, and goods passing their maximum safe transport time limits
    -> leading to a 20% delay in supplies turning into a 50% cut in supplies
    -> leading to actual hunger in the UK

    You can build a similar chain of collapse through like 6 inevitable outcomes for any number of things, and I know that most of these 'very serious studies' stop after 1 or 2 knockons in the chain because it gets too complex and unpredictable for reasonable economic models, but that doesn't mean these reasonable steps won't occur.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • LongLiveTheCoreLongLiveTheCore Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    Shimshai wrote: »

    And Them is also a rather sweeping answer that happens to be true.

    'Them' is a cop-out from people who don't want to answer the question.

    Racism/xenophobia is in general directed at some specific group at a specific time, Nazis versus jews/slavs, Hutu versus Tutsi, Spaniards versus Catalans and so forth. 'Them' is indeed a sweeping statement that does not answer the specificity of the occasion. The Nazis were quite happy to ally with the Japanese, so if the sweeping statement would be true in that case then they wouldn't be. How can the 17.3 million plus ALL be racist/xenophobic when many of them voted to stay in the EEC in 1975, can you say that in 1975 they were racist? Maggie Thatcher wearing her multi-Europe flag jumper suddenly turned racist when she decided that maybe a European Union was not that good? How can 17 million be racist when many worked with Europeans, are quite happy to go on holiday to Europe, use all the benefits of being in the EU, many actually have European heritage, fought against fascism in WW2 and voted to be in the predecessor of the EU as is?

    What the racism card is, is a convenient answer for folk who don't know why. It is ignorance.

    Bogart wrote: »
    The day after the referendum numerous reporters who are of colour mentioned on Twitter or on their news report that the morning was the first in a long time someone had publicly used a racial slur towards them. Didn't matter if they were from an EU country, didn't matter if immigration of people who looked like them would be affected by Brexit. They were different, and some Leave voters were revelling in their newfound power to be openly racist.

    The possibility of Turkey joining the EU was raised multiple times by Brexit campaigners as a terrible, scary thing, because 70 million Turks would turn up the very next day expecting a white man's job, wife and home. Farage posed in front of pictures of refugees from Syria doing everything but making ooga booga noises, even though refugee policy had basically nothing to do with the EU, and up to that point (and since) the number of refugees from Syria the UK has accepted has been pitifully small. It wasn't an dark undercurrent to the campaign: racism was a central theme.

    Control of our borders was one of the two central planks of the Leave campaign, precisely because the question of who was coming in and living here was so contentious among half the population. Foreigners who were coming over here to simultaneously skive on benefits and take our jobs were the over-riding moral panic of the referendum.

    The original statement was about people's reason for voting and supporting Brexit, not about what actual effects Brexit would have on any particular foreign-born segment of the UK population, or what people of colour already living here would be affected. What Brexit actually turns out to be has little to do with the reasons people voted for it, though Theresa May has shown herself dutifully willing to be as hostile towards immigrants as the very worst people in the country would like.

    I don't know about the reporters, maybe if they were reporters who voted Remain it might be an excuse to say Brexit is bad and any major current in a countries politics is likely to make the REAL racists jump up before they settle down again. Are the yellow jackets in France racist because a few anti-semites draw a few swastikas?

    The Farage poster was a real picture from the Hungary border. The Common European Asylum System would prove you a liar in regards to asylum policy not being EU policy. I would hope so that the UK would not have as many asylum seekers given that they would have to travel through all of Europe to get to the UK, and the policy is that asylum seekers stop at the first country they land in. You wouldn't expect South Africa to accept people traveling through all of Africa. If those same asylum seekers gain EU citizenship then they can freely travel to the UK and the Calais camp proves that many do want to enter the UK and do not want to settle in France etc and many EU countries certainly do not enforce international law.

    I doubt that Theresa May is hostile towards immigrants.
    tbloxham wrote: »
    -> leading to massive amounts of additional orders from the EU being funneled into the UK's already overwhelmed ports

    Assuming that alternate suppliers from non-EU countries cannot be found. Its called Globalism.

    LongLiveTheCore on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Ordering from different places still overwhelmes the ports. You have an enormous volume that didn't need customs checks. And now it does.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Theresa May's stint as Home Secretary alone seems to contradict that

  • HerrCronHerrCron It that wickedly supports taxation Registered User regular
    "people couldn't possibly be letting an irrational fear of them coming here inform their vote, why they go on foreign holidays and think that Pavel at work is one of the good ones" isn't a very compelling line of thought.

    After all people are very good at holding multiple ideas at the same time that contradict each other.

    sig.gif
  • PlatyPlaty Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    "EU countries not enforcing international law" is generally something which comes out of the mouths of far-right types, since 2015. I'm not sure which purpose it serves here.

    Also Theresa May was responsible for the hostile environment policy which led to the Windrush Scandal. She even used the word "hostile" to describe her policies.

    Platy on
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    What, you're gonna drive to the international Kwik-E Mart to pick up some food to prove that ports are a mug's game?

  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    And Gish gallops into the lead...

    Its very easy for a large group of loosely aligned people to be xenophobic against a loosely defined them, as each individual will have a slightly different perspective.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Ordering from different places still overwhelmes the ports. You have an enormous volume that didn't need customs checks. And now it does.

    Hell, the UK could even waive the damn customs checks and let the international shippers sell the food directly off the tanker. It takes 24 hours for a truck full of wheat to get to the UK from Spain. Less from France. Both of those suppliers have supplies ready to go in warehouses, and trucks ready to send them. Conversely, the most patriotic boat captain in the whole damn world can't get a shipping container of US grain to the UK in less than 2 weeks. And thats assuming you have a large volume of supplies ready to ship out on the US East Coast in midwinter.

    https://transporteca.co.uk/shipping-from-the-usa/

    Here's a hint, those supplies dont exist in the USA on the east coast in the middle of winter.

    "That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Mayabird wrote: »
    Tarantio wrote: »
    On that point: May has type 1 diabetes.

    Hopefully she'll continue to be able to obtain sufficient insulin to eat that jam.

    The rich and powerful will still be able to get all the medication that they need and all the food they want. None of the ill effects of Brexit will touch them, so why do they care? They'll sit in their mansions eating imported fruits and delicacies while telling people to tighten their belts and stiffen their upper lips because they won't starve; people are dying from lack of medicine faster than they can starve to death!

    My guess is that, if things go poorly, the UK's wealthy will decamp to Europe and rule the island from afar. You'll also start getting a lot of politicians quietly spending a lot more time in their "holiday" homes abroad.

    I will be darkly amused if the UK becomes a de facto colony ruled by out of touch rich people from across the sea.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    I mean you can doubt May is hostile towards immigrants but she literally demanded and created a “hostile environment” for prospective immigrants and asylum seekers.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Also I am having a good laugh at the idea that lots of people weren’t racist in the seventies.

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    I mean you can doubt May is hostile towards immigrants but she literally demanded and created a “hostile environment” for prospective immigrants and asylum seekers.
    "I don't personally hate them, i just find them convenient target."

  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    Also I am having a good laugh at the idea that lots of people weren’t racist in the seventies.

    Probably in the same way people weren't racist when I was growing up as a white kid in an overwhelmingly white area - I think there were three non-white kids in my school of 1000 pupils

    The scales fell from my eyes pretty fucking quickly once there were plans to set up a centre for asylum seekers nearby, though

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    The Black and White Minstrel Show was on TV until 1978, for anyone who doubts the racism of the times. The National Front were the fourth largest party in terms of vote share.

  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    The reason why a big chunk of people feel like things weren't as racist back then is because people were allowed to be racist without being called out on it. So if you weren't personally suffering from it or targeted by it then you wouldn't really hear about it

  • TarantioTarantio Registered User regular
    Just in general, demanding that one provides the parameters of race that would make the racism of a political movement logically consistent is falsely assuming that racism is ever logically consistent.

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    I mean you can doubt May is hostile towards immigrants but she literally demanded and created a “hostile environment” for prospective immigrants and asylum seekers.

    She literally had billboard vans with "go home" driving around London. That is not a joke, it is a fact.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited February 2019
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    I don't know about the reporters, maybe if they were reporters who voted Remain it might be an excuse to say Brexit is bad

    People who say they encounter racism are liars who have ulterior motives. Right.

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Brexit news - live: Theresa May faces crushing Commons defeat as Conservative rebels prepare to vote against PM From The Independent.

    So I guess there's going to be a vote to all May to ask for an extension or something, which she may or may not do because she's a moron; and the Brexiting types are all against it because anything that does't involve leaving the EU on March 29th is a traitorous betrayal of the glorious Brexit plan for make benefit glorious nation of UK. And probably something about polluting their precious bodily fluids too.

    More realistically it's because Brexit is such a mess that they worry any sort of a delay might end up being the camel's nose on the subject, but I am so burned out from keeping my screaming on the inside and suppressing my urge to punch my monitors that I can't even even at this point.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • honoverehonovere Registered User regular
    edited February 2019
    German Der Spiegel is reporting that they have correspondence between the UK Government and the EU commission showing that at the end of January the UK gov didn't manage to seal the deal on any follow up trade agreements with 40 third-countries.
    Since then they only managed to come to an agreement with 4 partners, namely Switzerland, Chile, Faroe Islands, and ESA (Eastern and Southern Africa States).

    Source (german)
    spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/brexit-nur-vier-eu-abkommen-fuer-grossbritannien-kopiert-a-1253095.html

    edit:
    BBC mentions those numbers, too, in this article:
    https://bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47196636

    honovere on
  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    Liam Fox assured us he'd have 40 trade deals signed after midnight on the 29th and only a communist or a liar would doubt him.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Outside elected office if you are this incompetent and you mislead people to the extent these ministers do there are severe consequences. Legal consequences, sometimes.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    People can stop electing them any time they want.

    For misleading Parliament there are some consequences already, but I think it's fair to say they aren't applied as strictly as you might like. For incompetence it feels like you can only be punished if the PM is strong enough to do it and maintain their hold over the party, which is one of the consequences of such a weakly held majority.

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Interesting stuff at the Live Blog. Various Brexit amendments, some of which result in outcomes that don't involve eating shoe leather. A SNP dude tabled one that straight up revokes Article 50. Should be some interesting, and hopefully not depressing, votes happening.

    Spoiled for huge.
    PA have produced this very helpful summary of the key amendments MPs are likely to vote on tonight...

    Government motion

    This apparently innocuous motion asks the House to welcome Ms May's statement on Tuesday, setting out progress in Brexit talks, note that talks on the Irish backstop are "ongoing" and "reiterate its support" for the approach to negotiations agreed the last time MPs voted, on 29 Janaury. The problem for the government is that MPs voted that day not only to authorise the PM to go back to Brussels and seek a replacement for the controversial Irish backstop, but also for a non-binding motion which would rule out a no-deal outcome. Leave-supporting backbenchers from the European Research Group fear that this would effectively mean signing up to a bar on no-deal.

    Labour amendment

    Tabled by Jeremy Corbyn and his frontbench, this would require the government to either call a vote on its withdrawal plan by 27 February or hand control to Parliament to decide the next steps. Liberal Democrats have tacked on their own amendment to this proposal, calling for a second referendum "as endorsed by the Labour Party conference".

    Alternative vote

    A cross-party amendment tabled by the Father of the House, veteran Tory europhile Kenneth Clarke, would allow MPs to vote on their preferred Brexit outcome. Any Brexit option which secures the signatures of 50 or more MPs would be included on a ballot paper, and MPs would be asked to rank them in order of preference. Using an alternative vote system, the least popular option would be excluded and second-preference votes redistributed until one outcome has more than half the votes. There would then be a vote in the Commons on this option. This proposal has the backing of senior Labour backbenchers including Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey as well as Tory Remainers Dominc Grieve and Anna Soubry.

    Revoke Article 50

    Tabled by the Scottish National Party's Angus MacNeil and backed by Mr Clarke, this amendment calls on the government to revoke the letter informing the European Council of the UK's intention to leave the EU under Article 50 of the treaties, thus ending the Brexit process and allowing Britain to remain a member of the EU.

    Publish the papers

    This amendment - backed by 60 critics of Brexit from across the House - instructs the Government to publish its most recent official briefings on the implications of a no-deal Brexit for business and trade. Tablers Anna Soubry and Chuka Umunna believe the papers presented to Cabinet paint a chilling picture of the damage which no-deal will do.

    Indicative votes

    This calls for a series of votes on 26 February on various Brexit options including the PM's Withdrawal Agreement, no-deal, renegotiation of the backstop, a Canada-style deal, Norway-style membership of the EEA and a second referendum. If only one option wins a majority, Ms May would be required to ask for an extension to Article 50 beyond its March 29 deadline to pursue that outcome. If two or more won majorities, the PM would be required to hold a public vote on those options. If none commanded a majority of MPs, Mss May would have to call a second referendum with the options of her deal or Remain. Tabled by Conservative Remainer Sarah Wollaston, the proposal has backing from opponents of Brexit across the House.

    Plaid Cymru option

    Backed by the Welsh nationalist party's four MPs, this requires the Government to extend Article 50 to provide time for a referendum on Ms May's deal or Remain. If no extension is allowed by the EU, the government would be required to commit itself to a referendum at the end of the transition period in 2021 on whether the UK should rejoin the EU.

    Close alignment

    An amendment signed by a small group of Labour and Plaid MPs, and tabled by Swansea West's Geraint Davies, would require an extension of Article 50 and a commitment from the PM to seek a deal - subject to ratification in a referendum - which leaves the option open for future governments to adopt Labour's current vision for post-Brexit relations with the EU, including a customs union and close alignment with the single market.

    SNP option

    Tabled by the SNP's Westminster leader Ian Blackford, this would require the government to negotiate an extension of at least three months to the Article 50 process.

    Liberal Democrat amendment

    Liberal Democrats led by Sir Vince Cable are proposing an extension to Article 50 beyond March 29 to allow time for a second referendum with Remain on the ballot paper.

    Three-option referendum

    Tabled by Labour backbencher Roger Godsiff, this would require any withdrawal agreement approved by Parliament to be put to the public in a referendum. The ballot paper would have three options - to accept the agreement, leave with no deal or remain in the EU - and voters would be asked to rank them in order of preference under the alternative vote system.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    Interesting stuff at the Live Blog. Various Brexit amendments, some of which result in outcomes that don't involve eating shoe leather. A SNP dude tabled one that straight up revokes Article 50. Should be some interesting, and hopefully not depressing, votes happening.

    Spoiled for huge.
    PA have produced this very helpful summary of the key amendments MPs are likely to vote on tonight...

    Government motion

    This apparently innocuous motion asks the House to welcome Ms May's statement on Tuesday, setting out progress in Brexit talks, note that talks on the Irish backstop are "ongoing" and "reiterate its support" for the approach to negotiations agreed the last time MPs voted, on 29 Janaury. The problem for the government is that MPs voted that day not only to authorise the PM to go back to Brussels and seek a replacement for the controversial Irish backstop, but also for a non-binding motion which would rule out a no-deal outcome. Leave-supporting backbenchers from the European Research Group fear that this would effectively mean signing up to a bar on no-deal.

    Labour amendment

    Tabled by Jeremy Corbyn and his frontbench, this would require the government to either call a vote on its withdrawal plan by 27 February or hand control to Parliament to decide the next steps. Liberal Democrats have tacked on their own amendment to this proposal, calling for a second referendum "as endorsed by the Labour Party conference".

    Alternative vote

    A cross-party amendment tabled by the Father of the House, veteran Tory europhile Kenneth Clarke, would allow MPs to vote on their preferred Brexit outcome. Any Brexit option which secures the signatures of 50 or more MPs would be included on a ballot paper, and MPs would be asked to rank them in order of preference. Using an alternative vote system, the least popular option would be excluded and second-preference votes redistributed until one outcome has more than half the votes. There would then be a vote in the Commons on this option. This proposal has the backing of senior Labour backbenchers including Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey as well as Tory Remainers Dominc Grieve and Anna Soubry.

    Revoke Article 50

    Tabled by the Scottish National Party's Angus MacNeil and backed by Mr Clarke, this amendment calls on the government to revoke the letter informing the European Council of the UK's intention to leave the EU under Article 50 of the treaties, thus ending the Brexit process and allowing Britain to remain a member of the EU.

    Publish the papers

    This amendment - backed by 60 critics of Brexit from across the House - instructs the Government to publish its most recent official briefings on the implications of a no-deal Brexit for business and trade. Tablers Anna Soubry and Chuka Umunna believe the papers presented to Cabinet paint a chilling picture of the damage which no-deal will do.

    Indicative votes

    This calls for a series of votes on 26 February on various Brexit options including the PM's Withdrawal Agreement, no-deal, renegotiation of the backstop, a Canada-style deal, Norway-style membership of the EEA and a second referendum. If only one option wins a majority, Ms May would be required to ask for an extension to Article 50 beyond its March 29 deadline to pursue that outcome. If two or more won majorities, the PM would be required to hold a public vote on those options. If none commanded a majority of MPs, Mss May would have to call a second referendum with the options of her deal or Remain. Tabled by Conservative Remainer Sarah Wollaston, the proposal has backing from opponents of Brexit across the House.

    Plaid Cymru option

    Backed by the Welsh nationalist party's four MPs, this requires the Government to extend Article 50 to provide time for a referendum on Ms May's deal or Remain. If no extension is allowed by the EU, the government would be required to commit itself to a referendum at the end of the transition period in 2021 on whether the UK should rejoin the EU.

    Close alignment

    An amendment signed by a small group of Labour and Plaid MPs, and tabled by Swansea West's Geraint Davies, would require an extension of Article 50 and a commitment from the PM to seek a deal - subject to ratification in a referendum - which leaves the option open for future governments to adopt Labour's current vision for post-Brexit relations with the EU, including a customs union and close alignment with the single market.

    SNP option

    Tabled by the SNP's Westminster leader Ian Blackford, this would require the government to negotiate an extension of at least three months to the Article 50 process.

    Liberal Democrat amendment

    Liberal Democrats led by Sir Vince Cable are proposing an extension to Article 50 beyond March 29 to allow time for a second referendum with Remain on the ballot paper.

    Three-option referendum

    Tabled by Labour backbencher Roger Godsiff, this would require any withdrawal agreement approved by Parliament to be put to the public in a referendum. The ballot paper would have three options - to accept the agreement, leave with no deal or remain in the EU - and voters would be asked to rank them in order of preference under the alternative vote system.

    I had a read of these over on the BBC.
    I assume none of them will pass, because the ERG will vote against them for the look of the thing, and then abstain anyway, probably preventing passage of the bill.

    The one I think might pass is the 'Publish the papers' amendment, because it doesn't actually require anyone to do anything about the problem. Merely provide more information indicating that there is a problem.

    If the Alternative Vote one passes, I will buy myself a pint. If it then got implemented in such a way as to avoid total disaster, I will buy every single person in this thread a pint.

This discussion has been closed.