Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

gooch2k9

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You could almost just replay the speeches in the HoC from any debate over the last year.

Same old same old stuff.

In fairness even calling this stuff "debating" is loose use of the language. None of the people there will change their votes based on ninety minutes of shouting and jeering. Realistically it is all a show and a waste of time.

Even what they say in there is worthless. No commitment from Johnson or anyone else is worth anything unless it's written and legislated.

quokula

liamtech wrote: »

They wont be admitting anything except that the Lib Dems are against brexit - if you are against it - vote Lib dem - if they win the election (and on the same day we colonize the moon and find elvis on the dark side) - they will stop brexit, the lib dems are clear - unlike labor who will maybe stop renegotiate compromise ask jeremy wait he is busy nationalizing private schools - do something

We are reaching a point where arguably there is now more to be gained by these parties, in letting brexit happen

Lib Dems - can rightly say they fought the good fight and lost. due only to numbers. (and labor leaderships dithering position on brexit - do you want a second Ref Jeremy - Yes, No, Maybe, Only if i get to negotiate, No sure, Not gonna comment, My deputies are entitled to their opinion, i will win the election). The Lib Dems may in fact be seeking to make a huge gain in seats and aim to supplant Labor on the opposition benches

SNP - may realize that the writing is on the wall - Labor more than likely wont win, even with coalition. therefore long game - take brexit - rightly complain they fought the good fight - next time the Tories are out they can push either the Lib Dems or Labor, or a possible coalition including the SNP, into going for Indyref2

Its getting very depressing now - Jeremy is making less and less sense

I'm always confused when I see posts like this implying Labour don't have a Brexit policy. Are people purposely pretending not to understand Labour's stance or have they just not noticed everything they've said and done these past few months?

Because they've consistently done everything in their power to stop no deal, including tabling and forcing through the amendment that forced the extension and ultimately forced Boris to start seriously trying to make a genuine deal, and including attempting a government of national unity with the support of SNP, Greens and Plaid which the Lib Dems boycotted because standing on the sidelines saying Brexit is bad suits them better than actually doing anything - as you said yourself they want to be able to say they fought the good fight and lost (exactly the same cynical approach that Boris wanted to take in the 2016 referendum)

Then on top of that, Labour have been crystal clear that a Labour government will have a second referendum, with a choice between Remain and a Labour negotiated Brexit which includes remaining fully in the Customs Union (solving Ireland's issues) and has none of the Tory red lines - the fine details will depend on the negotiation with the EU of course but it's pretty obvious it'll end up something like Norway and drastically minimise the damage.

It's the only sensible route out of the mess for the UK, but so many people on the remain side seem to want to cut off their nose to spite their face because they have an irrational hatred of Corbyn.

I suspect that when the real campaigning starts and people have to really engage their brains and think about the consequences of their vote, and the media have to start actually covering party policies, that Labour will see the same boost as they did at the last election. And as they're starting from a stronger base than last time, they've a serious chance of forming a government (most likely in coalition with the SNP who they are aligned with on many important issues)

Frank Bullitt

Sammy Wilson is reaching new levels of red face here.

Professor Genius

Sammy close to tears. He realises he’s been taken for a ride

Joe_ Public

Dear Boris,

I'm confused. If you truly preferred to get our deal through rapidly, then why did you not proceed with it through the house? Could you please clarify this for me.

Yours sincerely,

Donald.

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1188867753173749760

gooch2k9

Nigel Evans saying they committed to delivering the results of the referendum. That was a commitment from a different government going by their own rules. He's one of the most disingenuous MPs in the Commons.

As for Sammy, getting his just desserts.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

Correction: Johnson's deal was approved for its second reading (during which time it can be ammended considerably)

Clarification: MPs in parliament implemented the wishes of the people, as expressed in the non-binding referendum of 2016, by triggering Article 50. The reality is that the process has since become bogged down in the entirely foreseeable quagmire of not knowing what the people really wanted when they cast their vote.

I accept your correction but dispute your clarification.

Lots of people like to say people didn't know what they want but those who voted for the single market and customs union amendments and so on were largely remain MPs who wanted to keep the UK as closely aligned to Brussels as possible. It fits into the picture of an establishment who are railing against the decision in 2016.

This argument no longer holds in a political climate where the polls show a 16 point lead for the Conservatives who have a deal waiting to be agreed in parliament and an opposition who are running chicken from an election because they know they would be the turkey voting for Christmas. The opposition are preventing democratic recourse here.

There's only two ways out of the quagmire (caused by the establishment railing against the British public). Either it is to progress with Johnson's deal or have an election to break the deadlock in parliament.

Water John

Question to the House on GE. This is the Govn't motion needing two thirds support.

gooch2k9

theological wrote: »

I accept your correction but dispute your clarification.

Lots of people like to say people didn't know what they want but those who voted for the single market and customs union amendments and so on were largely remain MPs who wanted to keep the UK as closely aligned to Brussels as possible. It fits into the picture of an establishment who are railing against the decision in 2016.

This argument no longer holds in a political climate where the polls show a 16 point lead for the Conservatives who have a deal waiting to be agreed in parliament and an opposition who are running chicken from an election because they know they would be the turkey voting for Christmas. The opposition are preventing democratic recourse here.

There's only two ways out of the quagmire (caused by the establishment railing against the British public). Either it is to progress with Johnson's deal or have an election to break the deadlock in parliament.

Or to have an informed referendum? With the facts nailed down now is the time to have it. If the people vote to leave with Johnson's deal so be it, it will be a choice based on facts. It will be a whole UK vote, even the DUP cannot refute that. If they vote to stay, so be that.

A general election which will be based on a specific topic is not the solution here.

looksee

Division now - looks like it will be no.

liamtech

quokula wrote: »

I'm always confused when I see posts like this implying Labour don't have a Brexit policy. Are people purposely pretending not to understand Labour's stance or have they just not noticed everything they've said and done these past few months?

Because they've consistently done everything in their power to stop no deal, including tabling and forcing through the amendment that forced the extension and ultimately forced Boris to start seriously trying to make a genuine deal, and including attempting a government of national unity with the support of SNP, Greens and Plaid which the Lib Dems boycotted because standing on the sidelines saying Brexit is bad suits them better than actually doing anything - as you said yourself they want to be able to say they fought the good fight and lost (exactly the same cynical approach that Boris wanted to take in the 2016 referendum)

Then on top of that, Labour have been crystal clear that a Labour government will have a second referendum, with a choice between Remain and a Labour negotiated Brexit which includes remaining fully in the Customs Union (solving Ireland's issues) and has none of the Tory red lines - the fine details will depend on the negotiation with the EU of course but it's pretty obvious it'll end up something like Norway and drastically minimise the damage.

It's the only sensible route out of the mess for the UK, but so many people on the remain side seem to want to cut off their nose to spite their face because they have an irrational hatred of Corbyn.

I suspect that when the real campaigning starts and people have to really engage their brains and think about the consequences of their vote, and the media have to start actually covering party policies, that Labour will see the same boost as they did at the last election. And as they're starting from a stronger base than last time, they've a serious chance of forming a government (most likely in coalition with the SNP who they are aligned with on many important issues)

1. OF COURSE LABOR HAS A BREXIT POLICY - its simple - Jeremy is going to win the election by canvassing on a platform neither to leave OR remain. Instead, he is going to offer, a 'third way' -
- Vote Labor
- Jeremy goes back over to the EU
- reopens negotiations on a completely different platform from what has gone before
- Jeremy Returns to a fractured Labor Party - where half the party dont want brexit and the other half, loyal labor supporters ask - Jeremy!! what are we to do, should we vote for the deal you got, or vote remain!
- Jeremy responds - il leave it up to you
- another 6 months of screams and shouts

Perfectly plausible labor party policy - thank you Jeremy!

2. Labor have been against no deal - yes they have i will give you that! but sadly they have 'NOT been for NO BREXIT - which is the only policy that doesn't seriously damage the UK and NI - or the Union for that matter - why are labor not in favor of No Brexit - Because the leader Jeremy Corbyn Hero of the Soviet Union, Order of the Red Banner, Order of Lenin, is and always has been a EUROSKEPTIC, who WANTS TO LEAVE

3. Labor have only recently talked in terms of a second ref - if you are referring to members of the labor party then yes, several have been involved with the peoples vote movment from the start - But Jeremy and official labor party policy has been late to come to the idea of a second Ref - while Swinson is out campaigning on second vote rallys, Jeremy is giving interviews talking about 5 pillars, and his Brexit deal

I am not an irrational hater of Corbyn. 12 months ago i wouldnt have been a corbyn hater at all - on the contrary i would have imported him to teach our labor lot how to be proper Lefties

But he is inept - and i suspect his days are numbered - and unfortunately so are Britain's days in the EU

Enzokk

So much control...

https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1188832197660303360?s=20

A nice thread of the meetings that have taken place with the NHS and drug prices being a topic of discussion. Once Johnson gets his majority the UK will be screwed. Its the same with workers rights, if they intend to make it better than the EU's then you put in the deal that you will keep a level field and potentially have better, you don't get rid of it.

RobMc59

quokula wrote: »

I'm always confused when I see posts like this implying Labour don't have a Brexit policy. Are people purposely pretending not to understand Labour's stance or have they just not noticed everything they've said and done these past few months?

Because they've consistently done everything in their power to stop no deal, including tabling and forcing through the amendment that forced the extension and ultimately forced Boris to start seriously trying to make a genuine deal, and including attempting a government of national unity with the support of SNP, Greens and Plaid which the Lib Dems boycotted because standing on the sidelines saying Brexit is bad suits them better than actually doing anything - as you said yourself they want to be able to say they fought the good fight and lost (exactly the same cynical approach that Boris wanted to take in the 2016 referendum)

Then on top of that, Labour have been crystal clear that a Labour government will have a second referendum, with a choice between Remain and a Labour negotiated Brexit which includes remaining fully in the Customs Union (solving Ireland's issues) and has none of the Tory red lines - the fine details will depend on the negotiation with the EU of course but it's pretty obvious it'll end up something like Norway and drastically minimise the damage.

It's the only sensible route out of the mess for the UK, but so many people on the remain side seem to want to cut off their nose to spite their face because they have an irrational hatred of Corbyn.

I suspect that when the real campaigning starts and people have to really engage their brains and think about the consequences of their vote, and the media have to start actually covering party policies, that Labour will see the same boost as they did at the last election. And as they're starting from a stronger base than last time, they've a serious chance of forming a government (most likely in coalition with the SNP who they are aligned with on many important issues)

Perhaps you can see something in the strategy of the Labour party that millions of disappointed labour voters can`t(including me!)I`ve been waiting for Corbyn to show his poker hand which would blow the tories and doubters out of the water..but it has`nt materialised which means I,and probably many more people who would usually vote labour will vote Lib-dem in the event of a GE.I used to think voting for lib-dem was a wasted vote but at least they have nailed their colours firmly to the mast whilst corbyn infuriatingly dithers..

looksee

Ayes have it but not a majority, so the noes have it.

Itssoeasy

Brexit is in danger of becoming if it hasn't already the political equivalent of being stuck in a revolving door and not being able to get free.

Is there anything important happening in the commons this week? Or is it all just the prelude to an election or something?

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

This argument no longer holds in a political climate where the polls show a 16 point lead for the Conservatives who have a deal waiting to be agreed in parliament and an opposition who are running chicken from an election because they know they would be the turkey voting for Christmas. The opposition are preventing democratic recourse here.

There's only two ways out of the quagmire (caused by the establishment railing against the British public). Either it is to progress with Johnson's deal or have an election to break the deadlock in parliament.

There's a third way: hold a referendum on the Johnson deal vs either/both no Brexit and a 'no deal' hard Brexit.

Opinion polls showing support for one divided party over another - especially in the current climate - does not in any way clarify what the electorate voted for in 2016. On the other hand, a House full of people's representatives is about as close to a valid interpretation as you're going to get. You definitely can't argue that democratically elected MPs in Westminster are preventing "democratic" recourse when they have been sent there by the demos!

prawnsambo

theological wrote: »

I accept your correction but dispute your clarification.

Lots of people like to say people didn't know what they want but those who voted for the single market and customs union amendments and so on were largely remain MPs who wanted to keep the UK as closely aligned to Brussels as possible. It fits into the picture of an establishment who are railing against the decision in 2016.

This argument no longer holds in a political climate where the polls show a 16 point lead for the Conservatives who have a deal waiting to be agreed in parliament and an opposition who are running chicken from an election because they know they would be the turkey voting for Christmas. The opposition are preventing democratic recourse here.

There's only two ways out of the quagmire (caused by the establishment railing against the British public). Either it is to progress with Johnson's deal or have an election to break the deadlock in parliament.

I wouldn't fully disagree with your assessment here apart from two things. The first that the customs union was voted for by purely remain MPs. That's hard to match with the numbers since there was a majority for Johnson's deal and the venn diagram for those two votes has to include your so called purely remain MPs.
The second thing is 'the establishment railing against the British public'. There can be nothing more establishment than those who support leaving. It's a who's who of establishment figures and big money.

An Ciarraioch

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there anything important happening in the commons this week? Or is it all just the prelude to an election or something?

Just the amended bill that would allow an election by simple majority.

PropJoe10

Another catastrophic shambles this evening. It never ends!

CelticRambler

I wonder how many parents of school children booted out of their classrooms as they prepare for their Nativity plays might decide to cast a protest vote against the Tories for choosing that week to mess them around?

When all is said and done, the only reason the Government can't get anything done is because they keep trying to do stuff that serves no purpose other than feed the Johnson-Cummings Ego Machine. A bit of cross-party dialogue could easily solve a lot of the outstanding Brexit impasse - and maybe publishing all the relevant legislation and cost/risk analysis that would allow MPs to make an informed decision.

I'm kinda hoping this one-line act is amended tomorrow to say that the election can indeed be held - but no earlier than the 11th January 2020.

Joe_ Public

Interesting twist if true.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1188870938508570631

Eric Cartman

Enzokk wrote: »

So much control...

https://twitter.com/C4Dispatches/status/1188832197660303360?s=20

A nice thread of the meetings that have taken place with the NHS and drug prices being a topic of discussion. Once Johnson gets his majority the UK will be screwed. Its the same with workers rights, if they intend to make it better than the EU's then you put in the deal that you will keep a level field and potentially have better, you don't get rid of it.

regardless of what labour propoganda is out there, I don't think theyre going to open up the coal mines, pay people a quid an hour and privatise the nhs as corbyn predicts.

looksee wrote: »

Ayes have it but not a majority, so the noes have it.

calls for an election repeatedly and turns down one repeatedly, corbyn is a sham and cant in good faith ask for an election again until this is done.

gooch2k9

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Interesting twist if true.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1188870938508570631

To what end..?

BonnieSituation

Gintonious wrote: »

Sammy Wilson is reaching new levels of red face here.

Professor Genius wrote: »

Sammy close to tears. He realises he’s been taken for a ride

What a fool I was. I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get to a Semi-final of a Rugby World Cup...

I've been away for a while, due to my optimism, so it's been quite the challenge keeping up with everything.

Can you lob in the bit referring to Sammy above?

---

As an aside, even though it's a most oft-quoted piece, I've never read it in full.

Carson in the HoL, 14/12/1921:

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1921/dec/14/address-in-reply-to-his-majestys-most#S5LV0048P0_19211214_HOL_41

(That's the whole debate. You can easily search within it for Carson's [in]famous input.)

CelticRambler

Eric Cartman wrote: »

regardless of what labour propoganda is out there, I don't think theyre going to open up the coal mines, pay people a quid an hour and privatise the nhs as corbyn predicts.

The coal mines won't be re-opened, and as long as unemployment benefit remains as generous as it is now, no-one will work for £1/hr ... but the privatisation of the NHS is already under way* and will continue. It is at the same time a massive drain on the public purse and a "golden goose" for private enterprise - far too tempting an opportunity for Tory-voting, Tory-backing types to pass up.

* has been for about two decades through the public-private partnership scam, which inevitably rewards the private side of the equation far in excess of the advantages to the public. Ditto for schools, prisons and other "public" services.

Joe_ Public

gooch2k9 wrote: »

To what end..?

Hard to be certain tbh, maybe so they'd be able to change the election date (if allowed), or to stop johnson pursuing his brexit deal, or maybe something else. Will just have to wait and see if anything at all to it.

Joe_ Public

CelticRambler wrote: »

The coal mines won't be re-opened, and as long as unemployment benefit remains as generous as it is now, no-one will work for £1/hr ... but the privatisation of the NHS is already under way* and will continue. It is at the same time a massive drain on the public purse and a "golden goose" for private enterprise - far too tempting an opportunity for Tory-voting, Tory-backing types to pass up.

* has been for about two decades through the public-private partnership scam, which inevitably rewards the private side of the equation far in excess of the advantages to the public. Ditto for schools, prisons and other "public" services.

All very true and depressingly ironic that it was done under labour's watch.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Hard to be certain tbh, maybe so they'd be able to change the election date (if allowed), or to stop johnson pursuing his brexit deal, or maybe something else. Will just have to wait and see if anything at all to it.

Everything about Labour seems chaotic and confusing....nobody knows what on earth they are playing at.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

Everything about Labour seems chaotic and confusing....nobody knows what on earth they are playing at.

Well, that's a deeply divided party for you, i guess. The most hardened opposition to the election seems to be coming from the wing of the PLP that has been anti-Corbyn since his election as leader, so doesnt put him in a great position. I suspect corbyn would be happy to embrace the election but faces potential revolt from PLP if he agreed to back it. Looks as if they might be bounced into it anyway and, if so, time they stopped whingeing about the cold and dark of december and go all out for it.

Spanish Eyes

I get the feeling that No One really wants full on Brexit, but are trying their damndest to pretend they do.

Anyway here comes Groundhog Day once more.

Joe_ Public

Good point, as usual, by Stephen Bush. The difference between Dec 12 and Dec 9 is three legislative days, but that could easily become 5 if you were to include potential Saturday and Sunday sittings. Of course, Johnson promises he wont bring back his WAB if they give him his Dec 12th election....


https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1188908019180097538

trellheim

Some other people now starting to cop that the transition date is not rolling as well. i.e if WAB is passed transition ends at end 2020

Peter Foster also says Fishing etc all need to be decided by 1 July so even if they do WAB they can no-deal it on 31/12/20

prawnsambo

trellheim wrote: »

Some other people now starting to cop that the transition date is not rolling as well. i.e if WAB is passed transition ends at end 2020

Peter Foster also says Fishing etc all need to be decided by 1 July so even if they do WAB they can no-deal it on 31/12/20

At some point they're going to go cold turkey unless the TP is extended for at least another five years.

briany

trellheim wrote: »

Some other people now starting to cop that the transition date is not rolling as well. i.e if WAB is passed transition ends at end 2020

Peter Foster also says Fishing etc all need to be decided by 1 July so even if they do WAB they can no-deal it on 31/12/20

Under the currently proposed deal they can walk away from the table and go no-deal in 2020, However, the deal can be amended to give parliament a vote on whether to extend the transition period, and that will probably become a necessity the longer that the UK stays within the EU proper but the transition date does not budge.

I wonder if the FTA negotiation period would be as bitter and divisive as the ongoing WA phase?

Joe_ Public

From the EU commission website:

"This transition period may be extended once by two years, meaning it could remain in place until 31 December 2022."

Key word there is "once". Seems fairly fanciful to me that they'll have a fta concluded in just over 3 years from now. I guess negotiations could still go on, but by letter of the law they'd have left no later than 2022.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

There's a third way: hold a referendum on the Johnson deal vs either/both no Brexit and a 'no deal' hard Brexit.

Opinion polls showing support for one divided party over another - especially in the current climate - does not in any way clarify what the electorate voted for in 2016. On the other hand, a House full of people's representatives is about as close to a valid interpretation as you're going to get. You definitely can't argue that democratically elected MPs in Westminster are preventing "democratic" recourse when they have been sent there by the demos!

A referendum wouldn't solve anything here. The people already decided for Brexit in 2016 and it hasn't been honoured. If it was a Brexit vote again it wouldn't be honoured by this dysfunctional parliament. The Lib Dems are starting to see that this parliament won't vote for a second referendum either so an election seems more plausible.

What is needed now is an election in a clear policy platform to do with Brexit. If the Lib Dems won that could mean revoking Article 50. If the Labour party won then who knows. They have this bizarre policy of negotiating a deal and then campaigning against it. Then you have the Conservatives under Johnson who actually want to leave and get on with other priorities.

A Dub in Glasgo

briany wrote: »

Under the currently proposed deal they can walk away from the table and go no-deal in 2020, However, the deal can be amended to give parliament a vote on whether to extend the transition period, and that will probably become a necessity the longer that the UK stays within the EU proper but the transition date does not budge.

I wonder if the FTA negotiation period would be as bitter and divisive as the ongoing WA phase?

Johnsons strategy is to get the WAB passed with minimal scrutiny, pull the legislation if questions asked, go to an election campaign to win a majority and then force through the legislation

It is a terrible terrible piece of legislation for the people in the UK

A Dub in Glasgo

theological wrote: »

A referendum wouldn't solve anything here. The people already decided for Brexit in 2016 and it hasn't been honoured. If it was a Brexit vote again it wouldn't be honoured by this dysfunctional parliament. The Lib Dems are starting to see that this parliament won't vote for a second referendum either so an election seems more plausible.

What is needed now is an election in a clear policy platform to do with Brexit. If the Lib Dems won that could mean revoking Article 50. If the Labour party won then who knows. They have this bizarre policy of negotiating a deal and then campaigning against it. Then you have the Conservatives under Johnson who actually want to leave and get on with other priorities.

'The people' decided parliament should invoke Article 50, which is now complete. Any WA deal needs to go back to the people for endorsement

An election under the FPTP system is the worst way to solve any impasse

jimmycrackcorm

briany wrote: »

I wonder if the FTA negotiation period would be as bitter and divisive as the ongoing WA phase?

I don't think it can. The point of the WA is to settle the key issues about leaving such as citizens rights.

There might be some arguing though if fishing rights get dragged into a FTA for example. The Daily mail editors will be perplexed trying to write headlines.

An Ciarraioch

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think it can. The point of the WA is to settle the key issues about leaving such as citizens rights.

There might be some arguing though if fishing rights get dragged into a FTA for example. The Daily mail editors will be perplexed trying to write headlines.

Not to mention such negotiations are generally conducted behind the senses by civil servants, rather than national politicians.

Joe_ Public

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think it can. The point of the WA is to settle the key issues about leaving such as citizens rights.

There might be some arguing though if fishing rights get dragged into a FTA for example. The Daily mail editors will be perplexed trying to write headlines.

Have a strong feeling the next stage, if they get there, will be as tense and probably even more protracted than the first. This gov seems too arrogant and complacent to learn anything from their abject failures of past 3 years and will walk into same traps and go on with their no deal empty threats.

Still cant understand why citizens rights ever had to be an issue. Could have been first thing sorted and some good will created on either side, suggesting mature, grown up negotiations. One more thing Theresa May has to answer for imo.

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Still cant understand why citizens rights ever had to be an issue. Could have been first thing sorted and some good will created on either side, suggesting mature, grown up negotiations. One more thing Theresa May has to answer for imo.

Theresa (Go home vans) May was most exercised by the whole idea of immigrants and immigration.

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

Theresa (Go home vans) May was most exercised by the whole idea of immigrants and immigration.

It seems incredible to think that May was obsessed by freedom of movement (of all things) but she was and apparently it was one of the main factors in her hawkish Lancaster House speech.

I was reading today that a major new biography of May comes to the conclusion that she was a pretty terrible PM, one of the worst ever (she has fierce competition from Cameron and Johnson of course).

Akrasia

prawnsambo wrote: »

Theresa (Go home vans) May was most exercised by the whole idea of immigrants and immigration.

May was the architect of the 'hostile environment' that led to the 'windrush generation'

She was a thoroughly unsympathetic character who deserves the distain that she will forevermore be viewed with.

seamus

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading today that a major new biography of May comes to the conclusion that she was a pretty terrible PM, one of the worst ever (she has fierce competition from Cameron and Johnson of course).

The collapse of every empire has been overseen by a string of awful emperors. It's par for the course that only the foolish will allow themselves to be put in charge of a sinking ship.

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

It seems incredible to think that May was obsessed by freedom of movement (of all things) but she was and apparently it was one of the main factors in her hawkish Lancaster House speech.

I was reading today that a major new biography of May comes to the conclusion that she was a pretty terrible PM, one of the worst ever (she has fierce competition from Cameron and Johnson of course).

Anthony Eden would be a happy man if he was still alive, 3 new contenders popped up within last half decade to challenge his previously uncontested title as the UKs worst post war prime minister. May was dealt a pretty terrible hand but still went about playing it in the worst way imaginable. I'll be thinking in particular of how she invoked grenfell in her resignation speech when they debate that tragedy in the commons this week.

Tell me how

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading today that a major new biography of May comes to the conclusion that she was a pretty terrible PM, one of the worst ever (she has fierce competition from Cameron and Johnson of course).

Who wrote the book do you know? Given the proximity to her holding the office, I think it is unlikely that it was someone who could be said to be entirely impartial.

I'm not really trying to fly a flag for her but I think she was PM during what was going to be, and has proven to be, a very contentious period.

She bowed to the invoking of A50 too quickly, she was too adamant on the red lines, she used language which made it easy for her detractors to target her (no deal is better than a bad deal) and she didn't manage vocal party or government members well.

But, was this all because of her, or because of the circumstance?
I'm not suggesting she is to be lauded, but, she was handed a poisoned chalice.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Anthony Eden would be a happy man if he was still alive, 3 new contenders popped up within last half decade to challenge his previously uncontested title as the UKs worst post war prime minister. May was dealt a pretty terrible hand but still went about playing it in the worst way imaginable. I'll be thinking in particular of how she invoked grenfell in her resignation speech when they debate that tragedy in the commons this week.

The book says she wasn't a people person, didn't trust anyone and didn't even like working with her cabinet.....also claims she wasn't particularly astute or intelligent as PMs go.

trellheim

She bowed to the invoking of A50 too quickly, she was too adamant on the red lines, she used language which made it easy for her detractors to target her (no deal is better than a bad deal) and she didn't manage vocal party or government members well.

Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill ( her close spads) believed an Election would provide some unknowable mandate to get Brexit done ( sound familiar) and thus she went to the country in 2017 and lost a comfortable majority leaving the DUP to hold the balance of power - a situation that persists .

Read Tim Shipmans 2nd book for a lot of the detail here