Labour finally table "motion of no confidence."

[Infinite Chaos]

'That this House has no confidence in the Prime Minister due to her failure to allow the House of Commons to have a meaningful vote straight away on the Withdrawal Agreement and framework for future relationships between the UK and European Union.' Link.

Have to say I am really surprised. Labour must feel they can 1) win and 2) resolve 2.5 years of wasted negotiations and come up with a solution before March 29th.

Personally and even as a Remain supporter I would (if leading the opposition) let the disaster unfold and then challenge after the 29th March. That's just the cynic in me - however I wouldn't want my party to be tarnished by the failure that is a hard Brexit and 2.5 wasted years of negotiation.

 

[OrphanSlug]

At this point I think it is all politics, little substance. The timing suggests a delay tactic if anything, trying to avoid the deadline using a no-confidence vote to buy time on the assumption it would work.

I would expect more political maneuvering as we approach that deadline.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

At this point I think it is all politics, little substance. The timing suggests a delay tactic if anything, trying to avoid the deadline using a no-confidence vote to buy time on the assumption it would work.

I would expect more political maneuvering as we approach that deadline.

Losing a confidence vote would be pretty serious but not quite enough to force a resignation. It's the no confidence in the govt that would be devastating - however a no-confidence in the leader / PM could still tip the balance.

 

[Westphalian]

Corbyn has been pushed into this by opposition within his own party.


May will win the vote of no confidence. It's the one thing which will unite the Tories, and a stupid error by Corbyn, but remember that many in his own party hate him.

 

[beerftw]

I do not understand why this process has taken so long and made little ground, short of your countries politicians being inept and corrupt. how hard can negotiations be really?

 

[Westphalian]

I do not understand why this process has taken so long and made little ground, short of your countries politicians being inept and corrupt. how hard can negotiations be really?

It's because most of the political class and civil service are opposed to Brexit. They have therefore negotiated slowly, ineptly and in bad faith.


A democratic crisis stares the UK in the face if parliament refuses to deliver it, and that won't be solved by asking people to vote again. Any such second vote should be ignored by Leavers in order to de-legitimise it.

 

[PeteEU]

I do not understand why this process has taken so long and made little ground, short of your countries politicians being inept and corrupt. how hard can negotiations be really?

Well it is a divorce negotiation and they are never easy.

Remember the trade negotiations have not even started yet.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I do not understand why this process has taken so long and made little ground, short of your countries politicians being inept and corrupt. how hard can negotiations be really?

Well, there are lots of versions of Brexit - from very soft Brexit to full hard Brexit. The hard Brexit people advocate just leaving, a lot of the propaganda for this approach has been that the EU would come to its collective senses (27 different governments) and give us a deal. The very soft Brexit was that we should do the minimum two break away from EU rules.
It's not a political sides thing - within both the Conservative and Labour Party there are supporters of both approaches.

The basic premise is we are leaving a club - how much access do we want to it once we leave and how willing are we to pay the access arrangements.

It's because most of the political class and civil service are opposed to Brexit. They have therefore negotiated slowly, ineptly and in bad faith.

Complete b******s

A democratic crisis stares the UK in the face if parliament refuses to deliver it, and that won't be solved by asking people to vote again. Any such second vote should be ignored by Leavers in order to de-legitimise it.

I voted Remain but I think we should follow the democratic process. So let's say in 5 years time, there is the proposal to negotiate re-entry. What is your view (if you have any beyond the current status) then of a vote to start re-entry negotiations? Is that democratic or are the Brits not allowed to vote again on anything once they have made their 3rd vote on membership?

Bear in mind, all the rebates, treaties and vetoes we have painfully battled for will no longer be available and we will be just another accession member.

 

[Hawkeye10]

It's because most of the political class and civil service are opposed to Brexit. They have therefore negotiated slowly, ineptly and in bad faith.


A democratic crisis stares the UK in the face if parliament refuses to deliver it, and that won't be solved by asking people to vote again. Any such second vote should be ignored by Leavers in order to de-legitimise it.

I dont know this, with as bad as Western leaders have been recently this very well could be shear lack of competence and giving a damn.

 

[Sweden]

Have to say I am really surprised. Labour must feel they can 1) win and 2) resolve 2.5 years of wasted negotiations and come up with a solution before March 29th.

Personally and even as a Remain supporter I would (if leading the opposition) let the disaster unfold and then challenge after the 29th March. That's just the cynic in me - however I wouldn't want my party to be tarnished by the failure that is a hard Brexit and 2.5 wasted years of negotiation.

A vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister (as opposed to no confidence in the Government) has no constitutional or parliamentary significance. So even if Labour were to win this vote the outcome would be no more than embarassment for May: she woul continue as PM.

Corbyn is relying on most people not understanding that this 'vote of confidence' is a meaningless gimmick - or maybe he does not understand this himself.

 

[Hawkeye10]

A vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister (as opposed to no confidence in the Government) has no constitutional or parliamentary significance. So even if Labour were to win this vote the outcome would be no more than embarassment for May: she woul continue as PM.

Corbyn is relying on most people not understanding that this 'vote of confidence' is a meaningless gimmick - or maybe he does not understand this himself.

You sound like me!

:2wave:

 

[PeteEU]

A vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister (as opposed to no confidence in the Government) has no constitutional or parliamentary significance. So even if Labour were to win this vote the outcome would be no more than embarassment for May: she woul continue as PM.

Corbyn is relying on most people not understanding that this 'vote of confidence' is a meaningless gimmick - or maybe he does not understand this himself.

Err no.. A vote of no confidence against May is the same as a vote of no confidence against the government.. when done in Parliament.

 

[Sweden]

Err no.. A vote of no confidence against May is the same as a vote of no confidence against the government.. when done in Parliament.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic..._source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

 

[Chagos]

Err no.. A vote of no confidence against May is the same as a vote of no confidence against the government.. when done in Parliament.

Sorry, but no.

Sweden is correct, parliamentary vote of no confidence in the PM and parliamentary vote of no confidence in the government are not the same.

The first is primarily symbolic and forces nobody to do anything, the second would topple the government and force elections.

Corbyn initiating a vote of (no) confidence in the government would have taken actual guts and Corbyn is absolutely gutless.

He's basically just a prevaricating trickster who wishes to be seen doing great things while actually doing nothing at all. But that makes him neither worse than the ruling party nor does it make the ruling party any better.

 

[Chagos]

As someone else said recently: If I order a chicken meal in a restaurant and the chicken is then served half-cooked, nothing can force me to eat it. I'll have it returned to the kitchen for further cooking or, if that is not possible, choose something else.

This demonstrates the basic flaw in the reasoning of the advocates of crashing out hard. That such alternative choices be denied altogether and we leave with having paid but without any meal.

 

[Chagos]

It's because most of the political class and civil service are opposed to Brexit. They have therefore negotiated slowly, ineptly and in bad faith.


A democratic crisis stares the UK in the face if parliament refuses to deliver it, and that won't be solved by asking people to vote again. Any such second vote should be ignored by Leavers in order to de-legitimise it.

All of which demonstrates that where you hail from, people should not even begin to pompously spout forth on democratic processes.

 

[PeteEU]

Sorry, but no.

Sweden is correct, parliamentary vote of no confidence in the PM and parliamentary vote of no confidence in the government are not the same.

The first is primarily symbolic and forces nobody to do anything, the second would topple the government and force elections.

Corbyn initiating a vote of (no) confidence in the government would have taken actual guts and Corbyn is absolutely gutless.

He's basically just a prevaricating trickster who wishes to be seen doing great things while actually doing nothing at all. But that makes him neither worse than the ruling party nor does it make the ruling party any better.

Makes no sense. If you have no confidence in the leader of the government, then you have no confidence in that government. They are by definition one in the same in a parliamentary democracy.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

 

[PeteEU]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic..._source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

I see and I am correct. What Corbyn is doing is not a vote of no confidence, but some sort of wierd procedual bull**** that has no tooth or meaning and frankly does not exist in any other parliamentary democracy that I know off.

When there is a vote of no confidence against the PM in Denmark and I suspect Sweden as well... Then it is "fall of government" type scenario.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

 

[Chagos]

Makes no sense. If you have no confidence in the leader of the government, then you have no confidence in that government. They are by definition one in the same in a parliamentary democracy.

Well, that's the UK for you.

Of course nothing could have prevented Corbyn from pushing a vote of (no) confidence on the government itself.

Except, of course:

1) Fear of not getting it thru

2) Fear of labour not winning the subsequent elections, had it gone thru.

 

[PeteEU]

Well, that's the UK for you.

Of course nothing could have prevented Corbyn from pushing a vote of (no) confidence on the government itself.

Except, of course:

1) Fear of not getting it thru

2) Fear of labour not winning the subsequent elections, had it gone thru.

Well it is the country where Parliament can't be in session unless there is a big golden stick in the room....

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

 

[Westphalian]

All of which demonstrates that where you hail from, people should not even begin to pompously spout forth on democratic processes.

I leave elections all across the EU to show the show the decline of centrist pro EU parties, and relative rise of anti EU parties.


All is not very well in EU land, and that's ignoring the major state about to leave it.

 

[Rogue Valley]

All is not very well in EU land, and that's ignoring the major state about to leave it.

No one much cares for RT opinion.

 

[Rogue Valley]

UK government steps up no-deal Brexit planning

12/18/18
London, United Kingdom - The government of the United Kingdom has ramped up preparations for a no-deal departure from the European Union amid widespread criticism of British Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal. In a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, ministers approved £2bn ($2.5bn) worth of funding for government departments to help them prepare for the UK leaving the 28-member bloc without a formal agreement on the terms of its withdrawal. All departments must also move to fully implement their emergency no-deal contingency plans, the cabinet agreed. Thousands of letters will be sent to businesses throughout the country advising them how to prepare for such a scenario. "Cabinet agreed that with just over three months until our exit from the European Union, we have now reached the point where we need to ramp up these [no-deal] preparations. This means we will now set in motion the remaining elements of our no-deal plans," a spokesperson for May said.

Economic forecasts suggest a no-deal departure could have a catastrophic impact on the UK's economy. The Bank of England, the UK's central bank, has warned Britain's gross domestic product could shrink by up to eight percent in such a scenario. The government, meanwhile, has forecast a potential economic slump of more than nine percent in the wake of a no-deal Brexit.

Buckle-up. This could be a rather bumpy Brexit.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

A vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister (as opposed to no confidence in the Government) has no constitutional or parliamentary significance. So even if Labour were to win this vote the outcome would be no more than embarassment for May: she woul continue as PM.

Corbyn is relying on most people not understanding that this 'vote of confidence' is a meaningless gimmick - or maybe he does not understand this himself.

No, I honestly think he knows no confidence in Theresa May won't count for much. He is in truth a Brexiteer but not the Rees-Mogg type. He'll happily wait till March 29th before he moves. Meanwhile however his own backbenchers have turned on him for not actually following through the threat.

 

[Chagos]

I leave elections all across the EU to show the show the decline of centrist pro EU parties, and relative rise of anti EU parties.


All is not very well in EU land, and that's ignoring the major state about to leave it.

..............and I leave all your posts to show how utter ignorance on Europe in general and (here) UK in particular leads to uttering complete nonsense.