Brexit

[Mechelle]

No, I didn't watch it unfortunately.
I have heard conflicting opinions of how good it was, but it doesn't seem to have been too accurate historically from all the details it omitted. Besides the ones you mention, I believe David Cameron was written out!

[Eye of Horus]

Well Cameron did appear briefly on a teleconference call.  XD

I can sort of understand why the politicians were written out, because the main theme of the story was that politics has changed; they are the old way, big data is the new etc. Though it would have been nice to have a little insight into the major players beyond their comedy stereotypes - Banks and Farage aren't just loopy party boys, they're dangerous shit-stirrers who used the referendum to make money; Gove isn't (just) a dimwit with a permanently startled expression, he's a ruthlessly self-interested backstabber; Johnson isn't a bumbling chatterbox, it's an act that, like the Leave campaign itself, he used to increase his standing in the Tory party; etc etc.

Dom Cummings gets a pass due to the need for a sympathetic main character, but I'm not sure if it's potentially harmful to frame him as Anarchist Sherlock instead of the clever but amoral egomaniac he appears to be in real life (he certainly shows no remorse for the infamous "£350 million" lie)

Though there was the occasional thing that I thought harmed the watcher's understanding of what went on - for example, there is a hearing and law-breaking is mentioned, but the film implies that Leave broke the law by stealing our data, and not also because they spent illegal amounts of money, illegally collaborated with BeLeave and Leave.EU, and did not declare their ads as Leave material (which for political ads is, I believe, against the law).

[Eye of Horus]

Coincidentally: I've just seen that Cambridge Analytica, one of the data-mining companies involved with Leave, has just been found guilty of breaching data protection law. Although it's only a paltry and symbolic fine (£15,000 / $19,000) against one already-defunct splinter company of the election-rigging SCL Group, it's something I guess.

[Mechelle]

This is curious. Theresa May is giving a speech to show how she accepted the result of the Welsh devolution referendum(where the vote For devolution gained a narrow victory some years ago), even though she had not supported it, and also did not try to reverse it, in contrast to the remainers following the Brexit referendum. In fact, she did precisely the opposite.

Ironically, this would not have been known if she had not brought it to public attention and exposed her hypocrisy.  I do sometimes have some sympathy for her, but once again, her own hubris, or her speechwriters', leads her into problems. In these days of Trump's blatant lies,.I should not be surprised, but surely she should have expected that somebody might have checked what she said was true!

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-brexit_uk_5c3c8c0ae4b01c93e00bbae8

[gaggedLouise]

No, I didn't watch it unfortunately.
I have heard conflicting opinions of how good it was, but it doesn't seem to have been too accurate historically from all the details it omitted. Besides the ones you mention, I believe David Cameron was written out!

I haven't seen it either, but it got rave reviews here in Sweden from journalists who had watched it; I think it's showing on HBO here (a channel I don't happen to have). In particular. Benedict Cumberbatch as the scientist mastermind was given lavish praise. Some of the reviewers recognized though, that the film has simplified things and tells the story as if Cummings was, in the end, the single driving force of the Brexit campaign: of course there were many others with their own motives.

On another angle, I hear that there is now talk from Brussels about giving the UK extra time and plainly agreeing to push the exit date ahead, to avoid a no-deal crash-out at all costs... ;)

[Mechelle]

On another angle, I hear that there is now talk from Brussels about giving the UK extra time and plainly agreeing to push the exit date ahead, to avoid a no-deal crash-out at all costs... ;)
[/quote]

Yes, Theresa May has been careful in her choice of words (at least, in this instance!), saying that she does not believe we should delay leaving, but not ruling out a delay. One of her most consistent policies seems to have been to push back deadlines, even though Article 50 was triggered quickly enough at first, so I do expect a delay.
Anything could change, though, of course.

[Mechelle]

Theresa May's deal was rejected in the House of Commons by 202 votes against 432. Although she was exoected to lose, this was worse than any predictions I had seen.

[Sara Nilsson]

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has now tabled a vote of no confidence in the government, which could trigger a general election. According to BBC.

Question is, where does this leave the whole Brexit now?

[Mechelle]

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has now tabled a vote of no confidence in the government, which could trigger a general election. According to BBC.

Question is, where does this leave the whole Brexit now?

1. I doubt he will win it, as the rebel Conservatives (from both wings) and the Democratic Unionists are expected to rally to support her.

2. No idea!

I suppose the unexpected scale of the defeat could change everything.

[Silk]

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has now tabled a vote of no confidence in the government, which could trigger a general election. According to BBC.

Question is, where does this leave the whole Brexit now?

Depends on the EU's answer to the can article 50 be extended or not really.

[Mechelle]

Depends on the EU's answer to the can article 50 be extended or not really.

Nice to see you on here, Silk, and that is a key point. I had certainly heard statements to say that it could be extended.
Meanwhile, Mrs May is trying to reach out to the other sides of the House to come together. If only she had done that in the first place, rather than try to manipulate the situation for her party's advantage...

[Sara Nilsson]

I saw that the EU can extend the period until the Brexit itself, but the UK has to request it. And with Theresa May being so adamant that eh.. March 29th (thats the date right? I forget) is THE date and it wont be budged the expert I saw commenting on it said it was unlikely to happen. To me that seems like a rather silly position to have, if you are heading for a cliff wouldn't you want some extra time to save your rear? Though i guess it is all down to politics as usual rather than what is best for the common man, only what is best for the politicians.

[SidheLady]

For those of you interested, Theresa May lost the vote almost 2-1.

Things are gonna get intresting folks

[Orval Wintermute]

I saw that the EU can extend the period until the Brexit itself, but the UK has to request it. And with Theresa May being so adamant that eh.. March 29th (thats the date right? I forget) is THE date and it wont be budged the expert I saw commenting on it said it was unlikely to happen. To me that seems like a rather silly position to have, if you are heading for a cliff wouldn't you want some extra time to save your rear? Though i guess it is all down to politics as usual rather than what is best for the common man, only what is best for the politicians.

I think a little more nuanced than that. Anyone can ask for an extension to Article 50 but everyone, all 28 states, have to agree to it but I can't see a situation where one of the EU27 would formally ask for an extension without clearing it with the others first. The problem with the 29th March is that it's set in legislation, so needs further legislation to change it. There were plenty of politicians who were opposed to putting the date in the Bill to prevent just this situation but reasonableness didn't win.

[gaggedLouise]

For those of you interested, Theresa May lost the vote almost 2-1.

Things are gonna get intresting folks

I saw some bits of the debate  live, it was mean, gritty, dripping with fierce anger and sarcasm adn sometimes quite funny - in typical House of Commons style. To May it must have been very trying: she sat through it in silence with a defensive, shuttered look, not unlike a captive woman who knows she is hated and who is expecting to be hanged in public the next morning.

[Mechelle]

She always looks rather besieged and embattled.
Today, though, she won the vote of confidence, as expected, as the rebel Conservatives and the Democratic Unionist Party both came back in to support her.

Afterwards, it was announced that she was giving a press conference at 10PM. Like many other people, I had expected a major announcement, but it was just to say that she had won the vote of confidence, her deal had been defeated, and that she had (finally!) started discussing Brexit with the other smaller party leaders as well as the DUPbut not Jeremy Corbyn, who refused to speak to her. Good job I didn't change any plans to listen to this!

[gaggedLouise]

She always looks rather besieged and embattled.
Today, though, she won the vote of confidence, as expected, as the rebel Conservatives and the Democratic Unionist Party both came back in to support her.

Afterwards, it was announced that she was giving a press conference at 10PM. Like many other people, I had expected a major announcement, but it was just to say that she had won the vote of confidence, her deal had been defeated, and that she had (finally!) started discussing Brexit with the other smaller party leaders as well as the DUPbut not Jeremy Corbyn, who refused to speak to her. Good job I didn't change any plans to listen to this!

According to the Times, there is now talk in the EU political uper crust of giving Britain the offer to push Brexit ahead to 2020, in order to give the islanders some chance of actually working out some bones of a better deal and getting their act together.  :P

And Donald Tusk made an obvious hint on twitter that someone in the UK would have to say the unthinkable: if the deal isn't going to work, or can't be sold, then the best alternative would be a second referendum and getting the UK to remain in the EU.

I kinda agree. ;)

[Chantarelle]

To have another referendum would be disastrous for trust in the democratic process in the minds of the first wave voters I fear.

[gaggedLouise]

To have another referendum would be disastrous for trust in the democratic process in the minds of the first wave voters I fear.

Yes, I see your point, but the campaign of the referendum that did occur was so low on real, sensible information about what would happen if the UK left the EU - trade deals, day-to-day movement pf goods and people, health care for Britons living on the continent, getting new deals etc - and what was realistically possible to achieve, that the democratic legitimacy of its outcome is very questionable. It turned into a rugby match with the rules changing as they went along rather than a serious referendum.

[Chantarelle]

I understand but it is a strong precedent to make on the world stage at this moment. What about a soft brexit, in other words a compromise? It’s important that the people be heard the first time around unless in cases involving a recount but not an entirely new vote. Not everyone believes in or particularly cares for the EU experiment and no one is really talking about that anywhere.

[gaggedLouise]

I understand but it is a strong precedent to make on the world stage at this moment. What about a soft brexit, in other words a compromise? It’s important that the people be heard the first time around unless in cases involving a recount but not an entirely new vote. Not everyone believes in or particularly cares for the EU experiment and no one is really talking about that anywhere.

Yes, I'm not a fan of the "big EU", "United States of Europe" thing either; the only EU I support is one that concentrates on cooperation (and trade) *between* countries and states, not on imposing a heavy federal superstructure and investing more power in Brussels and in backroom deals somewhere far away.

The Brexit campaign did contain some legit criticism of the EU, its amvitions and its working methods, but the referendum and campaigns as such were deeply flawed I think.

[Chantarelle]

Fair enough. 🙃

[Kitteredge]

I understand but it is a strong precedent to make on the world stage at this moment. What about a soft brexit, in other words a compromise? It’s important that the people be heard the first time around unless in cases involving a recount but not an entirely new vote. Not everyone believes in or particularly cares for the EU experiment and no one is really talking about that anywhere.

The Tory government just killed any options for a soft Brexit. They had two years to work out a solution but basically twiddled their thumbs, expecting someone to come up with better answers. The two options right now, due to the looming deadline, are a new referendum/squeezing out of Brexit or a hard-ass no deal Brexit, which would be catastrophic for the U.K. This is a country that doesn't even grow enough food to feed itself, not to mention problems around the Northern Ireland/Ireland border, etc.

[Eye of Horus]

The Tory government just killed any options for a soft Brexit. They had two years to work out a solution but basically twiddled their thumbs, expecting someone to come up with better answers. The two options right now, due to the looming deadline, are a new referendum/squeezing out of Brexit or a hard-ass no deal Brexit, which would be catastrophic for the U.K. This is a country that doesn't even grow enough food to feed itself, not to mention problems around the Northern Ireland/Ireland border, etc.

Yes - a soft Brexit is, for now, the only option with a chance of being backed by a majority of MPs (about 2/3 of Labour MPs who represent Leave-voting constituencies, and the more "moderate" Conservatives).

May is currently following her usual pattern of pretending to reach out but not actually budging on anything - she will be to blame if the clock runs out, not Corbyn or Sturgeon for demanding that she rule out No Deal before they'll talk about anything else. Incidentally, I find it hard to argue that demanding No Deal be ruled out isn't a realistic and perfectly statesmanlike thing to do; however...

a) To take No Deal off the table, the fallback position on March 29th would have to change to No Brexit, i.e. revoking Article 50. The EU has already stated that the UK may do this of their own accord, but it would be political suicide for the government to do so, even if they plan to re-trigger it again later.

b) The only other option to avoid No Deal is to extend Article 50, which requires EU consent, and they have stated that they won't give it without a major shift like a new government, or a switch to seeking a customs union / single market access. Again, May is too pig-headed to do that (even though a softer Brexit plan might actually get through parliament whereas her deal's chances are minimal), because:

c) May won't take No Deal off the table because the threat of it is literally the only card she's got left to play to browbeat people into supporting her deal (or the same deal with only minor tweaks).

There is, of course, the possibility of a People's Vote - but even if May does end up caving on this, I have reservations about it being the Tories in charge of the timing (whatever best suits them...) and the question (likely "May's Deal or No Deal", no Remain or Renegotiate options) and the rules (likely no stricter limits on spending, dark ads or factual statements than last time).

Can anyone outside the UK confirm what the European news is saying re: an extension of Article 50?

[Sara Nilsson]

Can anyone outside the UK confirm what the European news is saying re: an extension of Article 50?

UK must ask for it to be extended, and then it has to be unanimously agreed upon by the European Council.