Brexit Referendum Superthread

demfad

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think it became very apparent during the referendum campaign that the Single Market (specifically the free movement of workers) was one of the main reasons people voted to leave.

Now they could have said that they were going to honour the manifesto, but I don't think it would have gone down very well with Leave voters.

The original point was that not honouring the referendum result was unthinkable because it was a Tory election pledge.

HOLDING a referendum was the headline pledge as was SAFEGUARDING the single market.

If breaking pledges was politically unthinkable the Tories would have been bound to negotiate for a soft Brexit.

Peregrinus

demfad wrote: »

They say nothing about their position either way (in or out of the Union).

The only headline commitment is not to leaving the Union but to HOLDING the in-out referendum. Another headline is "safeguard British interests in the Single Market".
Honouring referendum result etc. are given equal significance to remaining in the EU. And plenty have argued here that both are possible (to fight for atleast) in a soft Brexit.

As regards the referendum, the manifesto contains an absolutely unambigous commitment:

"We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017. We will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then
we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome."

There's no commitment at all to remaining, or seeking to remain, in the single market even if the referendum result is in favour of Brexit. The question is simply not discussed. I don't read anything the manifesto says in support of the single market as indicating a commitment to remain in the single market in the event of a Brexit.

I agree, it's certainly possible to seek to achieve a Brexit on terms that the UK remains in the single market by, e.g., joining the EEA. No UK government can guarantee to deliver that, since it requires the agreement of other countries, but they can certainly try. My point is simply that they never committed themselves to trying.

Chips Lovell

Agreed. They'd no obligation to act on it. It would have been political suicide to ignore it, but they could have if they wanted to.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

As regards the referendum, the manifesto contains an absolutely unambigous commitment:

"We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017. We will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then
we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome."<...>

That verbatim excerpt is interesting on the points highlighted in the above: assuming that the "new settlement" related to Cameron's (at the time, yet to be negotiated-) treaty change deal, the referendum made no reference whatsoever to any sort of settlement about Britain 'in' the EU by way of basis.

The referendum question was: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

As regards the referendum, the manifesto contains an absolutely unambigous commitment:

"We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017. We will negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU. And then
we will ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave. We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome."

There's no commitment at all to remaining, or seeking to remain, in the single market even if the referendum result is in favour of Brexit. The question is simply not discussed. I don't read anything the manifesto says in support of the single market as indicating a commitment to remain in the single market in the event of a Brexit.

I agree, it's certainly possible to seek to achieve a Brexit on terms that the UK remains in the single market by, e.g., joining the EEA. No UK government can guarantee to deliver that, since it requires the agreement of other countries, but they can certainly try. My point is simply that they never committed themselves to trying.

There is an unequivocal headline pledge to "safeguard British interests in the Single Market". No conditions.
If this was conditional on Brexit why not say so? Did the Tory Leavers not Brexit campaign to stay in the Single Market..have their cake and eat it?

demfad

ambro25 wrote: »

That verbatim excerpt is interesting on the points highlighted in the above: assuming that the "new settlement" related to Cameron's (at the time, yet to be negotiated-) treaty change deal, the referendum made no reference whatsoever to any sort of settlement about Britain 'in' the EU by way of basis.

The referendum question was: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

The Germans actually thought that Cameron got a lot. It was never going to be enough based on what was expected at home. Another tactical error.

There was no functional NEED to call the referendum: it was called for political reasons. This stunt was to pretend that the EU needed to move i.e referendum call justified. He was never going to get enough.

I dont know if the EU implemented what they had given Cameron before the vote. Clearly not in remains interest to emphasise it.

ancapailldorcha

demfad wrote: »

The Germans actually thought that Cameron got a lot. It was never going to be enough based on what was expected at home. Another tactical error.

There was no functional NEED to call the referendum: it was called for political reasons. This stunt was to pretend that the EU needed to move i.e referendum call justified. He was never going to get enough.

I dont know if the EU implemented what they had given Cameron before the vote. Clearly not in remains interest to emphasise it.

I think Cameron could have asked for more. He asked for what he thought he could get rather than aiming higher. It might have helped if he'd pushed for more smaller concessions such as those passports Farage keeps banging on about.

IIRC, it was tied into a remain vote. I think he said that the UK would only get his deal if it voted to remain.

Mal-Adjusted

catbear wrote: »

There's a brexit minister who twice thought the Irish republic was an internal part of the UK and that the CTA was a legal agreement!

Sorry, i'm trying to catch up on the thread. Can we get a link to this please? It seems like an absolutely crazy that someone world think this.

Leonard Hofstadter

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think Cameron could have asked for more. He asked for what he thought he could get rather than aiming higher. It might have helped if he'd pushed for more smaller concessions such as those passports Farage keeps banging on about.

IIRC, it was tied into a remain vote. I think he said that the UK would only get his deal if it voted to remain.

This is yet another example of the anti-EU propaganda that is spread in the UK (and as you'd expect, it is completely untrue) - there was nothing stopping them from having their blue passports if they wanted to have them. Note how Slovakia recently redesigned their ones - and guess what colour they are? Black - not burgundy, black.

catbear

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Sorry, i'm trying to catch up on the thread. Can we get a link to this please? It seems like an absolutely crazy that someone world think this.

I'm only catching up too after the ban. Here you go.

Appearing on Sky News' Murnaghan programme to discuss the possibility of Scotland remaining in the EU while the rest of the United Kingdom leaves, Davis told viewers that "one of our really challenging issues . . . will be the internal border we have with southern Ireland".

A good point. Indeed; negotiating the border of Northern Ireland will be a challenge, especially given the progress that has been made with?

Wait, what? "Internal border"?

Davis goes on: "we are not going to go about creating other internal borders inside the United Kingdom".

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/brexit-minister-david-davis-thinks-republic-ireland-part-uk

catbear

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-27/merkel-warns-against-u-k-illusions-in-hard-line-brexit-speech

German Chancellor Angela Merkel laid down a tough line for Brexit talks with the U.K., reminding Britain it can?t expect preferential treatment as she warned that some officials in London were harboring ?illusions.?
?You might think that these things are self-evident, but unfortunately I have to put it in such clear terms because I have the feeling that some in Britain still have illusions about this,? Merkel said in Berlin on Thursday, drawing applause from lower-house lawmakers. ?But that would be a waste of time.?

catbear

The YouGov poll revealed that 45 per cent of voters now agree Britain was wrong to vote to leave the EU, compared to 43 per cent who still think it is the correct decision. A further 12 per cent do not know.

It is the first time a poll has found the majority of people disagreeing with the referendum result.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/revealed-more-people-now-think-brexit-is-wrong-than-right-for-first-time-since-eu-referendum-a3524956.html

Professor Moriarty

catbear wrote: »

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-27/merkel-warns-against-u-k-illusions-in-hard-line-brexit-speech

I don't think that people have illusions in Britain. The Little Englander Tories have no illusions, and know very well what Brexit means, but their jingoism takes precedence. The people are being lied to and have been conditioned to believe those lies.

Professor Moriarty

The Torygraph believes that Theresa May has already won ever before Johnny Foreigner sits down at the negotiating table. The term 'lost in translation' springs to mind.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

I agree, it's certainly possible to seek to achieve a Brexit on terms that the UK remains in the single market by, e.g., joining the EEA. No UK government can guarantee to deliver that, since it requires the agreement of other countries, but they can certainly try. My point is simply that they never committed themselves to trying.

I think the consensus is that the UK is already a member of the EEA and does not need to

Labour MP Heidi Alexander:

‘Despite Government protestations to the contrary, leaving the EU doesn’t automatically and necessarily mean leaving the single market. Equally, leaving the treaty of the European Union doesn’t automatically and necessarily mean leaving the European Economic Area Agreement.'

David Davis responds:

‘The truth is leaving the European Union does I’m afraid involve leaving the single market because the single market requires as a part of it the four freedoms and whatever you think about the vote last year, it was clearly not a vote in favour of allowing the control of migration, the control of laws and indeed the operation of the European Court of Justice to stay in Europe.’

source

Note Davis's response. The UK needs to leave the EEA not because they automatically leave when they leave the EU (he does not address that question) but because the people, in his view, voted to leave both organizations in the referendum. He is not contradicting Alexander here but introducing an irrelevant point.

But he does hint later on:

‘Depending on what the policy decision is I would think it was quite likely to come to the parliament.’

So I suspect that the Conservatives believe too that leaving the EEA is a separate procedure. It is not something they want widely known and blocked a court case on the basis that it was "premature" earlier this year. Obviously it is not in the Conservatives' interest to have the answer settled right now as it is something they may need to fall back on later.

I'm trying to find an article by a legal firm giving the case for and against the idea of the UK's separate membership of the EEA but I can't find it at the moment. The author felt the issue was finely balanced.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The Torygraph believes that Theresa May has already won ever before Johnny Foreigner sits down at the negotiating table. The term 'lost in translation' springs to mind.

From that link, the whole "victory" is this:

Ms Malmstrom told a conference in Copenhagen on Thursday: "It's uncharted territory but I'm sure we will solve it. We will have a free trade agreement, that is for sure." When asked again whether she was certain, Ms Malmstrom said: "Of course".

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The Torygraph believes that Theresa May has already won ever before Johnny Foreigner sits down at the negotiating table. The term 'lost in translation' springs to mind.

That's just a weird article, totally weird. The writer seems to think that Malmstrom's statement represents a victory for May, whereas as far as I can see it's a rejection of May's position.

May says the UK would leave Brexit without an Art. 50 agreement "if Brussels sought to punish the UK by imposing unfair trade tariffs", which sugests that she wants fair tariffs (whatever they are) included in the Art. 50 agreement, or agreed at the same time as it.

But Malmstrom says that she is confident the EU will agree a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit, which can only mean that it won't be part of the Art. 50 agreement, and won't be agreed alongside it.

Moreover the Telegraph seems to take it as given that the terms of the free trade deal that the EU is willing to agree to will automatically be "fair" in Teresa May's terms. Or, alternatively, that whatever terms the EU offers, May will automatically deem to be "fair".

This is a kind of Trumpish approach in which, whatever the outcome of any process, you declare that the outcome was exactly what you wanted.

Enzokk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't think that people have illusions in Britain. The Little Englander Tories have no illusions, and know very well what Brexit means, but their jingoism takes precedence. The people are being lied to and have been conditioned to believe those lies.

If the people are being lied to and they believe those lies then they surely would be under illusion on Brexit?

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the consensus is that the UK is already a member of the EEA and does not need to

Labour MP Heidi Alexander:

‘Despite Government protestations to the contrary, leaving the EU doesn’t automatically and necessarily mean leaving the single market. Equally, leaving the treaty of the European Union doesn’t automatically and necessarily mean leaving the European Economic Area Agreement.'

David Davis responds:

‘The truth is leaving the European Union does I’m afraid involve leaving the single market because the single market requires as a part of it the four freedoms and whatever you think about the vote last year, it was clearly not a vote in favour of allowing the control of migration, the control of laws and indeed the operation of the European Court of Justice to stay in Europe.’

source

Note Davis's response. The UK needs to leave the EEA not because they automatically leave when they leave the EU (he does not address that question) but because the people, in his view, voted to leave both organizations in the referendum. He is not contradicting Alexander here but introducing an irrelevant point.

But he does hint later on:

‘Depending on what the policy decision is I would think it was quite likely to come to the parliament.’

So I suspect that the Conservatives believe too that leaving the EEA is a separate procedure. It is not something they want widely known and blocked a court case on the basis that it was "premature" earlier this year. Obviously it is not in the Conservatives' interest to have the answer settled right now as it is something they may need to fall back on later.

I'm trying to find an article by a legal firm giving the case for and against the idea of the UK's separate membership of the EEA but I can't find it at the moment. The author felt the issue was finely balanced.

To be a member of the EEA it seems it is open to any member of the EU or EFTA (European Free Trade Association). Seeing as the UK will leave the EU and membership of EFTA is basically EU membership light (which the UK is leaving) then once the UK leaves officially then they will not be part of the EEA. They will have to apply for membership to either the EU or EFTA to gain membership/access to the EEA. I think it is safe to say this will not happen with the current messages from the UK.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the consensus is that the UK is already a member of the EEA . . .

The UK is currently a member of the EEA, but it won't automatically remain so after Brexit.

The EEA is constituted by a 1994 treaty called, predictably enough, the Agreement on the EEA. The parties to the Agreement are, on the one side, the European Community (as it then was) and its Member States (including the UK) and, on the other side, Iceland, Leichtenstein and Norway. (In 1994, that list also included Austria, Sweden and Finland, but they have all since become Member States, so they have changed sides, as it were).

By its own terms the treaty applies as between the "Contracting Parties" defined, on the EU side, as the Union and its Member States. Thus if the UK ceases to be a Member State, the treaty by its own terms won't confer any benefits or obligations on it. Even if the UK is still treated as a party to the treaty, that would just mean that its party to an agreement that creates a European Economic Area that doesn't include the UK.

But, in fact, the UK won't I think be a party to the Treaty after Brexit. When the treaty was signed in 1994, it wasn't ratified separately by each of the EUO member states. It applies in the member states because of the membership of the Union, so they didn't need to ratify it. It's part of the body of EU law that member states are subjected to by virtue of their membership of the Union.

Once the UK leaves the EU, EU law will no longer apply in the UK, except to the extent that the UK Parliament preserves and continues its application. Of course, Parliament is going to do that on quite a wide scale, but I don't think they'll be able to do it here. Parliament could decree, as a matter of UK law, that the Agreement on the EEA still applies in Britain as though the UK were still a member state of the EU. But what Parliament cannot do is to decree that, as a matter of EU law (or of French, etc, law) the Agreement applies in the EU (or in France, etc) as though the UK were still a member state. Parliament can change UK law, but it cannot change EU law or the law of any other EU member state. Parliament can't unilaterally decide that the UK has a continuing Agreeement with the EU and with Norway, Iceland and Luxembourg for the UK to participate in the EEA, even though it's no longer a member state.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's just a weird article, totally weird. The writer seems to think that Malmstrom's statement represents a victory for May, whereas as far as I can see it's a rejection of May's position.

May says the UK would leave Brexit without an Art. 50 agreement "if Brussels sought to punish the UK by imposing unfair trade tariffs", which sugests that she wants fair tariffs (whatever they are) included in the Art. 50 agreement, or agreed at the same time as it.

But Malmstrom says that she is confident the EU will agree a free trade deal with the UK after Brexit, which can only mean that it won't be part of the Art. 50 agreement, and won't be agreed alongside it.

Moreover the Telegraph seems to take it as given that the terms of the free trade deal that the EU is willing to agree to will automatically be "fair" in Teresa May's terms. Or, alternatively, that whatever terms the EU offers, May will automatically deem to be "fair".

This is a kind of Trumpish approach in which, whatever the outcome of any process, you declare that the outcome was exactly what you wanted.

Exactly. It's the Humpty Dumpty approach where words mean what May wants them to mean.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

If the people are being lied to and they believe those lies then they surely would be under illusion on Brexit?





To be a member of the EEA it seems it is open to any member of the EU or EFTA (European Free Trade Association). Seeing as the UK will leave the EU and membership of EFTA is basically EU membership light (which the UK is leaving) then once the UK leaves officially then they will not be part of the EEA. They will have to apply for membership to either the EU or EFTA to gain membership/access to the EEA. I think it is safe to say this will not happen with the current messages from the UK.

True. Manipulative and malicious illusions.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. It's the Humpty Dumpty approach where words mean what May wants them to mean.

Well, in this case, whatever the Torygraph has to make them mean to make May look good.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK is currently a member of the EEA, but it won't automatically remain so after Brexit.

The EEA is constituted by a 1994 treaty called, predictably enough, the Agreement on the EEA. The parties to the Agreement are, on the one side, the European Community (as it then was) and its Member States (including the UK) and, on the other side, Iceland, Leichtenstein and Norway. (In 1994, that list also included Austria, Sweden and Finland, but they have all since become Member States, so they have changed sides, as it were).

By its own terms the treaty applies as between the "Contracting Parties" defined, on the EU side, as the Union and its Member States. Thus if the UK ceases to be a Member State, the treaty by its own terms won't confer any benefits or obligations on it. Even if the UK is still treated as a party to the treaty, that would just mean that its party to an agreement that creates a European Economic Area that doesn't include the UK.

But, in fact, the UK won't I think be a party to the Treaty after Brexit. When the treaty was signed in 1994, it wasn't ratified separately by each of the EUO member states. It applies in the member states because of the membership of the Union, so they didn't need to ratify it. It's part of the body of EU law that member states are subjected to by virtue of their membership of the Union.

I found an article which gives both sides of the argument here. Here's quote:

The EEA Agreement refers expressly to the United Kingdom as an autonomous contracting party. In doing so, it differs from other international agreements in which the UK participates along with the EU and the bilateral nature of which is clear.

Compare it, for instance with the 2000 Cotonou Agreement which was concluded between ‘the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part’. The autonomous nature of the UK’s membership is also borne out by Article 2(c) EEA which defines the term ‘Contracting Parties’ in relation to the Community (as it then was) and the EC Member States as ‘the Community and the EC Member States, or the Community, or the EC Member States’. The meaning of this formulation ‘in each case is to be deduced from the relevant provisions of this Agreement and from the respective competences of the Community and the EC Member States as they follow from the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community …’.

Once the UK leaves the EU, EU law will no longer apply in the UK, except to the extent that the UK Parliament preserves and continues its application. Of course, Parliament is going to do that on quite a wide scale, but I don't think they'll be able to do it here. Parliament could decree, as a matter of UK law, that the Agreement on the EEA still applies in Britain as though the UK were still a member state of the EU. But what Parliament cannot do is to decree that, as a matter of EU law (or of French, etc, law) the Agreement applies in the EU (or in France, etc) as though the UK were still a member state. Parliament can change UK law, but it cannot change EU law or the law of any other EU member state. Parliament can't unilaterally decide that the UK has a continuing Agreeement with the EU and with Norway, Iceland and Luxembourg for the UK to participate in the EEA, even though it's no longer a member state.

From the general thrust of the linked article, it seems that the UK, if it does not give notice under article 127, does not automatically leave the EEA. What happens is that it enters a grey area. Although the UK is an independent contracting party it is so in the context of its membership of the EU. In order to join the EEA, a country must be in either the EEA or the EFTA. That is clear. What is not clear is what happens if a country leaves one or other of those whilst currently in the EEA. The article suggests that its EEA membership would be open to challenge. But this would take time and it would not be automatic.

My opinion is that what would happen, if Brexit happened but no notification was given to leave the EEA is that Britain if it wanted to retain membership of the EEA is that it would then apply to join the EFTA. If it failed to join the EFTA then it would issue article 127 and give notice to leave. If it succeeded then its membership would change from being an EU/EEA member to being an EFTA/EEA member.

But I agree that the UK could not indefinitely remain an EEA member without at some point joining the EFTA or getting the agreement changed in some way. But at the same time, as an independent contracting party, it does not automatically leave the day of brexit.

CrabRevolution

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't think that people have illusions in Britain. The Little Englander Tories have no illusions, and know very well what Brexit means, but their jingoism takes precedence. The people are being lied to and have been conditioned to believe those lies.

This man's views sum up that mentality perfectly. Any suffering or cost is justified as long as Brexit occurs.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/who-cares-about-border-in-ireland-so-long-as-we-are-out-of-europe-nelson-mccausland-35476112.html

Enzokk

CrabRevolution wrote: »

This man's views sum up that mentality perfectly. Any suffering or cost is justified as long as Brexit occurs.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/who-cares-about-border-in-ireland-so-long-as-we-are-out-of-europe-nelson-mccausland-35476112.html

Some of the quotes in the article is amazing. Maybe it would be great if someone told the DUP that the majority of people voted to remain in Northern Ireland and, seeing as they supported Leave, do not know the "voice" of the people of NI and should in fact just be quiet at the back of the room.

Asked if this was the party position, A DUP spokesman said: "We are proud of the role played by the DUP in supporting the leave campaign. We were the only major party in Northern Ireland to have campaigned for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union.

"The Prime Minster has made clear her desire for frictionless cross-border trade and there will be no return to the borders of the past. We welcome that commitment and we will work with the Government in London and not against them to secure a good deal for Northern Ireland.

"Northern Ireland should have a seat at the Brexit table but Sinn Fein’s actions have meant our voice is not being heard as strongly as it should. Only the DUP can ensure Northern Ireland's voice is heard."

Professor Moriarty

CrabRevolution wrote: »

This man's views sum up that mentality perfectly. Any suffering or cost is justified as long as Brexit occurs.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/who-cares-about-border-in-ireland-so-long-as-we-are-out-of-europe-nelson-mccausland-35476112.html

Mr McCausland said he could not say what sort of border there would be "because I don't know".
"People knew very well what they were voting for," he said.

Good man Nelson.

KindOfIrish

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't think that people have illusions in Britain. The Little Englander Tories have no illusions, and know very well what Brexit means, but their jingoism takes precedence. The people are being lied to and have been conditioned to believe those lies.

People of Britain, in the first place, have no idea about EU. It's obvious that they don't have illusions!

catbear

http://www.euronews.com/2017/04/27/london-banks-set-to-decide-within-weeks-on-brexit-moves

As Britain prepares to negotiate its EU departure, a number of banks are likely to decide within two months where to set up new continental bases to make sure they can keep serving clients in the bloc after Brexit. The European Central Bank said it will host a meeting of banks on May 4 at its offices in Frankfurt.

"We are in the hot phase. In the next six to eight weeks there will be a series of decisions," Felix Hufeld, head of Germany's Bafin financial regulator, told Reuters. Ireland's central bank will hold a similar gathering next month to advise groups considering a move to Dublin, which along with Frankfurt, Paris and other centres is competing to offer the banks a second base that remains in the European Union. A spokeswoman for the Irish central bank added that it had regular contact with the industry concerning "the potential consequences of Brexit"

The ECB is likely to caution banks against relying on "shell companies", with operations effectively run by people still in London but the responsibility for handling any mishaps lying with continental authorities. "If it's high-risk and low value-added, then you don't want it," said one person familiar with the thinking among the Irish authorities. "Let Frankfurt have it."

catbear

Shock as May hints that unions act in unison.

?Yet our opponents are already seeking to disrupt those negotiations ? at the same time as 27 other European countries line up to oppose us.?

Ms May added: ?So we need the strongest possible hand, the strongest possible mandate and the strongest possible leadership as we go into those talks.?

The Prime Minister acknowledged that, in taking the election fight to Leeds, she was speaking in ?one of the places that people call a ?traditional Labour area?.?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-labour-supporters-general-election-lend-me-their-vote-brexit-success-eu-tory-leader-a7706096.html

Good pictorial of the current play.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=lnms&q=cartoon&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiurPHEvcXTAhWELMAKHdLAA54Q_AUICSgA&biw=1280&bih=635

steddyeddy

catbear wrote: »

Shock as May hints that unions act in unison.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-labour-supporters-general-election-lend-me-their-vote-brexit-success-eu-tory-leader-a7706096.html

Good pictorial of the current play.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=lnms&q=cartoon&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiurPHEvcXTAhWELMAKHdLAA54Q_AUICSgA&biw=1280&bih=635

So May's so convinced that the EU is out to get her that she decided now was the best time to start a Tory power grab/election.

I am beginning to really dislike May. I think she's power mad, a unionist fanatic and not what the UK needs right now. She's also Tory to the core and stands by the latest cuts to the poorest in society.