Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Theresa May calls General Election for June 8


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

The more I think on it the more reckless and dangerous are the PMs plans for survival. The link below explains my conerns better than I could. 

Jonathan's Powell's concerns in the Guardian

The govt does not need a formal agreement with the DUP. The DUP will never do anything anyway that would favour Labour.

If May goes ahead with the DUP the message it sends will (in NI) be manipulated with god knows what consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

...so if the negotiations go pear shape and brexit is a disaster, there is no reset to stop the deal? That's ridiculous. Why would British leaders gamble with the prosperity of the UK in a single throw of the dice? 

Well the devil is in the detail. It is wrong and not very democratic, i agree.

Same with the Brexit referendum. The referendum was non binding. There was nothing to say that Brexit must go ahead. It was only taking the pulse of the people. A simple majority wasn't a clear indication of what brexit was expected to deliver. And yet that non binding motion has morphed into a binding agreement. How is that possible? Shouldn't a negotiated brexit have been put to the people?

Article 50 should be able to be revoked by the UK and if it isn't then the government of May should bare full responsibility for the mess that will come outta it. May should have applied legal points to all negotiations outlining the best interests for Britain.   

Again... the fact of Brexit is now moot. We can argue the pro's and con's of the referendum but nothing will change the fact that Art 50 has been triggered, the UK is leaving the EU with no legal/judicial path back into the EU other than joining the queue with other candidates. This of course will demand membership of the Eurozone and Schengen (as required of all candidates), no rebate so an additional 4Billion  per annum on top of what we now pay.

It really is time to divert all of our energies on striking new trade deals with the rest of the world on the assumption of WTO rules being our trading position with the EU.

We have already been invited to join NAFTA (which will become the largest trading bloc in the world with our membership) and also TPP. It can all be very rosy for the UK but May needs to keep the people informed on these trade negotiations with regular monthly updates. No 10 needs to release information on all of the current negotiations with 3rd countries and not leave it to leaks and rumours in the national press.  

Edited by keithisco
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RAyMO said:

The more I think on it the more reckless and dangerous are the PMs plans for survival.

However reckless and dangerous you think May's plans are, they are nothing compared to Corbyn's:

Jeremy Corbyn: 'I can still be prime minister'

"Mr Corbyn said: "There's a possibility of voting the Queen's Speech down and we're going to push that all the way.

"We have got a mandate to deal with issues of poverty, justice and inequality in Britain.

"Nearly 13 million people voted for us to do it. That's why I'm here."

"I don't think Theresa May and this government have any credibility."

Credibility? He's talking like he's on the top step of the winner's podium, despite winning 56 less Seats than the Tories. He's in La La Land.

Corbyn: Another election 'quite possible' in months

"The UK could be heading for another election in months, says the Labour leader.

He told Andrew Marr: "I think it’s quite possible there will be an election later this year or early next year, and that might be a good thing.""

Yes, that's just what the nation needs, and the public wants; yet another election and more uncertainty. What a moron this man is.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RAyMO said:

The more I think on it the more reckless and dangerous are the PMs plans for survival. The link below explains my conerns better than I could. 

Jonathan's Powell's concerns in the Guardian

The govt does not need a formal agreement with the DUP. The DUP will never do anything anyway that would favour Labour.

If May goes ahead with the DUP the message it sends will (in NI) be manipulated with god knows what consequences.

Its an agreement for "Confidence and Supply"-it is not a formalised arrangement. I fully expect the Liberal Luvvies of the Guardian to make this out to be something that it is not and to raise unfounded fears and tensions in the Province.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, keithisco said:

Its an agreement for "Confidence and Supply"

Sounds like a contract with a firm of catering suppliers.

 

19 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

Yes, that's just what the nation needs, and the public wants; yet another election a

Certainly they can count me out, thank you very much. But the thing is, what would happen if T. May was forced to step down would be that the conservatorives held an internal leadership" race", from which, of course, Boris Johnson would come out the inevitable floppy-haired victor, so therefore he'd be a PM that no one had voted for (to be PM, at any rate), yet again! That hardly seems fair either does it? frankly in that situation J. Corbyn should hold the balance of power, rather than have yet another unelected PM foisted into place that only the Party chose.

 

Edited by Manfred von Dreidecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Sounds like a contract with a firm of catering suppliers.

 

Certainly they can count me out, thank you very much. But the thing is, what would happen if T. May was forced to step down would be that the conservatorives held an internal leadership" race", from which, of course, Boris Johnson would come out the inevitable floppy-haired victor, so therefore he'd be a PM that no one had voted for (to be PM, at any rate), yet again! That hardly seems fair either does it? frankly in that situation J. Corbyn should hold the balance of power, rather than have yet another unelected PM foisted into place that only the Party chose.

 

Isn't that exactly how our democratic institution works though? You elect an MP, you do not elect a PM, that is decided by the party. I'm not entirely sure why the MP for Islington should hold any balance of power though, where is the logic or constitutional imperative for that? All PM's face 2 electoral challenges: the first is to be elected as an MP the second is to be elected as Party Leader (putative PM)

I definitely do not want to see Boris Johnson as PM, or even as Foreign Minister, Iain Duncan Smith commands much greater respect in my view, and makes reasoned and reasonable arguments when debating. I also view him as a real "One-Nation" Tory. It's 15 years since his last stint as leader and his statesmanship has certainly matured into quite a formidable persona. 

 

Edited by keithisco
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, keithisco said:

Isn't that exactly how our democratic institution works though? You elect an MP, you do not elect a PM, that is decided by the party. I'm not entirely sure why the MP for Islington should hold any balance of power though, where is the logic or constitutional imperative for that? All PM's face 2 electoral challenges: the first is to be elected as an MP the second is to be elected as Party Leader (putative PM)

I definitely do not want to see Boris Johnson as PM, or even as Foreign Minister, Iain Duncan Smith commands much greater respect in my view, and makes reasoned and reasonable arguments when debating. I also view him as a real "One-Nation" Tory. It's 15 years since his last stint as leader and his statesmanship has certainly matured into quite a formidable persona. 

 

I'd love to see Jacob Rees Mogg. as Tory leader.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, keithisco said:

Isn't that exactly how our democratic institution works though? You elect an MP, you do not elect a PM, that is decided by the party. I'm not entirely sure why the MP for Islington should hold any balance of power though, where is the logic or constitutional imperative for that? All PM's face 2 electoral challenges: the first is to be elected as an MP the second is to be elected as Party Leader (putative PM)

I definitely do not want to see Boris Johnson as PM, or even as Foreign Minister, Iain Duncan Smith commands much greater respect in my view, and makes reasoned and reasonable arguments when debating. I also view him as a real "One-Nation" Tory. It's 15 years since his last stint as leader and his statesmanship has certainly matured into quite a formidable persona. 

 

It is exactly how the system works but the tories have left themselves rather open when all their campaigning was around 'a vote for me is a vote for Theresa may as prime minister'. 

If IDS was leader again, I'd actually consider voting tory again. He's one of the few conservatives who genuinely seems to be a man of principle. 

21 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

I'd love to see Jacob Rees Mogg. as Tory leader.

 

Not going to lie, I would love to see him in a meeting with trump. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

I'd love to see Jacob Rees Mogg. as Tory leader.

 

JRM would certainly be a major contender if he stood. The only negative baggage that he carries is his Eton background-but he is extremely witty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am also finding curious is that Mrs May was intent on this election being all about a strong pair of hands for the Brexit negotiations, Labour changed the narrative (helped by some incompetent Tory manifesto statements) to be all about Social care and security yet, as soon as the election was over they (Labour) claimed it was about preventing a "clean" Brexit... go figure, it was either one or the other but not both.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, keithisco said:

What I am also finding curious is that Mrs May was intent on this election being all about a strong pair of hands for the Brexit negotiations, Labour changed the narrative (helped by some incompetent Tory manifesto statements) to be all about Social care and security yet, as soon as the election was over they (Labour) claimed it was about preventing a "clean" Brexit... go figure, it was either one or the other but not both.

See, I can see it as being both. There was a swing from tory to labour. Some of those will be because they didn't like the tory position (stressing hard brexit), some will be because they did like labour's position (stressing social care). How many of each is anyone's guess though. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, keithisco said:

Its an agreement for "Confidence and Supply"-it is not a formalised arrangement. I fully expect the Liberal Luvvies of the Guardian to make this out to be something that it is not and to raise unfounded fears and tensions in the Province.

I live in the province and believe me we didn't need an article in the guardian to have those fears. I linked to the article because it articulated the fears well. The govt getting into bed with one or either of the two main parties in NI is a recipe for disaster here. We have an assembly that has not sat for months. The SoS for NI is meant to impartially lead discussions to smooth the issues. Can't happen now. There is a petition somewhere against this arrangement that has more than 600k signatures - I would bet a fair few are from NI.

It is actually worrying to us that powers that be cannot see the dangers.

Edited by RAyMO
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing to stop the DUP supporting the government - as they would do anyway in the votes that count without a formal arrangement. It is the formal alliance of the government with one party to the dispute in NI that is the worry.

Edited by RAyMO
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, keithisco said:

Again... the fact of Brexit is now moot. We can argue the pro's and con's of the referendum but nothing will change the fact that Art 50 has been triggered, the UK is leaving the EU with no legal/judicial path back into the EU other than joining the queue with other candidates. This of course will demand membership of the Eurozone and Schengen (as required of all candidates), no rebate so an additional 4Billion  per annum on top of what we now pay.

It really is time to divert all of our energies on striking new trade deals with the rest of the world on the assumption of WTO rules being our trading position with the EU.

We have already been invited to join NAFTA (which will become the largest trading bloc in the world with our membership) and also TPP. It can all be very rosy for the UK but May needs to keep the people informed on these trade negotiations with regular monthly updates. No 10 needs to release information on all of the current negotiations with 3rd countries and not leave it to leaks and rumours in the national press.  

No I think you have completely disregarded the meaning of the election result. Hard Brexit was defeated. I don't think that the May Brexit narrative is what the people want. People want a solf disengagement from Europe. May is in no position to inform anyone... she needs to consult and deliver Brexit for everyone and not just to appease the Boris's and Nigel's.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, keithisco said:

What I am also finding curious is that Mrs May was intent on this election being all about a strong pair of hands for the Brexit negotiations, Labour changed the narrative (helped by some incompetent Tory manifesto statements) to be all about Social care and security yet, as soon as the election was over they (Labour) claimed it was about preventing a "clean" Brexit... go figure, it was either one or the other but not both.

...again May clearly stated that the election was about Brexit. People voted for a solf Brexit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, keithisco said:

Isn't that exactly how our democratic institution works though? You elect an MP, you do not elect a PM, that is decided by the party. I'm not entirely sure why the MP for Islington should hold any balance of power though, where is the logic or constitutional imperative for that? All PM's face 2 electoral challenges: the first is to be elected as an MP the second is to be elected as Party Leader (putative PM). 

 

Perhaps in theory, but surely within recorded history everyone has voted on the basis of the party they want to see ruling, and therefore who they want to see as PM. Really the idea that the Supreme Leader has to be a regular MP, "first among equals" and all of that nonsense, is completely obsolete isn't it, how on earth could the prime Minister be expected to be concerned with the concerns of the people of Maidenhead, is it, about the train service or the way that there really ought to be a pedestrian crossing on the A308 outside St Piran's School. :angry: Even Mr. Corbyn, who of course cares deeply about the concerns of the common people, isn't going to have the time to concern himself with the goings on in Islington as he'd like to, would he. Really perhaps they ought to acknowledge that a Prime Minister is now virtually the same as a President, and have it as a separate position rather than trying to double as a regular MP. 

Edited by Manfred von Dreidecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

...again May clearly stated that the election was about Brexit. People voted for a solf Brexit.

 

The Labour campaigners were careful not to talk about Brexit most of the time but broadly tried to give the impression
they were going to respect the democratic will of the people - I think this gave those Leavers who really didn't want to vote
Tory a kind of let off - and lured them into a false sense of security -

But your statement is misleading because although May didn't get the strong mandate she wanted and needed - 
(for a few reasons) - the 'soft Brexit' team -- that carefully didn't say they were the soft Brexit team - didn't win -

the waters have been muddied and the tug of war flag in the middle keeps moving a bit but it's still over the Leave Line -

.

Edited by bee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

No I think you have completely disregarded the meaning of the election result. Hard Brexit was defeated. I don't think that the May Brexit narrative is what the people want. People want a solf disengagement from Europe. May is in no position to inform anyone... she needs to consult and deliver Brexit for everyone and not just to appease the Boris's and Nigel's.

 

Here you go again with Hard Brexit soft Brexit, there exists no such thing, its just simply Brexit. The Labour Chancellor was on the Andrew Marr show yesterday and when asked about "soft" Brexit, IE; remaining in the single market he said NO, the UK even under a labour government would be leaving the single Market.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Here you go again with Hard Brexit soft Brexit, there exists no such thing, its just simply Brexit.

Brexit is Brexit! That was a slogan that worked really well for the current soon-to-be-former PM, isn't it. 

 

:unsure: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Here you go again with Hard Brexit soft Brexit, there exists no such thing, its just simply Brexit. The Labour Chancellor was on the Andrew Marr show yesterday and when asked about "soft" Brexit, IE; remaining in the single market he said NO, the UK even under a labour government would be leaving the single Market.


That's good to hear - at least the two main parties seem to be on the same page, in theory - re. Brexit -

It's a pity there isn't a cross party Brexit team that also includes Farage .... the referendum itself was
cross party then it got mixed up with Party Politics because the Conservatives were (and are) in Government -

.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, bee said:

 

The Labour campaigners were careful not to talk about Brexit most of the time but broadly tried to give the impression
they were going to respect the democratic will of the people - I think this gave those Leavers who really didn't want to vote
Tory a kind of let off - and lured them into a false sense of security -

But your statement is misleading because although May didn't get the strong mandate she wanted and needed - 
(for a few reasons) - the 'soft Brexit' team -- that carefully didn't say they were the soft Brexit team - didn't win -

the waters have been muddied and the tug of war flag in the middle keeps moving a bit but it's still over the Leave Line -

.

Did May say that the election was about Brexit? Yes she did.

May won the majority vote BUT failed to convince the electorate to vote in another 100 MP's to claim legitimacy in brexit talks. Instead she lost 13 seats. May failed to sell her vision of Brexit. The election result has created instability not just in British politics but also brexit negotiations. Surely you're not going to argue that? May does not have a mandate to negotiate Brexit on her terms. May needs to consult and possibly include parliament in negotiations. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Here you go again with Hard Brexit soft Brexit, there exists no such thing, its just simply Brexit. The Labour Chancellor was on the Andrew Marr show yesterday and when asked about "soft" Brexit, IE; remaining in the single market he said NO, the UK even under a labour government would be leaving the single Market.

Solf Brexit: accepting free travel of services, goods, money and people. Syncing EU laws with those of the UK

Hard Brexit: None of the above. 

Now you tell me... which brexit May wants?

Brexit is about leaving the single market. Don't play word games... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, bee said:


That's good to hear - at least the two main parties seem to be on the same page, in theory - re. Brexit -

It's a pity there isn't a cross party Brexit team that also includes Farage .... the referendum itself was
cross party then it got mixed up with Party Politics because the Conservatives were (and are) in Government -

.

Oh rubbish! Norway is out side the common market but is still synced to EU laws, movement and trade. Russia is outside the common market too but they are not synced to EU laws and trade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Solf Brexit: accepting free travel of services, goods, money and people. Syncing EU laws with those of the UK

Hard Brexit: None of the above. 

Now you tell me... which brexit May wants?

Brexit is about leaving the single market. Don't play word games... 

No one mentioned soft Brexit before or during the Referendum. The Referendum was a simple question do you want to Leave or Remain.

The UK has decided through the democratic vote to leave the Euorpean Union and all then entails.

The two political parties labour and the Tories have said the UK will be leaving the single market. that includes the four pillars of the EU. Once we leave the EU under article 50, none of the free travel of goods services, money or people will come under any EU membership treaty and if such an agreement is agreed it will be outside of the EU treaties as a standalone agreement, just in the same way the USA has 24 trade and services deals with the EU,  If we the UK are out of the EU treaties completely, how is that soft Brexit please do tell. because its just simply Brexit.

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, bee said:

It's a pity there isn't a cross party Brexit team that also includes Farage .... the referendum itself was
cross party then it got mixed up with Party Politics because the Conservatives were (and are) in Government -

.

I think at this stage the actual format and details that will underpin brexit is anybodies guess. Your idea is sound bee (minus the unelected person) but in our form of democracy is a non starter. Imagine what would happen if 1 party accepted that the other party had any good ideas or talented people. There would be a constitutional crisis. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.