RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
We haven't left yet

The status quo is that we are in the process of leaving and even legislation stating the date we will leave. To change the status quo, ie to halt the process of leaving, you have repeatedly argued or agreed that this should have a higher threshold than 50%+1. I happen to agree, I just find it funny/disheartening/unsurprising that people so adamant that 50%+1 is so fatally flawed are now happy to use that system as it gives them a better chance of winning.

This is another EU referendum.
It's a point of view, but having set the standard it doesn't seem remotely odd that people consider the standard set. If only for now and any future issue should need something more like 60%, whether getting rid of the royal family, legalising guns or yet another EU referendum

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The status quo is that we are in the process of leaving and even legislation stating the date we will leave. To change the status quo, ie to halt the process of leaving, you have repeatedly argued or agreed that this should have a higher threshold than 50%+1. I happen to agree, I just find it funny/disheartening/unsurprising that people so adamant that 50%+1 is so fatally flawed are now happy to use that system as it gives them a better chance of winning.

This is another EU referendum.
It's a point of view, but having set the standard it doesn't seem remotely odd that people consider the standard set. If only for now and any future issue should need something more like 60%, whether getting rid of the royal family, legalising guns or yet another EU referendum

fivepointer wrote:Ian Dunt, excellent as usual - http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/12 ... deal-suici

"Another day, another moment of historic humiliation for Theresa May.

Finally this morning she pulled the plug. With just over 24-hours until the Commons vote on her Brexit deal, she recognised she had no chance of passing it and delayed it.

In any other circumstance, this would have been a moment of such total defeat and political shame that she'd have instantly stood down. But we are not in any other circumstance. We are all trapped in the world of Theresa May, where the only tactic is delay, the only strategy is the hope that something will turn up, and the only principle is that survival must be secured at all costs".

Which Tyler wrote:Would this delay of the vote - so that she can change... nothing at all, as it's already been negotiated and passed by the other party... could this open her up for another "contempt of parliament" vote?
How many of those can she possibly lose before having to resign or face a vote of no confidence?

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote: This is another EU referendum.
It's a point of view, but having set the standard it doesn't seem remotely odd that people consider the standard set. If only for now and any future issue should need something more like 60%, whether getting rid of the royal family, legalising guns or yet another EU referendum

I agree with most of that

If we do end up leaving I'd agree any future rejoining would need a higher win percentage to authorise the transition, but right now it'd feel like changing the laws at halftime

Which Tyler wrote:About 2 weeks ago didn't they?

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:About 2 weeks ago didn't they?

Fairly certain it has to go before the EU parliament before we can say the EU agrees to it. Might even have to go before every single one the legislatures of the EU27 and all 1000 legislatures of Belgium.....I’ve given up trying to keep up.

Which Tyler wrote:Leadership challenge wins the race; quite honestly, it had to after her latest delay on actually doing anything.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46535739

Now we just need someone who's willing to take on the role, and preferably someone competent - otherwise this is just a meaningless gesture that means she can't be challenged for another 12 months.
My bet is on meaningless gesture, quite honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if she's unopposed for the challenge.

Stones of granite wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Leadership challenge wins the race; quite honestly, it had to after her latest delay on actually doing anything.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46535739

Now we just need someone who's willing to take on the role, and preferably someone competent - otherwise this is just a meaningless gesture that means she can't be challenged for another 12 months.
My bet is on meaningless gesture, quite honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if she's unopposed for the challenge.

Do you mean that you think she will win the no-confidence vote? If she loses it, she cannot stand in the leadership contest.

Which Tyler wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Leadership challenge wins the race; quite honestly, it had to after her latest delay on actually doing anything.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46535739

Now we just need someone who's willing to take on the role, and preferably someone competent - otherwise this is just a meaningless gesture that means she can't be challenged for another 12 months.
My bet is on meaningless gesture, quite honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if she's unopposed for the challenge.

Do you mean that you think she will win the no-confidence vote? If she loses it, she cannot stand in the leadership contest.

Sorry, I was confusing myself as to the process - but yes, I think she wins the no-confidence vote; though I think a no confidence vote in the government would be much less of a sure thing.

Stones of granite wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: Do you mean that you think she will win the no-confidence vote? If she loses it, she cannot stand in the leadership contest.

Sorry, I was confusing myself as to the process - but yes, I think she wins the no-confidence vote; though I think a no confidence vote in the government would be much less of a sure thing.

I honestly have no clue either way, but if she wins the no-confidence vote, then the Tories have to back her and the WA.
If the DUP won't support the WA, then it's down to Corbyn to trigger a no-confidence vote in HoC.

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Sorry, I was confusing myself as to the process - but yes, I think she wins the no-confidence vote; though I think a no confidence vote in the government would be much less of a sure thing.

I honestly have no clue either way, but if she wins the no-confidence vote, then the Tories have to back her and the WA.
If the DUP won't support the WA, then it's down to Corbyn to trigger a no-confidence vote in HoC.

By what margin does she need to win to remain?

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Sorry, I was confusing myself as to the process - but yes, I think she wins the no-confidence vote; though I think a no confidence vote in the government would be much less of a sure thing.

I honestly have no clue either way, but if she wins the no-confidence vote, then the Tories have to back her and the WA.
If the DUP won't support the WA, then it's down to Corbyn to trigger a no-confidence vote in HoC.

By what margin does she need to win to remain?

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: I honestly have no clue either way, but if she wins the no-confidence vote, then the Tories have to back her and the WA.
If the DUP won't support the WA, then it's down to Corbyn to trigger a no-confidence vote in HoC.

By what margin does she need to win to remain?

You’ve changed your tune.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
By what margin does she need to win to remain?

You’ve changed your tune.

There's political reality to leading the party if she takes less than 60% of her own party, at some point she'd look as daft as Corbyn

That said if you want me to stay on message then it's farcical that after two years the ERG are so adamant they need a chance to reset and change direction and afford themselves a vote on such basis whilst denying such opportunity to the country who in theory they're subservient to