It wouldn't surprise me if this prolonged period of incredible, non-stop stress is affecting May's reasoning ability. Like, I can only imagine what it must be like.
You may remember a few months back questions were raised over the 'impartiality' of Andrew Neil when it came to investigations into vote leave's funding. Specifically he directed a low grade insult at the Guardian journalist Carole Cadwalladr. It's a somewhat recurring pattern that Neil is openly biased on this topic. Well, Cadwalladr went into a fair degree of detail on the issue and her attempts to get the BBC to do anything about it here:
Naturally, the BBC have done sweet FA about it. Indeed, their own conduct in this affair leaves much to be desired. Neil is a partisan hack who should have been kicked off the BBC long ago. For example, here's an example of what happens when Neil is challenged on the content of The Spectator (namely how it has defended the far right in Greece):
I can't see the justification for keeping Neil in a prominent role on the BBC. Even if he takes down a tory or two now and again, there are too many serious errors of judgement to consider him impartial.
+2
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
Times is leading with a Yougov poll that predicts that the Labour/Tory deficit is now wide enough that the Tories would scrape a working majority, if an election was held today.
Times is leading with a Yougov poll that predicts that the Labour/Tory deficit is now wide enough that the Tories would scrape a working majority, if an election was held today.
Usual caveat that Yougov predict far more favourable results for the Tories than is typical (sometimes by up to seven points)
The MRP model is their constituency by constituency forecast, not their regular poll, it is completely seperate. It was the one that was heavily mocked pre 2017 election only to turn out scarily accurate. You would have made mega wonga bettong on the model.
Times is leading with a Yougov poll that predicts that the Labour/Tory deficit is now wide enough that the Tories would scrape a working majority, if an election was held today.
Nothing that happened in the Commons would surprise me now
The only thing that I am certain of is that in any given situation things will become more chaotic and less under any kind of direction or control, as that seems to be the overwhelming movement
I have to say I know the Tories are very much "back up your own" as a Party and I know that May is unbelievably stubborn
But surely they cannot be looking at the government and thinking "oh yeah this works"
Like you'd have to be deluded. You'd have to live in another universe. I can't imagine that May, ostensibly a person with a degree of mental capability and political experience, thinks "yeah it's going well" like
How can they pretend that this is okay? Or normal? Remotely either?
The issue was direct democracy is a garbage way to govern.
Switzerland seems to be doing pretty well with it. Seriously, saying that direct democracy is the problem here is the same as listening to a six-year-old playing the violin for the first time and deciding that string instruments are a garbage way to make music. The problem here wasn't direct democracy so much as it was a stab at direct democracy enacted by a country/political system that had zero experience with it and that by and large didn't attempt it in good faith.
Which isn't to say that direct democracy is perfect and flawless and y'all simply got it wrong. But taking Brexit as an indictment of direct (or at least more direct) democracy is facile IMO.
Switzerland doesn't have direct democracy, they have a democratic republic with some direct democratic referendums. There were all of 12 in 120 years until very recently, where there's been 10 in the last 20 years and those have tended to be xenophobic and fairly harmful/hateful (such are minaret ban, and immigration ban).
I think you're mistaking one particular form of Swiss referenda for the overall thing. We have popular initiatives that lead to national votes on changes to the constitution, which I think is what you're referring to, but we also have obligatory referenda on national matters as well as what is called a "Referendum" here, which is when a sufficient number of signatures are collected against a law issued by parliament, so the matter is decided in a national vote. All three of these are cases where political decisions are presented to all voters, and those happen much more often than what you allude to: there were 64 in the 1980s, 105 in the 1990s, 80 in the 2000s and 73 in this decade. And that's the national ones: we have several more on the cantonal and community level, so while it's obviously not 100% direct democracy, the instruments to either create new laws or negate existing ones are constantly available to voters. Since you mentioned the Brexit referendum as an example of why direct democracy sucks, well, this strikes me as a considerably more sustained example of direct-democratic practice.
I agree that the initiatives can and have been used to xenophobic ends, but at the same time they have also been used as popularly sanctioned course corrections. You mention the immigration ban - yes, there was such an initiative, but look at what happened afterwards: parliament tried to enact it while not endangering Switzerland's agreements with the EU, they came up with a proposal that the EU agreed to, the right-wing party launched a referendum to cancel the agreements in question, and the people clearly voted that one down. They provided the government with a clear mandate that, no, the scope of the original referendum as interpreted by the Right was not what the people wanted. In the last 10-15 years there have been various such course corrections, and as they were decided by a majority in national votes, they are also accepted. The system seems geared towards the words populist excesses, but in practice and over a timeline longer than one single referendum it has proven a moderating factor. (More so than I sometimes wish - I tend to vote more Left than the overall decisions taken by national vote.)
And that immigration ban is one where the Swiss government decided "No, this is stupid, you're all stupid" and really watered it down, and last I paid attention they are looking to pass legislation that would either reverse the result of that, or basically make future referendums of the same kind impossible.
So, it's not like the Swiss are doing super well on that front.
And that's exactly what I'm talking about above: the people as a whole sanctioned the watering down, so you have a fraction of the narratives that the people were betrayed and democracy was taken behind the shed and shot in the head. IMO that's not an example of the system not working but the opposite. And yes, there are moves to pass legislation that people's initatives should be checked against international law, and the right-wing party launched a referendum to ensure that "foreign judges" wouldn't override Swiss law - again, there was a national vote, and again, that vote told the Right that a majority of Swiss people want international laws to overrule Swiss law. The matter was put to the vote and everyone was able to have a say.
Added to which, these referenda aren't just "Do you want to do X?" When it comes to the vote, the corresponding laws or constitutional articles have already been drafted and they're presented to the voters. It's likely that not everyone reads or understands them in detail, but there's none of that discussion of "What flavour of X is it you want?" after the fact, with different factions making claims that only they know what X was wanted. There are multiple-choice referenda where you might be asked to decide whether you want to accept X, vote it down or vote for compromise Y. There are things that are voted on more or less every half-dozen years - because anyone can launch an initiative, provided they have enough signatures, things can be brought to the vote again. Yes, you also get the whole grumbling about how this was already decided, but again, the ability to course-correct is built into the system, and it's in the hands not of politicians but of the people.
Looking at Brexit, the only way there's a second referendum is if government decides there's a referendum. With neither the Tories nor Labour pursuing that path, it seems there simply aren't any tools in place for people to demand this. A second vote may still go to Leave, and even if not, it'd probably be tight - but in practice, if national referenda are a tool that can be initiated by the voters themselves, you tend to have less of a narrative of political disaffection and betrayal.
I don't think that a political system can just be transplanted from one country to another, but there are several elements in the Brexit referendum that make it impossible for me to look at it as anything other than an amateurishly done instance of direct democracy (or perhaps rather a farcical take on direct democracy). What was being decided wasn't clearly formulated. The status of the result was one thing in the lead-up to the referendum and then it was turned into something else. There was no clear mandate, just a dozen factions saying that obviously the people had mandated X. The disaster isn't just that a small majority voted for Leave, it's also that no one knew what exactly Leave meant. I cannot see all of this as an example of direct democracy being shit - as I've said before, it was direct democracy as managed by a bunch of incompetent clowns. Putting all the blame on the former ignores that there are instances without the latter and that they work considerably better than what's been happening in the UK for the last 2 1/2 years.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
The government is being sued for its decision to charter firms to run extra ferries, including one with no ships, in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Channel Tunnel operator Eurotunnel, said the contracts, revealed after Christmas, were decided in a "secretive and flawed procurement process".
The move comes days after Seaborne, one of the firms chosen, had its contract axed after its funding fell through.
The government said it had carried out a "competitive procurement process".
"The Department for Transport acted transparently and competitively throughout the process of securing extra freight."
I note that 'acting transparently' either means that you can see right through it, or can't see it at all, so they're technically accurate.
At a High Court hearing in London, Eurotunnel claimed the government contracts, announced on 29 December, were awarded without any public notice.
Eurotunnel's barrister Daniel Beard QC said Eurotunnel only found out "when contract notices were published three days after Christmas".
He said it was "quite remarkable" his client had not been informed given its recent history in running cross-Channel services.
Judge Peter Fraser ruled a four-day trial will begin on 1 March given the "obvious" urgency of the case and the "very important public interest matters" involved.
When the Department for Transport announced the contracts in December, in documents outlining the agreements it stated that an "unforeseeable" situation of "extreme urgency" meant there was no time for the contracts to be put out to tender - the standard practice for public procurements.
'Unforeseeable', really? Either the DoT don't know how to read a calendar, or they haven't been watching the news for the last two years.
He seems unsackable. He just gets shuffled around a succession of ministerial positions, screws up royally in each one, and then moves on. I can only assume he's one of the ultra rightwing Tories who'll a) accept any job and b) is actually less mad than the majority of his colleagues. May has to keep the far right of her party happy by including them in cabinet, and Grayling (and Leadsom, and Liz Truss) may, astonishingly, be the best the right wing have to offer.
It's a pretty damning indictment of that segment of the Tory party. Grayling can't be fired because he'd be replaced by someone even worse. I struggle to imagine who.
Of course, the other explanation is that May just doesn't want to fire anyone and no one can make her, because accountability and responsibility are foreign concepts to the modern Tory party.
About the recent polls: it's worth remembering that these voting intentions are all before an election campaign. The Tories won't run one as badly as last time, surely, but I'd expect them to change at least a bit during the weeks of campaigning. Also, the next general election will occur after Brexit.
Polls now are useful in demonstrating just how badly Labour are failing to make an impression and botching what should be the easiest job in the world, but the polls have yet to experience the meteoric impact of Brexit and the slow bleed of watching Theresa May campaign with all the enthusiasm and verve of an injured Dalek.
Mind you, I'd also expect some of Labour's support to disappear in the wake of Brexit as well. The number of people who hold Corbyn responsible for being the midwife or a Tory disaster will be more than zero.
Theresa May working to deliver hard brexit is not a new or surprising revelation. Its been plainly obvious in every action shes taken since losing her deal vote. Hell possibly even from the very start since she spent roughly 18 months doing the square root of fuck all to get a deal before slapping together a proposal that was ruled out two years ago.
So no deal is what we have now since theres no time to achieve any other outcome.
As for me if and when no deal happens I'll be voting yes in the inevitable Scottish independence referendum. Westminster have made detaching ourselves from this kind of malicious and willful stupidity worth any cost.
Theresa will be sacrificed as soon as Brexit is done, and will have never been a Tory at all, in my opinion.
I'm not sure why she's staying on, unless she truly believes she can deliver the impossible, and that 'Only I could Brexit' will save her.
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
You'd expect the Tories to manage a better campaign, but how and who is that going to happen? It was clown shoes last time around and neither the situation nor the people involved have improved since then.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
She's probably planning on leaving office as soon as Brexit is 'done', but she won't want to leave the door wide open for Boris. I think she believes her staying in office is the best thing to do right now, for the country and for the unity of the Tory party. Even awful, wrong people can feel a sense of duty.
And she can't be sacrificed. The failed no confidence motion means they can't try again for almost a year.
It wouldn't actually matter much now if May had more sense. She can't get the backstop past her own party. The only way to get something through parliament is to either run down the clock and hope everyone bricks it over the prospect of a no deal and backs her, or come up with something like a permanent customs union change and get Labour to back it, which would result in half the cabinet resigning and a vote of confidence being passed and we're right back in the slurry.
She should have formed a government of national unity, or started cross-party talks years ago, or something, but she didn't, and now the only deal is the one on the table, and there's no time for anything else.
She's probably planning on leaving office as soon as Brexit is 'done', but she won't want to leave the door wide open for Boris. I think she believes her staying in office is the best thing to do right now, for the country and for the unity of the Tory party. Even awful, wrong people can feel a sense of duty.
And she can't be sacrificed. The failed no confidence motion means they can't try again for almost a year.
Right.
Had forgotten about that.
Can the Tories change those rules though before the time is up?
The PM will say "we now all need to hold our nerve" to get the changes needed to get her Brexit deal through Parliament by the 29 March deadline.
She has been trying to secure changes to the backstop arrangement - the "insurance" policy to avoid a return to border checks on the island of Ireland.
The EU has reiterated it will not renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.
Leader of the Commons Andrea Leadsom said Mrs May "needs a bit more time" to negotiate with the EU and would give MPs a "meaningful vote" on a revised deal "as soon as possible".
No good news here. If I squint I can almost hope that the last line from Leadsom means that there might be some small hope that they'll ask for an extension. Highly unlikely since the hard-core types are all the 29th or bust, but I can dream.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
She's probably planning on leaving office as soon as Brexit is 'done', but she won't want to leave the door wide open for Boris. I think she believes her staying in office is the best thing to do right now, for the country and for the unity of the Tory party. Even awful, wrong people can feel a sense of duty.
And she can't be sacrificed. The failed no confidence motion means they can't try again for almost a year.
Right.
Had forgotten about that.
Can the Tories change those rules though before the time is up?
It's unlikely they'd want to. If enough of them were desperate to get rid of her they could threaten to vote against the government until she went. It's unlikely, and I think she'll go soon after Brexit anyway of her own accord.
The PM will say "we now all need to hold our nerve" to get the changes needed to get her Brexit deal through Parliament by the 29 March deadline.
She has been trying to secure changes to the backstop arrangement - the "insurance" policy to avoid a return to border checks on the island of Ireland.
The EU has reiterated it will not renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.
Leader of the Commons Andrea Leadsom said Mrs May "needs a bit more time" to negotiate with the EU and would give MPs a "meaningful vote" on a revised deal "as soon as possible".
No good news here. If I squint I can almost hope that the last line from Leadsom means that there might be some small hope that they'll ask for an extension. Highly unlikely since the hard-core types are all the 29th or bust, but I can dream.
I'm just thinking of the guy in A New Hope shouting 'Stay on target!' as he plows into the Death Star.
The PM will say "we now all need to hold our nerve" to get the changes needed to get her Brexit deal through Parliament by the 29 March deadline.
She has been trying to secure changes to the backstop arrangement - the "insurance" policy to avoid a return to border checks on the island of Ireland.
The EU has reiterated it will not renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.
Leader of the Commons Andrea Leadsom said Mrs May "needs a bit more time" to negotiate with the EU and would give MPs a "meaningful vote" on a revised deal "as soon as possible".
No good news here. If I squint I can almost hope that the last line from Leadsom means that there might be some small hope that they'll ask for an extension. Highly unlikely since the hard-core types are all the 29th or bust, but I can dream.
Nah. The clock is being intentionally run out now. Everything since the deal failed has just being meaningless noise to maintain the illusion things are happening. No deal is the price worth paying to end freedom of movement but it isn't politically viable to come out and say that so now we get 6-7 weeks of pantomime to enjoy.
+11
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The PM will say "we now all need to hold our nerve" to get the changes needed to get her Brexit deal through Parliament by the 29 March deadline.
She has been trying to secure changes to the backstop arrangement - the "insurance" policy to avoid a return to border checks on the island of Ireland.
The EU has reiterated it will not renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.
Leader of the Commons Andrea Leadsom said Mrs May "needs a bit more time" to negotiate with the EU and would give MPs a "meaningful vote" on a revised deal "as soon as possible".
No good news here. If I squint I can almost hope that the last line from Leadsom means that there might be some small hope that they'll ask for an extension. Highly unlikely since the hard-core types are all the 29th or bust, but I can dream.
Nah. The clock is being intentionally run out now. Everything since the deal failed has just being meaningless noise to maintain the illusion things are happening. No deal is the price worth paying to end freedom of movement but it isn't politically viable to come out and say that so now we get 6-7 weeks of pantomime to enjoy.
The presser is in 10 minutes, let me bask in my illusions until then.
The PM will say "we now all need to hold our nerve" to get the changes needed to get her Brexit deal through Parliament by the 29 March deadline.
She has been trying to secure changes to the backstop arrangement - the "insurance" policy to avoid a return to border checks on the island of Ireland.
The EU has reiterated it will not renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.
Leader of the Commons Andrea Leadsom said Mrs May "needs a bit more time" to negotiate with the EU and would give MPs a "meaningful vote" on a revised deal "as soon as possible".
No good news here. If I squint I can almost hope that the last line from Leadsom means that there might be some small hope that they'll ask for an extension. Highly unlikely since the hard-core types are all the 29th or bust, but I can dream.
I'm just thinking of the guy in A New Hope shouting 'Stay on target!' as he plows into the Death Star.
I'm leaning towards the classic joke involving a navy ship having a conversation with what turns out to be a light house and demanding that it change course.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
A couple of commentators I follow have made the same observation: it seems at this stage that the most likely way of stopping Brexit is by unilateral revocation rather than a second ref.
It's clear at this point that an extension is necessary if there's to be a deal. I'm not convinced that the EU would be inclined at this point to give it. From their perspective the damage is already done, the contingency plans activated, and the money committed. The idea of a second ref is being dismissed in EU circles for similar reasons.
I'm concerned at this point that this all rests on May developing a spine and revoking, because it's clear that Brexit has failed and that nothing anyone voting leave actually wanted is deliverable.
That said, if the UK does revoke at this point it does not bode well for intra-EU relationships going forward, but that's a problem for further down the road.
Nothing that has happened to date would give any indication that that is something May is willing to do. Brexit must happen at any cost and no deal is preferable to no brexit at all. May unilaterally revoking A50 is about as likely as a military coup.
I can't see her revoking it. If there was a way for Parliament to force her, then maybe, but her plan is to run down the clock until her deal is all that's left and then do that.
We won't get an extension unless something actually changes. If we can say "look, we've changed our mind on some of these red lines and we want to negotiate based on that", the EU will probably take that. But asking for an extension just so we can have more time to magically find a way to turn a triangle into a straight line won't get anywhere.
I can't see her revoking it. If there was a way for Parliament to force her, then maybe, but her plan is to run down the clock until her deal is all that's left and then do that.
It's a good plan, to be honest. When has a Tory PM making a high risk gamble on the future of the country ever backfired?
+5
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
One thing my company was hoping was that when (back in the day, before everything went extra pear shaped) May's deal passed, companies would be able to go to the government and say 'OK, this is what's happening so we'll need X amount of time to get things squared away.' and then Parliament could put in a request for an extension and the EU would most likely grant it because it'd be in everyone's interest to be able to get all the paperwork and whatnot in place for the eventual transition.
Now though, I don't think the government would ask for an extension because the Brexit types are so damn wedded to the March date that any wavering, even if Brexit was a done deal, would be considered unacceptable.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I can't see her revoking it. If there was a way for Parliament to force her, then maybe, but her plan is to run down the clock until her deal is all that's left and then do that.
I suppose the slender hope I'm clinging to is that she'll fold if her bluff is called.
The idea that the deal is rejected again, the EU27 say "no extension", and May just sits there and does nothing while we crash out seems crazy.
But then, so does coming back to parliament with the same deal it already rejected and no substantive changes, but here we are.
Posts
https://medium.com/@carole_cadwalladr/andrew-neil-brexit-the-bbc-f4a569f6516a
Naturally, the BBC have done sweet FA about it. Indeed, their own conduct in this affair leaves much to be desired. Neil is a partisan hack who should have been kicked off the BBC long ago. For example, here's an example of what happens when Neil is challenged on the content of The Spectator (namely how it has defended the far right in Greece):
For those unaware, Neil is the chair of the spectator. There's an entire article on Neil by the journalist involved in that argument here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/11/bbc-andrew-neil-media-politics
I can't see the justification for keeping Neil in a prominent role on the BBC. Even if he takes down a tory or two now and again, there are too many serious errors of judgement to consider him impartial.
nick boles (con mp who wants norway option) saying the articles about theresa may considering no deal are not a joke
Nick Boles constituency party has just started deselection process against him.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
For doing anything bad, or for being a traitor to the british people?
Traitor to the british people
Usual caveat that Yougov predict far more favourable results for the Tories than is typical (sometimes by up to seven points)
The MRP model is their constituency by constituency forecast, not their regular poll, it is completely seperate. It was the one that was heavily mocked pre 2017 election only to turn out scarily accurate. You would have made mega wonga bettong on the model.
How it worked in 2017
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/06/09/the-day-after
Most recent results
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/02/11/tories-unlikely-gain-enough-seats-solve-brexit-woe
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Wait, is this a joke or are you serious?
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/101042/defiant-tory-mp-nick-boles-tells-local-deselection
I'll take "Juxtaposition" for 500, Alex.
Digging your heels in is pretty easy.
I agree that the initiatives can and have been used to xenophobic ends, but at the same time they have also been used as popularly sanctioned course corrections. You mention the immigration ban - yes, there was such an initiative, but look at what happened afterwards: parliament tried to enact it while not endangering Switzerland's agreements with the EU, they came up with a proposal that the EU agreed to, the right-wing party launched a referendum to cancel the agreements in question, and the people clearly voted that one down. They provided the government with a clear mandate that, no, the scope of the original referendum as interpreted by the Right was not what the people wanted. In the last 10-15 years there have been various such course corrections, and as they were decided by a majority in national votes, they are also accepted. The system seems geared towards the words populist excesses, but in practice and over a timeline longer than one single referendum it has proven a moderating factor. (More so than I sometimes wish - I tend to vote more Left than the overall decisions taken by national vote.)
And that's exactly what I'm talking about above: the people as a whole sanctioned the watering down, so you have a fraction of the narratives that the people were betrayed and democracy was taken behind the shed and shot in the head. IMO that's not an example of the system not working but the opposite. And yes, there are moves to pass legislation that people's initatives should be checked against international law, and the right-wing party launched a referendum to ensure that "foreign judges" wouldn't override Swiss law - again, there was a national vote, and again, that vote told the Right that a majority of Swiss people want international laws to overrule Swiss law. The matter was put to the vote and everyone was able to have a say.
Added to which, these referenda aren't just "Do you want to do X?" When it comes to the vote, the corresponding laws or constitutional articles have already been drafted and they're presented to the voters. It's likely that not everyone reads or understands them in detail, but there's none of that discussion of "What flavour of X is it you want?" after the fact, with different factions making claims that only they know what X was wanted. There are multiple-choice referenda where you might be asked to decide whether you want to accept X, vote it down or vote for compromise Y. There are things that are voted on more or less every half-dozen years - because anyone can launch an initiative, provided they have enough signatures, things can be brought to the vote again. Yes, you also get the whole grumbling about how this was already decided, but again, the ability to course-correct is built into the system, and it's in the hands not of politicians but of the people.
Looking at Brexit, the only way there's a second referendum is if government decides there's a referendum. With neither the Tories nor Labour pursuing that path, it seems there simply aren't any tools in place for people to demand this. A second vote may still go to Leave, and even if not, it'd probably be tight - but in practice, if national referenda are a tool that can be initiated by the voters themselves, you tend to have less of a narrative of political disaffection and betrayal.
I don't think that a political system can just be transplanted from one country to another, but there are several elements in the Brexit referendum that make it impossible for me to look at it as anything other than an amateurishly done instance of direct democracy (or perhaps rather a farcical take on direct democracy). What was being decided wasn't clearly formulated. The status of the result was one thing in the lead-up to the referendum and then it was turned into something else. There was no clear mandate, just a dozen factions saying that obviously the people had mandated X. The disaster isn't just that a small majority voted for Leave, it's also that no one knew what exactly Leave meant. I cannot see all of this as an example of direct democracy being shit - as I've said before, it was direct democracy as managed by a bunch of incompetent clowns. Putting all the blame on the former ignores that there are instances without the latter and that they work considerably better than what's been happening in the UK for the last 2 1/2 years.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Send money to food banks.
I'm not joking.
'Unforeseeable', really? Either the DoT don't know how to read a calendar, or they haven't been watching the news for the last two years.
It's a pretty damning indictment of that segment of the Tory party. Grayling can't be fired because he'd be replaced by someone even worse. I struggle to imagine who.
Of course, the other explanation is that May just doesn't want to fire anyone and no one can make her, because accountability and responsibility are foreign concepts to the modern Tory party.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Polls now are useful in demonstrating just how badly Labour are failing to make an impression and botching what should be the easiest job in the world, but the polls have yet to experience the meteoric impact of Brexit and the slow bleed of watching Theresa May campaign with all the enthusiasm and verve of an injured Dalek.
Mind you, I'd also expect some of Labour's support to disappear in the wake of Brexit as well. The number of people who hold Corbyn responsible for being the midwife or a Tory disaster will be more than zero.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
So no deal is what we have now since theres no time to achieve any other outcome.
As for me if and when no deal happens I'll be voting yes in the inevitable Scottish independence referendum. Westminster have made detaching ourselves from this kind of malicious and willful stupidity worth any cost.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I'm not sure why she's staying on, unless she truly believes she can deliver the impossible, and that 'Only I could Brexit' will save her.
And she can't be sacrificed. The failed no confidence motion means they can't try again for almost a year.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
You could buy 12 ounces of common fucking sense and ship it to
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA
Priority shipping if you really want to help.
She should have formed a government of national unity, or started cross-party talks years ago, or something, but she didn't, and now the only deal is the one on the table, and there's no time for anything else.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Right.
Had forgotten about that.
Can the Tories change those rules though before the time is up?
It's unlikely they'd want to. If enough of them were desperate to get rid of her they could threaten to vote against the government until she went. It's unlikely, and I think she'll go soon after Brexit anyway of her own accord.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I'm just thinking of the guy in A New Hope shouting 'Stay on target!' as he plows into the Death Star.
Nah. The clock is being intentionally run out now. Everything since the deal failed has just being meaningless noise to maintain the illusion things are happening. No deal is the price worth paying to end freedom of movement but it isn't politically viable to come out and say that so now we get 6-7 weeks of pantomime to enjoy.
The presser is in 10 minutes, let me bask in my illusions until then.
I'm leaning towards the classic joke involving a navy ship having a conversation with what turns out to be a light house and demanding that it change course.
It's clear at this point that an extension is necessary if there's to be a deal. I'm not convinced that the EU would be inclined at this point to give it. From their perspective the damage is already done, the contingency plans activated, and the money committed. The idea of a second ref is being dismissed in EU circles for similar reasons.
I'm concerned at this point that this all rests on May developing a spine and revoking, because it's clear that Brexit has failed and that nothing anyone voting leave actually wanted is deliverable.
That said, if the UK does revoke at this point it does not bode well for intra-EU relationships going forward, but that's a problem for further down the road.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It's a good plan, to be honest. When has a Tory PM making a high risk gamble on the future of the country ever backfired?
Now though, I don't think the government would ask for an extension because the Brexit types are so damn wedded to the March date that any wavering, even if Brexit was a done deal, would be considered unacceptable.
I suppose the slender hope I'm clinging to is that she'll fold if her bluff is called.
The idea that the deal is rejected again, the EU27 say "no extension", and May just sits there and does nothing while we crash out seems crazy.
But then, so does coming back to parliament with the same deal it already rejected and no substantive changes, but here we are.