Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Brexit process

Pickman's model said:
yeh. but then why would you? why bother going through a great big negotiation if you're likely to maintain the status quo ante?
Click to expand...

Because, if you're Theresa May, you've been forced into it by the result of a referendum called by your predecessor as PM which went against what you personally wanted, and you think the best way to get out of that situation is to invoke A50, hype up expectations of what Brexit will mean, go through negotiations which produce far less and then say that you will put it to a second referendum which you expect will reverse the result of the first.

I agree it doesn't make much sense, but neither did Cameron's original decision.
 
Raheem said:
My understanding is that the ECJ can't accept cases against a Council decision and can't overrule the Council. If that's wrong, then I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to know, I'm just going on what I read in that article BA linked to
 
andysays said:
Because, if you're Theresa May, you've been forced into it by the result of a referendum called by your predecessor as PM which went against what you personally wanted, and you think the best way to get out of that situation is to invoke A50, hype up expectations of what Brexit will mean, go through negotiations which produce far less and then say that you will put it to a second referendum which you expect will reverse the result of the first.

I agree it doesn't make much sense, but neither did Cameron's original decision.
Click to expand...
I think May is absolutely delighted about this result. It made her Prime Minister, after all.
 
andysays said:
No, I think you'll find it was the Tory leadership election (including Andrea whatsit dropping out at the final hurdle) that did that
Click to expand...
No pre-planning by May as she hedged her bets during the referendum campaign then? The leave vote made Cameron's position untenable, which was easily foreseeable, meaning a leadership contest, for which May was very nicely placed. That wasn't an accident.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
No pre-planning by May as she hedged her bets during the referendum campaign then? The leave vote made Cameron's position untenable, which was easily foreseeable, meaning a leadership contest, for which May was very nicely placed. That wasn't an accident.
Click to expand...
these people are power addicts after all. I predicted her coronation btw. But what a time to take the big chair. Alls chaos
 
littlebabyjesus said:
No pre-planning by May as she hedged her bets during the referendum campaign then? The leave vote made Cameron's position untenable, which was easily foreseeable, meaning a leadership contest, for which May was very nicely placed. That wasn't an accident.
Click to expand...

I wonder if I'm the only one who finds it bizarre that you've gone in a few hours from saying that the result of the referendum is somehow meaningless or invalid because its consequences couldn't be precisely known, to simplistically making the assertion that TM became the PM as a direct consequence of the Brexit vote as if nothing else that happened between those two events is in any way relevant.
 
DotCommunist said:
these people are power addicts after all. I predicted her coronation btw. But what a time to take the big chair. Alls chaos
Click to expand...
I think it does her Machiavellian skills a disservice to think she's stumbled into the PMship by accident. All very clever - a disloyal brexiter will have to explain what they meant in the campaign, to unpick each of the lies they told. No way such a person could aspire to be leader. Low-key, stick to the brief loyal minister, though? More or less invisible during the campaign? You don't even need a plan at first, just an assurance that you'll do brexit.
 
andysays said:
I wonder if I'm the only one who finds it bizarre that you've gone in a few hours from saying that the result of the referendum is somehow meaningless or invalid because its consequences couldn't be precisely known, to simplistically making the assertion that TM became the PM as a direct consequence of the Brexit vote as if nothing else that happened between those two events is in any way relevant.
Click to expand...
I didn't say the first bit, but yes, I do think the evidence points to the idea that May had a pre-vote plan for how to position herself in the event of a leave vote, one that would put her in the position to be PM, while leaving her safe in her current job with a remain vote.
 
krtek a houby said:
So, you can't or won't elaborate on your original statement. Fair enough.
Click to expand...
Does it really need elaborating on when it's already clear that in one short sentence I suggested that people generally are no more 'rational' about this issue than about most others?

You then started implying that I'd also said what you apparently want me to have said.
 
Its all about the next general election now i should imagine. The Tories will overwhelming vote for brexit and keep the voters they have taken from Labour and the Libdems at the next GE.

Torries want to look like the saviours of democracy! Smart move
 
Jurrihahay said:
Does it really need elaborating on when it's already clear that in one short sentence I suggested that people generally are no more 'rational' about this issue than about most others.

You then started implying that I'd also said what you apparently want me to have said.
Click to expand...

You've done this before; generalise about people, "most" people etc.

"As if people anywhere generally vote for anything on a primarily rational basis." This statement implies that people don't vote rationally. So I suggested some other reasons (negative ones) to see if you would elaborate. But you just want to do your usual thing.

On an emotive level; I'll freely admit that the Brexit outcome upset me. And I made sweeping generalisations immediately after. For which I was rightly pulled up on. I'm still not happy with it (for personal reasons - rational life changing reasons - which I won't go into here) but I take on board; the result came about because people felt strongly about the referendum and I reckon there were plenty of rational, balanced reasons why voters voted the way they did.

Do you believe that voters are, by and large, irrational? That's what I was hoping to find out.
 
ffsear said:
Its all about the next general election now i should imagine. The Tories will overwhelming vote for brexit and keep the voters they have taken from Labour and the Libdems at the next GE.

Torries want to look like the saviours of democracy! Smart move
Click to expand...
a conundrum for some of the maquis and their fellow travellers- back brexit to spite corbyn or back remain and piss of their constituents?
 
krtek a houby said:
You've done this before; generalise about people, "most" people etc.

"As if people anywhere generally vote for anything on a primarily rational basis." This statement implies that people don't vote rationally. So I suggested some other reasons (negative ones) to see if you would elaborate. But you just want to do your usual thing.

On an emotive level; I'll freely admit that the Brexit outcome upset me. And I made sweeping generalisations immediately after. For which I was rightly pulled up on. I'm still not happy with it (for personal reasons - rational life changing reasons - which I won't go into here) but I take on board; the result came about because people felt strongly about the referendum and I reckon there were plenty of rational, balanced reasons why voters voted the way they did.

Do you believe that voters are, by and large, irrational? That's what I was hoping to find out.
Click to expand...
Obviously, most people are motivated, in voting as in much else, by a mixture of psychological factors, of which rationality is probably not the most prominent. (Is the word obviously still allowed?)

Where, though, is it written down that it's forbidden to generalise about anything? How can anybody, in the increasingly complex, largely senseless world we are forced to exist in, not generalise about most things most of the time? In my experience this is what most people do, whether they realise they're doing it or not. And, hey-it's OK (man.) You'd probably become neurotic if you didn't. And those 'rational, life changing reasons' of yours-half of them are bound to turn out to be imaginary, or, if you could bring yourself to some honest self-examination, self-serving and espoused mainly for the effect. This is hardly unique to you.
 
Decision hurts Labour and Corbyn far more than the Tories, whatever they do will piss off a big chunk of Labour voters.
 
Jurrihahay said:
Obviously, most people are motivated, in voting as in much else, by a mixture of psychological factors, of which rationality is probably not the most prominent. (Is the word obviously still allowed?)

Where, though, is it written down that it's forbidden to generalise about anything? How can anybody, in the increasingly complex, largely senseless world we are forced to exist in, not generalise about most things most of the time? In my experience this is what most people do, whether they realise they're doing it or not. And, hey-it's OK (man.) You'd probably become neurotic if you didn't. And those 'rational, life changing reasons' of yours-half of them are bound to turn out to be imaginary, or, if you could bring yourself to some honest self-examination, self-serving and espoused mainly for the effect. This is hardly unique to you.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the elaboration. I suppose it depends where in the world you find yourself & under what set of circumstances. South Africa, emerging out of the apartheid era. The break up of the soviet union etc. Chile, post Pinochet. All those places. As for my own situation; it is what it is. It's probably a mix of survival and selfishness. And I guess that in itself, holds the rational and irrational factors.
 
DotCommunist said:
plenty of w/c areas with tory MP's. Places who went 60% out.
Click to expand...

Yes I know, I mean the Tories in parliament can vote to trigger article 50 without too many problems. Most Tory voters support doing so and it is not trying to overturn the election result. Labour on the other hand if they vote to trigger article 50 or abstain will piss off a lot of the remainers who vote Labour but want to overturn the result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ash
Another Brexit benefit- using Wi-Fi in Europe
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
Elpenor
Elpenor
F
Brexit
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Smokeandsteam
Smokeandsteam
Serene
So what happened to 350 million a week from brexit being put into the NHS??
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
editor
  • Poll
Do you want a separate Brexit forum?
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
4K
platinumsage
platinumsage
Maggot
  • Locked
Benefits of Brexit
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
5K
FridgeMagnet
FridgeMagnet
Back
Top Bottom