Brexit - The Final


Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I'm not so sure. She has been most resilient with an impossible task and poisoned chalice. She is still deep in damage limitation territory against the more swivel-eyed.
Don't worry, I think she has your measure, as do most of us!
You're obfuscating, again.

I repeat: quote the part Spuddy claims she said.
After you old bean, then I'll explain how it works.


Book Reviewer
Most people are geographically challenged.

As for the likelihood of Turkish accession and the question of propaganda, quite so. But then Remainers were quite happy not to explore the EU's democratic credentials and let everyone assume that, because the EU has a Parliament therefore it enjoys the same level of representative democracy as the UK.

Both sides stretched the truth and both sides used smoke screens to mask unhelpful issues and facts.
The Remain side in particular couldn't afford to debate the issues - and are still avoiding doing that.

A sensible discussion of the issues would have been "where will the EU be in 5, 10 and 25 years time and what are the pros and cons of membership?"

That is ground 'Leave would have been happy to fight on, because the answer basically would have been:
  1. The EU is steadily becoming less competitive on the world stage and its market share is being taken by more competitive countries.
  2. The euro is a half-finished project and will require significant further financial and political integration.
  3. To do that Westminster will have to cede significant further powers to Brussels.
  4. For the euro to work, all EU member states will eventually have to belong to it, including the UK. This will mean giving up the pound and giving Brussels the power to set UK budgets.
  5. The euro may well collapse whatever measures are taken to save it.
I've always through Leave made a mistake by not focusing their campaign on the future direction of the EU. Had they done, I think the margin would have been more decisive. For example, the EU's declining share ow world trade is a mater of statistical fact, while it would have been possible to point out the near collapse of the euro in the Lehman recession (and the treatment meted out to Greece, Ireland, et al) as clear evidence of the problems in the euro.



Book Reviewer
I don't think she was looking for wriggle room. Based on what we know now, I'd say she was looking for a majority to by-pass the 'No Dealers'. Of course, being Theresa May, she ended up being dependent on the DUP and empowered the very people she was trying to sideline.
It takes a particular genius to go into a GE with a 20 point lead in the opinion polls and facing the most shambolic and left wing Labour leader since Michael Foot and end up losing 20 odd seats.

The subject is the credibility of certain arguments presented by both sides - I've rather agreed with you about the credibility of Turkey successfully joining the EU at any point in the foreseeable future, even as viewed from 2016.

Not being a fanatic for one view or the other, I don't share your compelling need to present one side as faultless, much less to attempt to do so in the face of the overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary.

I told you long ago that you were far too angry and over-invested in the subject. You lack objectivity and you can't help playing a partisan and simplistic game of black hat/white hat.

Leave lied and Remain lied. Leave dissembled and Remain dissembled. It's about the only thing that most people can agree on about the whole Brexit issue. Denying it is an exercise in futility, though I suppose that hasn't stopped you in the past.
I haven't presented Remain as faultless and I also said that I disagreed with Osborne's choice, do please stop making things up.

I certainly don't look on the world as black and white and I have no idea why you're trying to frame it that way, unless it's to avoid the point that the Met and the NCA are investigating Leave but not Remain. There are levels of deceit and Leave demonstrable went further. When "I visited the Russian ambassador once" translates into eight or more times it's taking the piss.

By drawing a false equivalence and making it about me you're doing a big "Look a pigeon!" act, your usual.
I don't think she originally intended to be as weak as she's been. Ultimately she's been forced to tack to the ultra-Remainers because she was never in favour of ultra-Leave. I think if she'd commanded a clear parliamentary majority for her proposals, the EU would have flexed more in favour of a definite outcome.

The lack of a majority has encouraged the Commission to fish in troubled waters (even hope for a second referendum) and has caused the other member states to hold back because they've no idea what support any concession on their side would engender in the way of a breakthrough.

I doubt the truth will ever be known but I don't envy her ghost writer.
Any PM of any party would have had much the same issues due to the result. It's unfinished business, which still has to play out.
Seeking Stronger ‘Brexit’ Mandate
Find where she says this, not what the media say.
I'll keep waiting.
Are you really as stupid and shouty as you make out?

Similar threads

Latest Threads