@@elon6131 That motion was also put forward (Motion L, "Revoke Artikle 50"). If she voted against everything, then she also voted against not doing brexit.
I was about to write the same thing. By now I doubt the UK will ever leave. I have no horse in this race as I am German but I get the strong feeling like the UK's parliament behaves like children at this point. They remind me a lot of my two year old son. Most of the time he has not the slightest clue what he wants but he always knows exactly what he does not want. And this kinda gets ridiculous. It is like your girlfriend dumps you for no apparent reason but then refuses to move out of your appartment. In my opinion it is time for the british people to vote again. Not as a second referendum because they voted leave and this ought to be respected. But they should vote on the terms. The government pretty obviously is unable to do so. And no offense but I also think that the citizens of the EU should vote as well on how long this ridiculousness is allowed to continue.
@@Borengar629 Is your two year old son that badly behaved. I swear that if the British Parlament had to vote on what to have for dinner they would all starve, and the food would rot!
What do you wanna eat? MPs: Dunno.. up to you How about Pork? MPs: Nope Chicken? MPs: No Beef? MPs: No Seafood? MPs: No So then what do you wanna eat? MPs: Dunno
* MPs "let's vote on a vegetarian option" * Vote doesn't receive a majority MPs proceed to vote on a vegan option and vote on whether they should eat at all...both votes received a catastrophic minority
Mps should do a “survival” vote where they start voting for all the options they don’t want so they can eliminate them, until they’re left with a compromise that leaves everyone upset. Hooray!
That compromise is to stay in the single market but leave the EU. Its the only option that's ever been viable other than staying in the EU because we would be idiots to leave the biggest single market in the world, the problem being that the ERG think we can somehow have our cake and eat it because we are the 5th largest Economy in the world, a fact that is only true because we entered the single market, we would have been made irrelevant on the world stage 30 years ago otherwise. There is no solution that will satisfy Brexiters because the sensible ones want to "take back control" but they also want to keep access to the single market, which is quite literally a contradiction in terms as we would leave the EU but still be following their rules, without a say in making said rules. This kind of indicative voting should have been done 2 years ago, before triggering article 50. After the referendum the Leave campaign basically acted like the other 48% of Britain didn't exist and that our views didn't matter any more. Instead of finding a compromise that would be passable for Remainers and Leavers they went and negotiated a deal that only what I will call "reasonable" Leavers could vote for, one that wasn't hard enough for the ERG or soft enough for Remainers to support.
Kai Green and to think this all started because some people wanted to kick the brown ugly people off the island, who knew it was much more difficult than reality tv made it look :(
@@kaigreen5641 - The 52% who voted leave aren't treated much better, nobody has bothered to ask why they wanted to leave in the first place. All the politicians just claim that everyone obviously wanted their particular pet brexit and the other MPs can agree or we all suffer no deal at all, but that this is unacceptable to almost everyone. I find myself in agreement with Lord Armstrong; if there are no acceptable options for leaving the EU, surely the time has come to ascertain what caused 17.4 million people to vote leave and attempt to find some arrangement under which it would be acceptable to the majority for us to stay.
Yes it is an option. There is nothing that "needs" to be done. There are some desires for potentially more profitable outcomes, but NEED? No. @@javierhernandez1555
They aren't procrastinating. The only deal they could possibly iron out won't be to their liking. It's impossible for the UK Parliament to execute Brexit because it's a terrible idea to begin with.
They do NOT want Brexit with the Deal They do NOT want the No deal They do NOT want 2nd Referendum They do NOT want EU They do NOT want to be a way from EU They do NOT want to revoke Article 50 What exactly do they want? It"s like a bratty kid who is going out of his way to be annoying - it is tiring to watch them keep saying "No, No, No, No for everything, and still wanting everything ... even Jon Bercow seems to be tired of saying "Noes have it" enthusiastically.
British Government: forwards 2 choices n loses both British parliament: forwards 8 choices... n loses all British public: I think Guy Fawkes has the right idea
Clearly this should never have happened. No one knows what to do, know one wants to cooperate and apart from that the whole country is divided about this issue. You don't put an extremely complex political decision up for vote to an angry, overly emotional mob. That's not good politics. But that's exactly what happened. And now they have to clean up the mess they've made.
First off wow a fellow vangauard fan nice profile pic Secondly agreed they should know by 2019 the speaker will allow anyone to speak with the required respect and curtesy.
Parliament is too greedy, it wants all the benefits of being in the EU without actually being in the EU, If the EU said parliament can have whatever deal it wants without any obstructions, they still wouldn't agree.
I think they just want things to be exactly as it is now, but no longer have elections for MEPs in the UK. Instead maybe have the the PM appoint an ambassador to the EU so im symbolically the UK would be equals to the EU and not a member. Of course that would mean replacing elected MEPs with unelected officials, but if it felt like the UK was the equal of the EU, many brexit supporters would be happy.
The only issue with May's deal is the backstop. The EU refuses to allow the UK to unilaterally pull out of the backstop. Basically the EU is asking the UK to give up full sovereignty over Northern Ireland, no nation is going to do that.
@@taoliu3949 Nobody wants a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This will cause violence. It was the UK that made promises about there not being a border there and if there was one, the UK would be seen as breaking it's word. Certainly the EU doesn't want violence in Northern Ireland even if it's not longer a part of the EU, but the UK especially doesn't want that. Brexiteers seem to want to "take control of their borders" but don't want to deal with the repercussions of creating a border in Ireland. But if you take control of your borders, that necessitates creating a border somewhere. So there's either going to be a border between NI and Ireland, which causes violence, or border between NI and the rest of the UK which results in NI bring required to follow EU law. Oh and by the way, as soon as violence starts happening in NI, more people will support rejoining the EU and demand a new referendum to do so. This whole brexit thing will have all been for nothing. Do given all this, where do you think the border should be?
@@tosh40638 I didn't say anything about where I think the border is going to be. The only thing I said was that the EU had pretty much been pushing May around these past three years over negotiations. As to preventing a hard border on Ireland, that's why the idea of a backstop was created. It basically says that the UK/NI (depending on version of May's deal) will stay aligned with the EU Customs temporarily before a more permanent solution is found. There are some support for such an idea, the issue is that the EU refuses to allow the UK to unilaterally pull out of the backstop. That's like signing a lease without provisions to break the lease, only that the lease is perpetual. Who the hell wants to do that? That said, a hard brexit would not necessarily mean customs checks would be thrown up overnight. The UK and Irish governments has already stated that they will not throw up border checks in the event of a hard brexit. Could it be a violation of WTO and EU agreements? Sure, but what are they gonna do about it? The only thing the EU can do is suspend/kick out Ireland, which would look really bad on them. The WTO has also stated that they don't do inquiries unless there's a complaint. In other words, the UK and Ireland can keep their borders open as long as nobody complains about it, which someone probably will eventually, but that's probably going to be years down the line and another discussion in of itself.
Come on, I get the joke but let's not act as if it was just the pro brexit that didn't know what they wanted. Obviously they have their faults, but it's mostly the anti-brexits that slow the process. You have to keep in mind that it's not members of the parliament, but english citizens that have voted for brexit. And thing is pro-brexits are a minority in parliament, so it only makes sense that it's hard for them to get what they want. If it was the parliament that had voted in favour of brexit, this shitshow would be (probably) over right now. But citizens have voted for something the majority of parliament didn't want. And you know we can debate about ideas all day long, but if we first look at the facts, there's one thing we shouldn't forget : pro-brexit have won the referendum, you can argue all you want about how unfair it was, but there was media manipulation for both sides, and in the end you can't fucking act surprised when they say they don't want to make a second referendum, or revoking article 50 which is the condition for them applying the brexit they just won in this referendum. It only makes sense. The obvious truth is that both sides are to blame.
daszieher which literally every channel does because of UA-cam’s algorithm that incentivises subscription numbers and therefore gives this channel more reason to make videos? Pretty stupid reason.
Sadly not possible, not under the current EU rules. It would need a lot stricter ground rules, EU Constitution if you may, to have an expulsion rule. While UK is still in EU; I doubt they can get the full support of all nations to actually pass such rule.
@@Mandemon1990 EU doesn't have to do a thing at this point, they know that UK is too arrogant and their hubris too great to revoke Article 50 or delay it to the point of being compelled to participate in the EU elections. All they have to do is deny any further extension, not that UK will ask for said extension anyway because even they aren't dumb enough to think they can get an extension past the EU elections without being made to participate in them. Then again UK intelligence hasn't been particularly shining recently...
@@Mandemon1990 I know its possible because politics but seriously all this faffing around is annoying. Its alike an annoying guest that keeps threatening to leave. If they want to leave, open the door then let them leave. Don't let them ask if they can take your TV too.
In conclusion the only acceptable outcome for the UK would be to have all the benefits of a memberstate of the EU but without any of the obligations. That seems reasonable... not.
Free movement of people, the right to vote in european elections and recourse to the european courts are three of the *benefits* but they don't want any of those either.
@@jcxz983 They only want the economic benefits. They don't want freedom of movement because a lot of them are xenophobic and hate immigrants and they could care less about the elections if they are out of the EU. They will learn the hard way that they can't pick and chose. You either offer something in return to get the benefits or you don't get the benefits at all.
well that is the path to least suffering and compromising is importante in a society. if you can secure a best option tehn go for it but other wise compromise is the only way forward.
As an american I enjoy watching the house of commons. So lively. Granted the U.S. is catching up with the portrait of Ronald Reagan on a raptor with a machine gun lmao
@Julia Mimi I fail to see why we should care what the rest of the world thinks. The "rest of the world" can collapse tomorrow, and my give-a-shit-meter wouldn't really tick by this point. The world expects so much of my country, so I suppose that was bound to happen; especially as isolationism becomes more and more attractive.
@ Where would you get your oil and your cheap clothes and electronics then?
5 років тому+1
@@JoshSweetvale Also everything else, while cheaper to import, can be natively made if necessary. It'll hit the economy, but we would be just fine, ultimately.
@@drrisen-9442 We already had a democratic vote, which is more than you can say for the Labour party having whipped its MPs to vote for the confirmatory vote. Fortunately, 27 of them saw sense and a further 40 plus would not vote for a public vote given a free vote.
Frankly I could do without the circus freak theatrics of the Commons. That he even has to raise his voice at all is quite frankly a disgrace when you compare it to other Parliaments around the World, especially Europe.
@@SaturnusDK Are you sure about that? I mean, a German politician gave a speech against article 13 and the room had to be called to order repeatedly over other politicians trying to shut her up.
@@SaturnusDK If they could at least stay quiet when someone else is speaking, that's gonna help Bercow's vocal cord by a lot and probably cut down on time spent not doing anything. Once they've reached the point where they function as calm adults, we can start fully appreciating Bercow's collection of ties
Wouldn't be better to vote on these questions *before* Article 50 was invoked? That way negotiation between UK and EU would have clear goal to achieve. Or Article 50 haven't had been invoked at all if MPs wouldn't get to agreement.
The issue was that the EU refused to do any negotiation until the UK invoked article 50 because it would favor the UK. Likewise May didn't want to invoke article 50 before negotiations because it would put her at at a disadvantage, but she couldn't just do nothing so she determined some specific goals with parliament before invoking article 50. Most of the goals were met with the EU, the only issue was the Irish backstop. The EU refused to agree to any deal that allows the UK to unilaterally pull out of the Irish Backstop, which doesn't really make sense because it's the UKs sovereignty. The UK is not going to agree to any deal where they lose sovereignty over their territories. To be honest, this entire situation was pretty much orchestrated by the EU. They refused negotiations before article 50, and they refused to allow the UK full rights of sovereignty over their territories.
Well, the trouble with northern Ireland is that it's on the physical island of Ireland. There are four main options: A hard Irish-Irish border, a soft Irish-Irish border, a hard Irish-British border, or the UK remaining within the customs/whatever other unions may come about within the EU. What is a hard Irish-Irish border? It would be a situation as it was during The Troubles. Border controls and armed guards at the checkpoints. While I cannot tell what the Irish would do in such a case, I did mention the troubles for a reason: It was agreed then that there shall be no border on the island of Ireland. I have not heard anyone speak out in favour of dividing Ireland once more. A hard Irish-British border would mean that the whole of Ireland would stay untouched by the UK, but between the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland there would be border checkpoints. This the UK rejects because it would mean a border in one's own sovereign territory. The soft Irish-Irish border would essentially be that fhe checks for goods flowing through the border would be done in such a way that it'd not be noticeable for a normal person. How exactly that works would have to be sorted out seperatly. For people there likely would be a hard Irish-British border in this case, similar to what one might observe when taking a flight to Stansted today. The last option is out of the question for the UK because it'd mean having less sovereignity than it does right now. Once more: The issue is that the UK owns not all of Ireland or none of it, but only part of it. While not a problem by itself, the fact that there are agreements in which it is promised to not enforce the border make it impossible for the UK to not have a line going somewhere through its own territory, something it rejects completely.
@@klobiforpresident2254 Or just keep the border 'open'. The UK and Irish governments have stated that there will be no border checks in the event of a hard brexit.
@@taoliu3949 Yes, but in that case there must be border checks between Ireland and Great Britain - something the UK also does not want and considered unacceptable in its negotiations.
I don't know. Personally I think I'll be holding out for a situation like shown on 'The Purge' but considering how fed up most people are with Brexit 'Night of the Living Dead' could be more apropriate.
@@lordrevan9663 Except that being the special gem of a leader he is... he personally wants brexit. He just wants his job more. He's trying to be as uninvolved in the whole thing as possible until he can swoop in and "save the day"
@@SaturnusDK But thats pointless. Because whichever option they choose doesn't have a majority. Just like May's deal. So we're back to square one. If MP's had even the slightest amount of education or training then they might have done something along the lines of the 'single transferrable vote' method to make sure theres a majority for SOMETHING. But nah. That would require basic maths and high school level 'modern studies'
@@Kevin-cm5kc If you had bothered to pay attention the single transferable vote and several other voting methods was discussed but ultimately the system chosen by the Speaker was the one that had the most support (or the least opposition at least).
It's time 1. Threasa May goes now! Step aside and call an election. If Parliment cannot pick any option let the people decide. 2. If they ever run a referendum again they should bring in a new law saying you must vote in a referendum or your fined. That way there will be no arguments of "If's", or "Could Be" arguments. 3. Most importantly, during the referendum voters said, "they voted because even though they had not voted for years because the referendum gave them the chance to be heard " or another view was "to give the government a good kicking" etc. Threasa May May and the government argue that the high turnout shows "What the people want". But Threasa May, The Government, MPs or Labour have not spoken of matching the disenfranchised voters with a Proportional Representation where each vote counts V First Past the Post system. The each vote counts got the highest turn out for years, the disenfranchise said too often in the referendum " we'er not being listened too". Yet this has been brushed under the carpet for more of the same Party Politics that favours the First Past The Post electric system. Shameful to democracy, to the people and Parliment. So make making it illegal not to vote in a referendum and give the people the power to decide. JOB Done as they say!
They don't want the EU gravy train to end. Look at how many of them end up with nice, cosy, jobs there, with cars and pensions and nothing too demanding. Self serving rather than serving the electorate.
This vote should have been done a year and a half ago, instead of the conservative repeatedly saying we don't want to show our hand so we can't discuss in public
The problem is that for a lot of them backside > party > people. It also doesn't help when individual MPs find that what their particular constituents voted for is at odds with what they think is best for the country. (And, as the referendum wasn't binding, the latter takes precedence, but if they want to get back in at the next election...).
I think they could. If there was proper deal brexit. On without the European department of Justice and Northern Ireland strangleholds. Which is not on the table. There is a bad deal and a no deal. And it's clear they don't want either. I think they should be given option A and option B and pick. Or a general election.
@@MBKill3rCat I just said that we replace parliament with Bercow clones, not that they all remain speaker! Either way, the speaker can vote to break ties, and the case of zero votes for both ayes and nos would be a tie, so Bercow clones can safely vote in either case.
This wasn't a vote. It was to indicate if there was a potential was forward that a majority would vote for. Even if one had been an aye, it wouldn't have done anything binding.
The only option you can't take off the table is No Deal Brexit because it is the table. So if every option is taken off the table you're left with the table.
No, the only option left after all things have been taken off is "no brexit" remember, the referendum which is not binding makes it so that it is the very last level of paper aviable, being no deal brexit. But it is by far the worse solution and sadly is the only one which isn't breaking any dealbreakers. Really, the only real solution is admitting that may used the referendum to get in office and stop the madness before everyone expect May pays for it.
mansuy adrien revoking article 50 has been taken off the table so no “no Brexit” isn’t the table. No deal can only be stopped by revoking and so no deal continues to be the default, it’s just a question of running down the clock.
NPC#00035246638/Triggered.Shaking d No reason to take that insulting tone. Mansuy is less likely to be convinced of the merits of your factually correct argument if you mix it with attacks on his character.
How on earth are we not leaving the EU at 11pm tomorrow, that was the date and time set in article 50, and the EU said there would only be an extention if a deal was agreed by the British parliament, which has not happened, so what changed? I must have missed that slight of hand.
I wouldn't say that this rules out "No Deal" as that is still the default option if they keep denying everything. Time will run out eventually and if there's no agreement by then, No Deal it is.
I heard it said that Theresa May stating that she would resign if her bad deal (treaty) went through is like the Turkey telling the butcher that he will be allowed to be slaughtered if he can resign on Boxing day.
The whole purpose of T(reason) May becoming PM was to ensure that our BREXIT was put into the hands of a remainer and well practised LIAR so that the whole process of leaving could be sabotaged. One day I am sure it will come to light the "House Of Cards" backroom shenanigans that were employed to thwart the will of the people.-
Dude, I know it must exhausting to constantly make these videos, but we super appreciate them! They're so clear and easy to follow, but they still don't shy away from details. You're doing a great job!
So you're sarcastically admitting that being in the EU gives you less power over the laws of your country ? you're admitting that EU's parliament takes significant decisions for the UK instead of UK's parliament ? but you're sarcastically admitting you prefer that ? Do you understand the gravity of this ? Look, it's not a question of ideology, conservatism or liberalism, it's a question of democracy : You might think the EU's parliament is better at making decisions than your parliament, but there are a few absolutely undeniable facts : The EU's commisson is not elected, nor selected with care, it's a bunch of very rich and powerful people you've never heard of that get put in place through a straight up dumb system that makes any vote from citizens useless. A banker, or even a tax fraudster could be making decisions for your country tomorrow through EU's commission, and you wouldn't even know it. You think claiming a tax fraudster could be making decisions for you country is crazy ? The reality is even more frightening. *In 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker, former banker (those people that every intellectual from every political sides agree to say are the most powerful and detrimental people to society), and prime minister of Luxembourg, one of the most notorious fiscal paradise in the world, was chosen (chosen by a few dozen of people that citizens don't know at all) to become NOT JUST A MEMBER, but the fucking president of European's commission, basically the most powerful organisation in Europe.* You think there might have been good reasons for him being chosen ? You're just gonna assume he has a tiny bit more decency that those fucks at UK's parliament ? But no, he comes in very obviously drunk at many of the commission meetings, he has no authority, people talk over him all the time, but he's still here 5 years after, in 2019. Why the fuck is he here and why should he take decisions for the UK ? That's the question. All your thoughts about UK's parliament being bad, conservatism being bad, generous opening towards other european countries being good(which sounds really good, that's what I absolutely want too), all of that doesn't justify this drunk banker being basically the president of Europe. It's very easy to argue that the european commission decides most of UK's politics, and he's the president of it. By "most of UK's politics", I mean most of the important decisions, the main trajectory of the country you know, that means the big economical orientations, but not all of these little social laws here and there, like blood donors being financially rewarded, or ramps being installed in strategic places for disabled people. But I firmly believe that the main course of any european country, except maybe Germany because they're so powerful, is decided mostly by european's commission That's why it's a big deal. I also almost can tell for a fact that you didn't watch more than two videos, if any, of the european commission before, but you just assumed they were better than UK's parliament for no reason. Maybe you think they have to be better because it's a bigger oranisation ? Because Europe sounds like a positive thing ? It makes you think about positive opening to other countries and cultures ? You like the concept maybe ? Or the colours of the flag ? Well, the concept may sound good, I'm all for being open to other countries, but the reality is that a drunk banker is the president of Europe, and there's nothing you can do about it. I have to add, just to really make my point crystal clear, because with some of the most fervent anti-brexit it's really hard to discuss this subject without them assuming things about you and your ideas : *NO,* I'm not against immigration, I'm not against being open to other countries, and I'm straight up telling you, I consider myself clearly left-wing, I've always had a very selfless, anti-individualist and empathetic approach to most problems, but despite brexit being associated to the right, and all these terrible ideas of selfishness, pragmatism and conservatism, I feel it's the right decision and will benefit the left aswell. Because it has nothing to do with the left or the right, it's just about democracy. And you see, you may not like these cunts at UK's parliament, and you may also think that UK's citizens are not very good at voting. But at least you vote god dammit. Don't you see how big of a deal it is ? You'll never vote for Europe's president. And the thing is : even if you think UK's citizens are bad at voting, at least there's a margin of progression, and with time they might elect better persons. But with Europe, there's no progression possible, no voluntary progression at least. Unless these very rich and powerful people we don't know decide to stop electing drunk bankers, it's gonna keep sucking, and if they suddenly decide to elect great people, it will be pure luck. We're completely relying on luck right now. And I want you to please tell me honestly, and actually write it in the comments : Do you sincerely believe there's a good chance it gets better ? And if yes, why ? Just why ? Me for example, I'm not particularily pessimistic, but I can't think of a good reason why it would get better, or even why it would get worse : I just know it's terrible since a long time, and that I don't have the power to change any of it, and it's enough for me to think it's a bad system. *Whether the EU gets better or worse, you have no power over it, the people who elected a drunk banker last time will elect the next commission's president with the same amount of consideration for your opinion as last time, which is none. They can chose any corporate lobbyist, or any tax fraudster they want, and you can't do anything.*
@@namnam2701 1. Thats how it works. Living in a country for example reduces your democratic power over the rules of your city, why would you draw the line on nation states and not on cities/districts/streets/houses/families? 2. The european commision is appointed by elected official (and If you don't like the way the EU works as an institution, stay in it and change it. 3. Please stop assuming my answers to your questions, you were wrong on most of them
Some of the "right honorable colleagues" need to be tossed out of the chamber if they can't keep their gobs snapped when someone else has the floor. Get 'em, Mister Speaker.
Great video. Immensely better than all the other reporting I’ve seen. The other reporting simply said all the motions failed, and then communicated implicitly or explicitly what a disaster that was and how damming it was. Seems it was to be expected, and other outlets have misunderstood the process and jumped to conclusions. Thanks for the edification.
"Anything and everything done by those in positions of authority simply proves how little they can be trusted with unsupervised/ unaccountable authority." Just copy/ paste and you won't be too far off...
Just get out without a DEAL...then come back and negotiate if you think you need the EU otherwise live your life/move on ffs it's been almost 3 years...
Racecarlock no, these dimwits are by dragging it out. You should’ve just left and let eu mop up the tears. The European Union is trying to make an example out of you by cutting your balls off and your politicians are gladly standing there with their pants around their ankles. The EU is doomed to fail, the only people happy about it is the old Soviet states (can’t blame them), and spoiled hipsters with about as much political knowledge as a pumpkin. It’s either going to fracture by “developed” countries populations forcing their politicians to leave, or by a slow dragged out dictatorship that will result in revolt.
It's perhaps important to note the Labour option got 237 votes on the first time of asking, or just 5 votes shy of what Mays deal got on the second time of asking, so even though the Government will try to spin it as their option is now the favourite, it really isn't.
All of this is just distracting from the fact that Article 50 has been triggered, the EU willingness to extend is over and this should mean an automatic no deal Brexit.
Good Friday Agreement states that a hard boarder has to be prevented. WTO states that a member has to offer the same terms to all other members. An open boarder with ROI would mean open boarders for all. EU regulations state that there has to be a boarder between EU members and third countries. The only way to avoid these complications is a deal.
@@karstenfritsche820 Except that there's not really any way for the WTO or EU to enforce their rules because ultimately it is up to the UK and Ireland to put up border checks. WTO will only start an inquiry if someone makes a complaint, and the most they could do is to suspend or kick out the offending party. Same goes for the EU except they'd only have jurisdiction over Ireland.
@@taoliu3949 Kicking a member out of WTO is a way to deal with non-compliance to the rules. It's not the question if someone would complain. The question is who and how many. The EU already said they will erect a border between the isle of Ireland and mainland EU, if ROI trades with "third party" UK without customs checks. So ROI would be de facto outside of the customs union and single market. ROI can't afford that to happen for a longer period of time. The possibility of new IRA attacks (maybe just because of the thread of a hard border) is a consequence I don't even want to think about. The only way to avoid this mess is a deal.
It makes it very clear why the first referendum failed. 400 votes against "no Deal" So if MPs want another peoples vote. It means that leaving without a deal will not be on the ballot. So round in circles we go again. All politcians who said they would support the referendum reuslt, never had any intention of doing so. There is your problem. MPs
If the UK does not agree at latest tomorrow to the withdrawal agreement, they are automatically out on April 12th. What was this circus for? There were even options on the future relationship on the table, what does this have to do with the divorce contract?
DIVISION! Clear the entire parliament and replace them with competent adults!
I'll not hold my breath for that ever happening.
Lol
Keep Bercow in there though
I think it wouldn't matter, it's probably the chamber draining intelligence.
The problem is they are all completely competent, but they are all only interested in their own agenda.
My MP voted against everything. She voted against no-deal as well as all of the resolutions. Like, WTF do you want Jo?
Madame Corgi email her and tell her you’re disappointed!
@@elon6131 That motion was also put forward (Motion L, "Revoke Artikle 50"). If she voted against everything, then she also voted against not doing brexit.
Christ this stupidity is spreading still.
Some people just want to see the world burn.
@@gavinoaw oh, correct.
I think you will get to 1 million subscribers before the eventual Brexit.
If they ever leave
I was about to write the same thing. By now I doubt the UK will ever leave. I have no horse in this race as I am German but I get the strong feeling like the UK's parliament behaves like children at this point. They remind me a lot of my two year old son. Most of the time he has not the slightest clue what he wants but he always knows exactly what he does not want. And this kinda gets ridiculous. It is like your girlfriend dumps you for no apparent reason but then refuses to move out of your appartment. In my opinion it is time for the british people to vote again. Not as a second referendum because they voted leave and this ought to be respected. But they should vote on the terms. The government pretty obviously is unable to do so. And no offense but I also think that the citizens of the EU should vote as well on how long this ridiculousness is allowed to continue.
@@Borengar629 Is your two year old son that badly behaved. I swear that if the British Parlament had to vote on what to have for dinner they would all starve, and the food would rot!
😂
Hahahaha
What do you wanna eat?
MPs: Dunno.. up to you
How about Pork?
MPs: Nope
Chicken?
MPs: No
Beef?
MPs: No
Seafood?
MPs: No
So then what do you wanna eat?
MPs: Dunno
just like children
If mps were your girlfriend. Except she would say she definitely wants to eat
* MPs "let's vote on a vegetarian option"
* Vote doesn't receive a majority
MPs proceed to vote on a vegan option and vote on whether they should eat at all...both votes received a catastrophic minority
Money
This is closer to everyone having to order exactly the same dish from a place that most of them didn't want to go.
Jessica Elgot summed it up best with this gem:
“It was nice to hear about a whole range of alternative Brexit options that MPs don’t want.”
Still 5 were more than May's deal, so there are 5 options MPs would rather have then May's deal
Do you still want to leave the EU?
Yes
Okay, how do we move forward then?
No.
You have to make a decision.
Yes.
So make one.
No.
Mps should do a “survival” vote where they start voting for all the options they don’t want so they can eliminate them, until they’re left with a compromise that leaves everyone upset. Hooray!
should have a survival vote like they did in hunger games. The last politician alive gets to be the one to choose !
That compromise is to stay in the single market but leave the EU. Its the only option that's ever been viable other than staying in the EU because we would be idiots to leave the biggest single market in the world, the problem being that the ERG think we can somehow have our cake and eat it because we are the 5th largest Economy in the world, a fact that is only true because we entered the single market, we would have been made irrelevant on the world stage 30 years ago otherwise.
There is no solution that will satisfy Brexiters because the sensible ones want to "take back control" but they also want to keep access to the single market, which is quite literally a contradiction in terms as we would leave the EU but still be following their rules, without a say in making said rules.
This kind of indicative voting should have been done 2 years ago, before triggering article 50. After the referendum the Leave campaign basically acted like the other 48% of Britain didn't exist and that our views didn't matter any more. Instead of finding a compromise that would be passable for Remainers and Leavers they went and negotiated a deal that only what I will call "reasonable" Leavers could vote for, one that wasn't hard enough for the ERG or soft enough for Remainers to support.
Vote in terms of priorities, then pick the first two and then hold a vote between these 2.
Kai Green and to think this all started because some people wanted to kick the brown ugly people off the island, who knew it was much more difficult than reality tv made it look :(
@@kaigreen5641 - The 52% who voted leave aren't treated much better, nobody has bothered to ask why they wanted to leave in the first place. All the politicians just claim that everyone obviously wanted their particular pet brexit and the other MPs can agree or we all suffer no deal at all, but that this is unacceptable to almost everyone.
I find myself in agreement with Lord Armstrong; if there are no acceptable options for leaving the EU, surely the time has come to ascertain what caused 17.4 million people to vote leave and attempt to find some arrangement under which it would be acceptable to the majority for us to stay.
Everyone: So what are we looking to do here? You know, about Brexit?
Parliament: No.
So: No deal for the win is how this will turn out. With a slight chance of "2nd ref" and the travesty of supposed "democracy.
Wellington parliament: but also, NOT doing anything is not an option either!
Yes it is an option. There is nothing that "needs" to be done. There are some desires for potentially more profitable outcomes, but NEED? No. @@javierhernandez1555
7:35 That's the smiliest "ordeeeer" I've ever seen from bercow. He finds the noes hilarious as well.
"Hors d'oeuvres! Hors d'oeuvres...!"
He’s directly asking for memes and youtube remixes.
even Bercow couldn't hold his laugh at this circus
@Julia Mimi That tie is rad
@Julia Mimi Dafuq do you have against his ties?
This is so British. You have 2 years to work on it. But only start doing the work a day before the deadline.
Very human.
Can you imagine what it will be like the day Spain decides to leave the EU?
If it wasn't for the last minute, nothing would get done......the procrastinators mantra.
@@chesshooligan1282 DON'T YOU PUT THAT CURSE ON ME RICKY BOBBY!!
They aren't procrastinating. The only deal they could possibly iron out won't be to their liking.
It's impossible for the UK Parliament to execute Brexit because it's a terrible idea to begin with.
They do NOT want Brexit with the Deal
They do NOT want the No deal
They do NOT want 2nd Referendum
They do NOT want EU
They do NOT want to be a way from EU
They do NOT want to revoke Article 50
What exactly do they want?
It"s like a bratty kid who is going out of his way to be annoying - it is tiring to watch them keep saying "No, No, No, No for everything, and still wanting everything ... even Jon Bercow seems to be tired of saying "Noes have it" enthusiastically.
I do not want green eggs and ham I do not want them Sam I am
@An Englishman that was actually the first one in the list - just worded a bit differently.
British Government: forwards 2 choices n loses both
British parliament: forwards 8 choices... n loses all
British public: I think Guy Fawkes has the right idea
Damn
Is that because the British public only forwarded 1 choice that it's losing?
Want to stay in the EU? No
Want to get out of the EU? No
What do you want?
nO!
This, exactly this, it's like talking to an hysterical toddler that doesn't know why their crying, everything you suggests just gets a 'no'.
@An Englishman ?
This made my day.
Clearly this should never have happened. No one knows what to do, know one wants to cooperate and apart from that the whole country is divided about this issue. You don't put an extremely complex political decision up for vote to an angry, overly emotional mob. That's not good politics. But that's exactly what happened. And now they have to clean up the mess they've made.
@@preciousinfinity Or a cat.
MPs: **vote against all Brexit options**
MPs: **vote not to revoke article 50**
UK: **Brexits with or without a deal anyway**
MPs: **surprised face**
We can only hope that happens now
I don't even care about Brexit, I'm just here for John Bercow.
ORRRDAAAAAAAA! orrrDAAAA!
Betty Boothroyd commanded the same control of parliament. he replaced her exceptionally well :) shame he doesn't dress as fabulous as she did haha
TheLongDark Same
DIVISION!
8:53 the guy sitting next to Letwin is so rude.
Even if you don't agree with him let him speak before you shout objections.
Being fair the Speaker does tell them off for doing so
Yeah, and then 'e does the _exact same thing again._
What an arse,
@@EggBastion I wonder what constituency he's representing and whether his voters see him
@@Ptaku93 what's his name?
First off wow a fellow vangauard fan nice profile pic
Secondly agreed they should know by 2019 the speaker will allow anyone to speak with the required respect and curtesy.
Parliament is too greedy, it wants all the benefits of being in the EU without actually being in the EU, If the EU said parliament can have whatever deal it wants without any obstructions, they still wouldn't agree.
I think they just want things to be exactly as it is now, but no longer have elections for MEPs in the UK. Instead maybe have the the PM appoint an ambassador to the EU so im symbolically the UK would be equals to the EU and not a member.
Of course that would mean replacing elected MEPs with unelected officials, but if it felt like the UK was the equal of the EU, many brexit supporters would be happy.
The only issue with May's deal is the backstop. The EU refuses to allow the UK to unilaterally pull out of the backstop. Basically the EU is asking the UK to give up full sovereignty over Northern Ireland, no nation is going to do that.
@@taoliu3949 Nobody wants a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This will cause violence. It was the UK that made promises about there not being a border there and if there was one, the UK would be seen as breaking it's word.
Certainly the EU doesn't want violence in Northern Ireland even if it's not longer a part of the EU, but the UK especially doesn't want that.
Brexiteers seem to want to "take control of their borders" but don't want to deal with the repercussions of creating a border in Ireland. But if you take control of your borders, that necessitates creating a border somewhere. So there's either going to be a border between NI and Ireland, which causes violence, or border between NI and the rest of the UK which results in NI bring required to follow EU law.
Oh and by the way, as soon as violence starts happening in NI, more people will support rejoining the EU and demand a new referendum to do so. This whole brexit thing will have all been for nothing.
Do given all this, where do you think the border should be?
@@tosh40638 I didn't say anything about where I think the border is going to be. The only thing I said was that the EU had pretty much been pushing May around these past three years over negotiations.
As to preventing a hard border on Ireland, that's why the idea of a backstop was created. It basically says that the UK/NI (depending on version of May's deal) will stay aligned with the EU Customs temporarily before a more permanent solution is found. There are some support for such an idea, the issue is that the EU refuses to allow the UK to unilaterally pull out of the backstop. That's like signing a lease without provisions to break the lease, only that the lease is perpetual. Who the hell wants to do that?
That said, a hard brexit would not necessarily mean customs checks would be thrown up overnight. The UK and Irish governments has already stated that they will not throw up border checks in the event of a hard brexit. Could it be a violation of WTO and EU agreements? Sure, but what are they gonna do about it? The only thing the EU can do is suspend/kick out Ireland, which would look really bad on them. The WTO has also stated that they don't do inquiries unless there's a complaint. In other words, the UK and Ireland can keep their borders open as long as nobody complains about it, which someone probably will eventually, but that's probably going to be years down the line and another discussion in of itself.
7:29 When you find out that you failed every exam you've taken
🤣🤣🤣
😂😂😂
More like 8:49
Who wants to be part of a UA-cam groupchat that discusses brexit I need 2 more pro-eu people and 3 brexit supporters? If interested comment
@@stackzbeats9344 Yeah sure would be fun
Meanwhile at a Brexit march in London:
What do we want? We dont know!
When do we want it? Now!
Come on, I get the joke but let's not act as if it was just the pro brexit that didn't know what they wanted. Obviously they have their faults, but it's mostly the anti-brexits that slow the process. You have to keep in mind that it's not members of the parliament, but english citizens that have voted for brexit. And thing is pro-brexits are a minority in parliament, so it only makes sense that it's hard for them to get what they want. If it was the parliament that had voted in favour of brexit, this shitshow would be (probably) over right now. But citizens have voted for something the majority of parliament didn't want. And you know we can debate about ideas all day long, but if we first look at the facts, there's one thing we shouldn't forget : pro-brexit have won the referendum, you can argue all you want about how unfair it was, but there was media manipulation for both sides, and in the end you can't fucking act surprised when they say they don't want to make a second referendum, or revoking article 50 which is the condition for them applying the brexit they just won in this referendum. It only makes sense.
The obvious truth is that both sides are to blame.
I thought it was pretty clear. What they want is in the title
NamNam yeah I don’t think anyone can claim the high ground at the moment 😂
I swear, this channel is amazing for keeping up to date with the nonsense of Brexit. Defintely subbing
Always watching but not subbing because I despise the grovelling for subscriptions.
daszieher which literally every channel does because of UA-cam’s algorithm that incentivises subscription numbers and therefore gives this channel more reason to make videos? Pretty stupid reason.
@@je6874 your reason is stupid?
@@daszieher it seems like a very minimal request, given the incredibly high quality pf the channel. It has to do with getting them some money.
@@daszieher Shame, shame, shame.
Look at them laughing at their ineptitude like a bunch a buffoons.
In the end the EU will get fed up and just kick the UK out.
Let's hope so
Sadly not possible, not under the current EU rules. It would need a lot stricter ground rules, EU Constitution if you may, to have an expulsion rule. While UK is still in EU; I doubt they can get the full support of all nations to actually pass such rule.
@@Mandemon1990 EU doesn't have to do a thing at this point, they know that UK is too arrogant and their hubris too great to revoke Article 50 or delay it to the point of being compelled to participate in the EU elections. All they have to do is deny any further extension, not that UK will ask for said extension anyway because even they aren't dumb enough to think they can get an extension past the EU elections without being made to participate in them. Then again UK intelligence hasn't been particularly shining recently...
@@Mandemon1990 I know its possible because politics but seriously all this faffing around is annoying. Its alike an annoying guest that keeps threatening to leave. If they want to leave, open the door then let them leave. Don't let them ask if they can take your TV too.
Referendum in the EU to kick the UK out. I'd vote YES
I’d rather see a “referendum of no confidence” on the UK government.
In conclusion the only acceptable outcome for the UK would be to have all the benefits of a memberstate of the EU but without any of the obligations. That seems reasonable... not.
It's almost what we have now though lol
Free movement of people, the right to vote in european elections and recourse to the european courts are three of the *benefits* but they don't want any of those either.
Pretty much, they already had favorable treatment compared to other EU countries but it wasn't enough for them.
@@jcxz983 They only want the economic benefits. They don't want freedom of movement because a lot of them are xenophobic and hate immigrants and they could care less about the elections if they are out of the EU. They will learn the hard way that they can't pick and chose. You either offer something in return to get the benefits or you don't get the benefits at all.
Thiago Mestres you don't need to hate anybody to oppose uncontrolled immigration.
"The UK is in a crisis" and they still play party politics.....
In the UK, we go by the least unpopular motion
That's how America apparently voted in 2016, however they voted the wrong dumbass into office.
well that is the path to least suffering and compromising is importante in a society. if you can secure a best option tehn go for it but other wise compromise is the only way forward.
Soubry tried that, nope.
@@Morphior well, the people technically elected for Hillary, but the electoral college elected trump.
MathisRH he's doing better then the previous president so I'd say they got the better end of the deal
As an american I enjoy watching the house of commons. So lively. Granted the U.S. is catching up with the portrait of Ronald Reagan on a raptor with a machine gun lmao
I died of laughter when I saw that
Taun Taun....😁
@Julia Mimi I fail to see why we should care what the rest of the world thinks. The "rest of the world" can collapse tomorrow, and my give-a-shit-meter wouldn't really tick by this point. The world expects so much of my country, so I suppose that was bound to happen; especially as isolationism becomes more and more attractive.
@ Where would you get your oil and your cheap clothes and electronics then?
@@JoshSweetvale Also everything else, while cheaper to import, can be natively made if necessary. It'll hit the economy, but we would be just fine, ultimately.
The Ayes were 268. YES!
The Noes were 295. Aaaarrrggg.
Dame Margeret Beckett: Shit!
Lady on the left of DMB: Gasp!
I quite like Margaret Beckett, good for her for trying
Just for that, i think they should make DMB leader of Labour
Lachy T Betraying the nation by letting the nation decide in a democratic vote? Hahahahahaha, that’s rich.
Cause she knows she was caught on her phone.
@@drrisen-9442 We already had a democratic vote, which is more than you can say for the Labour party having whipped its MPs to vote for the confirmatory vote. Fortunately, 27 of them saw sense and a further 40 plus would not vote for a public vote given a free vote.
Brexit is like having small repairs to do around the house but deciding to set all of it on fire instead
It's not a Bercow clip without starting with him shouting "order"
OOOOOOODAAH
Frankly I could do without the circus freak theatrics of the Commons. That he even has to raise his voice at all is quite frankly a disgrace when you compare it to other Parliaments around the World, especially Europe.
@@SaturnusDK Are you sure about that? I mean, a German politician gave a speech against article 13 and the room had to be called to order repeatedly over other politicians trying to shut her up.
@@SaturnusDK If they could at least stay quiet when someone else is speaking, that's gonna help Bercow's vocal cord by a lot and probably cut down on time spent not doing anything. Once they've reached the point where they function as calm adults, we can start fully appreciating Bercow's collection of ties
DIVISION! CLEAR THE THREAD!
Wouldn't be better to vote on these questions *before* Article 50 was invoked? That way negotiation between UK and EU would have clear goal to achieve. Or Article 50 haven't had been invoked at all if MPs wouldn't get to agreement.
That makes far too much sense to ever be considered by these loonies.
The issue was that the EU refused to do any negotiation until the UK invoked article 50 because it would favor the UK. Likewise May didn't want to invoke article 50 before negotiations because it would put her at at a disadvantage, but she couldn't just do nothing so she determined some specific goals with parliament before invoking article 50. Most of the goals were met with the EU, the only issue was the Irish backstop. The EU refused to agree to any deal that allows the UK to unilaterally pull out of the Irish Backstop, which doesn't really make sense because it's the UKs sovereignty. The UK is not going to agree to any deal where they lose sovereignty over their territories. To be honest, this entire situation was pretty much orchestrated by the EU. They refused negotiations before article 50, and they refused to allow the UK full rights of sovereignty over their territories.
Well, the trouble with northern Ireland is that it's on the physical island of Ireland.
There are four main options: A hard Irish-Irish border, a soft Irish-Irish border, a hard Irish-British border, or the UK remaining within the customs/whatever other unions may come about within the EU.
What is a hard Irish-Irish border? It would be a situation as it was during The Troubles. Border controls and armed guards at the checkpoints. While I cannot tell what the Irish would do in such a case, I did mention the troubles for a reason: It was agreed then that there shall be no border on the island of Ireland. I have not heard anyone speak out in favour of dividing Ireland once more.
A hard Irish-British border would mean that the whole of Ireland would stay untouched by the UK, but between the island of Great Britain and the island of Ireland there would be border checkpoints. This the UK rejects because it would mean a border in one's own sovereign territory.
The soft Irish-Irish border would essentially be that fhe checks for goods flowing through the border would be done in such a way that it'd not be noticeable for a normal person. How exactly that works would have to be sorted out seperatly. For people there likely would be a hard Irish-British border in this case, similar to what one might observe when taking a flight to Stansted today.
The last option is out of the question for the UK because it'd mean having less sovereignity than it does right now.
Once more: The issue is that the UK owns not all of Ireland or none of it, but only part of it. While not a problem by itself, the fact that there are agreements in which it is promised to not enforce the border make it impossible for the UK to not have a line going somewhere through its own territory, something it rejects completely.
@@klobiforpresident2254 Or just keep the border 'open'. The UK and Irish governments have stated that there will be no border checks in the event of a hard brexit.
@@taoliu3949
Yes, but in that case there must be border checks between Ireland and Great Britain - something the UK also does not want and considered unacceptable in its negotiations.
Considering that it seems likely that the heat-death of the universe happens before brexit I'd say you're probably getting those subs in time.
Who wants to be part of a UA-cam groupchat that discusses brexit I need 2 more pro-eu people and 3 brexit supporters? If interested comment
DATING HARLEY QUINN Do you wanna join? 😂
Not just bantering, but you are really the best visual and audio explanations of the debacle process on the internet
Ok... Motion X for a Hunger Games style dystopia it is then.
I don't know. Personally I think I'll be holding out for a situation like shown on 'The Purge' but considering how fed up most people are with Brexit 'Night of the Living Dead' could be more apropriate.
Bercow takes a vacation and they have to fight over a cornucopia of bills to choose which ones they talk about. 😂
@Dr Downtime yep, last MP standing gets to dictate Brexit terms. Nobody's going to mess with that BMF.
How is Labour's deal any different from being in the EU? It feels like a deal to stay in the EU but to tell people we left the EU. lol.
It is, labour don't want to leave, that's why Corbyn is doing nothing but power plays to try and get elected and retract the vote to leave
There is a difference- the UK would lose its vote in the EU.
@@lordrevan9663 Except that being the special gem of a leader he is... he personally wants brexit. He just wants his job more. He's trying to be as uninvolved in the whole thing as possible until he can swoop in and "save the day"
I couldnt stop laughing when the noes won for all 8 😂
Everyone expected that all of them would be voted down. That wasn't really the issue. The objective was to see which options had the most support.
@@SaturnusDK But thats pointless. Because whichever option they choose doesn't have a majority. Just like May's deal. So we're back to square one.
If MP's had even the slightest amount of education or training then they might have done something along the lines of the 'single transferrable vote' method to make sure theres a majority for SOMETHING. But nah. That would require basic maths and high school level 'modern studies'
@@Kevin-cm5kc If you had bothered to pay attention the single transferable vote and several other voting methods was discussed but ultimately the system chosen by the Speaker was the one that had the most support (or the least opposition at least).
It's time 1. Threasa May goes now! Step aside and call an election. If Parliment cannot pick any option let the people decide. 2. If they ever run a referendum again they should bring in a new law saying you must vote in a referendum or your fined. That way there will be no arguments of "If's", or "Could Be" arguments. 3. Most importantly, during the referendum voters said, "they voted because even though they had not voted for years because the referendum gave them the chance to be heard " or another view was "to give the government a good kicking" etc. Threasa May May and the government argue that the high turnout shows "What the people want". But Threasa May, The Government, MPs or Labour have not spoken of matching the disenfranchised voters with a Proportional Representation where each vote counts V First Past the Post system. The each vote counts got the highest turn out for years, the disenfranchise said too often in the referendum " we'er not being listened too". Yet this has been brushed under the carpet for more of the same Party Politics that favours the First Past The Post electric system. Shameful to democracy, to the people and Parliment. So make making it illegal not to vote in a referendum and give the people the power to decide. JOB Done as they say!
Well they were all laughing themselves.. as if its a game...and getting paid for it on our money.
It's like asking football fans from different parts of country to decide which is the best team ever. They are never gonna reach an agreement 🤣🤣🤣
You guys had the perfect guy for the job and didn't vote for him. Poor Lord Buckethead. Another year without conquering Earth thanks to the mps.
- What do you want?
- No.
They will go through 50 shades of the Brexit before they see what would be acceptable...
To them not the people they're supposed to be representing.
They get jobs in the EU after they're voted out as MPs, why would they leave
Just to get deported 3 month later, yep.
If that book series is anything to go by, presumably that means continuing to be bound to the EU and learning to like it:
The House of Commons look pretty relaxed if you ask me. It even looks like they are having fun
Guess they are all hardcore Monty Python fans?
They don't want the EU gravy train to end. Look at how many of them end up with nice, cosy, jobs there, with cars and pensions and nothing too demanding. Self serving rather than serving the electorate.
This vote should have been done a year and a half ago, instead of the conservative repeatedly saying we don't want to show our hand so we can't discuss in public
The British Parliamentarians are the greatest procrastinators in the world.
You have an eternity to reach 200K if your deadline is Britain leaving the EU...
May: Parliament knows what it does not want but couldn't tell what it wants to approve.
*Sounds about right*
I have never seen a government this indecisive.
The problem is that for a lot of them backside > party > people. It also doesn't help when individual MPs find that what their particular constituents voted for is at odds with what they think is best for the country. (And, as the referendum wasn't binding, the latter takes precedence, but if they want to get back in at the next election...).
Everyone: when debating, everyone must be quiet and listen to the individual speaking
UK: 'NOOOO NOOO NOOOOO NOOOOOOOO'
OMG WTF DO THEY WANT. This is what would happen if 600 children voted for how to rule the world. Can they agree on anything
I think they could.
If there was proper deal brexit.
On without the European department of Justice and Northern Ireland strangleholds.
Which is not on the table. There is a bad deal and a no deal. And it's clear they don't want either.
I think they should be given option A and option B and pick. Or a general election.
"WHAT DO WE WANT ?"
"Brexit and No-Brexit"
"WHEN DO WE WANT IT ?"
"Now and never"
Just let them vote on the 8 remaining proposals! It wouldn't further the decision but it would be epic if they vote down all 16 proposals
DIVISION! Replace the parliament with clones of John Bercow!
Government would literally grind to a halt, since the speaker isn't allowed to vote; the speaker and deputies must remain impartial.
@@MBKill3rCat I just said that we replace parliament with Bercow clones, not that they all remain speaker! Either way, the speaker can vote to break ties, and the case of zero votes for both ayes and nos would be a tie, so Bercow clones can safely vote in either case.
The ayes to the right, 600 the noes to the left 0.
The ayes have it!
Hear, hear!
@@peterwhite6560 Haha, good point.
What does the U.K. Want?
Hard Brexit? No!
Soft Brexit? No!
Remain in the EU? No!
THE PLAN:
Have our cake, try and eat everyone else’s cake, throw our toys out of the cot when they won’t let us and then go sulk in the corner.
Jeez it's like they don't wanna leave!
....
wait a minute.
Or someone is paying them to stay. (not a possibility)
But not leaving (revoking Article 50) was an option. It was voted down (though it was the 4th most liked one).
Yes, it's almost like they don't want to leave. Why they voted against that is for you to figure out, then.
Why would the group that spend a week arguing about the phrase "stupid woman", be able to agree on anything important?
Didn't Corbyn say "Stupid People"? It was easy to read his lips, and he confirmed that later.
I think Brexit might fuel this channel forever
They keep saying the right honourable. They have no honour, all self centred and selfish.
So Parliament gets more than one round of voting, but the people of the UK don't. Why?
This wasn't a vote. It was to indicate if there was a potential was forward that a majority would vote for. Even if one had been an aye, it wouldn't have done anything binding.
I love how "indicative vote" sounds like "vindictive vote" pretty often throughout this video.
The only option you can't take off the table is No Deal Brexit because it is the table.
So if every option is taken off the table you're left with the table.
Wouldn't what we have now, i.e the status quo, be the table?
No, the only option left after all things have been taken off is "no brexit" remember, the referendum which is not binding makes it so that it is the very last level of paper aviable, being no deal brexit. But it is by far the worse solution and sadly is the only one which isn't breaking any dealbreakers. Really, the only real solution is admitting that may used the referendum to get in office and stop the madness before everyone expect May pays for it.
mansuy adrien revoking article 50 has been taken off the table so no “no Brexit” isn’t the table. No deal can only be stopped by revoking and so no deal continues to be the default, it’s just a question of running down the clock.
@@FriedEgg101 No. Remember? Your PM invokes Art. 50.
NPC#00035246638/Triggered.Shaking d
No reason to take that insulting tone. Mansuy is less likely to be convinced of the merits of your factually correct argument if you mix it with attacks on his character.
How on earth are we not leaving the EU at 11pm tomorrow, that was the date and time set in article 50, and the EU said there would only be an extention if a deal was agreed by the British parliament, which has not happened, so what changed? I must have missed that slight of hand.
A kids act
We want to exit EU but to keep all advantages of an EU member
I had you on my homepage so often that i actually thought i was already subscribed. Well, now i am officially
I wouldn't say that this rules out "No Deal" as that is still the default option if they keep denying everything. Time will run out eventually and if there's no agreement by then, No Deal it is.
I guess they showed you :)
Nose beats eyes? I didn't see that coming. Something smells fishy...
I heard it said that Theresa May stating that she would resign if her bad deal (treaty) went through is like the Turkey telling the butcher that he will be allowed to be slaughtered if he can resign on Boxing day.
The whole purpose of T(reason) May becoming PM was to ensure that our BREXIT was put into the hands of a remainer and well practised LIAR so that the whole process of leaving could be sabotaged. One day I am sure it will come to light the "House Of Cards" backroom shenanigans that were employed to thwart the will of the people.-
Nigel farage LBC comment....second hand.
Excellent video. This channel deserves an award. Keep up the good work!
500 randoms off the street could do a better job.
Dude, I know it must exhausting to constantly make these videos, but we super appreciate them! They're so clear and easy to follow, but they still don't shy away from details. You're doing a great job!
Lets leave the eu so those MPs have more power, they seem really competent and sane
Whereas having MEPs that voted in article 17.
Whereas having non elected MPs making laws right...
Yes, maybe of they were allowed to make laws and were held accountable for them without blaming the EU people would make better choices.
So you're sarcastically admitting that being in the EU gives you less power over the laws of your country ? you're admitting that EU's parliament takes significant decisions for the UK instead of UK's parliament ? but you're sarcastically admitting you prefer that ? Do you understand the gravity of this ? Look, it's not a question of ideology, conservatism or liberalism, it's a question of democracy :
You might think the EU's parliament is better at making decisions than your parliament, but there are a few absolutely undeniable facts : The EU's commisson is not elected, nor selected with care, it's a bunch of very rich and powerful people you've never heard of that get put in place through a straight up dumb system that makes any vote from citizens useless. A banker, or even a tax fraudster could be making decisions for your country tomorrow through EU's commission, and you wouldn't even know it. You think claiming a tax fraudster could be making decisions for you country is crazy ? The reality is even more frightening. *In 2014, Jean-Claude Juncker, former banker (those people that every intellectual from every political sides agree to say are the most powerful and detrimental people to society), and prime minister of Luxembourg, one of the most notorious fiscal paradise in the world, was chosen (chosen by a few dozen of people that citizens don't know at all) to become NOT JUST A MEMBER, but the fucking president of European's commission, basically the most powerful organisation in Europe.*
You think there might have been good reasons for him being chosen ? You're just gonna assume he has a tiny bit more decency that those fucks at UK's parliament ? But no, he comes in very obviously drunk at many of the commission meetings, he has no authority, people talk over him all the time, but he's still here 5 years after, in 2019. Why the fuck is he here and why should he take decisions for the UK ? That's the question. All your thoughts about UK's parliament being bad, conservatism being bad, generous opening towards other european countries being good(which sounds really good, that's what I absolutely want too), all of that doesn't justify this drunk banker being basically the president of Europe. It's very easy to argue that the european commission decides most of UK's politics, and he's the president of it. By "most of UK's politics", I mean most of the important decisions, the main trajectory of the country you know, that means the big economical orientations, but not all of these little social laws here and there, like blood donors being financially rewarded, or ramps being installed in strategic places for disabled people. But I firmly believe that the main course of any european country, except maybe Germany because they're so powerful, is decided mostly by european's commission
That's why it's a big deal. I also almost can tell for a fact that you didn't watch more than two videos, if any, of the european commission before, but you just assumed they were better than UK's parliament for no reason. Maybe you think they have to be better because it's a bigger oranisation ? Because Europe sounds like a positive thing ? It makes you think about positive opening to other countries and cultures ? You like the concept maybe ? Or the colours of the flag ?
Well, the concept may sound good, I'm all for being open to other countries, but the reality is that a drunk banker is the president of Europe, and there's nothing you can do about it.
I have to add, just to really make my point crystal clear, because with some of the most fervent anti-brexit it's really hard to discuss this subject without them assuming things about you and your ideas : *NO,* I'm not against immigration, I'm not against being open to other countries, and I'm straight up telling you, I consider myself clearly left-wing, I've always had a very selfless, anti-individualist and empathetic approach to most problems, but despite brexit being associated to the right, and all these terrible ideas of selfishness, pragmatism and conservatism, I feel it's the right decision and will benefit the left aswell. Because it has nothing to do with the left or the right, it's just about democracy.
And you see, you may not like these cunts at UK's parliament, and you may also think that UK's citizens are not very good at voting. But at least you vote god dammit. Don't you see how big of a deal it is ? You'll never vote for Europe's president. And the thing is : even if you think UK's citizens are bad at voting, at least there's a margin of progression, and with time they might elect better persons. But with Europe, there's no progression possible, no voluntary progression at least. Unless these very rich and powerful people we don't know decide to stop electing drunk bankers, it's gonna keep sucking, and if they suddenly decide to elect great people, it will be pure luck. We're completely relying on luck right now. And I want you to please tell me honestly, and actually write it in the comments : Do you sincerely believe there's a good chance it gets better ? And if yes, why ? Just why ? Me for example, I'm not particularily pessimistic, but I can't think of a good reason why it would get better, or even why it would get worse : I just know it's terrible since a long time, and that I don't have the power to change any of it, and it's enough for me to think it's a bad system. *Whether the EU gets better or worse, you have no power over it, the people who elected a drunk banker last time will elect the next commission's president with the same amount of consideration for your opinion as last time, which is none. They can chose any corporate lobbyist, or any tax fraudster they want, and you can't do anything.*
@@namnam2701 1. Thats how it works. Living in a country for example reduces your democratic power over the rules of your city, why would you draw the line on nation states and not on cities/districts/streets/houses/families?
2. The european commision is appointed by elected official (and If you don't like the way the EU works as an institution, stay in it and change it.
3. Please stop assuming my answers to your questions, you were wrong on most of them
An excellent video even by TLDR's high standards. Thank you, everything seem so much clearer now! :-)
Here's what happened last night
- ... detailed explanation of brexit people...
Here's what *didn't* happen last night:
- him sleeping
Thanks for the video dad. I have been watching them all.
So addicted to this channel. Got mi popcorn 🍿 so go on.....
I've started running out of popcorn, will have to go get some as soon as there is a break in the entertainment !!
Some of the "right honorable colleagues" need to be tossed out of the chamber if they can't keep their gobs snapped when someone else has the floor. Get 'em, Mister Speaker.
Your channel makes me understand what's going on with Brexit.
Great video again. Truly high-class entertainment.
You'll be hosting meme review before brexit happens
Great video. Immensely better than all the other reporting I’ve seen. The other reporting simply said all the motions failed, and then communicated implicitly or explicitly what a disaster that was and how damming it was. Seems it was to be expected, and other outlets have misunderstood the process and jumped to conclusions. Thanks for the edification.
"the Brexit chaos continues..." nicely put. Very informative video and very, very timely. Thank you!
I need a TLDR version of this channel.
"Anything and everything done by those in positions of authority simply proves how little they can be trusted with unsupervised/ unaccountable authority."
Just copy/ paste and you won't be too far off...
6:45 a hilarious example of an early celebration gone wrong
Chris' #1 Fan 😂😂😂
He had that block in the office pool
One cannot expect a room full of people who only know how to say no to accomplish anything constructive.
Its amazing what real humans can actually do in that amount of time.
1st time I've come across this channel, very informative! Will be subscribing, keep up the good work!
11:23
Either subliminal messaging or the lack of sleep has taken a toll on your normally perfect editing.
Normally perfect editing? Wake up mate, go back look at videos they've made since about 2 weeks ago. Editing quality has gone down the sink
Many more glitches, at least 10
@@swissdave9489 my comment was a joke. That last line was sarcasm. XD
Mr Rishi The Cookie why don’t you churn out content like this overnight and see how it turns out.
@@swissdave9489 IRONY
Just get out without a DEAL...then come back and negotiate if you think you need the EU otherwise live your life/move on ffs it's been almost 3 years...
They clearly don't want a no deal. I and MANY other people I know just say let's get out - No Deal!
Man, the ORDAAs at 7:39 was epic.
Goddamn, Steve Bannon, Nigel Farrage, and Boris Johnson broke a whole country.
Racecarlock no, these dimwits are by dragging it out. You should’ve just left and let eu mop up the tears. The European Union is trying to make an example out of you by cutting your balls off and your politicians are gladly standing there with their pants around their ankles.
The EU is doomed to fail, the only people happy about it is the old Soviet states (can’t blame them), and spoiled hipsters with about as much political knowledge as a pumpkin. It’s either going to fracture by “developed” countries populations forcing their politicians to leave, or by a slow dragged out dictatorship that will result in revolt.
GET. YOUR. DAMN. ACT. TOGETHER!!
This crap should have been going down two years ago!!
subscribed, been watching for about three weeks, very interesting stuff, thank you
6:45
YES!
...
...
...
*surprised Pikachu face
Asiandeathgod lol
what's rather amazing though is how parliament didn't even acknowledge the large protest at the weekend but the EU parliament did.
It's perhaps important to note the Labour option got 237 votes on the first time of asking, or just 5 votes shy of what Mays deal got on the second time of asking, so even though the Government will try to spin it as their option is now the favourite, it really isn't.
What happened to "No deal is better than a bad deal"? Also, why have they not prepared for a no deal? Incompetence!
All of this is just distracting from the fact that Article 50 has been triggered, the EU willingness to extend is over and this should mean an automatic no deal Brexit.
That would be using common sense.
Article 50 states that a deal must be reached
Good Friday Agreement states that a hard boarder has to be prevented.
WTO states that a member has to offer the same terms to all other members. An open boarder with ROI would mean open boarders for all. EU regulations state that there has to be a boarder between EU members and third countries. The only way to avoid these complications is a deal.
@@karstenfritsche820 Except that there's not really any way for the WTO or EU to enforce their rules because ultimately it is up to the UK and Ireland to put up border checks. WTO will only start an inquiry if someone makes a complaint, and the most they could do is to suspend or kick out the offending party. Same goes for the EU except they'd only have jurisdiction over Ireland.
@@taoliu3949 Kicking a member out of WTO is a way to deal with non-compliance to the rules. It's not the question if someone would complain. The question is who and how many.
The EU already said they will erect a border between the isle of Ireland and mainland EU, if ROI trades with "third party" UK without customs checks. So ROI would be de facto outside of the customs union and single market. ROI can't afford that to happen for a longer period of time.
The possibility of new IRA attacks (maybe just because of the thread of a hard border) is a consequence I don't even want to think about. The only way to avoid this mess is a deal.
It makes it very clear why the first referendum failed. 400 votes against "no Deal"
So if MPs want another peoples vote. It means that leaving without a deal will not be on the ballot.
So round in circles we go again.
All politcians who said they would support the referendum reuslt, never had any intention of doing so. There is your problem. MPs
If the UK does not agree at latest tomorrow to the withdrawal agreement, they are automatically out on April 12th.
What was this circus for? There were even options on the future relationship on the table, what does this have to do with the divorce contract?
Woah, #7 on trending! congrats, dude! your video was very helpful and digestible as always