UK General Discussion Thread: mayy lmao

[StateBoiler]

I don't think Merkel's strategy here is going to be very helpful for her or for the EU long-term.  At least, she's not repairing the image that exists in some minds of the EU as an "evil, anti-democratic organization."  Not if she makes the UK endure 2+ years of economic turmoil as 'punishment' for leaving.  But I guess in the end, there are no winners here.

What should she do instead? Let the UK get all the perks from the EU while avoiding any of the costs?

It's not about "punishing" the UK for leaving. The UK punished itself by leaving. Now they should bear the consequences of their choice, plain and simple.

Like I said, there really are no winners.  Because no matter what happens, it will inflame the far-right across Europe to push for more leaves; either leaving the EU is an attractive option, or the EU is a cancer that will resort to nefarious means of keeping countries from leaving and threaten them if they do.  The Brexit could have very well started a domino effect, I'm afraid.

Or maybe it's just that the EU actually provides its member countries with plenty of advantages and that leaving is actually a suicidal gesture.

Was forcing on Italy that they must make Mario Monti the Prime Minister one of those advantages?

The EU does have a lot of good things but it and the ECB taking political control of countries is morally indefensible and no better than a military coup.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think Merkel's strategy here is going to be very helpful for her or for the EU long-term.  At least, she's not repairing the image that exists in some minds of the EU as an "evil, anti-democratic organization."  Not if she makes the UK endure 2+ years of economic turmoil as 'punishment' for leaving.  But I guess in the end, there are no winners here.

What should she do instead? Let the UK get all the perks from the EU while avoiding any of the costs?

It's not about "punishing" the UK for leaving. The UK punished itself by leaving. Now they should bear the consequences of their choice, plain and simple.

Like I said, there really are no winners.  Because no matter what happens, it will inflame the far-right across Europe to push for more leaves; either leaving the EU is an attractive option, or the EU is a cancer that will resort to nefarious means of keeping countries from leaving and threaten them if they do.  The Brexit could have very well started a domino effect, I'm afraid.

Or maybe it's just that the EU actually provides its member countries with plenty of advantages and that leaving is actually a suicidal gesture.

Was forcing on Italy that they must make Mario Monti the Prime Minister one of those advantages?

The EU does have a lot of good things but it and the ECB taking political control of countries is morally indefensible and no better than a military coup.

Do you realize that the UK isn't even in the Eurozone? The ECB has zero relevance in all this.

[swl]

Merkel:

'We will make sure that negotiations will not be carried out as a cherry-picking exercise. There must be and there will be a palpable difference between those countries who want to be members of the European family and those who don’t ...

Whoever wants to leave this family cannot expect to shed all its responsibilities but keep the privileges ...

Those for example, who want free access to the single market will in return have to respect European basic rights and freedoms ... That’s true for GB just as much as for the others.

Free acccess to the single market is granted to those who accept the four basic European freedoms - that of people, goods, services and capital .Norway for instance is not a member of the European Union but has access to the single market because it accepts open migration from the European Union.'

Hello Schengen!

Schengen and the free movement of people are different things. Schengen basically means that there are no border controls. The UK and Ireland have free movement of people but are not in Schengen. I don't see why this would have to change.

Free movement with Schengen= anyone can enter.
Free movement without Schengen= anyone can enter after showing an ID.

[Famous Mortimer]

So why hasn't the Corbyn vote taken place this time? What's going on?

[Gass3268]

Jeremy Corbyn loses vote of no confidence 40-172...

ouch

[Hnv1]

Watson and A Eagle are going to meet and decide who is the challenger. I feel Watson could galvanize old members and the Labour right here and even bite into the soft left

[Gass3268]

Corbyn refuses to resign, says no confidence vote has 'no constitutional legitimacy'

[StateBoiler]

I don't think Merkel's strategy here is going to be very helpful for her or for the EU long-term.  At least, she's not repairing the image that exists in some minds of the EU as an "evil, anti-democratic organization."  Not if she makes the UK endure 2+ years of economic turmoil as 'punishment' for leaving.  But I guess in the end, there are no winners here.

What should she do instead? Let the UK get all the perks from the EU while avoiding any of the costs?

It's not about "punishing" the UK for leaving. The UK punished itself by leaving. Now they should bear the consequences of their choice, plain and simple.

Like I said, there really are no winners.  Because no matter what happens, it will inflame the far-right across Europe to push for more leaves; either leaving the EU is an attractive option, or the EU is a cancer that will resort to nefarious means of keeping countries from leaving and threaten them if they do.  The Brexit could have very well started a domino effect, I'm afraid.

Or maybe it's just that the EU actually provides its member countries with plenty of advantages and that leaving is actually a suicidal gesture.

Was forcing on Italy that they must make Mario Monti the Prime Minister one of those advantages?

The EU does have a lot of good things but it and the ECB taking political control of countries is morally indefensible and no better than a military coup.

Do you realize that the UK isn't even in the Eurozone? The ECB has zero relevance in all this.

I'm pretty confident that the people outside of Italy that know who Mario Monti is are aware of the Euro zone membership.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't think Merkel's strategy here is going to be very helpful for her or for the EU long-term.  At least, she's not repairing the image that exists in some minds of the EU as an "evil, anti-democratic organization."  Not if she makes the UK endure 2+ years of economic turmoil as 'punishment' for leaving.  But I guess in the end, there are no winners here.

What should she do instead? Let the UK get all the perks from the EU while avoiding any of the costs?

It's not about "punishing" the UK for leaving. The UK punished itself by leaving. Now they should bear the consequences of their choice, plain and simple.

Like I said, there really are no winners.  Because no matter what happens, it will inflame the far-right across Europe to push for more leaves; either leaving the EU is an attractive option, or the EU is a cancer that will resort to nefarious means of keeping countries from leaving and threaten them if they do.  The Brexit could have very well started a domino effect, I'm afraid.

Or maybe it's just that the EU actually provides its member countries with plenty of advantages and that leaving is actually a suicidal gesture.

Was forcing on Italy that they must make Mario Monti the Prime Minister one of those advantages?

The EU does have a lot of good things but it and the ECB taking political control of countries is morally indefensible and no better than a military coup.

Do you realize that the UK isn't even in the Eurozone? The ECB has zero relevance in all this.

I'm pretty confident that the people outside of Italy that know who Mario Monti is are aware of the Euro zone membership.

...your point being?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Corbyn refuses to resign, says no confidence vote has 'no constitutional legitimacy'

...what does that even mean?!

[Hnv1]

Corbyn refuses to resign, says no confidence vote has 'no constitutional legitimacy'

...what does that even mean?!

That a vote of no confidence according to Labour's party constitution is non binding to the leader

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Corbyn refuses to resign, says no confidence vote has 'no constitutional legitimacy'

...what does that even mean?!

That a vote of no confidence according to Labour's party constitution is non binding to the leader

Deeply worrying if true.

[Mr. Morden]

So what is the actual procedure by which someone can call for a new leadership election for Labour?

[Famous Mortimer]

So what is the actual procedure by which someone can call for a new leadership election for Labour?

Someone besides the current leader gets at least 50 MPs to nominate them to be leader.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

So what is the actual procedure by which someone can call for a new leadership election for Labour?

Someone besides the current leader gets at least 50 MPs to nominate them to be leader.

MPs+MEPs, isn't it?

[Santander]

Corbyn refuses to resign, says no confidence vote has 'no constitutional legitimacy'

This is what happens when you let the Neo-Marxists into the party. They seize power and never let it go.

[joevsimp]

Corbyn refuses to resign, says no confidence vote has 'no constitutional legitimacy'

This is what happens when you let the Neo-Marxists into the party. They seize power and never let it go.

there is nothing neo-anything about Corbyn and he has not made significant changes to the party rulebook either, the procedure is for a challenger to, you know, challenge the incumbent. if the PLP want him out that badly they should've pulled their fingers out and nominated a challenger on monday morning rather than fartarsing about with a non-binding pantomime

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Corbyn refuses to resign, says no confidence vote has 'no constitutional legitimacy'

This is what happens when you let the Neo-Marxists into the party. They seize power and never let it go.

there is nothing neo-anything about Corbyn and he has not made significant changes to the party rulebook either, the procedure is for a challenger to, you know, challenge the incumbent. if the PLP want him out that badly they should've pulled their fingers out and nominated a challenger on monday morning rather than fartarsing about with a non-binding pantomime

Well, the militants almost took over the party in the early 80s, but yeah, I wouldn't place Corbyn at the same footing with them.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A question about leadership contest procedure: I know Labour had much wider range of people who votes other than PLP, but the Tories are still MPs-only contest, right?

[joevsimp]

A question about leadership contest procedure: I know Labour had much wider range of people who votes other than PLP, but the Tories are still MPs-only contest, right?

Conservative MPs vote in a multi-round ballot eliminating the bottom placed candidate until there are two left, the membership then chose between the two in a postal vote (about 250,000 last time)

so if five are nominated, there will be three rounds to whittle them down to two for the members to vote on

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Again I'll ask, as I did in another thread: What, at this point, does Corbyn hope to accomplish by staying on? I understand that he believes himself to have his own mandate from the membership that he considers more important than the good graces of the PLP, but what does he hope to accomplish now? Does he care about the good graces of the people who elected the PLP, of whom there are thirty-seven times more than voted for him for leader? Does he expect the former Shadow Cabinet to come crawling back if/when he wins another leadership election? Does he think Labour can actually win a general election with a parliamentary party that despises its leader and a latter-day 'Who? Who?' ministry filled with nobodies, a ministry that he can't even fill because he has so few remaining allies?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A question about leadership contest procedure: I know Labour had much wider range of people who votes other than PLP, but the Tories are still MPs-only contest, right?

Conservative MPs vote in a multi-round ballot eliminating the bottom placed candidate until there are two left, the membership then chose between the two in a postal vote (about 250,000 last time)

so if five are nominated, there will be three rounds to whittle them down to two for the members to vote on

At least they have a vote. Not like before 1965...

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I'm starting to think of a scenario where Corbyn wins the election, the PLP freaks out and splits and somehow convinces Farron to do a Lib Dem merger 2.0. I just want to see it because I want to see how hilarious it would be if the Lib Dems somehow become the official opposition for four months.

[ag]

I'm starting to think of a scenario where Corbyn wins the election, the PLP freaks out and splits and somehow convinces Farron to do a Lib Dem merger 2.0. I just want to see it because I want to see how hilarious it would be if the Lib Dems somehow become the official opposition for four months.

Are you sure it would only be four months? If a major split occurs, we might be in for a serious realignment.

[Famous Mortimer]

I could see an "Alliance" between anti-Corbyn Labour and the LibDems but I doubt the LibDems would get to be dominant.