SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    British Parliament overwhelmingly rejects Brexit deal with the European Union
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Moderators: Chris Orndorff, LDD
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
British Parliament overwhelmingly rejects Brexit deal with the European Union Login/Join 
Member
Picture of BansheeOne
posted Hide Post
I officially lost the plot last night. I understand that Parliament wasn't going to let itself be shut out of the process without a fight after spending hundreds of years to gain its rights, but at this point I need a proper British constitutional scholar to explain all the arcane and largely unwritten rules in play here.
 
Posts: 1900 | Location: Berlin, Germany | Registered: April 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Pipe Smoker
posted Hide Post
British politics are complicated.

“Mr Johnson is facing more massive showdowns in Parliament today as a rebel alliance tries to force through legislation that would rule out No Deal - thwarting his 'do or die' vow to take the UK out of the EU by Halloween.

He has also called a vote tonight on holding a snap election so the 'people can decide' after Remainers seized control of Commons business.

But the premier needs agreement from two-thirds of the House to trigger a national ballot.

And despite spending years demanding an election, Mr Corbyn has insisted he will stop one happening until legislation has been passed guaranteeing that the UK cannot crash out.

The decision - described as the 'mother of all U-turns' by ministers - leaves the country in limbo, with Mr Johnson now unable to control the House - but also powerless to return to the electorate…”

https://mol.im/a/7426721



Look about you.
 
Posts: 4887 | Location: San Diego | Registered: July 26, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BansheeOne
posted Hide Post
Yesterday just left me horribly confused.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been asking for general elections with the promise that he would prevent a hard Brexit for some time.

Currently Boris Johnson is threatening general elections if Parliament prevents him from executing a hard Brexit.

Johnson needs a two-third majority in Parliament to call snap elections, but had last night's Tory rebels thrown out of the conservative caucus. Now he's down 21 votes by people who should have no interest in snap elections, since they would not be nominated by the party to run again.

Now Corbyn is telling Johnson that he may have general elections only after a law preventing a hard Brexit.

The Queen must give assent to any bill by Parliament before it becomes law, but is acting on the advice of the prime minister. Apparently this means, and precedent exists, that the government can throw out any bill it doesn't like at third reading. At which point you could ask why you should bother with the expense of having a parliament at all, and both a monarch and a prime minister.

I wonder how confused I will be after today.
 
Posts: 1900 | Location: Berlin, Germany | Registered: April 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lawyers, Guns
and Money
Picture of chellim1
posted Hide Post
UK Braces For Exodus Of Richest Taxpayers If Corbyn Becomes Next PM

As Prime Minister Boris Johnson faces the prospect of his rule being cut short, wealthy Britons have a message for Johnson's most likely successor: A 'no deal' Brexit makes no difference to them. But if Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM, they will flee in droves, taking their money with them.

Johnson faces a new battle in the Commons after his first vote as PM saw him lose to rebel Tories and opposition MPs who object to a no-deal Brexit. Rebels voted 328-301 to take control of the agenda, allowing them to bring forward a bill requesting a Brexit delay.

In response, the PM has threatened to call a general election (of course, he would then need 2-3rds of lawmakers in the Commons to support an election for one to move forward), the BBC reports.

The chairman of one Swiss asset manager who helps wealthy Britons shield their money in tax havens warned that if Johnson is defeated in a snap election, and Corbyn becomes the next PM, it could trigger a wave of capital outflows as the wealthy scramble to move their assets (and themselves) out of the country.

"It’s clear there would be a major outflow of high net-worth individuals and families if a Corbyn government was to come to power," said Chris Kalin, group chairman of Zurich-based Henley & Partners Group.

"This is the big fear, not Brexit or even a no-deal Brexit. That doesn’t make any difference to our clients."

Looking back over the past few decades, tax rates for the UK's top bracket have consistently risen under Labour.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news...rbyn-becomes-next-pm



"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."
-- Justice Janice Rogers Brown

"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth."
-rduckwor
 
Posts: 16591 | Location: St. Louis, MO | Registered: April 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BansheeOne
posted Hide Post
Well, I'm mostly disfused this morning.

quote:
SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 / 8:14 AM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO

UK government gives up trying to stop Brexit delay bill in parliament

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government abandoned attempts in the upper house of parliament to block a law aimed at stopping the country from leaving the European Union without a deal.

The move paved the way for Johnson being required to ask the EU for a three-month extension to the Brexit deadline, if he fails to reach a renegotiated transition deal with the bloc by the middle of October.

Johnson has said he is opposed to an extension and that he is prepared to take Britain out of the EU without a deal if necessary.

Conservative Party members of the upper house of parliament had tabled a series of amendments in an attempt to run down the clock on the delay bill and prevent it being passed before parliament is suspended on Monday.

But in the early hours of Thursday, the government in the upper house, known as the House of Lords, announced it was dropping its opposition to the legislation.

Johnson has said he is opposed to an extension and that he is prepared to take Britain out of the EU without a deal if necessary.

Conservative Party members of the upper house of parliament had tabled a series of amendments in an attempt to run down the clock on the delay bill and prevent it being passed before parliament is suspended on Monday.

But in the early hours of Thursday, the government in the upper house, known as the House of Lords, announced it was dropping its opposition to the legislation.

Richard Newby, an opposition member of the Lords, who had taken his duvet to parliament in preparation to spend the night discussing the law, said the government dropped its opposition after suffering heavy defeats on some of the proposed amendments.

“There was a realisation by those on the other side that this was more than usually stupid, and they were looking stupid, and we needed to find a way forward,” he told BBC Radio.


https://uk.reuters.com/article...eedName=domesticNews

Word is that Johnson will now go for snap elections with the aim of rectifying his current position as the unelected leader of a minority government, then overturn the no-no-deal law with a new majority with rebel Tories wed out from the candidates. Some say that this has been his plan all along. Of course it's not yet sure that he will get the two-thirds majority for Parliament to disband itself; and Theresa May also called elections in a similar situation when she thought the momentum was favorable, but ended up losing the Tory majority in Parliament, having to enter into a coalition with the Northern Irish DUP that put its own restrictions on her.
 
Posts: 1900 | Location: Berlin, Germany | Registered: April 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posting without pants
Picture of KevinCW
posted Hide Post
So, I'm not an expert, or even a layman, on the subject of British law...

I thought they had a vote, where the majority of the people said "get out" and they had to do so..

Apparently my view is simplistic...

WHy is this taking so long. If i were a British citizen, I'd be throwing tea in the harbour and shooting at guys in red jackets at this point... (for those fools with no sense of humor this should obviously be taken as hyperbole).





Strive to live your life so when you wake up in the morning and your feet hit the floor, the devil says "Oh crap, he's up."
 
Posts: 32562 | Location: St. Louis MO | Registered: February 15, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BansheeOne
posted Hide Post
The referendum was technically advisory, but of course as such things go, it is politically near impossible to just ignore that kind of popular advice. The real problem I always come back to is that not only was the result real close at 52:48 for leaving. There were also wildly different ideas about Brexit and subsequent relations with the EU within the Leave camp - ranging from a hard Brexit with future trading on WTO rules alone, to an extensive mutual trade agreement, to a customs union with the EU, to remaining a member of the European Single Market like Norway and Switzerland. Nigel Farage of today's Brexit Party used to hold up Norway as an example of a non-EU Single Market member, until he apparently found out how much this model ties you to EU regulations without having the same say as a regular member.

Today the camps are split about 30 percent for a hard Brexit, 30 percent soft Brexit (i. e. on an agreement with the EU) and 40 percent no Brexit. To make it more complicated, some of both the hard and soft Brexit Camp want a deal, but not the one on the table. As there has been a general election since the referendum, the current members of Parliament ran on platforms within this range and represent these more splintered camps rather than the original binary choice, with no outright majority for any single of those. And of course the MPs are beholden to the voters who elected them in their respective districts rather than the majority in the national referendum. So the deadlock in Parliament does in fact accurately represent the divisions of opinion on Brexit in the British electorate.
 
Posts: 1900 | Location: Berlin, Germany | Registered: April 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
From a legal standpoint, that vote was completely non-binding. Only Parliament has the authority to pull the UK out of the EU.

quote:
Originally posted by KevinCW:
So, I'm not an expert, or even a layman, on the subject of British law...

I thought they had a vote, where the majority of the people said "get out" and they had to do so..

Apparently my view is simplistic...

WHy is this taking so long. If i were a British citizen, I'd be throwing tea in the harbour and shooting at guys in red jackets at this point... (for those fools with no sense of humor this should obviously be taken as hyperbole).
 
Posts: 19093 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Pipe Smoker
posted Hide Post
Brexit isn’t dead, but it currently appears that a no-deal Brexit is. A with-deal Brexit would likely be a Brexit-in-name-only, with the UK still bound by most EU laws.



Look about you.
 
Posts: 4887 | Location: San Diego | Registered: July 26, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Pipe Smoker
posted Hide Post
Not sure what to make of this, but Boris might’ve found a way to force a new UK election (which he wants), even though parliament refuses to call one. The ploy would put him out of office though.

“A defiant Boris Johnson today suggested he will not ask the EU to delay Brexit even if he is legally required to do so as opposition leaders agreed to work together to block the PM's bid to trigger an early general election.
……
Yesterday Mr Johnson said he would rather be 'dead in a ditch' than delay the UK's departure from the bloc.

Today he was asked if he would not seek an extension even if it is set out in law that he must and he replied: 'I will not. I don’t want a delay.'

His answer is likely to be interpreted in one of two ways: He will either defy the law or resign. The former would appear almost unthinkable for a prime minister and would spark a political, legal and constitutional firestorm.

If he were to resign, the Queen would ask MPs if anyone else could form a government capable of commanding a majority in the Commons and if the answer was no there would have to be an election. The law would still dictate that a Brexit delay must be sought, with a poll likely to then be held in November…”

https://mol.im/a/7435807



Look about you.
 
Posts: 4887 | Location: San Diego | Registered: July 26, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BansheeOne
posted Hide Post
I'm somewhat surprised to see there is speculation whether Johnson will still be PM by Monday. Theresa May was repeatedly smacked down by Parliament and kept going. Of course upon thinking more of it, she never got herself into a position where she was left with a minority government either.

Regarding the UK remaining tied to EU regulations - there's a good case to be made that this is inevitable, even wird a hard Brexit. People keep imagining the great economic power Britain was decades ago, and that it could return to that position. The problem is that this was based in large part upon the captive market of its Empire. After WW II, the US with its newly-won financial dominance as chief wartime lender to its allies was instrumental in forcing the UK to open that up to non-British (not least American) goods. Joining the then-EEC was meant to be a way out of the post-war economic downturn caused in large degree by losing that privilege.

Smaller powers located next to big economic blocs with which they have most of their trade must adapt to the latter's regulation to a considerable extent. If Canada or Mexico got out of NAFTA tomorrow, they would still have to observe American legislation for goods and services traded on the regionally dominant US market. Here's a rather bleak opinion on the British situation:

quote:
Welcome to the EU neighborhood, Britain

Leaving the engine room of EU policymaking doesn’t mean sailing off happily on your own.

By Alexander Clarkson | 9/7/19, 1:45 AM CET | Updated 9/7/19, 1:52 AM CET

LONDON — Over the past 40 years, the Brits have become used to watching their prime ministers swing their weight around on the European stage.

Margaret Thatcher’s so-called hand-bagging to secure a budget rebate gained semi-mythical status, as did Gordon Brown’s controversial decision to dodge the signing of the Lisbon Treaty.

So far, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s ventures “on the Continent” echo, at least superficially, the decades during which the U.K. was at the heart of EU decision-making.

That won’t last.

What British politicians — Johnson especially — keep misunderstanding about Brexit is that leaving the engine room of EU policymaking does not mean being able to sail off happily on your own.

The U.K. can leave EU institutions, but it has not yet found a way to physically move the British Isles to a different part of the world. The morning after Brexit day, Britain will still find itself located next to a huge trading bloc with increasingly state-like structures.

U.K. politicians are scrambling to lay blame on the EU for the ever-increasing likelihood of a no-deal Brexit, but they have failed to grasp a key aspect of life outside the EU: London will soon be more reliant on the bloc’s goodwill than ever before — especially in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

If the U.K. leaves the EU without a deal on October 31 — which Johnson has insisted he is prepared to do, despite the House of Commons voting to stop him — U.K. politicians will have to pause their EU-bashing, and humbly beg Brussels to put in place a raft of measures averting the worst economic effects of a messy exit. These would be mitigating measures the EU can terminate at any time.

Simply put, few in the U.K. have come to terms with what becoming a neighboring state of the EU will mean in practice.

The promise of Brexit — peddled by Johnson and his chief of staff, Dominic Cummings, during the 2016 campaign — was to give British voters sole control over the U.K.’s future. In truth, it means giving up a significant source of control: The ability to block European policies that might contradict British interests.

Just ask the EU’s other neighbors.

Brussels, it turns out, has a long reach. EU laws have a ripple effect on countries that neighbor the bloc, as they force non-EU governments to adjust the way they organize their borders, laws and trading practices to ensure they can maintain access to the Brussels-led single market.

After Brexit, the U.K. — much like Turkey, Serbia, Algeria or Ukraine — will find itself in a position of having to adapt to whatever legal changes happen at an EU level, with no control over how these decisions are made.

And if the experience of current neighboring states is any indication, maintaining a relationship with the EU that also serves your national interests is no easy feat.

For countries like Norway and Switzerland, the ability to sustain a close and stable relationship with Brussels depends entirely on politicians and voters believing it’s in their best interest to do so. Current tensions between Switzerland, where Euroskepticism is on the rise, and Brussels are a good example of how quickly a breakdown of political consensus can destabilize that relationship.

For some countries, including Tunisia, Albania and North Macedonia, access to the EU is so crucial for business they are willing to accept oversight from Brussels. In the case of Turkey, the level of interdependence with the EU is so high that Ankara has agreed to keep a shared customs union and effectively freeze Turkey’s accession process, despite deep tensions over hot-button issues such as Kurdish diaspora politics and border management.

Russia, too, has been forced to sustain its engagement with EU institutions, as a result of its energy and export sectors’ dependence on European markets.

Britain will not be able to escape a similar fate.

[...]


https://www.politico.eu/articl...on-dominic-cummings/
 
Posts: 1900 | Location: Berlin, Germany | Registered: April 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
https://theconservativetreehou...-cutter/#more-170253

The Gordian Knot of Brexit is based on a Parliamentary ruling class within the U.K. government who will not accept Great Britain leaving the European Union.

The elitist Members of Parliament (MP) have passed a law requiring Prime Minister Boris Johnson to forever stay in the EU until an agreement for terms of exit are reached. However, the EU doesn’t want the U.K. to exit; so the consequence of the MP law is to ‘remain’ in the EU forever. This elitist scheme has created the knot; and the majority of the British people -those who voted to ‘leave’- are insufferably bound within it.

In one approach to cutting the knot Prime Minister Boris Johnson has requested a national vote for government leadership on October 15th. With a scheduled round of talks with the EU set for October 17th, a Boris Johnson election victory would create the needed momentum toward a hard-brexit (no deal) on October 31st. Britain would, finally, be free.

However, the MP ruling class, those who say they know better than the people they are supposed to serve, know such a popular vote would upend their schemes – and likely lead to many of their alliance being removed from office. So the elites will not support a national election that would lead to their own defeat. [More knot building].

A second knot-cutting tactic implied by the Prime Minister, is to ignore the insufferable law –recently passed and pending signature– and proceed toward a ‘no-deal’ Brexit on October 31st.

This approach could lead to the British Parliament being forced to vote against the Prime Minister (no confidence); and would set up a replacement election, which Boris Johnson wants anyway. Actually, no-one is quite sure what will happen on this second knot-cutting avenue… no map available.


Many Americans are watching the part where we see just how ideologically corrupt politicians are within British government; and how much they have lied and conned the British people.
 
Posts: 13460 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
update to above post

https://www.breitbart.com/euro...s-foreign-secretary/

Dominic Raab has said that Boris Johnson is “sticking to his guns” on his Brexit plans, saying that despite the efforts of Jeremy Corbyn’s “surrender bill” to stop no deal Brexit, the UK will leave the EU on October 31st “come what may”.


The Remainer-dominated House of Commons voted to back a bill that would stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal and force the government to seek another extension of Article 50, delaying Brexit Day for another three months to January 31st, 2020.

The bill then passed through the House of Lords on Friday and is set to receive Royal Assent on Monday, becoming law. Mr Johnson said in response that he “will not” ask the EU for another delay, leading to claims by legal experts that if the prime minister ‘breaks the law’, he could be jailed.

Two days after the prime minister made the remarks, Foreign Secretary and First Secretary of State Dominic Raab told Sophy Ridge on Sky News on Sunday that “the prime minister is sticking to his guns” and that even though “we’re going to keep going on with the negotiations” with the EU to remove the controversial Irish backstop from the withdrawal treaty, “we must leave come what may” on Halloween.

When pressed by Ridge whether Mr Johnson would ‘break the law’ and continue to pursue a no deal Brexit, Mr Raab said his government “will adhere to the law” but suggested that the government could work around Corbyn’s “surrender bill”, saying they will “test to the limit what it does, actually, lawfully, require”.

He added: “That legislation is lousy. It envisaged multiple delays and effectively forces us to accept conditions from the EU however vindictive, punitive, or harsh they may be.”

When pressed on whether Mr Johnson will ignore the bill, the foreign secretary said: “He’s been very clear about it this week [that he will not extend Article 50].”

A source speaking to the Sunday Times said that the prime minister is preparing for a show-down in the Supreme Court, saying “If there isn’t a deal by the 18th we will sabotage the extension,” while another source said the prime minister’s inner team is preparing to “take a chainsaw to anything” that threatens fulfilling the will of the people.
 
Posts: 13460 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lawyers, Guns
and Money
Picture of chellim1
posted Hide Post
quote:
Many Americans are watching the part where we see just how ideologically corrupt politicians are within British government; and how much they have lied and conned the British people.

Sounds like many of our own Republicans.



"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."
-- Justice Janice Rogers Brown

"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth."
-rduckwor
 
Posts: 16591 | Location: St. Louis, MO | Registered: April 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BansheeOne
posted Hide Post
More arcane rules. I didn't even know there was such a thing as impeachment in the UK, and apparently neither did most Brits. Parliamentary systems do of course generally use votes of no confidence to get rid of unwanted governments.

quote:
Brexit extension: 'Impeach Boris Johnson if law ignored'

3 hours ago

Opposition party leaders should be ready to try to impeach the prime minister if he ignores a new no-deal Brexit law, say [Welsh regional Party] Plaid Cymru.

Boris Johnson has "already driven a bulldozer through the constitution", said Plaid's Westminster leader, Liz Saville Roberts.

The law, which should gain royal assent on Monday, aims to stop the UK exiting the EU with no deal on 31 October.

Number 10 has been contacted for comment.

No prime minister has ever successfully been impeached but Mr Johnson himself previously supported a bid to impeach Tony Blair when he was PM in 2004.

It is method by which Parliament can try individuals for high treason or other misdemeanours, but it is now considered to be obsolete.

The Brexit cross-party bill - which requires the prime minister to extend the exit deadline until January unless Parliament agrees a deal with the EU by 19 October - was passed on Friday.

[...]

    Although a number of ministers up until the 19th Century have been impeached, no prime minister has ever successfully been impeached

    - It only takes one MP to make the accusation of high crimes and misdemeanours against a public official for the impeachment process to begin

    - The process would see the House of Commons first vote on an impeachment motion, which, if passed, could lead to prosecution and trial

    - Historically trials have taken place in Westminster Hall


Analysis

By BBC Wales political editor Felicity Evans


No prime minister has ever been impeached, and while Boris Johnson would probably face legal action if he disobeyed the law, that action would most likely be in the courts rather than in Parliament.

But we are some way away from either of those situations arising at the moment.

Ministers insist that the PM will abide by the law, although Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab suggests he will "look very carefully" at the "interpretation" of the legislation.

Plaid has attempted impeachment against a prime minister before - Tony Blair over the Iraq War - it was a long shot then and remains so now.

The last (unsuccessful) attempt at the prosecution of an impeachment was in 1806.

Back in 1999 the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege stated that "the procedure may be considered obsolete".

But politically, it is a means of keeping up the pressure on the prime minister and highlighting the serious nature of the dispute in question.

And with both government and opposition parties engaging in unconventional constitutional measures in the run up to 31 October, the improbable is not the impossible.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-49628435

I've tried to look deeper into the relation between how parliamentary constituencies voted in the Brexit referendum and what stance their subsequently elected MPs have taken on the issue, but the problem seems to be that outside Northern Ireland, the counties charged with implementing the referendum didn't generally break down results to the constituencies they encompass. Per one source I found, it's likely that there were leave majorities in 410 out of 650 constituencies. Of course what we can't know is how hard individual voters imagined Brexit to be, which gets us back to the problem of the splintered post-referendum Brexit camp.

2016 referendum results by county:



Likely distribution of leave and remain constituencies between parties in the 2017 general election:



Older piece on the different "tribes" among Conservatives in Parliament:

quote:
The Conservative party’s Brexit tribes: an interactive guide

The FT has obtained details of the members of Eurosceptic Tory backbench groups

Sebastian Payne, Cale Tilford and Martin Stabe in London MARCH 28, 2019

The Conservative party has become increasingly tribal over Brexit. Its 314 MPs have organised themselves into voting groups in an effort to see through their different visions for leaving the EU - or in the case of one bunch, to try to stop Brexit.

These tribes are not strict voting caucuses. Some MPs ignore their group’s instructions, while others belong to more than one caucus.

[...]

Government payroll
141 OF 314 CONSERVATIVE MPS

The largest tribe within the parliamentary Conservative party. These MPs either hold ministerial office, or are appointed to official positions within the party.

They must toe the government and party line or face the sack due to the requirement to adhere to collective responsibility. Within the government this includes ministers and parliamentary private secretaries. Within the party this includes the chairman, deputy and vice chairs.

European Research Group
90 OF 314 CONSERVATIVE MPS

Although the European Research Group has existed as a subscription-only research service for many years, it became the primary pro-Brexit group for backbench Conservative MPs after the 2016 EU referendum, campaigning for the cleanest possible exit from the bloc.

Led by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the ERG tribe was the key driver behind Mrs May’s record defeat on her Brexit deal last month.

The ERG, which has evolved from a research service to a campaign group since the the 2016 referendum, now mainly communicates through WhatsApp. Some MPs on the messaging app, who do not regularly attend ERG meetings, dispute their membership of the group.

It is wrong to think of the ERG as a unified bloc: within the caucus, there are subsets of MPs. Some will never be reconciled to any Brexit deal. Others are seeking the hardest possible break with the EU. And there are some who are now seeking to assist Mrs May.

Similar to the Conservative party as a whole, the ERG is a broad church. But on major issues, the group is united.

There are two MPs who are not Tories but nevertheless belong to the ERG: the Democratic Unionist party’s Nigel Dodds and Sammy Wilson. The DUP is meant to prop up Mrs May’s minority government.

Brexit Delivery Group
51 OF 314 CONSERVATIVE MPS

A less well known group of backbench MPs is the Brexit Delivery Group, led by Simon Hart and Andrew Percy.

This tribe occupies the centre ground of the Conservative party: it is a mix of Remainers and Leavers who have accepted the Brexit referendum outcome and wish to see a negotiated exit from the EU.

Primarily this means supporting Mrs May’s Brexit deal. But the BDG could conceivably support another Brexit initiative if the prime minister’s efforts fail. Unlike other groups, the BDG does not organize on WhatsApp but meets regularly.

Other Eurosceptics
11 OF 314 CONSERVATIVE MPS

Not all Eurosceptic MPs belong to the ERG or the BDG tribes. But their voting records and public statements suggest they believe in leaving the EU.

Conservatives for a People’s Vote
6 OF 314 CONSERVATIVE MPS

Supporters of a second Brexit referendum in the parliamentary Conservative party are limited in number, but Mrs May’s lack of a Commons majority means they play an important role.

These MPs voted Remain in the 2016 referendum and believe that the question must be put back to the British electorate for a “final say”.

Three MPs previously listed in this group — Heidi Allen, Anna Soubry and Sarah Wollaston — resigned from the party on February 20 to join eight former Labour party members in the new Independent Group.

Unaffiliated
23 OF 314 CONSERVATIVE MPS

Some Conservative MPs have shunned the emergence of tribes and keep their voting intentions to themselves.


https://ig.ft.com/brexit-tory-tribes/

Broader look at all parties from the same time:

quote:
Brexit tribes: how the Commons camps are likely to vote

From Tory loyalists to the remain rearguard, we analyse the factions before the EU withdrawal bill vote

Jessica Elgot Political correspondent

Mon 11 Jun 2018 11.17 EDT

The parliamentary arithmetic is tight ahead of crucial votes on the EU withdrawal bill. Government and opposition whips will need to keep track of a number of different groups in order to predict any unexpected upset.

The Tory rebel alliance

The Conservative rebels are close-knit, cemented by attacks from the rightwing press when they defeated the government to win parliament a meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal. The group, which includes Anna Soubry, Dominic Grieve and Sarah Wollaston, has kept its powder dry in recent days, mulling an offer by the government to put the meaningful vote in statute, though the government amendment removes any role for parliament over what happens if a deal is defeated. Rebels may vote for a customs union amendment too, but that is more likely to happen in a forthcoming bill. Ultimately, most in the group are loyal Tories who are unwilling to fatally undermine the prime minister.

The hard Brexiters

The hardline group of pro-Brexit Tories has been disciplined because they are determined to see the EU withdrawal bill pass, even if many of them have been alarmed by some other aspects of the Brexit negotiations in recent days. Jacob Rees-Mogg, who chairs the European Research Group of Eurosceptic Tory MPs, has urged colleagues to get behind the bill and hold fire criticising the prime minister or the negotiations until it has passed.

The Downing Street emissaries

A trio of former cabinet ministers – Amber Rudd, Justine Greening and Damian Green – have been reaching out to Tory colleagues over the past few weeks to urge party unity. Rudd has said the majority of the party want a “sensible Brexit” rather than an extreme on either side. Over the weekend, the former home secretary teamed up with Brexiter ex-cabinet colleague Iain Duncan Smith to write a comment article urging MPs to “demonstrate discipline and unity of purpose in support of the prime minister”. Green told the Mail on Sunday that “the whips can count” and that there was “an overwhelming desire of Conservative MPs to give Theresa the strongest hand at the European council meeting later this month.”

The Tory loyalists

No 10 has expended a lot of energy in recent weeks to try to keep the majority of the parliamentary party onside. Whips have met a number of wavering MPs and the whole parliamentary party was invited in groups to the Department for Exiting the EU to hear briefings on future customs plans. Theresa May addressed the entire party at a private meeting in parliament on Monday night, urging party unity, and the vast majority are likely to fall in line.

Labour remain ultras

Pro-remain Labour MPs are likely to rebel in significant numbers on a Lords amendment to keep the UK in a Norway-style EEA-arrangement. Many in that group, including former shadow cabinet ministers Chris Leslie, Ben Bradshaw and Chuka Umunna, are furious that the amendment will not be backed by the frontbench, seeing it as a squandered chance to defeat the government. The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, has instead put down his own amendment that would commit the government to seek a deal giving the UK access to the EU internal market.

Labour re-leavers

Starmer’s main argument against backing the EEA amendment is the significant number of Labour MPs, many in seats that backed leave, are highly uncomfortable with it. Many MPs who initially backed remain, such as Caroline Flint, Kevan Jones and Jenny Chapman, have repeatedly said that Labour cannot be seen to back a deal that commits the UK to continue being subject to EU rules, including freedom of movement. They, and most of the rest of the parliamentary Labour party, are likely to vote with the Labour whip to abstain on the EEA amendment.

Labour Brexiters

There is a small but significant number of Labour Brexiters whose votes will be crucial. Leave-supporting MPs such as Graham Stringer and Dennis Skinner were persuaded in December to back the amendment on the parliamentary vote, helping to defeat the government. Labour whips argued that the amendment would not obstruct Brexit and would deliver a damaging blow to the Tories. The success of any amendment will depend on whether those MPs are convinced by that argument again.

The remain rearguard

Both the SNP and Liberal Democrat parties are firmly behind amendments that will deliver a softer Brexit, as are Plaid Cymru and the Green’s Caroline Lucas. Their votes will be crucial to the success of any amendment, but have probably already been taken for granted by the whips counting the numbers on either side.


https://www.theguardian.com/po...s-eu-withdrawal-bill
 
Posts: 1900 | Location: Berlin, Germany | Registered: April 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by chellim1:
quote:
Many Americans are watching the part where we see just how ideologically corrupt politicians are within British government; and how much they have lied and conned the British people.

Sounds like many of our own Republicans.



Careful casting aspersions on Republicans. Now we know where your loyalties lie.

It is very safe to assume all politicians, Dem and Republican, consistently lie and invoke half truths, not to aid their constituents. But, to help themselves and only themselves.

Andrew



Duty is the sublimest word in the English Language - Gen Robert E Lee.
 
Posts: 612 | Registered: May 01, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lawyers, Guns
and Money
Picture of chellim1
posted Hide Post
Boris went to see the Queen this weekend....

It’s Up to the Queen to Resolve Brexit

The question of a snap election is hers to decide.
by F.H. Buckley

In spite of the confusion over Brexit, there’s an easy solution, and one that is contemplated by the British constitution. You’ll never guess what that is.

First off, what’s the status of the Brexit referendum of three years back? It mattered, because it expressed what voters wanted over a specific issue, even if the vote was only 52 to 48 percent. But constitutionally, a referendum is a nullity in a parliamentary democracy. Britain is a democracy, but it’s a democracy in which the people’s wishes are reflected — indeed filtered — by their representatives in Parliament.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the government leader in the House of Commons, told the House that Parliament derives its legitimacy from the consent of the people, as expressed in the referendum. That’s silly, and as a constitutional scholar he knows better.

In the British constitution, sovereignty vests in the Queen-in-Parliament, that is, on legislation adopted by the House of Commons and the House of Lords to which the Queen assents. In reality it all comes down to what a majority in the House of Commons decides, since the House of Lords has lost the power to reject bills and since the monarch last used her veto power in 1711.

It would therefore be perfectly constitutional for the government to pass an anti-Brexit bill that entirely rejects the 2016 referendum. If you want some authority for that, turn to Edmund Burke’s 1774 speech to the Electors of Bristol. I know what you want, said Burke, but I’m afraid I disagree with you. You want free trade, I don’t, and you can’t dictate to me. When you elect an MP, he’s not the member of Bristol, he’s the member of Parliament and bound to vote what he thinks in the country’s best interests, even if that doesn’t happen to be what you think.

Then there’s the 2011 Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, passed to limit the ability of a prime minister to call a snap election. It’s what’s creating the mess today. The Act provides that general elections are to be held after a regular five-year period unless there is a vote of non-confidence or a two-thirds supermajority agrees to an earlier election. Boris Johnson last week tried and failed to get that two-thirds vote. Does that mean that Parliament is going to be hobbled and unable to get anything done for the next few years?

The answer is no, even if the opposition Labour Party continues to deny Johnson an election. First, the 2011 Parliament that passed the Fixed-Term act can’t bind a subsequent Parliament, so the current Tory government could simply amend the statute.

It’s the second possibility that’s more interesting. What if Johnson went to the Queen and asked for an election? It looks as if the 2011 Act has rendered Parliament impotent, and that’s never supposed to happen. That Boris Johnson became Prime Minister without winning an election would ordinarily have been sufficient reason to call a snap election. But the mess in Parliament now is something that possibly only the Queen can solve. And she knows it. In a 1964 speech she defended the inherent authority of the Crown under the British constitution, as the ultimate guarantor of parliamentary democracy: “The role of a constitutional monarch is to personify the democratic state, to sanction legitimate authority, to ensure the legality of its methods, and to guarantee the execution of the popular will. In accomplishing this task it protects the people against disorder.”

Disorder pretty much describes where things are now in Britain. And in those circumstances, the Crown is the backstop that’s meant to keep things working. That might not seem democratic to some, but then by agreeing to a snap election she’d be guaranteeing the execution of the popular will, just as she promised.

https://spectator.org/its-up-t...n-to-resolve-brexit/



"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."
-- Justice Janice Rogers Brown

"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth."
-rduckwor
 
Posts: 16591 | Location: St. Louis, MO | Registered: April 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by chellim1:
Boris went to see the Queen this weekend....

It’s Up to the Queen to Resolve Brexit
Well, she might turn out to be of some use in this world after all.
 
Posts: 87709 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Pipe Smoker
posted Hide Post
Some good news for Brexit:

“Boris Johnson received a major boost over his highly controversial decision to shut down Parliament ahead of Brexit today as senior judges said it could not be legally challenged.

After the Prime Minister's divisive move to prorogue the Commons for five weeks, sparking Remainer uproar, was deemed illegal by judges in Scotland, the High Court in London revealed that it viewed the situation completely differently.

In giving their reasons for throwing out a case brought by Remainer businesswoman Gina Miller, justices in London said the decision which closed down parliament on Monday was 'purely political' and therefore 'not a matter for the courts'.

The ruling will calm Brexiteer nerves ahead of a dramatic legal showdown at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, where the UK's highest legal authority will have to decide which judicial decision is the right one…”

https://mol.im/a/7453313



Look about you.
 
Posts: 4887 | Location: San Diego | Registered: July 26, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
half-genius,
half-wit
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by KevinCW:
So, I'm not an expert, or even a layman, on the subject of British law...

I thought they had a vote, where the majority of the people said "get out" and they had to do so..

Apparently my view is simplistic...

WHy is this taking so long. If i were a British citizen, I'd be throwing tea in the harbour and shooting at guys in red jackets at this point... (for those fools with no sense of humor this should obviously be taken as hyperbole).


Mrs tac and I both have the same idea as you do.

We are simple souls, us, and to us, the vote to go is the vote to go and the remit to do it.

The late Mr Churchill told folks like it was - 'I have nothing to offer you but blood, sweat, toil and tears, but we WILL win through to the other side - let's do it'.

Nowadays, politicians are afraid to speak the truth and tell people that it's going to hurt, maybe quite a lot, to do what the majority decided that was the best for the UK.

I'm lucky - I have two other countries I could, if I really wanted to, call home if it gets REALLY bad here, but I made my bed many years ago, and I'm going to stay the last mile.

One thing sticks out like a dayglo orange sore thumb, there is not a single politician who can now be trusted with anything.

Boris Johnson should remember what happened to the last person who 'shut down' parliament.

It all ended as badly as could be on a lonely scaffold in front of Westminster Hall, on a cold day in 1649.

It might not get THAT far, but there are some pretty dire things, politically, that can happen to a politician who gets too big for his britches.
 
Posts: 9610 | Location: UK, OR, ONT | Registered: July 10, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    British Parliament overwhelmingly rejects Brexit deal with the European Union

© SIGforum 2019