Theresa May calls General Election for June 8

[stevewinn]

1 minute ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

let me try to explain it again. Ms. May called this election because she wanted to have an enormous majority so she could stamp her authority on parliament and tell the EU who was boss so she could get Brexit on her terms. 

She didn't get any of those things.

Instead she had her majority wiped out completely and made herself the most disliked Conservative leader since... well, there's been a lot of competition there, but certainly she's surely about as popular now as T. Blair was in his final years, both with her own party and with the nation as a whole. The Conservative vote came almost entirely from those whose hands are physically incapable of drawing a cross (X) alongside the name of anyone with anything other than (Conservative) next to it. Now she's only able to govern (or she tells herself she's still able to govern) by grovelling to a bunch of bowler-hatted hard-right Northern irish bigots. She's failed in everything. How is that possibly the winning side? She's not in Government, she's not in control, she has no authority. You can understand that can't you? 

 

yes we know all this, but, you are a little off, pray tell, who currently is the Government? who currently is the Prime Minister?

[Setton]

17 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

OK explain what's wrong tell me what's going to happen, the pound did slump at the exit polls but returned when the results came in, i'm all ears.

Well I must have said it at least half a dozen times now so feel free to read my older posts. In brief:

- Tiny government majority, even with DUP so difficult to pass anything

- Government risks losing all credibility after attacking opposition leader of links with former terrorists by asking for support of... former terrorists.

- Government risks Northern Irish peace progress by surrendering its neutral stance. They can not act as mediator when they require the support of the DUP.

- Government in much less secure position to deliver Brexit. Likely having to water down agreements to get through parliament. EU officials are also unhappy with the election outcome and will probably hold government responsible (NB they would have been happy with Conservative majority or Labour majority, they just want to deal with a secure government.

[stevewinn]

2 minutes ago, Setton said:

Well I must have said it at least half a dozen times now so feel free to read my older posts. In brief:

- Tiny government majority, even with DUP so difficult to pass anything

- Government risks losing all credibility after attacking opposition leader of links with former terrorists by asking for support of... former terrorists.

- Government risks Northern Irish peace progress by surrendering its neutral stance. They can not act as mediator when they require the support of the DUP.

- Government in much less secure position to deliver Brexit. Likely having to water down agreements to get through parliament. EU officials are also unhappy with the election outcome and will probably hold government responsible (NB they would have been happy with Conservative majority or Labour majority, they just want to deal with a secure government.

Would you still have the same opinion if Labour would have got 318 seats and used the DUP to form a new government?

[hetrodoxly]

42 minutes ago, Setton said:

Government in much less secure position to deliver Brexit. Likely having to water down agreements to get through parliament

I thought this is what you wanted?

[Space Commander Travis]

15 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

I thought this is what you wanted?

it's certainly by far the most preferable of all the possibilities, to be sure. Ms. May will have her authoritarian tendencies kept in check, there's a viable opposition, and Mr. Corbyn's less realistic policies (renationalising everything, giving power back to the unions) will also not come to pass, but he may be able to use his influence to make some of the Tory policies a little more humane. And Ms. May (or at any rate the Tories, whoever (Boris) is in charge by then) will have to give Brexit and what their plans are for it some thought, and not just rely on kneejerk slogans. 

[Setton]

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

Would you still have the same opinion if Labour would have got 318 seats and used the DUP to form a new government?

Doubt they'd have used the DUP...

But let's say for the sake of argument Labour won and Sinn Fein decided to take their seats to make a majority. I would have EXACTLY the same concerns there. I don't think any UK government should align itself, support or fund any terrorist or former terrorist organisation.

The only difference is the added irony that this was one of the tories lines of attack on Corbyn. But that's just a little sweetener really.

46 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

I thought this is what you wanted?

Oh I'm fine with it. But it's not what the government wants therefore they're in a weakened position.

[keithisco]

I think some folk here are missing the point of the Parliamentary vote at the end of negotiations. There will be a SINGLE vote: Either accept or reject the negotiated terms. There is no question of watering down the negotiations, because there is no Parliamentary Instrument that can be employed to change the wording of the vote that is presented. This is NOT a legislative vote where amendments have to be considered and accepted or rejected by both houses.

So: either accept the negotiated package, or reject it, in which case there WILL be a clean Brexit and a complete severing between EU institutions and the Sovereign UK Parliament.

To suggest otherwise is just hot-air and wishful thinking  

[RAyMO]

Ok - so if nothing changes and there is no impediment caused by being a minority government, why did we need an election in the first place?

[hetrodoxly]

4 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Ok - so if nothing changes and there is no impediment caused by being a minority government, why did we need an election in the first place?

To stop it being rejected, the worse possible outcome for everyone.

[keithisco]

13 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Ok - so if nothing changes and there is no impediment caused by being a minority government, why did we need an election in the first place?

A somewhat moot point is it not?

Just be thankful that Corbyn does not hold the reins of power with his totally profligate spending plans that would have ruined the economy of this country. I'm just pleased that I am not paying for his Grand Vision through my taxes

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

let me try to explain it again. Ms. May called this election because she wanted to have an enormous majority so she could stamp her authority on parliament and tell the EU who was boss so she could get Brexit on her terms. 

She didn't get any of those things.

Instead she had her majority wiped out completely and made herself the most disliked Conservative leader since... well, there's been a lot of competition there, but certainly she's surely about as popular now as T. Blair was in his final years, both with her own party and with the nation as a whole. The Conservative vote came almost entirely from those whose hands are physically incapable of drawing a cross (X) alongside the name of anyone with anything other than (Conservative) next to it. Now she's only able to govern (or she tells herself she's still able to govern) by grovelling to a bunch of bowler-hatted hard-right Northern irish bigots. She's failed in everything. How is that possibly the winning side? She's not in Government, she's not in control, she has no authority. You can understand that can't you? 

 

Yes but May didn't lose an enormous majority. She lost 13 seats. Not what she was after but hardly a rout. Able enough to still form a government. And theoretically push through agenda. May IS in control. I'd say that May misread the public mood. But the conservatives generally held their ground. Hard Brexit is the loser. Nigel and his legacy are the biggest losers. The tide has turned in favour of labour and Corbyn's hard leftist policies but he is far away from government.

Brexit is still popular just not hard Brexit. May will have to change or there will be a change in government. And if there is a change in government and Corbyn wins then he will need to deliver on all his promises including nationalisation of industries and a socialist agenda otherwise he will go. 

[Unusual Tournament]

54 minutes ago, keithisco said:

I think some folk here are missing the point of the Parliamentary vote at the end of negotiations. There will be a SINGLE vote: Either accept or reject the negotiated terms. There is no question of watering down the negotiations, because there is no Parliamentary Instrument that can be employed to change the wording of the vote that is presented. This is NOT a legislative vote where amendments have to be considered and accepted or rejected by both houses.

So: either accept the negotiated package, or reject it, in which case there WILL be a clean Brexit and a complete severing between EU institutions and the Sovereign UK Parliament.

To suggest otherwise is just hot-air and wishful thinking  

Well this is were May will have to work with Labour. I don't know what percentage a parliamentary vote requires to pass but if its the average 2/3rds then May is in trouble. May will have to consult with Labour to pass anything. Thats why she wanted those extra 80-100 seats. 

I think May will scuttle the ships so to speak and allow a complete Brexit breakdown. This has become very personal to May. Maybe too personal. 

If May doesn't get Hard Brexit she will force Hardcore Brexit on the UK.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Captain Risky

[keithisco]

6 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Well this is were May will have to work with Labour. I don't know what percentage a parliamentary vote requires to pass but if its the average 2/3rds then May is in trouble. May will have to consult with Labour to pass anything. Thats why she wanted those extra 80-100 seats. 

I think May will scuttle the ships so to speak and allow a complete Brexit breakdown. This has become very personal to May. Maybe too personal. 

A simple majority is all that is required.

As in any minority govt. you do not bring forward controversial legislation but even so, she only needs the backing of her own MP's and the DUP to ensure it will pass.

As for the Brexit talks breaking down I agree, but not because of the UK, rather it will be exorbitant demands from the EU negotiators  such as the 100 Billion pound divorce settlement currently being mooted. The EU will also demand that the ECJ have jurisdiction over certain areas of UK Law, and control over specific measures the UK may want to take to ensure the pre-eminence of London as the leading financial centre.

So...yes, Brexit negotiations WILL break down as a result of EU Commission grandstanding and sheer arrogance towards democracies 

[Unusual Tournament]

14 minutes ago, keithisco said:

A simple majority is all that is required.

As in any minority govt. you do not bring forward controversial legislation but even so, she only needs the backing of her own MP's and the DUP to ensure it will pass.

As for the Brexit talks breaking down I agree, but not because of the UK, rather it will be exorbitant demands from the EU negotiators  such as the 100 Billion pound divorce settlement currently being mooted. The EU will also demand that the ECJ have jurisdiction over certain areas of UK Law, and control over specific measures the UK may want to take to ensure the pre-eminence of London as the leading financial centre.

So...yes, Brexit negotiations WILL break down as a result of EU Commission grandstanding and sheer arrogance towards democracies 

When May called the general election she needed 2/3rds majority to pas the motion. Im sure that if any negotiated brexit agreement reaches parliament then she will need the same 2/3rds majority. I will look it up when i get the chance. 

Brexit will breakdown but i don't think it fair to say that it will be the EU's doing. Britain and May in particular needs to be realistic. You can't have a better deal concerning trade with the EU outside the EU. This is a fundamental right of all EU nations to win better terms inside and not outside the EU. Britain is asking effectively for the EU to give it the same advantages as a member but with no responsibilities. Won't happen. 

Britain is in for a considerable period of abnormal relations with the EU and the rest of the world until new partnerships and agreements are established. 

[+and-then]

15 hours ago, stevewinn said:

I've just checked again this morning. and yes Corbyn, Labour still didn't win. = Result. If Theresa stays or goes, the longer we can keep the dead hand of Labour away from the tiller the better for the country.

Had Corbyn been made PM, I think it would have severely damaged the credibility of the UK here in the US.  The guy is, frankly, scary.  I still have trouble imagining Britons' willingness to vote for such a person.  I guess that's how many in the UK felt about us last November.

[keithisco]

20 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

When May called the general election she needed 2/3rds majority to pas the motion. Im sure that if any negotiated brexit agreement reaches parliament then she will need the same 2/3rds majority. I will look it up when i get the chance. 

Brexit will breakdown but i don't think it fair to say that it will be the EU's doing. Britain and May in particular needs to be realistic. You can't have a better deal concerning trade with the EU outside the EU. This is a fundamental right of all EU nations to win better terms inside and not outside the EU. Britain is asking effectively for the EU to give it the same advantages as a member but with no responsibilities. Won't happen. 

Britain is in for a considerable period of abnormal relations with the EU and the rest of the world until new partnerships and agreements are established. 

The 2/3rds majority only applied because she wanted to call a General Election BEFORE the end of the 5 yr fixed-term parliament. A motion of "no-confidence" passed by a simple majority can also trigger a General Election before the end of the 5yr term.

Nobody ever expected a "better" deal on trade with the EU after Brexit, and nobody has asked for it-except Remainers.

As stated previously...the vote on the final deal is NOT Legislative in nature, and more importantly, neither is it Constitutional in nature, therefore only a simple majority is required. If there is no deal to be put forward then there will not be a vote and under the Terms of the Lisbon Treaty, Art. 50 (on the 2nd anniversary of it being triggered) the UK will simply not be bound by any EU Treaty including the Treaty of Accession.

 

Edited June 10, 2017 by keithisco

[Unusual Tournament]

15 minutes ago, keithisco said:

The 2/3rds majority only applied because she wanted to call a General Election BEFORE the end of the 5 yr fixed-term parliament. A motion of "no-confidence" passed by a simple majority can also trigger a General Election before the end of the 5yr term.

Nobody ever expected a "better" deal on trade with the EU after Brexit, and nobody has asked for it-except Remainers.

As stated previously...the vote on the final deal is NOT Legislative in nature, and more importantly, neither is it Constitutional in nature, therefore only a simple majority is required. If there is no deal to be put forward then there will not be a vote and under the Terms of the Lisbon Treaty, Art. 50 (on the 2nd anniversary of it being triggered) the UK will simply not be bound by any EU Treaty including the Treaty of Accession.

 

...i have looked and can't seem to find anything on what would constitute a majority concerning brexit. So i guess i will take your word for it. But surely something as sovereign as brexit would require a vote beyond party lines to enact. Otherwise why have a parliamentary vote to start off with? 

[keithisco]

3 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

...i have looked and can't seem to find anything on what would constitute a majority concerning brexit. So i guess i will take your word for it. But surely something as sovereign as brexit would require a vote beyond party lines to enact. Otherwise why have a parliamentary vote to start off with? 

The actual vote to exit the EU was taken before Art 50 was triggered. That was the single vote that determined the UK WILL exit the EU and it received massive cross-party parliamentary support (498 to 115), whilst the referendum result gave the authority for the parliamentary support. 

[Unusual Tournament]

2 minutes ago, keithisco said:

The actual vote to exit the EU was taken before Art 50 was triggered. That was the single vote that determined the UK WILL exit the EU and it received massive cross-party parliamentary support (498 to 115), whilst the referendum result gave the authority for the parliamentary support. 

So you're saying that leaving the EU is a foregone conclusion, regardless of the negotiations?  

Edited June 10, 2017 by Captain Risky

[keithisco]

Just now, Captain Risky said:

So you're saying that having the EU is a foregone conclusion, regardless of the negotiations?  

There is no process to stop it happening once Art 50 has been invoked. It is a simple stopwatch.

Somewhat curiously though-the EU rules only require a qualified majority of members to agree to the negotiated exit terms but a unanimous EU27 vote to extend the negotiating period. How that is supposed to work when the UK will already have left the EU is anybody's guess, but officially and legally the UK will not have to conform with any EU Institution's directives after that date.

[Setton]

59 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

When May called the general election she needed 2/3rds majority to pas the motion. Im sure that if any negotiated brexit agreement reaches parliament then she will need the same 2/3rds majority. I will look it up when i get the chance. 

That's written into law specifically under the fixed term parliaments act. Governments used to call elections whenever they were high in the polls so they could guarantee staying in power so this law was brought in. Elections are held every 5 years unless 2/3rds of MPs support holding one earlier (basically guarantees it needs cross party support or wouldn't really benefit the government).

Pretty much everything else usually going the parliament just needs a simple majority.

48 minutes ago, and then said:

Had Corbyn been made PM, I think it would have severely damaged the credibility of the UK here in the US.  The guy is, frankly, scary.  I still have trouble imagining Britons' willingness to vote for such a person.  I guess that's how many in the UK felt about us last November.

The UK and US really do have very different ideals on politics. As a nation we lean much more to the left than you do but more the right than a lot of Europe. To give you an idea, my dad's assessment of Bernie Sanders when told he was a socialist in America was 'so basically a Tory activist then'

Trump would be on the extreme right of UK politics. As in, more fringe than Farage.

We'd probably have lost credibility in the US with Corbyn as PM but gained it with Europe. Win some, lose some.

[keithisco]

"...and on that bombshell" I bid you all goodnight

[Unusual Tournament]

Just now, keithisco said:

There is no process to stop it happening once Art 50 has been invoked. It is a simple stopwatch.

...so if the negotiations go pear shape and brexit is a disaster, there is no reset to stop the deal? That's ridiculous. Why would British leaders gamble with the prosperity of the UK in a single throw of the dice? 

3 minutes ago, keithisco said:

Somewhat curiously though-the EU rules only require a qualified majority of members to agree to the negotiated exit terms but a unanimous EU27 vote to extend the negotiating period. How that is supposed to work when the UK will already have left the EU is anybody's guess, but officially and legally the UK will not have to conform with any EU Institution's directives after that date.

Well the devil is in the detail. It is wrong and not very democratic, i agree.

Same with the Brexit referendum. The referendum was non binding. There was nothing to say that Brexit must go ahead. It was only taking the pulse of the people. A simple majority wasn't a clear indication of what brexit was expected to deliver. And yet that non binding motion has morphed into a binding agreement. How is that possible? Shouldn't a negotiated brexit have been put to the people?

Article 50 should be able to be revoked by the UK and if it isn't then the government of May should bare full responsibility for the mess that will come outta it. May should have applied legal points to all negotiations outlining the best interests for Britain.   

[LV-426]

8 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

do you realise how much you're making yourself look like the sourest of sour grapes losers

 

6 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

The Conservative vote came almost entirely from those whose hands are physically incapable of drawing a cross (X) alongside the name of anyone with anything other than (Conservative) next to it.

 

Ohh, come on Manfred... of those of us here who did vote Tory, most of us have pointed out that it was for the first time.

Personally, aside from UKIP last time, I've voted Labour since 1992, other than not voting at all in 2005 as Blair's true colours came to the fore.

Who's talking sour grapes now?

[freetoroam]

18 hours ago, stevewinn said:

people are saying the surge if you can call it that in the labour vote was down to the youth, if you can call 18+ year old's 'youth' with many commentators saying it was Labours policy on tuition fees. - Labour once again planning on spending other peoples money. if i was a student going to University at £9,000 i too would vote for Labour, i mean why pay yourself when you can get the tax payer to foot the bill. - when it comes to education yes its a right up until secondary school, but im afraid going to University is a choice not a right.

 

I think young people have been duped with Corbyns tuition fee...thing.

someone would have to pay for the fees...as you say, that will he the tax payer.

Lets not forget what Corbyn said...the free tuition fees are for all EU students...so the British tax payer will pay for EU  students to come here and be taught in our universities. Many of the EU students will get their university education, get their degrees and then go straight back home...all at the British tax payers expence.

it is very sad to see our young generation have been so easily duped by this ridiculous proposal.

had he said British students would get a reduction, then i can understand....but free to all EU students ?

and when the British students get their degrees and a job earning them decent bucks, i hope they will be happy to pay the big taxes (as Corbyn would hit them first as he has clearly stated)  to cover all the young students who come after them....and knowing Corbyn, it will not be long before the whole world will be able to come to England and get their uni fees paid for by .....every.... British tax payer.