The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[villakram]

Perhaps the end goal here is forcing this shit deal down your throats as that then takes Brexit off the table. The deal mechanism therein, makes provision for negotiations, which might enable a return to where things were. I suspect they think that the timeline over which public opinion would allow outright remain is longer than a few years, hence this horrid fudge. 

It would take an awful lot of correctly aligned ducks for this to be so... almost conspiracy-esque levels 

[StefanAVFC]

It could be as late as 28th March 2019.

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

you usually do so well with your reasoning , but when you trot out Brown people and Blue passports  , you make baby Jesus cry 

not to mention you forgot the obligatory Gammon Face , so you make half of VT cry as well

Ok, so you asked a question  "if it would be a bigger disaster than this deal". I took the question to be sort of perhaps implying you might not think it would be a bigger disaster. You mentioned reasoning. So what's yours, T? What makes the slant of the question sort of suggest you wonder if no deal might be less bad?

[blandy]

28 minutes ago, Chindie said:

her career is riddled with hoarding power, she controls everything she can meaning she attempts to micromanage everything and keeps as many people as possible in the dark as to details or actions. Her time as home secretary is just a laundry list of bad power hungry decisions.

My reading is mildly less terrible. She's just a control freak. It's not power she seeks, necessarily, for its own ends. She's just socially inept, hooked up on a flaw in her personality which wants to control everything. She's unable to understand or empathise or see the other point of view, or emote. She's small. SHe's not knowingly bad, it's just her perception is restricted and limited to a small Kentish town Conservative perspective. Wider national or world implications or angles just don't mean anything, don't register, they're outside her scope of cognition. She has a narrow sense of duty and a narrow mind and a narrow experience.

[Chindie]

4 minutes ago, villakram said:

Perhaps the end goal here is forcing this shit deal down your throats as that then takes Brexit off the table. The deal mechanism therein, makes provision for negotiations, which might enable a return to where things were. I suspect they think that the timeline over which public opinion would allow outright remain is longer than a few years, hence this horrid fudge. 

It would take an awful lot of correctly aligned ducks for this to be so... almost conspiracy-esque levels 

The end goal for May is 2 fold. She wants this deal because it's the best deal she can get whilst doing away with things she despises - most notably freedom of movement. Secondly, she does want Brexit off the table. Her time in No.10 has been dogged by it and she can't control it, so she wants it gone. It's nothing but trouble for her. This ignores the fact that this is just a withdrawal deal, there's years of negotiations on future relationship that follow it, but I think she hopes this deal will make the headline aspect die and she can get back to the control stuff she likes.

Should we ever go back, it will be on terms worse than the golden ribbon wrapped deal we have now.

[tonyh29]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Ok, so you asked a question  "if it would be a bigger disaster than this deal". I took the question to be sort of perhaps implying you might not think it would be a bigger disaster. You mentioned reasoning. So what's yours, T? What makes the slant of the question sort of suggest you wonder if no deal might be less bad?

it wasn't an opinion  , I used the word "wondering "    ... as in when a deal is this bad , when does No Deal become a better alternative ? I thought I might get some discussion on the subject , not Blue passports ( hey Mea culpa  I'm just as guilty of fatuous posts at times )

The Spectator 40 things article the other week was a bit of an eye opener on this deal  , I believe they got the gist of their legal  argument right , but that's way above my pay grade so to speak   ... but does No deal kill more of the bad stuff than it creates in this situation ..ignoring the empty shelves and no planes in the sky silliness 

[NurembergVillan]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

She's arrogant, astonishingly deceitful and deeply authoritarian.

Sounds like she was raised by a vicar.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

My reading is mildly less terrible. She's just a control freak. It's not power she seeks, necessarily, for its own ends. She's just socially inept, hooked up on a flaw in her personality which wants to control everything. She's unable to understand or empathise or see the other point of view, or emote. She's small. SHe's not knowingly bad, it's just her perception is restricted and limited to a small Kentish town Conservative perspective. Wider national or world implications or angles just don't mean anything, don't register, they're outside her scope of cognition. She has a narrow sense of duty and a narrow mind and a narrow experience.

Broadly agree with that, but not the bit about wider implications meaning nothing.  I suspect they do mean something for her, but are outweighed by her very traditional deference to authority and the established order - and on that point, I think she's not so much power-crazed for herself as some have suggested, but rather thinks that the person in charge must be deferred to; while she's in charge, she expects to rule and to be obeyed, but she wouldn't have any problem deferring to someone else if their position required it.  Look for example at some of her body language around Trump or the royal family, where she models submissiveness like an illustration from a dog training manual, crouching and making herself small.  Not the behaviour of someone who wants to be in control of everything, but very much the behaviour of someone with strongly authoritarian values, deferring to those in perceived greater authority.

She also seems to display some traits shown by some people on the autistic spectrum, and here I'm thinking of the difficulty in relating to others that you mention, and also her rigid adherence to something that has been decided, well past the point where others would have recognised a need to move.  I'd be interested to see if someone who knows about such things has a view on that.

[Straggler]

 

Metaphor, what metaphor?

[VILLAMARV]

20 hours ago, Chindie said:

Nothing will stand in the way of getting rid of those foreigners.

[ml1dch]

HIGNFY have put together a handy "what happens next" guide:

 

[Chindie]

No Deal isn't better than a Bad Deal. No Deal is the Worst Deal.

This is unarguable.

[desensitized43]

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

No Deal isn't better than a Bad Deal. No Deal is the Worst Deal.

This is unarguable.

Both are worse than our current arrangement. That is also unarguable. Let's hope we can get someone with some sense and enough backbone to do the right thing.

[villakram]

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

No Deal isn't better than a Bad Deal. No Deal is the Worst Deal.

This is unarguable.

A small technicality I know, but No Deal is not actually a deal and as such cannot be the Worst Deal.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, villakram said:

A small technicality I know, but No Deal is not actually a deal and as such cannot be the Worst Deal.

You stole tonyh29s comment

[bickster]

Just now, villakram said:

A small technicality I know, but No Deal is not actually a deal and as such cannot be the Worst Deal.

I'm under the impression that no deal is actually a deal with the WTO, one every country has already signed up to. The real backstop deal

[Chindie]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

I'm under the impression that no deal is actually a deal with the WTO, one every country has already signed up to. The real backstop deal

No deal is the absence of a deal. The WTO is just standard foundation fallback position (something described by a former WTO director the other day as like going from first division to fourth. Some nutters think this is desirable).

Unfortunately that didn't fit into a glib one liner

[snowychap]

4 hours ago, villakram said:

The deal mechanism therein, makes provision for negotiations, which might enable a return to where things were.

A return to where things were is off the table once the UK has left (i.e. as it currently stands and would do with the WA - 29th March 2019 11pm).

[Chindie]

Rumours now the government is going to try to head off any confidence issues by forcing Parliament to rise early.

'Just a few more days, just a few more days...' thinks Theresa.

[StefanAVFC]