REFERENDUM RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THREAD

[Dublin Drummer Wolf]

Nick Gutteridge
‏ @nick_gutteridge
4m4 minutes ago

So here’s where we seem to be: If MPs approve the deal next week there’s a technical extension to May 22 then UK leaves. If they don’t there’s an extension to April 12 with the option to then go much longer if the UK agrees to hold EU elections. Essentially a buffet extension.

Wow. And people say the EU are being stubborn? That is very flexible if true.

Go on Brussells!

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Yes they have. There are plenty of potential Brexit solutions that could be perceived to be "soft". The Government has ruled them all out with their own red lines. They voluntarily boxed themselves in. You cannot have what they profess to want (no FoM, no Customs Union, no Single Market) and also have a Soft Brexit.

By the way this means the prospect of No Deal is significantly lowered as we'll get rid of the lunatic who is propelling us that way. The one who thinks it's clever to drive towards a cliff edge.

Let's just say she can forget a glittering post-politics future, she is going to be an absolute pariah. Awful, awful woman.

Deservedly so, but I told you what she was like years ago!

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Believe me, you didn't have to tell me. She was a vile Home Secretary.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

So in @faisalislam's report just now, Vince Cable claimed that Theresa May in her meeting with opposition leaders said that "the people voted for pain" when asked about the damage No Deal might wreak.

What a lovely woman.

 

[Trips]

Unbelievable if true. I don't care what the people voted for or the will of the people. If our politicians know (and they do) the damage all of this will cause, their duty is not go through with it.

 

[Sedgley Wolf]

Predictably, I'm getting battered with hysterical wailing on Facebook after posting the Revoke Article 50 petition.

If anyone is interested, I can post the stuff they're coming up with and maybe we can get to the bottom of some of this stuff. Alternatively, if you don't want to see this and/or we've debated it all in here before, tell me and I'll stop.

Exhibit A:

''The UK contributed a net amount of £5 billion in 2018 while Luxembourg received £1.4 billion. This net figure is set to increase after the 'UK Rebate' ends in 2020-2022"

Response

I think the main problem here is that while the statement might be true, its pretty meaningless. As one of the dominant/rich nations in the Union, we were wielding considerable influence, something that brought impressive rewards in itself - £1.5 billion being directly given to our universities in 2018 being just one of them.

The net contribution works out to just 1.5% of overall Government spending as well, considerably less than a number of EU members.

https://fullfact.org/europe/claim-about-uks-eu-contribution-correct-meaningless/

Besides, all this pales into insignificance compared to the cost of No Deal!

Anyone have anything else to add?

 

[Templeton Peck]

She could have resolved this years ago simply by holding cross party talks to hammer out a soft brexit that would pass the Commons. That would have respected the closeness of the referendum and shown leadership and a willingness to try to unite the nation and move on. Instead we've had the political equivalent of screaming whilst holding your fingers in your ears.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Predictably, I'm getting battered with hysterical wailing on Facebook after posting the Revoke Article 50 petition.

If anyone is interested, I can post the stuff they're coming up with and maybe we can get to the bottom of some of this stuff. Alternatively, if you don't want to see this and/or we've debated it all in here before, tell me and I'll stop.

Exhibit A:

''The UK contributed a net amount of £5 billion in 2018 while Luxembourg received £1.4 billion. This net figure is set to increase after the 'UK Rebate' ends in 2020-2022"

Response

I think the main problem here is that while the statement might be true, its pretty meaningless. As one of the dominant/rich nations in the Union, we were wielding considerable influence, something that brought impressive rewards in itself - £1.5 billion being directly given to our universities in 2018 being just one of them.

The net contribution works out to just 1.5% of overall Government spending as well, considerably less than a number of EU members.

https://fullfact.org/europe/claim-about-uks-eu-contribution-correct-meaningless/

Besides, all this pales into insignificance compared to the cost of No Deal!

Anyone have anything else to add?

Good example and good response. Its true. That's the ridiculous state of affairs when the country with the highest average wage in Europe is a net gainer. If you're interested their is just shy of 54k while ours is 28 k.

 

[Premier Quality]

Yes they have. There are plenty of potential Brexit solutions that could be perceived to be "soft". The Government has ruled them all out with their own red lines. They voluntarily boxed themselves in. You cannot have what they profess to want (no FoM, no Customs Union, no Single Market) and also have a Soft Brexit.

By the way this means the prospect of No Deal is significantly lowered as we'll get rid of the lunatic who is propelling us that way. The one who thinks it's clever to drive towards a cliff edge.

Let's just say she can forget a glittering post-politics future, she is going to be an absolute pariah. Awful, awful woman.

What makes you think she will be removed? The tories used their opportunity to get rid of her and have to wait almost a year - the only alternative is a no confidence against the government isn’t it?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

She has lost the whips. That is usually fatal. And MV3 will clearly be lost so that should be enough for someone to convince her to resign. Not certain she will though.

 

[Premier Quality]

I read someone say that if all her cabinet resigned, she’s just try and do it all by herself anyway - tongue in Cheek, but not hugely.

I’m just not sure how they would get her to resign if she didn’t want to, I’m not sure if the mechanisms.

 

[Sniffer]

I read someone say that if all her cabinet resigned, she’s just try and do it all by herself anyway - tongue in Cheek, but not hugely.

I’m just not sure how they would get her to resign if she didn’t want to, I’m not sure if the mechanisms.

I think that she'd possibly lose a confidence vote as soon as the the 29th March passes as the ERG are furious that the period will be extended. I don't see there being an appetite in the Labour Party for the vote though unless she tries to force no deal through. If the ERG are back on board with her if she goes for no deal then surely there are enough remain leaning Tories of sound mind to vote against her in a confidence vote.

 

[Premier Quality]

A confidence vote is against the government though, so would lead to a general election - they can’t have another confidence vote on her as the leader until a year after the last one, which was before Christmas I think

 

[Penk Wolf]

I read someone say that if all her cabinet resigned, she’s just try and do it all by herself anyway - tongue in Cheek, but not hugely.

I’m just not sure how they would get her to resign if she didn’t want to, I’m not sure if the mechanisms.

She’d just add a new cabinet.

 

[Sniffer]

A confidence vote is against the government though, so would lead to a general election - they can’t have another confidence vote on her as the leader until a year after the last one, which was before Christmas I think

If the government is brought down by the vote, there would follow a 14-day period in which to form a new government, based on the existing make-up of MPs.

The House of Commons would then have to vote on whether or not they now had confidence in the new government. Were this to fail, a general election would be triggered.

 

[Premier Quality]

Do you think Tory MP’s would support that confidence vote and go to a new GE?

 

[Sniffer]

Do you think Tory MP’s would support that confidence vote and go to a new GE?

No. My guess is that they would replace the leader for a temporary one to win the vote to form a new government before going through the circus of a new leadership election. The problem could be finding some sort of interim unity candidate.

 

[Johnny75]

No. My guess is that they would replace the leader for a temporary one to win the vote to form a new government before going through the circus of a new leadership election. The problem could be finding some sort of interim unity candidate.

It should be Grieve on ability but may well not be suitable for all and it might just land on Spreadsheet Phil to be the caretaker.

 

[Sniffer]

It should be Grieve on ability but may well not be suitable for all and it might just land on Spreadsheet Phil to be the caretaker.

Gove would be my bet. A leave backing minister who has softened his stance since. They wouldn't go for a remainer as that would be toxic for the rest of the party.

 

[Sniffer]

The can kicking continues.

At the morning lobby briefing, No 10 said the EU’s agreement to extend article 50 until 22 May was contingent on holding the meaningful vote next week. The exact date has not been set but it is likely to be on Tuesday or Wednesday, to give MPs and peers time to pass legislation to change the exit date before 29 March.

The prime minister’s spokesman said:

The consideration is to hold it when we believe we have a realistic prospect of success. My understanding of last night is that the extension to May 22 was contingent on winning the vote next week.