chrisp65 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Debate on sky has the commentaator saying he thinks there will be a vote of no confidence next week and the ERG could vote with labour to bring May down !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Just now, tonyh29 said: Debate on sky has the commentaator saying he thinks there will be a vote of no confidence next week and the ERG could vote with labour to bring May down !! Newsnight interviewing people with severe thinking difficulties saying we just need to leave, just get out 'hard' brexit. They were in Port Talbot. People in a steel town with no other employer, wanting us to go WTO and negotiate fire sale deals with China and the USA. It's not a very PC term, but that is **** mental. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 7 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Debate on sky has the commentaator saying he thinks there will be a vote of no confidence next week and the ERG could vote with labour to bring May down !! I certainly think Labour should try a VONC at this stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 1 minute ago, chrisp65 said: Newsnight interviewing people with severe thinking difficulties saying we just need to leave, just get out 'hard' brexit. They were in Port Talbot. People in a steel town with no other employer, wanting us to go WTO and negotiate fire sale deals with China and the USA. It's not a very PC term, but that is **** mental. On the plus side I hear Barry has the fastest growing house growth rises in the country at present so maybe the new millionaires of Barry will bail Port Talbot out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Just now, HanoiVillan said: I certainly think Labour should try a VONC at this stage. is there any limit on how many VONC votes you can call ? They might be better waiting for the third vote to get rejected ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrusr Posted March 13, 2019 VT Supporter Share Posted March 13, 2019 I have completely lost the plot as to what has happened today and it feels utterly pointless. How can there be a 3rd or even 4th vote on something that hasn’t really changed; it’s just farcical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: is there any limit on how many VONC votes you can call ? They might be better waiting for the third vote to get rejected ? People who know more can correct me on this, but my understanding is that it can't be vexatious, ie you can't just keep timetabling them, but I wouldn't think there would be a problem at this stage. As to whether it's a good idea tomorrow or next week, I have no idea really, but it seems like you would want to do it ASAP given the deadlines approaching. (The argument behind this is that Labour appears to be the largest 'faction' in Parliament currently - ie, despite being horribly divided, they are basically voting together on Brexit legislation (238 votes against May's WA) and are actually larger than the May 'faction' (235 Tory votes for the WA), with the ERG third and the SNP fourth. Of course, this may very well not change the maths of a VONC at all, but it might be worth stress-testing their confidence at this point.) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Just now, tonyh29 said: On the plus side I hear Barry has the fastest growing house growth rises in the country at present so maybe the new millionaires of Barry will bail Port Talbot out I've been trying to explain to people all day that rapid house price rises is not a good news story. My kids will leave Uni with tens of thousands of debt and starter houses will cost 200k. On the flip side, my frail and aged parents have a 3 bed house with a garage 5 minutes walk from the beach..... so I might well buy Port Talbot at some point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 21 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: I certainly think Labour should try a VONC at this stage. They should attempt to remove the Government, meaning that all legislative functions cease for a two week period, two weeks before we're due to leave? I'm not sure that's a particularly good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Yeah, my understanding is that a declaration of an election triggers 'purdah'. So, best get concentrating on getting rid of no deal first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Two questions with no agenda: I believe it is against parliamentary code to have more than one vote on a near identical proposition. I assume the slight change to May’s first deal was enough to permit the second meaningful vote. Would parliament permit another vote without a change to the question, (presumably a change to the deal that the EU have committed to not changing)? Knowing that parliament doesn’t want a no deal brexit, what is to stop the EU refusing an extension request and therefore forcing parliament to begrudgingly accept the EU/May withdrawal agreement for fear of a no deal exit on the 29th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 26 minutes ago, ml1dch said: They should attempt to remove the Government, meaning that all legislative functions cease for a two week period, two weeks before we're due to leave? I'm not sure that's a particularly good idea. Good point, I keep mixing up the consequence-free/symbolic personal VONC in the PM with the actually consequential VONC in the government, a confusion I've had several times now. I believe the suggestion being made in some places is for the former, not the latter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted March 14, 2019 Moderator Share Posted March 14, 2019 7 hours ago, brommy said: Knowing that parliament doesn’t want a no deal brexit, what is to stop the EU refusing an extension request and therefore forcing parliament to begrudgingly accept the EU/May withdrawal agreement for fear of a no deal exit on the 29th? Nothing to stop them doing that at all as far as I know, and given that May's deal is their preferred deal there's a decent chance of it happening. The choice then is May's deal or no Brexit. Either accept her deal of revoke Article 50 (if we can). That's the big change - given the choice of May's deal or no deal, Parliament have shown a willingness to vote her down and push it to the edge - but there may be more MP's that would accept no deal than there are that would accept no Brexit - which gives her a chance of getting her deal through, even though next to know actually likes it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 On the subject of whether questions can be put another time during the same session, this tweet has an extract of evidence given by a Clerk of the House to a select committee last October: I think it's important to take from what he said is that he doesn't think that procedures of the house are there to obstruct either the will of the house or the necessary business of government. In the light of that, Bercow's decision would be to weigh up the former (whether there had been a particular mood change from this week, for example) against the latter (it being the most crucial bit of government business that they are working on). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippo Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 All this stems from the right wing press telling us that Cameron and May were great prime ministers, when the reality is they were bang average Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 10 hours ago, jackbauer24 said: As I understand it, there is now a bigger gap in time between the referendum and a possible second one than there was between the General Election in 2015 and the General Election in 2017. Yet asking the public twice is undemocratic? Extend Brexit, decide which Leave you want then put it up against Remain. The day after you sign the papers and it's done either way. It just seems like common sense to me, regardless of which side of the fence you are. I think I’ve spotted the flaw in your plan. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 I said ages ago they should have negotiated two deals, one softer and one harder Brexit and then let parliament decide which to go for. It doesnt matter now how many more votes they call not enough MPs are going to vote it through, even after another general election it would be impossible. The only answer is a May deal vs remain referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: Nothing to stop them doing that at all as far as I know, and given that May's deal is their preferred deal there's a decent chance of it happening. The choice then is May's deal or no Brexit. Either accept her deal of revoke Article 50 (if we can). That's the big change - given the choice of May's deal or no deal, Parliament have shown a willingness to vote her down and push it to the edge - but there may be more MP's that would accept no deal than there are that would accept no Brexit - which gives her a chance of getting her deal through, even though next to know actually likes it. The best option now would be to start again. Rescind A50, establish cross-party groups to explore various options for leaving and produce as factual an evaluation as possible of their implications, identify the options which most closely approximate the actual outcomes various groups want to see, assess which are deliverable in the real world (eg is it something the EU could agree), establish what arrangements would need to be put in place under these options (so no finding out at the last minute what tariffs would exist for various sectors, for example). explore what alternative real-world trading arrangements might be available and what they would involve (eg what is the size of the potential Indian or Chilean market for things that we might actually be able to offer at a price they would accept, what trade barriers exist in these countries and would they prevent this hypothetical trade from actually developing, what are the likely implications of allowing food imports from the US which currently fail EU standards, and so on), with a view to identifying actually available options with reasonably accurately identified costs and benefits, and then putting a real choice to people based on firm information. It would take some years to do. The advantage would be that we would escape an arbitrary deadline, avoid fatuous red lines that close down options, involve in discussions the people most deeply affected such as specific industries and communities, and offer something that could work in the real world rather than the sunlit uplands of the crazed imaginations of clueless tosspots. There are many downsides. Trying to shift from an emotional approach to something based on logic and reason would be very hard. Cries of "betrayal" would fill the air. The EU would probably be even more exasperated, and may threaten not to discuss anything further if we had taken the fuse out of the explosive device we are clutching to our bosom. Rupert would be angry. We might even be able to get some discussion going within the EU about how to tackle some of the existing problems with the EU, in the hope of making some improvements if we were to remain. Sorry, bit of a digression into fantasy there. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted March 14, 2019 Share Posted March 14, 2019 Her own red lines are the problem. She's a Little Englander, Xenophobic bigot and she used this whole farce as an excuse to restrict people from other countries. It's gross. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts