Theresa May’s Brexit deal suffers second defeat in UK Parliament

CNBC ^ | 3-12-2019 | Holly Elyatt

[tcrlaf]

The U.K.’s Brexit deal with the EU has been rejected by U.K. lawmakers in another landmark defeat for British Prime Minister Theresa May.

May’s Brexit deal was defeated for the first time back in January but she had hoped last-ditch tweaks to the deal, specifically on the contentious Irish border issue, would help persuade Members of Parliament (MPs) to change their minds.

Her deal was rejected by 149 votes after 242 MPs voted for the deal and 392 MPs voted against the deal. Sterling pared earlier losses against the dollar after the decision to trade 0.2 percent lower at $1.3124.

The deal’s chances were dealt a blow earlier on Tuesday when the government’s chief legal advisor said that the risks to the U.K. from the “Irish backstop” remained unchanged despite recent legal assurances from Brussels — although he did say the risks had been reduced by the tweaks.

The Irish backstop is a mechanism to avoid restoration of the “hard” border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland that was erased with the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement between London and Dublin. Some U.K. politicians don’t like the fact that the backstop, although intended as a last-resort, would mean the U.K. remaining within a EU customs union for an indefinite amount of time and unable to leave unilaterally, effectively meaning it might be tied to the EU for an unspecified duration.

[BillyBoy]

>> Not the most knowledgeable on this, but doesnt this type of defeat trigger an election over there? <<

I believe the only way an election is prematurely triggered over there is if Parliament passes a no-confidence vote or if a budget bill fails to pass by the deadline, resulting in a new fiscal year with no budget in place.

>> PM May must be removed or the pretend no votes mean nothing. PM May is obviously not interested in implementing an actual Brexit. Obviously. <<

Well, duh. I've been saying that since Day 1 of her tenure as Prime Minister. Heck, I said since the day she was elected PM that replacing one anti-Brexit PM with another anti-Brexit PM was essentially meaningless. In short, I was anti-Theresea May BEFORE it was cool. Numerous other FReepers said it didn't matter because "She has pledged to uphold the will of the people regardless of her own personal feelings about the issue" blah blah blah. How has that worked out?

[HamiltonJay]

It’s only hard to complete because the UK leaders are the stuff of chamberlain when they need a Churchill.

The EU has never had any desire or impetuous to negotiate a fair separation.

The EU’s survival depends on keeping its members in line and making sure those other uppity nations who dare to think national sovereignty is important. They were never going to let UK leave without making in painful, so painful that no other nation would dare try to leave.

The UK should have been preparing for hard brexit from the day the vote passed. Negotiate with hope it would not come to that, but fully expect and plan for this eventuality. Instead they stuck their noses in the sand

[SaveFerris]

LOL

[Stravinsky]

TPTB don’t give a darn what the people voted for and want nothing to do with Brexit. They’ll get their second referendum which will, no doubt, turn out the other way. The media over there has been pushing a “The morons didn’t really know what they were voting for” storyline since the day after the initial referendum.

[BeauBo]

“why she does not HAVE TO resign.”

Nobody else wants to be holding the bag when Brexit occurs - bit of a hot potato.

[teeman8r]

The arrogant may government did not approach the USA for a deal, when they realize they are not going back to EU, they will approach the USA. And trump will reward their independence... the poles are going to change their minds when they are threatened by Belgium.

[PAR35]

Hard Brexit coming.

I'll be surprised if the New World Order permits Brexit to happen. Watch and see if the deadline later this month fades off into the distance.

[SecAmndmt]

Britain isn’t going to have economic freedom anyime soon, with or without Brexit. They are in effect a socialist country, and Christianity is all but dead there. A Nation that turns its back on God will turn to something else: the State. We are headed that way as well. Give it 10 years tops.

I still support Brexit though.

[Cronos]

Not,vit is that the US is telling the UK that it needs to follow USA standards and scrap their own see here

[Cronos]

May, or rather her trade rep Fox did approach the US. but note that any trade deal between the US and UK stands up against the US farm lobby versus British consumers. The US always insists on discussing a full menu of trade, including agriculture. And when agriculture is included, chlorine-washed chickens and hormone-injected beef are on the agenda, along with GM cereals grown with the help of glyphosate pesticide. The US also insists on the ISDS system in full.

Now whatever be the actual health risks IF ANY of these is secondary to public perception. The UK public right now perceives American poultry, beef and eggs as something they don't want imported. This is against what American farmers (naturally) want and this will scuttle any trade deal

NEXT, The UK has a bank surcharge -- an additional tax. This is to be removed as per US trade deal. The Brexiters wants to remove a tax on banks - makes you wonder who the charge of "bank owned" should be directed against.

When the Hard Brexit happens - if it happens, the UK will approach the USA and the USA will tell the UK "scrap all your regulations and follow mine. You have zero leverage against me and I have all the cards" - and that's normal in trade talks

[Cronos]

And no, the Poles aren't threatened by Belgium. In fact 92 per cent of the Polish population wants to remain in the EU

On the contrary to Brussels (btw, you know there are also differences in opinion between Belgium and the EU, right?) dictating terms - thanks to the linkage between Morawiecki-Orban and now Selvini, the Visegrad point of view will be joined with Italian as well to counter the Franco-German axis. And the UK was a proponent of LGBTQ in the EU, remember, so its' leaving is only going to weaken the pro-gay lobby

[Cronos]

you can answer it once -- and quite frankly it's just a meaningless throwaway statement because no, the UK would not become a colony. Let's look at the terms of the NOvember deal

1. The agreement sets up a transitional period, which lasts until 31 December 2020, but can be extended once by mutual consent. During the transitional period, UK will remain a member of the Europe Economic Area, the single market, and the customs union, EU laws will continue to apply to UK, UK will continue to pay into the budget. However, UK will not be represented in the decision-making bodies of the EU. The transition period will give businesses time to adjust to the new situation, and time to negotiate a new trade deal between the EU and UK
2. On the Irish border question, the agreement sets a backstop which will come into force, in the case that there is no new agreement between EU and UK before the end of the transition period. In that case, UK will remain in a customs union with the EU. Neither party can unilaterally withdraw from this customs union. The goal of this backstop agreement is to avoid a "hard" Irish border, where customs checks are necessary

The point that STOPPED the vote was the Irish backstop, not trade. Nothing about being a colony in any way. If May wanted to make a deal in the previous two years she could have, or planned a hard brexit. She did nothing.

[Cronos]

"Brexit" as voted in the referendum was not even agreed on by most. Many voted because they didn't want EU migrants (i.e. no more Poles, Romanians etc.) - and I understand that, in the years after 2004 nearly 2 million EU citizens went to the UK. This was not a vote against immigration of non-Europeans

Most Brits wanted the single market, the free movement of goods, services and capital. Anyway, so the first thing May should have done is set the rules for what she wanted - she didn't. If she had said "Hard Brexit it is" then she should have planned for the IRish border question, but she did not

Bert, you probably mean HARD, no-deal Brexit with borders not open. What harm can that do?

1. The biggest one is the Western European supply chain. Most products are built across many countries - just as in the US you won't have one factory in Alabama that makes a car from nuts to finished product. These supply chains rely on Just-in-Time delivery. IF the borders are not open, then this model is shot. So the manufacturers will shutter UK factories
2. The UK loses leverage - as part of the EU it had leverage to force trade deals with larger states. Now it has no exports that other countries want, so China, Russia, India, Japan can demand more concessions from the UK
3. It loses financial access to the EU markets - as if Hong Kong was suddenly shut off completely from the mainland. the UK's economy is driven by banking. End that and you have a problem

These are some of the ways Brexit will be harmful. Now there can be good sides -- housing prices will crash, lots of EU immigrants will leave, so more jobs, but then those jobs will be limited as well because less people will be needed, so it might endup as zero. Then probably no more worries about Northern Ireland if it unites with the Republic of Ireland. And no more griping about the Scots as they go their own way. So just the United Kingdom of England and Wales. That would be the bright side. Oh and Sajid Javid will be PM

[Cronos]

ah yes, the extension - now the problem with the extension is that the EU parliament elections are in May. IF the UK asks for an extension beyond May then it needs to carry out elections. Then what happens to those MEPs?

[JME_FAN]

I’m afraid, old chap, the twits in Parliament will keep the old bag in power.

I think it is right rather genetic with them ... Incestuous breeding, and all that sort of thing - you know?

Oh, how rude of me! I’m terribly sorry! Would you like a cup of Brexit tea?

Jolly good! We do have some wonderful crumpets!

[Cronos]

May is incompetent. she was incompetent as Home secretary and she's incompetent now. She's managed to unite the Brexiters and the Remainers against her. But she refuses to go. This will only mean more pain for England and Wales.

and

Time for England to give Scotland

[gleeaikin]

What do you give as the odds that there will be a Referendum again and this time the vote will be to stay.

[Impy]

There may end up being an election but no. The only type of legislative defeat that is automatically what they call a “confidence” vote is one that has to do with “supply” ie money (as in voting down the government’s proposed budget).

Brexit is complicated, like trying to pull all 8 tentacles of an octopus from out of your bum.

I am no expert but from where I sit as an American observer, I’m feeling sorry for May and am not really seeing why it’s her we should be mad at.

She seems to be doing her best and does indeed seem to be respecting the referendum result despite her personal position. The EU octopus is unwilling to offer a good deal and almost no one is keen on a “no deal” (and I doubt running on “no deal” would be a winner for the Tories if there was an election). I’d say go for it but they fear economic collapse and they may be right.

If I were an MP I’d have voted for her deal on that basis (and to hell with Northern Ireland and it’s complicated “backstop” that is the main sticking point). Rejecting it has put Brexit in jeopardy as the Commons seems set to extend the deadline. Pro-EU Tory traitors voted against the deal as did hard-core Brexiteers who feel it’s not good enough. I’d secure the exit before worrying too much about the details. Sadly for May she seems doomed to a legacy of failure. Doesn’t she look tired (reference for Doctor Who fans). I see now why Cameron immediately took a powder.

Things could be going a lot better if COrybn didn’t GAIN seats in the last election due to May’s poor campaigning, blowing a huge lead. Even if the Tories were united now, they have no majority without the DUP, who are obviously preoccupied with the “backstop”.

Tories lead in the polls again as the moderate-wing of Labour is revolting against Corybn’s leadership and he also put Labour Leave voters (who went UKIP in 2015 but mostly went home in 2017) back in play with his support of a 2nd referendum. Several MPs defected to a new group (joined by a few Tory EUphile traitors as well). It’s amusing the the Liberal Democrats as 100% pro-EU center-left have totally failed to make any hay at all despite seemingly obvious openings, you’d think they’d be scooping up Tory Europhilies and Blairite moderate Labourers but no.

An aside but I’d urge President Trump to do a trade deal with the UK as soon as they are out of the EU (if that ever comes to pass). I would hope the Marxist US House wouldn’t stand in the way.

Looks like one of 3 things will happen

1)Deadline extended and who knows
2)No deal, which is the default with no extension
3)Election, and who knows depending on who wins and God knows whether there would be enough time to first elect a new Tory leader.

Above all else, Corbyn must be kept out of power, if he’s in there then not leaving the EU will be the least of the UK’s problems.

[Cronos]

It’s too late for another referendum. The UK should make up its mind - either scrap Brexit or go for a no-deal Brexit.

[mewzilla]

Article 50 only means what it says if all parties abide by it.

Given the history so far, I wouldn’t count on that happening.

The uniparty exists across The Pond, too.