Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Should the UK remain a member of the EU


Anny Road
 Share

  

317 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the UK remain a member of the EU

    • Yes
      259
    • No
      58


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

The numbers required could yet be interesting though when you think about it.  

 

Among the Eurosceptic Tories in particular there are a good 3 options their votes may be split by; May’s deal, no deal and someone else to negotiate a better deal than May could. Could seriously water down the voting power of those who want to leave across the various options.

 

Among those who want to remain, their votes could similarly be split between revoke article 50 and second referendum.

 

Likely come down to which group is best able to coordinate and compromise among themselves enough to pool a significant amount of votes into the one option.

 

With the state of that house, how riven apart paricularly the Tories are and the almost total inability to see the bigger picture that’s been widespread, wouldn’t like to bet on any of them managing it.

Why would votes be split?  Each option will be voted on separately and every Mp gets a vote on each one.

 

Indicative votes will now be held on Wednesday on various Brexit options, in addition to Theresa May's deal, which could include:

  • Revoking Article 50 and cancelling Brexit
  • Another referendum
  • The PM's deal plus a customs union
  • The PM's deal plus both a customs union and single market access
  • A Canada-style free trade agreement
  • Leaving the EU without a deal

But BBC political correspondent Chris Mason points out that it's possible there'll be either a) no consensus for any one option or b) a majority in favour of an option that either the government or the EU find unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brexiters out on force on Twitter claiming the Letwin motion is a ‘constitutional coup.’

 

This has slipped by the radar a bit earlier and makes for interesting reading, although hardly a shock as it’s what a lot of people have been thinking.

 

Quote

About half an hour ago Dominic Grieve, the Conservative pro-European, mentioned reports saying the cabinet has been taking Brexit decisions based on what is best for the Conservative party, not what is best for the country. (See 6pm.)

 

The Times columnist Rachel Sylvester has just published a column (paywall) with more on this charge. Here is an extract.

 

I am told that the minutes of the cabinet meeting contain at least five references to the Tories’ narrow political concerns.

According to the official account, written by Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, ministers discussed how the government is “committed to delivering Brexit — not to do so would be damaging to the Conservative party”. And in a clear sign of the political nature of the discussion chaired by the prime minister, the minutes end with the words: “The Conservative party wants to stay in government and get councillors elected. The arguments in parliament could jeopardise that.”

It is extremely unusual for such language to creep into a civil service note — partisan debates are supposed to be limited to special political cabinet meetings from which officials are excluded. In fact the tone of the minutes was so extraordinary that the issue was raised at this morning’s cabinet meeting by ministers who stressed the importance of governing in the national rather than the party interest.

This was, however, part of a pattern. One Whitehall source says: “In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood.”

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who would have thought the Tories were controlling the Brexit for their own ends.

 

From the moment Cameron up with this wheeze to where we are today has all been in order to entrench the Tories in power. Playing on the fears and prejudices of millions , spewing lies , making false promises and manipulating the media .   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I’ve never seen such a state. The fact that people voted for her still makes my head spin. 

Labour would have won and would win the next one by a landslide if they had anyone else but Corbyn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often wonder what would have happened if Brown had called an election soon after he took over from Blair at the back end of 2007.

 

He seemed to wimp out because Cameron went on the offensive about 'death taxes' at the Tory party conference, and never really recovered. If he had called it and won, we'd still have had the credit crunch, but he would have had a couple more years to deal with it. I'm certain he would have made a better fist of it than Osbourne did and we wouldn't had the damaging austerity measures that prick gleefully introduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mudface said:

I often wonder what would have happened if Brown had called an election soon after he took over from Blair at the back end of 2007.

 

He seemed to wimp out because Cameron went on the offensive about 'death taxes' at the Tory party conference, and never really recovered. If he had called it and won, we'd still have had the credit crunch, but he would have had a couple more years to deal with it. I'm certain he would have made a better fist of it than Osbourne did and we wouldn't had the damaging austerity measures that prick gleefully introduced.

Yes, the way we would have dealt with it would have certainly been better. Brown, whilst not perfect (obviously, he's a human) is an intellectual giant and an excellent economist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problems I see with the indicative voting are firstly that she's blatently going to ignore whatever the outcome is unless it suits her and secondly it seems to overlook the issue of the backstop. Whatever Parliament decides, the EU is not going to change that.

 

Am I missing something here? Is this purely political maneuvering to deny her Parliamentary time for her deal?  If so then it doesnt seem a good tactic given that she wasn't confident in bringing it back this week anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...