= Сообщение: 4996 из 12549 ====================================== ENET.SYSOP = От : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 12 Jun 17 21:20:40 Кому : David Rance 12 Jun 17 21:20:40 Тема : The future of Mrs May. FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+593eef67 На : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:203/2+593eabf8 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP850 ================================== ============================================================================== Hello David,
On Monday June 12 2017 16:58, you wrote to me:
DR> There you contradict yourself again. David Cameron was against Brexit DR> yet you say, simply because he made an ill-advised promise to stay on DR> come what may, that he should have stayed.
Ill advised or not, a promise is a promise and should be kept. Where is the ocntradiction?
MvdV>> Regarding the "should" of Theresa May, she should never hever MvdV>> been PM in the first place. She was against Brexit. That made MvdV>> here not the right person to lead the Brexit negotiations. MvdV>> Someone who was in favour of Brexit should have been in the MvdV>> driver's seat.
DR> The only Brexit people who were leadership candidates effectively put DR> themselves out of the running because of disloyalty, back-stabbing DR> and, frankly, immature behaviour. I don't see why Theresa May, as an DR> experienced politician, couldn't take decisions for the opposite point DR> of view,
Defending the POV of the opposition is an interesting exercise for a debating club, but in real life de fending a position that one does not really believe in does not have much credibility.
DR> especially as she would be advised by pro-Brexit people.
If these pro-Brexit people exist in there immidiate surrounding, why could not one of them take leadership?
DR> The difference between May and Cameron is that he was the figurehead DR> behind the Remain campaign and she was not. In fact, she was not DR> outspoken on the subject at all during the Referendum campaign, so DR> much so that people accused her of sitting on the fence. To my mind, DR> she could see the arguments on both sides.
She saw an opportunity to become PM and jumped on board...
DR> (Actually Boris could see the arguments for both sides: he just DR> decided, for his own political reasons, to adopt Brexit.)
Politicians...
MvdV>> There may be no appetite, but if Theresa May loses the support MvdV>> of her inner circle, her position will become untenable and she MvdV>> will have to resign anyway.
DR> If there is no appetite then those of her colleagues, who would DR> otherwise challenge her for the leadership, won't.
That would be rational behaviour but politicians descend from humans and humans do not always act rational. Actually they seldom act rational, they just justify there action with rational arguments after the fact.
Seen in that light, it may be irrational to demand Ms May's resignation, but that may not stop it.
DR> And the Great British Public, who have had two general elections and a DR> referendum within the space of two years, certainly don't want another DR> election, which will also be borne in mind by those who would try to DR> unseat her.
That the average UK voter is not eager to go to the voting box again any timee soon is undertstandable. Does not mean it is not going to happen.
DR> It isn't compulsory to vote in general elections as it is in, say, DR> Australia,
It is not compulsory in The NNetherlands either. It once was, but that is a long time ago.
DR> so the outcome of yet another general election would be even more DR> uncertain.
Yes, it will. Dos not mean it won't happen.
DR> That's why, assuming a deal is done with the DUP, she will be kept in DR> office for the time being until things have settled down.
Justy for clearity, I am not saying she /should/ resign. What I am saying is that I excpect that is what will happen.
MvdV>> Be that as it may be, what you and many others seem to forget MvdV>> is that the UK will not be the only one at the Brexit MvdV>> negiotiation table. On the other side will be the EU MvdV>> representing the 27 remaining states that all have wishes of MvdV>> their own. What the UK wants or does not want won't make much MvdV>> of a difference. It will be the EU that determines the agenda, MvdV>> not the UK.
DR> Don't be silly! Of course we haven't forgotten that. You talk as DR> though there is nothing to negotiate.
What I am trying to say is that it will not make much difference if Ms May's POV of a hard Brexit is now watered down. A soft Brexit - meaning keeping access to the free EU market, but not being subject to EU rules and the EU court, is not an option. Yes, there will be things to negotiate, but it will be the EU that decides what is negotiable and what is not.
DR> If there's nothing to negotiate then why are there going to be DR> negotiations? There is plenty to talk about.
Of course. But there will be no "better deal" for the UK. The one that was negotiated in april 2016 was the best that was offered. That was rejected and so that opportunity is gone. Now the other side of the table will demand a "better deal".
