Thread: Brexit - It's Still On!

So Doris has just suffered the biggest defeat of any government in history, gets to the despatch box and says nothing has changed. She won't be resigning and dares Corbyn to call a no confidence vote.

She is bat shit deluded and only way she will ever leave no.10 is by force.

A loss by 230 votes. She has lost all dignity. She is a witch. She must burn..

Originally Posted by Troy

A loss by 230 votes. She has lost all dignity. She is a witch. She must burn..

Yes, thank you for your comment Right Honourable Member for Salem North

So remainers have aligned themselves with those wanting a clean Brexit to produce this massive defeat with both sets thinking they will win in the end. Which side is going to be shown to have made a massive miscalculation.

only 30 missing for a win, not bad at all

Originally Posted by Troy

A loss by 230 votes. She has lost all dignity. She is a witch. She must burn..

Isn't the majority 230? so wouldn't be missing only 30 votes

not familiar with your ways of counting votes

^ You've lost me. 432 noes to 202 ayes...

How many are hard brexit? That's 2/3 of the house she failed to convince. I'd say 25-30% hardliners.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

So Doris has just suffered the biggest defeat of any government in history, gets to the despatch box and says nothing has changed. She won't be resigning and dares Corbyn to call a no confidence vote.

She is bat shit deluded and only way she will ever leave no.10 is by force.

Those that matter are more afraid of Corbyn than they are of May, which is why his confidence vote will unite the Tories and DUP.

If Labour want a chance at No 10 virtually all they need to do is grow a pair big enough to off him. If they choose to remain stubborn and infallible, they belong in permanent opposition.

Originally Posted by jabir

his confidence vote will unite the Tories and DUP.

May will most likely win the vote, but talk of 'unity' is right up there with your usual drivel.

The overwhelming and decisive rejection by MPs of Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement to leave the European Union is a shattering blow to the authority of the prime minister. She has spent two years negotiating a deal, which in substance was the opposite of what she said she wanted in public, only to see it repudiated by parliament. Her minority government has now been defeated on no fewer than 28 occasions. Britain is leaving the EU in weeks and Mrs May leads a cabinet that is hopelessly split, a party that is riven with disagreements and a country that is deeply divided. So emphatic is the Commons historic rebuff that Mrs May’s deal is finished. Mrs May lost by 230 votes – the greatest defeat of a government ever. The scale of the opposition means it is not credible Mrs May could bring the motion back to the Commons, modified with a few tweaks from Brussels, and hope for success a second time round.

We do not have to settle for the Hobson’s choice of the May deal or no deal. The trouble is the Tory party is split between those who want a deal and those who do not. Mrs May has intensified the divisions within her party, rather than resolve them. She chose to start negotiations over Brexit not with the EU but with her own hardliners. The red lines Mrs May subsequently set made it impossible for her to get a deal that would bring her fractious party together, let alone reach out to her political opponents. Her agreement ended up shaped by Mrs May’s obsession with immigration and placating Brexit extremists. The result is a “blindfold Brexit” – where almost everything about the future relationship with Europe is up in the air for two more years. It required a leap of faith to place trust in a prime minister who, the Commons wisely decided, deserved very little.


In the current circumstances, there is no majority in parliament for any of the alternative Brexit deals. This could lead to a disaster: Britain crashing out of the EU without a deal. That is why MPs must remove it as an option. Labour has triggered a vote of no confidence in the government but is unlikely to win. That points to the need for a mechanism to allow a Commons majority to take control of the Brexit process. This would require innovation, of the kind seen last week, so committees can be empowered and laws brought forward. But to have other options would require asking the EU for more time. It requires parliamentary cooperation of the kind hitherto unseen. Jeremy Corbyn and Mrs May ought not to stand in the way of such dealings. Constitutional devices such as citizens’ assemblies, raised by Labour MP Lisa Nandy, and another referendum would allow leaders to hold their parties together and provide legitimacy for whatever the public decides. These are not denials of democracy but a reinforcement of it.


Mrs May’s decision to put party politics ahead of national interest means this country will aimlessly drift as the government attempts to recast a withdrawal agreement. An absence of leadership can lead to a sense of panic, one inflated by a government stockpiling food and medicines as if preparing for a war. We need to end the chaos and division that have done so much to disfigure our country. The question we face is whether there can be a durable relationship between Brexit Britain and the EU, which allows both to cooperate on the basis of shared interests and values. Mrs May left it far too late to accept the costs of leaving, preferring to pander to MPs whose snake-oil sales pitch is that there will not be any cost associated with Brexit at all. “Having your cake and eating it” is the Brexiter attitude that encapsulates this inability to think in terms of costs and benefits.


Yet coming clean about these things is necessary to move forward. The country now faces a situation without precedent in its constitutional history: how to reconcile the sovereignty of the people with the sovereignty of parliament. The prime minister has been humbled into admitting she needs to win her opponents over. The Brexit vote was driven by stagnant wages, regional disparities and a soulless form of capital accumulation. These were not caused by the EU, nor will they be solved by leaving it. Only policies enacted by purposeful government can do that. Mrs May has not provided either.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...but-whats-next

^ Indeed,. Labour have said this morning that they don't expect to win the no-confidence motion tonight. However, it does add to the pressure that PM May is under to find a cross-party solution.

I found the Dominic Grieve retort to Geoffrey Cox's speech from last night:

Entertaining as it was … it filled me with a slight sense of gloom to see that the government had got to such a pass that it had to rely on the skills of a criminal defence advocate to get it out of its difficulties.

I have no sympathy for the Maybot whatsoever. Everyone could see where her deal was going and she should have changed course last March instead of leaving it until the last minute. She has put all her eggs in one basket and they've been smashed to bits. I really thought she'd have the decency to resign last night.

Originally Posted by cyrille

The Brexit vote was driven by stagnant wages, regional disparities and a soulless form of capital accumulation. These were not caused by the EU, nor will they be solved by leaving it.

So true and not only for Britain/Brexit.
European voters has revolted against their elected politicians since the 2008 economical crisis for which the populace had to foot the bill and the revolting has only escalated since then.
We are in an economical boom but laborers got nothing, they've only seen a reduction of their purchasing power.
In France it was raising of the petrol price that made the people say enough is enough but they did at least revolt against and put the blame on their own president, the Britons have something to learn from that..

Originally Posted by squirrel

May will most likely win the vote, but talk of 'unity' is right up there with your usual drivel.

I didn't expect that particular stunningly obvious needs to be clarified, not even for the Belgian. But for the truly slow of mind, they will unite against the no confidence vote, and then carry on squabbling; if you need specifics, to wave around later, I honestly cannot say whether that will be ten minutes or two weeks later.

Originally Posted by cyrille

The overwhelming and decisive rejection by MPs of Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement to leave the European Union is a shattering blow to the authority of the prime minister. She has spent two years negotiating a deal, which in substance was the opposite of what she said she wanted in public, only to see it repudiated by parliament. Her minority government has now been defeated on no fewer than 28 occasions. Britain is leaving the EU in weeks and Mrs May leads a cabinet that is hopelessly split, a party that is riven with disagreements and a country that is deeply divided. So emphatic is the Commons historic rebuff that Mrs May’s deal is finished. Mrs May lost by 230 votes – the greatest defeat of a government ever. The scale of the opposition means it is not credible Mrs May could bring the motion back to the Commons, modified with a few tweaks from Brussels, and hope for success a second time round.

We do not have to settle for the Hobson’s choice of the May deal or no deal. The trouble is the Tory party is split between those who want a deal and those who do not. Mrs May has intensified the divisions within her party, rather than resolve them. She chose to start negotiations over Brexit not with the EU but with her own hardliners. The red lines Mrs May subsequently set made it impossible for her to get a deal that would bring her fractious party together, let alone reach out to her political opponents. Her agreement ended up shaped by Mrs May’s obsession with immigration and placating Brexit extremists. The result is a “blindfold Brexit” – where almost everything about the future relationship with Europe is up in the air for two more years. It required a leap of faith to place trust in a prime minister who, the Commons wisely decided, deserved very little.


In the current circumstances, there is no majority in parliament for any of the alternative Brexit deals. This could lead to a disaster: Britain crashing out of the EU without a deal. That is why MPs must remove it as an option. Labour has triggered a vote of no confidence in the government but is unlikely to win. That points to the need for a mechanism to allow a Commons majority to take control of the Brexit process. This would require innovation, of the kind seen last week, so committees can be empowered and laws brought forward. But to have other options would require asking the EU for more time. It requires parliamentary cooperation of the kind hitherto unseen. Jeremy Corbyn and Mrs May ought not to stand in the way of such dealings. Constitutional devices such as citizens’ assemblies, raised by Labour MP Lisa Nandy, and another referendum would allow leaders to hold their parties together and provide legitimacy for whatever the public decides. These are not denials of democracy but a reinforcement of it.


Mrs May’s decision to put party politics ahead of national interest means this country will aimlessly drift as the government attempts to recast a withdrawal agreement. An absence of leadership can lead to a sense of panic, one inflated by a government stockpiling food and medicines as if preparing for a war. We need to end the chaos and division that have done so much to disfigure our country. The question we face is whether there can be a durable relationship between Brexit Britain and the EU, which allows both to cooperate on the basis of shared interests and values. Mrs May left it far too late to accept the costs of leaving, preferring to pander to MPs whose snake-oil sales pitch is that there will not be any cost associated with Brexit at all. “Having your cake and eating it” is the Brexiter attitude that encapsulates this inability to think in terms of costs and benefits.


Yet coming clean about these things is necessary to move forward. The country now faces a situation without precedent in its constitutional history: how to reconcile the sovereignty of the people with the sovereignty of parliament. The prime minister has been humbled into admitting she needs to win her opponents over. The Brexit vote was driven by stagnant wages, regional disparities and a soulless form of capital accumulation. These were not caused by the EU, nor will they be solved by leaving it. Only policies enacted by purposeful government can do that. Mrs May has not provided either.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...but-whats-next

Squirrel have you been hacked? Hope so, it's scary seeing you post longer than a two line snipe, and for that matter on topic.

Originally Posted by Troy

^ Indeed,. Labour have said this morning that they don't expect to win the no-confidence motion tonight. However, it does add to the pressure that PM May is under to find a cross-party solution.

I found the Dominic Grieve retort to Geoffrey Cox's speech from last night:



I have no sympathy for the Maybot whatsoever. Everyone could see where her deal was going and she should have changed course last March instead of leaving it until the last minute. She has put all her eggs in one basket and they've been smashed to bits. I really thought she'd have the decency to resign last night.

She's secure until after March, then expect another upheaval as the backstabbing begins for a new leader.

But with a straight face, what's a cross party solution?

Originally Posted by jabir

She's secure until after March, then expect another upheaval as the backstabbing begins for a new leader.

But with a straight face, what's a cross party solution?

Do you mean that literally, or are you asking what solution is out there that all parties might agree to?

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

Corbyn should come out against Brexit, but how can he do that when the Labour strongholds were the biggest supporters of Brexit?

'were' being the correct tense. They no longer are the biggest supporters of Brexit.

Originally Posted by Troy

'were' being the correct tense. They no longer are the biggest supporters of Brexit.

You have no knowledge of that; pure speculation.

^ In September, before the Labour Party Conference:

Poll shows 86% of Labour members want new Brexit vote

https://www.ft.com/content/dc56ee36-...1-d36dfef1b89a

December 20th:

The polls are clear: support for staying in the EU has rocketed

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...t-peoples-vote

Speculation yes, but informed speculation.

Originally Posted by Troy

Speculation yes, but informed speculation.

Informed with/by extreme bias...

The problem with your theory Troy is if the government went down that road, then that would legitimise kicking out an elected govt or rescinding any referenda on the basis of any poll indicating a change anytime after the election or referendum. A recipe for instability.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

A recipe for instability.

I think, in this case, there is already instability and so it's more a recipe for stability. However, the point you are making is pertinent and the reason why Parliament is so reluctant to go down this route.

The May Government have conceded that they need to listen and find a united solution. I expect the no-deal option to be debated next and removed from the table. That is an extreme that only a minority in Parliament favour and is not something that Parliament believe the majority of the electorate want.

No Brexit is not an option that the majority favour either and is certainly not going to be voted in Parliament without the support of the electorate, either through a GE or another referendum.

Geoffrey Cox made an important point last night when he said that A50 cannot simply be revoked to provide more time to find a solution.

Originally Posted by jabir

I didn't expect that particular stunningly obvious needs to be clarified, not even for the Belgian.

You couldn't clarify butter.

As in the above, you don't even make sense half the time.