Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
22 online now:
AZPaul3, Tangle, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,649 Year: 16,685/19,786 Month: 810/2,598 Week: 56/251 Day: 9/24 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Brexit - Should they stay or should they go?
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1699
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 376 of 771 (845667)
12-18-2018 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by ringo
12-18-2018 2:00 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
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.

The party vote didn't happen in parliament, and was not called a parliamentary vote.

I seem to be struggling with clarity here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 2:00 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Meddle, posted 12-18-2018 5:06 PM caffeine has not yet responded
 Message 378 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 7:32 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Meddle
Member
Posts: 174
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 377 of 771 (845672)
12-18-2018 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by caffeine
12-18-2018 2:07 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
The party vote didn't happen in parliament, and was not called a parliamentary vote.

My understanding is that the vote of no confidence that happened was an internal Tory decision on if May could continue to lead her party. Corbyn's proposed vote of no confidence is for parliament to declare if she is fit to be Prime Minister, but I'm not sure what if anything would happen then if that vote was lost, except for embarrassing her enough that she chooses to step down. But if that was the case she would have stepped down a long time ago.
However, the government would remain. Because of the fixed-term parliament act there'd have have to a vote of no confidence in the government to cause a general election, not just the prime minister. If that provides any clarity is anybodies guess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2018 2:07 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17281
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 378 of 771 (845687)
12-18-2018 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by caffeine
12-18-2018 2:07 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
caffeine writes:

The party vote didn't happen in parliament, and was not called a parliamentary vote.


As I already pointed out, PaulK did call it a Parliamentary vote in Message 360.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by caffeine, posted 12-18-2018 2:07 PM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by PaulK, posted 12-18-2018 11:25 PM ringo has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15372
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 379 of 771 (845698)
12-18-2018 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by ringo
12-18-2018 7:32 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
Ringo you are still confusing two different votes.

There was the vote held by the Tory party. That was not a Parliamentary vote.

There was the vote proposed by Jeremy Corbyn, which would have been a Parliamentary vote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by ringo, posted 12-18-2018 7:32 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by ringo, posted 12-19-2018 2:07 PM PaulK has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17281
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 380 of 771 (845732)
12-19-2018 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by PaulK
12-18-2018 11:25 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
PaulK writes:

Ringo you are still confusing two different votes.


No I am not. I understand the difference. Your post looked to me like the vote that was taken was a Parliamentary vote.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by PaulK, posted 12-18-2018 11:25 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2018 2:41 PM ringo has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15372
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 381 of 771 (845736)
12-19-2018 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by ringo
12-19-2018 2:07 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
quote:

No I am not. I understand the difference. Your post looked to me like the vote that was taken was a Parliamentary vote.

In the Message 360 which starts with the sentence:


The No Confidence vote May survived was a Party issue.

That then states


If she lost she would be on her way out as leader of the Tory Party.

And which then goes on to talk about the vote that Corbyn was proposing and in the last paragraph:


A Parliamentary vote of No Confidence in the Prime Minister, though, is just theatre...

It seems pretty clear to me that the Parliamentary vote was the one that Corbyn was proposing as leader of the Opposition, not the Party vote that May had already survived.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by ringo, posted 12-19-2018 2:07 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by ringo, posted 12-19-2018 2:47 PM PaulK has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17281
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 382 of 771 (845738)
12-19-2018 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by PaulK
12-19-2018 2:41 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
PaulK writes:

It seems pretty clear to me that the Parliamentary vote was the one that Corbyn was proposing as leader of the Opposition, not the Party vote that May had already survived.


Well, it wasn't clear to me.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2018 2:41 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2018 3:00 PM ringo has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15372
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 383 of 771 (845739)
12-19-2018 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by ringo
12-19-2018 2:47 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
quote:

Well, it wasn't clear to me.

Then ask yourself why not.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the vote that would have removed May as Prime Minister is not the vote I described as “just theatre”, to raise just one point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by ringo, posted 12-19-2018 2:47 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by ringo, posted 12-19-2018 3:03 PM PaulK has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17281
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 384 of 771 (845740)
12-19-2018 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by PaulK
12-19-2018 3:00 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
PaulK writes:

It seems pretty obvious to me....


But as I said, not to me. I can see that your post could be read that way.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2018 3:00 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2018 3:22 PM ringo has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15372
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 385 of 771 (845741)
12-19-2018 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by ringo
12-19-2018 3:03 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
And I can’t see how my post can be read your way.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by ringo, posted 12-19-2018 3:03 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by ringo, posted 12-19-2018 3:31 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 17281
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 386 of 771 (845743)
12-19-2018 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by PaulK
12-19-2018 3:22 PM


Re: Canadian "Rules"
PaulK writes:

And I can’t see how my post can be read your way.



And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2018 3:22 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 902
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 387 of 771 (846677)
01-10-2019 9:26 AM


Corbyn calls for general election
quote:
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has stepped up calls for a general election "at the earliest opportunity" to "break the deadlock" over Brexit.

In a speech, he said a new government would have a fresh mandate to negotiate a better withdrawal deal with the EU.

He told Theresa May: "If you are so confident in your deal, call that election, and let the people decide."

The Conservatives said Labour did not have a plan for Brexit and were "playing politics".


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46824125

I am guessing this is mostly just grandstanding since the minority party can't call for a general election. So far as I know.

But we are getting down the homestretch now with the vote for May's deal being next week on Tuesday. It still looks like she doesn't have the votes for it to pass, so I wonder what will happen if/when it fails in Parliament. I guess its anyone's game at that point.

I was watching a pundit discuss this and he suspected that the first vote for May's deal would fail. But then there would be a subsequent vote and that it would likely pass. Largely due to the backlash MPs would face from constituents who would likely start seeing a lot of volatility in the currency and stock markets that will affect them directly. Hard to say if that is right. But being that there is so little time left, it does appear as though May's Deal or No Deal are the only options left. There isn't enough time to call for a second referendum or a general election. Unless they get an extension of Article 50. And from what I heard, the EU is unlikely to do that unless there is assurances that 'Remain' will somehow be back on the ballot.

Edited by Diomedes, : Fixed typo


Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Pressie, posted 01-11-2019 7:29 AM Diomedes has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 388 of 771 (846740)
01-11-2019 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 387 by Diomedes
01-10-2019 9:26 AM


Re: Corbyn calls for general election
I don't think that a general election would solve anything as one of the two major parties may get a majority or just under a majority of the seats anyway. These major parties are completely just as divided about Brexit as the other one.

A general election won't solve the problem. It might just postpone the implimentation of Article 50 for a few months. That's about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 387 by Diomedes, posted 01-10-2019 9:26 AM Diomedes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Diomedes, posted 01-11-2019 10:02 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 902
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 389 of 771 (846753)
01-11-2019 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by Pressie
01-11-2019 7:29 AM


Re: Corbyn calls for general election
A general election won't solve the problem. It might just postpone the implimentation of Article 50 for a few months. That's about it.

I would agree. Not to mention, there is insufficient time to call an election prior to the Article 50 deadline.

The remaining options at this time that I see are:

- May's Deal
- No Deal
- Second Referendum

The last one is a long shot in my mind and comes with copious risks. The only way a second referendum would even be viable at this stage is if the EU ratified an extension for the Article 50 deadline. And I think the only way they would agree to that would be if 'Remain' was somehow on the ballot. Perhaps they can orchestrate some version of a referendum that has a weighted system (ranking). But the danger is if the referendum still leans towards leave. There is no guarantee that people will now vote to remain. So if a referendum gets called and the answer still ends up being leave, it will be a disaster and will likely result in a hard Brexit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Pressie, posted 01-11-2019 7:29 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15372
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 390 of 771 (847015)
01-15-2019 2:46 PM


A Massive defeat for May
May loses by 432 votes to 202 - the biggest Parliamentary defeat for a government in modern times, smashing past the previous worst (a mere 166 votes in 1924)

At least she did better than the single Amendment that was voted on - that went down by 600 votes to 24.


Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by AZPaul3, posted 01-15-2019 4:23 PM PaulK has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019