Jump to content

UK Politics: A Third Meaningful Thread


mormont

Recommended Posts

On May, I've said this before but it bears repeating. She was only ever a reluctant Remainer. She was always opposed to freedom of movement. She avoided campaigning for Remain as much as she could. And she is not now a Remainer. She's a Leave-with-a-deal-er. Many former Tory Remainers are. But she has consistently played with the idea of No Deal and is not interested in talking about a softer Brexit than the one represented by her deal, which is not that soft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watching PMQ its notable that May totally dodged the question of what meaningful changes she will make to her deal to even allow it to be tabled again. I honestly have no idea what she could possibly be contemplating here, from the EU side there won't be any changes at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, mormont said:

On May, I've said this before but it bears repeating. She was only ever a reluctant Remainer. She was always opposed to freedom of movement. She avoided campaigning for Remain as much as she could. And she is not now a Remainer. She's a Leave-with-a-deal-er. Many former Tory Remainers are. But she has consistently played with the idea of No Deal and is not interested in talking about a softer Brexit than the one represented by her deal, which is not that soft. 

Exactly - she said was was in favour of remain; and then kept as quiet as she posisbly could. She simply thought coming out in favour of leave would be more damaging to her career than coming out for remain.

Everything else about her record in parliament is anti-EU rhetoric; and very very anti-imigrant.

She's never been a natural remainer, she just thought it'd be politically advantageous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

That's how I feel in my gut, but in my head I know it's not true. It would not be better at all.

worth noting that this is all just about the working agreement - if we leave, we'll still be having these discussions in 20+ years; if we do'nt, it will continue to be the background noise it was before, albeit louder; and hopefully not stoked as hard by those in actual power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to pin down May's Brexit position, I would put her as possibly a soft leaver if anything. She seemed to be mostly worried about economic consequences of Brexit before the vote, but has made comments suggesting the ECJ made her life difficult.

Her position now is mostly about survival. Her red lines are the ones most closely aligned to the referendum result anyway, which I think is why she is sticking to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

worth noting that this is all just about the working agreement 

Oh yeah.

We haven't even started on the really tricky decisions yet. We have 21 months to work out an entire new trading and political relationship with the EU. Tariffs, services, standards, certifications, travel and border arrangements, the lot. Based on our record so far, we're not going to be able to do that. So... what next? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mormont said:

Yeah, the problem here is Parliament's 'failure to take a decision'. Not May's refusal to accept their decision, her insistence on asking them the same question over and over again, or her record of complete disinterest in what anyone except hardcore Brexiteers or the DUP have to say, or her constant delays, or her attempts to get the EU to agree to impossible demands, or the unnecessary election she called, or the fact that she can't even command the confidence of her own Cabinet ministers, or her lack of political skill, strength, judgement or competence. It's all Parliament's fault. :rolleyes:

They are both (May and Parliament) to different degrees at fault imo.

Yes, May has asked the same question over and over again, and got No as an answer. (No means yes, yes means...)

However, Parliament had two chances to take control over the process (Bowles-Cooper) and refused to do so. This something that can't be talked away. And the MPs who voted against Bowles-Cooper shouldn't be complaining about this mess now.

2 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

It's official - extension until June 30th requested (and likely to be rejected) 

She wants it in order to bring her deal (yeah, yeah, working agreement) to parliament again (which may well be refused a vote on, and is unlikely to pass even if it is) 

You can only hope it's rejected. June 30th is the worst date possible. It's past the EU election, so no chance for a longer extension and just before the new MEP take up their seats (talking about the real cliff edge). And thus it really forces the binary between no-deal and her deal upon parliament. Choices parliament has both rejected. If that's not being in contempt of parliament, I don't know what is.

 

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

The only way this can end now is revocation. No Deal is simply not going to happen. I find it amusing that people are even talking about the possibility after last week's vote. 

No, it forces her deal through parliament however. As that's what she is going for, forcing the binary choice between no-deal and her deal upon parliament.

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

It doesn't matter, not one jot, who might have come round. The ONLY way she gets another vote is after winning a GE. And that is never going to happen. 

What? That's not my understanding. She will get a new vote on her deal in April. Somebody can tell me or us, who's correct here?

 

FWIW, I think the EU will reject her June 30th extension request, for a mere lega/technical reasons.

What should the EU do, if the UK decided to revoke article 50 after the European Elections (in which it did not participate)?

Personally I think granting an extension till the end of April is the most reasonable course of action. That puts the ball back into the UK's field, with all options (long extension, no-deal, May's deal) still being intact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

What? That's not my understanding. She will get a new vote on her deal in April. Somebody can tell me or us, who's correct here?

The EU will most certainly not allow her an extension just to present the same deal. They've said they will not allow any extension to A50 unless it's for a referendum or GE. They've been very clear about this.

Even if they give us an extension til the end of April, how does that allow her to present the same bill again? It will still be the same parliament, no?

And If she goes to the Queen and asks to dissolve Parliament, just so she can regurgitate her bill all over again, she's likely to be thrown in the feckin' Tower. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Hard to pin down May's Brexit position, I would put her as possibly a soft leaver if anything. She seemed to be mostly worried about economic consequences of Brexit before the vote, but has made comments suggesting the ECJ made her life difficult.

Her position now is mostly about survival. Her red lines are the ones most closely aligned to the referendum result anyway, which I think is why she is sticking to them.

I struggle to see what's "soft brexit" about May's deal, or an anti-immigration platform. If she wanted a soft brexit, it would have happened by now; it's her red lines absolutely rule out that option.

None of May's red lines have ever appeared on a ballot paper, there is nothing about them aligns any closer to the referendum result than No Deal, or EFTA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

FFS. Why is everyone ignoring the fact that Parliament took no deal off the table last week? 

Because it didn't. They may have voted against no deal, but that's meaningless unless they also vote to either accept May's deal or to revoke Article 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Loge said:

Because it didn't. They may have voted against no deal, but that's meaningless unless they also vote to either accept May's deal or to revoke Article 50.

Last week's vote means that the House must actively vote in favour of No Deal in order for us to crash out. How many are likely to do that? That leaves revoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spockydog said:

Last week's vote means that the House must actively vote in favour of No Deal in order for us to crash out. 

Er... no, it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spockydog said:

Last week's vote means that the House must actively vote in favour of No Deal in order for us to crash out. How many are likely to do that?

No, the UK crashes out by default. The House's vote is irrelevant. The only way to prevent hard Brexit is to accept one of the alternatives, i.e. May's deal or no Brexit. The House can vote against hard Brexit as much as it likes. I may as well vote for better weather. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

Ah okay then. And without further explanation, that was that.

To be clear, and this has been covered before in this thread and in most articles I've seen about the vote:  if March 29th comes round and there is no deal, no agreed extension, and no revocation of A50, we crash out regardless of the vote. 

I'm honestly not sure what your belief is here: is it that, should March 29th arrive with no deal and no delay, that May will definitely, absolutely, and without doubt, revoke A50? Or is it that the Parliamentary vote will, in itself, prevent a no-deal exit? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

I'm honestly not sure what your belief is here: is it that, should March 29th arrive with no deal and no delay, that May will definitely, absolutely, and without doubt, revoke A50? Or is it that the Parliamentary vote will, in itself, prevent a no-deal exit? 

What I'm saying is last week, the House voted to rule out No Deal. That means there is now an obligation to do more than sit on their hands as the clock runs down. If it comes to it, they will revoke.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...