Theresa May (Vol.2)

[Elysium]

JagLover said:

Rumours of another GE

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/why-conserva...

If the Tories had a manifesto commitment to "no deal" in such a GE, if an acceptable deal cannot be reached, and deselected those who wouldn't commit to that manifesto I could sort of see the point.

What May would probably do is have a GE with her deal as the proposed outcome and vagueness as to the outcome if that is voted down. On that basis they would likely find that the Tories poll rating of 40% is illusionary, based as it is on the possibility that the Tories might leave the EU in an acceptable manner.

May volunteered that she would not fight another election when the Tories had their confidence vote. As she shows no intention of resigning, this is the only way to get her to step down and allow space for a new leader. Otherwise, Tory rules prevent any leadership challenges for a year.

[Elysium]

loafer123 said:

Bill said:

And now this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/18/th...

Very odd article and purported reaction from the EU.

The vote was convincingly lost because of the Backstop, so she continues to ask for it’s removal/have a legal end date in order to have a chance of passing the WA.

Why are they so incredulous about that?

Perhaps they thought she might be serious about the 'cross party talks' she has just kicked off?

[bitchstewie]

I can literally imagine her on the phone to Merkel or Macron.

"Brexit means Brexit"

"But tell us what you want Mrs May"

"Brexit means Brexit"

"But what do you want Mrs May, tell us what can make this work for you?"

"No deal is better than a bad deal"

Just awful.

[Elysium]

bhstewie said:

I can literally imagine her on the phone to Merkel or Macron.

"Brexit means Brexit"

"But tell us what you want Mrs May"

"Brexit means Brexit"

"But what do you want Mrs May, tell us what can make this work for you?"

"No deal is better than a bad deal"

Just awful.

There is little point in the EU talking to her. From their perspective, she is asking for a deal that has no support here and will never succeed.

I imagine they see her as a total time waster. I know I would.

[Slagathore]

Elysium said:

bhstewie said:

I can literally imagine her on the phone to Merkel or Macron.

"Brexit means Brexit"

"But tell us what you want Mrs May"

"Brexit means Brexit"

"But what do you want Mrs May, tell us what can make this work for you?"

"No deal is better than a bad deal"

Just awful.

There is little point in the EU talking to her. From their perspective, she is asking for a deal that has no support here and will never succeed.

I imagine they see her as a total time waster. I know I would.

Is it not quite the opposite? There's no point in talking to the EU. They have made their position clear, the deal proposed is the best we will get. Their idea of changes are not what was promised for leaving the EU, so we won't agree with them.

May has gone back asking for a better deal than the one we have got, as it's clear it won't make it through parliament. What's wrong with that? Seems pretty clear whats on the table isn't ideal for both parties. She's rightly now trying to get a better deal, probably the deal they wanted all along.

Then it just goes round and round.

It doesn't matter who is negotiating with them, it would be the same. It's been mentioned before and suggested in the clip with Rees Mogg talking to Verhofstadt on a Youtube video. There is no economical reason they can't move on the deal, it is just political. They can't give us a good deal, because they don't want us to prosper after leaving.

[768]

Slagathore said:

Elysium said:

There is little point in the EU talking to her.

Is it not quite the opposite? There's no point in talking to the EU.

I think it's both, at least at this point. Time to get on with it.

[Mrr T]

JagLover said:

However that decision does still need to be approved by the ECJ.

Revocation does not need ECJ approval. The revocation would only go back to the ECJ if the UK or the EU refered it to them.

[NoNeed]

Elysium said:

bhstewie said:

I can literally imagine her on the phone to Merkel or Macron.

"Brexit means Brexit"

"But tell us what you want Mrs May"

"Brexit means Brexit"

"But what do you want Mrs May, tell us what can make this work for you?"

"No deal is better than a bad deal"

Just awful.

There is little point in the EU talking to her. From their perspective, she is asking for a deal that has no support here and will never succeed.

I imagine they see her as a total time waster. I know I would.

And yet remainers can't actually say what is wrong with the withdrawal agreement

[Elysium]

Mrr T said:

JagLover said:

However that decision does still need to be approved by the ECJ.

Revocation does not need ECJ approval. The revocation would only go back to the ECJ if the UK or the EU refered it to them.

Correct. It has been ruled that it is simply a case of giving notice in the correct form. A unilateral act on the part of the UK. Entirely in our control.

[johnxjsc1985]

NoNeed said:

And yet remainers can't actually say what is wrong with the withdrawal agreement

that's because it has the word "leave " in it.

[Salmonofdoubt]

NoNeed said:

And yet remainers can't actually say what is wrong with the withdrawal agreement

My take on it, from what I could digest when I tried reading it. Is that it's keep everything the same and we can work it out properly later.

If we're going to leave I'd like it to be clear from day 1 what the future relationship with the EU and ROW will look like.

[NoNeed]

Salmonofdoubt said:

NoNeed said:

And yet remainers can't actually say what is wrong with the withdrawal agreement

My take on it, from what I could digest when I tried reading it. Is that it's keep everything the same and we can work it out properly later.

If we're going to leave I'd like it to be clear from day 1 what the future relationship with the EU and ROW will look like.

I was talking of the withdrawal agreement, the future arrangements can't actually be decided until we have left (EU rule)

I have yet to hear what is actually wrong with the withdrawal agreement from a remainer

[davepoth]

JagLover said:

There was no realistic way of writing the legislation otherwise.

Just a point on this one - the legislation was originally written without the date, and it was amended in. This is the first link I could find that referred to it:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-with...

[Vanden Saab]

davepoth said:

JagLover said:

There was no realistic way of writing the legislation otherwise.

Just a point on this one - the legislation was originally written without the date, and it was amended in. This is the first link I could find that referred to it:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-with...

Originally there was no exit date. The government would decide the date in committee in which they have a majority. Remainers objected to this, in particular Kier Starmer was insistent that there must be an end date.
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-date-uk-law...

Labour described adding the exit date to the bill as a "humiliating cave in"

[glazbagun]

NoNeed said:

Salmonofdoubt said:

NoNeed said:

And yet remainers can't actually say what is wrong with the withdrawal agreement

My take on it, from what I could digest when I tried reading it. Is that it's keep everything the same and we can work it out properly later.

If we're going to leave I'd like it to be clear from day 1 what the future relationship with the EU and ROW will look like.

I was talking of the withdrawal agreement, the future arrangements can't actually be decided until we have left (EU rule)

I have yet to hear what is actually wrong with the withdrawal agreement from a remainer

I voted remain and don't like it for the same reason as most leavers- It could tie us to the EU indefinitely and removes the main benefit of leaving- drastic policy shifts to make the UK more competitive/ exploitable than the EU internationally.

From the remain side it is worse than remaining because it leaves us subject to the standards and decisions of the EU but without a shred of the influence we currently have to shape those changes, and removes/denigrates our influence on many European institutions.

Good Friday Agreement concerns strongly favour staying in the EU and making NI some kind of area of joint juristiction is the simplest I can think of, but obviously impossible for Unionists to accept. Frankly any agreement on that one will be tough and the Backstop isn't the least workable idea.

As has been said long before Mays deal was written down, a half-way-house is the worst of both worlds and the best of neither.

The one silver lining to the backstop is that we'd have cheaper access to the single market than we now have, which is why the EU should be motivated to let us go, but the backstop (and general tribal politics) seem to have overtaken debate since December.

[NoNeed]

glazbagun said:

I voted remain and don't like it for the same reason as most leavers- It could tie us to the EU indefinitely and removes the main benefit of leaving- drastic policy shifts to make the UK more competitive/ exploitable than the EU internationally.

From the remain side it is worse than remaining because it leaves us subject to the standards and decisions of the EU but without a shred of the influence we currently have to shape those changes, and removes/denigrates our influence on many European institutions.

Good Friday Agreement concerns strongly favour staying in the EU and making NI some kind of area of joint juristiction is the simplest I can think of, but obviously impossible for Unionists to accept. Frankly any agreement on that one will be tough and the Backstop isn't the least workable idea.

As has been said long before Mays deal was written down, a half-way-house is the worst of both worlds and the best of neither.

The one silver lining to the backstop is that we'd have cheaper access to the single market than we now have, which is why the EU should be motivated to let us go, but the backstop (and general tribal politics) seem to have overtaken debate since December.

But none of that waffle is to do with the withdrawal agreement


I want to know what page of the 500 pages is wrong.


People seem to only point at the future agreement 7 pages.


Can a remainer actually state what is wrong with any of the first 500 pages

[Elysium]

NoNeed said:

glazbagun said:

I voted remain and don't like it for the same reason as most leavers- It could tie us to the EU indefinitely and removes the main benefit of leaving- drastic policy shifts to make the UK more competitive/ exploitable than the EU internationally.

From the remain side it is worse than remaining because it leaves us subject to the standards and decisions of the EU but without a shred of the influence we currently have to shape those changes, and removes/denigrates our influence on many European institutions.

Good Friday Agreement concerns strongly favour staying in the EU and making NI some kind of area of joint juristiction is the simplest I can think of, but obviously impossible for Unionists to accept. Frankly any agreement on that one will be tough and the Backstop isn't the least workable idea.

As has been said long before Mays deal was written down, a half-way-house is the worst of both worlds and the best of neither.

The one silver lining to the backstop is that we'd have cheaper access to the single market than we now have, which is why the EU should be motivated to let us go, but the backstop (and general tribal politics) seem to have overtaken debate since December.

But none of that waffle is to do with the withdrawal agreement


I want to know what page of the 500 pages is wrong.


People seem to only point at the future agreement 7 pages.


Can a remainer actually state what is wrong with any of the first 500 pages

It’s very clear that the issue is the backstop. Which is still in draft in any version of the agreement I can find.

The concern seems aligned with the Brexiteers in that it would lock us into an arrangement without control. For leavers that binds us to the customs union for remainers the risk is that the U.K. itself could be split.

I was not initially concerned as it seems logical that the EU would want to stop the backstop situation from dragging on, but I assume the MPs who voted down the deal see their role as guardians of parliaments sovereignty and are prioritising that issue above all others

Edit to add that for labour the issue is clearly about the customs union. I don’t think we should leave it, but understand that the labour policy is leaving behind a lot of leave voters. On balance if I was a labour MP I would vote on party lines, but would be conscious of the problem.

Edited by Elysium on Saturday 19th January 13:10

[glazbagun]

NoNeed said:

glazbagun said:

From the remain side it is worse than remaining because it leaves us subject to the standards and decisions of the EU but without a shred of the influence we currently have to shape those changes, and removes/denigrates our influence on many European institutions.

But none of that waffle is to do with the withdrawal agreement

I want to know what page of the 500 pages is wrong.

People seem to only point at the future agreement 7 pages.

Can a remainer actually state what is wrong with any of the first 500 pages

I don't have it on my desk and havent skimmed it since December, but my above paragraph sums it up. The UK will need to abide by all EU single market rules, but will lose membership of its institutions. We give up our influence and our collaborations for little gain.

But I don't think you can seperate the Future Agreement when it's all going to go tgrough law as a bundle.

Edited by glazbagun on Saturday 19th January 13:46

[NoNeed]

Elysium said:

It’s very clear that the issue is the backstop. Which is still in draft in any version of the agreement I can find.

The concern seems aligned with the Brexiteers in that it would lock us into an arrangement - for leavers that binds is to the customs union for remainders the risk is that the U.K. itself could be split.

I was not initially concerned as it seems logical that the EU would want to stop the backstop situation from dragging on, but I assume the MPs who voted down the deal see their role as guardians of parliaments sovereignty.

So there is nothing wrong with the withdrawal agreement then, the first 500 pages you would happily for if you were an MP.


as for the future arrangements and back stop, why do remainers not want this? it is a remain position after all

[Elysium]

NoNeed said:

Elysium said:

It’s very clear that the issue is the backstop. Which is still in draft in any version of the agreement I can find.

The concern seems aligned with the Brexiteers in that it would lock us into an arrangement - for leavers that binds is to the customs union for remainders the risk is that the U.K. itself could be split.

I was not initially concerned as it seems logical that the EU would want to stop the backstop situation from dragging on, but I assume the MPs who voted down the deal see their role as guardians of parliaments sovereignty.

So there is nothing wrong with the withdrawal agreement then, the first 500 pages you would happily for if you were an MP.


as for the future arrangements and back stop, why do remainers not want this? it is a remain position after all

I explained why. I also question the idea that the backstop is somehow separate from the withdrawal agreement. It isn’t - the first page states:

With respect to the DRAFT PROTOCOL ON IRELAND/NORTHERN IRELAND, the negotiators agree that a legally operative version of the “backstop” solution for the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, in line with paragraph 49 of the Joint Report, should be agreed as part of the legal text of the Withdrawal Agreement, to apply unless and until another solution is found.