Who's disappointed Rory Stewart didn't get into the next round? Watch

L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#61
Report 4 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Since we cannot decide, then we should have an election. If the people choose Farage, then we know where they stand. Explaining away the incompetence of our MPs needs to stop. Theresa May has brought the country to its knees because she wanted to be everything to everyone. We either stay or leave.
Well, literally, yes - we either emerge from this as an EU member-state or not. The way in which we leave is, of course, the most significant part of it. The Withdrawal Agreement has been negotiated. For many, particularly in Labour, assurances can be given in domestic legislation that will address their problems with leaving.

As I've mentioned though, throwing the cards into the air doesn't necessarily resolve a problem. We may end up with a Parliament that is much the same as before. We might end up with a Parliament where there is a majority for a second referendum. There's every likelihood that a second referendum would have the same outcome as the first - in which case, we're largely back to where we started.

Leaving the EU has consequences. If people are going to say that they will respect the referendum result, or that they want to leave the EU, then they have to accept those consequences. The idea that we can merrily go and renegotiate away all the things that are apparently causing some MPs problems with the withdrawal agreement is just silly.

(Original post by Burton Bridge)
It's stupid not to keep it on the table
It never has been seriously on the table - and for very good reason. If you think the European Commission and the EU27 don't realise that, then you're kidding yourself.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#62
Report 4 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by L i b)
Well, literally, yes - we either emerge from this as an EU member-state or not. The way in which we leave is, of course, the most significant part of it. The Withdrawal Agreement has been negotiated. For many, particularly in Labour, assurances can be given in domestic legislation that will address their problems with leaving.

As I've mentioned though, throwing the cards into the air doesn't necessarily resolve a problem. We may end up with a Parliament that is much the same as before. We might end up with a Parliament where there is a majority for a second referendum. There's every likelihood that a second referendum would have the same outcome as the first - in which case, we're largely back to where we started.

Leaving the EU has consequences. If people are going to say that they will respect the referendum result, or that they want to leave the EU, then they have to accept those consequences. The idea that we can merrily go and renegotiate away all the things that are apparently causing some MPs problems with the withdrawal agreement is just silly.


It never has been seriously on the table - and for very good reason. If you think the European Commission and the EU27 don't realise that, then you're kidding yourself.
We are not really leaving the EU with that withdrawal agreement. The so-called negotiated deal was a botched job between a Remainer PM and the EU.

You cannot give domestic assurances with legislation when the deal bolts the UK to the EU through the backdoor.

We should not have a second ref because it insults those who voted in the first one. We should have a GE and vote out those liars who pretend to support the democratic will of the people.

We can leave the EU in a sensible manner but we have had a Parliament and Government who have worked hard to keep the UK in the EU. Theresa May will go down as the worst PM in modern history. Even her own MPs think she has been useless.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#63
Report 4 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by L i b)
It never has been seriously on the table. If you think the European Commission and the EU27 don't realise that, then you're kidding yourself.
Correct, which is why we are in the current mess. Which is also why it needs to be placed on the table!
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#64
Report 4 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by Wired_1800)
We are not really leaving the EU with that withdrawal agreement. The so-called negotiated deal was a botched job between a Remainer PM and the EU.
Yes, of course we are. If you're going to sell "really" leaving the EU as some sort of isolationist position, then by all means - but objectively, the Withdrawal Agreement brings us out of the EU and in a position to negotiate the future relationship, while maintaining trading links and meeting what the Conservative manifesto said they would do.

You cannot give domestic assurances with legislation when the deal bolts the UK to the EU through the backdoor.
You certainly can: over things like employment rights, future immigration policy, regional assistance and so on.

We should not have a second ref because it insults those who voted in the first one. We should have a GE and vote out those liars who pretend to support the democratic will of the people.
And if that doesn't result in a majority for the no deal Brexit you seem to favour, what then?

We can leave the EU in a sensible manner but we have had a Parliament and Government who have worked hard to keep the UK in the EU.
What, by drafting an agreement to take us out of the EU?
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#65
Report 4 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
Correct, which is why we are in the current mess. Which is also why it needs to be placed on the table!
Perhaps - or perhaps saying we'd cause considerable economic harm to ourselves isn't the great negotiating position people seem to think it is.

Years later, I'm still none-the-wiser as to what the ERG types actually want. The backstop removed? The EU isn't willing to do that. Do they simply want no deal because they've wanted it all along and it satisfies their sovereigntist ambitions. I'm not sure.

In any case, no deal won't get through Parliament. It's pretty clear to me that if the Conservative Party delays further, tears up the withdrawal agreement and takes us back two years, it's not going to be popular with anyone. That's going to be, rightly or wrongly, considered an utter shambles.
Last edited by L i b; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by L i b)
Yes, of course we are. If you're going to sell "really" leaving the EU as some sort of isolationist position, then by all means - but objectively, the Withdrawal Agreement brings us out of the EU and in a position to negotiate the future relationship, while maintaining trading links and meeting what the Conservative manifesto said they would do.



You certainly can: over things like employment rights, future immigration policy, regional assistance and so on.



And if that doesn't result in a majority for the no deal Brexit you seem to favour, what then?



What, by drafting an agreement to take us out of the EU?
No, it does not. It keeps the UK in a backstop with the EU until the EU can agree to remove us from it. We tried to confirm whether we can either have a time limited backstop or unilaterally leave the backstop arrangement and the response was No.

It keeps us in a vassal state where we are unable to make the rules of the bloc but have to adhere to them due to our being tied to the backstop. It is actually the worst of both worlds and that was why the EU pressured Theresa May to quickly sign it.

She knew it was a stupid deal that is why she went back multiple times, first to give assurance on the backstop, then to have a time-limited slot, then she finally wanted to remove it. Unfortunately she was toppled before that point.

Those are not domestic assurances. They are one part of a complex arrangement. Employment rights and all of those are elements under the movement of people. There are still goods, services, intellectual property, security etc.

I don't seem to favour a no deal Brexit. I want us to get rid of this problem that has plagued the nation for 3 years. We either leave or remain. If Farage wins, then we leave; if Lib Dems win, then we stay. No need to continue this rubbish.

To your last point, yes.
0
reply
Smack
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#67
Report 4 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by L i b)
Rory was pretty much the only one in the race who wasn't either incredibly bland (Hunt, Harper), making up complete nonsense about Brexit (Johnson, Raab) or Michael Gove (Gove). That he was trying to position the Conservative Party to seize the abandoned centre ground was the cherry on the cake as far as I'm concerned.

The Conservatives have gone down the route of chasing right-wing Brexiteers at the expense of the liberal middle class. Firstly, that's electorally stupid as we saw in 2017: we picked up votes in the north, but not enough to make an impact, while losing hard-won seats in the south. Secondly, I'm not sure that's really the party we want to be: I'd rather not feel like Tommy Robinson walking into a drinks party if I'm wearing a blue rosette.

If Boris Johnson carries on with this approach, it will be a disaster that'll hurt the party for a generation. It appears the thinking is that we can outdo the Brexit Party - it seems obvious to me that we can't. For a time in Scotland, the Labour Party tried to push its Scottishness and nationalism-lite in competition with the Scottish Nationalists: they ended up getting an absolute kicking for it, because people will always prefer the real thing to a wishy-washy imitation. Nigel Farage can always go that bit harder on Brexit, he can always look a bit tougher on immigrants - and people who are inclined towards these things will not only not vote Tory, they'll actively hate the Tories that little bit more for trying.
The thing about Rory Stewart was that he wasn't appealing to the right people. It's the 160,000 odd Conservative Party members that'll decide the next leader of the party and Prime Minister, a group that a recent poll has shown are willing to cause significant damage to the economy and the dissolution of the Union to secure Brexit. Rory wasn't enough of a Tory, and those who he did appeal to would have probably ultimately voted Lib Dem or someone in the next election.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#68
Report 4 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by L i b)
Rory was pretty much the only one in the race who wasn't either incredibly bland (Hunt, Harper), making up complete nonsense about Brexit (Johnson, Raab) or Michael Gove (Gove). That he was trying to position the Conservative Party to seize the abandoned centre ground was the cherry on the cake as far as I'm concerned.

The Conservatives have gone down the route of chasing right-wing Brexiteers at the expense of the liberal middle class. Firstly, that's electorally stupid as we saw in 2017: we picked up votes in the north, but not enough to make an impact, while losing hard-won seats in the south. Secondly, I'm not sure that's really the party we want to be: I'd rather not feel like Tommy Robinson walking into a drinks party if I'm wearing a blue rosette.

If Boris Johnson carries on with this approach, it will be a disaster that'll hurt the party for a generation. It appears the thinking is that we can outdo the Brexit Party - it seems obvious to me that we can't. For a time in Scotland, the Labour Party tried to push its Scottishness and nationalism-lite in competition with the Scottish Nationalists: they ended up getting an absolute kicking for it, because people will always prefer the real thing to a wishy-washy imitation. Nigel Farage can always go that bit harder on Brexit, he can always look a bit tougher on immigrants - and people who are inclined towards these things will not only not vote Tory, they'll actively hate the Tories that little bit more for trying.
Spot on, and I say this as a Labour voter. I know plenty of people who normally vote Labour or Lib Dem but said they would certainly have been tempted (or at least more tempted) to vote Tories if Rory was leader.

I've seen people on this thread criticise Rory Stewart on the basis that people who aren't Tories like him, seemingly not undertanding that it's a brilliant electoral quality to be able to appeal to voters who don't normally voter for your party.
2
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#69
Report 3 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by DSilva)
Spot on, and I say this as a Labour voter. I know plenty of people who normally vote Labour or Lib Dem but said they would certainly have been tempted (or at least more tempted) to vote Tories if Rory was leader.

I've seen people on this thread criticise Rory Stewart on the basis that people who aren't Tories like him, seemingly not undertanding that it's a brilliant electoral quality to be able to appeal to voters who don't normally voter for your party.
Indeed. And all the Guido Fawkes led Boris superfans - largely early 20s corduroy-wearers who compete to be 'sound' at their sausage-fest parties by being more Eurosceptic than the next person - could throw at him was that he was apparently a 'weirdo'.

Now they've got Boris Johnson. Painting his buses.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are cats selfish

Yes (144)
61.28%
No (91)
38.72%

Watched Threads

View All