British PM May survives party confidence vote but 117 dissent

[My Thai Life]

Crying Dick was referring earlier to Ireland's low corporate tax rates. It's one of Ireland's policies to attract multinationals. I've worked in most of Europe's financial centres, and Ireland's IFSC is one of the more innovative.

 

As part of its drive towards ever-closer union, the EU is planning to impose tax standardisation across the EU. This would affect Ireland and a few other countries quite seriously, and they will resist.

 

This underscores one of the most serious of the EU's structural problems, that economic union (the Euro) cannot succeed without fiscal union (taxation and other governmental financial tools). We've already seen evidence of this. PIGS etc.

 

But member nations will resist this level of interference in their affairs. Witness Italy at present.

 

Somewhere towards the end of the drive to ever-closer union will be the need to have an EU-wide balance sheet. This would require, among other things, that debt is shared across the EU. For example, Greece's debt will need to be shared. Germany would have to take the largest share. Germany is resisting this idea.

 

So we have a situation where the drive to ever-closer union is being and will continue to be met by stiffer resistance. This problem has been known to economists for years, and increasingly it's becoming part of the day to day narrative.

 

There are only 2 solutions - reform the EU, or institute a full United States of Europe. I suspect that there will never be more than an extremely small number of people in support of the latter, yet the EU resists the former.

 

Now is arguably a good time to leave the EU.

[RuamRudy]

4 hours ago, vogie said:

The Lib/Dems have said they would back Corbyn should he propose a no confidence vote, it would appear that at this time Corbyn is not confident he would win it. My take anyway.

Or maybe he is scared that he might win?

[Baerboxer]

8 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

'Brexit' is the most consequential public policy decision of the last 50+ years in the UK, and there is little consensus.

 

Parliament is divided.

The parties are divided.

The countries of the UK itself are divided.

Business is divided.

Civil Society is divided.

Labour unions are divided.

All the UK is divided.

 

Deciding and implementing such a sweeping policy change under these conditions is pure madness. The common sense thing to do under these circumstances is to put it aside for a lengthy period, but I think that option is also not possible anymore. And, I suspect that things will only get worse; no matter what occurs, bitter divisions will haunt the UK for generations.

 

In my lifetime, I have never seen a country do so much damage to itself, and that includes Trump's America.

 

Hey UK, get your act together or face (literally) decades of dispute, disagreement and discord.

 

 

 

 

The sensible thing would be to revoke Article 50, which the UK has always been able to do unilaterally. That would give time for a proper referendum to be passed into law, one that allowed for correct, factual information to be provided for people so they could make an informed decision based on reality.

 

But the spineless greedy self interested politicians won't dare do that. The people might get a taste for democracy rather than representative democracy and expect more crucial decision to be put to them rather than debated and voted on by the muppets now occupying parliament.

 

The UK is indeed terribly divided, and none more so then the fractured Tory party. How anyone can expect such a bitterly divided party to somehow find a workable compromise and negotiate a good deal is beyond me. They are more likely to soldier ahead like lemmings.

 

This is the worst crop of politicians, of all parties, I can ever remember or research in the UK. None have the balls or the honesty to do the job they were elected to do and have shown they're incapable of anything other than self interest.

 

Allowing things to move forward and taking crucial decisions in this context is sheer folly.

[Baerboxer]

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Or maybe he is scared that he might win?

 

That might well be true. Criticizing is one thing. Having to actually perform is another. 

[evadgib]

24 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Fortunately only 10% of the British people think like you. Only 10% of British people really wish Brexit to happen.

 

Each country has it's worthless misfits, who want to break the society.

There isn't enough there for a bite ????

[Baerboxer]

14 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Crying Dick was referring earlier to Ireland's low corporate tax rates. It's one of Ireland's policies to attract multinationals. I've worked in most of Europe's financial centres, and Ireland's IFSC is one of the more innovative.

 

As part of its drive towards ever-closer union, the EU is planning to impose tax standardisation across the EU. This would affect Ireland and a few other countries quite seriously, and they will resist.

 

This underscores one of the most serious of the EU's structural problems, that economic union (the Euro) cannot succeed without fiscal union (taxation and other governmental financial tools). We've already seen evidence of this. PIGS etc.

 

But member nations will resist this level of interference in their affairs. Witness Italy at present.

 

Somewhere towards the end of the drive to ever-closer union will be the need to have an EU-wide balance sheet. This would require, among other things, that debt is shared across the EU. For example, Greece's debt will need to be shared. Germany would have to take the largest share. Germany is resisting this idea.

 

So we have a situation where the drive to ever-closer union is being and will continue to be met by stiffer resistance. This problem has been known to economists for years, and increasingly it's becoming part of the day to day narrative.

 

There are only 2 solutions - reform the EU, or institute a full United States of Europe. I suspect that there will never be more than an extremely small number of people in support of the latter, yet the EU resists the former.

 

Now is arguably a good time to leave the EU.

 

Good points, well explained.

 

A similar issue is law. An ever more integrated EU requires an EU law. France and Germany will insist on a codified law system, which they, like most member states have. England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Eire and Gibralta would be pushed to relinquish their common law systems and move to the EU codified law system.

That point has always been ignored by UK parliaments. Recent UK governments have arguable sought to move away from the rights under common law it's citizens have enjoyed for centuries so perhaps not surprising.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, evadgib said:

There isn't enough there for a bite ????

 

Too bad. The fact remains that only 10% of the British people want Brexit. Very loud 10% of the people. 

[RuamRudy]

3 hours ago, vogie said:

Can we let Scotland, Wales and Ireland tag along too.

If it was optional, I suspect that at least 2 of the above would wish you well but let you wander off on your own. 

[vogie]

Just now, RuamRudy said:

If it was optional, I suspect that at least 2 of the above would wish you well but let you wander off on your own. 

You're wishfull thinking again RR.

[Baerboxer]

32 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Fortunately only 10% of the British people think like you. Only 10% of British people really wish Brexit to happen.

 

Each country has it's worthless misfits, who want to break the society.

 

You may be right. But however many % now, it's a hard core that won't change it's mind and will keep on claiming the referendum was a once in a lifetime, never to be repeated, never to be challenged or reversed decision. 

 

The country must be given the chance to vote again, based on the real information and facts now available. That should be followed by a General Election in which many of those who lied and lied again might find the pubic no longer want them.

[bristolboy]

14 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Crying Dick was referring earlier to Ireland's low corporate tax rates. It's one of Ireland's policies to attract multinationals. I've worked in most of Europe's financial centres, and Ireland's IFSC is one of the more innovative.

 

As part of its drive towards ever-closer union, the EU is planning to impose tax standardisation across the EU. This would affect Ireland and a few other countries quite seriously, and they will resist.

 

This underscores one of the most serious of the EU's structural problems, that economic union (the Euro) cannot succeed without fiscal union (taxation and other governmental financial tools). We've already seen evidence of this. PIGS etc.

 

But member nations will resist this level of interference in their affairs. Witness Italy at present.

 

Somewhere towards the end of the drive to ever-closer union will be the need to have an EU-wide balance sheet. This would require, among other things, that debt is shared across the EU. For example, Greece's debt will need to be shared. Germany would have to take the largest share. Germany is resisting this idea.

 

So we have a situation where the drive to ever-closer union is being and will continue to be met by stiffer resistance. This problem has been known to economists for years, and increasingly it's becoming part of the day to day narrative.

 

There are only 2 solutions - reform the EU, or institute a full United States of Europe. I suspect that there will never be more than an extremely small number of people in support of the latter, yet the EU resists the former.

 

Now is arguably a good time to leave the EU.

Innovative is one way to describe Irish tax policy. I'm sure that pharmaceutical and IT giants characterize it that way. But what it really does is allow income that was really earned elsewhere to be credited to Irish HQs because Ireland makes it possible to tax at a ridiculously low rate.  It's part of a race to the bottom the large corporations and the wealthy encourage. Stopping it is long overdue. And it's not about fiscal or monetary union. It's about fairness.

And it's easy to see how fake it is. Thanks to this kind of exploitative taxation, in 2017 Ireland supposedly had a GDP in dollars of $69330 vs. the USA's of $59531 or the UK's $39720.  Obviously that Irish figure has little to do with economic reality and everything to do with exploitative bookkeeping.

[steve73]

There has been much debate about what people thought they were voting for at the referendum.

 

This was my rationale for the definitions of Leave vs. Remain:

Leave meant "Leave in all respects", or it would have said "leave only some aspects of the EU".

Remain on the other hand meant "Remain, and so be subject to all future changes that will be imposed on us by the EU".

It was the gradual evolution of the EU that many of the Leave voters were opposed to, (i.e. from a common trading marketplace, then the imposition of ECJ, the political union, to ultimately in the future, a Federal Europe).

It is the gradual erosion of our sovereignty that Brexiteers are trying to prevent, but it is being prevented at the highest levels.. Democracy has been denied.

[mommysboy]

5 hours ago, stephenterry said:

My crystal ball says that May will aim to get the wording clarified (added flexibility on UK options) on the Irish backstop with the EU, and then give that a chance to cool down over Xmas before holding the vote on her deal early January, when MP's are recovering from a festivities overload, and in no mood to contest another debacle. I'm pretty sure that parliament will approve her deal by a narrow margin, as it's in no-ones interest (apart from the hard Brexiteers) to have a no-deal scenario.

 

It's going to be knife-edged, though, IMO.

 

 

 

 

'Ifs' and 'ands'.  Plausible but not likely.  I think the deal is simply not acceptable to Parliament.

[Somtamnication]

Good, she  survived. Now, let's get on with this fiasco and get out March 19th. !!

[mcambl61]

1 hour ago, j8k said:

Glad to see the UK sticking with the EU.

 

Would have been stupid to leave just because a xenophobic minority of the country (17m out of 60m) wanted to!

 

 

the vote was clear, so was the mandate, isn't just like the remainers to call those who disagree names and sling insults

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Somtamnication said:

Good, she  survived. Now, let's get on with this fiasco and get out March 19th. !!

10 days prior the Brexit date, where you'll be going?

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, mcambl61 said:

the vote was clear, so was the mandate, isn't just like the remainers to call those who disagree names and sling insults

70% of the leave voters were labour party / Jeremy Corbyn supporters who wanted to give few fingers to the Tory government. 

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, Somtamnication said:

Good, she  survived. Now, let's get on with this fiasco and get out March 19th. !!

Ok.  So let's agree to a bad deal that nobody wants?

[mcambl61]

18 minutes ago, oilinki said:

70% of the leave voters were labour party / Jeremy Corbyn supporters who wanted to give few fingers to the Tory government. 

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-majority-conservative-and-labour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-majority-conservative-and-labour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/

 

Like I said. 70% of the brexiteers simply wanted to give two fingers to the goverment. 

[pedro01]

I find this amusing.

 

Brexiters - who won by a hair - now claim that May winning by more than a hair - is a loss to her.

 

I am a Brexiter myself - can't wait to get out. But <deleted> people - the rules were set, she won the vote according to those rules - so arguing it's a loss is ridiculous.

 

 

[Nigel Garvie]

37 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

'Ifs' and 'ands'.  Plausible but not likely.  I think the deal is simply not acceptable to Parliament.

I think the same, even after a further modest change of wording on NI that May will probably squeeze out of the EU. However those in favour of this deal have to put it to the vote soon, win or lose, otherwise we are stuck in no mans land  -meanwhile hopefully the pound and the economy don't collapse around us . If no one likes the deal enough to make it achievable, the alternatives have to be considered.

 

A 2nd vote is one possibility. J K Rowling's words make sense to me.

[tebee]

 

[dunroaming]

10 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

if Labour put forward a non-conf motion in parliament, 

would she survive that?

 

guess her support from own party would increase if it was in parliament

 

 

 

The Tories would always rally around their leader if it was a threat from the Labour Party.  Given the chaos that reigns in the UK at the moment I think the win for May was decent enough.  In reality I couldn't see her being defeated now, contrary to what many people believe, the Rees Mogg / Johnson gang are quite small beer and wouldn't be able to get the numbers to win a leadership challenge. Anyway it is all irrelevant for now as she cannot be challenged again for a year.

 

If May thinks that winning the confidence vote strengthens her case for getting her deal passed then she is mistaken.  Unless she can get meaningful changes agreed by the EU then it is still dead in the water.  She has bought herself some time but so far that is all.

[JAG]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Good points, well explained.

 

A similar issue is law. An ever more integrated EU requires an EU law. France and Germany will insist on a codified law system, which they, like most member states have. England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Eire and Gibralta would be pushed to relinquish their common law systems and move to the EU codified law system.

That point has always been ignored by UK parliaments. Recent UK governments have arguable sought to move away from the rights under common law it's citizens have enjoyed for centuries so perhaps not surprising.

Yes, that is very much one of the elephants in the room. It was one of the main reasons why I decided to vote leave.

[evadgib]

 

[sandyf]

16 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

If May thinks that winning the confidence vote strengthens her case for getting her deal passed then she is mistaken.  Unless she can get meaningful changes agreed by the EU then it is still dead in the water.  She has bought herself some time but so far that is all.

Exactly, and that is her only way out. Wait until Jan 21st and effectively create a Noel Edmonds scenario.

[dunroaming]

the thing is that the EU want this deal to go through.  It is good for them and they are therefore likely to "try" to help a little over the backstop.  Not changing the deal but maybe some re-wording of the backstop part. 

 

If that were to happen then would that be enough to get it passed?  It would certainly put the voters in the house into two defined camps.

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, Nigel Garvie said:

I think the same, even after a further modest change of wording on NI that May will probably squeeze out of the EU. However those in favour of this deal have to put it to the vote soon, win or lose, otherwise we are stuck in no mans land  -meanwhile hopefully the pound and the economy don't collapse around us . If no one likes the deal enough to make it achievable, the alternatives have to be considered.

 

A 2nd vote is one possibility. J K Rowling's words make sense to me.

This seems as good a place as any for this howler:

 

[pegman]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The sensible thing would be to revoke Article 50, which the UK has always been able to do unilaterally. That would give time for a proper referendum to be passed into law, one that allowed for correct, factual information to be provided for people so they could make an informed decision based on reality.

 

But the spineless greedy self interested politicians won't dare do that. The people might get a taste for democracy rather than representative democracy and expect more crucial decision to be put to them rather than debated and voted on by the muppets now occupying parliament.

 

The UK is indeed terribly divided, and none more so then the fractured Tory party. How anyone can expect such a bitterly divided party to somehow find a workable compromise and negotiate a good deal is beyond me. They are more likely to soldier ahead like lemmings.

 

This is the worst crop of politicians, of all parties, I can ever remember or research in the UK. None have the balls or the honesty to do the job they were elected to do and have shown they're incapable of anything other than self interest.

 

Allowing things to move forward and taking crucial decisions in this context is sheer folly.

It was direct democracy that got the U.K into this jackpot to begin with.