I disagree with and disapprove of much of Theresa May's politics. However, she is a transparently sincere woman with a strong sense of duty who seeks to run the country having regard to the mandate that she was given in the EU referendum and the general election as she sees it. There's no need to be personally unpleasant about her.
However she's tin eared and would struggle to sell prosecco on a hen night.
Ken summarised her best: "A bloody difficult woman" - it is both her strength and weakness.
May's plight certainly arouses feelings of sympathy outside political circles, but it is the kind of sympathy that goes out to furry animals being torn apart by hyenas. People feel sorry for the victim but there is nothing they can do to prevent the horror and there may well be a suspicion that they are at least partly responsible for the dire situation in which they find themselves.
May's style of leadship is to take all decisions with a small coterie of advisers and then spring them on people when it is too late for further debate and discussion. Witness the Lancaster House speech, the dementia tax and the decision to call the 2017 election. Now she is doing the same with the "deal" - nobody really knew what was in the detail until it was too late, May's attempts to defend it consist merely of repeating that she is right and it's in the national interest. This is a hopelessly naive way of selling such an important and controversial policy - she should have been out there selling it to MPs from the start of the negotiations. But she seems to shy away from engaging even with her own party, she spent yesterday trying to convince farmers in remote villages ignoring those whose votes she actually needs, namely MPs.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
You clearly haven't seen my Angela Merkel shrine.
TBH, May's pattern of behaviour is not the behaviour of a powerful woman. Constantly attacking weak targets like immigrants. Failing to engage with her own backbenchers. Walling herself off behind tiny cliques. Capitulating hard, fast and often during negotiations.
These aren't the actions of a powerful person, they're the actions of a timid, frightened person.
I think there are considerable similarities between Merkel and May.
One has loomed over European politics, a towering colossus, for getting on two decades. The other one is Theresa May.
Like May's, Merkel's first electoral campaign as party leader was disastrous, but she outlasted her critics.
Indeed. Merkel failed to win even a majority for her coalition in 2005 after a landslide was expected.
In 2009 though her CDU and FDP coalition got a majority
I disagree with and disapprove of much of Theresa May's politics. However, she is a transparently sincere woman with a strong sense of duty who seeks to run the country having regard to the mandate that she was given in the EU referendum and the general election as she sees it. There's no need to be personally unpleasant about her.
However she's tin eared and would struggle to sell prosecco on a hen night.
Ken summarised her best: "A bloody difficult woman" - it is both her strength and weakness.
May's plight certainly arouses feelings of sympathy outside political circles, but it is the kind of sympathy that goes out to furry animals being torn apart by hyenas.
Yes, she's weaponising pity. Unfortunately for her, the Tory backbenches are famed for being pitiless.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Norway will not happen, May will refuse it as it requires free movement and Corbyn opposes it too in favour of making May's temporary Customs Union permanent
That's Norway+ then, since that contains a permanent customs union.
Aka BINO. All countries belonging to both the CU and the SM are member states.
Indeed we would be in the EU in all but name with free movement and no trade deals done ourselves just with control over fishing and farming as outside the CFP and CAP but with no place at the decision table
I had a feeling you'd have no idea how the EEA worked.
Everything I said was true, in the EEA we have no MEPs, commissioners or place on the Council of Ministers
I disagree with and disapprove of much of Theresa May's politics. However, she is a transparently sincere woman with a strong sense of duty who seeks to run the country having regard to the mandate that she was given in the EU referendum and the general election as she sees it. There's no need to be personally unpleasant about her.
Could somebody explain to me why they buy this "duty" line about May? Is it just because she said it to the 1922 that one time or is there more to it?
Personally, if I compare "Dutiful May" with "Arrogant & Ambitious May", the latter is far more consistent with her actions. Let's run down some of her greatest hits:
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
- Firing, ignoring or marginalising every dissenting voice on Brexit; letting Nick Timothy write her Brexit policy on the back of a napkin: Consistent with A&A May, who like everything else sees Brexit as an area where she has to enviously guard her power. Not really consistent with Dutiful May who would presumably realise that Brexit is too important to disregard every warning.
- Running an electoral campaign where the main guidance was to be different to Cameron; sidelining everyone but her inner circle; writing herself a manifesto that was more about being a blank cheque than about winning votes: Consistent with A&A May, who was convinced she'd win easily and saw the election much more about shoring up her personal power than maximising seats. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would care about her party's success above her own power games.
- Staying on as PM after the disastrous election: Consistent with both. Dutiful May really believes she has to fix the mess she helped create and believes she'll be better at it then her likely replacements. A&A May wants to cling to power and rescue her legacy.
- Running down the clock as long as possible in negotiations with EU: Not consistent with Dutiful May, who would know that if her deal was going to be voted down, better to get that done with while there's still time to maneuver to whatever's next- whether or not that means her remaining as PM. Consistent with A&A May who cares only about staying in power and getting a deal with her name on it through. She doesn't mind playing chicken with the country's future if it helps her bully MPs into voting for her deal.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Norway will not happen, May will refuse it as it requires free movement and Corbyn opposes it too in favour of making May's temporary Customs Union permanent
That's Norway+ then, since that contains a permanent customs union.
Aka BINO. All countries belonging to both the CU and the SM are member states.
Indeed we would be in the EU in all but name with free movement and no trade deals done ourselves just with control over fishing and farming as outside the CFP and CAP but with no place at the decision table
I had a feeling you'd have no idea how the EEA worked.
Everything I said was true, in the EEA we have no MEPs, commissioners or place on the Council of Ministers
No, because single market legislation is negotiated bilaterally between the commission and the EEA states via the EEA organs. It's a seat at a different table, it's not the vassalage of May's deal.
Does anyone else have a feeling that this Norway+ model has a certain air of inevitability about it now? All other options seem to be closing down. I actually think Norway+ is a decent compromise, and I say that as someone who would preference a second referendum.
Given the compromises on freedom of movement that would occur, here is the crucial paragraph from Nick Boles that advocates for Norway need to highlight:
"We would still be bound by freedom of movement. But we would benefit from Article 112 of the EEA which states that “if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties . . . are arising” unilateral action can be taken on a temporary basis. So if migration from Europe returned to the levels of the mid 2000s, we should be able to pull an emergency brake to limit the numbers."
I doubt May could carry this through with any credibility given the red lines she boxed herself in with, but Hammond or Rudd could probably carry it.
I commented a couple of days ago that Norway is the likely destination, maybe if TM swivels to it but also from a centrist conservative leader. I believe Gove and Rudd are coalescing the cabinet behind this compromise and, on the loss of the deal, a united cabinet could make it happen
Norway will not happen, May will refuse it as it requires free movement and Corbyn opposes it too in favour of making May's temporary Customs Union permanent
That's Norway+ then, since that contains a permanent customs union.
Aka BINO. All countries belonging to both the CU and the SM are member states.
Indeed we would be in the EU in all but name with free movement and no trade deals done ourselves just with control over fishing and farming as outside the CFP and CAP but with no place at the decision table
I had a feeling you'd have no idea how the EEA worked.
Everything I said was true, in the EEA we have no MEPs, commissioners or place on the Council of Ministers
No, because single market legislation is negotiated bilaterally between the commission and the EEA states via the EEA organs. It's a seat at a different table, it's not the vassalage of May's deal.
Transposition of laws that have been legislated for by the EU. It's a stretch to call that a negotiation.
From what you have seen or heard so far, do you support or oppose the UK Government’s agreement? (Base: Those who have seen or heard any details, changes vs November 15th)
I wonder why may / uk government are so reluctant to offer asylum to this woman. Of all the sorts of cases that get those concerned about levels of immigration, genuine asylum cases like this and Malala aren’t the ones that get them hit under the collar.
Wonder if there is more to it that we don’t know about?
TM highlighting McDonnell wanting a second referendum and to remain at PMQ's is going to cause chaos for labour in the media
BBC live reporting has completely missed TM's McDonnell dig, curiously.
That'll set the conspiracy-mongers off.
I didn't see PMQs but the summary says: "She says John McDonnell told an audience last night he wanted to seize on a referendum and vote remain. That would be a betrayal of the many by the few."
What was her exact quote here? As written above it seems very easy to interpret that as her calling Leavers "the many" and Remainers "the few", which isn't a good look.
I wonder why may / uk government are so reluctant to offer asylum to this woman. Of all the sorts of cases that get those concerned about levels of immigration, genuine asylum cases like this and Malala aren’t the ones that get them hit under the collar.
Wonder if there is more to it that we don’t know about?
It would be a Salman Rushdie like scenario, she would need to keep moving between safe houses with armed protection, and we would expect many retaliatory attacks.
TM highlighting McDonnell wanting a second referendum and to remain at PMQ's is going to cause chaos for labour in the media
BBC live reporting has completely missed TM's McDonnell dig, curiously.
That'll set the conspiracy-mongers off.
I didn't see PMQs but the summary says: "She says John McDonnell told an audience last night he wanted to seize on a referendum and vote remain. That would be a betrayal of the many by the few."
What was her exact quote here? As written above it seems very easy to interpret that as her calling Leavers "the many" and Remainers "the few", which isn't a good look.
I think most would take its intention as 'the many = Leave voters, the few = Labour leadership' (or possibly parliament if it voted for a 2nd referendum). It's nonsense of course, but then so much po political posturing is.
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU. It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
TM highlighting McDonnell wanting a second referendum and to remain at PMQ's is going to cause chaos for labour in the media
BBC live reporting has completely missed TM's McDonnell dig, curiously.
That'll set the conspiracy-mongers off.
I didn't see PMQs but the summary says: "She says John McDonnell told an audience last night he wanted to seize on a referendum and vote remain. That would be a betrayal of the many by the few."
What was her exact quote here? As written above it seems very easy to interpret that as her calling Leavers "the many" and Remainers "the few", which isn't a good look.
I think most would take its intention as 'the many = Leave voters, the few = Labour leadership' (or possibly parliament if it voted for a 2nd referendum). It's nonsense of course, but then so much po political posturing is.
I'm sure that's what she meant, but didn't she learn anything from "citizens of nowhere" about this kind of ambiguity? (Assuming, that is, that her actual quote wasn't clearer)
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU.
There's a difference between having a conflicted view of the EU and being a half-assed campaigner for Remain.
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU.
There's a difference between having a conflicted view of the EU and being a half-assed campaigner for Remain.
May's proven to be almost inhumanly terrible at convincing anyone she's right.
Even if she had been a true believer, nobody would have noticed.
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU.
There's a difference between having a conflicted view of the EU and being a half-assed campaigner for Remain.
Corbyn's the same, witness his EU err campaigning vs his full throated GE effort.
From what you have seen or heard so far, do you support or oppose the UK Government’s agreement? (Base: Those who have seen or heard any details, changes vs November 15th)
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU. It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
I've yet to see any suggestion of an alternative that delivers against i) ending FoM (which is what motivated Leavers) and ii) Not trashing the economy (which is what motivated Remainers).
TM highlighting McDonnell wanting a second referendum and to remain at PMQ's is going to cause chaos for labour in the media
BBC live reporting has completely missed TM's McDonnell dig, curiously.
That'll set the conspiracy-mongers off.
I didn't see PMQs but the summary says: "She says John McDonnell told an audience last night he wanted to seize on a referendum and vote remain. That would be a betrayal of the many by the few."
What was her exact quote here? As written above it seems very easy to interpret that as her calling Leavers "the many" and Remainers "the few", which isn't a good look.
I think most would take its intention as 'the many = Leave voters, the few = Labour leadership' (or possibly parliament if it voted for a 2nd referendum). It's nonsense of course, but then so much po political posturing is.
I'm sure that's what she meant, but didn't she learn anything from "citizens of nowhere" about this kind of ambiguity? (Assuming, that is, that her actual quote wasn't clearer)
Ah but she's got a new technique (or advice) now - it involves apologising for comments later:
Didn't answer Zac's question on whether she had personally stopped the UK offering asylum to Asia Bibi. I find that disappointing.
Will of the people.
I do not accept your apparent link between (1) the UK government not progressing the case of a woman and her family demonstrably facing religious persecution and likelihood of death, and (2) a poster that does not reflect government policy and was not supported by the official leave campaign. The Prime Minister is in power, Farage is not.
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU.
There's a difference between having a conflicted view of the EU and being a half-assed campaigner for Remain.
Corbyn's the same, witness his EU err campaigning vs his full throated GE effort.
Absolutely. Corbyn has always prioritised Labour getting into power over any particular Brexit outcome. And I doubt there are many people out there who would describe him as "dutiful"
“May is not a good person. May is nasty, incompetent, dishonest xenophobe, devoid of wisdom, charm, personality or wit. She's bloody minded for the sake of being bloody minded. She has ruined everything she's touched, and her entire political career has been focused on being as mean and obnoxious as possible to all immigrants.
She's a vile old hag and all of her suffering is 1000% earned.
Good riddance to bad rubbish tbh, it's just a shame her suffering will soon be over. I'd have liked to see her suffer a great deal more.”
from @grabcocque on the previous thread is a touch OTT.
May is not up to the job of being PM and has not handled the Brexit issue well. Though even Solomon would have struggled, I dare say.
l way). She has also done a lot within the Tory party to help women become candidates.
There are plenty of things she can be criticised for. For instance, her reported refusal to countenance giving asylum to Asia Bibi for fear of enraging extremist Muslims here (contrary to the wishes of the current Home and Foreign Secretaries) is utterly shameful.
But to call someone a “vile old hag” and wish suffering on a woman in public life smacks of an unpleasantly bullying and mysogynistic attitude which reflects rather more - and badly IMO - on those saying and supporting such things than on the target.
Well said. I had the benefit of knowing both Theresa & Philip at University and this routine traducing of them by people with no personal knowledge only reinforces my low opinion of the people who post such guff. Of course none of us are perfect, but the one eyed view of those mysogynistic men (and its almost always men) who ignore the bits of her record which contradict their 'xenophobic racist' view says far more about them than Mrs May.
PMQs just started.
Fair points. A lot of people in politics drive me to distraction, but few of them are actively malevolent.
It's not hard to see May's true nature, though. She has a long, long, long, long, long, long history of petty and malevolent acts of aggression against immigrants of every shade.
It's the one thread that weaves its way through her otherwise undistinguished career.
I view her a pretty typical Home Secretary. Being a libertarian is just not part of the job description.
TM highlighting McDonnell wanting a second referendum and to remain at PMQ's is going to cause chaos for labour in the media
BBC live reporting has completely missed TM's McDonnell dig, curiously.
That'll set the conspiracy-mongers off.
I didn't see PMQs but the summary says: "She says John McDonnell told an audience last night he wanted to seize on a referendum and vote remain. That would be a betrayal of the many by the few."
What was her exact quote here? As written above it seems very easy to interpret that as her calling Leavers "the many" and Remainers "the few", which isn't a good look.
To be fair to her, I think it's calling the 17.4 million voters that backed Leave in the first place "the many" and the MPs seeking to overturn that result because they don't like it "the few".
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU. It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
I've yet to see any suggestion of an alternative that delivers against i) ending FoM (which is what motivated Leavers) and ii) Not trashing the economy (which is what motivated Remainers).
It's what motivates May, because as we've already established, she's a xenophobe with a special hatred of immigrants.
But, she's been crowing about how her deal panders to racist gammons and deprives UK citizens of reciprocal rights they've held for 40 years for a while, and it's gotten absolutely zero response from her colleagues.
My suspicion is that May has totally misjudged her colleagues. She believes that her colleagues hate immigrants as much as she does, but they don't.
It must be very baffling to her.
As it turns out, she understands her leave colleagues about as well as her remain colleagues.
A victim of child sexual exploitation has called for a law change amid claims a man who raped her has been invited to play a role in her son's life. Arshid Hussain, who was jailed for 35 years in 2016, was told by Rotherham Council he could seek visits from the child he fathered, The Times reported.
Rotherham council never appear to miss an opportunity to make themselves look bad.
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU. It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
I've yet to see any suggestion of an alternative that delivers against i) ending FoM (which is what motivated Leavers) and ii) Not trashing the economy (which is what motivated Remainers).
It's what motivates May, because as we've already established, she's a xenophobe with a special hatred of immigrants.
But, she's been crowing about how her deal panders to racist gammons and deprives UK citizens of reciprocal rights they've held for 40 years for a while, and it's gotten absolutely zero response from her colleagues.
My suspicion is that May has totally misjudged her colleagues. She believes that her colleagues hate immigrants as much as she does, but they don't.
It must be very baffling to her.
As it turns out, she understands her leave colleagues about as well as her remain colleagues.
You don't ever think you might be obsessing about May a tad too much?
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU. It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
I've yet to see any suggestion of an alternative that delivers against i) ending FoM (which is what motivated Leavers) and ii) Not trashing the economy (which is what motivated Remainers).
It's what motivates May, because as we've already established, she's a xenophobe with a special hatred of immigrants.
But, she's been crowing about how her deal panders to racist gammons and deprives UK citizens of reciprocal rights they've held for 40 years for a while, and it's gotten absolutely zero response from her colleagues.
My suspicion is that May has totally misjudged her colleagues. She believes that her colleagues hate immigrants as much as she does, but they don't.
It must be very baffling to her.
As it turns out, she understands her leave colleagues about as well as her remain colleagues.
It was the promise to slash immigration that got Leave over 50% not just reclaiming widgetmaking regulations. Over 200 Tory MPs out of 318 back the Deal.
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU. It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
I've yet to see any suggestion of an alternative that delivers against i) ending FoM (which is what motivated Leavers) and ii) Not trashing the economy (which is what motivated Remainers).
It's what motivates May, because as we've already established, she's a xenophobe with a special hatred of immigrants.
But, she's been crowing about how her deal panders to racist gammons and deprives UK citizens of reciprocal rights they've held for 40 years for a while, and it's gotten absolutely zero response from her colleagues.
My suspicion is that May has totally misjudged her colleagues. She believes that her colleagues hate immigrants as much as she does, but they don't.
It must be very baffling to her.
As it turns out, she understands her leave colleagues about as well as her remain colleagues.
The ERG would be raising merry hell if FoM wasn't to be ended in the deal. They'll never be happy. Ever.
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU. It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
I've yet to see any suggestion of an alternative that delivers against i) ending FoM (which is what motivated Leavers) and ii) Not trashing the economy (which is what motivated Remainers).
It's what motivates May, because as we've already established, she's a xenophobe with a special hatred of immigrants.
But, she's been crowing about how her deal panders to racist gammons and deprives UK citizens of reciprocal rights they've held for 40 years for a while, and it's gotten absolutely zero response from her colleagues.
My suspicion is that May has totally misjudged her colleagues. She believes that her colleagues hate immigrants as much as she does, but they don't.
It must be very baffling to her.
As it turns out, she understands her leave colleagues about as well as her remain colleagues.
It was promise to slash immigration that got Leave over 50% not just reclaiming widgetmaking regulations.
Leavers reap what they sow
But, if leavers were actually as xenophobic as May thinks they are, why aren't they responding to her repeated attempts to highlight the the deal's xenophobic credentials?
I think May has made that classic aspie mistake of assuming everyone shares the same obsessions as you, in May's case that being hating immigrants.
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU. It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
I've yet to see any suggestion of an alternative that delivers against i) ending FoM (which is what motivated Leavers) and ii) Not trashing the economy (which is what motivated Remainers).
It's what motivates May, because as we've already established, she's a xenophobe with a special hatred of immigrants.
But, she's been crowing about how her deal panders to racist gammons and deprives UK citizens of reciprocal rights they've held for 40 years for a while, and it's gotten absolutely zero response from her colleagues.
My suspicion is that May has totally misjudged her colleagues. She believes that her colleagues hate immigrants as much as she does, but they don't.
It must be very baffling to her.
As it turns out, she understands her leave colleagues about as well as her remain colleagues.
Ending free movement was a big part of the Leave campaign.
Theresa May: "It wouldn’t be possible to hold a referendum before March 29th next year"
So it is purely a matter of logistics now, is it, rather than a policy to be opposed? So if someone can suggest a way to accelerate the process, will May then back a 2nd ref?
“May is not a good person. May is nasty, incompetent, dishonest xenophobe, devoid of wisdom, charm, personality or wit. She's bloody minded for the sake of being bloody minded. She has ruined everything she's touched, and her entire political career has been focused on being as mean and obnoxious as possible to all immigrants.
She's a vile old hag and all of her suffering is 1000% earned.
Good riddance to bad rubbish tbh, it's just a shame her suffering will soon be over. I'd have liked to see her suffer a great deal more.”
from @grabcocque on the previous thread is a touch OTT.
May is not up to the job of being PM and has not handled the Brexit issue well. Though even Solomon would have struggled, I dare say.
l way). She has also done a lot within the Tory party to help women become candidates.
There are plenty of things she can be criticised for. For instance, her reported refusal to countenance giving asylum to Asia Bibi for fear of enraging extremist Muslims here (contrary to the wishes of the current Home and Foreign Secretaries) is utterly shameful.
But to call someone a “vile old hag” and wish suffering on a woman in public life smacks of an unpleasantly bullying and mysogynistic attitude which reflects rather more - and badly IMO - on those saying and supporting such things than on the target.
Well said. I had the benefit of knowing both Theresa & Philip at University and this routine traducing of them by people with no personal knowledge only reinforces my low opinion of the people who post such guff. Of course none of us are perfect, but the one eyed view of those mysogynistic men (and its almost always men) who ignore the bits of her record which contradict their 'xenophobic racist' view says far more about them than Mrs May.
PMQs just started.
Fair points. A lot of people in politics drive me to distraction, but few of them are actively malevolent.
It's not hard to see May's true nature, though. She has a long, long, long, long, long, long history of petty and malevolent acts of aggression against immigrants of every shade.
It's the one thread that weaves its way through her otherwise undistinguished career.
I view her a pretty typical Home Secretary. Being a libertarian is just not part of the job description.
Roy Jenkins?
Even he introduced the Prevention of Terrorism Act
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU. It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
I've yet to see any suggestion of an alternative that delivers against i) ending FoM (which is what motivated Leavers) and ii) Not trashing the economy (which is what motivated Remainers).
It's what motivates May, because as we've already established, she's a xenophobe with a special hatred of immigrants.
But, she's been crowing about how her deal panders to racist gammons and deprives UK citizens of reciprocal rights they've held for 40 years for a while, and it's gotten absolutely zero response from her colleagues.
My suspicion is that May has totally misjudged her colleagues. She believes that her colleagues hate immigrants as much as she does, but they don't.
It must be very baffling to her.
As it turns out, she understands her leave colleagues about as well as her remain colleagues.
The ERG would be raising merry hell if FoM wasn't to be ended in the deal. They'll never be happy. Ever.
You're probably right. The ERG are serial malcontents who enjoy being professional irritants. Attempting to bring them on board is a mug's game.
But if sensible leavers in Parliament really are really preparing a pivot to Norway+, strongly suggests that ending FoM isn't something Parliament is especially bothered by. May, being a confirmed lifelong xenophobe, decided that ending FoM was of paramount importance, but Parliament seems not to care.
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU. It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
I've yet to see any suggestion of an alternative that delivers against i) ending FoM (which is what motivated Leavers) and ii) Not trashing the economy (which is what motivated Remainers).
It's what motivates May, because as we've already established, she's a xenophobe with a special hatred of immigrants.
But, she's been crowing about how her deal panders to racist gammons and deprives UK citizens of reciprocal rights they've held for 40 years for a while, and it's gotten absolutely zero response from her colleagues.
My suspicion is that May has totally misjudged her colleagues. She believes that her colleagues hate immigrants as much as she does, but they don't.
It must be very baffling to her.
As it turns out, she understands her leave colleagues about as well as her remain colleagues.
The ERG would be raising merry hell if FoM wasn't to be ended in the deal. They'll never be happy. Ever.
You're probably right. The ERG are serial malcontents who enjoy being professional irritants. Attempting to bring them on board is a mug's game.
But if sensible leavers in Parliament really are really preparing a pivot to Norway+, strongly suggests that ending FoM isn't something Parliament is especially bothered by. May, being a confirmed lifelong xenophobe, decided that ending FoM was of paramount importance, but Parliament seems not to care.
The EU isn't going to reopen the WA to head to Norway+ just because roaster Ross thinks it'll save him a few votes in Aberdeen South.
I wonder why may / uk government are so reluctant to offer asylum to this woman. Of all the sorts of cases that get those concerned about levels of immigration, genuine asylum cases like this and Malala aren’t the ones that get them hit under the collar.
Wonder if there is more to it that we don’t know about?
Is there not 2.5m reasons, namely the number of Christians still struggling in Pakistan? We already have a situation where most successful asylum claims are made up of religious or sexual minorities who are going to be afflicted if sent back to where they came from. How many more Pakistanis would suddenly become Christian (and therefore an apostate to boot) if we set such a precedent? It would really be an open door.
I wonder why may / uk government are so reluctant to offer asylum to this woman. Of all the sorts of cases that get those concerned about levels of immigration, genuine asylum cases like this and Malala aren’t the ones that get them hit under the collar.
Wonder if there is more to it that we don’t know about?
Nope. They're just worried that if she comes here someone will murder her or someone close to her. Which wouldn't be asylum, would it.
A victim of child sexual exploitation has called for a law change amid claims a man who raped her has been invited to play a role in her son's life. Arshid Hussain, who was jailed for 35 years in 2016, was told by Rotherham Council he could seek visits from the child he fathered, The Times reported.
Rotherham council never appear to miss an opportunity to make themselves look bad.
How could that possibly be in the best interests of the child?
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU. It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
I've yet to see any suggestion of an alternative that delivers against i) ending FoM (which is what motivated Leavers) and ii) Not trashing the economy (which is what motivated Remainers).
It's what motivates May, because as we've already established, she's a xenophobe with a special hatred of immigrants.
But, she's been crowing about how her deal panders to racist gammons and deprives UK citizens of reciprocal rights they've held for 40 years for a while, and it's gotten absolutely zero response from her colleagues.
My suspicion is that May has totally misjudged her colleagues. She believes that her colleagues hate immigrants as much as she does, but they don't.
It must be very baffling to her.
As it turns out, she understands her leave colleagues about as well as her remain colleagues.
Ending free movement was a big part of the Leave campaign.
A lot of things were said. Some of them were even true.
I think the person to watch is Gove. He's been on (or wants people to believe he's been on) some kind of vision quest and come back a True Norway Believer. Question is, can he carry enough sensible leavers?
At this point, I can imagine that sensible leavers will be ecstatic at being given a way out of the woods. Some sort of fudge or wording will be found about denying benefits and healthcare to those who have not worked in the UK, and a promise to propose a joint mobility framework with our new EFTA friends will be made, and then long-grassed.
The gammons, in a fit of fury, will announce they're going to vote UKIP but then not vote at all, or if we're lucky, perhaps they'll simply explode.
And collectively, we all breathe a sigh of relief.
I wonder why may / uk government are so reluctant to offer asylum to this woman. Of all the sorts of cases that get those concerned about levels of immigration, genuine asylum cases like this and Malala aren’t the ones that get them hit under the collar.
Wonder if there is more to it that we don’t know about?
Is there not 2.5m reasons, namely the number of Christians still struggling in Pakistan? We already have a situation where most successful asylum claims are made up of religious or sexual minorities who are going to be afflicted if sent back to where they came from. How many more Pakistanis would suddenly become Christian (and therefore an apostate to boot) if we set such a precedent? It would really be an open door.
Er... wouldn't we only consider those with good evidence that their lives really at risk - e.g. those who had been prosecuted?
It beggars belief that people would game the system at the potential risk to their own lives to get a ticket into the UK.
However, I do think there's a danger of provoking a more widespread pogrom in Pakistan against the Christians there and I think Britain's imperial history makes it a somewhat less than wise choice for us to offer assylum. Hopefully a less contentious host country will make an offer.
I notice that Survation's figures are restricted to those respondents who answered positively to the question:
Have you seen or heard any details, about the UK Government’s draft Brexit withdrawal agreement with the EU that was announced last night?
So for the November 15 poll, 647 people were included in the deal question, and this increased to 745 in the 27 November poll. I also notice that for the November 15 poll, questions about a hypothetical referendum were asked before the deal question. In the November 27 poll they were asked after the deal question.
The EU isn't going to reopen the WA to head to Norway+ just because roaster Ross thinks it'll save him a few votes in Aberdeen South.
Norway+ would require re-opening the WA, but only to make the CU permanent and thus to remove the godforsaken backstop.
I think if we offered them that they'd jump at the chance. They don't want the backstop any more than we do.
The political declaration could then be replaced with one stating an intention to join the EEA/EFTA states. Again, I don't think the EU would object at all, because of relief at making the backstop go away.
Everything suggests she's a xenophobic, dishonest, incompetent personality void. And thus do I judge her.
Why would a xenophobe campaign on modern slavery, or tackle the implicit racism of Police stop & search of young black men?
Admit it, you just don't like powerful women.
I don't think it is about her being female, but the extremists on both sides are incapable of having someone disagree with them. For some, if someone is delivering Brexit, they are by definition racist and incompetent and evil. For others, if someone agrees anything other than a pure cliff edge, they are traitorous and incompetent and evil. These people are impervious to reason.
It is great to see the British people are being won round over the charlatanry of MPs and the bias of the media. The British public have always had more wisdom than the political class.
I voted for Brexit. I wanted chaos. It has to be said, Mrs May's incompetence has delivered chaos in absolute buckets.
Pound for pound, her affinity for generating political chaos and constitutional crises must be unmatched in the modern era.
You're going to tell us you live in the Cayman Islands next.
I was going to say I have children to bring up and elderly parents to look after and no thank you for chaos but the Cayman quote put it much better!
The EU isn't going to reopen the WA to head to Norway+ just because roaster Ross thinks it'll save him a few votes in Aberdeen South.
Norway+ would require re-opening the WA, but only to make the CU permanent and thus to remove the godforsaken backstop.
I think if we offered them that they'd jump at the chance. They don't want the backstop any more than we do.
The political declaration could then be replaced with one stating an intention to join the EEA/EFTA states. Again, I don't think the EU would object at all, because of relief at making the backstop go away.
You can't put a permanent customs union in the WA. You could potentially remove the UK-wide customs element that May insisted on and revert to the EU's original NI-only backstop but that wouldn't help in this scenario.
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU. It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
I've yet to see any suggestion of an alternative that delivers against i) ending FoM (which is what motivated Leavers) and ii) Not trashing the economy (which is what motivated Remainers).
It's what motivates May, because as we've already established, she's a xenophobe with a special hatred of immigrants.
But, she's been crowing about how her deal panders to racist gammons and deprives UK citizens of reciprocal rights they've held for 40 years for a while, and it's gotten absolutely zero response from her colleagues.
My suspicion is that May has totally misjudged her colleagues. She believes that her colleagues hate immigrants as much as she does, but they don't.
It must be very baffling to her.
As it turns out, she understands her leave colleagues about as well as her remain colleagues.
Norway+ would require re-opening the WA, but only to make the CU permanent and thus to remove the godforsaken backstop.
I find this line one of the most hilarious in a strong field of hilarious Brexit lines. The hated backstop is extremely close to Norway+. The principal difference is that it doesn't involve paying fat fees to the EU. Another difference is that it doesn't commit us to FoM. It really is avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre (which is why there is no realistic prospect or danger of it being permanent).
I notice that Survation's figures are restricted to those respondents who answered positively to the question:
Have you seen or heard any details, about the UK Government’s draft Brexit withdrawal agreement with the EU that was announced last night?
So for the November 15 poll, 647 people were included in the deal question, and this increased to 745 in the 27 November poll. I also notice that for the November 15 poll, questions about a hypothetical referendum were asked before the deal question. In the November 27 poll they were asked after the deal question.
I stand by my assessment last night that the Survation poll contained some problematically leading questions, and in respect of BPC guidelines, probably shouldn't have asked them. At least not in that order.
It also neatly explains the massive disconnect between how people say they'd vote if there were a referendum, vs how they want MPs to vote. Which, prima facie, makes no sense.
It seems to be that there's a desire for something over nothing, but only when we definitively establish that the alternative is truly nothing.
When we give people a choice, any other choice, they prefer it to May's deal. It's the Condorcet loser in that poll, and every poll I've seen.
A victim of child sexual exploitation has called for a law change amid claims a man who raped her has been invited to play a role in her son's life. Arshid Hussain, who was jailed for 35 years in 2016, was told by Rotherham Council he could seek visits from the child he fathered, The Times reported.
Rotherham council never appear to miss an opportunity to make themselves look bad.
It's a tragic case, and an obviously dodgy result.
For me, an interesting part is the following: "In response, a council spokesman said while the authority could not disclose information relating to hearings in the Family Court "we do understand that the legal requirements can cause upset to those involved and so we welcome a debate".
I wonder what 'legal requirements' they think they're talking about? There's a small chance they're right and they did everything properly, but IMO a much greater chance they're either lying or have utterly misread law. Especially given their track record.
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
To address this paragraph specifically, she was no fan of the EU's indivisible four freedoms (particularly freedom of movement). BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote. Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU. It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
I've yet to see any suggestion of an alternative that delivers against i) ending FoM (which is what motivated Leavers) and ii) Not trashing the economy (which is what motivated Remainers).
It's what motivates May, because as we've already established, she's a xenophobe with a special hatred of immigrants.
But, she's been crowing about how her deal panders to racist gammons and deprives UK citizens of reciprocal rights they've held for 40 years for a while, and it's gotten absolutely zero response from her colleagues.
My suspicion is that May has totally misjudged her colleagues. She believes that her colleagues hate immigrants as much as she does, but they don't.
It must be very baffling to her.
As it turns out, she understands her leave colleagues about as well as her remain colleagues.
Ending free movement was a big part of the Leave campaign.
A lot of things were said. Some of them were even true.
I think the person to watch is Gove. He's been on (or wants people to believe he's been on) some kind of vision quest and come back a True Norway Believer.
Of all of Brexit's miracles and mysteries El Viaje Misterioso de Nuestro Gove seemes like the most unlikely yet.
Well said. I had the benefit of knowing both Theresa & Philip at University and this routine traducing of them by people with no personal knowledge only reinforces my low opinion of the people who post such guff. Of course none of us are perfect, but the one eyed view of those mysogynistic men (and its almost always men) who ignore the bits of her record which contradict their 'xenophobic racist' view says far more about them than Mrs May.
PMQs just started.
Fair points. A lot of people in politics drive me to distraction, but few of them are actively malevolent.
It's not hard to see May's true nature, though. She has a long, long, long, long, long, long history of petty and malevolent acts of aggression against immigrants of every shade.
It's the one thread that weaves its way through her otherwise undistinguished career.
I view her a pretty typical Home Secretary. Being a libertarian is just not part of the job description.
Roy Jenkins?
Even he introduced the Prevention of Terrorism Act
Plus stopping birching, legalising homosexuality, legalising abortion, ending theatre censorship. I think he was a genuine libertarian despite being Home Sec. In fairness to your original point I have had to go back a fair bit though.
But that’s a much more accurate modelling that other Brexit forecasts that have been done in the past (with worse numbers) where they’ve assumed we drop out of all EU trade deals, and don’t replace them.
But that’s a much more accurate modelling that other Brexit forecasts that have been done in the past (with worse numbers) where they’ve assumed we drop out of all EU trade deals, and don’t replace them.
Ask Robert how accurate it is to assume trade deals with the US, China and India.
Norway+ would require re-opening the WA, but only to make the CU permanent and thus to remove the godforsaken backstop.
I find this line one of the most hilarious in a strong field of hilarious Brexit lines. The hated backstop is extremely close to Norway+. The principal difference is that it doesn't involve paying fat fees to the EU.
Well, I certainly am by no means the first to suggest that if May had tacked towards Norway+ right at the start, we'd not nearly be in so much doodoo.
It's the backstop, right, Richard? The backstop is an absolute disaster, and May made the error of her career allowing it. And the EU thought the UK parliament would fold, and it doesn't look like it will.
To get the WA through, we need a way to make the backstop disappear, and get more clarity on the future partnership. And Norway+ seems like the (most promising) compromise route.
Though in this febrile atmosphere I'd shy away from suggesting that I expect a sensible and promising compromise to get any serious thought at all.
But that’s a much more accurate modelling that other Brexit forecasts that have been done in the past (with worse numbers) where they’ve assumed we drop out of all EU trade deals, and don’t replace them.
Ask Robert how accurate it is to assume trade deals with the US, China and India.
The graphs in the exec summary show there is not really that much positive influence from the assumed new trade deals - they make diddly-squat difference either way really.
But that’s a much more accurate modelling that other Brexit forecasts that have been done in the past (with worse numbers) where they’ve assumed we drop out of all EU trade deals, and don’t replace them.
Ask Robert how accurate it is to assume trade deals with the US, China and India.
I don’t need to ask Robert, I have my own views on that.
Nevertheless 1-2% extra GDP in 12 years is a rounding error and assumes all things on the EU side stay the same, and our economy doesn’t adjust and change shape over that period.
But, even if it’s right, it’s something I could easily live with.
I saw some screenshots of his Facebook account, he’s very pro Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson’s comments on letterboxes.
and?
You can ave very strong views bout immigration and immigrants themselves, but that doesnt translate to wanting to see a child bullied. Even if you firmly believe he and his family shouldnt be here, doesnt mean you approve of bullying.
Well, I certainly am by no means the first to suggest that if May had tacked towards Norway+ right at the start, we'd not nearly be in so much doodoo.
It's the backstop, right, Richard? The backstop is an absolute disaster, and May made the error of her career allowing it. And the EU thought the UK parliament would fold, and it doesn't look like it will.
To get the WA through, we need a way to make the backstop disappear, and get more clarity on the future partnership. And Norway+ seems like the (most promising) compromise route.
Though in this febrile atmosphere I'd shy away from suggesting that I expect a sensible and promising compromise to get any serious thought at all.
Except that the backstop is still needed in that scenario. We can't reach unanimous agreement and formal ratification of a new relationship with 31 other countries by March 29th, especially since 27 of them insist (admittedly irrationally) that we can't even start proper negotiations until we've left.
I agree that the backstop is a disaster, and it may well be a disastrous misjudgement by our EU friends. But I don't think they are going to back down on it.
But that’s a much more accurate modelling that other Brexit forecasts that have been done in the past (with worse numbers) where they’ve assumed we drop out of all EU trade deals, and don’t replace them.
Ask Robert how accurate it is to assume trade deals with the US, China and India.
The graphs in the exec summary show there is not really that much positive influence from the assumed new trade deals - they make diddly-squat difference either way really.
Sounds like UK Treasury is being incredibly pessimistic about those...
GDP gains from new trade deals with non-EU countries are only 10% of the GDP gains the EU estimates from the same deals
You can ave very strong views bout immigration and immigrants themselves, but that doesnt translate to wanting to see a child bullied. Even if you firmly believe he and his family shouldnt be here, doesnt mean you approve of bullying.
He (I won't name him, but it's easy enough to find who he is on twitter) is in serious trouble.
The MODS may wish to consider taking down comments linking to the vid, as Huddersfield police have asked that the public do not share it as it could prejudice the case.
I saw some screenshots of his Facebook account, he’s very pro Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson’s comments on letterboxes.
and?
You can ave very strong views bout immigration and immigrants themselves, but that doesnt translate to wanting to see a child bullied. Even if you firmly believe he and his family shouldnt be here, doesnt mean you approve of bullying.
It means all leave voters are disgusting racists apparently.
And they still wonder why they lost the referendum.
Well, I certainly am by no means the first to suggest that if May had tacked towards Norway+ right at the start, we'd not nearly be in so much doodoo.
It's the backstop, right, Richard? The backstop is an absolute disaster, and May made the error of her career allowing it. And the EU thought the UK parliament would fold, and it doesn't look like it will.
To get the WA through, we need a way to make the backstop disappear, and get more clarity on the future partnership. And Norway+ seems like the (most promising) compromise route.
Though in this febrile atmosphere I'd shy away from suggesting that I expect a sensible and promising compromise to get any serious thought at all.
Except that the backstop is still needed in that scenario. We can't reach unanimous agreement and formal ratification of a new relationship with 31 other countries by March 29th, especially since 27 of them insist (admittedly irrationally) that we can't even start proper negotiations until we've left.
I agree that the backstop is a disaster, and it may well be a disastrous misjudgement by our EU friends. But I don't think they are going to back down on it.
We're going to need an extension, I think. They'd agree to a six month extension I suspect if and only if the Council accepts the UK's damascene conversion to Norway is genuine and not some gambit.
Quite how we'd convince them of that, I have no idea.
A victim of child sexual exploitation has called for a law change amid claims a man who raped her has been invited to play a role in her son's life. Arshid Hussain, who was jailed for 35 years in 2016, was told by Rotherham Council he could seek visits from the child he fathered, The Times reported.
Rotherham council never appear to miss an opportunity to make themselves look bad.
How could that possibly be in the best interests of the child?
Whats's breathtaking is the *claim* that Rotherham social workers positively went to him and explained to him that he could seek an order. WTF is going on there?
I saw some screenshots of his Facebook account, he’s very pro Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson’s comments on letterboxes.
and?
You can ave very strong views bout immigration and immigrants themselves, but that doesnt translate to wanting to see a child bullied. Even if you firmly believe he and his family shouldnt be here, doesnt mean you approve of bullying.
Being radicalised by Tommy Robinson is a real issue.
Norway+ would require re-opening the WA, but only to make the CU permanent and thus to remove the godforsaken backstop.
I find this line one of the most hilarious in a strong field of hilarious Brexit lines. The hated backstop is extremely close to Norway+. The principal difference is that it doesn't involve paying fat fees to the EU. Another difference is that it doesn't commit us to FoM. It really is avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre (which is why there is no realistic prospect or danger of it being permanent).
Such appeals to reason have no place in the Brexit debate, Richard.
Bear with me. This lad in Huddersfield is a victim - as obviously is the refugee he assaulted. We've seen one clip and you wonder how much other verbal and physical abuse has been forthcoming as the refugee gets up and walks off like he's been there before.
So why am I calling his attacker a victim? Because he's a teenage boy, and this society has conditioned him to act in such an appalling way. So yes, Leave.EU are to blame. As are the media. As are the Tories and particularly Theresa May who pandered to dog whistle racism in her own ranks with the "foreigners go home" vans.
It's even broader than that. Hate spills out of inequality, with the absurd notion put about that poor people are poor because of asylum seekers who are really really poor. It's not the fault of today's fuck you asset stripping society where a handful gorge off the backs of the vast majority. Oh no, it's th fault of this Syrian kid so why not try and drown him?
Making this country even poorer and more unequal than it already is cannot be how we move forward to resolve these systematic and structural issues in society.
I saw some screenshots of his Facebook account, he’s very pro Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson’s comments on letterboxes.
and?
You can ave very strong views bout immigration and immigrants themselves, but that doesnt translate to wanting to see a child bullied. Even if you firmly believe he and his family shouldnt be here, doesnt mean you approve of bullying.
Being radicalised by Tommy Robinson is a real issue.
Cf Darren Osborne.
He was able to radicalise UKIP with little effort, and most UKIP supporters have the emotional and intellectual range of adolescents.
I saw some screenshots of his Facebook account, he’s very pro Tommy Robinson and Boris Johnson’s comments on letterboxes.
and?
You can ave very strong views bout immigration and immigrants themselves, but that doesnt translate to wanting to see a child bullied. Even if you firmly believe he and his family shouldnt be here, doesnt mean you approve of bullying.
It means all leave voters are disgusting racists apparently.
And they still wonder why they lost the referendum.
But that’s a much more accurate modelling that other Brexit forecasts that have been done in the past (with worse numbers) where they’ve assumed we drop out of all EU trade deals, and don’t replace them.
Ask Robert how accurate it is to assume trade deals with the US, China and India.
The graphs in the exec summary show there is not really that much positive influence from the assumed new trade deals - they make diddly-squat difference either way really.
Sounds like UK Treasury is being incredibly pessimistic about those...
GDP gains from new trade deals with non-EU countries are only 10% of the GDP gains the EU estimates from the same deals
Would be interesting to see what the Treasury would predict for the "51st state solution" (leave one union, join another). On the basis that we'd be integrating into a huge market and expect some convergence to their considerably higher GDP/capita, I imagine it would leave us an awful lot better off. Plus if Britain were a major constituent of the US Electoral College, there's essentially no way that Trump - or anyone like him - could become Leader of the Free World again. Surely we could all put up with some chlorine in our chicken for that
Comments
May's style of leadship is to take all decisions with a small coterie of advisers and then spring them on people when it is too late for further debate and discussion. Witness the Lancaster House speech, the dementia tax and the decision to call the 2017 election. Now she is doing the same with the "deal" - nobody really knew what was in the detail until it was too late, May's attempts to defend it consist merely of repeating that she is right and it's in the national interest. This is a hopelessly naive way of selling such an important and controversial policy - she should have been out there selling it to MPs from the start of the negotiations. But she seems to shy away from engaging even with her own party, she spent yesterday trying to convince farmers in remote villages ignoring those whose votes she actually needs, namely MPs.
Being stubborn for its own sake, for no particular purpose, isn't useful behaviour. It's displacement activity.
In 2009 though her CDU and FDP coalition got a majority
Personally, if I compare "Dutiful May" with "Arrogant & Ambitious May", the latter is far more consistent with her actions. Let's run down some of her greatest hits:
- Being a totally half-assed campaigner for Remain, then leveraging this to become PM. Consistent with A&A May, who correctly identified that being acceptable to both sides would help her career. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would have put the outcome of the referendum before her own career.
- Firing, ignoring or marginalising every dissenting voice on Brexit; letting Nick Timothy write her Brexit policy on the back of a napkin: Consistent with A&A May, who like everything else sees Brexit as an area where she has to enviously guard her power. Not really consistent with Dutiful May who would presumably realise that Brexit is too important to disregard every warning.
- Running an electoral campaign where the main guidance was to be different to Cameron; sidelining everyone but her inner circle; writing herself a manifesto that was more about being a blank cheque than about winning votes: Consistent with A&A May, who was convinced she'd win easily and saw the election much more about shoring up her personal power than maximising seats. Not consistent with Dutiful May who would care about her party's success above her own power games.
- Staying on as PM after the disastrous election: Consistent with both. Dutiful May really believes she has to fix the mess she helped create and believes she'll be better at it then her likely replacements. A&A May wants to cling to power and rescue her legacy.
- Running down the clock as long as possible in negotiations with EU: Not consistent with Dutiful May, who would know that if her deal was going to be voted down, better to get that done with while there's still time to maneuver to whatever's next- whether or not that means her remaining as PM. Consistent with A&A May who cares only about staying in power and getting a deal with her name on it through. She doesn't mind playing chicken with the country's future if it helps her bully MPs into voting for her deal.
That'll set the conspiracy-mongers off.
Support: 37 (+10)
Neither: 26 (+8)
Oppose: 35 (-14)
That's quite a swing........
MPs are to vote on the Government’s Brexit withdrawal agreement on the 11th December, how would you like MPs to vote? (For/Against/DK)
OA: 41 / 38 / 22
Con: 62 / 22 / 17
Lab: 39 / 42 / 18
Surprised that the Labour numbers are (virtually) a tie......
https://www.survation.com/are-the-public-warmer-on-the-prime-ministers-brexit-deal-than-mps/
Wonder if there is more to it that we don’t know about?
What was her exact quote here? As written above it seems very easy to interpret that as her calling Leavers "the many" and Remainers "the few", which isn't a good look.
From the live feed..
12:37
BBC Politics
✔
@BBCPolitics
Jeremy Corbyn on #Brexit: "Parliament will not back this... isn't it time for [the PM] to accept that reality?"
Theresa May: Shadow chancellor wants to "overturn the will of the people" with a new vote on leaving the EU
BUT! though she holds no particular love for the EU as an institution she recognises it does indeed give us economic benefits - so sought to preserve as many of these as possible whilst honouring the EU ref vote.
Many on either side of the debate either hate the EU or think the sun shines out of it's arse. I completely see where May was and is coming from on the EU.
It's very difficult to actively campaign for the EU when you hold this position (Not a million miles from Corbyn either I expect)
The EEA EFTA States have the right to participate in expert groups and committees of the European Commission, EU member states do not.
- EEA EFTA States have the right to propose amendments on upcoming legislation, member states do not.
- At the end of the process, EEA states take a joint position on whether they wish to adopt the legislation at all. Member states have no choice.
- EEA states can use the court of the EEA to force the commission to withdraw draft legislative proposals. EU member states have no such power.
Even if she had been a true believer, nobody would have noticed.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2018/nov/26/theresa-may-apologises-eu-nationals-jumping-the-queue-work-uk-video
But, she's been crowing about how her deal panders to racist gammons and deprives UK citizens of reciprocal rights they've held for 40 years for a while, and it's gotten absolutely zero response from her colleagues.
My suspicion is that May has totally misjudged her colleagues. She believes that her colleagues hate immigrants as much as she does, but they don't.
It must be very baffling to her.
As it turns out, she understands her leave colleagues about as well as her remain colleagues.
They should try a ball gag and handcuffs first...
Rotherham council never appear to miss an opportunity to make themselves look bad.
Leavers reap what they sow
I think May has made that classic aspie mistake of assuming everyone shares the same obsessions as you, in May's case that being hating immigrants.
Theresa May: "It wouldn’t be possible to hold a referendum before March 29th next year"
So it is purely a matter of logistics now, is it, rather than a policy to be opposed? So if someone can suggest a way to accelerate the process, will May then back a 2nd ref?
But if sensible leavers in Parliament really are really preparing a pivot to Norway+, strongly suggests that ending FoM isn't something Parliament is especially bothered by. May, being a confirmed lifelong xenophobe, decided that ending FoM was of paramount importance, but Parliament seems not to care.
I think the person to watch is Gove. He's been on (or wants people to believe he's been on) some kind of vision quest and come back a True Norway Believer. Question is, can he carry enough sensible leavers?
At this point, I can imagine that sensible leavers will be ecstatic at being given a way out of the woods. Some sort of fudge or wording will be found about denying benefits and healthcare to those who have not worked in the UK, and a promise to propose a joint mobility framework with our new EFTA friends will be made, and then long-grassed.
The gammons, in a fit of fury, will announce they're going to vote UKIP but then not vote at all, or if we're lucky, perhaps they'll simply explode.
And collectively, we all breathe a sigh of relief.
It beggars belief that people would game the system at the potential risk to their own lives to get a ticket into the UK.
However, I do think there's a danger of provoking a more widespread pogrom in Pakistan against the Christians there and I think Britain's imperial history makes it a somewhat less than wise choice for us to offer assylum. Hopefully a less contentious host country will make an offer.
I notice that Survation's figures are restricted to those respondents who answered positively to the question:
Have you seen or heard any details, about the UK Government’s draft Brexit withdrawal agreement with the EU that was announced last night?
So for the November 15 poll, 647 people were included in the deal question, and this increased to 745 in the 27 November poll. I also notice that for the November 15 poll, questions about a hypothetical referendum were asked before the deal question. In the November 27 poll they were asked after the deal question.
I think if we offered them that they'd jump at the chance. They don't want the backstop any more than we do.
The political declaration could then be replaced with one stating an intention to join the EEA/EFTA states. Again, I don't think the EU would object at all, because of relief at making the backstop go away.
What a cowardy-custard I clearly am.
https://twitter.com/tobias_ellwood/status/1067554220981870592?s=21
It also neatly explains the massive disconnect between how people say they'd vote if there were a referendum, vs how they want MPs to vote. Which, prima facie, makes no sense.
It seems to be that there's a desire for something over nothing, but only when we definitively establish that the alternative is truly nothing.
When we give people a choice, any other choice, they prefer it to May's deal. It's the Condorcet loser in that poll, and every poll I've seen.
For me, an interesting part is the following: "In response, a council spokesman said while the authority could not disclose information relating to hearings in the Family Court "we do understand that the legal requirements can cause upset to those involved and so we welcome a debate".
I wonder what 'legal requirements' they think they're talking about? There's a small chance they're right and they did everything properly, but IMO a much greater chance they're either lying or have utterly misread law. Especially given their track record.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759762/28_November_EU_Exit_-_Long-term_economic_analysis.pdf
Plus stopping birching, legalising homosexuality, legalising abortion, ending theatre censorship. I think he was a genuine libertarian despite being Home Sec. In fairness to your original point I have had to go back a fair bit though.
It's the backstop, right, Richard? The backstop is an absolute disaster, and May made the error of her career allowing it. And the EU thought the UK parliament would fold, and it doesn't look like it will.
To get the WA through, we need a way to make the backstop disappear, and get more clarity on the future partnership. And Norway+ seems like the (most promising) compromise route.
Though in this febrile atmosphere I'd shy away from suggesting that I expect a sensible and promising compromise to get any serious thought at all.
Nevertheless 1-2% extra GDP in 12 years is a rounding error and assumes all things on the EU side stay the same, and our economy doesn’t adjust and change shape over that period.
But, even if it’s right, it’s something I could easily live with.
You can ave very strong views bout immigration and immigrants themselves, but that doesnt translate to wanting to see a child bullied. Even if you firmly believe he and his family shouldnt be here, doesnt mean you approve of bullying.
I agree that the backstop is a disaster, and it may well be a disastrous misjudgement by our EU friends. But I don't think they are going to back down on it.
GDP gains from new trade deals with non-EU countries are only 10% of the GDP gains the EU estimates from the same deals
Comes from a leaver, but...
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1067757364739276800
The MODS may wish to consider taking down comments linking to the vid, as Huddersfield police have asked that the public do not share it as it could prejudice the case.
"Police appealed to members of the public not to share footage of the alleged assault on social media as it could prejudice criminal proceedings." from here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/syrian-refugee-attack-boy-charged-huddersfield-video-police-arrest-charged-a8655696.html
And they still wonder why they lost the referendum.
Quite how we'd convince them of that, I have no idea.
A fundraising page for the boy and his family has received more than £60,000 in donations since it was set up on Tuesday night.
Mohammed Tahir, who set up the page, said: “After seeing the video I had an idea of setting up a GoFundMe page.
“I’m overwhelmed by the support that we’ve received and I can’t thank everyone enough for the generous donations they have made.
“I am working alongside GoFundMe so we can make sure every last penny gets to the family and I want to thank them for their support."
Cf Darren Osborne.
So why am I calling his attacker a victim? Because he's a teenage boy, and this society has conditioned him to act in such an appalling way. So yes, Leave.EU are to blame. As are the media. As are the Tories and particularly Theresa May who pandered to dog whistle racism in her own ranks with the "foreigners go home" vans.
It's even broader than that. Hate spills out of inequality, with the absurd notion put about that poor people are poor because of asylum seekers who are really really poor. It's not the fault of today's fuck you asset stripping society where a handful gorge off the backs of the vast majority. Oh no, it's th fault of this Syrian kid so why not try and drown him?
Making this country even poorer and more unequal than it already is cannot be how we move forward to resolve these systematic and structural issues in society.
Don’t make stuff up.