News7 mins ago
May & Her Brexit
It is alleged that she not only doesn't want it, she is and has been actively working to prevent it. Would you not agree?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jim how were we already getting this: "And I will answer again: we already had a "compromised" form of Remaining, wherein we stayed out of Schengen and Euro, immediately got back about 1/3 of our contributions from the rebate, etc etc. " - we never joined the Euro and we are not in schengen but St Tony Gave the rebate back that TGL had secured earlier.
We still get the rebate. As far as I can see, Tony Blair did allow it to be reduced in the mid-2000s, for some reason that 10 seconds of research hasn't revealed. But we still have a sizeable rebate all the same.
Not really sure I can speak for May's intentions, but I will say this: she ain't doing a good job of not leaving, either. She banged on, and on, and on, about how "we *will* leave on 29th March", which is doubly stupid given that it was moronic to insist on this in the first place, and even more so when we ended up, predictably, postponing Brexit. And now she's asked for an extension that the EU almost certainly will insist must be either longer or shorter.
I am not going to sit here and claim that actually Theresa May is a Leaver and you're all just too thick to notice, because none of that's true either. But I'm bored of having to explain that she isn't even remotely on the side of Remainers either. She's frustrating everybody.
Not really sure I can speak for May's intentions, but I will say this: she ain't doing a good job of not leaving, either. She banged on, and on, and on, about how "we *will* leave on 29th March", which is doubly stupid given that it was moronic to insist on this in the first place, and even more so when we ended up, predictably, postponing Brexit. And now she's asked for an extension that the EU almost certainly will insist must be either longer or shorter.
I am not going to sit here and claim that actually Theresa May is a Leaver and you're all just too thick to notice, because none of that's true either. But I'm bored of having to explain that she isn't even remotely on the side of Remainers either. She's frustrating everybody.
She seems to be on nobody's side but her own, Jim. She should be on the "leavers' side" technically, having asked what the country wanted. In any case, she has done everything she can to remain "tied" to the EU as much as possible, in spite of the vote... and basically shown them we will do absolutely anything necessary to stay as tied as possible.
Maybe nobody should be an MP, let alone a PM, until they have actually run a business.
Maybe nobody should be an MP, let alone a PM, until they have actually run a business.
"And I will answer again: we already had a "compromised" form of Remaining, wherein we stayed out of Schengen and Euro, immediately got back about 1/3 of our contributions from the rebate, etc etc. "
Won't do. I'm afraid, Jim. I asked what would have happened as a result of a 52:48 decision to remain. We already had the "compromises" you mention and there was no immediate threat to withdraw them. They would have remained whether or not we voted to leave.
It's quite obvious that no accommodation would have been afforded the Leavers in such circumstances. They may have continued to campaign to leave but as far as that particular episode was concerned it was done and dusted. There would have been no intention of negotiating a looser arrangement with the EU and certainly no proposals that would have threatened remaining in altogether.
Won't do. I'm afraid, Jim. I asked what would have happened as a result of a 52:48 decision to remain. We already had the "compromises" you mention and there was no immediate threat to withdraw them. They would have remained whether or not we voted to leave.
It's quite obvious that no accommodation would have been afforded the Leavers in such circumstances. They may have continued to campaign to leave but as far as that particular episode was concerned it was done and dusted. There would have been no intention of negotiating a looser arrangement with the EU and certainly no proposals that would have threatened remaining in altogether.
> To clear the air a little I will ask again, how much of a compromise would have been considered had the result been 52:48 to remain.
I answered that last time you asked it, NJ.
On the "again" theme, in response to this OP, I will say again that if Theresa May really wanted to stop Brexit she could just declare the referendum null and void based on the breaches of election law that took place.
I answered that last time you asked it, NJ.
On the "again" theme, in response to this OP, I will say again that if Theresa May really wanted to stop Brexit she could just declare the referendum null and void based on the breaches of election law that took place.
It's here:
https:/
To keep life simple I'll copy it to here:
> Who would have cared about the Leavers had the result been 52:48 to remain. And how would their "care" have manifested itself?
I can answer that as it's pretty much the outcome I wanted. In fact, 51:49 would have been even better. And 50.1:49.9 better yet.
What would have happened is pretty much as Nigel Farage hoped for when he thought the vote was a narrow Remain victory. Fighting on for another referendum. The closer the result, the more likely that was to happen.
Why I wanted that was because I think the EU does need to change in order for us to remain in it on the same terms as we have been. I was hopeful that such a close vote would give us sufficient clout to get that change, unlike when Cameron went before the referendum. And I was hopeful that change would come, or we'd certainly be out the next time - which would probably have been 2018 or 2019, i.e. within the lifetime of the 2015 parliament.
A lot has changed since then, but I think it would be astonishing to imagine that Leave could have lost by literally one vote and accepted that for another generation, when you look at the animosity and vitriol now.
https:/
To keep life simple I'll copy it to here:
> Who would have cared about the Leavers had the result been 52:48 to remain. And how would their "care" have manifested itself?
I can answer that as it's pretty much the outcome I wanted. In fact, 51:49 would have been even better. And 50.1:49.9 better yet.
What would have happened is pretty much as Nigel Farage hoped for when he thought the vote was a narrow Remain victory. Fighting on for another referendum. The closer the result, the more likely that was to happen.
Why I wanted that was because I think the EU does need to change in order for us to remain in it on the same terms as we have been. I was hopeful that such a close vote would give us sufficient clout to get that change, unlike when Cameron went before the referendum. And I was hopeful that change would come, or we'd certainly be out the next time - which would probably have been 2018 or 2019, i.e. within the lifetime of the 2015 parliament.
A lot has changed since then, but I think it would be astonishing to imagine that Leave could have lost by literally one vote and accepted that for another generation, when you look at the animosity and vitriol now.
The different form of Remain is the one in which the EU changes, perhaps in line with a multispeed Europe where we're on an outside track:
https:/
https:/
Latest Posts
Religion & Spirituality12 mins ago
Technology18 mins ago
I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics19 mins ago
A Late Good Morning Monday Birds!
ChatterBank21 mins ago
