Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • The Scots could hold a referendum, but without the agreement of Westminster, it would not be legally binding. This is, in fact, quite similar to the situation in Catalunia, Spain. I agree that if push came to shove, an actual revolution/occupation seems unlikely. However, Scotland would have little chance of becoming an EU member if its exit from the UK was not by mutual accord. Spain would veto it for sure. None of the members favors unilateral dissolution of existing EU member states. So regardless of the legality, as a practical political matter Scotland needs approval from the UK. The alternative would leave them completely on their own, which seems a poor choice.

    • ungovernable Parliament

      May not be the best phrase, as the prime minister doesn't govern the parliament.

      May's gamble on the General election after becoming PM didn't pay off. The tories lost a lot seats, and effectively lost their majority, so in that respect parliament had difficulty in governing

    • She knew exactly what was she getting into, and then managed to do an absolutely terrible job with it. I say good riddance.

      I only feel sorry for the British people who will be handed an even worse deal, with Boris Johnson replacing her.

    • She was widely considered ineffective, but I'm not sure anyone else would have done any better. Speculation has it that Boris Johnson is up next. While there's a remote chance that could unite the opposition, he's more likely to guarantee a no-deal conclusion. It looks like Brexit is a bad idea whose time has come.

    • No doubting it was a difficult brief. However, in the infinite multiverse there is a version of reality where Ms May did prevail. Success was always possible in our reality but Ms May chose (i.e. was not forced) to act in a way that made this a non-starter.

      1. She was a "Remainer", so how likely was she to be able to deliver Brexit?

      2. She surrounded herself with "Remainer" advisers and a predominantly "Remainer" cabinet.

      3. She got through 3 Secretaries of State for Brexit - this should not be possible in a closed issue.

      4. Her third Brexit Secretary resigned after Ms May agreed the terms of a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU that he was largely unaware of. Why would Ms May adopt such a despotic approach to negotiation in a parliamentary democracy? Could it be it was because she was not intending to act democratically (see point 1)?

      5. She agreed terms of a Withdrawal Agreement in secret, surely knowing that it would never receive majority support. This suggests she is utterly out of touch with her electorate and her party.

      6. She took "no-deal" off the table. Even the weakest negotiator will tell you that, if you give away your currency of negotiation, you will not get a deal. Ms May was obviously under the impression she was playing "happy families", rather than poker.

      It did not have to be the way it is ended up. Whilst I do not discount the very real difficulties faced when negotiating with 650 loose-lipped and self-serving idiots telegraphing your every move, Ms May could have made a better job of it. She is rightly being held accountable for that.

    • This is so on the nose:

      I cannot imagine what hell it must be like to be a reasonable person living in the UK these days...