Hot Topics

No confidence vote against the PM soon.

  Govan1x 10:05 10 Jan 2019

It was revealed on the news this morning that from a labour spokesman that there would be a no confidence vote against the Prime Minister soon.

It seems all other political party's have agreed to this so just a matter of waiting to see how the prime minister deals with the brexit question and whether she keeps to her deal only.

It does not look like her deal is going to survive and if so she has 3 days on which to ammend her deal.

A way out of it maybe be to stand down and let another Tory party Mp be PM.

Obviously a new general election maybe called for but maybe a case of out of the frying pan and into the Fire comes to mind.

Just when we thought things could not get any worse it looks like it will.

Myself i think the EU is trying there best to keep us in the EU and it is a warning to other countries not to try it.

So the only way out of being bullied into accepting something that none of us want would of course be a no deal. Any other deal and there is only one winner and it is not us.

Looks like this saga is going to continue for years to come and with the country split down the middle it is not going to be easy to resolve.

No party that takes us out of the EU or keeps us in will never be popular for a long time.

No matter what Party it is there will be no winners in the long run.

  Quickbeam 16:54 10 Jan 2019

The Japanese PM states that if sincerely hopes that we don't have a no deal Brexit.

I would read a lot into that regarding the kind platitudes of future trade into the EU via the UK gateway.

  john bunyan 17:21 10 Jan 2019

Deeply Blue has given an excellent summary. The reason Corbyn is unwilling for a second referendum is that he is a keen Brexit man , although he won’t admit it. This is because if we remain in , his and McDonnell’s massive nationalisation and interference in business would not be allowed. He keeps very quiet on this. The proposed deal is as good as we’re going to get so chaos will ensue if it is blocked.

  Forum Editor 09:34 11 Jan 2019

Deeply Blue

"That means that because of our own government's decision we have to go on that date - with or without a deal. We gave that date to the EU and made it a hard deadline".

Let's get the facts right shall we?

We did not give the EU a 'hard deadline' date for leaving, it wasn't up to us to give a date. Our exit date was automatically set, once we invoked Article 50.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty provides for a member state to exit the Union no later than two years from the invocation date. We formally invoked Article 50 on 29th March 2017 and so we will automatically cease to be an EU member state at midnight on 29th March 2019.

If we wanted more time to negotiate, we would have had to gain the consent of every other member state to an extension of the period laid down in Article 50. It's too late to do that now, there wouldn't be time to get the consents before the exit date.

  Quickbeam 10:49 11 Jan 2019

That's a bit of a hard line pedantry FE, I think we all understood the meaning first time round.

  Govan1x 23:57 11 Jan 2019

Just wondering if this will be another 5 days lost debating the PM's deal they have already lost 5 days and if she does the same next Tuesday there will be a lot of unhappy MP's About.

Why don't we just get rid of all old crap at the same time and let Scotland have their vote for Independence. I think that is about the only thing that could make this Brexit Fiasco even worse.

Affectionately known in the past as Great Britain and the United Kingdom. But things seems to have change now, I no longer see us as being Great and we are certainly not United.

I suppose I am one of the doom and gloom brigade.

There is a load of political party's out there fighting for there own corners and not one of them worth voting for.

We the people voted to leave but it seems big business want us to stay and that is all that we are hearing just now. Big business wants this. Big business wants that. And I am afraid those of us that want to leave are going to be disappointed on the outcome probably.

Now not sure what was on the voting slips when we first voted for Brexit. I think it was those two words. Stay or Leave.And I am sure we all know what they mean.

  Deeply Blue 00:11 12 Jan 2019

You say,

We did not give the EU a 'hard deadline' date for leaving, it wasn't up to us to give a date. Our exit date was automatically set, once we invoked Article 50

We did, however, have complete freedom as to when we invoked Article 50. There was nothing in the referendum that obliged Teresa May to rush the process, but she was anxious to prove her credentials as a born-again Brexiter. So she decided to go ahead very quickly.

Invocation of Article 50 occurred on 29 March 2017, when Sir Tim Barrow, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the European Union, formally delivered by hand a letter signed by Prime Minister Theresa May to Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council in Brussels.

(click here think I remember some comment at the time she could usefully have taken a little longer to get a little more breathing room into the timetable. There were experienced hands who said that we would need as much time as we could get.

There were also those who proclaimed that it was going to be the easiest deal ever and we would only need a few weeks.

Some of those with that degree of confidence were simply providing bar-room pronouncements. Those who did understand something of what was involved and who still said it was all going to be simple, were – I think the only term is, lying.


  Deeply Blue 00:22 12 Jan 2019

Sorry, slight snafu there. The second quotation was from Wiki article, "United Kingdom invocation of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union" After that there should have been a new paragraph, starting

I think I remember some comment at the time ...

  Forum Editor 11:29 12 Jan 2019

Deeply Blue

"We did, however, have complete freedom as to when we invoked Article 50."

Indeed we did, but I don't see the relevance of that statement in the context of where we are now - are you suggesting that things would have been different, had we delayed by a month, or by six months, or even by a year?

"I remember some comment at the time she could usefully have taken a little longer to get a little more breathing room into the timetable."

What would we have gained by it? Surely the point is that we had no way of knowing how the negotiation would go until the process started? Such a situation had never arisen before - we are the first member state ever to have invoked article 50. Neither we, nor the EU had any precedent on which to base a negotiating strategy; we were both breaking entirely new ground, and for that reason there was bound to be a good deal of reactive planning on both sides.

To put it bluntly, both sides were making it up as they went along, with the only difference being that the EU negotiators were inevitably on the higher ground - they were the ones inventing the rules of the game as it was played.

In retrospect I imagine both sides can see that some things might have been better managed, but that's of no use now. It's always so easy to look back and criticise how a situation has been handled, but of course none of us were present at the negotiating table - we're in no position to know how it might have gone better, had someone else been representing our case.

  Forum Editor 11:47 12 Jan 2019


"Now not sure what was on the voting slips when we first voted for Brexit."

The question asked was: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

The two voting option boxes were:-

"Remain a member of the European Union"

"Leave the European Union"

We voted to leave.

There is talk of another referendum. I fail to see what would be gained from it. No referendum could ask the same question again - we have already had a democratic vote on that, and the government said it would abide by our decision. Our exit is now enshrined in an act of parliament.

Next Tuesday parliament will vote on whether to accept the Prime Minister's deal or not. The result will almost certainly be a defeat for the government. What happens next is anyone's guess, but a reversal of our democratic vote to leave would not be an option. Jeremy Corbyn supports the referendum result but he wants to be Prime Minister more than anything else.

The next few weeks will be extremely interesting.

  Govan1x 13:05 12 Jan 2019

Thanks FE totally agree with you about not having another referendum.

It will probably be one of those times when whatever is agreed 50% of the country will be disappointed with it.

That can only add to conflict for the foreseeable future, Trying to get something that everyone would be agreeable to will be almost impossible.

If it resulted in a new General Election my forecast would be that Labour would win it. Tory party probably 2nd. Lib Dems 3rd. and the SNP taking up the rear.

There would be no chance of an overall Majority so probably so another coalition would be needed.

I know it probably will not come to that just pointing out whichever way we turn there are going to be problems.It seams like there is no easy solution. I can see no harm on why a vote for a no deal Brexit. If it fails we just go to the next solution. And yes just as a last resort.

And yes the next 2 weeks will be very interesting for us all.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

1x1 pixel
Elsewhere on IDG sites

Asus ROG Zephyrus Duo 15 review

Landscape Illustration tips from leading illustrators

New MacBook Air could be coming soon

Comment connecter une Nintendo Switch à un pc portable ?