Comments:UK Parliament begins debate on Brexit deal

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Before the debate started, there were two votes concerning amendments to the debate question, and a vote of contempt. The Government lost both votes by a small margin. This could be a indicator that the Government is now a minority. This puts the debate vote over the deal at increased risk. I see there's a good chance the deal won't be agreed to.

If the deal isn't agreed, it will need to undergo changes, or be thrown out completed.

Once something has started, it's pretty much guaranteed to finish, even if it looks like it won't at some stages. Especially for a referendum.

My impression of the EU withdrawal process, from back when all this started, is that once it's been officially set in motion by the member state, it's pretty much controlled by the EU, so that the withdrawing member can't just say "I was only joking" ... unless the EU wants to let them do so. If the UK decides it wants a mulligan, the politics on both sides could be rather fascinating to watch (intellectually; all this is very high-stakes).

The EU would rather not want Brexit, so the thought of "it's pretty much controlled by the EU" is interesting.

A European law officer gave an opinion that the UK could stop the exit process by saying "I was only joking" (ref). However, I doubt that'd happen without someone being metaphorically ripped apart by protesters (or literally).

I have no idea what the EU wants. Nor the voting public. It's hard to say who does know. MPs talking in the debate recently have firmly announced that they do not agree with the outcome of the referendum their area, even when the majority was high. Whatever happens, I feel that at least 49% of the population will be unhappy about it.

It's hazardous for the representatives in a representative democracy to openly defy the will of the electorate, so some grounds is needed to make it appear one has not done so. I could maybe see a new referendum being held at some point, which would potentially allow politicians on both sides to avoid taking personal responsibility for the decision. Like impeaching Donald Trump, it's a very tricky business that, if it's to stick, would have to be gradually sidled up to, not making any sudden moves that might leave behind part of the needed coalition as one coaxes it to follow along. It can be really hard to judge where one is along that sort of curve; to some extent, reaching a point on the curve becomes a matter of successfully projecting confidence that one has reached it, so the judgement of reaching it is not separable from the act.

I found the article a little vague. Are they talking about not Brexiting or just going back to the drawing board on the details?

Afaik, what they're actually talking about now is not accepting the proposal. What comes after that, if they don't accept it, is anybody's guess. Likely various opponents of the plan have various ideas about what they want to happen after non-acceptance, but it's all uncharted territory.