Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Rajma said:
Can anybody translate that into simple language for someone not familiar with nuances of the UK gov. system? What does it all mean?
Click to expand...
The intention of the Government was to have a free vote on their motion tonight. That means their MPs can vote any way they see fit. Now that an amendment to that motion has been narrowly passed to say no-deal should be ruled out under any circumstances and must never happen, the Government doesn't want its own motion to pass, because they don't want that amendment.

So, they remove the free vote on the main motion and instead "whip" it, which means Tory MPs are instructed which way to vote. Basically, it would be the Government voting down its own original motion. Cabinet Ministers have to be loyal, so if they wanted to vote the other way they'd have to step down from their Cabinet posts.

(edit - I'm not sure if they are whipping the vote, but it seems as if they might be now that the first amendment was agreed).
 
Minimalist said:
Rees Mogg dealing out the 'this isn't binding, it's not law' line.

Bit like the referendum dickhead.
Click to expand...

He is correct. The current law is that the UK will leave the EU on 29/3 whether or not their is a deal and as we all know the deal has been rejected.
 
Rajma said:
Can anybody translate that into simple language for someone not familiar with nuances of the UK gov. system? What does it all mean?
Click to expand...

Good luck :lol:

Our system is confusing as feck at the best of times, but you've jumped right in at the deep end.
 
Buster15 said:
He is correct. The current law is that the UK will leave the EU on 29/3 whether or not their is a deal and as we all know the deal has been rejected.
Click to expand...

The gov said earlier if it passed they'd pass the neccesary legislation to change the date.
 
This last one sounds like a contradiction. It rules out No Deal and accepts No Deal as the default?
 
Rajma said:
Can anybody translate that into simple language for someone not familiar with nuances of the UK gov. system? What does it all mean?
Click to expand...
They offered a free vote... But have now decided to instruct people to vote against... If you hold a government post and vote against the instruction (the whip) you are by convention supposed to resign (or again in theory be sacked)
 
So May might bring back her deal for another vote. What a joke
 
Seems all very serious (sackings and what not) for something some people keep saying is legally meaningless.
 
Grieve said he'd resign the whip if the Tories began to back no deal. And if they three-line whip against this vote... they're backing no deal.
 
sun_tzu said:
They offered a free vote... But have now decided to instruct people to vote against... If you hold a government post and vote against the instruction (the whip) you are by convention supposed to resign (or again in theory be sacked)
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem very... democratic? A minister should have an own opinion and vote at all time. Weird, never heard about this before.
 
Smores said:
The gov said earlier if it passed they'd pass the neccesary legislation to change the date.
Click to expand...

Yes of course. But as you will know passing a motion into law requires approval from both HoC and HoL and then needs Royal Ascent. All of which takes time.
 
Is it me or do these two on the BBC sound exactly like Sandi Toksvig and Richard Ayode (latter looks like a distant relative too)?
 
Narrow margin of victory for a non-legally binding vote....sounds familiar. Funny to watch the likes of JRM poo-poo it now.
 
This is astonishing stuff if you're interested in the workings of Parliament. A Government whipping against its own motion?
 
fecking disgrace. People who still are for brexit/tories should be sectioned.
 
Walrus said:
We know that the leave vote was overwhelmingly carried by the older generations. I am not too worried about riots etc. I would rather a few people get offended and feel betrayed, than the entire country gets fecked.

Putting it another way - surely following through with Brexit despite all of the warning signs, sets a very dangerous precedent that we [the country] arent interested in experts, and that public opinion must always be right.

There is a popular (and largely inaccurate) phrase that "the customer is always right". If you offered a referendum on drastically cutting taxes, people would vote for it. If you offered a referendum on massively increasing spending on the NHS, people would vote for it. Unfortunately neither of these scenarios might turn out to actually be feasible or realistic. Just because someone wants something, doesn't always mean they need to get it. This is a basic lesson taught to children.

A slightly more cynical and controversial note is on the very nature of capitalist democracy at the moment. We have seen in the USA and in the UK that the truth doesn't really seem to matter any more - what matters is marketing, appealing to the lowest common denominator and rallying people to your banner at any cost. These behaviors have now utterly eclipsed any notion of "doing the right thing" or "the greater good" when it comes to winning votes, sadly.

There is an ideological question here of what the purpose of our MPs (and other countries equivalents) actually is. Is it to implement the "will of the people" at all costs, or is it to do what they believe is best for the people they represent? Ideally the two should of course be aligned, but when they aren't - what do you do then? This is frankly a bigger question even than Brexit. It is a question of ideology and of the very nature of our democracy.
Click to expand...

This post reminds me something, @Pogue Mahone have you listened the Blindboy's episode about propaganda, marketing and Freud nephew? It was very interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.