Member Info for Just_My_Opinions

JayFax,

You are being very disingenuous yet again. Honestly I say that without malice, it's a genuine fact that you are being disingenuous. The way you worded your reply "He can set out to force an election" implies heavily that he has the power to actually force a general election.

I just read the Express article you're referring to and I quote..

"Speaking to BBC’s Sunday Politics, he said: “If there is a bad deal for Britain, or worse, ‘no deal’ at all. Maybe they are equally as bad, it depends what the Government comes up with.

“We would vote against it and challenge it in Parliament and hope to force a general election on that basis.”"

That's no different from any of the other discussions we've had... and it still means Corbyn does not have the power to actually force a general election. He can vote tactically to potentially leave the government with no other choice but to call one. But he can't physically force a general election vote by an act of parliament.

I appreciate you didn't say that, but it's obvious you were implying he has the power to do so.

Ok so hypothetically speaking, and asking a completely neutral question. If both May's plan is rejected due to the ERG, and Dominic Grieve is granted his amendment to the EU withdrawal, which results in a parliamentary vote to reject a no deal.

Then what?

(A) Treason May grants the referendum that she consistently said won't happen.
(B) A leadership challenge is launched via a vote of no confidence followed by a general election with a new Tory leader.
(C) Treason May calls a general election despite the beating the Conservatives have taken in the polls, and with her as continued leader.

Personally I think it will be C if the above happens. Faisal of Sky News once said during the Lords Amendment votes that her had heard rumours that May had threatened rebellious MP's with calling a general election of they rebelled against her.

So it seems the intention might be there.

JayFax,

Genuinely speaking.. every time you make a strong claim, you never substantiate it. I have done some research on the points you made and nothing points to your claims being correct.

The Burden of proof is therefor on the claimant. It's now time to prove what you are saying. Links and sources please.

"If there is any forcing of an election it would have to come from the Tory side"

That's what I understood too. If JayFax is to be taken seriously then the burden of proof is on the claimant. JayFax should therefore prove with links to the legislation showing that the leader of the opposition can force a vote on whether or not there should be a general election.

If that's the case I suspect he will force it. If he's smart, he will wait until consecutive polls are showing a strong lead for Labour and then ask for a vote on a general election.

I have no doubt that unless Treason May completely scraps her plan and either (A) Goes with the ERG's proposal of a Canada style deal. Or (B) Wants a Hard and proper Brexit.

That the Conservatives will lose enough votes to lose the marginal seats and therefore put Labour in power. Corbyn and his band of Marxists smell blood in the water.

JayFax,

You said: "He can set out to force an election'"...

that's a sneaky play of words, and not making your point clearly. "Set out", I assume meaning Corbyn can "force a vote" on a general election, which would consequently need to be voted for in sufficient numbers for the General Election to happen?

"The speaker has the right to say the motion in the UK wdl bill is not "neutral" and parliament can instruct the government. "

Prove with a link the legislation that allows the speaker to do this in relation to a Hard Brexit. I can find none.

"He can set out to force an election. You don't follow this at all do you ?"

Explain the mechanism for the Labour party forcing a general election? As far as I'm aware they don't have the power to do so, only the Prime Minister/Government has.

"and parliament can instruct the government. "

So if the ERG vote against May's plan and therefore Veto it, the only other option is a Hard Brexit... which is not a deal and the Conservatives don't have to call a vote on it, as Gina Millers court case was about giving Parliament the final say over "The governments deal".

If Parliament has had this final say over the deal, resulting in the ERG stopping it... then that's the requirements met to comply with the ruling of the court.

Your answer fails to satisfy the question adequately JayFax. It doesn't show how parliament absolutely would have to have a say over a Hard Brexit if it's not a legal requirement? At least not yet anyway

"Either could sink them without trace."

70% of Conservative voters, voted to leave the EU. Leaving the EU means leaving the EU. It doesn't mean keep a bit of this and a bit of that. If a Hard Brexit as it's been termed happens, all that means is the UK is fully leaving the EU.

A Hard Brexit won't sink the Conservatives. Lying to 70% of Conservative voters by delivering May's remain dressed as Brexit plan won't sink them either, but it will guarantee the Conservatives lose the next election and Corbyn is our next PM.

Been their myself on the way to Crieff Hydro Hotel for a wedding. Nice place.

Italy has said it is going to spend 80 Billion Euro's over it's budget agreed with the EU due to the bridge collapse. Can't wait for Italy's showdown with the EU... and a call for a referendum.

Eventually the remoaners here will see they were trying to stay in a dying union.

The nail is being hit on the head in this recent video of Farage...

https://youtu.be/HOT9d1KRugI

Don't get me wrong, the Tory's are absolutely useless when it comes to reducing net migration by any materially relevant figure too. But it all started with Blair.

"No JMO Brown is surely worse than Blair"

Oh I don't like Brown either. But Tony Blair was responsible for the removal of the UK's negotiated opt out of the Freedom of Movement. Just a quick glance at the yearly net migration figures shows a massive surge in net Migration a year after Blair took power 1998 onwards.

Arguably as unsustainable immigration was consistently polled as the number one reason for most voters wanting to leave the EU all the way up till the referendum, then Blair is the reason the British people voted to leave the EU.

I honestly don't believe the UK would have voted to leave if we had not been swamped with crazy numbers of immigrants. Sure I want the UK to have control over it's own laws too... but I don't think even that would have been enough for the British people to vote Leave.

Immigration is the reason for most people, hence why I think Blair was the worst. And that's before even talking about Iraq and his dodgy dealings after leaving office. He's a vile sociopath that has no shame whatsoever.

"I'm not saying she's a good pm just pointing out in the popular vote she did pretty well."

The Tories have gone from a 20 something point lead to strong doubts over staying in power. She's clearly lied to Leave voters from Day one. She's the second worst Prime Minister I've ever seen. Blair was the first.

"Anyway why would we get a no deal? Farage, Fox et al where spouting off constantly the EU would be begging us for a deal!"

philpot1001,

We had a Remainer leading the negotiations from day one... pretending to have a Brexiteer do it. One resigned and the other was side lined within two weeks. Treason May has been lying to Leave voters from day one, as Farage says "She says one thing and does the complete opposite".

Treason May the remainer is the reason we have not had strong negotiations. She's bent the UK over and parted it's cheeks time and again for the EU.

So the commons can comment.

But the speaker has authority to tell the government what to do? I'm not saying you're wrong I haven't seen the bill, but it sounds odd that the speaker has that level of authority?

Where can I see the bill and the location of that wording?

"We aen't weak or small.. far from it. we are relatively small compared to the whole EU."

We're not small to Germany, who sell is £Billions in cars... Germany is the unofficial leader of the EU. It's amazing how quickly Juncker flew to America to talk trade after Trump said he would slap 25% tariffs on EU cars.

This is pure speculation, I'm not arguing for any outcome in this question. But assuming the choice is...

1. May's Plan
2. Hard Brexit

And assuming the ERG and enough Labour MP's vote against May's plan... does a Hard Brexit actually have to be voted on? Everything I've heard and read suggests "The Governments Final Deal" has to be voted on. A Hard Brexit is not a deal, a Hard Brexit is just a term for fully leaving every aspect of the EU.

So why would a Hard Brexit be voted on, if it's not a deal?