EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Anyways:
2 February: The government will publish its Brexit White Paper.
6 and 7 February: The bill will begin its committee stage in the Commons, which gives MPs an opportunity for further scrutiny and attempts at revision. They can try to change the bill by pushing through a series of amendments, although it is unlikely any will pass without the support of significant numbers of rebel Tory MPs.
8 February: At the end of the committee stage, MPs will get another chance to debate the bill, followed by a final vote. The bill is almost certain to pass and be sent to the Lords.
20 February: The House of Lords is likely to begin debating the bill after parliament returns from recess. This may continue for some days. If peers vote to amend the bill, it will return to the Commons and continue to pass back and forth in a process known as “ping-pong” until the text is agreed. If there are no amendments, the bill is sent to the Queen to receive royal assent and become law.
7 March: The government hopes the Brexit bill will have passed through the Lords by this date. Once the bill has received royal assent, May will be able to trigger article 50 at any point thereafter.
9 and 10 March: May could use the occasion of an EU summit in Brussels to formally trigger article 50 and start the two-year countdown to the UK leaving the EU.

The lord's will do fuck all.

The why didn't the MPs vote against Brexit because the general public voted the wrong way is a bit patronising.

By any measure, either by outright votes or, even more so, by constituency, the out votes outnumbered the remain.

There aren't millions of Brexit voters telling MPs they've changed their mind, please keep us in.

Having a referendum in the first place was a bad idea but having it and then just ignoring the result is taking the piss.

That was not my point, but how they voted today does not even reflect "the will of the people" on a pro rata basis.

They just rolled over and took an unlubricated fisting.

It's fairly representative on a constituency basis. Although I don't think the vote should have been subject to the party whips.

I was surprised not to see more abstain.

This passes for democracy?

We vote out based on constuencies BEFORE we inspect the whitepaper of what the plan is?

Labour don't support certain things the Tories want, well May really, but there's no way they can guarantee the amendments they want go through, but saying yes now means they risk not getting anything their constituents support either.

Not all brexit was totally anti immigration. And this also leaves NI potentially in a clusterfuck and Scotland as well.

I think it's a poor show to push everything through cos "majority" before there's a plan.

Not all brexit was totally anti immigration

As I recall the question posed in the referendum was 'Should the UK leave the European Union?' Not, 'Should the UK halt immigration?"

However, the two seem to have been conflated.

Also the main selling point is keeping the NHS.

Which is not the case.

Follow up from my MP:

Dear Mr jaw,
Last night I voted against the trigger for Article 50. I did not find this an easy decision, since it involved balancing two very fundamental principles-respect for the majority decision of those voting in last year’s referendum, and what I believe to be in the best interests of the country. There is, unfortunately, no way to meet everyone’s expectations- 24,000 people voted ‘Leave’ in Westminster, even though the large majority (54,000) voted remain, and there are others who voted remain but who now believe we need to deliver on the outcome. I am grateful to the many hundreds of people who have written to me in the last week alone, and I have reflected on the range of views expressed. I am also very conscious of the fact that Westminster has the highest number of resident European citizens anywhere in the country, and I have heard about the potential impact on their lives, families and businesses. But ultimately my colleagues and I have to exercise our judgement as to what is in the national interest. As I have previously argued, the ‘Leave’ was certainly a point of departure- what it did not provide was a destination upon which most people could agree.
In the final analysis, I feared that voting for Article 50 now commits us to Brexit in two years’ time with no idea as to the shape of the deal and absolutely no guarantee that we will be able to say no to what is on offer if it is not good for the country. A good deal may be possible, and it is in all our interests to ensure this is the case, but we could be about to commit this country to a path which will leave us weakened and damaged. We are effectively being asked to sign up to the unknown, on whatever terms the government agrees, or risk not having a deal and defaulting to WTO rules, which could have disastrous consequences for jobs.
During the coming ‘committee’ stage of the Bill, I will consider and support any amendments which secure a proper choice on the final deal, in the hope that improvements can be made. I will also support amendments that aim to ensure that the negotiations secure the protections – environmental and consumer protection, employee rights and so on- which are essential to a decent society. It is vital that future trade deals with Europe or other countries do not lead to a ‘race to the bottom’ on any of these issues. I don’t believe this is what the country voted for, and I don’t believe it is in the interests of my constituents.

Kind regards

Karen

Amusing snippet from Paul Waugh's daily report

Alarm bells rang among some in the PLP last night when I tweeted that Diane Abbott had not voted, with her office saying she’d been taken ill about 5pm. The Shadow Home Secretary, who has suffered from severe migraines in the past, is in a London seat that voted Remain. When asked on Today if she’d also been ‘sick’ of Labour’s uncomfortable position on Brexit, McDonnell replied “we are all uncomfortable”. The EyeSpy MP twitter account claims Abbott was in the Red Lion pub just before the vote at 7pm. But I’m told she informed the whips she was ill.

Having a referendum in the first place was a bad idea but having it and then just ignoring the result is taking the piss

Not ignoring does not mean making potentially irreversible constitutional changes based on am extremely flawed vox pop straw poll, predicated on fantasies and outright lies.

It means understanding what it is about EU membership that ~50% of the voting population has a problem with, and seeking options to remedy that.

That is listening to the will of the people, not making broad inferences that meet your own agenda for personal and party-political gain.

Exactly and several surveys have shown most people want to preserve EU immigrant rights.

It suits May's agenda, and it suits Murdoch and all, but does it suit the people that according to the Joseph Rowntree foundation voted for Brexit? [poverty mostly though also socially conservative attitudes, but I have some doubts on Mays promises to really address this, the Tories has 8 years sofar...]

The EyeSpy account has her in the Red Lion on 31 Jan, not 1 Feb.

Still, a very convenient illness ...

I don't think the leave vote represented a desire to stay in the EU but reform it though. If remain had won 52:48 but politicians had decided that it was best for us to leave as we couldn't get the deal we wanted I doubt people would have been of the view that that was reasonable.

If you look at the post brexit vote opinion polls there doesn't seem to be a great element of buyers' remorse, people still want to leave the EU even though it's evident that no-one has a clue what the plan is.

I don't think

Or don't know.

Far-reaching constitutional change should not be based on supposition, assumption, and straw polls (including the referendum itself).

It demands thorough, nonpartisan investigation, analysis and debate.

Leave or Remain - This point stands independently of any view of the UK's membership of the EU.

The famous white paper is out.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/588948/The_United_Kingdoms_exit_from_and_partnership_with_the_EU_Web.pdf

It looks like the 'Secretary of State for Exiting the EU' has his eyes closed on page 6.

That would explain a lot.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/01/nigel-farage-among-ukip-meps-accused-of-misusing-eu-funds

François Fillon seems to be having worse, though slightly similar problems:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/francois-fillon-fights-save-french-presidential-election-bid-fake-jobs-scandal

.

They don't want anyone to read it do they? Why else have a picture of both May and Davis on the first few pages... no one will make it past those.

with one of these every chapter to make it look bigly.

Looks very 50% gray to me :P
The future is gray, the future is brexit.

This, on the face of it, looks positive The government will then put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament.

No clarity on what would happen if it doesn't pass though.

The government will then put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament.

That's been a promise for ages. It doesn't necessarily mean anything. Especially if Article 50 cannot be revoked.

And, as @WornCleat pointed out elsewhere this morning, should the UK ever apply to re-join the EU then that would mandate adopting the Euro.