[Silencer]

And in case there was any doubt about how little thought was given to Brexit before the referendum, even NZ's PM is shocked at how literally no planning was done first: http://i.stuff.co.nz...y-pivot-to-asia

Though I must say, I find it almost as concerning that our esteemed leader and party apparently were not interested/concerned enough about the whole thing to actually find out. Wtf.

[Tiste Simeon]

Ugh. The latest on this is so stupid. Brexiters are stupid. The right wing press is stupid. I'm so angry all over again!

[Primateus]

Tiste Simeon, on 05 November 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

Ugh. The latest on this is so stupid. Brexiters are stupid. The right wing press is stupid. I'm so angry all over again!

Well, don't just keep us all in suspense, provide links, articles, videos, etc.

[Mezla PigDog]

Tiste Simeon, on 05 November 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

Ugh. The latest on this is so stupid. Brexiters are stupid. The right wing press is stupid. I'm so angry all over again!

I've given myself a media ban as it has actually made me feel really miserable!

[Macros]

What latest idiocy have I missed?

[polishgenius]

Some judges ruled that the government can't trigger Article 50 without confirmation from Parliament first.

Several newspapers and lots of twitter morons have decided that this makes them traitors to the nation who want to stop Brexit forever.

[Macros]

ah.

those traitors, following legal procedures.

[Primateus]

Macros, on 05 November 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

ah.

those traitors, following legal procedures.

How treasonous of them! They should be hung by their balls from a Rutland tree!

[EmperorMagus]

Call me cynical, but I'm pretty sure PM May was banking on this ruling to stop Brexit.

We already know she was initially in the Remain camp and everyone knows that Brexit will not be good for UK. If they can't trigger article 50 in the house she will have to start another election (if the system is anything like that of Canada a failed act of Parliament is a vote of non-confidence in the government) and practically have another referendum on Brexit. She is probably hoping people have enough of a buyer's remorse at the point to stop this insanity.

[polishgenius]

EmperorMagus, on 05 November 2016 - 08:45 PM, said:

(if the system is anything like that of Canada a failed act of Parliament is a vote of non-confidence in the government)

No, that's not the case. Pretty sure plenty of Acts have failed and not resulted in a change of government (surely it'd be impossible to do anything if any big decision you made had a chance of putting you out of power?).

In any case I can't see parliament voting outright to stop Brexit, it'd result in a huge backlash whenever the next election does arrive. But it does mean that parliament has some control over what Brexit actually looks like and if she plays it right should strengthen May's hand in negotiations with Europe.

[HoosierDaddy]

polishgenius, on 05 November 2016 - 09:03 PM, said:

EmperorMagus, on 05 November 2016 - 08:45 PM, said:

(if the system is anything like that of Canada a failed act of Parliament is a vote of non-confidence in the government)

No, that's not the case. Pretty sure plenty of Acts have failed and not resulted in a change of government (surely it'd be impossible to do anything if any big decision you made had a chance of putting you out of power?).

In any case I can't see parliament voting outright to stop Brexit, it'd result in a huge backlash whenever the next election does arrive. But it does mean that parliament has some control over what Brexit actually looks like and if she plays it right should strengthen May's hand in negotiations with Europe.

Correct. It's a sign of an unstable party, which could result in a no confidence vote/call for new leadership. But merely failing to pass a law is no where near a no confidence vote/new leadership.

[Werthead]

Quote

No, that's not the case. Pretty sure plenty of Acts have failed and not resulted in a change of government (surely it'd be impossible to do anything if any big decision you made had a chance of putting you out of power?).

In this case it would. The government would have no choice. May needs to introduce an Article 50 bill now and rush it through (bearing in mind there's a mini-recess in late December) to have even a chance of it getting through before March or April 2017. If the Lords block it, it'll take between two and three years to overide their block through the Parliament Act just to initiate Article 50, which potentially puts back the actual Brexit process until after 2020.

Labour have just announced that they will oppose an Article 50 act which does not guarantee access to the European single market and a continuation of EU workplace law. The first is only possible if the Government can convince the EU to allow single access to the market without free movement, but the EU has cheerfully already told them to sod off on that front. That means that a total Labour opposition vote to the bill, in addition to the Lib Dem and SNP vote, would be inevitable. They'd only need to convince 14 MPs to join them to block May's plan, which is easily achievable if May's position on a "hard Brexit" remains unchanged.

Calling a snap election - which would only take 6-12 weeks - with Article 50 as Manifesto Commitment #1 would give the Tories a firmer legal basis to launch Article 50. Based on the polls, the Tories would win a General Election in the short term, possibly even with an increased majority. That would also put the next general election back to early 2022, which has to be very tempting for May at the moment. The danger is that the Tory majority is small enough that even a slight shift to Labour or, more dangerously, to any of the opposition parties will destroy the Conservative majority and allows a left-leaning coalition to form. If the Labour Party makes it a manifesto commitment to agree to a soft Brexit with single market access, that result superscedes the referendum and gives Corbyn the mandate to negotiate Brexit on that basis.

It's a risk that May really does not want to take. She doesn't want to go down in history as the shortest-serving Prime Minister since Bonar Law in 1922-23.

[EmperorMagus]

Gotta love functioning democracies.

[Mezla PigDog]

Werthead, on 06 November 2016 - 01:36 AM, said:

Quote

No, that's not the case. Pretty sure plenty of Acts have failed and not resulted in a change of government (surely it'd be impossible to do anything if any big decision you made had a chance of putting you out of power?).

Calling a snap election - which would only take 6-12 weeks - with Article 50 as Manifesto Commitment #1 would give the Tories a firmer legal basis to launch Article 50. Based on the polls, the Tories would win a General Election in the short term, possibly even with an increased majority. That would also put the next general election back to early 2022, which has to be very tempting for May at the moment. The danger is that the Tory majority is small enough that even a slight shift to Labour or, more dangerously, to any of the opposition parties will destroy the Conservative majority and allows a left-leaning coalition to form. If the Labour Party makes it a manifesto commitment to agree to a soft Brexit with single market access, that result superscedes the referendum and gives Corbyn the mandate to negotiate Brexit on that basis.

It's a risk that May really does not want to take. She doesn't want to go down in history as the shortest-serving Prime Minister since Bonar Law in 1922-23.

Labour could face a washout in a general election in their northern heartlands who voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. The right wing press would accuse them of trying to block Brexit and May would get a mandate to do what she wants.

[Gorefest]

Agreed. If May would call an election now the Tories would be the major victors if Labour runs on a soft Brexit or even Bremain platform. They'd be slaughtered so badly in the North that even a coalition with the SNP wouldnt swing it. There currently arent any other believable alternatives as UKIP has imploded and the LibDems are still very slow to recover from their insane battering in the last election. May'd be foolish not to call it if the supreme court upholds the ruling; it's a risk well worth taking.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 06 November 2016 - 03:15 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

Do you not think if they called one UKIP would do really well?

[Gorefest]

No. UKIP without Farage at the helm is a complete dud. They currently only make the news if members beat each other up or if another potential party leader withdraws. Their entire reason for being basically ceased to exist as soon as we voted leave and ever since then the party has been even more of a shambles than before.

[Tiste Simeon]

Farage will stick around, is my guess. I know he's not meant to but he sticks around like a bad smell...

[Tapper]

Mezla PigDog, on 06 November 2016 - 03:56 AM, said:

Werthead, on 06 November 2016 - 01:36 AM, said:

Quote

No, that's not the case. Pretty sure plenty of Acts have failed and not resulted in a change of government (surely it'd be impossible to do anything if any big decision you made had a chance of putting you out of power?).

Calling a snap election - which would only take 6-12 weeks - with Article 50 as Manifesto Commitment #1 would give the Tories a firmer legal basis to launch Article 50. Based on the polls, the Tories would win a General Election in the short term, possibly even with an increased majority. That would also put the next general election back to early 2022, which has to be very tempting for May at the moment. The danger is that the Tory majority is small enough that even a slight shift to Labour or, more dangerously, to any of the opposition parties will destroy the Conservative majority and allows a left-leaning coalition to form. If the Labour Party makes it a manifesto commitment to agree to a soft Brexit with single market access, that result superscedes the referendum and gives Corbyn the mandate to negotiate Brexit on that basis.

It's a risk that May really does not want to take. She doesn't want to go down in history as the shortest-serving Prime Minister since Bonar Law in 1922-23.

Labour could face a washout in a general election in their northern heartlands who voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. The right wing press would accuse them of trying to block Brexit and May would get a mandate to do what she wants.

Not only that, but wasn't the whole recent Labour leader re-election partly triggered because Corbyn delivered an even more lacklustre Remain-campaign than most of the Tories, was attacked for that by the Bremain party-establishment and then managed to get re-elected? It would be a real (and bad) turn-around if he now suddenly became a supporter for even a soft Remain...

[Mezla PigDog]

Considering all of British politics revolves around Brexit right now Corbyn's re-election was nothing to do with that. It was what spurred the vote of no confidence that triggered the leadership battle but the Labour MPs were waiting for any excuse. There's a new left-wing movement that is enticing back Labour voters who left in the Blair years due to Iraq and the move into the centre and also attracting young voters. It's more of a scrap for the soul of the party with Brexit not figuring high on the agenda. Corbyn is allegedly anti-EU but also allegedly accepted that for now we are better off in to help fight off the Tory erosion of workers rights. His Remain campaigning was pretty lack lustre but he is also fighting a lack of credibility with the media so a lot of his campaigning wasn't picked up on. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't is Jeremy.

Incidentally he's doing better at PMQs now May is PM because she's shit at it (in the sense that she isn't a braying public school boy twat).