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.
It really is. But the solution is for Parliament (and not just the May government) to show some fucking leadership and ownership of the situation. That’s what frustrates me. We have a super weak leader who takes ownership of the situation, to her credit, and is attempting to deliver the best tasting shit sandwich to the people that she can because they told her they wanted one. I disagree with Brexit but I think that May is making a genuine attempt at it because, as she famously said, Brexit means Brexit. The people demanded their government feed them a shit sandwich, she’s not empowered to change that, she doesn’t have the mandate.
The rest of Parliament, who are predominately remain in a cross party coalition, are taking advantage of the lack of attention on them to abdicate their responsibility and undermine May. Apparently they think the only person who is accountable to the voters who voted for Brexit is May, and that they have no responsibility to support their constituents.
It’s bullshit. She doesn’t like it any more than they do, but she recognizes that they have a job to be informed and competent individuals who represent the stated interests of the British people as best they can. The responsibility to deliver a good Brexit isn’t on the government, it’s on Parliament as a whole, and this political opportunistic sniping at May is short sighted and self defeating. If May fails the country fails. The country didn’t tell May to get it done, they told Parliament to get it done.
The second referendum supporters piss me off too. If you support a second referendum you’re trying to go against the will of the people, at which point why even bother. You can’t open with “the people got it wrong, I know better, so let’s ask them again, and again, until we decide they gave us the right answer”. Just have the integrity to say “we think the people got it wrong, this is a representative democracy, we work for the people but we don’t have to take policy advice from them”. A total abdication of responsibility from those fucks too, they’re only willing to stand by their beliefs when the people tell them it’s okay to do so first, but they’re not willing to listen to the people.
Fuck May, of course, and everything she stands for, and everything she did as a minister before becoming PM. But fuck the rest of them too. A bunch of cowardly opportunists who are far more interested in posing for Twitter than doing their jobs.
Either take responsibility for giving the people what they want or take responsibility for leading (and disagreeing with) the people when they try to do something dumb. There is no option C, give the people what they want when say the right thing, and keep asking them until they say it. And no option D, sabotage the attempts to give the people what they want while insisting that they be listened to.
I don't think anybody is blaming Theresa May for the entirety of Brexit. Whether or not those people surport either side.
But in the end, Brexit was split nearly 50/50. No matter what, "people" will be angry no matter what decision is made. A total Brexit will have half the country in revolt, a total Remain will have the other half of the country in revolt, and it turns out that an in-between will have both sides of Parliament in revolt.
The main problem with Theresa May is endless vacillitation and courting the brexiteers with dumb as brick sloganeering.
2 years she had, and she spent 20 months on "Brexit means Brexit" and "No deal is better than a bad deal" only to act like she realised
"Fuck, I just set UK on the path to the disaster that is full Brexit. Anything is better than a full Brexit."
Even though she already knew this. It's hard to see her actions at anything but for the sake of being PM.
On December 11 2018 02:00 Gorsameth wrote: So, the vote for tomorrow is postponed because May doesn't have the votes. But she is unlikely to ever get the votes because parliament is split between remain, soft and hard brexit.
And thanks to the EU courts decision we will now spend the next 3 months wondering if Britain is going to cancel Brexit or not with all the massive market volatility the comes from that uncertainty.
God, this is a shitshow.
I don't know,postponing is sort of good news. Better then a failure at least. Now she maybe can get few very small consessions from eu and then in January when the pressure starts to get very high maybe she can get the deal through. Maybe maybe maybe,i don't know. I still estimate the change of a hard brexit below 50%. No brexit at 25% maybe though then when things go bad in England people will point at Europe again and how the pm broke her promise of brexit.
Someone in the UK explain this nonsense to me and why are your politics are so fucking lit? Do ya all still throw chairs? Like where was he going with that thing?
On December 11 2018 02:22 KwarK wrote:. The second referendum supporters piss me off too. If you support a second referendum you’re trying to go against the will of the people, at which point why even bother. You can’t open with “the people got it wrong, I know better, so let’s ask them again, and again, until we decide they gave us the right answer”. Just have the integrity to say “we think the people got it wrong, this is a representative democracy, we work for the people but we don’t have to take policy advice from them”. A total abdication of responsibility from those fucks too, they’re only willing to stand by their beliefs when the people tell them it’s okay to do so first, but they’re not willing to listen to the people.
A few counter points. Firstly "the people" changes over time. Some people die, and others become old enough to vote. The will of the people in 2016 is not necessarily the will of the people in 2019. (The former head of YouGov said demographic changes could give a different referendum result by as early as January 2019.)
Secondly, the official Vote Leave campaign and the unofficial Leave.EU campaign broke campaign laws. Why is it acceptable to let an unfair referendum permanently decide the matter?
On December 11 2018 02:22 KwarK wrote:. The second referendum supporters piss me off too. If you support a second referendum you’re trying to go against the will of the people, at which point why even bother. You can’t open with “the people got it wrong, I know better, so let’s ask them again, and again, until we decide they gave us the right answer”. Just have the integrity to say “we think the people got it wrong, this is a representative democracy, we work for the people but we don’t have to take policy advice from them”. A total abdication of responsibility from those fucks too, they’re only willing to stand by their beliefs when the people tell them it’s okay to do so first, but they’re not willing to listen to the people.
A few counter points. Firstly "the people" changes over time. Some people die, and others become old enough to vote. The will of the people in 2016 is not necessarily the will of the people in 2019. (The former head of YouGov said demographic changes could give a different referendum result by as early as January 2019.)
Secondly, the official Vote Leave campaign and the unofficial Leave.EU campaign broke campaign laws. Why is it acceptable to let an unfair referendum permanently decide the matter?
I would like to add that it wasn't really clear to anyone back then what Brexit actually meant. It wasn't an informed vote, but rather a "we want change" vs. "we want it to stay the way it is" vote. During the negotiations it became much clearer what the actual options are (hard brexit vs. may's deal vs. no brexit). Given the thin margin by which the brexit fraction won back then it's only fair to ask again now that it is much clearer what brexit means...
If its true this would be unprecedented in the UK. It happened in Canada a few years back I think. It would prove my point about Theresa May destroying democratic principles to cling to power.
So have a no-confidence vote. And then your left wondering as no one wants the job and the little bit of direction you had is thrown out the door, 3 months before the Brexit deadline.
Just when I thought things couldn't get more screwed up.
On December 12 2018 08:36 Gorsameth wrote: So have a no-confidence vote. And then your left wondering as no one wants the job and the little bit of direction you had is thrown out the door, 3 months before the Brexit deadline.
Just when I thought things couldn't get more screwed up.
People will be desperate for the Job, there are already 20+ cons lining up to run.
I expect this will mean May will be officially out by Christmas, how the organise a leadership contest god knows but here are the people likely to run:
Boris Johnson Sajid Javid Jeremy Hunt Dominic Raab Amber Rudd David Davis Michael Gove (might take the view that he cannot win and act as a King maker instead) Penny Mordaunt Ester Mcvey Liz Truss Liam Fox (Seems to enter every contest angling for a Job in the cabinet) Andrea Leadsom Priti Patel Tom Tugenhart Johnny Mercer Justine Greening Nick Boles Matthew Hancock
On December 12 2018 17:08 schaf wrote: Go get a BJ. You've earned it, UK :D
Is it likely she will lose? And who will then tell the country that they need more time to talk with the EU who already said they won't renegotiate?
Anything could happen. The leadership contest trigger is 15% of tory MPs sending a letter, so she probably still has alot of support, and I really don't know who could take it from her. Boris had better keep to himself for a while because he's very unpopular due to the last few years of bullshit.
She technically only needs 50% +1 to win but in reality she needs to keep the rebellion below 100 if it was above that she would probably be asked by the cabinet to resign like Mrs T was.
Firstly it’s just a vote on Theresa May but if she loses or gives up then there is a leadership contest where anyone with 2 con MPs supporting them can run these will one by one be whittled down via Con MPs voting to two who will be presented to con members to elect as leader
it would inevitably mean they would have to ask for an extension of article 50, which the EU can just disagree to. this leaves a cliff edge brexit, or no brexit.
On December 11 2018 07:06 Plansix wrote: Someone in the UK explain this nonsense to me and why are your politics are so fucking lit? Do ya all still throw chairs? Like where was he going with that thing?
Yes I can see why an American would be confused about the presence of an actual mace in the middle of a governent discussion. As is usually the case with our society, it's all wrapped up in tradition and symbolism.
In this case the mace represents the Queen's authority, and without it being present the house is unable to pass any binding legislation or make meaningful decisions. I think they're not even allowed to meet in the room, either. So grabbing the mace is an enormous sign of protest, indicating that the government itself is no longer worthy of the Queen's trust.
To quote the man of mace-lifting himself: “The symbolic gesture of lifting the mace and removing it is that the will of parliament to govern is no longer there has been removed. I felt parliament had effectively given up its sovereign right to govern properly. They stopped me before I got out of the chamber and I wasn’t going to struggle with someone wearing a huge sword on their hip.”
His rationale for returning the mace seems good to me.
Another tidbit: the tradition of the mace goes back to the 13th Century, and the Commons mace to... the 18th I think? Maybe 17th. That one was made for one of the Charles'.
On December 12 2018 18:14 ahswtini wrote: I think she'll survive this
You can never be quite sure with the Tories. As I've said before, their backstabbing arms get twitchy if they haven't knifed someone recently. It's possible Cameron wasn't enough and only with May will their need be satiated.
I imagine though that the whip is currently walking around in a stentorian manner pulling up chairs to desks and laying out exactly what position the party is going to be in if they kick May out now, and even more, the inevitable political fate of who succeeds her in this situation.
Betting on next PM currently has Jeremy Corbyn more than twice as likely as anyone else. The Tories couldn't have played their hand worse if they'd tried. The right thing to do would - as Kwark's said - have been to rally around May and do their best with whatever she proposed or come up with better alternatives (I bet she dreams of better alternatives appearing out of a clear blue sky).
I'm beginning to suspect they were hoping Labour would and they could drag them down a bit. As it is Corbyn's stayed completely out of it so unjustly gets left off the hook.
On December 12 2018 19:32 MoonfireSpam wrote: May should have just served the shit sandwich "people" voted for, or make it "Government" that refused to serve it up instead of doing it herself.
"People" need a fucking dose of reality.
"lol just let them do it" is easy to say when your ignoring the very real impact on people's lives.
EPT
