Trang Man Confesses to Shooting Neighbour After Argument Escalates

[webfact]

In Brexit showdown, British PM May faces issue of 'meaningful vote'

By Elizabeth Piper and Andrew MacAskill

 

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May addresses the final news conference of the G7 summit in the Charlevoix city of La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada, June 9, 2018. REUTERS/Yves Herman

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May faces a showdown in parliament on Tuesday with lawmakers who want more power to challenge an eventual Brexit deal, testing both her authority and her plans for leaving the European Union.

 

On the first day of votes that could further complicate her tortured negotiations to quit the EU, parliament will debate a demand for a "meaningful vote" on any agreement May negotiates with Brussels before leaving the bloc next March. Such a vote would give the lower house more power to set the government's "direction" if the house rejects the agreement.

 

It will be the first major test after the upper house, the House of Lords, introduced 15 major changes to herBrexit blueprint, the EU Withdrawal Bill, including that on the "meaningful vote".

 

Underlining the fear that some of her Conservatives could vote against the government, May addressed her own lawmakers at a meeting of its 1922 Committee in a last-ditch appeal for them to unite around her plans to leave the EU.

 

"If the Lords amendments are allowed to stand, that negotiating position will be undermined," she told them, adding that she was confident that "I can get a deal that allows us to strike our own trade deals while having a border with the EU which is as frictionless as possible".

 

Her appeal was cheered and applauded.

 

Parliament will also debate other amendments handed down by the House of Lords, including a challenge to the government's plan to put March 29, 2019, or 'Brexit Day', into law and an attempt to toughen a commitment to ensure a frictionless border between Northern Ireland and the neighbouring Irish Republic, which will remain in the EU.

 

On Wednesday, parliament will also consider a challenge to her commitment to leave the EU's single market and customs union, which will transform Britain's future trading relationships for many years to come.

 

FRANTIC LOBBYING

The House of Lords defeated the government 15 times in earlier votes, offering parliament the chance to put pressure on May and her government to change tack on Brexit.

 

If she is defeated in the House of Commons, it will be yet another blow to a prime minister whose authority has been challenged several times since she lost the Conservative Party's majority in an ill-judged election last year. She now relies on the support of a small Northern Irish party.

 

Party officials have been frantically lobbying to convince lawmakers who have threatened to vote against the government to stay in line, using arguments ranging from the threat of being turfed out by a government led by opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to losing leverage in Brexit talks with the EU.

 

Ministers and other lawmakers have been told to make sure they will be in parliament for the votes.

 

"There have been lots of meetings, we are keen to engage with all members of the parliamentary party," May's spokesman said. "And I imagine that there will be (more)."

 

(Reporting by Elizabeth Piper; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-06-12

[dick dasterdly]

All of which supports my conclusion that we should support another referendum on the final,  agreed deal.

 

BUT, it must include the option 'leave now, under WTO rules'.

 

May and the govt. has made no plans for genuinely leaving the eu so far ☹️ - but this would concentrate their minds wonderfully!

[dick dasterdly]

"The House of Lords defeated the government 15 times in earlier votes, offering parliament the chance to put pressure on May and her government to change tack on Brexit."

 

Says pretty much all you need to know....

 

Will the elite/establishment get away with derailing the brexit referendum?  Time will tell.

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

All of which supports my conclusion that we should support another referendum on the final,  agreed deal.

 

BUT, it must include the option 'leave now, under WTO rules'.

 

May and the govt. has made no plans for genuinely leaving the eu so far ☹️ - but this would concentrate their minds wonderfully!

 

We are a representative democracy. Cameron tried to exploit a poorly constructed referendum for his own purposes and failed and in doing so put the country into turmoil. Despicable man.

 

May tried to circumvent our constitutional democracy to make life easier for herself; and used public money to go to court, the Appeal Court and Supreme Court. She lost, and was severely punished at an ill judged and poorly contested election. Despicable woman.

 

No political party has the guts, or ability, to actually put forward real options. Despicable spineless crop of politicians that the UK now suffers, with one or two exceptions.

 

The should be a referendum on any proposed deal which included the option to accept that proposal, to refuse that proposal and leave with no deal, OR to scrap Brexit and remain in the EU as a full member.

 

No one said that the "advisory" referendum was a one off can never be revisited or changed decision. Only little Britain Brexiters  like to pretend that.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

All of which supports my conclusion that we should support another referendum on the final,  agreed deal.

 

BUT, it must include the option 'leave now, under WTO rules'.

 

May and the govt. has made no plans for genuinely leaving the eu so far ☹️ - but this would concentrate their minds wonderfully!

So the questions you'd agree too are something along the lines:

 

1. Accept the deal

2. Reject the deal, leave the EU and start trading under WTO

3. Reject the deal, remain in the EU under the existing deal

 

 

nes pas?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

"The House of Lords defeated the government 15 times in earlier votes, offering parliament the chance to put pressure on May and her government to change tack on Brexit."

 

Says pretty much all you need to know....

 

Will the elite/establishment get away with derailing the brexit referendum?  Time will tell.

It reads like the House of Lords forcing the government to follow the principals of parliamentary democracy to me. 

 

But then we should not be surprised it took 'enemies of the people' to force the government via the high court to go before parliament in the aftermath of the referendum. 

 

 

Two examples of how this government has been prevented from enacting government by executive order. 

 

Ah... 'let's have our sovereignty back' was the cry.

[Blue Muton]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

We are a representative democracy. Cameron tried to exploit a poorly constructed referendum for his own purposes and failed and in doing so put the country into turmoil. Despicable man.

 

May tried to circumvent our constitutional democracy to make life easier for herself; and used public money to go to court, the Appeal Court and Supreme Court. She lost, and was severely punished at an ill judged and poorly contested election. Despicable woman.

 

No political party has the guts, or ability, to actually put forward real options. Despicable spineless crop of politicians that the UK now suffers, with one or two exceptions.

 

The should be a referendum on any proposed deal which included the option to accept that proposal, to refuse that proposal and leave with no deal, OR to scrap Brexit and remain in the EU as a full member.

 

No one said that the "advisory" referendum was a one off can never be revisited or changed decision. Only little Britain Brexiters  like to pretend that.

 

 

That sounds very reasonable, with a real choice being offered, unlike the original fiasco which offered no clearly defined alternative to continued membership of the EU.

[dunroaming]

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So the questions you'd agree too are something along the lines:

 

1. Accept the deal

2. Reject the deal, leave the EU and start trading under WTO

3. Reject the deal, remain in the EU under the existing deal

 

 

nes pas?

That would work for me and it is what I wrote months ago.  If that was agreed then we could all just back off and let them negotiate the best deal they can.  It would then mean that for the first time we would be able to vote on facts and not just "maybe's" 

[Blue Muton]

1 minute ago, dunroaming said:

That would work for me and it is what I wrote months ago.  If that was agreed then we could all just back off and let them negotiate the best deal they can.  It would then mean that for the first time we would be able to vote on facts and not just "maybe's" 

You could add "rhetoric, jingoistic claptrap, ignorance, BS, lies and damned lies (all 350 million a week of them)" to your "maybe's".

[dunroaming]

10 minutes ago, Blue Muton said:

You could add "rhetoric, jingoistic claptrap, ignorance, BS, lies and damned lies (all 350 million a week of them)" to your "maybe's".

Don't forget the vitriol!  But that and all of the above hasn't got us any nearer a workable solution.

[dunroaming]

It will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of weeks.  I think that the members should back her, but I understand that it will be done with some considerable reluctance.  If that happens she is less likely to get a leadership challenge which would, at this stage, be very damaging.  I have no doubt that Johnson or Rees Mogg will challenge her next year after 29th March.  No matter what the outcome, May's days as PM will come to an abrupt end. She will never recover from the Brexit chaos.

[sammieuk1]

I wonder how much this debacle has cost so far in the billions maybe if you add on the DUP's vote buy out to prop up a failed government.

I do know one thing for sure though that's how hard I want kick a brexit voter in the groin every time I exchange pounds.

Edited June 12, 2018 by sammieuk1

[Ulic]

4 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

The should be a referendum on any proposed deal which included the option to accept that proposal, to refuse that proposal and leave with no deal, OR to scrap Brexit and remain in the EU as a full member.

 

So this proposal splits the Brexit voters into two groups leaving the remain vote to win the referendum.

Why even have a referendum at all.

[brewsterbudgen]

So this proposal splits the Brexit voters into two groups leaving the remain vote to win the referendum.
Why even have a referendum at all.

Exactly. The 2016 referendum was a miscalculation and voters were never told about the ramifications of leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. We need a final say on our future.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Ulic]

3 hours ago, dunroaming said:

That would work for me and it is what I wrote months ago.  If that was agreed then we could all just back off and let them negotiate the best deal they can.  It would then mean that for the first time we would be able to vote on facts and not just "maybe's" 

Complete BS. The EU would simply offer an unacceptable deal to force the UK to remain.

They are already doing that to the best of there ability. It could force a hard Brexit with

WTO rules which is probably the best the UK can do. Save the divorce payment to ease the transition. To give the strongest negotiating position a referendum should be 1/the deal she negotiates, or 2/ hard Brexit.

[Blue Muton]

3 minutes ago, Ulic said:

Complete BS. The EU would simply offer an unacceptable deal to force the UK to remain.

They are already doing that to the best of there ability. It could force a hard Brexit with

WTO rules which is probably the best the UK can do. Save the divorce payment to ease the transition. To give the strongest negotiating position a referendum should be 1/the deal she negotiates, or 2/ hard Brexit.

Quite bonkers, have another referendum but exclude the only option that would save the UK's bacon.

[dunroaming]

17 minutes ago, Ulic said:

Complete BS. The EU would simply offer an unacceptable deal to force the UK to remain.

They are already doing that to the best of there ability. It could force a hard Brexit with

WTO rules which is probably the best the UK can do. Save the divorce payment to ease the transition. To give the strongest negotiating position a referendum should be 1/the deal she negotiates, or 2/ hard Brexit.

And you call my post BS ?

 

First of all if the EU offered the UK an unacceptable deal then we could just walk away with no deal as is the proposal. But you are dismissing the No deal approach all of a sudden even though that has been the mantra of the hard nosed Brexiteers all along. 

 

But let me ask you this.  If May negotiates a Brexit that dictates a custom union of some sort, which means free movement of people and a trade deal aligned to the single market, meaning that we still have to pay into and abide by the EU trade rules, but with no voice in what happens, will you feel that that is worth it,  just to leave the EU?  Or do you think that a hard Brexit (what is that?) is a better option?   You accept that we will be paying the billions in a divorce settlement and that we need a transition period but not the walk away scenario.

 

48 minutes ago, Ulic said:

So this proposal splits the Brexit voters into two groups leaving the remain vote to win the referendum.

Why even have a referendum at all.

 

Why do you think it wouldn't split the remain voters in the same way?

 

And why is it that it only seems to be the Brexiteers that are scared of a vote at the end?

 

[Grouse]

7 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

"The House of Lords defeated the government 15 times in earlier votes, offering parliament the chance to put pressure on May and her government to change tack on Brexit."

 

Says pretty much all you need to know....

 

Will the elite/establishment get away with derailing the brexit referendum?  Time will tell.

I do hope so.

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So the questions you'd agree too are something along the lines:

 

1. Accept the deal

2. Reject the deal, leave the EU and start trading under WTO

3. Reject the deal, remain in the EU under the existing deal

 

 

nes pas?

So you're not French then! ?

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, Ulic said:

Complete BS. The EU would simply offer an unacceptable deal to force the UK to remain.

They are already doing that to the best of there ability. It could force a hard Brexit with

WTO rules which is probably the best the UK can do. Save the divorce payment to ease the transition. To give the strongest negotiating position a referendum should be 1/the deal she negotiates, or 2/ hard Brexit.

Very silly 

[dick dasterdly]

20 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So the questions you'd agree too are something along the lines:

 

1. Accept the deal

2. Reject the deal, leave the EU and start trading under WTO

3. Reject the deal, remain in the EU under the existing deal

 

 

nes pas?

I'd prefer just the first two options as we've already had a referendum on whether or not to leave the eu - and the vote was to leave.

 

Plus, as pointed out by Ulic, it would encourage the eu and uk politicians to hope that it would be a good ploy to come up with a deal so bad for the uk, that people could possibly be frightened into voting for the third option.

 

Especially as you can guarantee that there would be a FAR more determined campaign (than pre-referendum) by most politicians and the media insisting that 'Armageddon' would ensue if the vote was to start trading under WTO rules!

 

Nonetheless, I'd prefer the three options you mention - rather than parliament having the power to 'drag it out' for years, until they find a way to reverse the process or accept a very bad deal without it affecting their electoral chances too badly.