|
Post by alancalverd on Nov 21, 2018 17:49:22 GMT 1
she managed to do so by promising her electorate that "Brexit means Brexit" which doesn't actually mean anything. A rose is a rose. which can be interpreted as "there can be no better deal than the bad deal I am going to negotiate". Mrs May is a consummate politician: never caught lying, because nothing she says is unequivocal.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 21, 2018 18:20:10 GMT 1
Interesting insight The CU that May has 'negotiated' we join - and that we will be unable to leave without the EU's permission, was , according to Barnier, not an EU proposal, but was suggested by the British negotiating team
Some sources say that May, when she discussed Brexit with the Nissan CEO (and he agreed to keep his operations in the UK) actually promised him (on an oath of secrecy) that the UK would be staying in the CU
The survival of the Conservative party now depends upon Labour!
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 21, 2018 19:15:57 GMT 1
she managed to do so by promising her electorate that "Brexit means Brexit" which doesn't actually mean anything. A rose is a rose. Well yes Gertrude, except she did spell it out in her leadership bid, and at Lancaster House, and Florence, and in the election she called. It means leaving the Single Market and leaving the Customs Union, she affirmed, over and over. Errrr...I'll take your word for it. We will be leaving the Customs Union. We will be free to negotiate our own trade deals. No prime minister could ever allow the United Kingdom to be divided in any way.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 21, 2018 19:21:48 GMT 1
Interesting insight The CU that May has 'negotiated' we join - and that we will be unable to leave without the EU's permission, was , according to Barnier, not an EU proposal, but was suggested by the British negotiating team Some sources say that May, when she discussed Brexit with the Nissan CEO (and he agreed to keep his operations in the UK) actually promised him (on an oath of secrecy) that the UK would be staying in the CU The survival of the Conservative party now depends upon Labour! Churchill faced the same paradoxical irony. Let's hope there are enough Labour MPs who still put their country first: or, something similar to it. Thankfully, I really can't see Labour voting for this proposed withdrawal deal. I think it's something akin to principle that they won't. Which raises the question: who the hell would vote for it? Frankly, I'd rather have Labour in power than that lot.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Nov 21, 2018 20:19:21 GMT 1
We will be leaving the Customs Union. We will be free to negotiate our own trade deals. No prime minister could ever allow the United Kingdom to be divided in any way. First rule of politics: never make a promise you can't break Second rule of politics: blame the opposition for giving you no option. Not sure how she is going to implement Rule 2, except possibly by suggesting that their success in the last general election weakened her negotiating position. Watch this space.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 23, 2018 5:07:46 GMT 1
We will be leaving the Customs Union. We will be free to negotiate our own trade deals. No prime minister could ever allow the United Kingdom to be divided in any way. First rule of politics: never make a promise you can't break I don't think she can. The opposition won't let her have that one, that's for sure. Oh, you mean Labour! They can't possibly get what they want either. No chance of winning an election with their proposal. They've already lost a large proportion of their traditional heartland vote, along with Scotland - with their plan for Europe they'll both be gone forever. You can't win an election with the middle class public sector vote and London - the numbers don't add up, unless you're happy to be the LibDems. Her problem at root is that her real "opposition" is the majority of the country. Doesn't she realise that her party slipped six points in the polls overnight once she presented this sell-out of hers? Don't imagine for a second that those potential voters would really transfer their votes to a party that proposes to sell out even more! Maybe to another party or abstention if she was standing as leader, but one thing is certain: she won't be (which is why the 48 letters aren't in yet - a simple political calculation that, incredibly, the media doesn't seem to have grasped.)
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Nov 24, 2018 8:00:26 GMT 1
Since the parliamentary Labour party consists largely of career politicians, they aren't really opposed to May's subtle ploy to scupper Brexit - their only hope of advancement to a tax-free pension and expenses lies in lying in Brussels. Nor will the SNP or DUP do anything to prevent "sabotage by fudge" of the referendum result they were elected to kill.
Every political career ends in failure, but as politicians know no shame, I'm sure TM will be returned to the back benches by a grateful constituency and compensated (at your expense) for having ballsed up both the Home Office (by incompetence) and the premiership (by treachery).
As for making breakable promises, it's noticeable inter alia that "reducing immigration to a trickle" just ended up as creating a hostile environment for elderly British citizens of West Indian parentage. At your expense, of course. So don't expect too much from "leaving the CU, negotiating trade deals, and maintaining the integrity of the UK".
The word on the card was "leave or stay", not "renegotiate". Never trust a politician.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 24, 2018 11:05:18 GMT 1
Since the parliamentary Labour party consists largely of career politicians, they aren't really opposed to May's subtle ploy to scupper Brexit - their only hope of advancement to a tax-free pension and expenses lies in lying in Brussels. And I thought I was cynical. It's arguable the SNP might make such a specious claim, but not the DUP. For them it's an existential matter of principle. May knew this, she'd been told enough times - she plainly doesn't understand what such a matter might mean. Or gambled on the support of enough Labour rebels to get it through - which just shows she's got no political savvy, which in a prime minister at a time of crisis is even worse. Not just. That was just the visible cock-up side-effect of such an effort. I expect the end result to be leaving the EU on WTO rules, which over the following ten or so years will be gradually modified almost down to free trade. I also expect in that time the EU will have largely disintegrated amidst general chaos, besides which Brexit will look like a vicar's tea party. Some proved themselves trustworthy. Churchill, Thatcher, Attlee, the odd people of principle and honour like Castle, Bevan, Joseph, Lawson, Tebbit, Gow, Neave, Healey. (I'm sorry in the interest of impartial balance I can't think of a single Liberal or SDP or LibDem to include in that list - Steve Ross, perhaps, the admirable IOW MP who deftly solved, with Thatcher's enthusiastic support and active assistance, the '70s homeless crisis.) At least when they said, "This is what I believe", there was no reason to doubt their sincerity.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Nov 24, 2018 12:44:51 GMT 1
And how sad that principle is not inherited. It baffles me that Tony Benn could have spawned a louse like Hilary.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 24, 2018 15:33:40 GMT 1
And how sad that principle is not inherited. It baffles me that Tony Benn could have spawned a louse like Hilary. I don't know what in particular you've got against Hilary (his private education, perchance?), but it briefly crossed my mind whether to include Benn in that little list off the top of my head. As it happens, I met Benn once, in the early 80s, in a meeting with the leading Militant members (amongst the paper staff, at any rate, which included most of them.) Someone asked him whether he would ever stand against Foot for the leadership (there was considerable rancour that the "traitor" Foot had presided over the closure of Ebbw Vale.) He solemnly declared he'd never do anything to undermine Foot. Shortly after he stood against Healey, rejecting every urgent plea Foot implored him with - you'll split the Party, lose us the election, etc. So, I don't know. Ambition and principle are uneasy bedfellows. Foot, on the other hand, I should have included.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Nov 24, 2018 19:27:45 GMT 1
Nothing wrong with private education. Lots wrong with remoaning. Healey/Benn was a standoff about nuclear weapons between two honest and principled men.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Nov 24, 2018 19:47:09 GMT 1
Nothing wrong with private education. I agree, though to hear that from a "communist" is a little beyond irony, I'd have thought. The point is: there was plenty wrong with it, according to Tony Benn. He wanted to outlaw it. Except for his children, naturally. Don't be daft. It was an election for the deputy leadership, for a party that wasn't even in power, and whose leader (and party) had already declared its policy of unilateral disarmament. The challenge was about economic policy, if you insist on seeing it as something other than purely personal ambition.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Nov 24, 2018 23:38:26 GMT 1
I agree, though to hear that from a "communist" is a little beyond irony, I'd have thought. One of the symptoms of Dunning-Kruger syndrome is that the sufferer trips over his own prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Nov 25, 2018 0:14:22 GMT 1
Anyway, I heard one lucid comment on "Any Answers" today.
Given that Parliament agreed to abide by the result of the referendum, "remain" cannot be put to the vote, so our glorious representatives have a binary choice: to accept the May surrender, or leave on WTO terms. Thus a meaningful vote can be held, with an unequivocal result.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Nov 25, 2018 0:44:03 GMT 1
You're forgetting that a Parliament can't bind its successors.
It was Cameron's 2010-15 Parliament that made that ludicrous promise, with the abject connivance of the oppostion.
Since then we've had a new PM, which in my view morally should've been regarded as starting a new Parliament, but of course it wasn't.
May made the beyond-ludicrous mistake of calling another election, in 2017. That did lead to a new Parliament, and a massive shift of power and influence. Not only a hung Parliament - but the DUP in control for godssake!
All previous promises were then, and are now, void.
|
|