UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

[Effluent Man]

Effectively what this amendment does is to prevent Theresa kicking the can down the road and attempting to run the clock down. What is more likely to happen now is a vote of no confidence in the government that a couple of dozen Tories might support. If that happens then I think those MP's will be seen as the people who saved Britain from disaster.

For sure they will be denigrated but when the dust settles that is how they will be seen. In the case of a fresh GE then Corbyn has a bigger problem than most with a large section of his support peeling off. Similarly Theresa has said that she won't lead her party into another election. Good luck in choosing a successor who can unite the party.

[ORAC]

If the latest vote in the commons goes through you may need to review that view. Theresa's long game may well be not so long after all. In fact it will just be so long to Theresa.

Which vote are you referring too?

The vote yesterday makes preparations for Brexit more difficult, but doesn’t slow or stop it.

There is a possible amendment today to the Brexit Business Motion reduce the time before TM has to come back to the HoC with another proposal (from 3 weeks + 7 parliamentary sitting days to just 3 sitting days). However it is highly probable it will not be presented as, according to POLITICO, the terms of the motion indicate that only a government proposed amendment can be selected for a vote.

Regardless, all it would mean is that she would have to appear to tell the HoC that she was going back to the EU for more negotiations.

As things stand the HoC can put hindrances in the path of the government with votes and amendments, but the only thing which can prevent a no-deal Brexit on 29 March is both Houses of Parliament passing the present deal. Any legislation is delay or repeal A50 is solely in the hands of the government, meaning TM as PM.

If TM is not willing to do so, then if she remains in office then Brexit will happen on schedule. Any other option requires the replacement of TM as PM, either by her own party or by a snap general election.

I note two Labour shadow cabinet ministers have said Corbyn now intends to call for a vote of no-confidence next Tuesday if TM loses here vote. Winning such a vote would require either the DUP or sufficient remainer Tory MPs to vote against their own party with Labour. Possible but unlikely. It would also then require a similar vote two weeks later.

Pointless guessing if if he will call the vote or the result. We will just have to wait and see.

[Fitter2]

Losing a vote of confidence doesn't automatically call a general election - first the Crown has to find someone who can command a majority in Parliament. If the current PM decides to ask for a general election, then it is still not clear how Brexit could be prevented. After a new government is formed, a majority of MPs have to vote for a repeal of the Article 50 application, and proceed from there. Would that be guaranteed? In a Brexit dominated campaign the outcome would be extremely uncertain.

At present the default is leave on 29th March, with or without a deal.

[Effluent Man]

POLITICO is behind the game. The speaker overruled and selected the motion for today.

[ATNotts]

What the vote last night signaled loud and clear is that there are (at least) 20 principled Conservatives who have laid down a marker that they will be willing, if push comes to shove, to put country before both party and their political futures. The latter will be in tatters after a mauling and almost certain deselection by the blue rinse and retired colonel brigade.

I know that the usual suspects will tell us that whatever happens in parliament nobody can stop Brexit, or even delay it. Personally I'd not be that confident. Looking at the banner headline on today's Daily Express Brexiteers are becoming more scared by the day, and it's becoming increasingly clear that their best chance of ensuring Brexit is to swing behind the PM's agreement, however distasteful they may find it.

Mrs May ought to be quietly quite pleased.

[Sallyann1234]

I think you're right.
If we have to have this wretched Brexit thing, her deal is preferable to the suicide alternative. And if the backstop could be made permanent ...

[Effluent Man]

It's just as game that Corbyn isn't similarly principled and prepared to put his country first. I say that as a life long Labour supporter until he assumed the "leadership". I put it that way because he isn't showing any. That s possibly the reason why in the last six opinion polls his party has been running slightly behind the most chaotic and directionless government in living memory.

[Parapunter]

Originally Posted by Sallyann1234

And if the backstop could be made permanent ...

By way of illustration of the hopelessness of Brexit, the backstop is a great example. It's an insurance policy, that's all it is. It's designed to keep an inevitable hard border from being erected. If you limit it, as the Brexit headcases want, then it's no longer an insurance policy. It's a perfect example of how Brexit is undeliverable in all but the nuclear red button scenario.

[ATNotts]

It's a perfect example of how Brexit is undeliverable in all but the nuclear red button scenario.

And the cruel (but almost laughable) outcome of the nuclear red button scenario will be a hard border on the island of Ireland as the UK will then be the external border of the EU. However much this is undesirable, every other external border of the EU is "hard" save for Switzerland and Norway - and they are only soft because both (non EU) nations have signed up to Schengen.

Arlene Foster is so devoid of a logical brain (her's and that of the DUP is essentially wired for sectarianism, pure and simple) she can't see the pitfalls of her and her party's position.

[Danny G]

Originally Posted by Parapunter

You're definitely lacking a grasp of the detail there & even allowing for that, you've conjured up a false equivalence between money spent & the eventual outcome so enormous, that it would be visible from space.

Except Im not, Im simply pointing out that Banks was not part of the offical campaign and remain spent more than leave and still lost. This clearly demonstrates the fact that your accusation that Putin bought the result is clearly untrue because if that was so leave would have spent more.

[BAengineer]

Originally Posted by ATNotts

What the vote last night signaled loud and clear is that there are (at least) 20 principled Conservatives who have laid down a marker that they will be willing, if push comes to shove, to put country before both party and their political futures.

Hmm - those 'principled' Conservatives all were elected in 2017 on a manifesto promise of leaving the EU including the single market & customs union.

Are there any MP's with principles?

[BAengineer]

Originally Posted by Danny G

Except Im not, Im simply pointing out that Banks was not part of the offical campaign and remain spent more than leave and still lost. This clearly demonstrates the fact that your accusation that Putin bought the result is clearly untrue because if that was so leave would have spent more.

It would be a good trick though - if you can buy an election by spending less than the opposition. Wonder if you can patent it?

[Parapunter]

Originally Posted by Danny G

Except Im not, Im simply pointing out that Banks was not part of the offical campaign and remain spent more than leave and still lost. This clearly demonstrates the fact that your accusation that Putin bought the result is clearly untrue because if that was so leave would have spent more.

Wut? This is binary thinking at it's worst. We have an allegation with lots of supporting circumstantial evidence & ongoing investigations by the cops & the more patriotic minded end of the fourth estate that Russia funnelled cash to Leave.Eu via Arron Banks.

We also know vote leave used the same crooked data firms to target voters as Leave.Eu. We also know Vote Leave gave Darren Grimes (Who?) £625k a few days before the referendum but in actual fact sent that cash directly to Aggregate IQ, breaching spending rules in the process. However, the main point is despite all that in the public domain, it does not follow in logic that If Putin bought the leave vote, the leave campaign automatically wins the referendum.

You might as well say if I buy a formula one car, I become world champion next year.

It's amazing to me that I have to point out that correlation is not causation.

[ORAC]

Strange that the BBC et al seem to be keeping this low key, especially after all their documentaries and investigations into the matter.

Thanet South’s Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, who has been facing a protracted legal battle over his 2015 election spending in South Thanet, has been found not guilty of breaking electoral law by Southwark Crown Court.

[Parapunter]

Eh? It's all over the media.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-46749743
https://news.sky.com/story/conservat...ences-11598096
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8719041.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...xpenses-rules/

Meanwhile, the government has lost control of events. Time to start drafting that article 50 extension letter.

[Fitter2]

We also know vote leave used the same crooked data firms to target voters as Leave.Eu. We also know Vote Leave gave Darren Grimes (Who?) £625k a few days before the referendum but in actual fact sent that cash directly to Aggregate IQ, breaching spending rules in the process. However, the main point is despite all that in the public domain, it does not follow in logic that If Putin bought the leave vote, the leave campaign automatically wins the referendum.

And we also know that the Remain campaign used data from the same companies, and funnelled data and cash to other Remain campaigners, with e-mail trails and witnesses to the phone calls. However, in spite of the evidence and e-mail trails being sent to the Electoral Commission, they decided there was 'insufficient evidence' to pursue the matter. The Remain faction are using every avenue to try and reverse what the government at the time said would be for the electorate to decide, and not repeatable. It would be for the voters, not the MPs, not the lords, not the courts, but the people. Strange how its only when the 'wrong' result is the winner, suddenly everything changes.

[ATNotts]

Originally Posted by BAengineer

Hmm - those 'principled' Conservatives all were elected in 2017 on a manifesto promise of leaving the EU including the single market & customs union.

Are there any MP's with principles?

That's as may be; none of them appreciated the mess that Brexit is getting the country into, and like everyone else, including the government they are entitled to change their minds and / or adapt their approach. This has nothing to do with not leaving the EU - Corbyn's stated policy is to soldier on with Brexit (unless of course he's talking to remainers!) after all.

This all helps to put a stop to the economic "assisted suicide" of the working population of the UK, by making crashing out with no deal less easy for HMG. Brexiteers can perfectly easily have their desired outcome by voting for the May deal - some of them, perhaps may have the brains to realise that. Some others, like Jacob Rees Mogg are too wrapped in their own dogma and ideology to see the writing on the wall.

[Parapunter]

Originally Posted by Fitter2

And we also know that the Remain campaign used data from the same companies, and funnelled data and cash to other Leave campaigners, with e-mail trails and witnesses to the phone calls.

This is contradictory. You're saying Stronger in funnelled data & cash to to other leave campaigners? Why would they do that?

And by the same companies, you must mean Cambridge Analytica, SCL & Aggregate IQ. I would be willing to bet money there is zero evidence for this.

[PDR1]

Of course there isn't - it's a made up fact like the rest of the Leave Campaign. Surely you're used to that by now?

PDR

[Danny G]

We also know vote leave used the same crooked data firms to target voters as Leave.Eu. We also know Vote Leave gave Darren Grimes (Who?) £625k a few days before the referendum but in actual fact sent that cash directly to Aggregate IQ, breaching spending rules in the process. However, the main point is despite all that in the public domain, it does not follow in logic that If Putin bought the leave vote, the leave campaign automatically wins the referendum.

Funny that you cant prove that Putin bought the election then isnt it. Do you deny that remain spent more overall on the referendum than leave? Did you think it unfair that every main political party campaigned for remain? Do you think it unfair thar remain used this to get influential figures like the President of the USA, the IMF and quite a few others to back their campaign.
Putin must be a genius then to have won against all that.