6 ms·

> The sheer stubbornness of Theresa May's position What do you mean? To me, it seems she's tried pretty much everything, but the parliament voted down most of

by tomp 8y ago

> The sheer stubbornness of Theresa May's position What do you mean? To me, it seems she's tried pretty much everything, but the parliament voted down most of the proposals... Edit: I have nothing but respect for her. She's literally the only person in the wide political spectrum in the UK that's willing to actually deal with this like a sensible adult, and she's been eating a ton of shit for it, barely complaining at all. She sacrificed a lot, her political career is completely over, and for no real result, because she was stuck between a rock and a hard place.

zimablue 8y ago
Which variety of options (in negotiations/terms of the deal) do you think that Theresa May has tried?
arethuza 8y ago
Perhaps if she hadn't called a pointless general election and then run one of the worst campaigns in living memory that ended up removing the Conservative majority requiring pandering to the DUP I might have some sympathy.
- nutjob2 8y ago
  If she had thought strategically she might have held off on an election until closer to this moment and then she could have used the threat of an election, and the attendant annihilation at the polls, as a threat against the rebels to secure the key factor of party unity. Effective head-kicking is absolutely essential in these sorts of situations. May has ended up just making herself look weak again and again.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    Her party was way ahead in the polks when she called the election. She is just incredibly bad at her job — literally, as in if you went back in time 5 years and described what she’d done[1], it would not be considered credible. [1] hand-waving the credibility of tine travel, of course
matthewmacleod 8y ago
I'm sorry, this is emphatically not true. May has made several easily predictable errors in her handling of this issue. She has steadfastly refused to shift her position in response to events, has miscalculated response to her interventions repeatedly, and has spent substantial time in the past several months publicly blaming everybody but herself for this outcome. Her political career will be over not because she was "stuck between a rock and a hard place", but because she refused to acknowledge political and technical reality. I have literally no sympathy or respect for her behaviour or position, and I genuinely struggle to see a way in which this could have been handled less competently.
xioxox 8y ago
I think she has handled this dreadfully. She should have built a parliamentary cross-party consensus on what option to pursue well before now. Her only negotiating tactic with parliament is pushing things up to the deadline and saying my deal or no deal. Read Matthew Parris' reports of her personality (e.g. [1]). He (a conservative journalist) says that almost everyone says she doesn't listen to anyone, speaks in soundbites, is cruel, stupid, unable to compromise and isolated. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/theresa-may-s-brexit-disaster-a-1258101.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/theresa-may-s-bre...
- tomp 8y ago
  > saying my deal or no deal But consider it from a higher-level perspective. Had she done everything perfectly (for whatever definition of "perfect"), would anything be different? The EU is the "problem" here, not the UK parliament. The UK was never going to get what they wanted - free trade with no freedom of movement, nor no border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and no border between Norther Ireland and the main island. The only deal possible is something like Norway and Switzerland have. And the reality is, that neither Tory nor Labour MPs want to remain (because of how the political system works in the UK), either fully (in the EU), or partially (outside of the EU and subject to EU rules). So they (predictably) vote against that (only possible) deal. Edit: This was, of course, perfectly obvious to all politicians, which is why no one wanted to deal with it.
  - xioxox 8y ago
    The deal is the only one possible with her red lines. She should have reached agreement on the red lines before starting the negotiation. She shouldn't have called Article 50 before getting an agreement across the parties. ~50% of the country voted to stay in and ~50% to stay out, so compromise is required. One solution would have been to have a followup referendum to ask the public what kind of Brexit they wanted - setting out the real options with their advantages and disadvantages.
  - lucozade 8y ago
    > The only deal possible is something like Norway and Switzerland have And yet, that's not what she was negotiating. You're correct in the sense that there was never a perfect Brexit to be had but we're about a week away from the worst possible outcome. Those were never the only two options. And a lot of the problems are of her own making. The execution of the 2017 GE was one of the worst in living memory. That was entirely her doing. She then fought against parliamentary scrutiny and lost. She then threw away most of her negotiating position. At that point, any sensible person would realise that they're not going to get everything their own way and start preparing for getting consensus. But no, they negotiated a deal without any discussion outside of the Government (even key members of her own party) and are then surprised when it doesn't pass. I take that back. The deal didn't just not pass. It was the worst ever Government loss in the history of one of the oldest parliaments in the world. So time to reset, take stock and change tack? No, let's keep barrelling on. Why? No idea. I mean, the fixed date, red lines etc are there to keep the harder Brexiters on side i.e. the folk that aren't even voting for the deal. The whole strategy only made rationale sense if she had a landslide in 2017. When that didn't occur, the only sensible approach was to spend 2 years achieving a cross party consensus for something. And just to be clear, I'm not only a natural Tory, I was delighted when she was chosen as PM as she appeared to be the sort of pragmatic technocrat that I believed the country needed at this time. Unfortunately, I now believe she is the worst PM we have had in my lifetime. And about to cause preventable harm to the country I call home. It is most saddening.
nutjob2 8y ago
She's tried everything except actual leadership. The reason her political career is over is that's she's an ineffective leader. These sorts of situations are the very definition of what leadership is for. The fact it's nigh an impossible situation is partly due to the path she has chosen and her relative incompetence in her job. You can feel for her and that's fine, but at the end of the day responsibility to get the job done falls to her and she has not delivered. There are no excuses.
- tomp 8y ago
  What would have been a better path (honest question)?
  - matthewmacleod 8y ago
    Building a deliverable, realistic consensus approach with cross-party support, reflecting the relatively close outcome of the initial referendum and the diversity of opinion within the "leave" movement.
    - tomp 8y ago
      But that's my question, what's a "realistic consensus"? Mind you, consensus within the UK isn't enough, you need consensus with the EU as well - and I don't think anything better than the current deal is even possible.
      - matthewmacleod 8y ago
        But that's my question, what's a "realistic consensus"? It's really the prime minister's job to build this based on working cross-party, but an obvious example might be a relatively close Norway-style relationship, which would be much more likely to receive opposition support. I don't think anything better than the current deal is even possible This is again just absolutely false.
      - jlokier 8y ago
        The EU are (or would have been) open to other models than the one TM settled on. They have suggested they would be open to alternatives when Corbyn approached them earlier this year. If a general election or new referendum had taken place, I think the EU would have granted an extension to hear what new alternative would emerge. They are saying TM's deal is the only deal now, but that's because it was negotiated exhaustively in private already, and TM told them, essentially, she would take it to the MPs to get it rubber-stamped. The MPs said no, it's their job, not hers, to hash out the big important compromises for the country, she should have consulted them before getting to that point and they don't like the deal she made, and they rejected it with the strongest defeat in parliamentary history. The problem is leaving consensus building so late, so the EU spent all their negotiating efforts on TM's version of things, and they don't want to negotiate twice (unless a really good reason shows up that lines up with their principles).
stordoff 8y ago
> She's literally the only person in the wide political spectrum in the UK that's willing to actually deal with this like a sensible adult She's been told by the rules of Parliament that she can't have another vote on the same deal. That remains to be her plan.

by tomp 8y ago

zimablue 8y ago

Which variety of options (in negotiations/terms of the deal) do you think that Theresa May has tried?

arethuza 8y ago

Perhaps if she hadn't called a pointless general election and then run one of the worst campaigns in living memory that ended up removing the Conservative majority requiring pandering to the DUP I might have some sympathy.

nutjob2 8y ago
If she had thought strategically she might have held off on an election until closer to this moment and then she could have used the threat of an election, and the attendant annihilation at the polls, as a threat against the rebels to secure the key factor of party unity. Effective head-kicking is absolutely essential in these sorts of situations. May has ended up just making herself look weak again and again.
- ben_w 8y ago
  Her party was way ahead in the polks when she called the election. She is just incredibly bad at her job — literally, as in if you went back in time 5 years and described what she’d done[1], it would not be considered credible. [1] hand-waving the credibility of tine travel, of course

matthewmacleod 8y ago

I'm sorry, this is emphatically not true. May has made several easily predictable errors in her handling of this issue. She has steadfastly refused to shift her position in response to events, has miscalculated response to her interventions repeatedly, and has spent substantial time in the past several months publicly blaming everybody but herself for this outcome. Her political career will be over not because she was "stuck between a rock and a hard place", but because she refused to acknowledge political and technical reality. I have literally no sympathy or respect for her behaviour or position, and I genuinely struggle to see a way in which this could have been handled less competently.

xioxox 8y ago

I think she has handled this dreadfully. She should have built a parliamentary cross-party consensus on what option to pursue well before now. Her only negotiating tactic with parliament is pushing things up to the deadline and saying my deal or no deal. Read Matthew Parris' reports of her personality (e.g. [1]). He (a conservative journalist) says that almost everyone says she doesn't listen to anyone, speaks in soundbites, is cruel, stupid, unable to compromise and isolated. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/theresa-may-s-brexit-disaster-a-1258101.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/theresa-may-s-bre...

tomp 8y ago
> saying my deal or no deal But consider it from a higher-level perspective. Had she done everything perfectly (for whatever definition of "perfect"), would anything be different? The EU is the "problem" here, not the UK parliament. The UK was never going to get what they wanted - free trade with no freedom of movement, nor no border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and no border between Norther Ireland and the main island. The only deal possible is something like Norway and Switzerland have. And the reality is, that neither Tory nor Labour MPs want to remain (because of how the political system works in the UK), either fully (in the EU), or partially (outside of the EU and subject to EU rules). So they (predictably) vote against that (only possible) deal. Edit: This was, of course, perfectly obvious to all politicians, which is why no one wanted to deal with it.
- xioxox 8y ago
  The deal is the only one possible with her red lines. She should have reached agreement on the red lines before starting the negotiation. She shouldn't have called Article 50 before getting an agreement across the parties. ~50% of the country voted to stay in and ~50% to stay out, so compromise is required. One solution would have been to have a followup referendum to ask the public what kind of Brexit they wanted - setting out the real options with their advantages and disadvantages.
- lucozade 8y ago
  > The only deal possible is something like Norway and Switzerland have And yet, that's not what she was negotiating. You're correct in the sense that there was never a perfect Brexit to be had but we're about a week away from the worst possible outcome. Those were never the only two options. And a lot of the problems are of her own making. The execution of the 2017 GE was one of the worst in living memory. That was entirely her doing. She then fought against parliamentary scrutiny and lost. She then threw away most of her negotiating position. At that point, any sensible person would realise that they're not going to get everything their own way and start preparing for getting consensus. But no, they negotiated a deal without any discussion outside of the Government (even key members of her own party) and are then surprised when it doesn't pass. I take that back. The deal didn't just not pass. It was the worst ever Government loss in the history of one of the oldest parliaments in the world. So time to reset, take stock and change tack? No, let's keep barrelling on. Why? No idea. I mean, the fixed date, red lines etc are there to keep the harder Brexiters on side i.e. the folk that aren't even voting for the deal. The whole strategy only made rationale sense if she had a landslide in 2017. When that didn't occur, the only sensible approach was to spend 2 years achieving a cross party consensus for something. And just to be clear, I'm not only a natural Tory, I was delighted when she was chosen as PM as she appeared to be the sort of pragmatic technocrat that I believed the country needed at this time. Unfortunately, I now believe she is the worst PM we have had in my lifetime. And about to cause preventable harm to the country I call home. It is most saddening.

nutjob2 8y ago

She's tried everything except actual leadership. The reason her political career is over is that's she's an ineffective leader. These sorts of situations are the very definition of what leadership is for. The fact it's nigh an impossible situation is partly due to the path she has chosen and her relative incompetence in her job. You can feel for her and that's fine, but at the end of the day responsibility to get the job done falls to her and she has not delivered. There are no excuses.

tomp 8y ago
What would have been a better path (honest question)?
- matthewmacleod 8y ago
  Building a deliverable, realistic consensus approach with cross-party support, reflecting the relatively close outcome of the initial referendum and the diversity of opinion within the "leave" movement.
  - tomp 8y ago
    But that's my question, what's a "realistic consensus"? Mind you, consensus within the UK isn't enough, you need consensus with the EU as well - and I don't think anything better than the current deal is even possible.
    - matthewmacleod 8y ago
      But that's my question, what's a "realistic consensus"? It's really the prime minister's job to build this based on working cross-party, but an obvious example might be a relatively close Norway-style relationship, which would be much more likely to receive opposition support. I don't think anything better than the current deal is even possible This is again just absolutely false.
    - jlokier 8y ago
      The EU are (or would have been) open to other models than the one TM settled on. They have suggested they would be open to alternatives when Corbyn approached them earlier this year. If a general election or new referendum had taken place, I think the EU would have granted an extension to hear what new alternative would emerge. They are saying TM's deal is the only deal now, but that's because it was negotiated exhaustively in private already, and TM told them, essentially, she would take it to the MPs to get it rubber-stamped. The MPs said no, it's their job, not hers, to hash out the big important compromises for the country, she should have consulted them before getting to that point and they don't like the deal she made, and they rejected it with the strongest defeat in parliamentary history. The problem is leaving consensus building so late, so the EU spent all their negotiating efforts on TM's version of things, and they don't want to negotiate twice (unless a really good reason shows up that lines up with their principles).

stordoff 8y ago

> She's literally the only person in the wide political spectrum in the UK that's willing to actually deal with this like a sensible adult She's been told by the rules of Parliament that she can't have another vote on the same deal. That remains to be her plan.