Theresa May (Vol.2)
Discussion
Wiccan of Darkness said:
Thanks for posting the link. That was one hell of a speech.
A very interesting one, too. Gove has shown that he is quite the orator, appearing statesmanlike and capable. I've always seen him as snakey and somewhat reptilian.
Theresa May is holding this poisoned chalice, brexit was always going to be toxic and her role was to create this illusion that after extensive negotiations, wrangling and a chaotic time, we were never going to be offered a good deal and the only route forward is to leave the EU with no deal. Politically in the longer term that will work out for the better, an entirely fresh cabinet, with a new PM will take us forward after we have left. Once the process is over, May will step down and Gove has shown himself to be capable of holding the premiership.
The referendum was pretty clear, remain or leave. The process for leaving and any deals struck were left to parliament, and the GE ensured we elected the MP's we wanted to undertake that process - a second referendum simply shows MP's were not up to the task they were elected for; consequently a second referendum is also a vote of no confidence in our elected MP's.
I've always thought that were I the PM, I would have ensured that all through the process, each and every MP was singing from the same hymn sheet. None of this dissent from the likes of Soubry, or calls for peoples votes, more GE's, no confidence votes and the such, it is impossible to say whether brexit or the brexit process has caused the most chaos. There was a momentous opportunity to unite the country behind a decision and move forward, but the failure to ensure MP's give the aura of a smooth process has caused great dissent. For whose benefit has this been, it sure as hell hasn't been for the benefit of the UK. The world has been watching, and the process has been uncharacteristically un-British - again to our detriment.
One of the things the UK does lead the world in, is a sense of fair play. That is why the referendum result will not be overturned, and on a world stage, any inward investment in to the UK has been met with this notion that regulatory and political frameworks will be adhered to. That is why the UK is chosen over, say Zimbabwe, or Russia, or wonderfully socialist France. Why invest in a country that will tax you to the hilt, or demand bribes, or instigate regulatory squeezes on inward investment? What will the word see if the UK ignores the referendum after all, and how does that reflect on the EU as well? Does the EU want to be seen as the monster that ensnares sovereign nations in its tentacles, and squeezes them until they choke? Invest in the UK and you know what you're getting.
Sadly, the chaotic process has tarnished that reputation and the UK can ill afford any further blemishes.
Gove, a passionate brexiteer, has shown he has what it takes to be PM in a post brexit world.
I think we will see a couple more speeches like that from Gove, further consolidating the notion of premiership.
But to watch the life and soul drain from Corbyn monoxide was utterly priceless. His next move will be a full scale political coup, driving tanks down Whitehall waving red hammer and sickle flags and hoping nobody notices the faded CCCP logo's on the gun barrels are badly camouflaged by rub-on transfers of Owen Jones as Che Guevara.
Good post.A very interesting one, too. Gove has shown that he is quite the orator, appearing statesmanlike and capable. I've always seen him as snakey and somewhat reptilian.
Theresa May is holding this poisoned chalice, brexit was always going to be toxic and her role was to create this illusion that after extensive negotiations, wrangling and a chaotic time, we were never going to be offered a good deal and the only route forward is to leave the EU with no deal. Politically in the longer term that will work out for the better, an entirely fresh cabinet, with a new PM will take us forward after we have left. Once the process is over, May will step down and Gove has shown himself to be capable of holding the premiership.
The referendum was pretty clear, remain or leave. The process for leaving and any deals struck were left to parliament, and the GE ensured we elected the MP's we wanted to undertake that process - a second referendum simply shows MP's were not up to the task they were elected for; consequently a second referendum is also a vote of no confidence in our elected MP's.
I've always thought that were I the PM, I would have ensured that all through the process, each and every MP was singing from the same hymn sheet. None of this dissent from the likes of Soubry, or calls for peoples votes, more GE's, no confidence votes and the such, it is impossible to say whether brexit or the brexit process has caused the most chaos. There was a momentous opportunity to unite the country behind a decision and move forward, but the failure to ensure MP's give the aura of a smooth process has caused great dissent. For whose benefit has this been, it sure as hell hasn't been for the benefit of the UK. The world has been watching, and the process has been uncharacteristically un-British - again to our detriment.
One of the things the UK does lead the world in, is a sense of fair play. That is why the referendum result will not be overturned, and on a world stage, any inward investment in to the UK has been met with this notion that regulatory and political frameworks will be adhered to. That is why the UK is chosen over, say Zimbabwe, or Russia, or wonderfully socialist France. Why invest in a country that will tax you to the hilt, or demand bribes, or instigate regulatory squeezes on inward investment? What will the word see if the UK ignores the referendum after all, and how does that reflect on the EU as well? Does the EU want to be seen as the monster that ensnares sovereign nations in its tentacles, and squeezes them until they choke? Invest in the UK and you know what you're getting.
Sadly, the chaotic process has tarnished that reputation and the UK can ill afford any further blemishes.
Gove, a passionate brexiteer, has shown he has what it takes to be PM in a post brexit world.
I think we will see a couple more speeches like that from Gove, further consolidating the notion of premiership.
But to watch the life and soul drain from Corbyn monoxide was utterly priceless. His next move will be a full scale political coup, driving tanks down Whitehall waving red hammer and sickle flags and hoping nobody notices the faded CCCP logo's on the gun barrels are badly camouflaged by rub-on transfers of Owen Jones as Che Guevara.
Corbyn monoxide
Vaud said:
I may be wrong, but that might just be protocol as the final speaker on the topic.
As it was a motion of non confidence it seems a bit of a strange thing to say. Maybe a Freudian slip. As much as I hate Gove it was certainly eloquent and witty. Compared to the the spluttering awfulness of Corbyn and May it was in a different league.
slow_poke said:
Albeit metaphorical, I couldn't think of a better description Corbyn's treatment!
Thoroughly deserved IMO
soupdragon1 said:
Did anyone notice when DUP Nigel Dodds got up to highlight that DUP votes got the govt over the line, another MP said thanks and handed over his credit card lol! (In reference to the £1B confidence and supply money)
that did make me chuckle as did the "Smells GREAT!" comment to Gove's Chanel reference!I'm at the point now where I'm seriously angered by May. I'm not at all convinced that she isn't hanging on purely for her own vanity or ego.
This issue is much bigger than one party and particularly one person, but no one can mount a credible opposition to any of it. It's a shambles. She knew when inviting the opposition to table a no-confidence motion that she would win it. Even Labour must have known she would win it. No one wants to preside over this shambles, but you can bet there are plenty that want to be known as the person who steered the country out of the mire.
The whole country seems to be paralysed by Brexit and May is unassailable simply through virtue of there being no credible opposition, and no one in her party that wants to take over now. She is not competent, and worse still she (and no doubt others) are fighting for their own personal and party, rather than the country. Even all of the Tories that could've ousted her realised that a GE would mean they might lose some money themselves, so none of them was prepared to sacrifice for the greater good.
We like to think of ourselves as enlightened but we're no different from the likes of the Republicans and Democrats fighting in the States, all of them - and us - fighting for their own careers and relevancy while the country burns in the background.
This issue is much bigger than one party and particularly one person, but no one can mount a credible opposition to any of it. It's a shambles. She knew when inviting the opposition to table a no-confidence motion that she would win it. Even Labour must have known she would win it. No one wants to preside over this shambles, but you can bet there are plenty that want to be known as the person who steered the country out of the mire.
The whole country seems to be paralysed by Brexit and May is unassailable simply through virtue of there being no credible opposition, and no one in her party that wants to take over now. She is not competent, and worse still she (and no doubt others) are fighting for their own personal and party, rather than the country. Even all of the Tories that could've ousted her realised that a GE would mean they might lose some money themselves, so none of them was prepared to sacrifice for the greater good.
We like to think of ourselves as enlightened but we're no different from the likes of the Republicans and Democrats fighting in the States, all of them - and us - fighting for their own careers and relevancy while the country burns in the background.
Trophy Husband said:
Can somebody explain to me how There's a Dismay was allowed to waste 5 weeks by deferring the vote carried out on Tuesday. It seems even more suspicious to me now given the result. Was that just vanity and ego or the need for a quiet Christmas?
Partly Parliament was in recess. That and she is running down the clock.We are already too late for a GE (in effect) or another referendum ahead of the exit date.
Trophy Husband said:
Can somebody explain to me how There's a Dismay was allowed to waste 5 weeks by deferring the vote carried out on Tuesday. It seems even more suspicious to me now given the result. Was that just vanity and ego or the need for a quiet Christmas?
She tried to use the delay to get the EU to offer a guarantee that the UK wouldn't get stuck in the backstop permanently with no rip cord, which seemed to be the biggest issue people had.The EU gave her a worthless bit of paper to that effect but wouldn't give her anything legally binding. Make of that what you will.
Elysium said:
Halb said:
seems the 'running down the clock' excuse is accepted by most talking heads.
Desperate.
And likely to be completely ineffective as the EU can simply extend the deadline to avoid no-deal. Desperate.
Have I missed something?
I thought that our position was a double whammy, both A50 and the withdrawal act effectively terminate our membership once the deadline is reached. How can the EU unilaterally extend the deadline?
amusingduck said:
Elysium said:
Halb said:
seems the 'running down the clock' excuse is accepted by most talking heads.
Desperate.
And likely to be completely ineffective as the EU can simply extend the deadline to avoid no-deal. Desperate.
Have I missed something?
I thought that our position was a double whammy, both A50 and the withdrawal act effectively terminate our membership once the deadline is reached. How can the EU unilaterally extend the deadline?
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_versio...
That would require the agreement of Parliament and the majority of MP's are against no deal (labour, plus some Tories, plus others). May is also against no-deal, so if they EU decide to do this she find it difficult to refuse.
In summary - her threat of no-deal has no teeth, because the EU can comfortably call her bluff.
768 said:
I don't think it can. I think it needs us and every last one of them to agree and that they've also said they won't extend it unless it looks like there's a plan that the UK are running with that they'll agree to too.
The EU can use emergency powers to extend it without explicit agreement from the other member states. Elysium said:
Section 3 of a50 allows them to extend it 'in agreement with the member state'.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_versio...
That would require the agreement of Parliament and the majority of MP's are against no deal (labour, plus some Tories, plus others). May is also against no-deal, so if they EU decide to do this she find it difficult to refuse.
In summary - her threat of no-deal has no teeth, because the EU can comfortably call her bluff.
the next time you are mcdonalds keep a hold of all the straws the drinks come with, just in case you run out .you can't have many more to clutch now https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_versio...
That would require the agreement of Parliament and the majority of MP's are against no deal (labour, plus some Tories, plus others). May is also against no-deal, so if they EU decide to do this she find it difficult to refuse.
In summary - her threat of no-deal has no teeth, because the EU can comfortably call her bluff.
wc98 said:
Elysium said:
Section 3 of a50 allows them to extend it 'in agreement with the member state'.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_versio...
That would require the agreement of Parliament and the majority of MP's are against no deal (labour, plus some Tories, plus others). May is also against no-deal, so if they EU decide to do this she find it difficult to refuse.
In summary - her threat of no-deal has no teeth, because the EU can comfortably call her bluff.
the next time you are mcdonalds keep a hold of all the straws the drinks come with, just in case you run out .you can't have many more to clutch now https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_versio...
That would require the agreement of Parliament and the majority of MP's are against no deal (labour, plus some Tories, plus others). May is also against no-deal, so if they EU decide to do this she find it difficult to refuse.
In summary - her threat of no-deal has no teeth, because the EU can comfortably call her bluff.
Does it not concern you that Mays entire negotiating strategy hinges on the EU and Parliament reaching agreement in the next few weeks to avoid no-deal, but that this is built on a fiction because the EU can avoid it anyway?
We are just wasting time.
Edited by Elysium on Thursday 17th January 20:12
Balmoral said:
amusingduck said:
How can the EU unilaterally extend the deadline?
They can't. Either side can ask for an extension but both sides have to agree. If we had any balls we'd be ensuring it was those with the trade surplus asking first.Have a read of section 3 of article 50.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff