Theresa May (Vol.2)

[olimain]

bhstewie said:

I'm sure most people would have thought "What if the things I need to buy to live cost more?" when weighing up how to vote.

You did say "If it's horrendous we then campaign to rejoin" which suggests you acknowledge there could be an impact.

Belief doesn't pay bills

Sure, and I defined what I thought horrendous would be - however I didn’t buy in to those forecasts then and I don’t buy in to them now (and currently I’m 1-0 up ). I ultimately think the long term cost of living will remain broadly the same or come down compared to wages though of course we are at a time of unprecedented lows in interest rates so will expect them to rise over the next 5 few years whether we remain or leave.

You seem to want me to put a figure on it though so 20% for 5 years. No I don’t think it’s likely. No I don’t want it to happen. No I don’t think everyone has the same figure yes I think the country would be in very bad shape if costs went up that amount. It is meaningless. Just as meaningless as if I said to you “Have you been happy that you’ve been paying x% more for clothes and food due to tariffs and productivity is y% lower than it should be as we’ve relied on cheap labour to boost GDP”. It’s pointless leave vs remain rhetoric and surely we can agree we’ve all had enough of that!

All these numbers can be argued either way with scraps of evidence to support either position. Really for me it comes down to not supporting the vision and clearly defined aims of the EU. Some people want more government, some people want less. Some think the Eurozone has a big problem looming, some think it will be swept under the carpet. I’m not one of these people who thinks Remainers are thick snowflakes who believe everything the govt tells them nor do I get on board with the “Leave at all costs and let’s declare war on France to celebrate” crowd (I’d certainly remain over May’s deal for example). I just don’t buy in to the EU being that great a deal for the UK and certainly not the predictions of doom - especially as we have a predominantly service-based industry and there isn’t really a single market for that.

I get that people want to remain, totally understand it. I’m in my mid 30s, went to a good university and live in London - virtually everyone I know voted to remain! What I don’t get is all this stuff about us being so much better informed so we should vote again. Why do people try and dress it up - just say you want to overturn the result! Everyone knows it’s the case - it’s been the same for two years. I have a lot more respect for people who say “I still think it’s a st idea and too much of a risk for me, I want it undone”.

[frisbee]

saaby93 said:

frisbee said:

saaby93 said:

JagLover said:

If the WA were ever signed it would only be the beginning.

Of course
We're at a turning point and need to move on from here
It needs a beginning, otherwise we stay where we are

Flapping your arms and running face first into a 6 foot spike mounted on the wall next to the door isn't leaving.

May's deal is a turd, it is the worst parts of leaving and staying and will mire the UK in a stinking swamp for years, anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

Nice rant but youd have to make a case for it

But you demonstrate my final point so beautifully in each and every one of your posts.

So what could I possibly add.

[don'tbesilly]

Derek Smith said:

Tuna said:

Bill said:

s2art said:

Nope. Everyone was told in no uncertain terms that we would be leaving the EU, the SM, the CU and the remit of the ECJ. It couldnt have been clearer, and that precludes the Norway option (but not Canada+)

That's irrelevant as it was dismissed as project Fear.

No. That was agreed and accepted by most Leavers as a fact. The Leave campaign agreed that leaving meant SM, CU and specifically the ECJ. Even the EU made it clear that you cannot 'cherry pick' from the four freedoms. No-one called leaving the CU etc. project fear.

Project Fear was the claim that choosing that route would mean an instant 'cliff edge' recession the moment the vote was called, 100,000 job losses and an emergency budget. Leave said that such predictions were 'made up' to scare people into voting to Remain.

So the leavers believed the remain propaganda and not the lies of the leave campaign. It's logic captain, but not as we know it.

I didn't believe the rubbish Johnson et al put out. If I had I might suggest I would only have myself to blame. I didn't believe that Johnson and Farage wanted the Norwegian option that they mentioned, not through any deep political inside information but because they had a history of saying things they did not believe in.

So you believed Cameron/Osborne/Carney/Lagarde/Obama et al.

You must have been relieved that the recession in Qtr 3 of 2016 never came about, nor did the surge in house repossessions occur as Osborne suggested would happen as a result of ever increasing mortgage rates.

The list is far from exhaustive but this argument has been done to death for the last 30 odd months,it's a pointless and futile round and round argument.

No doubt the inevitable "The UK hasn't left yet" will be incoming within minutes.

[Crackie]

kurt535 said:

I can only think of one person on here who had the honesty to say how he disliked the volume of migrants coming into the country meaning he favoured brexit. I have respect for him for that.

The rest of you pretend it wasn't your primary reason for voting out. Overwhelmingly it was.

You are

kurt535 said:

If it wasn't then i would have read in the past two years critical analysis from one of you on the genuine cost of brexit to our country's industry, investment, GDP, inflation currency, CoL, NHS, et al. I haven't.

There is some heavyweight critical reasoning going on there...…..oh yes indeed. How about you crack on and give us your critical analysis of the genuine cost of Brexit instead and explain just how disastrous it will be. 1 year, 5 year, 2030 and 2050 projections will be fine. Please provide Norway, Canada, Chequers, Current May deal, Davis' pre Chequers deal, WTO, BRINO options.

kurt535 said:

None of you have ever constructed a cognitive debate on the current and predicted financial losses/ gains for this country..

Probably for the same reasons that remainers can't critically analyse the genuine cost & financial losses/gains of staying in the EU .

kurt535 said:

The reason - you dont know how to or want to because it doesn't affect you. .

The reason - Brexiteers understand it would be futile. The fact you think it would be a worthwhile exercise is amusing.

kurt535 said:

And that's the rub; this forum is overwhelmingly populated by people who imagine they are patriots but who have actually done very little for the country they allegedly love so much.

What are you babbling on about?

kurt535 said:

I should add, TM, like or loathe her, is actually standing up and wading through the mire because the alleged patriot brexiteers ran out of steels so, rather like this forum, they can only bh catch phrases from the sidelines rather than get dirty themselves.

Edited by kurt535 on Thursday 13th December 15:28

aaand breathe.

[paulrockliffe]

So on Tuesday May asked Tusk for legal assurances that the backstop could only last for a year.



How do we think that went down?

Unless she said, it's that or no deal see you later, which she didn't, she's properly lost the plot now.

Now she's asking for a legal guarantee of a start date for the future relationship. The one she has spent the last 12 months not negotiating the detail of.

I'm all out of rofls now, but yeah. Absolutely off her tree.

And 200 MPs have confidence in this approach.

[paulrockliffe]

It's OK, I found a few more:



Unbelievable!

[saaby93]

paulrockliffe said:

So on Tuesday May asked Tusk for legal assurances that the backstop could only last for a year.



How do we think that went down?

Unless she said, it's that or no deal see you later, which she didn't, she's properly lost the plot now.

Now she's asking for a legal guarantee of a start date for the future relationship. The one she has spent the last 12 months not negotiating the detail of.

I'm all out of rofls now, but yeah. Absolutely off her tree.

And 200 MPs have confidence in this approach.

What would you ask for?

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

I'm not suggesting it's looking bad for Theresa May, but Paul Gascoigne has just arrived at 10 Downing Street with a fishing rod and a cooked chicken.

[paulrockliffe]

saaby93 said:

What would you ask for?

There's no point in asking for anything, there's nothing to be gained by asking. And no point in asking for things that don't address all the other reasons why her deal won't get through Parliament. I would resign, admit my failings and let someone that can carry an alternative approach with credibility take over.

The only way to get any changes now, is to put no deal on the table in a credible way, which she cannot now do. It would be better not to be having to start from this position though if I'm being honest.

What would you ask for?

[saaby93]

paulrockliffe said:

I would resign, admit my failings and let someone that can carry an alternative approach with credibility take over.

Why wouldnt you offer that credible alternative approach yourself?
What would it be?

[paulrockliffe]

saaby93 said:

paulrockliffe said:

I would resign, admit my failings and let someone that can carry an alternative approach with credibility take over.

Why wouldnt you offer that credible alternative approach yourself?
What would it be?

Because I have no credibility having pissed it up the wall by saying things I didn't mean all the time. I've said "No deal is better than a bad deal" so many times that it's just words now and having admitted in Parliament in Monday that my idea of ramping up preparations is sending out a few letters, I don't think I can convince anyone that I have any cards left to play.

As ever you didn't answer the question?

[saaby93]

paulrockliffe said:

Because I have no credibility having pissed it up the wall by saying things I didn't mean all the time. I've said "No deal is better than a bad deal" so many times

Fair point
The issue is youre confusing May's deal with a bad deal
Its the middle ground between the ERG style Brexit and Remain
It's Brexit with a trade and border deal
If its better than no deal, it's also better than a bad deal.
Let's see what tweeks come back to try to satisfy the DUP, but all it has to do is satisfy a cross party majority
It ought to satisfy the SNP as it's better on fishing than Remain if they can give up on party politics
Nothing happening now until January anyways so the pressure off

[Derek Smith]

don'tbesilly said:

Derek Smith said:

Tuna said:

Bill said:

s2art said:

Nope. Everyone was told in no uncertain terms that we would be leaving the EU, the SM, the CU and the remit of the ECJ. It couldnt have been clearer, and that precludes the Norway option (but not Canada+)

That's irrelevant as it was dismissed as project Fear.

No. That was agreed and accepted by most Leavers as a fact. The Leave campaign agreed that leaving meant SM, CU and specifically the ECJ. Even the EU made it clear that you cannot 'cherry pick' from the four freedoms. No-one called leaving the CU etc. project fear.

Project Fear was the claim that choosing that route would mean an instant 'cliff edge' recession the moment the vote was called, 100,000 job losses and an emergency budget. Leave said that such predictions were 'made up' to scare people into voting to Remain.

So the leavers believed the remain propaganda and not the lies of the leave campaign. It's logic captain, but not as we know it.

I didn't believe the rubbish Johnson et al put out. If I had I might suggest I would only have myself to blame. I didn't believe that Johnson and Farage wanted the Norwegian option that they mentioned, not through any deep political inside information but because they had a history of saying things they did not believe in.

So you believed Cameron/Osborne/Carney/Lagarde/Obama et al.

You must have been relieved that the recession in Qtr 3 of 2016 never came about, nor did the surge in house repossessions occur as Osborne suggested would happen as a result of ever increasing mortgage rates.

The list is far from exhaustive but this argument has been done to death for the last 30 odd months,it's a pointless and futile round and round argument.

No doubt the inevitable "The UK hasn't left yet" will be incoming within minutes.

You guess at what I believed. I merely commented on what a previous poster where he suggested 'everyone was told . . . no uncertain terms . . . leaving the EU, the SM, the CU and the remit of the ECJ. It couldn’t [sic] have been clearer, and that precludes the Norway option (but not Canada+) . My point was that this was from the remain campaign. The official leave campaign stated, in no uncertain terms, that the Norwegian and Icelandic options were possibilities.

Do you wish to comment on my post rather than putting words in my mouth?

[paulrockliffe]

saaby93 said:

air point
The issue is youre confusing May's deal with a bad deal

I have no words for how ridiculous that is.

You should pop down to Westminster and explain that to the 400odd MPs that agree with me, you might be May's best hope in all this.

[Ayahuasca]

As it is the Theresa May thread rather than the Brexit thread, may I say that I think she has been a terrible, terrible negotiator. I do sort of admire her doggedness, and she has a st job to do, and she is doing what she thinks is right, so some kudos there, but by god she is a bad negotiator. And I hate the way she is always pictured smiling and laughing with the EU negotiators, when she ought to be snarling at them.

[saaby93]

Ayahuasca said:

As it is the Theresa May thread rather than the Brexit thread, may I say that I think she has been a terrible, terrible negotiator. I do sort of admire her doggedness, and she has a st job to do, and she is doing what she thinks is right, so some kudos there, but by god she is a bad negotiator. And I hate the way she is always pictured smiling and laughing with the EU negotiators, when she ought to be snarling at them.

Yes Boris or Nigel would have come away with a much better deal using that approach
What would it have been

[Nickgnome]

Ayahuasca said:

As it is the Theresa May thread rather than the Brexit thread, may I say that I think she has been a terrible, terrible negotiator. I do sort of admire her doggedness, and she has a st job to do, and she is doing what she thinks is right, so some kudos there, but by god she is a bad negotiator. And I hate the way she is always pictured smiling and laughing with the EU negotiators, when she ought to be snarling at them.

She doesn’t actually do the negotiation. Yes he will set parameters but the trade negotiators, remember we did not have any two years ago, will be made up of civil servants and possibly a few contracted in negotiators. It would be good to se the make up of the whole team but it may not be available to the public.

I think your last sentence is pointless. Negotiations are about principal and finding common ground. Being angry will result in stalemate. I was a bit that way many years ago until trained properly in negotiation. Be under no illusion though it is a grind.

[saaby93]

paulrockliffe said:

saaby93 said:

air point
The issue is youre confusing May's deal with a bad deal

I have no words for how ridiculous that is.

You should pop down to Westminster and explain that to the 400odd MPs that agree with me, you might be May's best hope in all this.

650 MPs in parliament. How do you know your 400 odd isnt closer to 320?

ETA Sorry do SInn Fein and the Speaker not vote? If so there are 642 voting MPs

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 13th December 22:01

[thetrickcyclist]

saaby93 said:

Yes Boris or Nigel would have come away with a much better deal using that approach
What would it have been

Your single minded fixation is to be admired.

[paulrockliffe]

saaby93 said:

50 MPs in parliament. How do you know your 400 odd isnt closer to 320?

Dear god, what does it matter how many MPs you need to convince, most of them disagree with you that's what matters.

But, 317 minus 117 is 200. This isn't rocket science. None of the 117 would have voted for May's deal if she'd brought it to a vote, some of the 200 wouldn't vote for it either, so I was being generous.

You still haven't answered my question?