Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8883 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-18-2019 1:22 PM
199 online now:
14174dm, Aussie, AZPaul3, candle2, edge, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Taq, vimesey (10 members, 189 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: candle2
Post Volume:
Total: 845,871 Year: 908/19,786 Month: 908/1,731 Week: 265/438 Day: 50/33 Hour: 8/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
262728Next
Author Topic:   Brexit - Should they stay or should they go?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14630
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 361 of 411 (845607)
12-17-2018 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by PaulK
12-17-2018 3:30 PM


Re: Even more Brexit shenanigans
Corbynís going ahead with it. Plaid Cymru, the SNP, the Lib Demís and the Greens are trying to turn it into a full vote of No Confidence in the government. If they can pull that off, everything is up in the air.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2018 3:30 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1573
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 362 of 411 (845626)
12-18-2018 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by PaulK
12-17-2018 3:30 PM


Re: Even more Brexit shenanigans
If Corbyn has brought a No Confidence vote against the Government, winning would have brought down the government and probably lead to a General Election.

A Parliamentary vote of No Confidence in the Prime Minister, though, is just theatre. It makes a point about just how unpopular May is in Parliament, but that is it.

I'm quite confused by this concept of a non-binding, symbolic vote of no confidence in the PM. Has such a thing ever happened before? Surely, if Parliament votes no confidence in the PM, then the PM must resign. This is the basis of the British constitution, that the Prime Minister must be able to command a majority in the House of Commons.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by PaulK, posted 12-17-2018 3:30 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 11:04 AM caffeine has responded
 Message 366 by PaulK, posted 12-18-2018 11:45 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 777
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 363 of 411 (845633)
12-18-2018 9:21 AM


Plans for No Deal Ramping Up
Appears the government is now taking precautionary measures in lieu of a potential No Deal Brexit:

quote:
The cabinet has decided to "ramp up" preparations for a no-deal Brexit amid uncertainty over the fate of Theresa May's proposed EU exit deal.

Ministers approved £2bn to go to government departments to help if the UK leaves the EU on 29 March without a formal agreement.

They will also send letters to 140,000 firms advising them about preparations.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46600850

Definitely no boding well at this stage. I guess the rubber will really hit the road after the vote on May's deal. If it fails, which is likely, the only real options left are No Deal, an extension of the Article 50 deadline, or another referendum. And there is massive divisiveness for all those options.


  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15986
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 364 of 411 (845643)
12-18-2018 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by caffeine
12-18-2018 3:27 AM


Re: Even more Brexit shenanigans
caffeine writes:

This is the basis of the British constitution, that the Prime Minister must be able to command a majority in the House of Commons.


That certainly is not the case in Canada. We have had minority governments fairly often and some people would argue that they are better than majority governments.

As for a non-confidence vote against the Prime Minister, that would not be done in our Parliament. It would have to wait for a scheduled leadership review outside Parliament - and anybody lobbying against the Prime Minister would be subject to party discipline, including expulsion from the caucus.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2018 3:27 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by NosyNed, posted 12-18-2018 11:43 AM ringo has responded
 Message 368 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2018 12:59 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8827
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 365 of 411 (845645)
12-18-2018 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by ringo
12-18-2018 11:04 AM


Canadian "Rules"
I am not sure but I think you are wrong. If there was a minority government and the totality of the non-goverment parties voted against a confidence motion (like the budget, or an unspecific motion of confidence or I-don't-know-what-else) then the governor general will collapse the current government. She/he may as the other parties if they can form a coalition to govern but more likely an election will be called.

If government members broke ranks and brought down the government I am sure they would be expelled but it could happen. But that would trigger and election too I think.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 11:04 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 11:59 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14630
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 366 of 411 (845646)
12-18-2018 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by caffeine
12-18-2018 3:27 AM


Re: Even more Brexit shenanigans
To the best of my knowledge it hasnít been done before - and why would anyone do that when a No Confidence vote can bring down the government instead ? Forcing the governing party to change leaders also seems weird. And ripe for manipulation by malcontents in that party.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2018 3:27 AM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15986
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 367 of 411 (845648)
12-18-2018 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by NosyNed
12-18-2018 11:43 AM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
NosyNed writes:

If there was a minority government and the totality of the non-goverment parties voted against a confidence motion (like the budget, or an unspecific motion of confidence or I-don't-know-what-else) then the governor general will collapse the current government.


Yes, but that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the PM's own party voting non-confidence. Here, that would not be done in Parliament.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by NosyNed, posted 12-18-2018 11:43 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2018 1:07 PM ringo has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1573
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 368 of 411 (845655)
12-18-2018 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by ringo
12-18-2018 11:04 AM


Re: Even more Brexit shenanigans
That certainly is not the case in Canada. We have had minority governments fairly often and some people would argue that they are better than majority governments.

A minority government still needs to command a majority in the Commons - it just means that some of that majority are not members of government parties. That is exactly the situation in the UK right now - May's is a minority government; but it can command a majority in Parliament due to the so-called 'confidence and supply' deal with the DUP. The DUP are outside government, but they agreed they would vote with the government on confidence motions and budgets (losing a budget vote is treated as an implied vote of no confidence in the government). We have the same situation here in the Czech Republic, where the government coalition is 8 seats sort of a majority and so struck a deal with the Communists to ensure a majority in the Chamber of Deputies (equivalent of the Commons). I don't think it's different in Canada, I think we're just differing in terminology..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 11:04 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1573
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 369 of 411 (845657)
12-18-2018 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by ringo
12-18-2018 11:59 AM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
Yes, but that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the PM's own party voting non-confidence. Here, that would not be done in Parliament.

Nor in the UK. The Tory party's no confidence vote was their own thing outside Parliament. Probably done in a smoky room with brandy involved. Internal party matters are their own affair - there are no constitutional or legal constraints on how they pick leaders. It's just the Tory party rules.

What PaulK's talking about is not an internal party thing. The opposition seem to be proposing a formal vote of no confidence in the Commons which would be non-binding and thus not really be a formal no-confidence vote. Sounds like a bunch of fuckwits wanking over a biscuit to me. If they think the government should resign and think they can force it, then they should do so. If they don't, then they should stop pissing about and do something constructive.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 11:59 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 1:22 PM caffeine has responded
 Message 371 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2018 1:23 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15986
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 370 of 411 (845660)
12-18-2018 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by caffeine
12-18-2018 1:07 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
caffeine writes:

The Tory party's no confidence vote was their own thing outside Parliament.


Then why did PaulK call it a "Parliamentary" vote of non-confidence in Message 360? Surely what you're talking about would be a party vote or a caucus vote.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2018 1:07 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by PaulK, posted 12-18-2018 1:32 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 374 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2018 1:45 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6497
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 371 of 411 (845661)
12-18-2018 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by caffeine
12-18-2018 1:07 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
caffeine writes:

Sounds like a bunch of fuckwits wanking over a biscuit to me. If they think the government should resign and think they can force it, then they should do so. If they don't, then they should stop pissing about and do something constructive.

That's about it. It would be a waste of time even if it resulted in a no cofidence outcome, but it won't, it's defeated before it starts. The conservatives aren't going to vote against their party.

Corbyn is a disingenous twat - he's refusing to tell the electorate where he stands. That's very damaging for him but he's buggered either way because everyone knows he wants out.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2018 1:07 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Diomedes, posted 12-18-2018 1:35 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14630
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 372 of 411 (845662)
12-18-2018 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by ringo
12-18-2018 1:22 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
The Tories had their No Confidence vote. May won, they canít try again for another year. Thatís what caffeine was talking about.

Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the opposition wants Parliament to take a vote of No Confidence in the Prime Minister - but not the government. Which is basically there to rub Mayís unpopularity in her face without having any other effects. So discontented Tories can vote for it, without having to worry about a General Election.

Itís not going to happen, so it doesnít matter anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 1:22 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 777
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 373 of 411 (845663)
12-18-2018 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Tangle
12-18-2018 1:23 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
That's about it. It would be a waste of time even if it resulted in a no cofidence outcome, but it won't, it's defeated before it starts. The conservatives aren't going to vote against their party.

Corbyn is a disingenous twat - he's refusing to tell the electorate where he stands. That's very damaging for him but he's buggered either way because everyone knows he wants out.

Seems like a lot of the politicians are being disingenuous. I remember watching a few videos of Jacob Rees-Mogg (sounds like a Harry Potter character btw) and in the one video, during the time of the no confidence vote enacted by the Conservatives, he was adamant that May needs to resign. The moment the Labour party tried the same thing, he said he would vote against it because his party comes first. Seems a little bipolar to me. But part in parcel with how politicians operate on both sides of the aisle.

Here is a link to an article talking about his about-face:

https://www.indy100.com/...nservatives-bbc-interview-8688561


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Tangle, posted 12-18-2018 1:23 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1573
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 374 of 411 (845664)
12-18-2018 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by ringo
12-18-2018 1:22 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
Then why did PaulK call it a "Parliamentary" vote of non-confidence in Message 360? Surely what you're talking about would be a party vote or a caucus vote.

Because they're two different things. The party no-confidence vote was last week. Now Corbyn's proposing a vote in Parliament, in an apparent attempt to embarrass the Tories without achieving anything.

I'm thinking Corbyn's actually quite looking forward to Britain crashing out of the EU - he comes from the old left of the party who were always opposed to the whole project. But as Tangle says he's being mealy-mouthed about the whole thing. He wants to appeal to remainers by letting the Tories take the blame for Brexit while avoiding alienating pro-leave Labour voters by actually taking a position.

Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 1:22 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 2:00 PM caffeine has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15986
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 375 of 411 (845666)
12-18-2018 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by caffeine
12-18-2018 1:45 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
caffeine writes:

Because they're two different things.


I know that. I'm just saying that in Canada a party vote would not happen in Parliament, which is why it would not be called a Parliamentary vote.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2018 1:45 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2018 2:07 PM ringo has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
262728Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019