• 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 problem with the remain campaign was that no one loved the EU or could outline its positives. Whereas leavers had 40 years to sharpen their criticisms. Remain was reluctance (we know it's crap, but...) and fear. And that's not changed in 3 years. Aside from Clegg, no one has ever made a positive case for the EU. They should have pitched it like we were an ex-Soviet country and they were trying to sell 'join'.

That and the absolute complacency of "well no one will actually vote leave anyway". It was palpable.


Ok I get this. And part of me agrees. Another part of me thinks that a second referendum with a simple in or out AGAIN is flimflam simply because OUT is not defined.

However Mays deal Vs remain, that's the ref that I would like to see.

It would be a vote on something tangible, no unicorns or any other brick.

They didnt even get so far as discussing what may have been on the ballot because he showed so little interest. Because his interests lay almost soley in a GE and getting the job.

Could be deal vs no deal. deal vs remain. A combination with effectively indicative voting.

Chances are we'll never know, it seems the house are far more intent on honouring the referendum by dishonouring it with BINO rather than actually seeking a mandate now that the facts are all on the table.
 
Brexit: Will Theresa May try to take back control?

Laura Kuenssberg
Political editor

What now?

Theresa May has been granted a little breathing space. The EU has allowed a few more days to try to get her deal through the House of Commons.

But it's not the timetable that she chose.

And as things stand, the expectation that the compromise deal will get through is low.

And, more to the point, the government does not believe that it can hold off another attempt by a powerful cross-party group of MPs who are resolved to put Parliament forcibly in charge of the process to find alternatives.

Ministers are therefore today not just wondering about how to manage one last heave for the prime minister's deal, but what they should do next, when - odds on - the whole issue is in the hands of the Commons, not Number 10.

Within days, MPs will push for a series of votes on different versions of Brexit - the "Norway" model, another referendum, Labour's version of Brexit with a customs union, the list goes on.

But here's the dilemma.

Does Theresa May just wait for Parliament to do what one minister describes as "grab control of the order paper"?

Softer Brexit?
Or should they instead try to lead the process, forcing what another member of the cabinet described as a "fresh start", even though it seems "ludicrous" to be resetting the whole process in this way at this stage?

Some in the government believe the best choice is to take charge of this next stage - to lead the process as Parliament and the opposition parties try to find a new compromise.

Sounds like a no brainer.

But there is a real hesitation over whether the Labour frontbench are really interested in trying to find a compromise or will, ultimately, be too tempted by the political opportunity of pulling the rug from under the government at the very last minute. [as has been their plan along!-nayim]

And given that the majority of MPs are, theoretically, in favour of a softer Brexit than the one the prime minister has negotiated, could Theresa May really preside over a process that would end up there?

But if the government sits back and just lets Parliament to get on with it, then Number 10 accepts becoming a passenger - entirely in the hands of the MPs whose behaviour the prime minister so reviled in that controversial address in Number 10 on Wednesday night.

Don't forget - for many Brexiteers in the Conservative Party, the idea of a softer Brexit than the one the prime minister has negotiated is nothing short of an abomination.

(That could, in a hypothetical world, mean that more of them are willing to back Theresa May's deal than currently expected - if it is the "hardest" brexit that is on offer).

So for Theresa May's survival as leader of the Conservative Party, there is a case, strange as it sounds, for her to hang back from leading the next phase.

If Parliament chooses a softer Brexit in the end, it could suit Mrs May not to have her fingerprints on it.

But is it really a tenable leadership strategy, choosing not to lead?

Choices running out
Brexit has done some very strange things to our political process. The reality is though, if Theresa May next week accepts the will of Parliament and it is "soft Brexit", the reaction from the Conservative Party could be explosive.

Frankly, the choices for Theresa May are running out.

Many Tories on all sides of the debate are deeply alarmed by how things have unravelled in the last few days.

One senior, influential, MP who has been studiously loyal to the prime minister is incandescent this morning saying, that she has "angered all the people whose support she needed", and that "she is the most stubborn and ill-suited person for this job".

Another former minister suggests Theresa May's deal still could pass, but only if she tempts Labour rebels across with a promise of a referendum to give the public the chance to rubber stamp it, or "we'll have a new PM with a new plan", and maybe soon.

'Super dangerous'
One current member of the government says "only Number Ten can't see that she is on her way out".

Another minister says the situation is "super dangerous".

All of the fundamental factors that have preserved her so far remain - there is no obvious alternative plan that is certain to get a majority of MPs on side.

There is no obvious leader in waiting that the whole Conservative Party would gladly choose. The Labour Party have their own battles with their own divisions over Brexit.

The traditional claim of TINA - There Is No Alternative - has helped Theresa May hang on.

But now an alternative to her deal is likely to be forced upon her, one that could make her leadership impossible to maintain.

Theresa May arrives back in Number 10 today having won a little bit of extra time, but she has less and less space to breathe.
 
Mays deal is to have the same limbo state for the UK for at least 3 years and maybe more. It provides nothing concrete apart from the UK being a vassal state. Who would want that!?

So you're now attacking the fact that May's deal included a transition period? My memory of the time when this was the topical issue is that the main (only?) objections to it came from the real hardcore brexiteers.

Has this always been your position on the matter?
 
BBC:


The EU plan was a clever one, essentially putting all Brexit options back on the table - deal, no deal, no Brexit or a longer extension which would allow the UK to take a different path if it so chooses - whether a general election, a second referendum or opting for a softer Brexit.

And by taking away the conditionality from the short extension - if you remember, Brussels originally said the prime minister could only have a short extension if parliament approved the Brexit deal next week - EU leaders removed a reason some Eurosceptic MPs said they wouldn't vote for Theresa May's Brexit deal: because the EU told them they had to.

The 12 April date also allows (just) enough time, if the Brexit deal fails to pass again next week, for Mrs May to consider what next - whether to hold the promised indicative votes for MPs to signal their preferred alternative way forward or to allow parliament to take control of events.

Once again, the drama now moves from Brussels back to Westminster.

EU leaders are well aware a no-deal Brexit hasn't been averted indefinitely. But they've got themselves a bit of a breather.

So yeah, Im a little confused with what the hell is going on now!

I think I can see where this is going...

The EU themselves have actually now killed off any lingering chance of May's deal getting through, which to me suggests they have their eyes on a bigger prize - which is as I've suspected all along. Wavering MP's now have little or no incentive to back May's deal. When it was (briefly) framed as her deal vs. no deal only, they did. But now they can hold out, with the EU having signalled that other options 'remain'. Pardon the pun.

No don't, actually. It was fully intentional and highly appropriate...
 
Last edited:
So you're now attacking the fact that May's deal included a transition period? My memory of the time when this was the topical issue is that the main (only?) objections to it came from the real hardcore brexiteers.

Has this always been your position on the matter?

You seem somewhat befuddled. No one who supports staying in the EU would like May's deal, becuase it is significantly worse than staying in the EU.

Put that to oneside and weigh up the deal on its own mertits and leave and remain agree - it is a bad deal. What is there to like about it? We give away our (already limited) negotiating position and get zilch in return. It's worse as in the interim the UK gives away all control. Worse still there is no guarantee the interim would be an interim, it could be forever if the EU doesn't wish to agree our trade terms.

Are you hoping for a hard exit in 3 weeks time?
 
I think I can see where this is going...

The EU themselves have actually now killed off any lingering chance of May's deal getting through, which to me suggests they have their eyes on a bigger prize. Which is as I've suspected all along. Wavering MP's have now little or no incentive to back May's deal. When it was (briefly) framed as her deal vs. no deal only, they did. But now they can hold out, with the EU having signalled other options 'remain'. Pardon the pun.

No don't, actually. It was fully intentional and highly appropriate...

How should the EU have handled the request for an extension to a50?
 
You seem somewhat befuddled. No one who supports staying in the EU would like May's deal, becuase it is significantly worse than staying in the EU.

Put that to oneside and weigh up the deal on its own mertits and leave and remain agree - it is a bad deal. What is there to like about it? We give away our (already limited) negotiating position and get zilch in return. It's worse as in the interim the UK gives away all control. Worse still there is no guarantee the interim would be an interim, it could be forever if the EU doesn't wish to agree our trade terms.

Are you hoping for a hard exit in 3 weeks time?

I've never said it was a good deal. What I have said is that it might have been the best of a bad set of options in the circumstances that prevailed. I said just yesterday or the day before on here that my opinion on that wasn't fixed. I'm now moving back towards favouring no deal. Not that I think for a minute it will happen.

But not for the first time, you've avoided a specific point and tried to make it into a wider issue. I asked you whether you objected to a transition period at the time that it was negotiated. You haven't answered but that's fine, I suspect I already know ;)
 
How should the EU have handled the request for an extension to a50?

Their original response was fine with me. Short extension on condition of passing the deal. Did we even ask for the additional options, or have they just taken matters into their own hands there?
 
I think I can see where this is going...

The EU themselves have actually now killed off any lingering chance of May's deal getting through, which to me suggests they have their eyes on a bigger prize - which is as I've suspected all along. Wavering MP's have now little or no incentive to back May's deal. When it was (briefly) framed as her deal vs. no deal only, they did. But now they can hold out, with the EU having signalled other options 'remain'. Pardon the pun.

No don't, actually. It was fully intentional and highly appropriate...

Absolutely. The EU is massively gaslighting. They want us trapped in CU and SM and will bend everything to that end.
 
Their original response was fine with me. Short extension on condition of passing the deal. Did we even ask for the additional options, or have they just taken matters into their own hands there?
AKA negotiated in a negotiation and presented solutions and options?

Nah, can't be, the EU are intransigent.
 
Back