• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Theresa May vote of no confidence

Whilst the news that the Tories are tearing themselves apart is always good news, it would be handy if they didn’t do it in the middle of a national emergency that they created.

Their whole aim is to essentially run out the clock to force parliament to back her shitty 'deal' rather than crash out without one. They were meant to have a vote on her shitty 'deal' last night, but she pulled it at the 11th hour as it was certain to lose. They now aim to have this parliament vote sometime before 21st January.
 
Vote being held Wednesday night.

Brexit in chaos as MPs trigger vote of no confidence in May | Politics | The Guardian

Wow, that's like an insta-impeachment. Can we get that in the US?

If she loses, do they thump her with the big gold mace? That's what it's for, right?

Here's an idea. Vote of no confidence, and then cancel Brexit? Isn't the main problem with Brexit that nobody wants it? They might say they're against the EU, but they want everything that comes with it. And the stuff they don't like about EU, isn't actually true. So in practice they're for the EU.
 
Whilst the news that the Tories are tearing themselves apart is always good news, it would be handy if they didn’t do it in the middle of a national emergency that they created.

Their whole aim is to essentially run out the clock to force parliament to back her shitty 'deal' rather than crash out without one. They were meant to have a vote on her shitty 'deal' last night, but she pulled it at the 11th hour as it was certain to lose. They now aim to have this parliament vote sometime before 21st January.

Why is the deal shitty? Can you explain what the hell the hubbub is regarding the backstop?
 
Whilst the news that the Tories are tearing themselves apart is always good news, it would be handy if they didn’t do it in the middle of a national emergency that they created.

Their whole aim is to essentially run out the clock to force parliament to back her shitty 'deal' rather than crash out without one. They were meant to have a vote on her shitty 'deal' last night, but she pulled it at the 11th hour as it was certain to lose. They now aim to have this parliament vote sometime before 21st January.

Why is the deal shitty? Can you explain what the hell the hubbub is regarding the backstop?

I don't know the answer to the first question. I'm not sure anyone really does, impartially-speaking.

As to the second question, as I understand it, the main problem that has been raised about the backstop is that it would effectively split off Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK in at least some ways and thus weaken the union between the two. Now, for some people here, mostly Unionists (those, who are mainly protestants, in favour of NI remaining British) that is akin to being an almost literal harbinger of End Times (aka a possible united Ireland).

A key factor is that the relatively tiny NI Democratic Unionist Party (8 Members of Parliament) unexpectedly gained a huge bargaining lever after the last general election, which went badly for the Conservatives, to the extent that the DUP, which broadly supports the Conservative Party, effectively holds a balance of power, which in real terms amounts to a potential veto.

An irony is that the DUP campaigned heavily for Brexit in the first place and even got their hands dirty by getting involved in questionable financial shenanigans regarding its promotion in England. Without Brexit, the threat of a weakened union would not have emerged.

In a nutshell, the backstop issue is a sideshow, and in many ways is merely a local, NI issue, but has more importance because of the aforementioned role of the DUP.

Another mildly interesting item is that the other main party here, Sinn Fein (Irish Republicans whose wet dream is a united Ireland) could wield a similarly effective influence (slightly lesser given that they only have 4 MPs) in whatever direction they chose, which would partially cancel out the DUP's influence. This might even include, for instance, supporting the deal currently on offer (which would in broad terms further their aims for a united Ireland by allowing for a possible backstop) but (a) Sinn Fein MPs will not and have never taken their seats at Westminster on ideological (anti-British) principles and (b) could never be seen to be supporting the hated Conservatives even if they did take their seats and use their votes in Parliament.

Welcome to the quagmire that is NI politics. :)
 
Whilst the news that the Tories are tearing themselves apart is always good news, it would be handy if they didn’t do it in the middle of a national emergency that they created.

Their whole aim is to essentially run out the clock to force parliament to back her shitty 'deal' rather than crash out without one. They were meant to have a vote on her shitty 'deal' last night, but she pulled it at the 11th hour as it was certain to lose. They now aim to have this parliament vote sometime before 21st January.

Why is the deal shitty? Can you explain what the hell the hubbub is regarding the backstop?

I don't know the answer to the first question. I'm not sure anyone really does, impartially-speaking.

As to the second question, as I understand it, the main problem that has been raised about the backstop is that it would effectively split off Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK in at least some ways and thus weaken the union between the two. Now, for some people here, mostly Unionists (those, who are mainly protestants, in favour of NI remaining British) that is akin to being an almost literal harbinger of End Times (aka a possible united Ireland).

A key factor is that the relatively tiny NI Democratic Unionist Party unexpectedly gained a huge bargaining lever after the last general election, which went badly for the Conservatives, to the extent that the DUP, which broadly supports the Conservative Party, effectively holds a balance of power, which in real terms amounts to a potential veto.

An irony is that the DUP campaigned heavily for Brexit in the first place and even got their hands dirty by getting involved in questionable financial shenanigans regarding its promotion in England. Without Brexit, the threat of a weakened union would not have emerged.

In a nutshell, the backstop issue is a sideshow, and in many ways is merely a local, NI issue, but has more importance because of the aforementioned role of the DUP.

Another mildly interesting item is that the other main party here, Sinn Fein (Irish Republicans whose wet dream is a united Ireland) could wield a similarly effective influence in whatever direction they chose, which would effectively cancel out the DUP's influence. This might even include, for instance, supporting the deal currently on offer (which would in broad terms further their aims for a united Ireland by allowing for a possible backstop) but (a) Sinn Fein MPs will not and have never taken their seats at Westminster on ideological (anti-British) principles and (b) could never be seen to s.be supporting the hated Conservatives even if they did take their seats.

Thank you. That makes sense. I read that Northern Ireland voted 56 to 44 to remain the EU. I also read somewhere that a majority in Scotland wanted to stay. Besides the backstop, is there other discussion of the UK breaking up?
 
Thank you. That makes sense. I read that Northern Ireland voted 56 to 44 to remain the EU. I also read somewhere that a majority in Scotland wanted to stay.

Yeah, that's about right.

brexit map distorted.png

The blue areas for NI are basically the Unionist strongholds.

Besides the backstop, is there other discussion of the UK breaking up?



Yes. There are, and were prior to Brexit, popular aspirations for Scotland in particular to split away, and successful political parties to match*. Ditto in Wales (to a lesser extent I believe) and even in some regional parts of England.


* The Scottish National Party is now the largest political party in Scotland, I believe.
 
Thank you. That makes sense. I read that Northern Ireland voted 56 to 44 to remain the EU. I also read somewhere that a majority in Scotland wanted to stay.

Yeah, that's about right.

View attachment 19310

The blue areas for NI are basically the Unionist strongholds.

Besides the backstop, is there other discussion of the UK breaking up?



Yes. There are, and were prior to Brexit, popular aspirations for Scotland in particular to split away, and successful political parties to match*. Ditto in Wales (to a lesser extent I believe) and even in some regional parts of England.


* The Scottish National Party is now the largest political party in Scotland, I believe.

Wow, that map is very interesting. I had no idea that London was so pro remaining. Similar to the US, it just seems like we are split into two countries, the rural part of the world that is struggling and wants a return to the past, and the more successful urbanities adapting to the changing environment. Or is that too simplistic?
 
Wow, that map is very interesting shocking. I had no idea that London was so pro remaining. Similar to the US, it just seems like we are split into two countries, the rural part of the world that is struggling and wants a return to the past, and the more successful urbanities adapting to the changing environment. Or is that too simplistic?

London is an expensive city to live in. Smart people have more money. The people who voted for Brexit are all idiots. So London is a bastion of stay.

The main thing they voted about was refugees in the UK. But refugees are regulated by the UNHCR charter. Which they didn't vote about. The leavers had just fundamentally misunderstood what they were voting about. Not understanding stuff is one of the hallmarks of idiocy.

A lot of them were also voting against EU regulation, things like how bent bananas are allowed to be. Which isn't regulated by the EU either.
 
Whilst the news that the Tories are tearing themselves apart is always good news, it would be handy if they didn’t do it in the middle of a national emergency that they created.

Their whole aim is to essentially run out the clock to force parliament to back her shitty 'deal' rather than crash out without one. They were meant to have a vote on her shitty 'deal' last night, but she pulled it at the 11th hour as it was certain to lose. They now aim to have this parliament vote sometime before 21st January.

Why is the deal shitty? Can you explain what the hell the hubbub is regarding the backstop?

The deal is a reflection of the fact that a) we need the EU far more than they need us and b) Brexit was always a prospectus for self-harm. The whole idea of the UK somehow accruing benefits from Brexit was always totally laughable.

The Irish Border issue, specifically with regards to the Good Friday Agreement makes most forms of Brexit impossible. Usually we'd bully the Irish into going along with it- as we're a shitty country and don't give two fucks about anyone else if we think we can push them around - however this time the Irish have the backing of the EU and so we can't get away with it, and they're holding us to the law we signed and not letting us unilaterally tear it up.

As for your second question, it has been sort of answered already, but I'd add that Theresa May reckons it’s all about racism- even though us Remainers have been chided for two years about tarring all Brexit voters with the racist brush.

Having fewer foreigners is the only retail offer in May’s appalling deal – and for that privilege, we’re going to break up the Union, impoverish the country and give up our economic decision making to the EU. But it’s worth it, according to the government, because that reflects the totally-not-racist ‘will of the people’.
 
To be fair to Ms. May, any Brexit deal will be shitty, since Brexit is a shitty idea. There is no way for anyone to come up with a Brexit agreement with the EU that will be acceptable to the hardliner Brexiteers that Remainers and soft Brexiteers would accept. Which is what I think the hardliners are aiming for - a complete break with the EU regardless of the consequences just so they can boast about reclaiming British "sovereignty".
 
It would be a big shame if the Brexit mess would lead to Comrade Jezza becoming prime minister. Not only is he a left wing radical and a friend of terrorists, he is not really anti-Brexit, so likely nothing would change fundamentally.

As far as Brexit, yes, there are certainly many benefits of European Union. But there are also problems. For example the insane EU migration policies that have caused an influx of millions of mass migrants, mostly Muslim, in recent years. Instead of demonizing critics, EU would be better off fixing the problems.
 
To be fair to Ms. May, any Brexit deal will be shitty, since Brexit is a shitty idea. There is no way for anyone to come up with a Brexit agreement with the EU that will be acceptable to the hardliner Brexiteers that Remainers and soft Brexiteers would accept.

Yes, but the Brexit referendum was not binding. While Cameron did promise to abide by it, May did not. She could have reminded people that the referendum was non-binding, that it was close and that she sees no reason to act upon it. Direct democracy is a bad idea anyway, which includes governing by referendum.
Furthermore, had Labour had a leader who clearly stood against Brexit (unlike Corbyn), they would have won the 2017 elections. Probably bigly. As it stood, the Remainers had no clear political option other than SNP and LibDems.
 
To be fair to Ms. May, any Brexit deal will be shitty, since Brexit is a shitty idea. There is no way for anyone to come up with a Brexit agreement with the EU that will be acceptable to the hardliner Brexiteers that Remainers and soft Brexiteers would accept.

Yes, but the Brexit referendum was not binding. While Cameron did promise to abide by it, May did not. She could have reminded people that the referendum was non-binding, that it was close and that she sees no reason to act upon it.

Wouldn't that have caused an almost immediate no-confidence vote?
 
Wouldn't that have caused an almost immediate no-confidence vote?

Perhaps.
But what's the point of Cameron resigning if not to give the next PM cover to disregard the referendum? After all, he called it and he promised to abide by it.
 
Wouldn't that have caused an almost immediate no-confidence vote?

Perhaps.
But what's the point of Cameron resigning if not to give the next PM cover to disregard the referendum? After all, he called it and he promised to abide by it.

He thought he'd win- they both (piglet and Osborne) thought they'd walk it, so much so that they put in a half arsed effort to campaign for remain. Their problem was that for years UK governments have blamed the EU for things the government had full control over.

It was rather hard to admit that the years of awful leadership and austerity was actually the fault of successive UK governments and not that of the EU, thereby making it hard to make a positive case for remain, other than if we leave on a hard brexit the arse would fall out of the economy (again).

Anyways, he lost having given no thoughts at all as to what he'd do if that were to actually happen, so he thought 'fuck it, even if we do crash out none of this affects me anyways coz I'm loaded, why would I do the work of trying to sort this mess out?' and then he fucked off.

Now he's in a garden shed trying to write his memoirs- as is expected of an ex-pm - but is now having a hard time to phrase his choices whilst in politics without coming across as a bit of a cunt, having split the country and made us a global laughing stock (second after America, naturally) all to fix a small hoohah in the tory party with the lunatic racist/disaster capitalist fringe.
 
Back
Top Bottom