Must Read Britain's May offers to quit to get her Brexit deal over the line

[stephenterry]

6 minutes ago, sanemax said:

No point in having another referendum , why would people vote Brexit again , when the last vote wasnt carried out ?

 

Because people can change their minds - that applies to both remainers and leavers - now having a much better idea of the Brexit outcome.

 

However, I suspect that the 'will of the people' as at today is more inclined to vote remain, especially the young who will have to carry the burden of a bad deal. 

[mrmicbkktxl]

2 hours ago, Topdoc said:

"That a sitting PM should stoop so low as to blackmail MP's just adds to the disgrace she has brought to the office. And if MP’s allow themselves to be blackmailed into passing her disastrous deal, it shows that they too have lost their moral compass."

D. Rising

Wrong,she should blackmail them and more.Those idiots voted out 8 options,that means they don't know what they want or not want.In this case it needs a hard hand what is telling them which direction to go

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, mrmicbkktxl said:

Wrong,she should blackmail them and more.Those idiots voted out 8 options,that means they don't know what they want or not want.In this case it needs a hard hand what is telling them which direction to go

The indicative voting hasn't been completed - and won't be until Monday. This was merely the first stage where 'appetite' was being tested. Now parliament know the results, they are more likely to reach a consensus. That's the idea...

 

As for May, who I have little time for, her ONLY approach is blackmailing parliament to accept HER deal, which by common criticism is worse than remaining in the EU. How that would benefit the people at large is not what was promised by her. 

 

[dick dasterdly]

16 minutes ago, sanemax said:

No point in having another referendum , why would people vote Brexit again , when the last vote wasnt carried out ?

 

I'm thinking about how MPs will vote.

 

Revoking article 50 would seriously piss off more voters than them deciding to hold another referendum?  At least if they choose to hold another referendum they could try to rely on the argument that they had left it up to the electorate?

[stephenterry]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm thinking about how MPs will vote.

 

Revoking article 50 would seriously piss off more voters than them deciding to hold another referendum?  At least if they choose to hold another referendum they could try to rely on the argument that they had left it up to the electorate?

That could be the final default position - which as far as May is concerned could be her best chance of getting her deal passed - even if it's delayed a few months. 

 

In the meantime, more businesses and people will leave the UK to stew in its own muck. 

[tomacht8]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

It does prove one thing though, anything is better than remaining in the EU. And Mrs Mays deal is so bad you have to fire yourself to get it through.

Here are the indicative votes from last night for those who have yet to see them.

 

 

Overall, not a single item finds approval.
The UK parliament knows what it does not want. Would be nice if after 3 years it would become clear what the UK wants.

 

Of all the alternatives, remaining in the Customs Union has the greatest potential 264:272.

That would also solve a lot of border problems, especially because

at times the UK has short-term not enough trained staff, infrastructure and technology available.

[JonnyF]

15 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm thinking about how MPs will vote.

 

Revoking article 50 would seriously piss off more voters than them deciding to hold another referendum?  At least if they choose to hold another referendum they could try to rely on the argument that they had left it up to the electorate?

I believe that any MP's from Leave constituencies that voted to revoke A50 would see their political careers finished. That's a lot of constituencies. I just don't think they would do it.

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

10 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

That could be the final default position - which as far as May is concerned could be her best chance of getting her deal passed - even if it's delayed a few months. 

 

In the meantime, more businesses and people will leave the UK to stew in its own muck. 

Depends on the options in any future referendum - if MPs decide to take this route.

 

If it was:-

1) Accept the eu/may deal

2) Leave immediately

 

I think the vote would go to 'leave immediately', as even remainers know that the eu/may 'deal' is the worst possible option?

Edited March 28, 2019 by dick dasterdly

[Jonnapat]

5 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

I have run out of metaphors for 'self-harm', so I will repeat my favourite;

 

Never before have I seen a country so utterly determined to shoot itself in the crotch.

 

It is pure speculation, but one has to wonder; how much better of a country would the UK have been if it hadn't wasted so much political time, so much political energy and so much political effort on this issue? What might it have achieved? What new structures might it have created? What new ideas might have bubbled up and been implemented? How much further ahead might it have gone?

 

All this energy, merely to make oneself smaller...

 

 

Great post, everything you say is true. All that has happened has been to appease hard right members of the Tory party. 

Biggest problem is that in getting rid of May, it could be Johnson, Gove or Rees Mogg take her place. Too awful to imagine. 

[JTXR]

The UK moves right past "global laughing stock" to whatever uncharted territory is on the other side of that.

[stephenterry]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Depends on the options in any future referendum - if MPs decide to go this way.

 

If it was:-

1) Accept the eu/may deal

2) Leave immediately

 

I think the vote would go to 'leave immediately', as even remainers know that the eu/may 'deal' is the worst possible option?

Pie in the sky thinking. Parliament will not let a no-deal occur, even if they have to pass legislation to prevent it. 

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, JTXR said:

The UK moves right past "global laughing stock" to whatever uncharted territory is on the other side of that.

Instead of relying on insults, perhaps you could post a reasoned opinion?

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, stephenterry said:

Pie in the sky thinking. Parliament will not let a no-deal occur, even if they have to pass legislation to prevent it. 

I've already said that I can't see MPs allowing 'no deal' to happen.

 

Hence the other points I've raised.

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, Jonnapat said:

Great post, everything you say is true. All that has happened has been to appease hard right members of the Tory party. 

Biggest problem is that in getting rid of May, it could be Johnson, Gove or Rees Mogg take her place. Too awful to imagine. 

Hard right members, what a joke, they are MPs who wish to carry out what the citizens of the UK voted for, that would make them the most democratic MPs in the HoC.

[JTXR]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Instead of relying on insults, perhaps you could post a reasoned opinion?

No, you don't get it.  We're all having a lark watching this brilliant disaster unfold as you all trade your "reasoned opinions."  Just carry on.  That's all we ask.

Edited March 28, 2019 by JTXR

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I've already said that I can't see MPs allowing 'no deal' to happen.

 

Hence the other points I've raised.

Read your post 68. It's pointless suggesting a referendum could include a no-deal option because you've already discounted it and, more to the point, so has parliament. 

[superal]

1 hour ago, sanemax said:

Its a mystery , no one here on Thai visa knows .

Why will TM be resigning and her deal gets passed ?

Could someone go and read the news and find out and report back to us ?

I am busy reading the 76 page UKIP manifesto 

I have to ask how the UK Brexit negotiations were planned . Was there an agreed UK strategy ? I think not , only the thoughts of TM and she did not allow her Brexit secretaries to perform their talents . If there was an inquest on the up to now events I think it would be asked as to why TM was at the helm as she was not a true leaver and therefore a conflict of interests that probably led to various concessions to the EU by her that gave the appearance of EU bully boy tactics .

Gonna get hit on this point but I have to ask why Nigel Farage was not involved in the negotiations in some capacity as he must be the most experienced candidate given his EU involvement .  

Final point , Rees Mogg yesterday stated that the TM deal was the only option to go for even though it was a bad deal but better than no deal and could be renegotiated in the next 2 years . What with TH saying that a no deal is better than a bad deal many times over , how can our politicians be trusted or believed ? They are put into government by their constituents and then decide to ignore their wishes . Which ever side you are on I think you will agree that UK bollotics is in need of a renaissance  .

[mrmicbkktxl]

27 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

The indicative voting hasn't been completed - and won't be until Monday. This was merely the first stage where 'appetite' was being tested. Now parliament know the results, they are more likely to reach a consensus. That's the idea...

 

As for May, who I have little time for, her ONLY approach is blackmailing parliament to accept HER deal, which by common criticism is worse than remaining in the EU. How that would benefit the people at large is not what was promised by her. 

 

Well since nobody in parliament knows what they want somebody must make decision.Since May is the PM.....If not it will end with hard Brexit.They had almost 3 years time to come up with something smart.Where are Farage and Johnson?

[dick dasterdly]

26 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Depends on the options in any future referendum - if MPs decide to take this route.

 

If it was:-

1) Accept the eu/may deal

2) Leave immediately

 

I think the vote would go to 'leave immediately', as even remainers know that the eu/may 'deal' is the worst possible option?

 

18 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I've already said that I can't see MPs allowing 'no deal' to happen.

 

Hence the other points I've raised.

 

13 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Read your post 68. It's pointless suggesting a referendum could include a no-deal option because you've already discounted it and, more to the point, so has parliament. 

Nothing to do with my opinion, 'cos as you so rightly point out - it's worth nothing.

 

We're now looking at the entertaining spectacle of MPs desperately trying to find a way to remain - without losing their seats at the next GE - and the best way they can vote to achieve this goal ????!

 

Sadly, it has nothing to do with the referendum result anymore - it's all about how they can save their <deleted>........

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by dick dasterdly

[JonnyF]

5 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

I have run out of metaphors for 'self-harm', so I will repeat my favourite;

 

Never before have I seen a country so utterly determined to shoot itself in the crotch.

 

It is pure speculation, but one has to wonder; how much better of a country would the UK have been if it hadn't wasted so much political time, so much political energy and so much political effort on this issue? What might it have achieved? What new structures might it have created? What new ideas might have bubbled up and been implemented? How much further ahead might it have gone?

 

All this energy, merely to make oneself smaller...

 

 

It's a long term project, a case of one step back and two or three steps forward. You don't seem to understand the fundamental reasons behind the vote. This isn't about 2 or 3% of GDP for 5 years, this is about the UK being in control of it's own destiny for the next several decades.

 

I'd be interested to know where you are from and if you would support your own country handing it's sovereignty over to unelected bureaucrats in another country/countries to make all the big decisions for you. While you're at it, you could also allow uncontrolled immigration from 27 other countries and allow them to fish in your waters, allow them to dictate who you can or cannot make trade deals with, just to save yourself a bit of time and energy and maybe a couple of % of GDP in the short term. Sound good?

 

[samran]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Until this week Brexiteers and very specifically Rees-Mogg and the ERG were vehemently opposed to TM’s deal, it was RM told us worse than remaining.

 

TM’s deal has not changed.

 

So how does TM offering to resign make her deal more acceptable?

 

A logical explanation from any Brexit supporter welcome.

A brexiter gets to be PM. Which is what they all really want anyway. Leaving the EU is just a means to an end. 

 

TM is goading them saying: okay, you do better.

 

The end result will be an unelectable Tory party if you had a JRM at the helm, or more of the same if you had a convenient Brexiter like Boris running things. 

Edited March 28, 2019 by samran

[samran]

13 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It's a long term project, a case of one step back and two or three steps forward. You don't seem to understand the fundamental reasons behind the vote. This isn't about 2 or 3% of GDP for 5 years, this is about the UK being in control of it's own destiny for the next several decades.

 

I'd be interested to know where you are from and if you would support your own country handing it's sovereignty over to unelected bureaucrats in another country/countries to make all the big decisions for you. While you're at it, you could also allow uncontrolled immigration from 27 other countries and allow them to fish in your waters, allow them to dictate who you can or cannot make trade deals with, just to save yourself a bit of time and energy and maybe a couple of % of GDP in the short term. Sound good?

 

No, you’d just be handing yourself over to the 183 country reps of the WTO, all unelected any many representing despots.

 

Their trading rules? lowest common denominator stuff. 

[stephenterry]

29 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

It's a long term project, a case of one step back and two or three steps forward. You don't seem to understand the fundamental reasons behind the vote. This isn't about 2 or 3% of GDP for 5 years, this is about the UK being in control of it's own destiny for the next several decades.

 

I'd be interested to know where you are from and if you would support your own country handing it's sovereignty over to unelected bureaucrats in another country/countries to make all the big decisions for you. While you're at it, you could also allow uncontrolled immigration from 27 other countries and allow them to fish in your waters, allow them to dictate who you can or cannot make trade deals with, just to save yourself a bit of time and energy and maybe a couple of % of GDP in the short term. Sound good?

 

Let's analyse this. First of all it's a case of three steps back resulting in maybe further steps back. The UK is in control over its destiny by virtue of being a member and having a veto vote in the EU. 

 

Uk's parliament is a sovereign state and has remained such throughout this Brexit process - even though it hasn't looked like this.

 

The Uk has the power to control immigration and has been doing so throughout. it's not true they must allow uncontrolled immigrants from the EU.

 

There cannot be a carte-blanche fishing anywhere and everywhere, by countries. Agreements have to be made and complied with.

 

The UK already not only trade deals with the 27 other EU countries, but also with 41 other countries outside by virtue of being a member. All of these trade deals would have to be renegotiated if the UK leaves the bloc. What is the sense of that? 

 

And that, my poster, would take a massive amount of time and energy to achieve, let alone see a fall in growth of GDP over a long term as provided by government statistics.

 

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by stephenterry
correction

[sanemax]

43 minutes ago, superal said:

Gonna get hit on this point but I have to ask why Nigel Farage was not involved in the negotiations in some capacity as he must be the most experienced candidate given his EU involvement .  

 

Farage is not part of the UK ruling Government , so he was unable to be a UK Gov representative , although he was in Brussels taking part in the debates as an independent M.E.Pp

[sanemax]

12 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

 

 

The Uk has the power to control immigration and has been doing so throughout. it's not true they must allow uncontrolled immigrants from the EU.

 

 

Isnt there European freedom of movement , giving all E.U member Countries the rights to go and live and work in any other E.U. Country ? 

[dick dasterdly]

8 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Farage is not part of the UK ruling Government , so he was unable to be a UK Gov representative , although he was in Brussels taking part in the debates as an independent M.E.Pp

Whilst I agree, the last person the brit. govt. wanted involved in negotiations is Farage!

 

Having said that, as far as I know he didn't offer.

[dick dasterdly]

11 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Isnt there European freedom of movement , giving all E.U member Countries the rights to go and live and work in any other E.U. Country ? 

Grouse said a while ago that this is not the case, and that the brit. govt. could have applied restrictions.

 

I've no idea whether this is true or not.

[sanemax]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Whilst I agree, the last person the brit. govt. wanted involved in negotiations is Farage!

 

Having said that, as far as I know he didn't offer.

Members of the ruling Conservative party elect Ministers from within the Party to be Prime Minister and the other Ministers vote on who they want  , as Ferage isnt a member of the Conservative Party , he was unable to stand for election leadership

[soalbundy]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Until this week Brexiteers and very specifically Rees-Mogg and the ERG were vehemently opposed to TM’s deal, it was RM told us worse than remaining.

 

TM’s deal has not changed.

 

So how does TM offering to resign make her deal more acceptable?

 

A logical explanation from any Brexit supporter welcome.

Brexiteers have two choices, not leaving or not really leaving.

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, sanemax said:

Members of the ruling Conservative party elect Ministers from within the Party to be Prime Minister and the other Ministers vote on who they want  , as Ferage isnt a member of the Conservative Party , he was unable to stand for election leadership

I'm not talking about Farage as PM - just as the lead negotiator.

 

I'm sure they could have made an exception (even though he wasn't part of the tory party), as Farage was the most obvious person to lead negotiations to leave the eu.