RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: On the plus side, at least we can put to bed the notion that if only govt had compromised and given parliament greater say it all would’ve been, to stick with the boating theme, plain sailing.

Now I get why you've been arguing with me, cause that does sound stupid. However, it's not the point I was trying to make - we should've had all this argument bollocks and tried to find a workable direction that parliament agreed on before going to the EU (preferably before triggering Article 50). Sure, we'd probably still be deadlocked, but at least we'd be deadlocked at the start of the process, rather than the end.

Puja

I’m not sure spending years arguing before triggering Art 50 would’ve been sustainable, either domestically or on the continent. That's before you get to the issue that we could spend all that time negotiating only to be told on day one that it was a no go. Further, parliament have just rejected the idea that they should be the lead on the direction of negotiations. The official opposition have the chance to implement 90% of their policy on the matter - no single market, a customs union and safeguards on labour and environmental law - but have just moaned that it’s a rehash of WAB 2 and that May hasn’t moved, despite big concessions on parliamentary power, second ref and CU. She has thrown a large section of her party under a bus to give Lab a lot of what they want but it’s still a no, and a hostile no at that.

I think the idea that parliament would come to a consensus under its current make up is for the birds. They couldn't find one under the pressure of a deadline and they are now refusing to even take responsibility for the next stage of negotiations.

I get your despair at the inability of parliament to accomplish anything, but if we'd discovered that at the beginning, there would have been options other than the No Deal/No Brexit ones that we have now.

Mellsblue wrote:The official opposition have the chance to implement 90% of their policy on the matter - no single market, a customs union and safeguards on labour and environmental law - but have just moaned that it’s a rehash of WAB 2 and that May hasn’t moved, despite big concessions on parliamentary power, second ref and CU. She has thrown a large section of her party under a bus to give Lab a lot of what they want but it’s still a no, and a hostile no at that.

Technically true, but politically impossible. This is a Conservative deal, negotiated only be Conservatives, and publicised as the government's deal for a Conservative Brexit under Theresa May. Once that happened, it made it politically impossible for Labour to support it, no matter how it was amended. It could be 100% Labour policy and they would be wiped out in the next election for supporting the Tories.

The only way out of it was either to not have the stupid 2017 election in the first place, or to form a grand coalition after they'd lost it and give everyone ownership of the debacle. And the latter would've been unlikely for the reasons above. We are, and have always been, fucked.

Puja

Puja wrote:I get your despair at the inability of parliament to accomplish anything, but if we'd discovered that at the beginning, there would have been options other than the No Deal/No Brexit ones that we have now.

Mellsblue wrote:The official opposition have the chance to implement 90% of their policy on the matter - no single market, a customs union and safeguards on labour and environmental law - but have just moaned that it’s a rehash of WAB 2 and that May hasn’t moved, despite big concessions on parliamentary power, second ref and CU. She has thrown a large section of her party under a bus to give Lab a lot of what they want but it’s still a no, and a hostile no at that.

Technically true, but politically impossible. This is a Conservative deal, negotiated only be Conservatives, and publicised as the government's deal for a Conservative Brexit under Theresa May. Once that happened, it made it politically impossible for Labour to support it, no matter how it was amended. It could be 100% Labour policy and they would be wiped out in the next election for supporting the Tories.

The only way out of it was either to not have the stupid 2017 election in the first place, or to form a grand coalition after they'd lost it and give everyone ownership of the debacle. And the latter would've been unlikely for the reasons above. We are, and have always been, fucked.

Puja

What options would we have if parliament proved up front they couldn’t work to a solution?

If wab has always been unsupportable why did Lab go into talks with the wab as a basis, and why has Cable said the Lib Dems will support it on the proviso that there is a second ref? Also, why couldn’t parliament come to agreement during indicative votes if it was just the political framing of the wab that was the issue?

If Lab wanted to, they could’ve claimed a huge victory as wab 4 looks an awful lot closer to Lab Brexit policy than Con Brexit policy. They could’ve filled the airwaves and social media with the fact that they’d forced May to back down over parliamentary control, a CU and a second ref, and there is no way that May or the Cons could’ve argued otherwise. Yet they haven’t because their goal is for the govt to fall with a solution to Brexit as their second choice. It’s their stated policy.

The facts are that the we’ve tried a govt deal, that the EU have agreed to, indicative votes and cross party talks, and none have worked.

Mellsblue wrote:What options would we have if parliament proved up front they couldn’t work to a solution?

Another election, with Brexit being first and foremost as the criteria, rather than having situations like Soubry representing a leave area. Citizen's assemblies to work out what The Will of The People (TM) actuall... wait, I'm getting deja vu. Maybe we should leave this here.

Mellsblue wrote:If wab has always been unsupportable why did Lab go into talks with the wab as a basis, and why has Cable said the Lib Dems will support it on the proviso that there is a second ref? Also, why couldn’t parliament come to agreement during indicative votes if it was just the political framing of the wab that was the issue?

Because Labour are doing whatever will keep them electable and being seen to be willing to try and cooperate was popular. Actually propping up a decidedly Tory policy would not have been, so they got to have their cake and eat it by looking like they wanted to help, with no intention of actually doing so. Can only imagine the panic as May conceded on almost every negotiating point and nesrly forced them into running out of stumbling blocks!

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:What options would we have if parliament proved up front they couldn’t work to a solution?

Another election, with Brexit being first and foremost as the criteria, rather than having situations like Soubry representing a leave area. Citizen's assemblies to work out what The Will of The People (TM) actuall... wait, I'm getting deja vu. Maybe we should leave this here.

Mellsblue wrote:If wab has always been unsupportable why did Lab go into talks with the wab as a basis, and why has Cable said the Lib Dems will support it on the proviso that there is a second ref? Also, why couldn’t parliament come to agreement during indicative votes if it was just the political framing of the wab that was the issue?

Because Labour are doing whatever will keep them electable and being seen to be willing to try and cooperate was popular. Actually propping up a decidedly Tory policy would not have been, so they got to have their cake and eat it by looking like they wanted to help, with no intention of actually doing so. Can only imagine the panic as May conceded on almost every negotiating point and nesrly forced them into running out of stumbling blocks!

Puja

As you say, we’re just going over old ground. The one thing we can agree on is that the political system and those who inhabit it have let us down. Virtually nobody comes out of it well, from those who refused to accept the result of the referendum all the way through to those who seek a no deal Brexit.

However terrible she was (and she really, really was - almost certainly most incompetent PM of British history) At least her incompetence kept the rabid wing of her own party marginally in check, then next PM is more likely to enable them, and I don't see them calling a GE until after Halloween - slide out of the EU, blame everyone else for their own obstructionism, sell the country to Trump, and then sit back with a vastly inflated bank account and snipe from the sidelines.

A GE before halloween risks being kicked out of office almost immediately, and handing the deciding votes to remainers who will insist on applying democracy, and actually asking people what they want rather than just telling them.

Brilliant! Remainers listening to the people rather than telling them what to do. Exactly what they didn’t do after the referendum or the GE dominated by parties with Brexit manifestos.

If the Remainers wanted to avoid a Brexiteer PM they could’ve easily passed the WA.

Yes.
Remainers voted to invoke Article 50 in the first place.
Remainers wnt a referendum to hear the will of the people.

Leavers can't remember what happened on the campaign trail, and think that everyone voted for the hardest and hard brexits with no room for nuance.
Thank you for reminding me why I don't reply to you on this thread however. None so blind

I voted Remain and would do again, but will happily argue against those on the fringe at either end. Yes the avid Remainers mostly voted to trigger article 50 but have sought to frustrate it by almost every other deed.

Avid leavers are just as much to blame and I’ve said that many times. I’ll apportion blame where I think it is deserved regardless of whether they are on my side or not. I’ve criticised the leader of my party on here only today.

I may come across as a stringent Leaver on here as it’s a stringent Remainer echo chamber and I want some balance, but when the Leavers did come on here and say that the EU is bias against the UK I was happy to argue against that.

Finally, I won’t be called blind by someone happy to use hyperbole such as ‘sell the country to Trump’, and certainly won’t be called blind about politics by someone who doesn’t know the difference between resigning as a whip and resigning the whip.

Excellent twitter thread on May's demise and the challenges the next PM will face

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1131 ... 29440.html

Mellsblue wrote:I voted Remain and would do again, but will happily argue against those on the fringe at either end. Yes the avid Remainers mostly voted to trigger article 50 but have sought to frustrate it by almost every other deed.

Avid leavers are just as much to blame and I’ve said that many times. I’ll apportion blame where I think it is deserved regardless of whether they are on my side or not. I’ve criticised the leader of my party on here only today.

I may come across as a stringent Leaver on here as it’s a stringent Remainer echo chamber and I want some balance, but when the Leavers did come on here and say that the EU is bias against the UK I was happy to argue against that.

Finally, I won’t be called blind by someone happy to use hyperbole such as ‘sell the country to Trump’, and certainly won’t be called blind about politics by someone who doesn’t know the difference between resigning as a whip and resigning the whip.

One can't do balance from the leave pov, you just sound like a lunatic.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I voted Remain and would do again, but will happily argue against those on the fringe at either end. Yes the avid Remainers mostly voted to trigger article 50 but have sought to frustrate it by almost every other deed.

Avid leavers are just as much to blame and I’ve said that many times. I’ll apportion blame where I think it is deserved regardless of whether they are on my side or not. I’ve criticised the leader of my party on here only today.

I may come across as a stringent Leaver on here as it’s a stringent Remainer echo chamber and I want some balance, but when the Leavers did come on here and say that the EU is bias against the UK I was happy to argue against that.

Finally, I won’t be called blind by someone happy to use hyperbole such as ‘sell the country to Trump’, and certainly won’t be called blind about politics by someone who doesn’t know the difference between resigning as a whip and resigning the whip.

One can't do balance from the leave pov, you just sound like a lunatic.

Thank you for proving why someone needed to play devils advocate for Leave on here.
Can’t you see that you’re as bad as the ERG or Farage, just dressed in blue and yellow rather than a red, white and blue.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I voted Remain and would do again, but will happily argue against those on the fringe at either end. Yes the avid Remainers mostly voted to trigger article 50 but have sought to frustrate it by almost every other deed.

Avid leavers are just as much to blame and I’ve said that many times. I’ll apportion blame where I think it is deserved regardless of whether they are on my side or not. I’ve criticised the leader of my party on here only today.

I may come across as a stringent Leaver on here as it’s a stringent Remainer echo chamber and I want some balance, but when the Leavers did come on here and say that the EU is bias against the UK I was happy to argue against that.

Finally, I won’t be called blind by someone happy to use hyperbole such as ‘sell the country to Trump’, and certainly won’t be called blind about politics by someone who doesn’t know the difference between resigning as a whip and resigning the whip.

One can't do balance from the leave pov, you just sound like a lunatic.

Thank you for proving why someone needed to play devils advocate for Leave on here.
Can’t you see that you’re as bad as the ERG or Farage, just dressed in blue and yellow rather than a red, white and blue.

I don't disagree people have a perfect right to vote in cretinous fashion, and absent of another referendum we have to honour the vote to leave (though given Brexit only means Brexit the very softest of Brexits would be sufficiently respectful). But it's not reasonable not to have something utterly stupid be called stupid, even if we have to do it, indeed we've spent billions of pounds on this campaign to be poorer already, and we'll spend billions more, and we've essentially closed down government whilst we do it with all sorts of chaos being wrought elsewhere.

And no, I can't see how I'm as bad as the ERG or Farage. I haven't lied to support a political movement that will wreak economic damage in return for providing none the of the solutions they claim it provides.

Put another way Mells if you're trying to provide balance it comes across like taking the side of climate change deniers in the global warming discussion. Leave (bar some very limited thinking on sovereignty which almost no actual Leaver even believes in anyway) has no objective basis for its claims and thus no objective reason to support it, it's entirely a subjective movement which like a religion requires faith to sustain it.

I'm not going to illegally seek to undermine the leave outcome, not even if we go full hard Brexit (though I'd strongly prefer that get a 2nd referendum and actual backing rather than being the default), but again it's there to be mocked, 'cause it is so fecking stupid

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Oh, yeah. She’s botched the sales pitch yet again. Though, why should we be worried about a sales pitch? These are our elected officials who run our nation. Geniuses, the lot. It reacts to everything that has been asked for. I’m not running through it again but it gives every faction something they want. MPs should be able to see past a non-existent sales pitch and take it a face value, ie it’s a compromise. Well, it’s more a capitulation but get my point.

I get that it gives a load away, and actually in that context makes it a really daft treaty, but she utterly does not learn. Its politics not logic, and steamrollering again is not good politics....you have to at least take loyalists with you ffs. The old WA was a better bet, i do think some ERG might have cracked, along with some leave constituent labourites. Now she has screwed the pooch with at least half the tory mp's.

Yep. It’s another f**k up. She was never suited to be leader and only became one because all her leadership rivals shot themselves in the foot one by one. She doesn’t learn from her lessons and her communication skills are dismal - great stories emerging about how she failed to tell anybody that Leadsom called to say she was resigning hence the initial public reaction from no10 that Leadsom’s resignation was a hostile act before having to row back.
BUT, people have been demanding she compromises, that she gives parliament more power. This wab does exactly that and still all sides shoot it down. What the f**k more do they want?
WAB 3 was defeated, she couldn’t bring it back. Not that it had a chance of winning a vote, regardless. It was only a few weeks ago you were telling me that the militant ERG numbers were in the late tens. What could she have done to persuade most of those and a few leaver Labs without losing a few off the Remain end of the ledger?
It’s a f**king mess and I’m starting to think we deserve a no deal Brexit. Luckily we’ve a bunch of clever clogs in parliament who will guide us through the choppy waters.
On the plus side, at least we can put to bed the notion that if only govt had compromised and given parliament greater say it all would’ve been, to stick with the boating theme, plain sailing.

Pretty irrelevant now, but I do think a good chunk of Labour leave constituency MPs were likely to crack after the local elections- John Mann said north of 25 could be persuaded to back WA3. I understand what you say about the compromises offered subsequently, but its all about the maths and a combination of a second referendum and customs union was absolutely mad imo, especially when she hadn't backed it off with Labour; though Labour will not back anything in the form of whipping their MPs proposed by this govt....they just want an election. Moot now though, but still buggered if I can see any way forward.

Diggers, I get it, you think it's a terrible idea etc etc but I'm not really defending the concept of leaving, other than there are some upsides, albeit limited ones and nowhere near in quality or quantity of staying, and that a halfway house is the worst of both worlds.

It's more this idea that you must be thick, inbred or racist to want to leave, or that it is all the ERG or the govts/Mays fault, or that it will inevitably lead to us being America/Singapore light, or that Brexiteers are Nazis at worst and racists at best (and yes I'd agree that a decent number of Leave voters are just racists/c**nts) or that it's ok to have a running total of deaths and celebrate when it theoretically meant that Remain would win a second ref or the premis that there were and are no lies coming from the Remain side. I could go on.

When I discuss Brexit in situations where most people are overwhelmingly ardent Leavers, I defend Remainers as staunchly from their insults and accusations as I defend Leave voters on here and I point the finger of blame at ardent Brexiteer MPs as much as I point the finger of blame at ardent Remainer MPs whilst on here. I've had my fair share of rows with ERG supporters whilst at Conservative meetings. I also have great discussions with many people who just want to get on with it whilst understanding that a second ref will solve nothing and no deal Brexit is madness.

In short, I think 30% of the country have been swallowed down the Brexit vortex and the rest of us have to watch you trade insults whilst nothing is achieved.

Just think, if we'd all accepted the referendum result we might out of the EU and negotiating the closest trade deal in the world, have continued joint initiatives, such as Erasmus, whilst also dealing with the myriad of other issues parliament should be dealing with, and the changes to everyday life would be almost imperceptible.

Mellsblue wrote:Diggers, I get it, you think it's a terrible idea etc etc but I'm not really defending the concept of leaving, other than there are some upsides, albeit limited ones and nowhere near in quality or quantity of staying, and that a halfway house is the worst of both worlds.

It's more this idea that you must be thick, inbred or racist to want to leave, or that it is all the ERG or the govts/Mays fault, or that it will inevitably lead to us being America/Singapore light, or that Brexiteers are Nazis at worst and racists at best (and yes I'd agree that a decent number of Leave voters are just racists/c**nts) or that it's ok to have a running total of deaths and celebrate when it theoretically meant that Remain would win a second ref or the premis that there were and are no lies coming from the Remain side. I could go on.

When I discuss Brexit in situations where most people are overwhelmingly ardent Leavers, I defend Remainers as staunchly from their insults and accusations as I defend Leave voters on here and I point the finger of blame at ardent Brexiteer MPs as much as I point the finger of blame at ardent Remainer MPs whilst on here. I've had my fair share of rows with ERG supporters whilst at Conservative meetings. I also have great discussions with many people who just want to get on with it whilst understanding that a second ref will solve nothing and no deal Brexit is madness.

In short, I think 30% of the country have been swallowed down the Brexit vortex and the rest of us have to watch you trade insults whilst nothing is achieved.

Just think, if we'd all accepted the referendum result we might out of the EU and negotiating the closest trade deal in the world, have continued joint initiatives, such as Erasmus, whilst also dealing with the myriad of other issues parliament should be dealing with, and the changes to everyday life would be almost imperceptible.

Fck you and your reasonableness. You have to agree, not debate.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: I get that it gives a load away, and actually in that context makes it a really daft treaty, but she utterly does not learn. Its politics not logic, and steamrollering again is not good politics....you have to at least take loyalists with you ffs. The old WA was a better bet, i do think some ERG might have cracked, along with some leave constituent labourites. Now she has screwed the pooch with at least half the tory mp's.

Yep. It’s another f**k up. She was never suited to be leader and only became one because all her leadership rivals shot themselves in the foot one by one. She doesn’t learn from her lessons and her communication skills are dismal - great stories emerging about how she failed to tell anybody that Leadsom called to say she was resigning hence the initial public reaction from no10 that Leadsom’s resignation was a hostile act before having to row back.
BUT, people have been demanding she compromises, that she gives parliament more power. This wab does exactly that and still all sides shoot it down. What the f**k more do they want?
WAB 3 was defeated, she couldn’t bring it back. Not that it had a chance of winning a vote, regardless. It was only a few weeks ago you were telling me that the militant ERG numbers were in the late tens. What could she have done to persuade most of those and a few leaver Labs without losing a few off the Remain end of the ledger?
It’s a f**king mess and I’m starting to think we deserve a no deal Brexit. Luckily we’ve a bunch of clever clogs in parliament who will guide us through the choppy waters.
On the plus side, at least we can put to bed the notion that if only govt had compromised and given parliament greater say it all would’ve been, to stick with the boating theme, plain sailing.

Pretty irrelevant now, but I do think a good chunk of Labour leave constituency MPs were likely to crack after the local elections- John Mann said north of 25 could be persuaded to back WA3. I understand what you say about the compromises offered subsequently, but its all about the maths and a combination of a second referendum and customs union was absolutely mad imo, especially when she hadn't backed it off with Labour; though Labour will not back anything in the form of whipping their MPs proposed by this govt....they just want an election. Moot now though, but still buggered if I can see any way forward.

All true. Second ref, parliamentary power and CU was a last, desperate shot but it's what large chunks of parliament have been asking for. That it was immediately blown out of the water by the Labour leadership is on them, not her. (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not absolving her of all blame)
Mann may have provided 25 Lab Leavers but how many Con Brexiteers would she lose off the other side? More than 25, I would guess.
I can't see away forward. We need to rely on the Cons to vote for a sensible Leader of the party and parliament accepting Brexit is going to happen and that they need to come to an agreement. Evidence suggests none of that will happen.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Diggers, I get it, you think it's a terrible idea etc etc but I'm not really defending the concept of leaving, other than there are some upsides, albeit limited ones and nowhere near in quality or quantity of staying, and that a halfway house is the worst of both worlds.

It's more this idea that you must be thick, inbred or racist to want to leave, or that it is all the ERG or the govts/Mays fault, or that it will inevitably lead to us being America/Singapore light, or that Brexiteers are Nazis at worst and racists at best (and yes I'd agree that a decent number of Leave voters are just racists/c**nts) or that it's ok to have a running total of deaths and celebrate when it theoretically meant that Remain would win a second ref or the premis that there were and are no lies coming from the Remain side. I could go on.

When I discuss Brexit in situations where most people are overwhelmingly ardent Leavers, I defend Remainers as staunchly from their insults and accusations as I defend Leave voters on here and I point the finger of blame at ardent Brexiteer MPs as much as I point the finger of blame at ardent Remainer MPs whilst on here. I've had my fair share of rows with ERG supporters whilst at Conservative meetings. I also have great discussions with many people who just want to get on with it whilst understanding that a second ref will solve nothing and no deal Brexit is madness.

In short, I think 30% of the country have been swallowed down the Brexit vortex and the rest of us have to watch you trade insults whilst nothing is achieved.

Just think, if we'd all accepted the referendum result we might out of the EU and negotiating the closest trade deal in the world, have continued joint initiatives, such as Erasmus, whilst also dealing with the myriad of other issues parliament should be dealing with, and the changes to everyday life would be almost imperceptible.

Fck you and your reasonableness. You have to agree, not debate.

That's more like it you liberal elite, Remainer scum.

twitchy wrote:

Ha. This made me giggle.

Donnell is offering his pearls of wisdom as to what went wrong. I bet May is really looking forward to the state visit from the clown circus now.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yep. It’s another f**k up. She was never suited to be leader and only became one because all her leadership rivals shot themselves in the foot one by one. She doesn’t learn from her lessons and her communication skills are dismal - great stories emerging about how she failed to tell anybody that Leadsom called to say she was resigning hence the initial public reaction from no10 that Leadsom’s resignation was a hostile act before having to row back.
BUT, people have been demanding she compromises, that she gives parliament more power. This wab does exactly that and still all sides shoot it down. What the f**k more do they want?
WAB 3 was defeated, she couldn’t bring it back. Not that it had a chance of winning a vote, regardless. It was only a few weeks ago you were telling me that the militant ERG numbers were in the late tens. What could she have done to persuade most of those and a few leaver Labs without losing a few off the Remain end of the ledger?
It’s a f**king mess and I’m starting to think we deserve a no deal Brexit. Luckily we’ve a bunch of clever clogs in parliament who will guide us through the choppy waters.
On the plus side, at least we can put to bed the notion that if only govt had compromised and given parliament greater say it all would’ve been, to stick with the boating theme, plain sailing.

Pretty irrelevant now, but I do think a good chunk of Labour leave constituency MPs were likely to crack after the local elections- John Mann said north of 25 could be persuaded to back WA3. I understand what you say about the compromises offered subsequently, but its all about the maths and a combination of a second referendum and customs union was absolutely mad imo, especially when she hadn't backed it off with Labour; though Labour will not back anything in the form of whipping their MPs proposed by this govt....they just want an election. Moot now though, but still buggered if I can see any way forward.

All true. Second ref, parliamentary power and CU was a last, desperate shot but it's what large chunks of parliament have been asking for. That it was immediately blown out of the water by the Labour leadership is on them, not her. (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not absolving her of all blame)
Mann may have provided 25 Lab Leavers but how many Con Brexiteers would she lose off the other side? More than 25, I would guess.
I can't see away forward. We need to rely on the Cons to vote for a sensible Leader of the party and parliament accepting Brexit is going to happen and that they need to come to an agreement. Evidence suggests none of that will happen.

My point was that 25 plus Labour leavers may have gone for WA3 without change, and ditto a couple more ERG'ers without losing any. It could have been close enough to make a minor shift to WA get through. We will never know. My key point remains though, with the parliamentary maths, she should have been 'socialising' and selling from day 1, rather than presenting fait accompli after fait accompli....the latest one being apparently totally unaware that Labour would say sod off, even if that's obvious to us. That said, Caroline Lucas actually said something I agree with for the first time ever..'While May was almost uniquely ill-equipped to be negotiator we needed, truth is she was given impossible job '. The tactical blunders she made time after time is what has really sunk her, but probably only a earlier than she would have sunk anyway

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Pretty irrelevant now, but I do think a good chunk of Labour leave constituency MPs were likely to crack after the local elections- John Mann said north of 25 could be persuaded to back WA3. I understand what you say about the compromises offered subsequently, but its all about the maths and a combination of a second referendum and customs union was absolutely mad imo, especially when she hadn't backed it off with Labour; though Labour will not back anything in the form of whipping their MPs proposed by this govt....they just want an election. Moot now though, but still buggered if I can see any way forward.

All true. Second ref, parliamentary power and CU was a last, desperate shot but it's what large chunks of parliament have been asking for. That it was immediately blown out of the water by the Labour leadership is on them, not her. (For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not absolving her of all blame)
Mann may have provided 25 Lab Leavers but how many Con Brexiteers would she lose off the other side? More than 25, I would guess.
I can't see away forward. We need to rely on the Cons to vote for a sensible Leader of the party and parliament accepting Brexit is going to happen and that they need to come to an agreement. Evidence suggests none of that will happen.

My point was that 25 plus Labour leavers may have gone for WA3 without change, and ditto a couple more ERG'ers without losing any. It could have been close enough to make a minor shift to WA get through. We will never know. My key point remains though, with the parliamentary maths, she should have been 'socialising' and selling from day 1, rather than presenting fait accompli after fait accompli....the latest one being apparently totally unaware that Labour would say sod off, even if that's obvious to us. That said, Caroline Lucas actually said something I agree with for the first time ever..'While May was almost uniquely ill-equipped to be negotiator we needed, truth is she was given impossible job '. The tactical blunders she made time after time is what has really sunk her, but probably only a earlier than she would have sunk anyway

Ah, I see. Sorry, I miss understood*. Bercow wouldn't let WA3 back, I think. It needed to be substantially different.
I'll agree all day long that she is wholly unsuitable to be a political leader, especially so in a hung parliament. I thought her becoming leader was a mistake from day one.
I agree both on your point re Caroline Lucas and with what she says.

*now I’ve re-read, that should say misread. You clearly put WA3!

morepork wrote:Donnell is offering his pearls of wisdom as to what went wrong. I bet May is really looking forward to the state visit from the clown circus now.

Just when you thought your week couldn’t get any worse......