EPTShe's so incredibly underappreciated it's almost comical weren't it so tragic.
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 446
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
She's so incredibly underappreciated it's almost comical weren't it so tragic. | ||
|
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
On November 30 2018 20:34 Artisreal wrote: May single handedly saving Britain's face and the Tory party. She's so incredibly underappreciated it's almost comical weren't it so tragic. I agree 100%. She a is doing a job no one wants to do and is tasked with a project that has impossible requirements from almost all stakeholders. She is executing it way better than I had expected | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
Cameron obviously will never live down bringing in Brexit for everyone else, but both Cameron and May have contributed enormously to the party's future (and present dominance; there's no chance they'd have got in without Cameron, and we'd be in a Brown regime) | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
There seems to be discussion now about the Norway option. It is the option that "everyone" wants and there seems to be a majority in parliament that would support it. Even though it is not exactly a real brexit it could be the most sensible option now. The question is how to get there. With or without may and with or without general elections. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5867 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18445 Posts
On November 30 2018 23:22 pmh wrote: May is great,already said before in this thread. There seems to be discussion now about the Norway option. It is the option that "everyone" wants and there seems to be a majority in parliament that would support it. Even though it is not exactly a real brexit it could be the most sensible option now. The question is how to get there. With or without may and with or without general elections. The Norway option means accepting the four freedoms, which includes the "free movement of persons". And by all accounts one of the main reasons Brits voted for Brexit in the first place was to get rid of this one. It therefore seems very strange to leave the EU but join the EEA. Of course, what the Brexiteers sold was that Britain could have the other 3 freedoms and opt out of the 4th, which the EU has repeatedly said will never ever happen for anybody. It's one of the main pillars underlying the foundation of the EU. It's great that the politicians are realizing that "Norway" is the best option still available, but it's definitely not what people wanted, and I'd hazard a guess that if you gave British citizens a choice between "leave EU and join EEA" vs "stay in EU", they would quite overwhelmingly vote *for* the EU. Insofar as I understand Norway and Switzerland is that they are countries that would not actually benefit from many of the EU subsidies (they already have well developed infrastructure and very little agriculture, two of the main beneficiary projects that the EU subsidizes), and being rather rich countries would pay very high membership contributions. For Norway there's also the case of fisheries and Switzerland tries to maintain their banking situation, either of which would be effected by common EU regulations that do not affect the EEA. However, I don't think Britain is leaving the EU so they can become a tax haven or start a national craze for whaling (only for research purposes of course). So those "benefits" of not being in the EU are not applicable. Most regulations that the British appear to object to are equally binding in the EEA... so I fail to see how the "Norway model" is in any way better than staying in the EU. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9999 Posts
She's been in an impossible situation as PM, but she has done nothing to deserve praise. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8279 Posts
On December 01 2018 00:01 Acrofales wrote: The Norway option means accepting the four freedoms, which includes the "free movement of persons". And by all accounts one of the main reasons Brits voted for Brexit in the first place was to get rid of this one. It therefore seems very strange to leave the EU but join the EEA. Of course, what the Brexiteers sold was that Britain could have the other 3 freedoms and opt out of the 4th, which the EU has repeatedly said will never ever happen for anybody. It's one of the main pillars underlying the foundation of the EU. It's great that the politicians are realizing that "Norway" is the best option still available, but it's definitely not what people wanted, and I'd hazard a guess that if you gave British citizens a choice between "leave EU and join EEA" vs "stay in EU", they would quite overwhelmingly vote *for* the EU. Insofar as I understand Norway and Switzerland is that they are countries that would not actually benefit from many of the EU subsidies (they already have well developed infrastructure and very little agriculture, two of the main beneficiary projects that the EU subsidizes), and being rather rich countries would pay very high membership contributions. For Norway there's also the case of fisheries and Switzerland tries to maintain their banking situation, either of which would be effected by common EU regulations that do not affect the EEA. However, I don't think Britain is leaving the EU so they can become a tax haven or start a national craze for whaling (only for research purposes of course). So those "benefits" of not being in the EU are not applicable. Most regulations that the British appear to object to are equally binding in the EEA... so I fail to see how the "Norway model" is in any way better than staying in the EU. I should add that no one in Norway thinks the EEA is a good deal either. No one wants to be forced rules without any form of representation. But we, just like the Uk, have also been sold a good amount of lies over the years about what exactly joining EU entails, which have turned the two previous referendums to "no"s. But we can't just cut ourselves away either, so it's the best deal we can get between an ignorant population and complete isolation. The younger generations are generally a lot more positive towards it, so there's a good chance a new vote in a few years could shift us into joining. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On December 01 2018 00:23 Jockmcplop wrote: May did a ridiculous amount of damage to our country when she was home secretary. I can never forgive her for her drugs policy, which massively contributed to the drastic increase in homelessness and untreated mental health issues in our cities. She implemented the single most draconian immigration policy seen in this country in decades (complete with privately run concentration camps for undocumented immigrants - some of whom have been held without trial for years) and her legacy is one of evil mitigated only by failure. She's been in an impossible situation as PM, but she has done nothing to deserve praise. Fair enough, I've got a blind spot on pretty much everything before her appearing to transforme the Great Britannica into Great Brexicania. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On December 01 2018 05:07 Artisreal wrote: Fair enough, I've got a blind spot on pretty much everything before her appearing to transforme the Great Britannica into Great Brexicania. You're both right though. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
Am still inclined to think may will get enough of support in the end. The process can then at least continue, lots of negotiations are still needed to fill in all the details for the relation after Britain has left. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
I expect we are heading for an election or No Deal maybe both because Parliament is essentially stuck with no way to get a PM to present a passable deal. I think long term No deal is better than the current offer but might be pretty painful depending on what follows and happens in the next few months. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22610 Posts
On December 04 2018 05:53 pmh wrote: May is gone after March. Her position has always been weak and there is a whole bunch of vultures that have been circling for over 2 years. The moment they will no longer be responsible they will pounce with the easy 'May got us a bad deal, she has to go'.Only reason that I can see for not supporting mays deal (all or not with a few very small adjustments) is to go for an even weaker brexit option,or something that isn't really a brexit anymore. May will never take that responsibility I think,seems risky to go against the vote of the people at this point. May has made it clear she wont quit after the vote (seen on bbc politics life,a great show about british politics) so I don't really see how a weaker option or no brexit can be achieved. Would have to be general elections and then labour has to push it true somehow. Seems a bit farfetched and also impossible now as Britain will leave union in march. Am still inclined to think may will get enough of support in the end. The process can then at least continue, lots of negotiations are still needed to fill in all the details for the relation after Britain has left. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14210 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22610 Posts
On December 04 2018 08:45 Sermokala wrote: Because after Brexit you can blame May for everything. Waiting for the bad fallout from Brexit to end is not much of an option since that will take many years.But whos going to have a better position then she has now? Her whole time at the helm is because no one else wants to deal with brexit. Taking her spot just to eat the result makes no sense. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
Labour has everything to win by supporting this deal and nothing to lose. They will have safed the country from a hard brexit and still win the next elections most likely. If labour blocks the deal later by blocking all neccesary laws then they will end up taking the full blame for a hard brexit. If may is not going to do it then who will? There does not seem to be a plausible alternative at this point. Hardline brexiteers like johnsen will never get their way and might even be kicked out of the party completely or made irrelevsnt otherwise when new cycle begin. New elections i dont see,at least not before the brexit itself takes place in march. That does seem so umlikely to me at this point. Maybe after brexit may will go,possibly leave herself. Her job is done then,she must be pretty tired of it already. | ||
zatic
Zurich15366 Posts
On November 30 2018 23:22 pmh wrote: May is great,already said before in this thread. Did people already forget her brilliant idea to hold snap elections instead of preparing for Brexit? She wasted 5 months of the 2 years they had on one of the worst campaigns I have ever seen ("strong and stable") only to come out in a weaker position than before. Truly great. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On December 04 2018 17:13 zatic wrote: Did people already forget her brilliant idea to hold snap elections instead of preparing for Brexit? She wasted 5 months of the 2 years they had on one of the worst campaigns I have ever seen ("strong and stable") only to come out in a weaker position than before. Truly great. And this is the problem with assessing politicians. What she made wasn't a 'savvy' move, but it was the right move. Those elections let the public decide who they actually wanted to lead them through these tumultuous times. A second referendum would be better but will never happen, so the elections were at least a way to get the public to decide who they want their poison from. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18445 Posts
On December 04 2018 19:14 iamthedave wrote: And this is the problem with assessing politicians. What she made wasn't a 'savvy' move, but it was the right move. Those elections let the public decide who they actually wanted to lead them through these tumultuous times. A second referendum would be better but will never happen, so the elections were at least a way to get the public to decide who they want their poison from. Well no. That's post-hoc arguing. The very reason she called snap elections because the polls showed that conservatives were heading for a massive victory and her position in parliament would be shored up. She didn't do it "for the good of the country", she did it to create a more solid foundation from which to negotiate with Europe, and it backfired pathetically. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On December 04 2018 19:48 Acrofales wrote: Well no. That's post-hoc arguing. The very reason she called snap elections because the polls showed that conservatives were heading for a massive victory and her position in parliament would be shored up. She didn't do it "for the good of the country", she did it to create a more solid foundation from which to negotiate with Europe, and it backfired pathetically. yeah, then her overconfidence got the better of her and she led a truly terrible campaign | ||
| ||
