She must know that she will not get this agreement through The House, she must have known that the DUP would not agree with the proposed agreement.
She must be praying hard for divine intervention.
Well, I guess she is a vicar’s daughter after all…
Maybe she’ll take some comfort from Baroness Trumpington’s gesticulative prowess instead
We met her on the terrace at the Palace of Westminster.
An amazing lady.
How she lived so long smoking like a chimney is also amazing.
I think Theresa May, not having a dog in this Brexit scrap, is not going to buckle under the pressure of men she regards as inferior characters and mysogynistic bullies. Win or lose the vote on the “deal”, her future is secure and her reputation as a woman who did her duty and went out with head un-bowed is also secure in Britsh political history.
She bit the bullet that other Tory PMs dodged. She epitomises the “Bulldog Spirit”, essence of what the nation stands for. Purely a personal opinion, and only partly persuasive, even to me.
I think perhaps that only a woman could have taken on this challenge and survived the opprobrium, cat-calls and insults, cringeworthy caricatures and overt betrayals that have beset her. Not to mention insulin-dependent diabetes and a soul-crushing calendar of commitments, nauseous turns on the EU carousel, interviews and parliamentary duties.
Whatever one thinks of Brexit or the institutions of so-called meritocracy, she deserves her elevation to the Lords, where I do hope she continues the tradition set by Baroness Trumpington of signalling F*ck you to people on the red benches, and the rest of us, when she takes ermine after March 29 next year.
I’m afraid I have a much less positive view of May, though for much the same reason that you find her admirable.
She is not called the MayBot for nothing - she gained a reputation for being the sort of person that you could give a job safe in the knowledge that it would be done, no matter what.
The trouble is she appears not to know when to look at the wider picture. The result of her being given the target, as home secretary, of “reducing immigration to the 10’s of 1000s” was the Windrush scandal; never mind that the target was unrealistic and unachievable she was going to get on with the job and f**k (to use your vernacular) anyone who stood in the way.
She has approached Brexit the same way, a technical problem, a job to be “got on with” whatever the consequences. Some might argue that she saw an opportunity to finish the job on immigration which she hadn’t quite managed at the Home Office - I’ve previously commented on the strange coincidence that the one thing the deal she has cooked up does deliver on is immigration. It appears that I am not the only one to hold this view - as Rosa Prince’s biography of May also suggests this might be the case.
I am not sure quite how May actually came to power - I doubt it was a truly fair contest and it is quite likely that she was “engineered” into the role because the Tory party powers felt that she had appeal to both sides, could be controlled and once aimed would proceed inexorably, if occasionally slowly, to her target.
Unfortunately her very doggedness has been the undoing of the nation - having set her “red lines” she was incapable of seeing that they boxed her into an almost impossible impasse.
We are now in the situation where there is truly no going forward and no going back. She is unlikely to get her deal through Parliament but while Parliament is united against the deal there is no consensus on where to go next - and pretty much any destination is fraught with difficulty.
A further referendum isn’t the answer either as it is likely, if anything, to deepen the divisions that the country faces.
At least we can agree that elevation to the Lords would be useful - she can’t do much harm there.
The country is already divided.
It does appear that many people have changed their minds after having seen that the simple promised exit from the EU was, in fact, anything but.
TM’s deal is neither fish nor fowl and that is becoming more recognised and going back to the country is the only realistic outcome.
The is now a campaign to ensure that a no deal Brexit does not happen with widespread support.
There were supposedly 2 outcomes initially of the vote on 11th December of May’s proposal - Her Deal or No Deal - but more recently No Brexit.
It is suggested that May’s deal will simply not get sufficient votes - no deal has been ruled out so that only seems to leave 1 option No Brexit - but I would assume that for such a change of position this would require a further referendum and a delay of Article 50 in the Brexit date - as has been indicated a possibility by EU.
The problem is that something has to emerge from the vacuum and gain enough momentum to get through Parliament.
There are a few ideas floating about, Tusk has recently stated the options as you say - no deal, May’s deal or no Brexit but nothing which looks like commanding a majority.
In any case as far as I can see the wrong thing is being debated - this is focussing in the backstop, not the withdrawal agreement itself. But then woolly thinking has been the hallmark of the whole Brexit fiasco.
From what I can see the obvious result is stalemate which will then be passed back in the form of a referendum to resolve it. The stalemate would be used as the justification for a further referendum.
As a week is a long time in politics, a no brexit now would perhaps pave the way for another referendum in a few years time - aka a lifetime - but I agree that a new referendum now - or even a GE - would serve no useful purpose and leave the country in just as much mess.
I agree that a GE would serve absolutely no purpose right now - but a referendum that resulted in a significant consensus would be fantastic - especially one which resulted in a remain win.
Given the continuing divisions, how likely would that be?
No she has united the UK, now remain and brexit both hate May
A general election would actually be the worst possible choice as it would be actively damaging
It would almost certainly return Labour to power.
My own view (obviously not universal) is that with Corbyn at the helm this would be a mistake. His politics are stuck in the 1970’s - he wants to do stuff like renationalise the railways for goodness’ sake - he has always been a dissenter, keen to pull down the efforts of others but not to build much of his own. He is much more suitable material for an opposition leader than a leader of government but he has not even been that effective in opposition (he’s got a bit better recently, I will grant you).
But putting Labour into power would help Brexit not one jot. They know what they want even less than the Tories - some inchoate idea about a Customs Union which sounds like the backstop in perpetuity, is about as far as they have got.
As soon as you put them into power they will crack and divisions will appear. But, because they have got away without having to think seriously about the issue for two years any understanding of what the UK wants out of its relationship with Europe will effectively be put back two years.
A referendum sounds like a good idea until you start to think it through. The first problem is what question(s) to ask. If it were a binary choice of no deal vs May’s deal then that strikes me as like being asked whether one would prefer death by shooting or hanging; whichever is chosen you are still dead. Almost the only reason for presenting such a choice to the nation is to absolve the politicians of blame (“it was the Will of the People” all over again).
The minimal sensible question would be no deal, vs May’s deal, vs no Brexit - but there are several problems with this. It splits the vote three ways, so if the vote is roughly 25-25-50 the Brexiteers will be out in force to cry foul and that it was rigged against them. I imagine that such a result would only reinvigorate them (as has been observed their raison d’être is to be against the status quo, not actually delivering the new brighter future).
In fact any scenario where Remain “won” but by less than 50% would have the Brexiteers crying out that the vote was really for leave and only the manner needed to be decided.
Come to that any referendum which includes Remain as an option opens itself to the accusation that the government are merely “asking the public repeatedly until they give the right answer”.
What then, if the vote falls more 33-33-34? A narrow vote will not inform the debate in any but the shortest of terms and, again would only serve to deepen the divisions.
So, in asking for a further referendum I think you need to think it through very carefully - lest you get what you wished for.
Personally I am not in favour of a referendum. It will not add long term clarity and it will serve only to allow poiticians to distance then selves from the fallout by citing “Will of the People”.
Finally, none of this is happening in a vacuum - the EU has said it will not renegotiate although I think that was qualified by saying it might be possible if the UK red lines shifted considerably but there is impatience to get this done and move on. Perhaps that is because there are other problems for the EU - not least the ongoing crisis of migration form the Middle East and North Africa, the rise of right wing populism and the fact that the Eu still doesn’t know how to deal with the slower economies of the south and old Eastern bloc.
To get out of this mess will take balls, determination and imagination. Sadly May has the first two but comes up short for the third.
Whereas, the Tory’s tend to pull down the efforts of others to build something for the few using public money.
Where on earth are the Libdems they should be making capital from this. We need a new party