• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Brexit: Now What? Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Richmond Park was a Lib Dem seat before May 2010. Zac won it for the Tories in the last two general elections and now it's back to being Lib Dem again.

You can understand the voters in Richmond Park, where there was a significant majority for remain in the referendum, would want to vote against Zac who supported leave. Also it's normal for the party in government to do badly in by elections. Zac was standing as an independent this time, because of his Heathrow promise, but everyone knew he was really the Tory candidate - the Tories didn't even put up an official Tory candidate to stand against him.

So yes, it's a blow for the Tories. I doubt that it will change much regarding Brexit - but a few more by elections in constituencies with narrow margins could make a huge difference.
 
Last edited:
No it hadn't...as is made clear by their inability to decide what it actually means.

ETA: that was in response to the Captain's post, re: "very clear message"...
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Downing Street has said the result of the Richmond Park by-election is a matter for the area's constituents and the government is getting on with the job of "making a success" of Brexit.*

Pressed repeatedly about what message Theresa May drew from the poll, the Prime Minister's official spokesman referred instead to the EU referendum result saying it had sent a "very clear message".*
Click to expand...
And a 30% swing doesn't send a "very clear message"?
:confused:
 
ceptimus said:
Richmond Park was a Lib Dem seat before May 2010. Zac won it for the Tories in the last two general elections and now it's back to being Lib Dem again.

You can understand the voters in Richmond Park, where there was a significant majority for remain in the referendum, would want to vote against Zac who supported leave. Also it's normal for the party in government to do badly in by elections. Zac was standing as an independent this time, because of his Heathrow promise, but everyone knew he was really the Tory candidate - the Tories didn't even put up an official Tory candidate to stand against him.

So yes, it's a blow for the Tories. I doubt that it will change much regarding Brexit - but a few more by elections in constituencies with narrow margins could make a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Hardly a 'marginal' Tories lost a 23,015 majority.
 
Last edited:
Garrison said:
Thing is wearing the turban is as I understand it a requirement of the Sikh faith, the same is not true of the Burkha. As can be seen in Muslim countries such as Malaysia the requirement for women to dress modestly can be interpreted in far less all concealing ways.
Click to expand...

A difference is that exercising that particular right is to voluntarily give up a protection (although as a biker I will admit that a Sikh bloke I passed riding his Harley on the Marlow bypass in his turban and shades was very cool). Assuming the right to cover ones face in public is to take for ones self an option not available to others and that outside of very specific circumstances is against our practice and custom.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
A difference is that exercising that particular right is to voluntarily give up a protection (although as a biker I will admit that a Sikh bloke I passed riding his Harley on the Marlow bypass in his turban and shades was very cool). Assuming the right to cover ones face in public is to take for ones self an option not available to others and that outside of very specific circumstances is against our practice and custom.
Click to expand...
Then why cannot everyone choose not to wear a helmet without penalty? After all, one would simply be voluntarily giving up a protection, right? Or Seatbelts, for that matter.
 
ceptimus said:
You're the one who has added 'Pay our EEA subscriptions' to your list.

There cannot be any EEA subscriptions after Brexit unless the EU commissioners are lying about EEA membership being conditional on free movement and/or Theresa May is lying in her vow that free movement must be curbed.
Click to expand...

which still leaves the possibility that, one way or another, the UK could be an EEA member and thus have to cough up dues
 
abaddon said:
Then why cannot everyone choose not to wear a helmet without penalty? After all, one would simply be voluntarily giving up a protection, right? Or Seatbelts, for that matter.
Click to expand...
Externalities. The total cost of an accident involving an unprotected cyclist is significant higher to society, therefore society gets to make rules on it.
 
ceptimus said:
One bit of rubbish that the EU is spouting is that when we do leave, we'll owe them €60 billion as some sort of severance payment for commitments already made.

It's a ridiculous figure of course. Typical of the sort of nonsense the EU comes up with and another reason why we should leave ASAP.
Click to expand...
Link please?
 
Darat said:
I tried that but as you say it's behind a pay wall so can't access it.
Click to expand...
Today's "Daily Telegraph" has no paywall guarding this fightin' talk from "allies of Mrs May".
Ministers have told the Telegraph that the “expectation” among Cabinet ministers is that the Government will not succeed in its bid to overturn a High Court ruling that said the Prime Minister must consult Parliament before triggering Article 50, which begins formal Brexit negotiations.
In anticipation of a defeat in the Supreme Court, No 10 is preparing legislation and allies of Mrs May are now “confident” that MPs “would not dare” vote down the legislation.​
Will they "dare" I wonder? The Richmond Park result might make a few of them more "daring" than they would otherwise incline to be, I think.
 
The Don said:
OK - I think I had included it as yet another thing that was reducing the amount of money the government was receiving

Current list:

So now the "£350m a week" has to cover:

  • The £122bn budget shortfall
  • Additional funding for the NHS
  • Maintaining farming subsidies
  • Maintaining fishing subsidies
  • Indemnifying manufacturers against negative impacts of Brexit
  • £2bn a year for science and innovation
  • Replace EU investment for our poorest regions
  • Pay our EEA subscriptions
  • Pay for the department of Brexiting
  • Pay for the department of International Trade
  • Pay for bodies to set and enforce rules currently handled by the EU
Click to expand...
You need to add the costs of the unitary patent with associated ECJ costs and contribution to the EU Intellectual Property Office that we signed up to this week.
 
Craig B said:
Today's "Daily Telegraph" has no paywall guarding this fightin' talk from "allies of Mrs May".
Ministers have told the Telegraph that the “expectation” among Cabinet ministers is that the Government will not succeed in its bid to overturn a High Court ruling that said the Prime Minister must consult Parliament before triggering Article 50, which begins formal Brexit negotiations.
In anticipation of a defeat in the Supreme Court, No 10 is preparing legislation and allies of Mrs May are now “confident” that MPs “would not dare” vote down the legislation.​
Will they "dare" I wonder? The Richmond Park result might make a few of them more "daring" than they would otherwise incline to be, I think.
Click to expand...

I love the way they breezily ignore having tried to bypass parliament in the first place. May will get her plan through parliament, but only because Corbyn is a dead loss as a leader. His failure to make a strong Remain case during the referendum has put Labour in an electoral bind.

ETA: well, well. No sooner do I post that than I find Corbyn has grown a spine:

Corbyn: Labour will seek amendment to any Article 50 bill

On Saturday, Mr Corbyn said: "When the Article 50 debate comes up we will put forward an amendment to it which will be on the issues I've just said on market access and protections.
"We want those to be part of the negotiation but we are respecting the result of the referendum. It might not be the one we wanted, it's the one we've got."
Click to expand...

The won't stop Article 50 being activated, but they are clearly laying down the battle lines for any treaty may comes back with. They can argue that any treaty that doesn't provide access to the single market doesn't deliver what was promised in the Referendum campaign.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
It's more like incompetent fools thrashing about helplessly when confronted by truly intractable problems of their own making. There is no good solution to this. Was not Cameron very wise simply to run away and disappear - not merely from government, but from Parliament - as soon as he realised the situation that had been created by his own idiotic overconfidence?
Click to expand...


"Wise", or simply "selfish and cowardly"?

He should have stayed, demonstrated how impossible it will be to create a good outcome, and then declared the whole thing a mistake which shouldn't go ahead. As the creator of this dead-end he navigated into, he should have declared it impossible, ditched the advisory result of the referendum, and admitted his incompetence, and only after that was clear finally he should have resigned, and retired in disgrace.
 
Moderate Conservatives warn that a "Hard Brexit" could cost the Tories the next election:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38199310

Pursuing a "hard" Brexit could alienate core Conservative voters and cost the party the next general election, a group of Tory MPs has warned.

The group - which includes ex-attorney general Dominic Grieve - said "a moderate core" of Tory voters do not want the party to become "UKIP-lite".
Click to expand...

There's nothing particularly new here and no indication that May won't continue to pursue an out-out-out Brexit regardless of the consequences.

IMO you'd want to lose the election after a "Hard Brexit" and leave another party to sort out the ugly consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom