No deal Brexit or Corbyn government?

Green_Bear

westernpromise wrote: »

Don't be silly. If he's a minister in a coalition government he'll have the power of a majority behind him. Unless you think the various LibDems who were ministers in the coalition had no power? Just their one vote, right?

A ''majority'' is simply a group of MPs that the leader hopes will vote in the way he asks them to.

Sailtheworld

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Outside of the bubble. There's a far greater discontent.

Which is even more bad news for the Tories. They've presided over an almighty brexit shambles and, according to you, there's far wider discontent on top. Not an ideal starting point for the incumbent - the electorate like to play the blame game - never good to be left holding the baby. Ask Gordon Brown.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

When the election canvassing starts in earnest. The party divisions are going to be totally exposed.

Political expediency rules when there's a sniff of power. Cameron & Clegg formed an unlikely coalition and that seemed to work. Yet I remember Cameron being asked about some of the insults he made when canvassing. A slight bit of squirming then they moved on. It's just politics.

The DUP are even strange bedfellows and I wouldn't be surprised if things got stranger still.

phillw

Cakeguts wrote: »

Surely that depends on where you are importing it from? If it is coming from outside the EU then there isn't a problem. The NHS has had 3 years to get this sorted out but they just haven't bothered. (Again)

I would have thought if we leave the EU without a deal then bringing drugs in from the EU will become as hard as importing from elsewhere.

Therefore if it will be too difficult to import from the EU, then it doesn't matter what country you import from as they will all be equivalent.

But I'm not an expert, I defer to the experts & they don't seem to have your insight into how easy it would be.

Green_Bear wrote: »

A ''majority'' is simply a group of MPs that the leader hopes will vote in the way he asks them to.

Technically it's a group of MPs the PM can threaten with suspension if they dare disobey the whims of the glorious leader. The problem being that threat has to be used only when it makes sense, unlike when Boris did it.

westernpromise wrote: »

The claim I would think is that it's not harmful to the UK. But is harmful to the EU. So if we leave sans deal they suffer worse. So they pony up.

If I threaten to shoot you, it's not harmful to me but it's harmful to you, which makes it a huge negotiating tool. If I have to shoot you I lose one bullet; you lose more.

I guess.

Right, but the situation here is slightly different.

It's more like we say that either they accept our demands which hurt them, or alternatively we demand they enter a suicide pact with us & we will commit suicide first to prove how dedicated we are. They will then wait until we have gone through with our plan and then console themselves with their other 27 friends and figure out how to get over their loss.

If you believe that there is no downside for the UK leaving without a deal then I'd congratulate those who brainwashed you. If you're just using it as an argument to try and win, then it does your argument a disservice.

Conina

Cakeguts wrote: »

Nothing to do with the EU the shortage of medicines and anyone who says it is will be telling lies. France is short of medicines and they are not leaving the EU.

Oh gawd please don't introduce fact, it looks like some people just can't cope with that!

We're back to another fact: we import "stuff" from all over the world.

Already.

Give me one good reason why we could not import medicines from where we want to?

Conina

Thrugelmir wrote: »

While the Labour party's forthcoming manifesto is still not to commit to either in or out. You do wonder in whose interests they are acting. Doesn't appear to be the wider electorates.

For the same reason that we haven't seen any cries of outrage about Momentum forcing long-standing MP's like [STRIKE]Diane Vickers[/STRIKE] Diana Johnson to stand for re-election; it's not in the interests of the wider electorate but rather (from the looks of it) Momentum trying to increase their grip on the party.

But all we see on here is about Boris purging the Tories.

phillw

Conina wrote: »

but rather (from the looks of it) Momentum trying to increase their grip on the party.

I can't find an MP called Diane Vickers, but Momentum would appear to be similar to ERG in their desire to devour the party from the inside. We wouldn't have had the referendum if it hadn't been for the ERG but they have also hindered the negotiations with the EU because they wanted to ensure brexit was brexity enough, so I wonder whether you think of them as democratic or not?

Or whether groups like ERG and Momentum are only bad if you disagree with their intentions, which is pretty subjective.

Sailtheworld

Conina wrote: »

For the same reason that we haven't seen any cries of outrage about Momentum forcing long-standing MP's like Diane Vickers to stand for re-election; it's not in the interests of the wider electorate but rather (from the looks of it) Momentum trying to increase their grip on the party.

But all we see on here is about Boris purging the Tories.

We’ve had a Tory PM for nearly a decade - it’s to be expected that they’re subject to different leveks of scrutiny. They’re in charge.

Green_Bear

phillw wrote: »

I would have thought if we leave the EU without a deal then bringing drugs in from the EU will become as hard as importing from elsewhere.

Therefore if it will be too difficult to import from the EU, then it doesn't matter what country you import from as they will all be equivalent.

But I'm not an expert, I defer to the experts & they don't seem to have your insight into how easy it would be.



Technically it's a group of MPs the PM can threaten with suspension if they dare disobey the whims of the glorious leader. The problem being that threat has to be used only when it makes sense, unlike when Boris did it.



Right, but the situation here is slightly different.

It's more like we say that either they accept our demands which hurt them, or alternatively we demand they enter a suicide pact with us & we will commit suicide first to prove how dedicated we are. They will then wait until we have gone through with our plan and then console themselves with their other 27 friends and figure out how to get over their loss.

If you believe that there is no downside for the UK leaving without a deal then I'd congratulate those who brainwashed you. If you're just using it as an argument to try and win, then it does your argument a disservice.

Suspension from their political party, but not from parliament.
The MPs can still carry on voting as they wish, until the next GE.

Conina

phillw wrote: »

I can't find an MP called Diane Vickers,

Ah yes that's because it should have said Diana Johnson, that'll teach me not to type whilst eating.

Regardless of whether or not anybody thinks either ERG or Momentum are democratic they should consider the balancing forces which keep the parties democratic, the ERG for example number only a small number of MP's (of which Boris is not one) out of the Tory total but can the same be said for Momentum's influence in the Labour party?

Conina

Sailtheworld wrote: »

We’ve had a Tory PM for nearly a decade - it’s to be expected that they’re subject to different leveks of scrutiny. They’re in charge.

Ridiculous comment!

Each and every MP faces the same level of scrutiny and it's only when they pass muster that they survive another term, hence your Tory MP of a decade's standing - and it is why so many of the current poor crop will fall at the next General Election.
:T