Brexit - the next steps

[wigginhall]

I don't think jakswan is  ignoring this rather he is suggesting that the 2/3 majority is achievable because Corbyn has put Labour on an 'election footing'

I guess that if there was a vote of no confidence, Labour would have to support it.   But who else would?  I can't see how May could lose this, unless she wanted to, and suggested that some Tory MPs discreetly miss the vote.   But that in itself would cause a stink.

[jeremyp]

We were discussing an early election, according to Betfair (will be more accurate) the implied probability is 50% chance. It could happen 2017, 2018, 2019 so 2017 is going to be lower than 50%.

If we are talking about betting odds, let's not forget that the bookies favourite for the outcome of the referendum was remain. Betting odds are just a reflection of what outcome ordinary people are putting their money on. There's no special insight here.

To confirm at no time have I claimed that it is a foregone conclusion, just that it was possible, I'm surprised its 50 - 50, tempted to lay it.

I think 50-50 is short odds for an early election. Theresa May has to lose 9 MPs and I think, on Brexit, she would probably have support from Labour.

[Nearly Sane]

Believe me, the 16 million Remainers don't trust the Brexiteers to be able to shit in a toilet. Probably not the 13 million people that didn't vote at all, either.

I love how people are happy to speak for millions of people here, it's like the old Union card votes at Labour conferences. 'I can confidently say that I speak on behalf of the 17 million Brexitits, 16 million Bremoaners when I say.....'

[Nearly Sane]

I guess that if there was a vote of no confidence, Labour would have to support it.   But who else would?  I can't see how May could lose this, unless she wanted to, and suggested that some Tory MPs discreetly miss the vote.   But that in itself would cause a stink.

No, it doesn't have to be a vote of no confidence, that just needs a majority iirc. A vote for a GE without a no confidence needs 2/3 but that is just a vote for an election

[jeremyp]

I don't think jakswan is  ignoring this rather he is suggesting that the 2/3 majority is achievable because Corbyn has put Labour on an 'election footing'

I'd be sceptical because it would be suicide for Labour to trigger a general election now. If their fortunes increase considerably to the point where they have a chance, then it would be suicidal for the Tories to trigger a general election now.

[jeremyp]

I love how people are happy to speak for millions of people here, it's like the old Union card votes at Labour conferences. 'I can confidently say that I speak on behalf of the 17 million Brexitits, 16 million Bremoaners when I say.....'

I was merely responding to Jack Knave in kind. If you are going to have a go at anybody, have a go at him first.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd be sceptical because it would be suicide for Labour to trigger a general election now. If their fortunes increase considerably to the point where they have a chance, then it would be suicidal for the Tories to trigger a general election now.

I am sceptical too, but it is jakswan's argument. I also think the SNP would happily vote for an election. So maybe the Tories, the Lib Dems who have nothing to lose, the huge force of Douglas Carswell, some NI politicians (possibly all) and a strange mix of pro and anti JC votes could take it to 2/3 - unlikely, I agree but arguably possible.

[Nearly Sane]

I was merely responding to Jack Knave in kind. If you are going to have a go at anybody, have a go at him first.

it was an equal opportunities jibe

[jakswan]

Just for clarification:

The government cannot call an early general election except if it loses a vote of no confidence or there is a vote to have a general election that is won by a two thirds majority of all MPs. It would be illegal for Theresa May to call an early general election in any other circumstances. The law she would be breaking is the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

What would not be illegal (as far as I can tell) is the government telling Conservative MPs to vote against the government in a vote of no confidence. That would merely be ridiculous and possibly political suicide for the PM.

So the question you asked has been answered by yourself, well done!

[jakswan]

If we are talking about betting odds, let's not forget that the bookies favourite for the outcome of the referendum was remain. Betting odds are just a reflection of what outcome ordinary people are putting their money on. There's no special insight here.

Actually technically its not the bookies favorite but the people. Never claimed there was special insight as such there is an implied probability, if you think the actual probability is different you bet that way and make a killing. You sound very certain how much are you putting on?

I think 50-50 is short odds for an early election. Theresa May has to lose 9 MPs and I think, on Brexit, she would probably have support from Labour.

Lay the Betfair market and make a killing!

[Harrowby Hall]

I suppose I ought to apologise for wearing the pedant's hat. 

Surely, if one loses a vote of no confidence hasn't the result been "confidence"?   

[jeremyp]

Actually technically its not the bookies favorite but the people.

No. The bookies' favourite is the option that most punters are putting their money and that is what this is.

[jeremyp]

I suppose I ought to apologise for wearing the pedant's hat. 

Surely, if one loses a vote of no confidence hasn't the result been "confidence"?   

Only if one was the entity that proposed the vote of no confidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

I also think the SNP would happily vote for an election. So maybe the Tories, the Lib Dems who have nothing to lose ...

I agree on the LibDems - they really have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

I disagree on the SNP for a variety of reasons. Even if they might outwardly say 'bring it on' I don't think as a party, nor as individual MPs they'd really be in favour.

First, don't forget they currently hold 56 out of a possible 59, so they have very, very little to gain (max 3 seats) and an awful lot potentially to lose. In card playing parlance at that level you would definitely 'stick' rather than 'twist'. Also of the 3 seats they don't hold I think only one would be realistically a target - I don't think they'd be likely to take the final LibDem seat if they didn't take at their high point and the LibDems low point. Likewise on the Dumfries Tory seat (one I know rather well) - don't forget this was an area with a high leave vote and that will pile on the tory. The converse is that a recovery of the LibDems brings some very marginal SNP-held seats easily back into play for the LibDems, likewise the resurgence of the tories will make some other SNP seats vulnerable, particularly if the remain vote is split three ways (SNP, Labour and LibDem) while the leave vote is effectively mopped up by the tories alone.

There is also the personal issue - remember it is individual MPs who have to vote. The SNP have a huge number of brand new MPs, all likely wanting to make a career in politics, and a fair few in seats where a not unrealistic swing-back means they lose their seats. Do you really think they's want to risk ending up as an MP for less than 2 years, almost certainly never likely to get another chance. Nope I think they'll desperately want to hold on for a full 5 years giving them time to build a personal support.

There is a final point, and this actually affects all parties, but most significantly the SNP. Fighting elections costs money and I'm not sure the SNP in particular can afford it given that they have had hugely significant votes for them in 2014 (referendum), 2015 (general election), 2016 (Scottish parliament and referendum).

[jakswan]

So when we ask these SNP politicians why after calling the Tories everything for years they didn't vote to kick them out will they be saying 'we were scared of losing seats, besides I'm really concerned about my own career, and it will cost a lot of money.'

I don't think that is even up to SNP to be able to spin out of that.

[ProfessorDavey]

So when we ask these SNP politicians why after calling the Tories everything for years they didn't vote to kick them out will they be saying 'we were scared of losing seats, besides I'm really concerned about my own career, and it will cost a lot of money.'

I don't think that is even up to SNP to be able to spin out of that.

Of course they won't say that - but the reality is that were there to be a snap general election (if this was possible to engineer for May) that the Tories wouldn't be kicked out, rather they'd increase their majority. And I would also think it pretty unlikely that the SNP would hang on to the 56 seats they hold, and even if that were a possibility why would you risk it.

So just to put it into context - how many votes of no confidence have their been in the past, how many were won and when in the election cycle were they. I think you'll find they are as rare as hen's teeth and typically only happen when there was an inevitability of a general election pretty soon anyhow (note the last successful one being in 1979 I think).

[jakswan]

Of course they won't say that - but the reality is that were there to be a snap general election (if this was possible to engineer for May) that the Tories wouldn't be kicked out, rather they'd increase their majority. And I would also think it pretty unlikely that the SNP would hang on to the 56 seats they hold, and even if that were a possibility why would you risk it.

Not so sure about that I think the LibDems would do quite well and could force another coalition. There would be risk for the SNP in that anytime they had a go at the Tories them not voting them out would be thrown in their faces.

So just to put it into context - how many votes of no confidence have their been in the past, how many were won and when in the election cycle were they. I think you'll find they are as rare as hen's teeth and typically only happen when there was an inevitability of a general election pretty soon anyhow (note the last successful one being in 1979 I think).

Labour had a majority of 3 then I think, the next lowest since then is this one, 11.

[jeremyp]

Not so sure about that I think the LibDems would do quite well and could force another coalition. There would be risk for the SNP in that anytime they had a go at the Tories them not voting them out would be thrown in their faces.

Labour had a majority of 3 then I think, the next lowest since then is this one, 11.

They had a majority of three when they won the second 1974 general election. By the time of the first vote of no-confidence, they had lost their majority due to by-elections and they survived by negotiating the Lib-Lab pact. A second vote of no confidence after the end of the pact resulted in the fall of the government.

I think, in the next general election, provided Brexit has not already happened, the Lib-Dems will do very well in all areas where the local vote was for Remain. If I were them, in my manifesto, I would explicitly state that the Lib Dems would fight to keep Britain in the EU or at least in the single market. That would give them a huge boost in Remain voting areas and probably wipe them out in Brexit voting areas, but they start form a position of being almost wiped out already.

The trouble is that, in England, at least, that strategy will bring them MPs at the expense of Labour. They need to take seats off the Tories to get a coalition.

[Jack Knave]

Fair enough - so you accept that it won't be that straightforward for May to get her backbenchers (who may be nervously looking at their constituents voting record in the referendum) to vote firstly to declare that they have no confidence in their own government, and secondly to have to face the electorate over 3 years early.

It is all about pressure and circumstances, and I sense that a number of events or situations will eventually force the Commons to go to the country before 2020.

[Udayana]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38324146

"Brexit trade deal could take 10 years, says UK's ambassador"

People seem to keep forgetting that the "up to 2 years negotiations" following notice of Article 50 are only about the bureaucratic arrangements of disentangling from the EU. Negotiations on trade deals only start after we have left.

[ProfessorDavey]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38324146

"Brexit trade deal could take 10 years, says UK's ambassador"

People seem to keep forgetting that the "up to 2 years negotiations" following notice of Article 50 are only about the bureaucratic arrangements of disentangling from the EU. Negotiations on trade deals only start after we have left.

I know - the polyanna-ish approach being spouted by some on the brexit side is staggering. Effectively it goes along the lines of 'it was all be OK if we wish it to be so, it will all go smoothly if we wish it to be so, it was all happen rapidly if we wish it to be so'. Without, of course recognising that we can wish for things all we want but we are just one of 28 countries involved in the negotiations and that the agenda will be driven almost exclusively by the other 27. So it is perhaps reasonable to say that it will all go OK if the other 27 wish it to be so, but not if we as a lone voice of 28 wish it to be so. And indeed I think the other 27 will wish it will be OK, and therefore it will be ... from their perspective, not from the UK's.

[jakswan]

I know - the polyanna-ish approach being spouted by some on the brexit side is staggering. Effectively it goes along the lines of 'it was all be OK if we wish it to be so, it will all go smoothly if we wish it to be so, it was all happen rapidly if we wish it to be so'. Without, of course recognising that we can wish for things all we want but we are just one of 28 countries involved in the negotiations and that the agenda will be driven almost exclusively by the other 27. So it is perhaps reasonable to say that it will all go OK if the other 27 wish it to be so, but not if we as a lone voice of 28 wish it to be so. And indeed I think the other 27 will wish it will be OK, and therefore it will be ... from their perspective, not from the UK's.

Its part of the reason for wanting to leave, the UK can only do what is in the interests of the 27 other countries. Never thought it would be "rapid".

[ProfessorDavey]

Its part of the reason for wanting to leave, the UK can only do what is in the interests of the 27 other countries. Never thought it would be "rapid".

Nope - while we are a member decisions are made in the interests of all 28 countries that includes the UK. Now negotiations on the brexit deal will be dictated by the EU on the basis of what is in the interests of the remaining 27 countries, that doesn't include us. And that deal will massively affect the UK for decades to come.

[jakswan]

Nope - while we are a member decisions are made in the interests of all 28 countries that includes the UK. Now negotiations on the brexit deal will be dictated by the EU on the basis of what is in the interests of the remaining 27 countries, that doesn't include us. And that deal will massively affect the UK for decades to come.

Not sure I follow, while we are in the EU then if it is our interest to do a deal with US then if one of the 27 doesn't think its in their interest then we can't do what is in our interest.

The EU, the 27 will do what it is in their interest and we will do what is ours, somewhere along the line an agreement will be reached. All you still pushing this bigger party dictates terms nonsense?

My employer is "bigger" than me but we negotiate my rate of pay.

[Aruntraveller]

My employer is "bigger" than me but we negotiate my rate of pay.

So are you saying you are an equal partner in the negotiation of your salary?

If so I find that strange as in my experience that is not how it works for most employees.