EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[EM2]

No, it isn't the Government that is wasting time on a General Election. It's the Labour Party that wants one. It isn't the Government which is having a leadership election - it's the Conservative Party, because 15% or more of its MP want a different leader. You ought to know the difference.

Sorry?
Who was it that called an election in 2017? Because I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the Labour party.
And is the Conservative party not the party of Government at the moment?

 

[Howardh]

Sorry?
Who was it that called an election in 2017? Because I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the Labour party.
And is the Conservative party not the party of Government at the moment?

Yes, Labour were something like 20 points down in the polls.....

 

[nidave]

Sorry?
Who was it that called an election in 2017? Because I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the Labour party.
And is the Conservative party not the party of Government at the moment?

There is talk on twitter (take with a pinch of social media) is corbyn is waiting for May to win so he can then call a motion of no confidence from the other side. I am assuming this will force a general election.
Plus the SNP etc are telling him they will support it

Labour’s position is to first attempt to trigger a new election so they can negotiate Brexit and if that fails to support another referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. So Coprbyn is using the fate of the nation to gain power just as may has done and is doing.

 

[Ken H]

There is talk on twitter (take with a pinch of social media) is corbyn is waiting for May to win so he can then call a motion of no confidence from the other side. I am assuming this will force a general election.
Plus the SNP etc are telling him they will support it

Labour’s position is to first attempt to trigger a new election so they can negotiate Brexit and if that fails to support another referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. So Coprbyn is using the fate of the nation to gain power just as may has done and is doing.

If May wins tonight Tory party no confidence vote she is safe for a year unless she resigns. -Tory party rules.

If Corbyn submits a no commons confidence motion, and the government lose, the Tories have 14 days to rearrange things so they can win a new vote then. If they fail to win a no confidence vote after 14 days then there is an General Election. This is laid down in the Fixed Term Parliament Act

I think the first commons vote, the tories will lose because DUP dont like the EU withdrawal agreement. I think they will get it together by the second vote. Perhaps by getting rid of may somehow (Dont know how).
(I am assuming the DUP abstain. Also assuming Sinn Fein dont attend because they never do. Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 317. Tories 315. DUP 10. )

if Corbyn bungs in a commons confidence vote tonight, then the 14 days will be up on Boxing day!

And all the time the European Union (Withdrawal) Act date of leaving the EU (29th March) is ticking closer. 107 days and counting. And that needs a parliamentary vote to be changed.

 

[bramling]

There is talk on twitter (take with a pinch of social media) is corbyn is waiting for May to win so he can then call a motion of no confidence from the other side. I am assuming this will force a general election.
Plus the SNP etc are telling him they will support it

Labour’s position is to first attempt to trigger a new election so they can negotiate Brexit and if that fails to support another referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. So Coprbyn is using the fate of the nation to gain power just as may has done and is doing.

Any Corbyn motion would only succeed if the DUP support it, the general feeling being that as things stand they wouldn't.

 

[Ken H]

Any Corbyn motion would only succeed if the DUP support it, the general feeling being that as things stand they wouldn't.

I think they may abstain for the first vote. To put pressure on May over the backstop, which they find unacceptable.

 

[nidave]

Any Corbyn motion would only succeed if the DUP support it, the general feeling being that as things stand they wouldn't.

The DUP's Deputy Leader Nigel Dodds has reportedly said that Theresa May's meeting with Arlene Foster made absolutely no progress - contrary to what May told the 1922 Committee. If May wins tonight, the DUP will inevitably topple her in a parliamentary confidence vote.

 

[Howardh]

If May wins tonight Tory party no confidence vote she is safe for a year unless she resigns. -Tory party rules.

If Corbyn submits a no commons confidence motion, and the government lose, the Tories have 14 days to rearrange things so they can win a new vote then. If they fail to win a no confidence vote after 14 days then there is an General Election. This is laid down in the Fixed Term Parliament Act

I think the first commons vote, the tories will lose because DUP dont like the EU withdrawal agreement. I think they will get it together by the second vote. Perhaps by getting rid of may somehow (Dont know how).
(I am assuming the DUP abstain. Also assuming Sinn Fein dont attend because they never do. Labour + SNP + Plaid + Green = 317. Tories 315. DUP 10. )

if Corbyn bungs in a commons confidence vote tonight, then the 14 days will be up on Boxing day!

And all the time the European Union (Withdrawal) Act date of leaving the EU (29th March) is ticking closer. 107 days and counting. And that needs a parliamentary vote to be changed.

Is it 14 days, or 14 working days? I think it is 14 actual days but as you allude to, there's that birthday in the way. Personally, I'd rather watch the chaos unfold in parliament than rig up a flaming tree with lights on!

 

[Ken H]

its 14 days
the period of 14 days after the day on which that motion is passed ends without the House passing a motion in the form set out in subsection (5).
fixed term parliament act 2011, section 2 subsection 3b
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/14/section/2/enacted

clearly daft

 

[fowler9]

I see Jacob Rees-Mogg doesn't think 63% is enough of a majority. Imagine my complete lack of surprise.

 

[nidave]

There might be an ulterior motive for JRM wanting the hardest of Brexits
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Streets-Investment-Profits-World/dp/067162735X

 

[superkev]

What shambles the whole affair is. Must have already cost us all a fortune. Mike Harding sums it all up excellently see

.
K

 

[GusB]

There might be an ulterior motive for JRM wanting the hardest of Brexits
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Streets-Investment-Profits-World/dp/067162735X

How much?!

 

[Senex]

Someone speaking on the 10 p.m. news programme on Radio 4 yesterday said that the present size of the government payroll vote is 178, so that May only got 22 genuine backbenchers supporting her. It sounds as though the 117 against was a larger number than many were expecting. She of course claims that her position is confirmed and she can just go on as before. But how far does this vote actually further weaken her position?

 

[Groningen]

Once again; a referendum won with lies. So you really think that you will be truly independent? Maybe with things inside the UK, but what if it crosses the border? Do you already have enough parkingspace in Dover, Hull, Newcastle and other ports. And blaiming everything on Theresa May?! You had the chance not to elect her. Where was Johnson and/or Rees-Mogg?

 

[Esker-pades]

Someone speaking on the 10 p.m. news programme on Radio 4 yesterday said that the present size of the government payroll vote is 178, so that May only got 22 genuine backbenchers supporting her. It sounds as though the 117 against was a larger number than many were expecting. She of course claims that her position is confirmed and she can just go on as before. But how far does this vote actually further weaken her position?

She is in power, and in power for the next year (unless Corbyn calls for a no-confidence vote in the government or she resigns).
Because it was a secret ballot, some patrolled people could have voted against her. I have little faith that there are principles that are stuck to in these political times.

 

[nidave]

How much?!

I never even paid attention to the price - Suppose it stops the common folk from impulse buying it.

 

[HH]

I never even paid attention to the price - Suppose it stops the common folk from impulse buying it.

Worth every cent, I feel sure. If you can't afford it, you clearly don't have enough money to invest!

 

[mmh]

Ah, I've been waiting for this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46564884

Britons will have to pay €7 (£6.30) every three years to travel to EU countries, as a consequence of Brexit.

The European Commission has confirmed that while UK travellers will not need a visa, they will need to apply for and buy another document from 2021.

It is called an ETIAS (European Travel Information and Authorization System) and although not launched yet, is expected to come into force in 2021.

The travel requirement is not just for the UK but for many non-EU countries.

If only people had listened to me!

You keep mentioning visas. Visas will not be needed to travel to EU countries. Guaranteed. In general no First World country requires visas for another First World country. Another thing attributed to the EU which in reality has nothing to do with it.

You simply do not know that.
It is highly unlikely we would need a Visa, but we just do not know at the moment.

We're not in Schengen right now and already have visa-less travel to within the Schengen zone (just like Canada, the USA and any "first world" non-Schengen country you can think of). That won't change as a result of leaving the EU. What may change things is if the planned "ETIAS" electronic visa system (similar to the US ESTA system) is introduced for travel from outside the Schengen zone from visa exempt countries. If it does, they've already said it will be about 7 euros.

So, I was spot on.

"No deal" in terms of brexit literally means things like:

• No air travel between the EU and the UK.
• No security agreements or co-operation.
• Visas required for UK visitors to some EU countries (basically we'd be treated as if we are say Brazil when it comes to travel

And that, unsurprisingly, wasn't true.

OK - so if we all end up having to have Visas or Visa Waivers (ETIAS), which is currently on the cards (neither the EU nor the UK have ruled it out) where and how are they gonna be checked? Which side? How will the queues be organised? This beauracracy could start on Jan 1 2021 and we probably won't know we will need to cater for this (or not) for another 18 months at least at the rate we're going.

And it turns out we know now.

It's yet more Project Fear. Along the same lines as people on here suggesting that "the EU" might unilaterally decide to require British people to apply for visas to travel into the EU come March. It's all blatant nonsense.

I think in hindsight I've been vindicated in calling this stuff fear-mongering.

If, say, visas for the EU become compulsory will holiday families be happy to fork out £60 (or whatever) as a result of leaving the EU and becoming a third country? I could hazard a guess...

Will many bat an eyelid at 7 Euros a person for 3 years?

What remains unclear is how ETIAS will or won't affect EU members not in Schengen, which of course means Ireland.

 

[Esker-pades]

Not launched yet, but expected to come into force in 2021. That's 2 years after we leave. What happens for those two years? What happens if it gets delayed?

 

[nlogax]

Ah, I've been waiting for this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46564884

Not sure why this would be major news? Leave the EU and refuse to join the EEA, this is what happens.

 

[mmh]

Not launched yet, but expected to come into force in 2021. That's 2 years after we leave. What happens for those two years? What happens if it gets delayed?

What happens if you want to enter Schengen from a non-Schengen country? You use your passport, just like now.

Not sure why this would be major news? Leave the EU and refuse to join the EEA, this is what happens.

It's major news because it's the sort of non-news Remainers have been making news - see as an example how often it's been mentioned in this thread. And yes, it's actually got nothing to do with us leaving the EU or not being in the EEA, it's what will happen when ETIAS is introduced.

Which is why Ireland is the interesting question over it.

 

[bnm]

It may only be €7, but it's still an additional cost that UK citizens wouldn't be paying if we stay in the EU. Whether in or out of Schengen. We'd veto or negotiate an opt out. Just as Ireland is likely to do.

"Small price to pay" is no doubt the retort. One of many small prices to come from this shambolic brexit. They'll all add up to to a significant and long lasting dent to both personal and national finances.

But... blue passports and a special 50p coin.

 

[JonasB]

What remains unclear is how ETIAS will or won't affect EU members not in Schengen, which of course means Ireland.

Citizens of EEC-countries outside Schengen or Switzerland will not need an ETIAS.

 

[radamfi]

I think in hindsight I've been vindicated in calling this stuff fear-mongering.

Almost nobody seriously thought we would require a visa to VISIT the EU. Of far more relevance is the ability to WORK, RETIRE or STUDY in the EU. That has always been the main question and Leavers continue to dismiss those fears.

 

[nidave]

Which is why Ireland is the interesting question over it.

This is a fantastic question how do you go from N. Ireland across the border to the EU without checks and onto the EU and vice versa.

 

[mmh]

Almost nobody seriously thought we would require a visa to VISIT the EU. Of far more relevance is the ability to WORK, RETIRE or STUDY in the EU. That has always been the main question and Leavers continue to dismiss those fears.

Enough people on this thread did.

You're one of two people here who continually bang on about retirement abroad. If a country wants you to retire there, it will let you. Likewise for working or studying. The rest of us, I'm afraid, really don't give a stuff. And yes, that is the uncaring Brexiteer stance. I was talking about holidays. I don't care that freedom of movement is ending.

 

[Howardh]

Hidden in the detail of all this ETIAS nonsense is that they can refuse entry on medical grounds. What those are, and how stringently they will be applied is, of course, currently unknown, but if it means those with serious pre-existing conditions, or maybe even heredetary conditions COULD be excluded will come as a blow to many, especially if they can get EU insurance cover now. The devil's in the detail, but ironic if those wanting to go abroad to assist their health find they have to stay here and suffer.

It would probably affect those who want long-term stays (ie the elderly spending winter on the Costas) who would need more than the 3-month visas.

Happily this is a real plus for Brexit, I'm so glad they advertised it on their red bus and all the billboards.

 

[radamfi]

The rest of us, I'm afraid, really don't give a stuff. And yes, that is the uncaring Brexiteer stance. I was talking about holidays. I don't care that freedom of movement is ending.

So given that you are so uncaring, why should you get what you want?

 

[Howardh]

This is a fantastic question how do you go from N. Ireland across the border to the EU without checks and onto the EU and vice versa.

I can answer that.
UK > to > any part of Ireland; nothing required more than today, as Ireland isn't in Schengen.
However anyone from the UK in Ireland cannot travel from there to the EU without further documentation.

ironically, anyone entering Ireland from the EU with just their ID card can then cross into the UK with no paperwork at all as there (probably) won't be checks on the border.

Therfore the double whammy is the EU can stop us getting in, but we won't be able to stop unwated EU's coming hare.

Yet another Wahey Brexit Bonus.