Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Monday April 24 2017, @12:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the opportunists dept.

Various news outlets are reporting that the UK's prime minister, Theresa May, has called for a general election to be held on 8 June. The Conservative Party Web site has a transcript of her public statement, which can also be heard in a video.

The call for a snap election has now been backed by parliament.

May surprised allies and opponents [...] when she announced her plan to bring forward an election that was not due until 2020, saying she needed to avoid a clash of priorities in the sensitive final stages of the two-year Brexit talks.

After addressing a rowdy session of the House of Commons, May won the support of 522 lawmakers in the 650-seat parliament for an election on June 8. Only 13 voted against.

With May seen winning a new five-year mandate and boosting her majority in parliament by perhaps 100 seats, the pound held close to six-and-a-half month highs on hopes she may be able to clinch a smoother, more phased departure from the EU and minimise damage to the UK economy.

[...] The former interior minister, who became prime minister without an election when her predecessor David Cameron quit after last year's referendum vote for Brexit, enjoys a runaway lead over the main opposition Labour Party in opinion polls.

This is a notable change from the position taken over the last few months where May had said after the EU referendum, a "period of stability" was needed. "There isn’t going to be one. It isn’t going to happen. There is not going to be a general election," said the prime minister's spokesman less than a month ago.

Coverage (many of these are editorials):


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Monday April 24 2017, @06:38PM (3 children)

    by zocalo (302) on Monday April 24 2017, @06:38PM (#498986)
    An excellent "what if" question, for all concerned, even if it is (apparently at least) a long shot of actually coming to pass. I don't doubt that there will be a lot of Remain protest votes cast towards the LibDems in the election, given Labour's official stance is now pro-Brexit, that's the only real hope Remainers have left: a LibDem/SNP led coalition that successfully pushes for putting a stop to the process. Realistically, Labour had a choice - take a strong Remain stance, forcing Conservative-hating Leave voters to make a tough choice in what would have been Ref. 2 by default, while hoping to be the larger party in a coalition government with the LibDems and (maybe) SNP. Or they could do what they have opted to do: take a pro-Leave stance and - according to the polls at least - get trounced by the Conservatives and LibDems in the England and the regional parties like the SNP in Scotland and Plaid Cymru in Wales. Obviously the Corbyn supporting elements of Labour either don't put much stock in opinion polls, or are just in denial about their chances; I suspect the rest of Labour are just going to be waiting for him to fall on his sword the morning after and hoping they can somehow pick up the pieces.

    As for aborting the Article 50 process, theoretically at least, that's still possible given that there are plenty of people on both sides of the fence who seem to think that Article 50 can be aborted, including its author, many of those on the EU's negotiating team, and amongst May's own team who have aired the possibility of just walking away from the table and taking a default if things went badly enough. Should an SNP/LibDem led coalition actually get to form the next government - unlikely on paper, but with the recent electoral upsets, who knows? - then they could probably abort the process, likely to huge sighs of relief from Remain voters and the EU looking to prevent other countries following suit. The real question is, would they actually dare to do so and, if so, how?

    That would almost certainly be a number's game. They would certainly cite the 48% that originally voted Remain, but the reality of a general election with so many parties in contention is that the party (or parties, in the event of a coalition) that gets to form the next government usually only get around one third of the total votes cast, if that. Hardly as decisive a mandate as the referendum result. Even allowing for a few changed opinions, there is still going to be ~50% of the population in the Leave camp who are not going to be pleased if the process gets stopped in its tracks, and it would take an *awfully* large swing of voters to the pro-Remain parties to make it clear the mood has changed and they are the minority. Somewhat improbable, given that there's still no sign of the kind of widespread economic chaos promised by the Remain campaign's "Project Fear", nor is there ever likely to be given how obviously overblown and worst case scenario the pitch was. The other only option would be a second referendum at some point, but that just means wasting more time, risks yet another vote not going to plan, and all the while deepening the divisions within the UK and between the UK and the EU.
    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by theluggage on Monday April 24 2017, @08:31PM (2 children)

    by theluggage (1797) on Monday April 24 2017, @08:31PM (#499040)

    given that there's still no sign of the kind of widespread economic chaos promised by the Remain campaign's "Project Fear"

    Well, given that effects generally come after causes, and Brexit won't actually happen for another two years*, that's hardly surprising, but rationality has never really been part of either side of this debate... Even so, unless you've got a nice portfolio of multi-national stocks that have gone vrooosh since the vote, the immediate fallout of inflation and low interest rates for savers hasn't been too brilliant for all those working poor who were going to kick elitism in the teeth by voting for Boris...

    Of course, Camoron was going to sign Art 50 the day after a "leave" vote, and Osbourne was going to call an emergency "austerity plus" budget which probably would have brought it all to pass - but fortunately they were politicians and their lips were moving (please don't mistake my previous paragraph as any sort of respect for the "remain" campaign which was basically "nice econonmy you have there - pity if anything happened to it!").

    (*and god knows how many further years of some interim deal fudged together when the clock runs out without an agreement...)

    • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Monday April 24 2017, @10:01PM

      by zocalo (302) on Monday April 24 2017, @10:01PM (#499066)
      Absolutely agree on the tactics of the Remain campaign, not that Leave can really claim any moral high ground either; I suspect they actually did more damage to their chances than obviously ridiculous claims like "£350m/wk for the NHS" being thrown around by various elements of the Leave campaigns. Likewise the worst of any fallout definitely won't really start to happen until much closer to the actual exit, but that doesn't mean that the initial signs are not already there if you are prepared to look though. The City's banks and other businesses are starting to look at setting up shop in the EU, other industries in the all important service sector that are closely linked are struggling to win EU contracts, everyone is paying more for goods and services, and various sectors are starting to wonder if their particular subsidies are going to continue and, even if so, what level of cuts they might face.

      As for the stocks, other than the real fat cats I don't think it's going to make too much difference in the long run; the man on the street with any investments/private pension is still likely to end up breaking even at best, or even in a net loss. Even assuming you hedged your bets, moved investments, pensions, etc., over to international stocks and UK companies that do well overseas before the vote, then rode that huge jump in the markets, your on-paper gains are going to need to be offset against the fall in value of Sterling. Unless you got *really* lucky in your portfolio choices, you're probably just about breaking even on the deal - and it's still only an on-paper gain that might also be subject to tax if/when you try and cash it in.
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:40AM

      by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:40AM (#499226) Journal
      The problem for the remain campaign was that they included a lot of MPs and so couldn't use the most compelling arguments for remaining in the EU: that the EU has blocked the most egregious abuses of power by Westminster and that the worst policies from the EU were pushed by British Prime Ministers wearing their Council of Ministers hat. Unfortunately, an argument of 'we're utterly untrustworthy, you should vote against giving more power to us' wasn't one that most MPs felt comfortable using.
      --
      sudo mod me up