Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[ger147]

Good point! I'd forgotten that!

But the Parliamentary 'wing' have the major say, not the general Party members! And, if my memory serves me correctly, there's often a 'concession' - this was how May was elected, though Cameron won via the 'whole party' vote.

May was the first "coronation" of a Tory leader since the rules changed to the current system of electing a leader.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

H'mm! IYO!

But we, sort of, agree somewhat....Conservative election process is performed with the idea of 'who will get/keep us in power' uppermost! And that's an entirely reasonable atitude to take imo!

Isn't that though why we are in this horrendous mess?
Rather than doing whats best for "them" and their political dogma and mantra, how about whats doing whats best for the country?

ps...I have no knowledge of what "IYO" means

 

[Tashyboy]

I see President Macron of France Urges " swift clarification " on Brexit now Theresa May has failed. Eh, where's he been for the last three year. Well Macron al give you swift clarificaction on one thing. Macron "Le ***". Hope that's swift enough.

 

[jp5]

I see President Macron of France Urges " swift clarification " on Brexit now Theresa May has failed. Eh, where's he been for the last three year. Well Macron al give you swift clarificaction on one thing. Macron "Le ***". Hope that's swift enough.

Very helpful.

Meanwhile Merkel will have outlasted 4 UK Prime Ministers. So much for our strong and stable government!

 

[Grant85]

Absolutely no sympathy for Theresa May. She put herself in the position of PM, she triggered A50, she talked herself into the incompatible red lines, she chose to have an election in 2017 and she stuck with the doomed strategy of going for the withdrawal agreement 1st, rather than getting a much greater indication / mandate from parliament about what it would support. And then stuck at that strategy when it was clear it didn't have support.

In short, a complete and utter disaster for her personally, for the government and ultimately for the country - especially those who want to leave the EU.

My guess is that a new PM, likely a more brexity person, will try and get No Deal through parliament. Probably they won't be able to do so. They might then have a GE and be even more brexity than Farage et al. Possibly win a reasonable majority if they can convince the leavers that supporting them is the best way to go - and possibly to take advantage of a fractured opposition. Maybe they will then be able to get No deal through, or at least put a few bullets in the No deal gun that will get the EU to surrender. My guess is the EU are very well prepared for such a strategy, as they must have thought it will materialise at some point.

As a strategy I think it's the only one they would have and if the EU hold firm or there is enough opposition to such a strategy, then they are basically back where we are today.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

I see President Macron of France Urges " swift clarification " on Brexit now Theresa May has failed. Eh, where's he been for the last three year. Well Macron al give you swift clarificaction on one thing. Macron "Le ***". Hope that's swift enough.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to need some clarification (doesn't have to be swift) as to what the hell this means ?

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Absolutely no sympathy for Theresa May. She put herself in the position of PM, she triggered A50, she talked herself into the incompatible red lines, she chose to have an election in 2017 and she stuck with the doomed strategy of going for the withdrawal agreement 1st, rather than getting a much greater indication / mandate from parliament about what it would support. And then stuck at that strategy when it was clear it didn't have support.

In short, a complete and utter disaster for her personally, for the government and ultimately for the country - especially those who want to leave the EU.

My guess is that a new PM, likely a more brexity person, will try and get No Deal through parliament. Probably they won't be able to do so. They might then have a GE and be even more brexity than Farage et al. Possibly win a reasonable majority if they can convince the leavers that supporting them is the best way to go - and possibly to take advantage of a fractured opposition. Maybe they will then be able to get No deal through, or at least put a few bullets in the No deal gun that will get the EU to surrender. My guess is the EU are very well prepared for such a strategy, as they must have thought it will materialise at some point.

As a strategy I think it's the only one they would have and if the EU hold firm or there is enough opposition to such a strategy, then they are basically back where we are today.

Theresa May was actually morally obliged to trigger Article 50. Maybe some of her other decisions could have been better advised but there is no doubting her commitment to the job and for that I admire her.

As for No Deal, bring it on! The Eurocrats think they can bully us into agreeing to whatever they want but if we play hard ball we will end up with a much better outcome.

 

[IanM]

They hardly want to throw out one of the few net contributors and a major destination for THEIR exports....


...ooh, shame that the Tory Negotiators didn't operate like they knew this. But I've made my views on the reasons why pretty clear on these pages. Still not changing my mind.... although now wondering if new Tory Leader will be different. Although the Remain Parliament need some changes. I wonder if the result of the Euro elections will change any of their minds?

 

[Tashyboy]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to need some clarification (doesn't have to be swift) as to what the hell this means ?

Macron would like a swift clarification. Who wouldn’t. Was it lost on Macron that we shouldn't of been voting yesterday. Was it lost on Macron that the deal the EU including him offered was part of the reason we are in this shower of *** mess. Was it not lost on Macron that we have been in this mess for three years because people like him cannot accept democracy. I stand by my comment. He is le ***

 

[Deleted member 1147]

... Was it not lost on Macron that we have been in this mess for three years because people like him cannot accept democracy...

I don’t remember Macron having anything to do with what the Tories or HoC’s have done.
This whole mess is of the UK’s making. The French didn’t hold the referendum or invoke article 50.

A little misplaced antagonism

 

[Grant85]

Theresa May was actually morally obliged to trigger Article 50. Maybe some of her other decisions could have been better advised but there is no doubting her commitment to the job and for that I admire her.

As for No Deal, bring it on! The Eurocrats think they can bully us into agreeing to whatever they want but if we play hard ball we will end up with a much better outcome.

No, she was politically obliged to trigger A50 as she was a remain voter, she did everything she could to make sure no one could accuse her of trying to slow things down or not do enough to progress Brexit.

Ultimately she did this without a plan, or certainly not one she was in control of. She then made the glaring error of holding another election (during the A50 2 year period) and failed to win a mandate for anything.

She will be remembered as a complete failure of a PM and Conservative leader, has left both party and country in a far worse position. Her legacy may be getting dressed up as a patriotic and tearful miscalculation today, but I'm sure it will look a lot worse on Monday when people survey the wreckage of the European results, from a Tory point of view at least.

In terms of your No Deal rallying cry. If you think this is a serious option then you are even more daft than the retiring PM. To her credit, at least this is a road she realised was not one that any sane person could go down.
Those calling for No Deal don't have a clue and the EU know any person in a position of power who makes such noises are bluffing.

 

[Kellfire]

Macron would like a swift clarification. Who wouldn’t. Was it lost on Macron that we shouldn't of been voting yesterday. Was it lost on Macron that the deal the EU including him offered was part of the reason we are in this shower of *** mess. Was it not lost on Macron that we have been in this mess for three years because people like him cannot accept democracy. I stand by my comment. He is le ***

Ah, so Macron and the rest of the EU should just give us everything we want at their expense, or be held to account for this country's woes?

 

[Tashyboy]

I don’t remember Macron having anything to do with what the Tories or HoC’s have done.
This whole mess is of the UK’s making. The French didn’t hold the referendum or invoke article 50.

A little misplaced antagonism

Your naivety on here is refreshing. 👍

The whole mess is the UKs
?. The fact the referendum proved people wanted out was proved correct

 

[Grant85]

Your naivety on here is refreshing. 👍

The whole mess is the UKs
?. The fact the referendum proved people wanted out was proved correct

I'll take this one.

Leave won because Leave could be all things to all men / women. There was no plan or picture of what Leave would look like. No idea of what we would negotiate from the EU. No prospectus about what our priorities would even be in said negotiation.

Ultimately, had such a detailed plan been put in place - I'm fairly certain that at least (but probably a lot more) the required 635,000 would have voted differently.

For example, if it had been made explicitly clear prior to the referendum that you can't get out of Free Movement without casting NI adrift... would leave have won?
If it had been made clear that upon leaving the UK will remain in a customs union with the EU... would leave have won?
If it had been made clear that leaving the EU means a No Deal Brexit and WTO terms... would leave have won?

All of these are realistic scenarios that could still play out, and yet people are quite happy to crow about the democratic mandate of 17m. Only 635,000 of whom would have to have been put off by the eventual thing that happens for the mandate to crumble into dust. Remember 3 million EU citizens living, working and paying tax here were not allowed to vote. And then we are in a situation where a majority do not want what has happened, and that is not going to be a pleasant situation to govern / do business / trade with. As the whole thing will be on a knife edge until the next election, the next referendum, the next change in the lay of the land.

The only way Brexit can succeed is if there is a clear appetite for it for a clear and sustained majority of the population.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Your naivety on here is refreshing. 👍

The whole mess is the UKs
?. The fact the referendum proved people wanted out was proved correct

...and Macron has stopped us from leaving?

 

[Hobbit]

I'll take this one.

Leave won because Leave could be all things to all men / women. There was no plan or picture of what Leave would look like. No idea of what we would negotiate from the EU. No prospectus about what our priorities would even be in said negotiation.

Ultimately, had such a detailed plan been put in place - I'm fairly certain that at least (but probably a lot more) the required 635,000 would have voted differently.

For example, if it had been made explicitly clear prior to the referendum that you can't get out of Free Movement without casting NI adrift... would leave have won?
If it had been made clear that upon leaving the UK will remain in a customs union with the EU... would leave have won?
If it had been made clear that leaving the EU means a No Deal Brexit and WTO terms... would leave have won?

All of these are realistic scenarios that could still play out, and yet people are quite happy to crow about the democratic mandate of 17m. Only 635,000 of whom would have to have been put off by the eventual thing that happens for the mandate to crumble into dust. Remember 3 million EU citizens living, working and paying tax here were not allowed to vote. And then we are in a situation where a majority do not want what has happened, and that is not going to be a pleasant situation to govern / do business / trade with. As the whole thing will be on a knife edge until the next election, the next referendum, the next change in the lay of the land.

The only way Brexit can succeed is if there is a clear appetite for it for a clear and sustained majority of the population.

Just picking out a few bit.

Free movement; I'm not sure all Leavers saw the ending free movement as their complete reason to vote Leave.
Customs union; this one is often trotted out. Just about every single politician made it very clear the a vote for Leave meant out of the single market and out of the customs union.
No Deal and WTO; again, plenty of people were aware of WTO, though not the detail, and plenty took on board the constant barrage of out of the single market and customs union touted by the politicians.

And you're right, it only needed 635,000 to be swayed the other way. As for the Europeans that couldn't vote, you can also add in over 1,000,000 expats around the world who have a vested interest in the outcome. Many wanted to vote, and I believe should have been entitled to vote. Many of them are retired, and after paying upwards of 50 years income tax they rely on the ease of pensions transfer/exchange rate and reciprocal healthcare agreements. Some of those, like myself, because of the pension coming from govt backed industry, the NHS, still pay taxes in the UK.

But all of the above relies on what ifs and what about. After 3 years we are passed dissecting numbers to satisfy an argument that relies on what ifs. Its the tomorrows that will resolve this mess, not the yesterdays.

 

[Old Skier]

The only way Brexit can succeed is if there is a clear appetite for it for a clear and sustained majority of the population.

And there's me thinking that's what voting was all about, it appears it about guessing, well if you don't agree with the result it is.

Another remainer telling me why I voted the way I did, got to love and admire the insite of the fella.

 

[Paperboy]

I'll take this one.

Leave won because Leave could be all things to all men / women. There was no plan or picture of what Leave would look like. No idea of what we would negotiate from the EU. No prospectus about what our priorities would even be in said negotiation.

Ultimately, had such a detailed plan been put in place - I'm fairly certain that at least (but probably a lot more) the required 635,000 would have voted differently.

For example, if it had been made explicitly clear prior to the referendum that you can't get out of Free Movement without casting NI adrift... would leave have won?
If it had been made clear that upon leaving the UK will remain in a customs union with the EU... would leave have won?
If it had been made clear that leaving the EU means a No Deal Brexit and WTO terms... would leave have won?

All of these are realistic scenarios that could still play out, and yet people are quite happy to crow about the democratic mandate of 17m. Only 635,000 of whom would have to have been put off by the eventual thing that happens for the mandate to crumble into dust. Remember 3 million EU citizens living, working and paying tax here were not allowed to vote. And then we are in a situation where a majority do not want what has happened, and that is not going to be a pleasant situation to govern / do business / trade with. As the whole thing will be on a knife edge until the next election, the next referendum, the next change in the lay of the land.

The only way Brexit can succeed is if there is a clear appetite for it for a clear and sustained majority of the population.

A bit like the Scottish referendum. Only people living in Scotland got a vote. I know a lot of people who would have helped the SNP in England if they had got a vote.

So just like the EU citizens here.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to need some clarification (doesn't have to be swift) as to what the hell this means ?

Tashy's on the sauce again.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I know it was a fishing trip but...we never vote for a PM, we vote for a local MP. TM is leader of a political party, who replaces her is for those in that party. That person will at least have been voted for by their local constituents so they are democratically elected. ?

Not so sure that is one hundred per cent true. It is the case that the last two standing are the candidates from which the victor will be the leader; and that that the party countrywide chooses which of those two it will be.
However, it is the Parliamentary party alone-the Tory MPs-who choose who those two will be.
So, as at this time, it is widely reported and regarded that the Tory party members would choose Boris as the next PM, but I doubt he will get to be one of the last two. The Tory MPs will ensure that.
Suppose there are three left to vote for, one being Boris. It is believed that the MPs will vote Boris into third place regardless as to who the other two are, knowing full well what their constituents want, but ignoring it.
Thus, once again, the arrogance of those Westminster occupants overrides the will of the people. It may be the rules of the Tory party, but it's hardly the fact that the leader is "democratically elected"