They say that to be a successful leader you need luck. Theresa May seems to me the sort to make a lot of her own luck but she's also had a break with Leadsom's withdrawal, as Mike Smithson suggests.
In terms of the HoC her position is pretty strong. There are two dimensions to her majority. The first on her own side:
She currently has a working majority of 16. But realistically the unionists take that up to near 30 which is pretty unassailable for the next 4 years.
The other dimensions, as pointed out below, is the fractured state of the opposition. Quite apart from needing to summon all the disparate groups on the opposition side, any attempt to vote down Gov't legislation would require all 230 Labour MPs actually voting with Corbyn. I just can't see it: apart from on the EU they're more likely to go through the Gov't lobbies, especially if TM means it about her social agenda.
There's no legal, more or constitutional requirement for her to call either a second referendum or a General Election so barring something unforeseen she can steer us through Brexit and to a GE.
Which leaves the only possibility: that she would want to call an early election. This is very unlikely.
I suspect she will want to make damned sure Article 50 is triggered and Brexit is as copper-bottomed as she can get it. She'll want the country as secure as possible before she goes to the country and at all costs she won't want a GE to be a backdoor referendum on EU membership, which is the only thing that could save Labour. So she will get us as far down the road of no return as possible.
I reckon.
When working out May's majority, I can't see UKIPs sole MP, Douglas Carswell, voting down a government that is actively pursuing Brexit.
However, The European Parliament also has a veto...
No it doesn't. Under Article 50 the decision on the future relationship between the EU and the UK rests entirely with the member states through the EU Council. And even there the decision is by QMV with no country having a veto.
"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
IANAL but what does the consent of the European Parliament mean there if it's not a veto?
The text implies the agreement will be negotiated "after obtaining the consent". Does this mean the Parliament votes before any negotiation is made?
I wondered about that but it doesn't make any sense - why would you write in a right for the parliament to say "no negotiation"? I think it has to apply to the result.
Typical leagalese!
Richard knows his stuff, but I think his reply to you was wrong. I do think it strange that a QMV council vote apparently requires EU parliamentary consent to proceed, which implies that the parliament is superior to the council.
The relevant words don't refer to negotiation but to "conclusion" - which in this context means signed off. So the Parliament gets to vote on the final deal, before it is ratified by the Council. This isn't really at variance with the way things generally work in the EU, with the Parliament representing the EU view based on direct election from its population, and the Council speaking for the governments.
In practice, of course, this means the parliament will have to be 'lined up' in some way, probably by keeping the political group leaders and the president on board when the remit and process are established. Formally however the position is that the Council sets a remit and appoints a negotiating team, the negotiation is done, and the outcome then goes to Parliament for agreement before being signed by the Council.
I just noticed a serious social crisis going on in the US right now, Pokemon Go:
twitter.com/MrNobre/status/754144048529625088
I have the suspicion these people are not going to vote (or work) because they will be busy catching pokemon.
Are these spawns contested?
If they are and Nintendo have created an Everquest style Skinner box game which has mass-market penetration, then there could be genuine societal problems from this game.
I just noticed a serious social crisis going on in the US right now, Pokemon Go:
twitter.com/MrNobre/status/754144048529625088
I have the suspicion these people are not going to vote (or work) because they will be busy catching pokemon.
Are these spawns contested?
If they are and Nintendo have created an Everquest style Skinner box game which has mass-market penetration, then there could be genuine societal problems from this game.
What better way to distract the proles than an addicting video game?
The No campaign's economic arguments will be the price of Brent and the GERS deficit figure. Those are tangible numbers that people know and understand, neither favour Yes as they did two years ago.
The SNP are explicitly denying those numbers already.
It's still there in black and white. Not in some dodgy Treasury document that was immediately disowned by the Bank of England. Remain didn't win the economic argument as much as they like to believe. They thought dodgy dossiers from the Treasury would be enough, and to this day they believe it was, but they probably lost it.
But it is based on dodgy Treasury figures. GERS does not use statistics from the Scottish government, all the data comes from the Treasury and some of it is clearly very dodgy.
For example, GERS charges Scotland £5.5bn for debt interest on the UK National debt. This is despite the Bank of England owning half of the UK debt and it does not charge interest on the debt it owns. If pro-rated on the basis on which Westminster pays interest, GERS would only charge Scotland £2.65bn.
The Scottish Government only has to demonstrate that around £10bn of the Spending that is allocated to Scotland by the Treasury (and therefore forms the basis of the "£15bn deficit" in GERS) is not valid and would not be occurred by an Independent Scotland.
And the rub is that even if you think that such an analysis would be flawed or indeed wrong, it does not matter what you think. The Scottish Government only need to persuade 200,000 No voters that their argument is correct.
I just noticed a serious social crisis going on in the US right now, Pokemon Go:
twitter.com/MrNobre/status/754144048529625088
I have the suspicion these people are not going to vote (or work) because they will be busy catching pokemon.
Are these spawns contested?
If they are and Nintendo have created an Everquest style Skinner box game which has mass-market penetration, then there could be genuine societal problems from this game.
What better way to distract the proles than an addicting video game?
They say that to be a successful leader you need luck. Theresa May seems to me the sort to make a lot of her own luck but she's also had a break with Leadsom's withdrawal, as Mike Smithson suggests.
In terms of the HoC her position is pretty strong. There are two dimensions to her majority. The first on her own side:
She currently has a working majority of 16. But realistically the unionists take that up to near 30 which is pretty unassailable for the next 4 years.
The other dimensions, as pointed out below, is the fractured state of the opposition. Quite apart from needing to summon all the disparate groups on the opposition side, any attempt to vote down Gov't legislation would require all 230 Labour MPs actually voting with Corbyn. I just can't see it: apart from on the EU they're more likely to go through the Gov't lobbies, especially if TM means it about her social agenda.
There's no legal, more or constitutional requirement for her to call either a second referendum or a General Election so barring something unforeseen she can steer us through Brexit and to a GE.
Which leaves the only possibility: that she would want to call an early election. This is very unlikely.
I suspect she will want to make damned sure Article 50 is triggered and Brexit is as copper-bottomed as she can get it. She'll want the country as secure as possible before she goes to the country and at all costs she won't want a GE to be a backdoor referendum on EU membership, which is the only thing that could save Labour. So she will get us as far down the road of no return as possible.
I reckon.
When working out May's majority, I can't see UKIPs sole MP, Douglas Carswell, voting down a government that is actively pursuing Brexit.
Not that it matters hugely to the arithmetic, but that one isn't so sure, at least whilst Carswell remains within UKIP. UKIP's interest is, after all, in attacking the Tories for the inevitable compromises they will have to make.
Although I also suspect that now Brexit is decided, Carswell is probably looking to ditch his new party.
More interesting will be how serious - and how realistic - Banks will be about trying to recreate the Italian five star movement in the UK? I don't doubt there is appetite for such a non conformist anti establishment movement here: in different ways both the Brexit vote and the Corbynistas demonstrate it. But the personality and profile of Grillo were central to getting 5S off the ground, and I don't see anyone of that nature or stature around to kick start the project here. In politics money alone isn't enough.
Comments
In practice, of course, this means the parliament will have to be 'lined up' in some way, probably by keeping the political group leaders and the president on board when the remit and process are established. Formally however the position is that the Council sets a remit and appoints a negotiating team, the negotiation is done, and the outcome then goes to Parliament for agreement before being signed by the Council.
If they are and Nintendo have created an Everquest style Skinner box game which has mass-market penetration, then there could be genuine societal problems from this game.
For example, GERS charges Scotland £5.5bn for debt interest on the UK National debt. This is despite the Bank of England owning half of the UK debt and it does not charge interest on the debt it owns. If pro-rated on the basis on which Westminster pays interest, GERS would only charge Scotland £2.65bn.
The Scottish Government only has to demonstrate that around £10bn of the Spending that is allocated to Scotland by the Treasury (and therefore forms the basis of the "£15bn deficit" in GERS) is not valid and would not be occurred by an Independent Scotland.
And the rub is that even if you think that such an analysis would be flawed or indeed wrong, it does not matter what you think. The Scottish Government only need to persuade 200,000 No voters that their argument is correct.
Although I also suspect that now Brexit is decided, Carswell is probably looking to ditch his new party.
More interesting will be how serious - and how realistic - Banks will be about trying to recreate the Italian five star movement in the UK? I don't doubt there is appetite for such a non conformist anti establishment movement here: in different ways both the Brexit vote and the Corbynistas demonstrate it. But the personality and profile of Grillo were central to getting 5S off the ground, and I don't see anyone of that nature or stature around to kick start the project here. In politics money alone isn't enough.