Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 09:36:28 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Countdown to AreMaygeddon (the s.t.b. ex-PM thread)

Started by mothman, November 26, 2018, 09:23:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dr Trouser

Apparently they now have 48 letters of no confidence. Like they did a few weeks ago. And a few weeks before that.

Sigh.


edit: New Page New Letters of No Confidence

Replies From View


biggytitbo

A christmas version of Theresa May would be Theresa Sleigh.


biggytitbo

Nobody will ever be able to agree what the questions are, or the voting method of a 2nd referendum. Well be here for years.

Edit- not sure what I replied to there. It is a true statement though.

Cuellar


Replies From View


Panbaams

Quote from: thraxx on December 11, 2018, 02:57:46 PM
David Lidington.  Really really don't trust this bloke.  Wields far too much power from the shadows and is far too smug, over confident and arrogant.

He's my MP. A suit full of bugger all (to borrow Ben Elton's phrase) who has mysteriously risen without a trace to effectively become the deputy prime minister. I'm sure that the smugness, over-confidence and arrogance would apply to any Tory MP who survived the Labour landslide in 1997 and holds a seat that's been Conservative for the best part of a century.

A century.

Alberon

Quote from: biggytitbo on December 11, 2018, 04:09:51 PM
The usual footsie -
Quote
Confidence vote watch. I know it's a dangerous game to play and Sir Graham is keeper of the list. But my ERG sources pretty confident now that 48 trigger been breached. Of course Sir Graham won't announce while PM out of country - and we've been here before. But mood hardening


Been burned too many times by the rebels inability to organise a piss-up in a brewery, but if the antics of the last 24 hours don't push them over the line literally nothing will.

Blumf

Quote from: DrGreggles on December 11, 2018, 01:04:19 PM
No exit strategy...
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsPolitics/status/1072463780007809024?s=09

Not the first time a German car has locked a politician inside itself:

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/computer-glitch-traps-thai-minister-in-bmw-20030513-gdgr7n.html
QuoteWhile on the way to an important speech, Thailand's finance minister got locked inside his luxury car yesterday because of an onboard computer malfunction and had to signal someone to smash a window for him to crawl out.

Zetetic

#1210
I do wonder why anyone would be so sure that a government in Westminster wouldn't either unilaterally shove off Northern Ireland (economic deadweight as it is; as practically all of the UK appears from Westminster) or violate the GFA by introducing customs checks (etc.) on the Irish border.

I think this is a particularly odd view for anyone who's usually sceptical of the UK's claims of adhering to a "rules-based" international order in the pursuit of democracy and human rights, or who is concerned about our security services predilection for the creation or enhancement of risks to justify their own existence.

The DUP continues to repudiate the peace agreement, and continues to frustrate forming a government in Belfast. It continued to prevent the implementation of trivial egalitarian policies while in government.

The GFA binds the government in Westminster to the ECHR, while the view that the peace process as a whole was a form of surrender is not a thoroughly unpopular position amongst Tories.

No British government is going to loudly pre-announce that they're preparing to pull out of the peace agreement, particularly not at this point where we're trying to convince others that we can and will stick to international agreements. That doesn't meant that a future government won't.

Zetetic

Quote from: biggytitbo on December 11, 2018, 04:41:01 PM
The not easieness of leaving the backstop is one of the sticking points in Mays dealing it?

Yep. But that's largely nonsense, whether it's the howling of the ERG or Corbyn putting his name to a piece in the The Guardian.

It's a lovely talking point about sovereignty and how the bulldog won't be chained by agreements it can't slip out of unilaterally in a lawful manner (wait, doesn't this apply to the GFA?!).

Quote from: biggytitbo on December 11, 2018, 05:09:42 PM
I quite agree. Creating a red line out of something she knew could never happen was indeed a monstrous and cynical act of politicking.

No, because we still have the trade issue. If triggered, the backstop says "Hey, everyone else that trades with us as a third country. We're in the single market and customs union here so of course we can legally have the four freedoms, but you can't. So fuck off with that."

We really don't want to be in a situation where we're without a trade agreement, but still allowing the four freedoms to and from the Republic. We'd effectively be opening our borders to everything and everyone. I can't understand why May isn't making that argument for it, other than utter incompetence.

biggytitbo

if this isn't a horrendously cynical political manoeuvre then why not just be honest about what the real consequences are though - breaking treaty obligations or trade rules, rather than threatening a hard border that everyone involved on all sides knows is not going to happen?

Shoulders?-Stomach!



Quote from: biggytitbo on December 11, 2018, 06:01:05 PM
if this isn't a horrendously cynical political manoeuvre then why not just be honest about what the real consequences are though - breaking treaty obligations or trade rules, rather than threatening a hard border that everyone involved on all sides knows is not going to happen?

This entire process from David Cameron's brainfart onward has been an horrendously cynical political manoeuvre. This train isn't stopping yet.

Replies From View


MiddleRabbit

Quote from: Zetetic on December 11, 2018, 05:48:34 PM
I do wonder why anyone would be so sure that a government in Westminster wouldn'... unilaterally shove off Northern Ireland...

The DUP...

...props up the Conservative government.

There you go

Zetetic


Harry Badger

Quote from: Zetetic on December 11, 2018, 05:48:34 PM
I do wonder why anyone would be so sure that a government in Westminster wouldn't either unilaterally shove off Northern Ireland

Harold Wilson considered it, most likely after drinking heavily: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7610750.stm

Funcrusher

Beeb reporting that chairman of the 1922 Committee has requested a meeting with May tomorrow.

mothman

If there is a Tory no-conf vote/leadership challenge it'll be to keep everything in limbo and run the clock down. At all costs nothing must happen which might lead to a GE or - far worse - a threat to Holy Brexit such as a second referendum. Every single Tory would rather have No Deal than not getting to be in charge anymore.

BlodwynPig

Leadsom on C4 news, completely snookered. Yet ploughed on and blamed everything on the opposition - theyve got no ideas!!!

thraxx

Quote from: BlodwynPig on December 11, 2018, 10:32:35 PM
Leadsom on C4 news, completely snookered. Yet ploughed on and blamed everything on the opposition - theyve got no ideas!!!

Leadsom, if Private Eye is to be believed, is considered by civil servants to be the most inept minister of recent memory, which is going some.

pancreas

Quote from: Zetetic on December 11, 2018, 05:48:34 PM
I do wonder why anyone would be so sure that a government in Westminster wouldn't either unilaterally shove off Northern Ireland (economic deadweight as it is; as practically all of the UK appears from Westminster) or violate the GFA by introducing customs checks (etc.) on the Irish border.

I think this is a particularly odd view for anyone who's usually sceptical of the UK's claims of adhering to a "rules-based" international order in the pursuit of democracy and human rights, or who is concerned about our security services predilection for the creation or enhancement of risks to justify their own existence.

The DUP continues to repudiate the peace agreement, and continues to frustrate forming a government in Belfast. It continued to prevent the implementation of trivial egalitarian policies while in government.

The GFA binds the government in Westminster to the ECHR, while the view that the peace process as a whole was a form of surrender is not a thoroughly unpopular position amongst Tories.

No British government is going to loudly pre-announce that they're preparing to pull out of the peace agreement, particularly not at this point where we're trying to convince others that we can and will stick to international agreements. That doesn't meant that a future government won't.

I've been thinking in these terms too—what follows probably repudiates some things I've been saying even recently.

To some extent, the DUP moves in mysterious ways. But I'm increasingly of the view that they might regard Brexit as their only opportunity to escape the clutches of Catholicism and that they actually want a hard border—even while they know that would deal untold harm to their voting base.

This makes Labour's position all the more complicated. They can temporarily court the DUP—for example against May's deal—by pointing out that it's much more likely to lead to a border in the Irish Sea (and eventual Irish unification), but they can't drag them so far over the line with this reasoning that they would support anything that Labour had to offer, BECAUSE Labour is still offering the EU in some form or another. 'Here there be Papist dragons'.

So one concludes the DUP want a hard Brexit and a hard border. This is the only way they can truly insulate themselves from Catholic incursion and the only way they can remain Protestant. (In their eyes.)

That this thinking belongs to another century—and the fact that it is nevertheless materially affecting all our lives—is obviously monumentally depressing.

I conclude that they will, for the above reasons, never support a second ref, nor a vote of no confidence.

What does this mean for Labour?

Probably that Labour should call a vote of no confidence, fully expecting to lose it, hoping that there is a majority for a second ref.

Quote from: Buelligan on December 11, 2018, 10:15:07 AM
(That's enough sexism thanks.  Ed.)

It's not Our Lads' fault that the symbol of parliamentary sovereignty is evidently a giant golden phallus.

greenman

I think he'd been tipped off as to May's move of last resort...


Paul Calf

Vote of no confidence in the PM (not the government) to happen later today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46535739

More Tory cock-jousting to run the clock down...

Dr Trouser

I am very excited about this, what a day for the mother of all parliaments