Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 01:10 PM

There are nearly three million people on the electoral role who were not there in 2016.
It just doesn't stand up to critical examination.

Peter Kellner, YouGov’s former president states: 395,000 reach voting age each year.( Assuming 3 full years- to be generous) That equals 1,185,000.It also assumes they are registered on the electoral role.

Government Statistics:
The total number of UK Parliamentary electors increased by 380,000 (0.8%) between December 2016 and December 2017, a smaller increase than in the previous year. This follows an increase of around 1 million the previous year.
The total number of UK Parliamentary electors in December 2017 was 46,148,000. The electoral roll does not directly correlate with those of voting age. Not every adult qualifies, those that are have to ensure they are registered.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 02:41 PM

For the sake of accuracy the Office for National statistics has estimates and projections for the years in question of around 725k reaching 18. I am beginning to think all the figures are inaccurate apart from those supplied by the Electoral Commission. Decide for yourself.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/elec

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 02:50 PM

So I guessed wrongly - Corbyn has tabled a confidence motion. It was an interesting offer from May to allow other parties to submit no confidence motions: if Corbyn hadn't intended to, he would have little choice as a result.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:16 PM

Biggest government defeat for 95 years (Ramsey McDonald 1924).

Probably an even bigger defeat than was expected. So Teresa May has effectively wasted over two and a half years of everyones time and effort.

No doubt those on here who maintain we should respect our MP's will be calling for heads to roll, particularly hers.

For some reason the words ship, leaving, sinking and rats come to my mind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:20 PM

Considering the Brexit vote of June 2016 preceded the T***p vote of November 2016, this may be an ill wind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:30 PM

My previous post was based on the assumption that 423 to 203 votes represents a majority by the remainers on here!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:38 PM

EU president suggests remain may be only option left

Maybe, but probably not too helpful a thing to say at the moment.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 03:51 PM

The only down side to such a huge defeat is that pig sticker Cameron was not at the receiving end.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:26 PM

Watching from this side of the pond - seems like you should do another referendum to stay or split, and make sure everyone takes it seriously this time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:28 PM

I wonder whether there will be a "where were you when Kennedy was assassinated" moment here? (I can tell you precisely in my case, actually...). I can also tell you that when tonight's vote came in (I had my phone on silent buzzing) I was in the Rebel Cinema just outside Bude, watching the new Laurel And Hardy film. And I can tell you that it's one of the loveliest, most warm-hearted films you'll ever see!

Tomorrow is another day. Don't you just love it when some media twat tells you that you're "living through history"?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:29 PM

Interesting that the pound has truly soared in the last hour. Up almost 10 Cents.

I'm sure someone will give me the exact percentage but it's about 9%

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:44 PM

I well remember a salesman showing me some software and explaining the new functionality in the upgrade. He was talking through menu options to show which were new and remarked "History - that's always been there..."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:47 PM

DMcG - :-D

Raggy. Surely it only soars when a brexiteer tells us it has soared :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:51 PM

No Dave, even I can figure out that a fall of one half of one cent (less than 1/2 a percent) is not plumetting although there were those who suggested it was.

I can also tell that a rise of about 9% in an hour is also pretty unusual, to say the least.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 04:55 PM

At last! A result which is undeniably convincing! None of your 55/45 or 52/48 but 202/432!
Just watching this space, having not been on this thread before, and can't be ersed to read all 2,700 and something posts!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: mayomick
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 05:00 PM

This possible explanation on the BBC Raggytash   :
""The probability of a no deal has diminished while the chances of a delay in Article 50, a second referendum or even, at the margin, no Brexit at all, have all increased. The consequence of those scenarios has encouraged sterling to rally despite the PM suffering the worst parliamentary result in a century," said Jeremy Stretch of CIBC Capital Markets.""

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 05:02 PM

I'm just waiting for the reasons why it is nothing to do with brexit! At least they are not going blame it on Jeremy Corbyn...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 05:06 PM

Sorry guys, my error.

In my defence drink has been taken!!!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 07:17 PM

Very timely with the Stan and Ollie film supplying the verdict.

"Another fine mess you've got us in."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 08:48 PM

There's a rather weird feeling that, in spite of the alleged historical significance of the day, there isn't actually anything new that anyone can say, including on here. Maybe tomorrow...

I remember when I was a very little girl, our house caught on fire
I'll never forget the look on my father's face as he gathered me up
in his arms and raced through the burning building out to the pavement
And I stood there shivering in my pajamas and watched the whole world go up in flames
And when it was all over I said to myself, is that all there is to a fire?

Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
If that's all there is

[Cheers, Peggy]

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jan 19 - 09:06 PM

Bugger. Now that I've mentioned it, I can't resist. I was twelve years old, in the second form of my grammar school. I was sitting in our front room with the telly on, putting off my homework, at half past six on November 22 1963. My dad was still at work, at Burtons in Pendleton, where he was the shop manager. My mum was in the kitchen washing up. The magazine programme Scene At Six Thirty had just started, presented by the much-loved Mike Scott. From his obituary:

While still appearing in a more familiar capacity, as anchorman of the regional news magazine, Scene at 6.30, Scott was the messenger in an historic Granada coup. On November 22 1963, the programme had been on the air five minutes when the telephone rang in the newsroom adjacent to the studio. It was CBS in New York with the tip that President John Kennedy had been shot. There was a rule that individual programme companies should never pre-empt ITN on big news. Denis Forman, the senior Granada executive present, called ITN and was told they were not going to break into the schedules with the story until they had it from their own reporter in America. On the impulse Forman decided to go ahead, and Scott broke the news to northern viewers half-an-hour before it reached the rest of the country.

At twenty-five to seven we knew that Kennedy had been shot. Within half an hour we knew that he was dead.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:11 AM

Take away the payroll vote of 140, and this means Theresa May had the backing of around 50 Tory backbenchers on the central policy of her government.

But now all the Tories in the House of Commons are going to troop through the lobby proclaiming they have full confidence in that government. Is there a stronger word than hypocrisy? Because that doesn't seem quite adequate.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:43 AM

"Is there a stronger word than hypocrisy? Because that doesn't seem quite adequate."

Three words, actually, one of which I'm sure you and others here might deign use. But I worked in engineering for much of my life, in close contact with the men and women who are the true wealth-creators - the shop-floor workers - and I'm no stranger to, nor squeamish about using, their language. The phrase that immediately springs to mind is 'Self-serving arse-holes'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 04:02 AM

Does that mean we can now get compensation from higher rate tax payers for the impact of the referendum on stirling, and therefore our pockets?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 05:32 AM

Just heard on Victoria Derbyshire's programme that Jacob 'Call Me Jake' Rich-Mong held a champagne reception at his London home last night, for him and his immensely-wealthy chums to celebrate their victory, and the increased likelihood of a 'hard' BrexShit - which, of course, they want in order to escape the new EU Anti-Tax-Dodging regulations due to come in this year.

Once again, the tiny wealthy minority are squaring up to give it straight up the arse to the hoi-polloi.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 05:37 AM

All this arse-talk brought to mind David Lammy's remark about Jezza's reluctance to call for a people's vote: "If he vacillates and sits on the fence I’m afraid he is going to get splinters in a place he doesn’t want."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:15 AM

The no-confidence motion will be lost. I have a feeling that Corbyn didn't want to call it right now, but was forced into it by May's intimation that she would accept a motion from any party, not just the official opposition (which is the only source of the motion she is obliged to accept). Say the SNP had jumped in with the motion instead of Labour and May had accepted. That would have made Labour look vacillating. She is gambling on winning this and wants it out of the way as quickly as possible, not hanging over her for days. She has good advisers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:17 AM

The Brexit Bollox is front and center in US media.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:18 AM

Take away the payroll vote of 140, and this means Theresa May had the backing of around 50 Tory backbenchers on the central policy of her government.
Surely the 'central policy' as per the Conservative manifesto is that we will leave the EU. The compromise Mrs May was putting forward would not have got us out, so voting against it was the correct thing to do.
The size of the majority would have been because Brexiteers would vote against it as it is 'BRINO' (Brexit in name only), while Remainers would have voted against it as they do not want Brexit in any form.

All the pundits were projecting that Mrs May would lose. It was only the size of the loss that was surprising.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:23 AM

Strange though it might seem, the chances of a no deal and of a second referendum have both increased. That's what happens when other options are eliminated or become less likely.

No deal is hanging its hopes on the fact it can only be stopped by amending legislation, which is true. And that legislation must identify something else to do. But they are wrong in claiming that needs to be a new deal proposal: things like a new referendum or a request for an extension could also do it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 06:25 AM

Rees-Mogg demolished by James O'Brian

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 07:21 AM

I can barely believe it! At a time when BrexShit is a disaster, the government has suffered its greatest defeat ever, and she's under the cosh in a Confidence Debate today, that bloody woman has just raised 'Jeremy Corbyn and Labour anti-semitism' again at PMQs!

Standard diversion tactics of the despicable, clueless Tories once again - BrexShit and the government reduced to chaos? "Look over there - Labour anti-semitism!". What a bunch of deceitful dicks this seedy bunch of Tories are.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 08:59 AM

Backwoodsman, yes, foul tactics.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 09:09 AM

Watching Parliament live, some Tory moron has suggested May goes back to the EU and ask them to change the backstop in legally binding ways. Jees.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 09:17 AM

Lots of attacks on Corbyn, with antisemitism raised yet again a minute or two ago.

Reminder: this debate is not about whether Labour would be better. That decision is, at some point, for the electorate to decide, not Parliament. This debate is entirely about whether the Tories are up to the job.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 09:39 AM

Corbyn is not anti-Semitic. I just thought I would make that point crystal clear.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 11:06 AM

Deflection, DMcG. It's the only form of 'defence' those Tory cockwombles have got.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 11:39 AM

This debate is entirely about whether the Tories are up to the job.
I think it's more about whether the conservative MPs want to keep their well-paid jobs. I doubt that many (if any) will vote to say that their own party is incompetent. With the active support of the DUP the vote seems a foregone conclusion.
Any Conservative MP who voted against their own party would likely be de-selected by their constituents for the next election (whenever)
So the only effect is to give Jeremy Corbyn the chance to say that he tried to do something, and to reduce the available time to discuss Brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:46 PM

This debate is entirely about whether the Tories are up to the job.
I think it's more about whether the conservative MPs want to keep their well-paid jobs. I doubt that many (if any) will vote to say that their own party is incompetent. With the active support of the DUP the vote seems a foregone conclusion.
Any Conservative MP who voted against their own party would likely be de-selected by their constituents for the next election (whenever)

There is a fair amount of truth in that, Nigel, but of course it applies to every confidence vote (on the government), for any party, at any time. There is nothing special about this one, in that respect: self interest is always a significant aspect. Occasionally, an MP 'sniffs the wind' and thinks the movements under way mean that there could be a change of leader/direction coming, and their long prospects at better supporting the new rather than the old, but that is pretty rare.

I (and if I read him rightly Steve) think Corbyn did not want to call the confidence vote at this time, because he then has the difficult problem of what he does next. I have heard some comments saying that just because Labour does not get a general election this time, it does not mean they won't on another occasion, so they will stick with the 'try for a general election' strategy. I think that would play very badly with party memebers.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 12:59 PM

"I (and if I read him rightly Steve) think Corbyn did not want to call the confidence vote at this time, because he then has the difficult problem of what he does next. I have heard some comments saying that just because Labour does not get a general election this time, it does not mean they won't on another occasion, so they will stick with the 'try for a general election' strategy. I think that would play very badly with party memebers."

I agree, in fact I don't believe JC actually wants a GE at all - who, in their right mind, would want to take on the absolute crock of shite we've been dropped in by Idiot Boy Camoron, Farage, Bozo, Gove, May, and their terminally fractured Tory Party?

Those cocks made their bed, let the buggers lie in it. With any luck, they'll bugger it up so Royally, they'll render themselves unelectable for generations - they're well on the way to it already.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:20 PM

Farage is now saying

the EU would come back with a better Brexit deal within 48 hours if the threat of leaving under WTO rules was delivered to them by a new pro-Leave Prime Minister.

Reported by the Express as a brilliant idea.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:21 PM

"reduce the time available to discuss Brexit"

For crying out Nigel your mob have had over two and a half years to discuss Brexit and to date have achieved next to bugger all.

This situation is down to the Conservative and Unionist party and them alone.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:37 PM

Ex Labour MP John Woodcock:
"With a heavy heart I have to tell the House that I cannot support the no confidence motion tonight. Some of my friends mutter disgrace, I hear some of them tutting, I have to say that many of them have privately said “Thank God that you have got the freedom to actually not support this”. Because they are wrestling with their consciences of wanting definitely a Labour Government, knowing that the leader of their party is as unfit to lead the country as he was when they voted against him in the no confidence motion of the party those years ago."

There speaks an honest MP!
(A cousin of the esteemed Teribus, Mayhap?)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:43 PM

He is mistaken. As I say, the question before the House he is being asked to vote on is whether he has confidence in the government. A decision whether Labour and Corbyn is elected if it comes to it belongs to the whole public. It is not his to decide.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 01:56 PM

An honest MP? I suggest you look into how he dishonestly breached parliament rules, and misused nearly £2000 of public money that furthered a campaign which was beneficial to his re-election chances. He was elected as a Labour MP then decided to sit as an independent, thus cheating the people who thought they were voting for a Labour government. There's a bit more murk around him too, yet to be resolved. I wouldn't buy a used car off him, that's for sure. I doubt whether Teribus would either.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 02:04 PM

Gove speaking now - deflection, deflection, deflection. The wreath-laying incident now. Have I missed something? I thought the debate and vote was about confidence in the Tory government? They're desperate, and deflection is all they've got.

On a point of order, Teribus is not 'esteemed' by anyone here except, apparently, Iains. And, of course, displays of self--worship demonstrate a lack of class.. Stooping lower than we would have expected of you, Teribiains.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 02:34 PM

Esteemed Teribus?

You mean the man who's postings proved so abhorrent he was banned from posting as a member.

You really pick some choice people don't you.

Right back to Brexit. The government unsurprisingly has survived the no confidence vote. Those turkeys decided not to vote for Christmas.

The next few days and weeks will no doubt see even more turmoil within the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 02:42 PM

Not a fan of Tom Watson, but he made a good speech which stuck to the topic of the debate, and laid bare the abject failures of May and her government. It's a pity the same can't be said of the Slithy Gove who seemed to be very confused and under the misapprehension that the subject of the debate was the leader of the opposition.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 03:44 PM

Just ignore him chaps. You know it makes sense.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 16 Jan 19 - 04:10 PM

Is that the backward man? What a jolly good idea! Meanwhile steptowe senior has made a fine spectacle of himself.