Theresa May (Vol.2)

Author
Discussion

powerstroke

8,814 posts

110 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
Elysium said:
powerstroke said:
What worries me is May doesn't seem to care about her deal putting the UK in a straight jacket economically,
and Corbyn monoxide wants the stupid woman to cut our negotiation chances to about zero by ruling out a no deal..
what a pair of s .....
The no-deal 'threat' is like someone holding a gun to their own head in a hostage situation. Ineffective at best, particularly when both sides know it isn't loaded.
Do you always talk out of your arse or do you let your mouth have a go occasionally !!!

p1stonhead

21,078 posts

117 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
powerstroke said:
Elysium said:
powerstroke said:
What worries me is May doesn't seem to care about her deal putting the UK in a straight jacket economically,
and Corbyn monoxide wants the stupid woman to cut our negotiation chances to about zero by ruling out a no deal..
what a pair of s .....
The no-deal 'threat' is like someone holding a gun to their own head in a hostage situation. Ineffective at best, particularly when both sides know it isn't loaded.
Do you always talk out of your arse or do you let your mouth have a go occasionally !!!
From what MP's keep saying - he is spot on. They wont let it happen. Therefore the circus around all of these practice scenarios (we cant even get these right!) is utterly laughable.

Durzel

8,260 posts

118 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
p1stonhead said:
From what MP's keep saying - he is spot on. They wont let it happen. Therefore the circus around all of these practice scenarios (we cant even get these right!) is utterly laughable.
Not to mention how much money is being pissed away on these performances.

SpeckledJim

20,850 posts

203 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
Elysium said:
powerstroke said:
What worries me is May doesn't seem to care about her deal putting the UK in a straight jacket economically,
and Corbyn monoxide wants the stupid woman to cut our negotiation chances to about zero by ruling out a no deal..
what a pair of s .....
The no-deal 'threat' is like someone holding a gun to their own head in a hostage situation. Ineffective at best, particularly when both sides know it isn't loaded.
No Deal brings us a mixture of upsides and downsides. I'm happy to concede that in the short-term, the nett effect is probably downside.

But for the EU, No Deal is basically pure downside, in the short- medium- and long-term.

It is an effective 'threat'.

Just look at the responses from Juncker, Macron and Merkel since the meaningful vote for the evidence.

frisbee

2,145 posts

60 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
Can't we section her or something for believing that her deal has any chance of being voted through on the second attempt?

Mojooo

10,767 posts

130 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
She must surely have to resign if her deal is voted down a second time.

Oilchange

5,936 posts

210 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
What makes you think that?

I mean, she's just won a vote of no confidence. She's golden until the next, a year to wait at least?

don'tbesilly

8,824 posts

113 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
Mojooo said:
She must surely have to resign if her deal is voted down a second time.
May came out on top of a motion in no confidence in her as leader of the Tory Party put forward by at least 48 of her own MP's.

The Tory Party with May as the leader came out on top in a motion of no confidence in her Govt put forward by Corbyn and the Labour Party.

I wouldn't use the words "surely" and "May" in any sentence that also includes the word "resign", I don't see it happening.

Mojooo

10,767 posts

130 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
Because there is only so long we can go with no progress - if she cannot do it then she will eventually have to move on and pass the buck to someone else.

She could however just revert to a no deal - at least that would be 'progress' - at the moment she seems to be wasting a lot of time not doing anything radical.

Oilchange

5,936 posts

210 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
Or, waiting until no deal becomes the only option.
Ultimately, if Parliament can't agree on a deal, no deal will be the result.

Elysium

4,268 posts

137 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
SpeckledJim said:
Elysium said:
powerstroke said:
What worries me is May doesn't seem to care about her deal putting the UK in a straight jacket economically,
and Corbyn monoxide wants the stupid woman to cut our negotiation chances to about zero by ruling out a no deal..
what a pair of s .....
The no-deal 'threat' is like someone holding a gun to their own head in a hostage situation. Ineffective at best, particularly when both sides know it isn't loaded.
No Deal brings us a mixture of upsides and downsides. I'm happy to concede that in the short-term, the nett effect is probably downside.

But for the EU, No Deal is basically pure downside, in the short- medium- and long-term.

It is an effective 'threat'.

Just look at the responses from Juncker, Macron and Merkel since the meaningful vote for the evidence.
Unfortunately, it’s not an effective threat.

It is a matter of some debate if the EU or the U.K. has the most to lose in a ‘no deal’ situation. I personally think it’s likely to be worse for us because any impacts will be spread across several individual member states.

Regardless - the EU know that the threat has no teeth, because if the moment comes they can simply grant an extension to the a50 notification period, which we would almost certainly agree.


NoNeed

14,950 posts

150 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
Oilchange said:
Or, waiting until no deal becomes the only option.
Ultimately, if Parliament can't agree on a deal, no deal will be the result.
This is how it should be, no deal will make the minds on both sides focus a little more

Oilchange

5,936 posts

210 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
Quite.
And it will make the EU realise that their deal was recognised, by everyone, as st.

NoNeed

14,950 posts

150 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
Oilchange said:
Quite.
And it will make the EU realise that their deal was recognised, by everyone, as st.
hopefully

paulrockliffe

9,815 posts

177 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
Elysium said:
Unfortunately, it’s not an effective threat.

It is a matter of some debate if the EU or the U.K. has the most to lose in a ‘no deal’ situation. I personally think it’s likely to be worse for us because any impacts will be spread across several individual member states.

Regardless - the EU know that the threat has no teeth, because if the moment comes they can simply grant an extension to the a50 notification period, which we would almost certainly agree.
It's not an effective threat because the EU do not take May seriously and have the likes of Blair telling them what's 'really' going on in the UK. Plus it hasn't been used as a threat at all by our 'good faith' negotiators.

I think the spread argument is over-played, though it's hard to say to what extent. Although the whole of the EU is big, most of our trade imbalance is concentrated in Germany, France etc, the economic picture is far less spread than the basic numbers would suggest.

That's obvious when you consider the impact on Ireland, they will be affected far more than the UK and any of the other 26 EU countries, especially if the EU start playing silly buggers as the impact on the UK gets passed on to Ireland on both imports and exports and at two borders. There are no cheap mitigations for Ireland.

Your last point is quite weak too, because we are leaving under UK Law on the 29th of March. Any change to that position is rapidly running out of time to change UK Law. Again the EU may be projecting their approaches to the Law on the UK, but over here the Government sits beneath the Law. While Parliament may change the law, it is bound by the law and cannot change it on a whim. It simply isn't the case that all can agree to extend.

SeeFive

7,531 posts

183 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
Elysium said:
SpeckledJim said:
Elysium said:
powerstroke said:
What worries me is May doesn't seem to care about her deal putting the UK in a straight jacket economically,
and Corbyn monoxide wants the stupid woman to cut our negotiation chances to about zero by ruling out a no deal..
what a pair of s .....
The no-deal 'threat' is like someone holding a gun to their own head in a hostage situation. Ineffective at best, particularly when both sides know it isn't loaded.
No Deal brings us a mixture of upsides and downsides. I'm happy to concede that in the short-term, the nett effect is probably downside.

But for the EU, No Deal is basically pure downside, in the short- medium- and long-term.

It is an effective 'threat'.

Just look at the responses from Juncker, Macron and Merkel since the meaningful vote for the evidence.
Unfortunately, it’s not an effective threat.

It is a matter of some debate if the EU or the U.K. has the most to lose in a ‘no deal’ situation. I personally think it’s likely to be worse for us because any impacts will be spread across several individual member states.

Regardless - the EU know that the threat has no teeth, because if the moment comes they can simply grant an extension to the a50 notification period, which we would almost certainly agree.
When you look at those 27 countries, many are basket cases that can’t afford to share it with the austerity measures that the EU have imposed on them already, and some of the power houses (e.g., Germany) are having their own beginning of economic difficulties.

So while the EU project central, as their past performance seems to show couldn’t give a toss, the 27 member states might just be ironing their yellow vests and starting to write misleading things on buses when the reality hits them, rather than Brussels.

And then in the big world of hypotheses, maybe the debt crisis bites on top of that... it ain’t pretty without the UK to share the bill in some way.

Vanden Saab

4,475 posts

24 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
Elysium said:
Unfortunately, it’s not an effective threat.

It is a matter of some debate if the EU or the U.K. has the most to lose in a ‘no deal’ situation. I personally think it’s likely to be worse for us because any impacts will be spread across several individual member states.

Regardless - the EU know that the threat has no teeth, because if the moment comes they can simply grant an extension to the a50 notification period, which we would almost certainly agree.
You might want to read this first from Sir Stephen Laws... https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2...
Stephen Laws said:
The Speaker has opened a Pandora’s box that now leaves him with a choice between two very risky courses of action. On the one hand, he could embark on a series of further decisions for which, and for the outcomes from which, respect amongst the uncommitted and those the decisions do not favour will increasingly diminish – as the bias in them becomes increasingly obvious. On the other, he could continue by remaining consistent with his “creative” interpretation of existing rules. The chaos likely to be released by the former approach is obvious. The chaos likely to result from the latter is obvious to anyone who searches the Commons Standing Orders for motions that have to be put “forthwith”, but consistency would now make amendable. Several have their origins in responses to Parnell’s tactics of “systematic obstruction”. The renewed opportunities for that which would be created by the Speaker’s ruling would be more likely, in practice, to favour those who prefer what is still legally the default option.
In other words, Remainers in parliament or the Government, due to their actions of the last week may find the very tactics they are using being used against them to thwart any attempt to delay or stop Brexit by a relatively small group of MPs...


Elysium

4,268 posts

137 months

Monday 21st January 2019
quotequote all
paulrockliffe said:
Elysium said:
Unfortunately, it’s not an effective threat.

It is a matter of some debate if the EU or the U.K. has the most to lose in a ‘no deal’ situation. I personally think it’s likely to be worse for us because any impacts will be spread across several individual member states.

Regardless - the EU know that the threat has no teeth, because if the moment comes they can simply grant an extension to the a50 notification period, which we would almost certainly agree.
It's not an effective threat because the EU do not take May seriously and have the likes of Blair telling them what's 'really' going on in the UK. Plus it hasn't been used as a threat at all by our 'good faith' negotiators.

I think the spread argument is over-played, though it's hard to say to what extent. Although the whole of the EU is big, most of our trade imbalance is concentrated in Germany, France etc, the economic picture is far less spread than the basic numbers would suggest.

That's obvious when you consider the impact on Ireland, they will be affected far more than the UK and any of the other 26 EU countries, especially if the EU start playing silly buggers as the impact on the UK gets passed on to Ireland on both imports and exports and at two borders. There are no cheap mitigations for Ireland.

Your last point is quite weak too, because we are leaving under UK Law on the 29th of March. Any change to that position is rapidly running out of time to change UK Law. Again the EU may be projecting their approaches to the Law on the UK, but over here the Government sits beneath the Law. While Parliament may change the law, it is bound by the law and cannot change it on a whim. It simply isn't the case that all can agree to extend.
Extending the article 50 deadline would be incredibly straightforward with no significant changes in UK law required:

1. The European Council can decide to extend the article 50 period 'in agreement with the member state'.

Article 50 said:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
2. The Withdrawal Act includes a simple mechanism to allow 'exit day' to be changed in response:

Withdrawl Act said:
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a)amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom



Edited by Elysium on Monday 21st January 23:55

B'stard Child

19,388 posts

196 months

Tuesday 22nd January 2019
quotequote all
Elysium said:
paulrockliffe said:
Elysium said:
Unfortunately, it’s not an effective threat.

It is a matter of some debate if the EU or the U.K. has the most to lose in a ‘no deal’ situation. I personally think it’s likely to be worse for us because any impacts will be spread across several individual member states.

Regardless - the EU know that the threat has no teeth, because if the moment comes they can simply grant an extension to the a50 notification period, which we would almost certainly agree.
It's not an effective threat because the EU do not take May seriously and have the likes of Blair telling them what's 'really' going on in the UK. Plus it hasn't been used as a threat at all by our 'good faith' negotiators.

I think the spread argument is over-played, though it's hard to say to what extent. Although the whole of the EU is big, most of our trade imbalance is concentrated in Germany, France etc, the economic picture is far less spread than the basic numbers would suggest.

That's obvious when you consider the impact on Ireland, they will be affected far more than the UK and any of the other 26 EU countries, especially if the EU start playing silly buggers as the impact on the UK gets passed on to Ireland on both imports and exports and at two borders. There are no cheap mitigations for Ireland.

Your last point is quite weak too, because we are leaving under UK Law on the 29th of March. Any change to that position is rapidly running out of time to change UK Law. Again the EU may be projecting their approaches to the Law on the UK, but over here the Government sits beneath the Law. While Parliament may change the law, it is bound by the law and cannot change it on a whim. It simply isn't the case that all can agree to extend.
Extending the article 50 deadline would be incredibly straightforward with no significant changes in UK law required:

1. The European Council can decide to extend the article 50 period 'in agreement with the member state'.

Article 50 said:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
2. The Withdrawal Act includes a simple mechanism to allow 'exit day' to be changed in response:

Withdrawl Act said:
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a)amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom



Edited by Elysium on Monday 21st January 23:55
Question is who will blink first or even will they!!!

Vanden Saab

4,475 posts

24 months

Tuesday 22nd January 2019
quotequote all
Elysium said:
paulrockliffe said:
Elysium said:
Unfortunately, it’s not an effective threat.

It is a matter of some debate if the EU or the U.K. has the most to lose in a ‘no deal’ situation. I personally think it’s likely to be worse for us because any impacts will be spread across several individual member states.

Regardless - the EU know that the threat has no teeth, because if the moment comes they can simply grant an extension to the a50 notification period, which we would almost certainly agree.
It's not an effective threat because the EU do not take May seriously and have the likes of Blair telling them what's 'really' going on in the UK. Plus it hasn't been used as a threat at all by our 'good faith' negotiators.

I think the spread argument is over-played, though it's hard to say to what extent. Although the whole of the EU is big, most of our trade imbalance is concentrated in Germany, France etc, the economic picture is far less spread than the basic numbers would suggest.

That's obvious when you consider the impact on Ireland, they will be affected far more than the UK and any of the other 26 EU countries, especially if the EU start playing silly buggers as the impact on the UK gets passed on to Ireland on both imports and exports and at two borders. There are no cheap mitigations for Ireland.

Your last point is quite weak too, because we are leaving under UK Law on the 29th of March. Any change to that position is rapidly running out of time to change UK Law. Again the EU may be projecting their approaches to the Law on the UK, but over here the Government sits beneath the Law. While Parliament may change the law, it is bound by the law and cannot change it on a whim. It simply isn't the case that all can agree to extend.
Extending the article 50 deadline would be incredibly straightforward with no significant changes in UK law required:

1. The European Council can decide to extend the article 50 period 'in agreement with the member state'.

Article 50 said:
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
2. The Withdrawal Act includes a simple mechanism to allow 'exit day' to be changed in response:

Withdrawl Act said:
A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a)amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom
Edited by Elysium on Monday 21st January 23:55
As I understand it your point two only applies if an agreement has been reached with the EU over leaving and passed as a bill in parliament and more time is needed to enact it. With respect to point number one. The agreement to extend Art50 has to be agreed with the EU and by secondary legislation in Parliament to include extending the date. It cannot be done purely by the government.
The whole thing has undergone so many changes though it is difficult to ascertain the current position...