 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Non hot tub ponderings.
Normally our MPs are voting to change the status quo (eg law changes) and so everyone knows what the world will oook like if it is voted down.
With the EU negotiations they’re voting on the deal. Or no deals (WTO plus all the other technical note changes). But there is no option if the status quo.
I’m assuming this has happened before but can’t think when. Any thoughts? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Non hot tub ponderings.
Normally our MPs are voting to change the status quo (eg law changes) and so everyone knows what the world will oook like if it is voted down.
With the EU negotiations they’re voting on the deal. Or no deals (WTO plus all the other technical note changes). But there is no option if the status quo.
I’m assuming this has happened before but can’t think when. Any thoughts?"
I guess they had the chance to vote for the status quo when the withdrawl bill itself was put forward, no?
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Non hot tub ponderings.
Normally our MPs are voting to change the status quo (eg law changes) and so everyone knows what the world will oook like if it is voted down.
With the EU negotiations they’re voting on the deal. Or no deals (WTO plus all the other technical note changes). But there is no option if the status quo.
I’m assuming this has happened before but can’t think when. Any thoughts?
I guess they had the chance to vote for the status quo when the withdrawl bill itself was put forward, no?
-Matt"
Agreed. It’s not that they have never had the chance to vote for the status quo. Just they have painted themselves into the corner where they are voting between two versions of change.
It feels a little odd. Especially as the focus is what option a looks like. And not option b. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Status Quo vote would be to have voted AGAINST triggering article 50.
They voted 550 odd to 50 odd to trigger article 50. That then, effectively ruled out status quo. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Status Quo vote would be to have voted AGAINST triggering article 50.
They voted 550 odd to 50 odd to trigger article 50. That then, effectively ruled out status quo."
have we ever been a position where we have ruled out the status quo ... and yet still need a vote to decide what the outcome is to be ? Eg effectively voting for either A or B where neither are the status quo. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The status quo is still an option but, rather than the normal situation where the status quo would just happen, to achieve the status quo parliament is going to have to take action.
If TM can't either get a deal or get her deal through Parliament then I really don't think everyone is just going to throw their collective hands up in the air and just sit about waiting for 29/03/19 23:00 to come along and do nothing about it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The status quo is still an option but, rather than the normal situation where the status quo would just happen, to achieve the status quo parliament is going to have to take action.
If TM can't either get a deal or get her deal through Parliament then I really don't think everyone is just going to throw their collective hands up in the air and just sit about waiting for 29/03/19 23:00 to come along and do nothing about it.
"
We'll soon find out! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
