Theresa May (Vol.2)
Discussion
A few posters believe that the DUP don't want a hard border between NI and ROI. Despite what the DUP say, I believe they do want a hard border, or at least would be happy with one. Although they are dyed in the wool malcontents, anything that brings them closer to 1921 makes them happy.
What does one have to do to be expelled from the Conservative party?
Rees-Mogg is reported as follows by the Beeb:
"Jacob Rees-Mogg has warned fellow Tory MPs that if they don't ditch Theresa May now she will lead them into the next election, scheduled for 2022.
Few Tories thought this was a "good idea", the Brexiteer MP suggested.
Mr Rees-Mogg wants to oust the PM over her EU withdrawal agreement but has so far failed to get enough colleagues to back his call for a no confidence vote."
This might be acceptable campaigning (just) within the confines of a leadership contest, but there is no leadership contest. This is a simple attempt to stir up dissent and rebellion in the party.
May's parliamentary majority doesn't permit her the luxury of expelling any of her MPs, I suspect, but nonetheless old JRM must surely have marked his card with that little outburst. Governor of the Falkland Islands perhaps? Transported there in a sealed crate if necessary...
Rees-Mogg is reported as follows by the Beeb:
"Jacob Rees-Mogg has warned fellow Tory MPs that if they don't ditch Theresa May now she will lead them into the next election, scheduled for 2022.
Few Tories thought this was a "good idea", the Brexiteer MP suggested.
Mr Rees-Mogg wants to oust the PM over her EU withdrawal agreement but has so far failed to get enough colleagues to back his call for a no confidence vote."
This might be acceptable campaigning (just) within the confines of a leadership contest, but there is no leadership contest. This is a simple attempt to stir up dissent and rebellion in the party.
May's parliamentary majority doesn't permit her the luxury of expelling any of her MPs, I suspect, but nonetheless old JRM must surely have marked his card with that little outburst. Governor of the Falkland Islands perhaps? Transported there in a sealed crate if necessary...
Greg66 said:
What does one have to do to be expelled from the Conservative party?
Rees-Mogg is reported as follows by the Beeb:
"Jacob Rees-Mogg has warned fellow Tory MPs that if they don't ditch Theresa May now she will lead them into the next election, scheduled for 2022.
Few Tories thought this was a "good idea", the Brexiteer MP suggested.
Mr Rees-Mogg wants to oust the PM over her EU withdrawal agreement but has so far failed to get enough colleagues to back his call for a no confidence vote."
This might be acceptable campaigning (just) within the confines of a leadership contest, but there is no leadership contest. This is a simple attempt to stir up dissent and rebellion in the party.
May's parliamentary majority doesn't permit her the luxury of expelling any of her MPs, I suspect, but nonetheless old JRM must surely have marked his card with that little outburst. Governor of the Falkland Islands perhaps? Transported there in a sealed crate if necessary...
I'd bet he owns a few penguin suits as well.Rees-Mogg is reported as follows by the Beeb:
"Jacob Rees-Mogg has warned fellow Tory MPs that if they don't ditch Theresa May now she will lead them into the next election, scheduled for 2022.
Few Tories thought this was a "good idea", the Brexiteer MP suggested.
Mr Rees-Mogg wants to oust the PM over her EU withdrawal agreement but has so far failed to get enough colleagues to back his call for a no confidence vote."
This might be acceptable campaigning (just) within the confines of a leadership contest, but there is no leadership contest. This is a simple attempt to stir up dissent and rebellion in the party.
May's parliamentary majority doesn't permit her the luxury of expelling any of her MPs, I suspect, but nonetheless old JRM must surely have marked his card with that little outburst. Governor of the Falkland Islands perhaps? Transported there in a sealed crate if necessary...
Greg66 said:
May's parliamentary majority doesn't permit her the luxury of expelling any of her MPs, I suspect, but nonetheless old JRM must surely have marked his card with that little outburst. Governor of the Falkland Islands perhaps? Transported there in a sealed crate if necessary...
How dare he criticise the architect of this faultless deal?!Really????
esxste said:
Or, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the politics of NI, and the arrogance to assume that everyone in NI will go along with whatever the UK Government decide.
Given the violence of The Troubles, it is far from hyperbole to say peoples lives are at risk if the NI issue is not handled properly.
That's a particularly offensive interpretation of what I said.Given the violence of The Troubles, it is far from hyperbole to say peoples lives are at risk if the NI issue is not handled properly.
There is a (subtle) difference between handling the NI issue properly, and putting your government in a position where you cannot even attempt to negotiate a stronger position for the country as a whole.
Tuna said:
Greg66 said:
May's parliamentary majority doesn't permit her the luxury of expelling any of her MPs, I suspect, but nonetheless old JRM must surely have marked his card with that little outburst. Governor of the Falkland Islands perhaps? Transported there in a sealed crate if necessary...
How dare he criticise the architect of this faultless deal?!Really????
If so, your “Really????” is misplaced.
esxste said:
You can't compare the Scottish with NI. The situations are different. Scotland joined with England as a Union of crowns; its nominally a more equal relationship. Some Scots want Independence,some Scots wanted to stay in the Union. They (mostly) all see themselves and each other as Scottish, and thus have an equal say.
NI is different because it is the result of England/Britain invading Ireland and the events that unfolded after that. Before the RoI gained independence, the Irish considered themselves an occupied nation. In Northern Ireland, you have people who consider themselves Irish - the republicans. They still consider Britain an occupying power. They cannot democratically get what they want in a referendum, because the Unionists, mostly descendants of British colonists, are in the majority and they consider themselves British. The Republicans want NI returned to RoI. Neither side wants to become an independent nation. The problem is further complicated by the time period involved... most Unionists are many generations down from the original colonists. They and they're families have been there 100's of years now, and feel they have just as much right to be there and get what they want as the Republicans do.
It can't be considered a UK internal issue, because one of side the argument do not consider themselves to be British. That's why the GFA involves the RoI.
Fair points NI is different because it is the result of England/Britain invading Ireland and the events that unfolded after that. Before the RoI gained independence, the Irish considered themselves an occupied nation. In Northern Ireland, you have people who consider themselves Irish - the republicans. They still consider Britain an occupying power. They cannot democratically get what they want in a referendum, because the Unionists, mostly descendants of British colonists, are in the majority and they consider themselves British. The Republicans want NI returned to RoI. Neither side wants to become an independent nation. The problem is further complicated by the time period involved... most Unionists are many generations down from the original colonists. They and they're families have been there 100's of years now, and feel they have just as much right to be there and get what they want as the Republicans do.
It can't be considered a UK internal issue, because one of side the argument do not consider themselves to be British. That's why the GFA involves the RoI.
My UK History is only what I've read myself rather than taught, having been raised abroad. Still, so what you are in essence suggesting, is that the NI issue is one of Great Britain's own making historically via invasion. Therefore, the people of Great Britain should be sensitive to the problems in NI and respect that if they took NI into the EU willingly as part of the UK, then to extract NI unwillingly is somewhat of a major problem. The EU's in the extent of ROI and the GFA, but more GB's as to how to deal with the UK (and the GFA) as a whole when wanting to Brexit.
So...for GB to extract the whole of the UK from the EU...it ought to have NI's and ROI's permission first? If that is refused, then GB cannot leave...
Obviously London won't want to pander to NI as much as that but that is the dilemma it faces to avoid a bloodbath in NI - it has to resolve a NI/ROI Border issue that isn't really replicated anywhere else in the EU and its trading partners so there is no template to follow. Whilst easy for me and other Britons to see it as a 'silly issue' it really is very serious and one of GB's own making. It can't drag NI around at will from one Treaty to another without first ensuring it is perfectly happy to do so.
I'm still trying to understand so bear with me but is that a reasonable summary? Happy to be wrong as I've assumed it was 'easier' than that and Max Fac and a bit of Policing should be accepted as 'reasonable'.
Greg66 said:
I take it you can understand the difference between “criticise” and “call for the removal of”.
If so, your “Really????” is misplaced.
Strident criticism is ok by me. Or is he meant to tut politely and hope May will suddenly, of her own volition, reverse course?If so, your “Really????” is misplaced.
Or is it only Remainers who're allowed to protest?
Tuna said:
I'll agree with this - our negotiators allowed it to become a sticking point, and with May's badly judged election, the DUP ended up with more symbolic power than they've had in a long time. Personally I'm of the opinion that the border could be respected with minimal visible or physical checks, but others are more cynical ("it could never be done! change! woe!").
The UK negotiators should have been far more forceful in pushing for such solutions within Ireland, but the impression I get is that slightly too many of the negotiating team and those in the civil service are of the "computer says no" variety.
Consequently, the EU has found a weak point, and some of the nuttier Remainers have seized on the very existence of Ireland as an immovable block to ever leaving Europe.
Yes, the NI issue does come across as far more complicated than it need be to my mind; albeit complicated nonetheless. The UK negotiators should have been far more forceful in pushing for such solutions within Ireland, but the impression I get is that slightly too many of the negotiating team and those in the civil service are of the "computer says no" variety.
Consequently, the EU has found a weak point, and some of the nuttier Remainers have seized on the very existence of Ireland as an immovable block to ever leaving Europe.
It definitely should have been sorted out before heading off to the EU for negotiations. TM's G.E. and the rise of DUP has really screwed up the UK Negotiators and presented a gaping wound to worry and take advantage of; the EU and NI have a very big Political and Civil Peace weapon that should have been blunted before Article 50. In my opinion.
Tuna said:
Greg66 said:
I take it you can understand the difference between “criticise” and “call for the removal of”.
If so, your “Really????” is misplaced.
Strident criticism is ok by me. Or is he meant to tut politely and hope May will suddenly, of her own volition, reverse course?If so, your “Really????” is misplaced.
Or is it only Remainers who're allowed to protest?
Calling for the removal of your party leader *and* calling on others to come forward and join you is very different.
It’s obvious you get this but your admiration for JRM and dislike for TM has taken your objectivity from you.
For someone who claims not to be a Leaver it’s notable that you characterise things you disagree with as Remainerism.
Greg66 said:
Tuna said:
Greg66 said:
May's parliamentary majority doesn't permit her the luxury of expelling any of her MPs, I suspect, but nonetheless old JRM must surely have marked his card with that little outburst. Governor of the Falkland Islands perhaps? Transported there in a sealed crate if necessary...
How dare he criticise the architect of this faultless deal?!Really????
If so, your “Really????” is misplaced.
Greg66 said:
Calling for the removal of your party leader *and* calling on others to come forward and join you is very different.
TBH he is using the rules in an entirely proper way. He doesn't owe the leader of the party any more loyalty than he feels able to give. That's the beautifully delicate feature of the political system which ensures one person doesn't get an overly firm hand on the levers of power.And there shouldn't be any talk of retribution - he is being loyal to his beliefs and acting within party rules. Just because he is a critic of the current PM isn't an issue. It is the PMs responsibility to either persuade him to come on board, or persuade others so his view becomes a minority.
The fact he can't muster 48 names though is quite damaging to the reputation he has been carefully cultivating as an influential backbencher.
Coolbanana said:
Fair points My UK History is only what I've read myself rather than taught, having been raised abroad.
Still, so what you are in essence suggesting, is that the NI issue is one of Great Britain's own making historically via invasion. Therefore, the people of Great Britain should be sensitive to the problems in NI and respect that if they took NI into the EU willingly as part of the UK, then to extract NI unwillingly is somewhat of a major problem. The EU's in the extent of ROI and the GFA, but more GB's as to how to deal with the UK (and the GFA) as a whole when wanting to Brexit.
So...for GB to extract the whole of the UK from the EU...it ought to have NI's and ROI's permission first? If that is refused, then GB cannot leave...
Obviously London won't want to pander to NI as much as that but that is the dilemma it faces to avoid a bloodbath in NI - it has to resolve a NI/ROI Border issue that isn't really replicated anywhere else in the EU and its trading partners so there is no template to follow. Whilst easy for me and other Britons to see it as a 'silly issue' it really is very serious and one of GB's own making. It can't drag NI around at will from one Treaty to another without first ensuring it is perfectly happy to do so.
I'm still trying to understand so bear with me but is that a reasonable summary? Happy to be wrong as I've assumed it was 'easier' than that and Max Fac and a bit of Policing should be accepted as 'reasonable'.
A fairly reasonable summary to my eyes, but I'm far from an expert on NI, so you should read more information on it. My UK History is only what I've read myself rather than taught, having been raised abroad. Still, so what you are in essence suggesting, is that the NI issue is one of Great Britain's own making historically via invasion. Therefore, the people of Great Britain should be sensitive to the problems in NI and respect that if they took NI into the EU willingly as part of the UK, then to extract NI unwillingly is somewhat of a major problem. The EU's in the extent of ROI and the GFA, but more GB's as to how to deal with the UK (and the GFA) as a whole when wanting to Brexit.
So...for GB to extract the whole of the UK from the EU...it ought to have NI's and ROI's permission first? If that is refused, then GB cannot leave...
Obviously London won't want to pander to NI as much as that but that is the dilemma it faces to avoid a bloodbath in NI - it has to resolve a NI/ROI Border issue that isn't really replicated anywhere else in the EU and its trading partners so there is no template to follow. Whilst easy for me and other Britons to see it as a 'silly issue' it really is very serious and one of GB's own making. It can't drag NI around at will from one Treaty to another without first ensuring it is perfectly happy to do so.
I'm still trying to understand so bear with me but is that a reasonable summary? Happy to be wrong as I've assumed it was 'easier' than that and Max Fac and a bit of Policing should be accepted as 'reasonable'.
It's not that the UK *must* have NI and RoI permission. The UK is ultimately able to do whatever the hell it wants... it is (and always been in its EU membership) a sovereign nation. But whatever the UK chooses to do has consequences; some more severe than others.
The EU provided a common foundation for all factions of Northern Ireland to exist on -> they were all European Citizens regardless of whether they identified as Unionists & British, or Republicans and Irish; and the foundation of the freedoms of movement facilitated the GFA.
The border issue is just a physical manifestation of one aspect of the NI problems. The slower burning issues will come to the fore after it all goes through.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Greg66 said:
Calling for the removal of your party leader *and* calling on others to come forward and join you is very different.
TBH he is using the rules in an entirely proper way. He doesn't owe the leader of the party any more loyalty than he feels able to give. That's the beautifully delicate feature of the political system which ensures one person doesn't get an overly firm hand on the levers of power.And there shouldn't be any talk of retribution - he is being loyal to his beliefs and acting within party rules. Just because he is a critic of the current PM isn't an issue. It is the PMs responsibility to either persuade him to come on board, or persuade others so his view becomes a minority.
The fact he can't muster 48 names though is quite damaging to the reputation he has been carefully cultivating as an influential backbencher.
How is Rees Mogg an extremist ideologue? Ill admit Im somewhat biased on the religious aspect given my fairly anti-Catholic nature, so its quite easy for me to see him as a religious nut...but any kind of political or even social extremist ideologue?? The vast majority of his professed views are rather middle of the road. Politically JRM is fairly close to being the standard Shire Tory. About which the only thing they came close to "extremist" on was if it also involved the word "lunch"!
Greg66 said:
...Calling for the removal of your party leader *and* calling on others to come forward and join you is very different...
If that was an offence requiring removal from a party then there wouldn't be enough Labour MPs left to fill their front bench after what a lot of them said about Corbyn.jtremlett said:
Greg66 said:
...Calling for the removal of your party leader *and* calling on others to come forward and join you is very different...
If that was an offence requiring removal from a party then there wouldn't be enough Labour MPs left to fill their front bench after what a lot of them said about Corbyn.She's broken her manifesto pledges, her deal is the worst parts of Leave and Remain married together, she utterly blew the easiest election the Tories have faced in twenty years. Just how badly do you need to fail to be sacked in Conservative land?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff