• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

The prime minister responds to a question from SNP MP Pete Wishart attacking the government's Brexit policy.

Theresa May says that the idea that the public should be asked to elect a new set of MEPs "is unacceptable".

She says she has written to President of the EU Council, Donald Tusk, informing the UK will be seeking an extension to 30 June.

The government intends to bring forward proposals for a third meaningful vote, she says.

"As prime minister I am not prepared to delay Brexit any further than 30 June," she says.
 
Of course they are, Im not sure what you are trying to point out? Or is this just a quick jibe because its impossible to be impartial?



If Corbyn backed it, said now was the time to force change and wanted the party to support - they would have all voted against anyway? Are you sure?

I couldnt give a toss what Campbell has to say, its proof of nothing other than his own agenda aligning with Corbyns. And who knows what that clam is really looking for.

Corbyn wants power, thats what this is about, and he is willing to drag the UK through turmoil to get it. He's basically another BoJo in that respect.

WHY is now not the time? Why is it not literally ideal to actually do something to break the deadlock instead of doing the same dance that gets us nowhere?

Gamesmanship, simple as that.

You’ve just explained politics as a whole


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk
 
It’s clear now this whole thing was a bit silly, not really thought out properly by those who voted for leave, and evidently there was no plan behind their idea whatsoever.

Rather than wasting even more time and effort in a scenario of clearly diminishing returns, it only seems fair to offer the 17m or so people who voted ‘leave’ the opportunity to hold their hands up now, say sorry to the other 43m-ish who didn’t vote for this nonsense and ask politely to take it all back. Then we can all agree to pretend it just never happened and not to ever mention it again.

There, Brexit sorted. Next?
 
He’s taking a lead. Good for him.

Just another 16,999,999 or so left to man up and take personal responsibility for their actions.

Hes a self indulgent prick, probably no more educated now than he was when he voted.

But any appeasement to remainers is welcome, isnt it?
 
I wonder what apologies remainers might offer for acting as they have the last couple of years?

Or, indeed, if things swung to remain - and leave acted as they have - if that would be acceptable to them?
 
Anyway, what on earth is all this about?

Mays letter to the EU:

Dear Donald

The UK Government's policy remains to leave the European Union in an orderly manner on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration agreed in November, complemented by the Joint Instrument and supplement to the Political Declaration President Juncker and I agreed on 11 March.

You will be aware that before the House of Commons rejected the deal for a second time on 12 March, I warned in a speech in Grimsby that the consequences of failing to endorse the deal were unpredictable and potentially deeply unpalatable. The House of Commons did not vote in favour of the deal. The following day it voted against leaving the EU without a negotiated deal. The day after that it supported a Government motion that proposed a short extension to the Article 50 period if the House supported a meaningful vote before this week's European Council. The motion also made clear that if this had not happened, a longer extension would oblige the UK to call elections to the European Parliament. I do not believe that it would be in either of our interests for the UK to hold European Parliament elections.

I had intended to bring the vote back to the House of Commons this week. The Speaker of the House of Commons said on Monday that in order for a further meaningful vote to be brought back to the House of Commons, the agreement would have to be "fundamentally different-not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance". Some Members of Parliament have interpreted that this means a further change to the deal. This position has made it impossible in practice to call a further vote in advance of the European Council. However, it remains my intention to bring the deal back to the House.

In advance of that vote, I would be grateful if the European Council could therefore approve the supplementary documents that President Juncker and I agreed in Strasbourg, putting the Government in a position to bring these agreements to the House and confirming the changes to the Government's proposition to Parliament. I also intend to bring forward further domestic proposals that confirm my previous commitments to protect our internal market, given the concerns expressed about the backstop. On this basis, and in the light of the outcome of the European Council, I intend to put forward a motion as soon as possible under section 13 of the Withdrawal Act 2018 and make the argument for the orderly withdrawal and strong future partnership the UK economy, its citizens' security and the continent's future, demands.

If the motion is passed, I am confident that Parliament will proceed to ratify the deal constructively. But this will clearly not be completed before 29 March 2019. In our legal system, the Government will need to take a Bill through both Houses of Parliament to enact our commitments under the Withdrawal Agreement into domestic law. While we will consult with the Opposition in the usual way to plan the passage of the Bill as quickly and smoothly as possible, the timetable for this is inevitably uncertain at this stage. I am therefore writing to inform the European Council that the UK is seeking an extension to the Article 50 period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, until 30 June 2019.

I would be grateful for the opportunity to set out this position to our colleagues on Thursday.

Yours ever

Theresa May




Im assuming this amounts to her strategy all along of presenting her deal against no deal "or else" without time to organise anything different?

Because reading that, half of it just seems like fairytale flimflam.
 
Anyway, what on earth is all this about?

Mays letter to the EU:

Dear Donald

The UK Government's policy remains to leave the European Union in an orderly manner on the basis of the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration agreed in November, complemented by the Joint Instrument and supplement to the Political Declaration President Juncker and I agreed on 11 March.

You will be aware that before the House of Commons rejected the deal for a second time on 12 March, I warned in a speech in Grimsby that the consequences of failing to endorse the deal were unpredictable and potentially deeply unpalatable. The House of Commons did not vote in favour of the deal. The following day it voted against leaving the EU without a negotiated deal. The day after that it supported a Government motion that proposed a short extension to the Article 50 period if the House supported a meaningful vote before this week's European Council. The motion also made clear that if this had not happened, a longer extension would oblige the UK to call elections to the European Parliament. I do not believe that it would be in either of our interests for the UK to hold European Parliament elections.

I had intended to bring the vote back to the House of Commons this week. The Speaker of the House of Commons said on Monday that in order for a further meaningful vote to be bought back to the House of Commons, the agreement would have to be "fundamentally different-not different in terms of wording, but different in terms of substance". Some Members of Parliament have interpreted that this means a further change to the deal. This position has made it impossible in practice to call a further vote in advance of the European Council. However, it remains my intention to bring the deal back to the House.

In advance of that vote, I would be grateful if the European Council could therefore approve the supplementary documents that President Juncker and I agreed in Strasbourg, putting the Government in a position to bring these agreements to the House and confirming the changes to the Government's proposition to Parliament. I also intend to bring forward further domestic proposals that confirm my previous commitments to protect our internal market, given the concerns expressed about the backstop. On this basis, and in the light of the outcome of the European Council, I intend to put forward a motion as soon as possible under section 13 of the Withdrawal Act 2018 and make the argument for the orderly withdrawal and strong future partnership the UK economy, its citizens' security and the continent's future, demands.

If the motion is passed, I am confident that Parliament will proceed to ratify the deal constructively. But this will clearly not be completed before 29 March 2019. In our legal system, the Government will need to take a Bill through both Houses of Parliament to enact our commitments under the Withdrawal Agreement into domestic law. While we will consult with the Opposition in the usual way to plan the passage of the Bill as quickly and smoothly as possible, the timetable for this is inevitably uncertain at this stage. I am therefore writing to inform the European Council that the UK is seeking an extension to the Article 50 period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, until 30 June 2019.

I would be grateful for the opportunity to set out this position to our colleagues on Thursday.

Yours ever

Theresa May




Im assuming this amounts to her strategy all along of presenting her deal against no deal "or else" without time to organise anything different?

Because reading that, half of it just seems like fairytale flimflam.
Tl dr;
 
Back