|
Bryter posted:Are you sure this was a Sinn Fein MP? In Westminster? Abstention has been the party's policy towards Westminster for it's entire history. The notion of an SF MP taking their seat and not being immediately kicked out (at least...) is pretty implausible to me. yeah, probably an independent rather than Sinn Fein Irish politics is so hard
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
My best guess would be Frank Maguire, who was an independent republican MP. He took part in the 1979 no confidence vote that brought down the Labour government and ushered in the Thatcher era. He didn't vote but chose to "abstain in person". Labour lost by one vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 15:03
|
|
|
Is it correct that the only reason Sinn Fein don’t sit in parliament is because they won’t swear allegiance to the Queen?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
outy posted:Is it correct that the only reason Sinn Fein don’t sit in parliament is because they won’t swear allegiance to the Queen? They consider Britain an illegitimate occupying power and won't legitimise this, the oath to the Queen is merely the symbol of this and they'd refuse a British republican oath the same
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:They consider Britain an illegitimate occupying power and won't legitimise this, the oath to the Queen is merely the symbol of this and they'd refuse a British republican oath the same ireland rules
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
Brexit is also the best chance they've ever gotten for reunification.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 16:08
|
|
|
Hentai Jihadist posted:ireland rules the queen would disagree
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Elevator Screamer posted:My best guess would be Frank Maguire, who was an independent republican MP. He took part in the 1979 no confidence vote that brought down the Labour government and ushered in the Thatcher era. He didn't vote but chose to "abstain in person". Labour lost by one vote. Hmm guess labour shouldn't have hosed around with the devolution referendum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
If Brexit somehow led to the reunification of Ireland, there's a non-zero chance Sinn Fein would start campaigning for an Eirexit referendum. They've opposed Ireland's EU membership since before the EU existed. Up until the UK referendum was announced it was one of the few things on which they agreed with the DUP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
This Novara Media interview with Sinn Fein MP Chris Hazzard is good if you want to know more about Sinn Fein and their positions - their position on abstention is that they think Britain shouldn't have any influence on Irish politics, so in turn they don't see why they would need to interfere in British politics. They are elected on the basis of abstention and are not going to be taking their seats, no matter the fever dreams of FBPEs wanting to see Sinn Fein walk in WWE style to vote down Brexit. The point is made in the interview that Sinn Fein have done a 180 on Brexit since the referendum - in a similar way to the SNP they were/are euroskeptic (the SNP being willing to trade EU membership in the short term for independence in the 2014 referendum) but faced with the reality of a Tory brexit have become a totally anti-brexit party. It would be interesting to see what their take would be in the event Brexit did actually go through.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
 Why are bookmakers so sure of no-deal not happening?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
they’re counting on an extension. predictit is similar and it doesn’t have the “no deal” qualifier
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:
The only thing that could cause a no-deal at this point would be a EU nation vetoeing the delay, which is very unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Jose posted:yeah. the referendum question itself was also incredibly dumb because cameron assumed it was an easy win tbf it was an easy win in a world where cameron wasn't a complete loving dingus
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Opferwurst posted:The only thing that could cause a no-deal at this point would be a EU nation vetoeing the delay, which is very unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
Opferwurst posted:The only thing that could cause a no-deal at this point would be a EU nation vetoeing the delay, which is very unlikely.  If parliament votes against the delay, against May's deal, and that a deal isn't necessary, there will be a no deal Brexit on the 29th twoday has issued a correction as of 18:46 on Mar 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 18:41
|
|
|
Exit right into my Brexit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
twoday posted:
I guess it's possible, but I don't know what the gently caress that would even mean. There is a clear majority against no-deal, which, with only two weeks to go, automatically means an extension. Why would a MP vote against a no-deal on one day and literally the next day vote for a no-deal? I know there is an iodine deficiency crisis in the UK and all that, but that would be a totally new level of idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Opferwurst posted:I guess it's possible, but I don't know what the gently caress that would even mean. There is a clear majority against no-deal, which, with only two weeks to go, automatically means an extension. Why would a MP vote against a no-deal on one day and literally the next day vote for a no-deal? I know there is an iodine deficiency crisis in the UK and all that, but that would be a totally new level of idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
the brexiteers ate still in the late 2016 stage of positing which kind of brexit trade deal model they’d like , it’s insane
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
EU agrees to allow Britain remain in Brexit quantum superposition
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
British tourism collapses as external observers are banned from observing the state of the nation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Opferwurst posted:I guess it's possible, but I don't know what the gently caress that would even mean. There is a clear majority against no-deal, which, with only two weeks to go, automatically means an extension. Why would a MP vote against a no-deal on one day and literally the next day vote for a no-deal? I know there is an iodine deficiency crisis in the UK and all that, but that would be a totally new level of idiocy. Why would a MP vote against May's deal but have confidence in the government? I'm not sure what the point of a delay would even be if it is clear that May's deal is dead, she isn't going anywhere and also isn't changing her mind. Just get it over with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
when do we liberate scotland
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
genericnick posted:Why would a MP vote against May's deal but have confidence in the government? I'm not sure what the point of a delay would even be if it is clear that May's deal is dead, she isn't going anywhere and also isn't changing her mind. Just get it over with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
genericnick posted:Why would a MP vote against May's deal but have confidence in the government? I'm not sure what the point of a delay would even be if it is clear that May's deal is dead, she isn't going anywhere and also isn't changing her mind. Just get it over with. voting against the deal but for a confidence vote is exactly what they did like a month ago
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
genericnick posted:Why would a MP vote against May's deal but have confidence in the government? Because backbench brexiteers don't want a Corbyn government or May's deal, and thanks to the Fixed Term Parliaments act they can have their cake and eat it. Prior to the FTPA May could have made the vote on her deal a confidence vote itself, which was typical for big pieces of legislation. It would have forced her MPs to either back her legislation or face the government collapsing as a consequence. Now they don't have to make that choice and can just keep an impotent government power indefinitely
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
a government that refuses to govern and also refuses to give up power is the culmination of neoliberalism
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Profits in Jacob Rees-Mogg’s investment empire are soaring and more than doubled in the last four years, a TV investigation will show tomorrow. A Channel 4 Dispatches programme will highlight the surging fortunes of Somerset Capital Management LLP, a firm co-founded and co-owned by the Tory hard Brexiteer. SCM’s publicly-available accounts show its operating profit rose from £14.7m in the year to March 2015, to £18.3m in 2016, £27.8m in 2017 and £34.1m in 2018. Meanwhile the profits available for distribution among members have risen from £11.5m in 2015 to £14.4m in 2016, £21.9m in 2017 and £25.3m in 2018. Dispatches claimed one expert said the slumping pound since the referendum had helped SCM’s profits, because the firm invests in emerging markets. But Mr Rees-Mogg told the programme it was “cloud cuckoo land” to draw any link between the rising profits and Brexit. And he refused to confirm or deny a Channel 4 estimate that he has earned £7million personally from the firm since June 2016. He told the programme: "The amount that I received is not for public disclosure. "I’m entitled to the same privacy in my affairs as anyone else in parliament is." Mr Rees-Mogg publicly declared £185,777 in employment income from SCM, where he works 30 hours a month, in the 12 months to January 2019. However, MPs are not required to disclose other types of income such as dividend payments. http://flip.it/TEFDGT
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
Wow, Prime Minister Rees-Mogg!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
This is bullshit I was promised
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
I think people underestimate the popularity of No Deal https://twitter.com/RogerHelmerMEP/status/1104728072702644224?s=19
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
twoday posted:I think people underestimate the popularity of No Deal Yeah the public are lunatics and the popularity of no deal means it really shouldn't be on a second referendum. Although it would be loving hilarious if the public actually voted for it
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Turns out the prime minister repeatedly saying "no deal is better than a bad deal" convinces most people that its true
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Aren't there an alarming number of people who think "no deal" means "Brexit is called off, everything continues on as before, no changes"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
More is lost through indecision than wrong decision.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
Honj Steak posted:
Do bookmakers actually set prices based on what they think will happen? I had assumed it was all driven by the bettors -- the more people bet on one side, the more the odds go the other way to encourage bets to even things out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Brexit is borne of a desire to rewind the clock and make England as it was in the 19th century. The conservatives in parliament want the whole 19th century package - the economic system, the class structure, the distribution of power and wealth, the human rights situation and social safety nets, the foreign affairs and colonialism, the demographics of the 19th century. No deal Brexit is the best way to do that. And you have people like Rees-Mogg and Boris (who have been very quiet and unconcerned lately) skulking around telling the MPs that Brexit is going to make them rich as lords. The harder the Brexit, the better. Parliament has been perfectly on track to achieve No Deal for two years. I will not be surprised if it happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
prefect posted:Do bookmakers actually set prices based on what they think will happen? I had assumed it was all driven by the bettors -- the more people bet on one side, the more the odds go the other way to encourage bets to even things out. Yeah, otherwise they would be constantly getting caught out by the fact that the information they're relying on isn't as up to date as that used by bettors. Like, if Prince Charles died tomorrow (inshallah) they wouldn't wait around for enough easy bets to be made on William being the next monarch at newly generous odds for the system to correct itself via bets placed. They would lose a ton of money that way. Instead they would immediately react to the new information and slash those odds. Only they aren't just reacting to individual news stories, they're using complex predictive models with huge numbers of data points.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Bryter posted:Yeah, otherwise they would be constantly getting caught out by the fact that the information they're relying on isn't as up to date as that used by bettors. Thanks for the explanation. (I am not a gambler, which is probably the right thing for me.) 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2019 22:55
|
|