I'm not a Brit and the politics of this are not my concern. However the information dissemination and internet aspect of the story is quite fascinating.
I have no idea what's going on. I tried to ignore it, but my friends who care deeply about it can get quite upset so I've been pulled into several private conversations. Because of that, on several occasions I've looked around the web in an effort to easily understand what's going on.
No luck.
Two things come to mind. First, complexity can be used as a wonderful shield against openness and accountability. You can be as open and accountable as anybody would like, but as long as most people find the situation impenetrable and you do not, it doesn't matter. It's the same thing as not being open at all. Second, I don't see how any reasonable public discussion happens at all in an information environment like this. It's a fail. If they wanted no public discussion, they should have made that choice. This is probably the worst situation a democracy can find itself in: lots of upset people arguing about things which they have no idea the true status of. You might as well watch a puppet show. There's no nuanced conversation possible. It is contrast turned as high as possible.
It's not the decision as much as the uncertainty. I can't help but think the net failed us here -- but I don't know how it could have done better. The betting markets at least will give you an up/down version of the likely outcomes. Oddly enough that might be the best source of information.
The original referendum itself was the real heart of the disorder. The government is now tying itself into knots trying to put into action a perceived desired action, even though the general concept of "Brexit" has a tremendous number of vastly different interpretations, and nothing close to a majority actually exists for any of those options.
There never should have been a referendum to begin with, and the idea that a simple majority vote could have such dramatic consequences was frankly actually undemocratic.
Based on how entrenched certain positions are (see the DUP, for example), the (rightly) strong opposition to a No Deal, and the fact that ANY deal is going to make a majority of people unhappy, it would seem there is no majority in Parliament willing to be connected with the actual outcome.
Therefore, it seems the most likely scenario by far is simply an extension. That will probably lead to a General Election or a Second Referendum, where the "choice" can be said to be given to voters, which would also give MPs cover for any decision made.
The EU will not decide against an extension either, as their preferred outcome is the UK remaining in the EU. The longer this drags on, and the more impractical Brexit options are shown to be, the more the likelihood the UK decides to remain increases.
The only way I see the UK actually leaving the EU is if hard Brexiteers decide to back May's deal; however, that would be considerably more politically risky for them than simply continuing to take a hardline position — even if the end result is remain.
Honestly I don't find that hard to understand what's going on.
Basically, May negotiated a deal with the EU but the UK Parliament does not want it, mainly due to the so-called backstop. The backstop emerges because May has a red line that the UK must leave the single market and the customs union, and this is difficult (if not impossible) to reconcile with the Good Friday Agreement, which forbids a physical frontier at the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The fact is that, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK, it is simply impossible to make the (whole) UK exit the single market and customs union while honoring that agreement. If you place a border in Ireland, you violate the agreement. If you don't place a border in Ireland, then obviously goods and people can circulate freely, so Northern Ireland is effectively part of the EU for customs union and free movement purposes.
This is the very simple (not complex at all) reality that the UK government and parliament have been voluntarily ignoring all the time. To try to reconcile the contradiction, Theresa May proposed the so-called backstop: basically, Northern Ireland stays in the customs union until a technological solution is found that allows to have a non-physical border (yes, I know, bollocks. It won't happen. But Brexit proponents are like that). The EU signed this because May insisted and because why not, if no such miracle solution is found then Northern Ireland remains in the union so it's no problem for the EU. But the hardline Brexiteers in the Tory party (rightfully) pointed out... well, exactly that: that the backstop would imply that Northern Ireland would stay in the customs union forever. Hence, the process is stalled because May's deal has no consensus in parliament, but there is no consensus either for Brexit without a deal or for cancelling Brexit (all of this has been voted this week, with the result of "no" to everything).
If parliament keeps voting no to everything, then the default result is no-deal brexit.
Honestly I don't think there is that much complexity. It's just a very simple problem: that you cannot have Brexit including an exit from the customs union that involves Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement at the same time. That's pretty much all there is to it. If it seems complex, it's because the UK politicians don't want to admit it and just keep running in circles.
I don't think the net failed us ... I think the 'net is maybe the only thing that's slowed this disaster down. Yes yes whatever about the disinformation campaign that allegedly influenced the vote, but misinformation has always been a tool in the political toolkit. What's different this time around is that the net provides the means to route around the official narrative and dig into what's going on. Yes, you might dig the wrong way and come up with bullshit but anyone that can evaluate information can figure this out, and once the honest and educated manage to get to grips with the non-official details then the net provides a means to mobilise.
If anything it's politics has broken the 'net, not the other way round. But the net provides a means to save politics.
Tinfoil hat: I'm actually on record as speculating that Brexit is just a big currency trading scam. Imagine that you go into Brexit knowing that you will make it fail. You spend 2 years sitting on your prosterior, not actually forming a deal and then at the last minute: OMG what are we going to do. The currency bounces around like a yoyo. You time all the nice low points. And then you cancel it saying "Oh we tried our best. Nothing we could have done. The EU was bent on screwing us if we left". The pound jumps 20 or 30 cents on the pound overnight.
I will literally fall over if it actually comes to pass, but like I said, this was my somewhat tongue in cheek speculation about 6 months ago (although I predicted that the budget would fail leading to a general election and an opportunity to repeal Brexit at that point, so I'm already technically wrong).
Tinfoil? To imply that the driver for political decisions is financial? I think it’s safe to say there is a financial incentive, that’s how the world works. Is it to drive volatility in the currency markets to help hedge funds? Is it to drive deregulation to help corporations, for example to spy on employees for improved productivity, say? Is it to help restore sovereignty over financial laws to restore british offshore banking, to help launder sanctioned cash, and hide wealthy individuals’ cash, for example?
It must be something lucrative, to be so well supported by the Tories despite the harm it is doing to London property prices and London jobs...
I hope this post is intended as sarcasm, and others interpret as such.
There are 650 MPs in Parliament, with vastly different constituencies and agendas. You would need 326 currently elected MPs to be on board with this plan, not even considering the possibility of election results changing those dynamics.
And at the beginning of this process it was not clear that the UK could unilaterally rescind Article 50, either, which adds further risks and complications. Not to mention the referendum itself was decided by over 33 million people casting votes.
That is a completely impractical collective action problem and a conspiracy theory on par with others like the moon landing or 9/11.
One of the key Brexiteers Jacob Rees Mogg has written the book (literally) on disaster capitalism! [0] (EDIT - my mistake, that's his father, but still).
This is why the EU is so eager now to seize control of the timetable, and will now just boot the UK out if they don't shit or get off the pot.
Imagine if Florida wanted to leave the US and renegotiate their trade and governmental relationship with China/Brazil/Iceland, etc?
- Why would a country give Florida a better trade deal or more rights than the US?
- How do Floridians benefit from suddenly being unable to freely cross the border to the US?
And this is why Brexit is so screwed up: the promise was "all the benefits you have now plus we'll renegotiate and get a bunch more when we aren't being held back anymore", but it's really hard to fundamentally see why/how that could happen.
EDIT: bunch of replies to this that maybe miss the main thrust of this question which is "Why would a country give a better deal to Florida in this scenario?"
While I'm a firm remainer, I'd still say it's not quite the same as you've described. It would be closer to New York leaving the US if we were to do it by GDP (with Germany being California and France Texas) with New York of course having much more political and financial power than Florida. With it would go numerous financial institutions and various other corporate headquarters that are based there. Also, while I know this is a very dumbed down way of looking at the issue, many people felt that the UKs contribution to the EU was not reciprocated, and the EU was only there to funnel money away from the UK down to Greece, Spain, Portugal and the like, place strange legislation that took control away from people, and force us to take in immigrants that take jobs away from British citizens and send their earnings abroad to their families in other countries.
Again, this is all the simplified, digestible summaries of arguments that were given to the British public during the referendum, hence the result of the vote. Of course, the MPs should be there make an informed decision because it's their full time job, not the general public that will only have a passing knowledge of it that is often learnt through biased media. 2 years of thorough coverage on the issue has made it clear to most people that the above summaries are not accurate, and mostly fabrications by people with a vested interest in destabilising and shorting the pound.
In fairness, it's substantially different in the UK is a sovereign nation. In this instance the UK sees that the EU erodes their sovereignty. If that were the case the UK leaving the EU is a reasonable course of action. Geography is also a factor in that the UK actually can physically separate from the UK, arguments with regards to the land border with Northern Ireland notwithstanding of course!
More accurate: Imagine Florida was an independent country for a thousand years. Then 20 years ago, it joined a newly formed pseudo-state organization. It's since realized that it doesn't like when Maine enacts an insane internet copyright law (because it conflicts with Florida's insane cookie law) and a host of other unforeseen issues. It decides to go back to being an independent entity but Floridians with economic ties to New Hampshire resist.
A few weeks ago I was in Basel, Switzerland, which is uniquely positioned at the cross of the Swiss, German and French borders.
There are suburbs of the city that are in German and French territory: Basel trams and buses will get to either side, with no notice you are crossing a national border.
You can cross the Rhine from Weil am Rhein (Germany) to Huningue (France) through a footbridge, with the only thing marking the cross being a German and French flags side by side, on the French side of the river.
No border, no checks, even normal police nowhere to be seen. 75 years ago (and pretty much over the course of their history) these two countries were at bitter war between themselves.
I cannot fathom why people would do anything that could cause returning to those times a possibility.
As flawed the EU is, it has been instrumental in ensuring decades of peace. The (partial but undoubtful) loss of sovereignity for individual members should be considered a fair price to pay.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
2) File->Embed->HTML gives you an HTML snippet that you embed in your page to render a vector version of the diagram. Click the viewer opens up a lightbox, zoomable vector version, that can include the diagram data in the snippet, and a edit option from the lightbox to navigate to the editor with the diagram loaded.
3) draw.io is open source, https://github.com/jgraph/drawio, if you don't want to depend on a third-party for the viewer, clone the repo, host it as a static site (doesn't need a back-end) and reference the viewer on that site instead of www.draw.io.
Dunno why you're being downvoted. The page itself isn't loading anymore, and the link you've provided in (1) does still load, so if anyone else is unable to load the page in question, see this link (1) to see the flowchart at least.
A parliament that HAS to choose among N possible futures or else the one of those N that is least popular wins.
Yet they seen convinced that the only thing they can do is do yes/no votes to reach a majority for one of the N alternatives. If this is for legal/constitutional reasons (it most likely is) then it’s a horrible mistake to not have realized this and corrected it.
Parliament needs a simple and legal way to swiftly select the most popular option among N options where none have a majority. This isn’t a dangerous legal loophole - the acceptance of such an N-way tie and the selection of the N options can still be decided with majority.
There should be a ranked or Condorcet vote and the winner should be enacted. It should have happened a year ago at least.
Well, archaic voting practices are constitutional practice. But the UK constitution is 'unwritten'. That means these practices could be easily changed, given the will.
In Westminster, voting usually happens by each MP physically moving into one of two lobbies. That is a very time consuming process, that can easily take twenty minutes per vote. There are no ballots, let alone a computerised voting system.
That the recent indicative votes happened on paper is extraordinarily modern. Preferential voting would clearly be a step too far.
> If this is for legal/constitutional reasons (it most likely is)
It's not. It's for completely pragmatic reasons.
The bind they're in is that, even if they select a winner, the process doesn't stop there. There will be subsequent votes on primary and related legislation to pass before we're completed.
Unless there is a majority for a way forward, or enough MPs are willing to concede that their objections aren't actually principled, much of that legislation is likely not not pass.
And, to my understanding, there were discussions about priority voting for the alternatives. It is conceivable that that will still occur. But it just moves the intractability to a different stage (much like splitting out the political declaration is doing).
The way actual parliament's work is not the way they formally work. Parliamentary debates and votes are the formalities. Actual discussions, compromises, strong arming and decisions are made outside of this, usually within parties and/or coalitions.
There should be a ranked or Condorcet vote and the winner should be enacted. It should have happened a year ago at least.
I agree, but how many legislatures around the world actually work like that? Certainly not the UK or USA.
Who knows, maybe this fiasco will spur on voting reform in the UK parliament! Apparently they already use STV for committee positions, so it’s not unthinkable. I thought Wednesday’s use of approval voting in the main House was a very promising step in the right direction.
It's not a "meaningful vote" today (29th) - it's only a vote on the withdrawal agreement, not the political declaration. According to the Attorney General that means it's not a "meaningful vote" as previously defined.
>I have always been all-in on "no brexit" for last three years.
I've always been fascinated by the "drive it off of the cliffs" mentality, and I don't mean this as an affront, in any form or fashion.
For example, what is your opinion of the breakdown of the Good Friday agreement? Is there a genuine belief that the bombings wouldn't recur or is it more of an NIMBY, so not my concern? (Again, not an affront, I genuinely want to understand.) Or what's the opinion on Scotland having another referendum on independence, since they voted remain?
The odds need adjusting giving it's not quite mv3 but just separation agreement. I don't think we're at 80% hard, 20% cancel a50? Even though it didn't get an indicative majority, there's still a chance MV3 fails and we move to a longer extension and/or peoples vote.
Nice diagram, but it's already out of date. The indicative votes already passed, there was no consensus and I think now they'll do a second round? I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of MPs are confused about what's happening.
Anyway, the central delusion of Brexit is that the British public vote to have a foreign sovereign government give them something. Technically they voted for the British government to leave the EU, but what they really voted for is to have the EU give them an unbelievably awesome deal that screws over the EU. That is not going to happen, so now we're witnessing this mass political delusion crash into reality.
Unsurprisingly there are several possibilities not accounted for here.
One being that the 3rd vote passes, the PM resigns (which she's already agreed to do), a new leader is elected and a general election is held soon after which will essentially be a 'second referendum' election in which we end up rejoining the EU in less than 5 years. A true Schrödinger's brexit.
The options are so obfuscated behind political complexity AND ever-changing that a simple voter (me) can't hope to keep up.
The moment you half-understand a scenario it is outdated, the days it takes to form a layperson's reasonable opinion are wasted grasping at now-irrelevant information.
It takes multiple hours per day to try and understand the details and their strategic importance.
I will forever remember this as a contradictory moment when the British public's political awareness was both at its greatest and weakest.
This is why it should not have been a simple majority public vote. Either leave it for the politicians which or make it a two thirds majority (so if a civil war breaks out the side that lost the vote has to defeat 2x people).
That's why the government put out a pamphlet before the referendum (one in which many accused of being biased towards remaining). In that leaflet it stated that leaving the EU would entail leaving the Single Market and Customs Union.
Since that vote, we have seen many an MP push to remain in the EU when their own constituency voted to leave. This and the subsequent General Election saw the two main parties stand on a manifesto that said they would respect the vote and enact it.
Yet here we are, of two years spinning around the drain plug and in effect achieved nothing beyond disenfranchising people of our political process.
SO yes, no positive outcomes will happen as credibility and respect has been lost on so many levels.
Only way to break this enpass IMHO would be to cancel article 50, reenact it. Do another referendum and then total up the votes from the 1st and 2nd referendum and if we stay in the EU - we stay, if we leave, we go and plan for WTO and if the EU (one of many collectives in the World) want to do a trade deal, great, otherwise it should not get in the way and hold everything else up.
That approach, respects the initial referendum, appeases those who now say everybody changed their mind.
I would say though, that any second referendum has all MP's as neutral and they just deal with facts, no opinion, no FUD, no doom and gloom posting, no statistical waxing, no forecasts - nothing that is not a clear and solid fact - just actual facts.
But whatever happens, I lament how the EU has missed the opportunity to action this reform they have mooted for years and what Cameron initially sought and got palmed off with some token concessions instead that lead to him having to hold a referendum.
The EU could of and should of looked at reform, that would of offered the people of the UK something different and a clear reason to do another referendum vote. Instead - pig-headed politics has prevailed on both sides.
But let us not forget - UK PM position is akin to seagull management, Cameron did something that did not go his way to he left instead of fixing the mess. May now in effect going to do the same thing by saying agree my deal and I'll quit - leaving you all to sort it out. Utter madness, but that is politics.
In short - politicians will say anything to get your vote, even lie and political manifesto's are not legally binding contracts. In effect, they can not only lie, but legally get away with it with the crux being - you can lie to get votes.
Much needs to change in politics and nobody has any faith that is going to happen.
We had a vote on proportional representation - that got shot down by the public. Which is ironic as that is how they are treating the referendum result.
These are great, but a little out of date (the situation has changed a lot in the last 48 hours...). It's the visualisation I've wanted all along though!
The EU has stated that they need to hear by close of today if any extension beyond the 12th of APril and they said they would only do that if the UK agreed the deal May got offered in which nobody of any voting stance likes.
In short, the EU is dictating Brexit direction more than the UK now.
So unless they agree May's deal, any other extension has to be voted upon.
However technically the UK could cancel article 50, then resubmit it and give an extension of upto 2 years as article 50 covers a 2 year period and in that time the end date can be earlier. Whilst technically they could do that and the EU would be powerless to stop them, it would be a complete and utter gaming of the political and legal system.
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|7 years ago|reply
I have no idea what's going on. I tried to ignore it, but my friends who care deeply about it can get quite upset so I've been pulled into several private conversations. Because of that, on several occasions I've looked around the web in an effort to easily understand what's going on.
No luck.
Two things come to mind. First, complexity can be used as a wonderful shield against openness and accountability. You can be as open and accountable as anybody would like, but as long as most people find the situation impenetrable and you do not, it doesn't matter. It's the same thing as not being open at all. Second, I don't see how any reasonable public discussion happens at all in an information environment like this. It's a fail. If they wanted no public discussion, they should have made that choice. This is probably the worst situation a democracy can find itself in: lots of upset people arguing about things which they have no idea the true status of. You might as well watch a puppet show. There's no nuanced conversation possible. It is contrast turned as high as possible.
It's not the decision as much as the uncertainty. I can't help but think the net failed us here -- but I don't know how it could have done better. The betting markets at least will give you an up/down version of the likely outcomes. Oddly enough that might be the best source of information.
[+] [-] dak1|7 years ago|reply
There never should have been a referendum to begin with, and the idea that a simple majority vote could have such dramatic consequences was frankly actually undemocratic.
Based on how entrenched certain positions are (see the DUP, for example), the (rightly) strong opposition to a No Deal, and the fact that ANY deal is going to make a majority of people unhappy, it would seem there is no majority in Parliament willing to be connected with the actual outcome.
Therefore, it seems the most likely scenario by far is simply an extension. That will probably lead to a General Election or a Second Referendum, where the "choice" can be said to be given to voters, which would also give MPs cover for any decision made.
The EU will not decide against an extension either, as their preferred outcome is the UK remaining in the EU. The longer this drags on, and the more impractical Brexit options are shown to be, the more the likelihood the UK decides to remain increases.
The only way I see the UK actually leaving the EU is if hard Brexiteers decide to back May's deal; however, that would be considerably more politically risky for them than simply continuing to take a hardline position — even if the end result is remain.
[+] [-] Al-Khwarizmi|7 years ago|reply
Basically, May negotiated a deal with the EU but the UK Parliament does not want it, mainly due to the so-called backstop. The backstop emerges because May has a red line that the UK must leave the single market and the customs union, and this is difficult (if not impossible) to reconcile with the Good Friday Agreement, which forbids a physical frontier at the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
The fact is that, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK, it is simply impossible to make the (whole) UK exit the single market and customs union while honoring that agreement. If you place a border in Ireland, you violate the agreement. If you don't place a border in Ireland, then obviously goods and people can circulate freely, so Northern Ireland is effectively part of the EU for customs union and free movement purposes.
This is the very simple (not complex at all) reality that the UK government and parliament have been voluntarily ignoring all the time. To try to reconcile the contradiction, Theresa May proposed the so-called backstop: basically, Northern Ireland stays in the customs union until a technological solution is found that allows to have a non-physical border (yes, I know, bollocks. It won't happen. But Brexit proponents are like that). The EU signed this because May insisted and because why not, if no such miracle solution is found then Northern Ireland remains in the union so it's no problem for the EU. But the hardline Brexiteers in the Tory party (rightfully) pointed out... well, exactly that: that the backstop would imply that Northern Ireland would stay in the customs union forever. Hence, the process is stalled because May's deal has no consensus in parliament, but there is no consensus either for Brexit without a deal or for cancelling Brexit (all of this has been voted this week, with the result of "no" to everything).
If parliament keeps voting no to everything, then the default result is no-deal brexit.
Honestly I don't think there is that much complexity. It's just a very simple problem: that you cannot have Brexit including an exit from the customs union that involves Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement at the same time. That's pretty much all there is to it. If it seems complex, it's because the UK politicians don't want to admit it and just keep running in circles.
[+] [-] rusk|7 years ago|reply
If anything it's politics has broken the 'net, not the other way round. But the net provides a means to save politics.
[+] [-] mikekchar|7 years ago|reply
I will literally fall over if it actually comes to pass, but like I said, this was my somewhat tongue in cheek speculation about 6 months ago (although I predicted that the budget would fail leading to a general election and an opportunity to repeal Brexit at that point, so I'm already technically wrong).
[+] [-] binarymax|7 years ago|reply
The people rocking the boat were just a bunch of jerks who wanted to get richer.
Market destabilization through false rumors and societal disruption is very very real.
[+] [-] riazrizvi|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lexs|7 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht40yrt3VrY
[+] [-] dak1|7 years ago|reply
There are 650 MPs in Parliament, with vastly different constituencies and agendas. You would need 326 currently elected MPs to be on board with this plan, not even considering the possibility of election results changing those dynamics.
And at the beginning of this process it was not clear that the UK could unilaterally rescind Article 50, either, which adds further risks and complications. Not to mention the referendum itself was decided by over 33 million people casting votes.
That is a completely impractical collective action problem and a conspiracy theory on par with others like the moon landing or 9/11.
[+] [-] Angostura|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rusk|7 years ago|reply
This is why the EU is so eager now to seize control of the timetable, and will now just boot the UK out if they don't shit or get off the pot.
[0] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyMuQcWUwAA7gbq.jpg
[+] [-] michaelbuckbee|7 years ago|reply
- Why would a country give Florida a better trade deal or more rights than the US?
- How do Floridians benefit from suddenly being unable to freely cross the border to the US?
And this is why Brexit is so screwed up: the promise was "all the benefits you have now plus we'll renegotiate and get a bunch more when we aren't being held back anymore", but it's really hard to fundamentally see why/how that could happen.
EDIT: bunch of replies to this that maybe miss the main thrust of this question which is "Why would a country give a better deal to Florida in this scenario?"
[+] [-] Aromasin|7 years ago|reply
Again, this is all the simplified, digestible summaries of arguments that were given to the British public during the referendum, hence the result of the vote. Of course, the MPs should be there make an informed decision because it's their full time job, not the general public that will only have a passing knowledge of it that is often learnt through biased media. 2 years of thorough coverage on the issue has made it clear to most people that the above summaries are not accurate, and mostly fabrications by people with a vested interest in destabilising and shorting the pound.
[+] [-] rusk|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wolco|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malvosenior|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kurtz79|7 years ago|reply
There are suburbs of the city that are in German and French territory: Basel trams and buses will get to either side, with no notice you are crossing a national border.
You can cross the Rhine from Weil am Rhein (Germany) to Huningue (France) through a footbridge, with the only thing marking the cross being a German and French flags side by side, on the French side of the river.
https://en.radreisen.at/data/thumbs/_data_pic_Frankreich_Reg...
No border, no checks, even normal police nowhere to be seen. 75 years ago (and pretty much over the course of their history) these two countries were at bitter war between themselves.
I cannot fathom why people would do anything that could cause returning to those times a possibility.
As flawed the EU is, it has been instrumental in ensuring decades of peace. The (partial but undoubtful) loss of sovereignity for individual members should be considered a fair price to pay.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
[+] [-] areyousure|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Chris2048|7 years ago|reply
What has Brexit got to do with that?
[+] [-] davidjgraph|7 years ago|reply
1) Add #U to the URL then the path to the diagram to create a link that loads it directly:
https://www.draw.io/#Uhttps://jonworth.eu/downloads/29jandia...
2) File->Embed->HTML gives you an HTML snippet that you embed in your page to render a vector version of the diagram. Click the viewer opens up a lightbox, zoomable vector version, that can include the diagram data in the snippet, and a edit option from the lightbox to navigate to the editor with the diagram loaded.
3) draw.io is open source, https://github.com/jgraph/drawio, if you don't want to depend on a third-party for the viewer, clone the repo, host it as a static site (doesn't need a back-end) and reference the viewer on that site instead of www.draw.io.
[+] [-] oarsinsync|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alkonaut|7 years ago|reply
Yet they seen convinced that the only thing they can do is do yes/no votes to reach a majority for one of the N alternatives. If this is for legal/constitutional reasons (it most likely is) then it’s a horrible mistake to not have realized this and corrected it.
Parliament needs a simple and legal way to swiftly select the most popular option among N options where none have a majority. This isn’t a dangerous legal loophole - the acceptance of such an N-way tie and the selection of the N options can still be decided with majority.
There should be a ranked or Condorcet vote and the winner should be enacted. It should have happened a year ago at least.
[+] [-] orra|7 years ago|reply
In Westminster, voting usually happens by each MP physically moving into one of two lobbies. That is a very time consuming process, that can easily take twenty minutes per vote. There are no ballots, let alone a computerised voting system.
That the recent indicative votes happened on paper is extraordinarily modern. Preferential voting would clearly be a step too far.
[+] [-] lucozade|7 years ago|reply
It's not. It's for completely pragmatic reasons.
The bind they're in is that, even if they select a winner, the process doesn't stop there. There will be subsequent votes on primary and related legislation to pass before we're completed.
Unless there is a majority for a way forward, or enough MPs are willing to concede that their objections aren't actually principled, much of that legislation is likely not not pass.
And, to my understanding, there were discussions about priority voting for the alternatives. It is conceivable that that will still occur. But it just moves the intractability to a different stage (much like splitting out the political declaration is doing).
[+] [-] dalbasal|7 years ago|reply
When that fails, this.
[+] [-] redcalx|7 years ago|reply
I believe this is the plan for Monday if the PM's deal doesn't go through today. I.e. list the options you will accept in order of preference.
[+] [-] iainmerrick|7 years ago|reply
I agree, but how many legislatures around the world actually work like that? Certainly not the UK or USA.
Who knows, maybe this fiasco will spur on voting reform in the UK parliament! Apparently they already use STV for committee positions, so it’s not unthinkable. I thought Wednesday’s use of approval voting in the main House was a very promising step in the right direction.
[+] [-] estomagordo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ganeshkrishnan|7 years ago|reply
I assume this is going to fail again which gives it a 80% hard brexit chance with 20% rescinding brexit.
I have always been all-in on "no brexit" for last three years. It's a dog and pony show.
[+] [-] ldite|7 years ago|reply
And it's going to be voted down, of course.
[+] [-] 0XAFFE|7 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/1111577041965600770
[+] [-] renholder|7 years ago|reply
I've always been fascinated by the "drive it off of the cliffs" mentality, and I don't mean this as an affront, in any form or fashion.
For example, what is your opinion of the breakdown of the Good Friday agreement? Is there a genuine belief that the bombings wouldn't recur or is it more of an NIMBY, so not my concern? (Again, not an affront, I genuinely want to understand.) Or what's the opinion on Scotland having another referendum on independence, since they voted remain?
[+] [-] elyobo|7 years ago|reply
It (Brexit) is a hell of a mess, I have no idea how you guys are going to get out of this one.
[+] [-] Slimbo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martythemaniak|7 years ago|reply
Anyway, the central delusion of Brexit is that the British public vote to have a foreign sovereign government give them something. Technically they voted for the British government to leave the EU, but what they really voted for is to have the EU give them an unbelievably awesome deal that screws over the EU. That is not going to happen, so now we're witnessing this mass political delusion crash into reality.
[+] [-] krona|7 years ago|reply
One being that the 3rd vote passes, the PM resigns (which she's already agreed to do), a new leader is elected and a general election is held soon after which will essentially be a 'second referendum' election in which we end up rejoining the EU in less than 5 years. A true Schrödinger's brexit.
[+] [-] jmkd|7 years ago|reply
The options are so obfuscated behind political complexity AND ever-changing that a simple voter (me) can't hope to keep up.
The moment you half-understand a scenario it is outdated, the days it takes to form a layperson's reasonable opinion are wasted grasping at now-irrelevant information.
It takes multiple hours per day to try and understand the details and their strategic importance.
I will forever remember this as a contradictory moment when the British public's political awareness was both at its greatest and weakest.
No positive outcomes look possible any more.
[+] [-] daemin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zenst|7 years ago|reply
Since that vote, we have seen many an MP push to remain in the EU when their own constituency voted to leave. This and the subsequent General Election saw the two main parties stand on a manifesto that said they would respect the vote and enact it.
Yet here we are, of two years spinning around the drain plug and in effect achieved nothing beyond disenfranchising people of our political process.
SO yes, no positive outcomes will happen as credibility and respect has been lost on so many levels.
Only way to break this enpass IMHO would be to cancel article 50, reenact it. Do another referendum and then total up the votes from the 1st and 2nd referendum and if we stay in the EU - we stay, if we leave, we go and plan for WTO and if the EU (one of many collectives in the World) want to do a trade deal, great, otherwise it should not get in the way and hold everything else up.
That approach, respects the initial referendum, appeases those who now say everybody changed their mind.
I would say though, that any second referendum has all MP's as neutral and they just deal with facts, no opinion, no FUD, no doom and gloom posting, no statistical waxing, no forecasts - nothing that is not a clear and solid fact - just actual facts.
But whatever happens, I lament how the EU has missed the opportunity to action this reform they have mooted for years and what Cameron initially sought and got palmed off with some token concessions instead that lead to him having to hold a referendum. The EU could of and should of looked at reform, that would of offered the people of the UK something different and a clear reason to do another referendum vote. Instead - pig-headed politics has prevailed on both sides.
But let us not forget - UK PM position is akin to seagull management, Cameron did something that did not go his way to he left instead of fixing the mess. May now in effect going to do the same thing by saying agree my deal and I'll quit - leaving you all to sort it out. Utter madness, but that is politics.
In short - politicians will say anything to get your vote, even lie and political manifesto's are not legally binding contracts. In effect, they can not only lie, but legally get away with it with the crux being - you can lie to get votes.
Much needs to change in politics and nobody has any faith that is going to happen.
We had a vote on proportional representation - that got shot down by the public. Which is ironic as that is how they are treating the referendum result.
[+] [-] ColinWright|7 years ago|reply
Great work - props to Jon Worth!
[+] [-] estomagordo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akerro|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fredley|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TorKlingberg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zenst|7 years ago|reply
In short, the EU is dictating Brexit direction more than the UK now.
So unless they agree May's deal, any other extension has to be voted upon.
However technically the UK could cancel article 50, then resubmit it and give an extension of upto 2 years as article 50 covers a 2 year period and in that time the end date can be earlier. Whilst technically they could do that and the EU would be powerless to stop them, it would be a complete and utter gaming of the political and legal system.
[+] [-] arethuza|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sveme|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elyobo|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ganeshkrishnan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fbn79|7 years ago|reply