nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

2017 UK General Election - 8th June

devnull

As discussed in the Brexit thread, probably best for a new thread on this.

It looks like it will be held on June 8th providing Parliament votes for it on Wednesday, which seems to be almost certain and can't personally see it being anything other than an increased majority for the Tory party.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

A Little Pony

He is just being honest. Corbyn will never be Prime Minister as he will never gain enough seats to do it.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

He's criticising Corbyn who defied the party whip more often than any other Labour MP but never resigned from the party.

Corbyn stayed in and won. He is the leader. If you cannot oust the leader then should you be in the party?

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

He is just being honest. Corbyn will never be Prime Minister as he will never gain enough seats to do it.

Just review what they were saying 'he couldn't do' last week there. Silly comment tbh.

ThisRegard

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, lets get this straight. You are saying that the GFA gives the British an opt out option in the event of the majority opting for a UI?

So the reality of that is that another clause in the agreement is also moot and a hoodwink;

(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement
between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their
right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given,
North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that
this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and
consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

As I suspected, there are some here who know not what they talk about. :rolleyes:

You've been reading things that aren't there all morning. I never even hinted at the possibility of an opt out.

FrancieBrady

ThisRegard wrote: »

You've been reading things that aren't there all morning. I never even hinted at the possibility of an opt out.

So, the British parliament (an outside impediment to the right of the Irish people) deciding not to act on their 'binding obligation to support the legislation' is not an opt out clause?

Pray tell us what it is?

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, the British parliament (an outside impediment to the right of the Irish people) deciding not to act on their 'binding obligation to support the legislation' is not an opt out clause?

Pray tell us what it is?

Can you not understand that the British government and the British parliament are two different things?

No international agreement can trump the sovereignty of a national parliament. That's why EU legislation still has to be formed into Irish legislation and passed by the Dail. Even referenda results still must be legislated by the Dail. The same in the UK.

There is very little chance that the result of a plebiscite on a UI would not pass the Dail. Westminster is a completely different kettle of fish.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Can you not understand that the British government and the British parliament are two different things?

No international agreement can trump the sovereignty of a national parliament. That's why EU legislation still has to be formed into Irish legislation and passed by the Dail. Even referenda results still must be legislated by the Dail. The same in the UK.

There is very little chance that the result of a plebiscite on a UI would not pass the Dail. Westminster is a completely different kettle of fish.

Ah right...maybe that is why it was important parliment agreed to and signed the GFA.

Are you saying Bertie Ahern is wrong here too:

The British Government are effectively out of the equation and neither the British parliament nor people have any legal right under this agreement to impede the achievement of Irish unity if it had the consent of the people North and South.

A Little Pony

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

He is just being honest. Corbyn will never be Prime Minister as he will never gain enough seats to do it.

Just review what they were saying 'he couldn't do' last week there. Silly comment tbh.

Labour lost the election, Jeremy Corbyn is not Prime Minister. Labour have no power to make changes. Once the delusion and dust settles in a few days reality will hit many in Labour.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Labour lost the election, Jeremy Corbyn is not Prime Minister. Labour have no power to make changes. Once the delusion and dust settles in a few days reality will hit many in Labour.

Conservatives have lost elections and so have Labour. They will both win them again.

The reality is that Labour have energised many who the Tories would prefer were dormant.

ThisRegard

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, the British parliament (an outside impediment to the right of the Irish people) deciding not to act on their 'binding obligation to support the legislation' is not an opt out clause?

Pray tell us what it is?

Again, another thing I never said. Why bother debating with you when you're debating on things never said by me?

FrancieBrady

ThisRegard wrote: »

Again, another thing I never said. Why bother debating with you when you're debating on things never said by me?

You said:

ThisRegard wrote: »

He didn't. You think that if there was a vote in which Yes was the result we'd simply become a united Ireland? That's when the real hard work begins.

What is this 'real hard work'?

A UI happens when a majority decide. There is nothing 'hard' about that.

The road to unity under the GFA is clear and simple if the people vote for it.

There may be hard work making it work, but that is an entirely separate issue.

Calina

Here is the point. In a performance driven culture, the expectations for the Tories was a 50 seat majority and for Labour, ignominious destruction. In the context of measuring up to goals, the Tories failed and Labour exceeded expectations by quite a bit.

It does change the dynamics within the parties, positively for Labour, chaotically for Tories, but at the same time, the formation of a government is based on the numbers of seats won.

The problem as I see it is there is no evidence that Theresa May consulted senior Tories before announcing to the world she would form a government with the DUP. A lot of her MPs are unhappy about an arrangement with the DUP. She is sowing seeds of trouble.

Corbyn was willing to try a minority government on his numbers. May was not. This tells me that despite the well publicised rifts within Labour, Corbyn expects more support from his MPs than May does of hers.

In a way, it is fascinating. It will be interesting to look back on in ten, twelve years' time.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

Here is the point. In a performance driven culture, the expectations for the Tories was a 50 seat majority and for Labour, ignominious destruction. In the context of measuring up to goals, the Tories failed and Labour exceeded expectations by quite a bit.

It does change the dynamics within the parties, positively for Labour, chaotically for Tories, but at the same time, the formation of a government is based on the numbers of seats won.

The problem as I see it is there is no evidence that Theresa May consulted senior Tories before announcing to the world she would form a government with the DUP. A lot of her MPs are unhappy about an arrangement with the DUP. She is sowing seeds of trouble.

Corbyn was willing to try a minority government on his numbers. May was not. This tells me that despite the well publicised rifts within Labour, Corbyn expects more support from his MPs than May does of hers.

In a way, it is fascinating. It will be interesting to look back on in ten, twelve years' time.

Good afternoon,

I think everyone can agree this is a catastrophic result. Irrespective of party loyalties, having a situation where the public effectively can't agree who they want to govern them is a nightmare.

Practically speaking, putting party loyalty aside, one can agree given a catastrophic result, that it is better to form a majority government in coalition than to have a minority government so that effective decisions can continue to be made.

Everyone is in agreement that this is a royal cockup. The question is how do you deal with it. It's easy to be in opposition in this kind of situation, but how do you deal with it? What alternatives are any better than what is on the table now?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

ThisRegard wrote: »

You really think there's no hard work after a Yes vote? You really are naïve

There is no 'hard work' in legally/legislatively unifying the country. Once the vote says YES then it is a simple act of passing the legislation as the British parliament has a 'binding obligation' to do

Please confirm that you are not talking about the passing of the legislation but are referring to what EVERYONE knows is going to be hard work - making unification work.

FrancieBrady

Calina wrote: »

In a way, it is fascinating. It will be interesting to look back on in ten, twelve years' time.

It will be interesting to look back in a weeks time. Look back at what was being said even last week...all change this week.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah right...maybe that is why it was important parliment agreed to and signed the GFA.

Exactly. The Dail and Westminster are the legislative assemblies of both nations. No law can bypass them, as it were.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you saying Bertie Ahern is wrong here too:

Yes, I believe he is.

But that wouldn't be the first time Bertie lied through his teeth.

FrancieBrady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

I think everyone can agree this is a catastrophic result. Irrespective of party loyalties, having a situation where the public effectively can't agree who they want to govern them is a nightmare.

Practically speaking, putting party loyalty aside, one can agree given a catastrophic result, that it is better to form a majority government in coalition than to have a minority government so that effective decisions can continue to be made.

Everyone is in agreement that this is a royal cockup. The question is how do you deal with it. It's easy to be in opposition in this kind of situation, but how do you deal with it? What alternatives are any better than what is on the table now?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

In the sense that it has totally undermined Brexit, I think it is a brilliant result for us and the rest of the EU.

The UK is in a crisis of it's own making.

Calina

I don't really believe it was that catastrophic. A few fewer Tory MPs from Scotland would have been better. But polarisation is a bad thing and an opportunity to look at possibilities for consensus and national unity blah would help. It is a time of crisis and including Keir Starmer un negotions would be imaginative and visionary for an intelligent Tory minority leader.

A massive Tory majority would be worse. Now they are going to be forced to address some issues and dealing with the DUP may expedite that.

First Up

A Little Pony wrote:

Labour lost the election, Jeremy Corbyn is not Prime Minister. Labour have no power to make changes. Once the delusion and dust settles in a few days reality will hit many in Labour.

I wouldn't call being PM thanks to the support of the Free Presbyterian Church much of a win.

solodeogloria

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In the sense that it has totally undermined Brexit, I think it is a brilliant result for us and the rest of the EU.

The UK is in a crisis of it's own making.

Good afternoon,

It depends on your vantage point. If you're thinking purely about Ireland, then yes sure, it's an interesting thing to watch at a distance for sure, and something that has an impact.

As someone who depends on the British economy to get my bread and butter each day, and as someone who has an interest in staying in the UK for the foreseeable future, my perspective is based on having a government to legislate day to day to ensure that continues.

Party loyalties aside. Nobody won the election really, the Tories got more seats, but they didn't win. That's why an agreement has to be made to set up a Government to keep the lights on.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Exactly. The Dail and Westminster are the legislative assemblies of both nations. No law can bypass them, as it were.

Yes, I believe he is.

But that wouldn't be the first time Bertie lied through his teeth.

If he lied through his teeth as Taoiseach in an official speech at an official State event, you would think that he would have been contradicted by one of the many sides to the agreement. Yeh?

Guess what? He wasn't.

wes

captainspeed wrote: »

A lot of liberal Tories are appalled by the notion of them teaming up with the DUP by the way.

Unless you mean economically liberal, your having a laugh

. Tory's have shown there true colours once again with there own "coalition of chaos", but I prefer "coalition of terror" personally.

Jamiekelly

There is going to be another election. May has no support from within her own party, she has no majority mandate and Con MP's latest defence of her is "lukewarm" to say the least. The writing is on the wall.

FrancieBrady

Jamiekelly wrote: »

There is going to be another election. May has no support from within her own party, she has no majority mandate and Con MP's latest defence of her is "lukewarm" to say the least. The writing is on the wall.

Yes, I agree with this.
And the sooner the better.

CMOTDibbler

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If he lied through his teeth as Taoiseach in an official speech at an official State event, you would think that he would have been contradicted by one of the many sides to the agreement. Yeh?

Guess what? He wasn't.

Was anybody going to argue with him on a technicality? He quoted the spirit of the GFA and (according to your quote; for which I don't think you've provided a link) got carried away to the extent of conflating the parliament with the government.

Clearly even after quoting and parsing the relevant section, you still don't understand the implications and meaning of it. Do you think the average punter would understand that either?

Itssoeasy

I see two of the Theresa mays advisers have resigned. It just sounds like it's a mess in Downing Street at the moment.

FrancieBrady

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Was anybody going to argue with him on a technicality? He quoted the spirit of the GFA and (according to your quote; for which I don't think you've provided a link) got carried away to the extent of conflating the parliament with the government.

Clearly even after quoting and parsing the relevant section, you still don't understand the implications and meaning of it. Do you think the average punter would understand that either?

The DUP wouldn't argue about an Irish taoiseach making an official speech like that?

:D:D:D

The GFA is an agreement with the British 'parliament' the government of the day cannot amend it without breaking it. You do understand this?

Link to what he said and where he said it: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/britain-has-been-ruled-out-of-the-equation-on-north-says-ahern-1.146434

[Deleted User]

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see two of the Theresa mays advisers have resigned. It just sounds like it's a mess in Downing Street at the moment.

Proper order, they resigned to avoid being sacked. Heads should roll amongst Tory advisers, the MPs are right to be up in arms.

FrancieBrady

A Little Pony wrote: »

Seeing the communists/Socialist workers protesting against the DUP. It is like my ultimate dream. DUP must be getting off on this. :D

I think I can safely say that the majority of Ireland's population are delighted that the decent people of Britain are being finally introduced to their fellow citizens - The DUP.

It's a dream come true for many of us.

Jayop

Irishweather wrote: »

Why Ireland? DUP only concerns Northern Ireland, they control nothing concerning you.

Even if Francie doesn't live in the north (I assumed he did) only a self centered selfish person wouldn't be "concerned" with the equal rights being trampled on of their fellow citizens.