For the umpteenth time. This isn’t elites v people. That’s a false narrative to paper over the bankruptcy of the Brexit cause. Give it up, quartz. No amount of elites v people fairytales is going to bypass the real obstacles to Brexit ever working, which people like you have flatly refuse to engaged with, and clung to your fantasies.
No deal is the **worst[/] deal for Britain, as everyone who knows anything about trade has been warning for two years. That’s not elites telling you that. It’s trade experts and businessmen. Please think for once and recognise that.
I’m not surprised there’s no change. The Leave plans for British fishing after Brexit were always daft and unworkable. Oh, sorry, that’s what the elites say, so yes, unicorns are real.
The EU should partition the UK before it gives them their independence. Probably the country will split into pro and anti treaty factions, who’ll fight it out,
Oh, wait, that sounds familiar… why?
I’m sorry but it isn’t a false narrative. People saw Cameron get sent away with a pat on the head. People saw the patronising attitudes of the EU to their concerns. People saw their concerns over immigration being conflated with racism. And so on.
Could you spell what you think he demanded and got turned down for?
What concerns? Spell them out. Don’t be vague. And explain why they’re the EU’s problems rather than Westminster’s, and finally if it’s reasonable to expect the EU to accommodate them.
So that magically makes something that cannot logically exist exist, does it?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
My mum voted for Brexit because she doesn’t like the idea of immigration and wanted to give those Posh gits like Cameron a big kick up the backside.
She does not understand or care much for what Brussels does. As far as she is concerned it is where sprouts come from.
International trade and the workings of the economy are something the pompous politicians talk about endlessly in the news. She would only pay attention if it was something to do with the NHS, which is always under threat and must be saved. She is rather bemused that the has expressed the ‘democratic will of the people’ by voting for Brexit. But likes the idea that the NHS will get more money. She thought it was like calling the bank and cancelling a subscription you don’t need so you can use the money for something more important. I don’t think she likes being asked to vote on stuff like this, it is not her job to be up on all this sort of thing. She likes General Elections every few years, but politicians can’t make up the mind about something they should resign and hand over to another lot that have better ideas.
On her last point, I am in full agreement. The Tories in melt down will mean another General Election on the horizon.
It’s not a question of whether May is determined or not. The UK is on track to leave the EU on 29 March, in exactly the same way that people who jump out of planes are on track to smash into the ground. There are some specific actions they can take to avoid that fate, but failing that ground-smashing is what’s going to happen.
The UK will leave the EU on the 29th of March with or without a deal unless: a) the EU and the UK agree to extend the negotiation period or b) somehow, the UK withdraws its A50 notification.
If May loses the vote, all that happens is that exit without a deal becomes more likely. Brexit is not imperilled in any way.
At what point does this become a confidence measure under the new fixed election rules? If May loses the vote on the 400 page Leave plan, does that trigger an election?
This is more complex than it seems (see fractal madness, above) but basically no.
The Fixed Term Parliament Act says that there are two ways to call a new election only:
1a) The government loses a specifically worded no-confidence motion
1b) 14 days later, the government loses a subsequent specific no-confidence motion.
OR
For two-thirds of MPs (434 out of 650) to vote for an early election*.
Previously, any vote could be deemed a no-confidence vote by the government (who would say so in advance). This has somewhat been superseded by the need for a specific no-confidence motion but there is still some ambiguity about whether a sufficiently important vote (i.e. this, Budget, Queen’s Speech) would still count as a vote in 1a above, or whether that defeat would need to be followed up with a specific no-confidence vote. You can guess easily enough how the current government is likely to feel about this.
But in any case, losing one vote won’t do it. We’re looking at at least two, 14 days apart. Or to put it another way, slightly more than 10% of the time between now and 29th March.
*(There are not 434 MPs currently excited about the prospect of a new election).
You might think that, given that he was Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. But he would claim that the negotiations were handled by civil servants answering directly to the PM and that he had little or no say, especially as he’s only been in post a short time.
You might also think that “I failed to impose myself against Theresa May to stand up for Brexit” is not the best pitch for party leadership, but you go with what you’ve got, I suppose.