UK & EU Politics Thread

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**KTG17**

BTW... I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit. I know leaving is a delicate dance, and I am not sure what the UK has to offer the world without being part of the EU. I work in a financial company and they have offices in the UK and they are already moving jobs out because of this. I am sure this will have economic effects in the short term. I also think the UK loses some clout politically too.

But I can understand the frustration over immigration. I would be pissed too if my country couldn't control over who immigrated into the country. I am not sure I can say its worth losing some wealth to have greater control over the border, and I sympathize with those wrestling with that. But I have to think, where will the UK be in 50 years? Not that it needs the immigration part, but economically? I don't know if this makes the UK stronger in that regard in the long term, or even keeps it where it is.

**Mr Morden**

KTG17 wrote:
BTW... I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit. I know leaving is a delicate dance, and I am not sure what the UK has to offer the world without being part of the EU. I work in a financial company and they have offices in the UK and they are already moving jobs out because of this. I am sure this will have economic effects in the short term. I also think the UK loses some clout politically too.

But I can understand the frustration over immigration. I would be pissed too if my country couldn't control over who immigrated into the country. I am not sure I can say its worth losing some wealth to have greater control over the border, and I sympathize with those wrestling with that. But I have to think, where will the UK be in 50 years? Not that it needs the immigration part, but economically? I don't know if this makes the UK stronger in that regard in the long term, or even keeps it where it is.

Immigration was never an issue for me - it was to some but not all, Imigration is a important part of our ecomony. I don't trust the Eu as a political institution which was one of my reasons for voting as i did.

It has been depressing how the negotiations have been handled from our side IMO.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I'm not bothered about immigration - I've never been too bothered about it. We need skilled workers and in this globalised world, you can't keep everybody out.

Hell, for two years, I've been saying that Britain should head over to India and grab 50,000 doctors, nurses, dentists, and engineers from them.

By grab, I mean, offer visas and well paid employment and maybe a tax break or something to lure them in.

**Vaktathi**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Or repeal the whole thing and start it over.

Because that’s an option.

This. Request the EU to accept the withdrawal of Article 50.

If people still want to leave, they can come up with a plan beforehand, demonstrate how it uses existing technology to solve border issues (no magical system which will solve all of the issues but hasn't even begun development yet), show how it would be an acceptable position for the EU to accept (none of this "eat cake and have it too" nonsense we've ended up with where we will leave but retain all the benefits we want) and a legitimate prediction of the economic impacts.

When they have that, we'll talk about another referendum to leave again. They will campaign in said referendum only on what is included in that document. Any claims not included in that document used by politicians involved in the campaign or by the press will be met with fines as an attempt to mislead the public. We will not have a repeat of the factual void that was the original referendum.

The fact that this doesnt even appear to be an option, much less that it isn't being actively debated, is a sad reminder of how absurd politics are.

**Mr Morden**

Vaktathi wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Or repeal the whole thing and start it over.

Because that’s an option.

This. Request the EU to accept the withdrawal of Article 50.

If people still want to leave, they can come up with a plan beforehand, demonstrate how it uses existing technology to solve border issues (no magical system which will solve all of the issues but hasn't even begun development yet), show how it would be an acceptable position for the EU to accept (none of this "eat cake and have it too" nonsense we've ended up with where we will leave but retain all the benefits we want) and a legitimate prediction of the economic impacts.

When they have that, we'll talk about another referendum to leave again. They will campaign in said referendum only on what is included in that document. Any claims not included in that document used by politicians involved in the campaign or by the press will be met with fines as an attempt to mislead the public. We will not have a repeat of the factual void that was the original referendum.
The fact that this doesnt even appear to be an option, much less that it isn't being actively debated, is a sad reminder of how absurd politics are.

I think that Donald Tusk just offered it again at a news conference?

**Zond**

At this point I'm not surprised by anything this lot fail to achieve. This was only a matter of time. Like the entirety of UK politics everything is thought of only in the short term. A referendum was offered to secure the Tory party. In the short term. Now they need to offer a deal to satisfy the proportion of half the country that cares as well as the hardliners in their party. For now. Oh look resignations to ensure that May topples or their demands are met. Yet another tiny narrow minded view.

Not like the opposition are much better. They're too busy chasing the next soundbite (or running from it in the case of Diane Abbot) in an attempt to try and appear as though they have a solution to reconcile the split in the country and thus their party.

And all the while the SNP are busy launching IndyRef 2.0, IndyRef Harder whilst schools and public services are stretched to breaking point and their policies are fairly anemic at best.

Honestly it doesn't matter at this point. Country is fractured into warring political tribes. No one will see eye to eye and were caught up in this gak show to actually make improvements for the lives of the citizens and prepare this county for the challenges that are to come as the world changes.

Time to sit back and watch it burn down, on the plus side freshly toast that popcorn as it does.

**Jadenim**

Mr Morden wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Or repeal the whole thing and start it over.

Because that’s an option.

This. Request the EU to accept the withdrawal of Article 50.

If people still want to leave, they can come up with a plan beforehand, demonstrate how it uses existing technology to solve border issues (no magical system which will solve all of the issues but hasn't even begun development yet), show how it would be an acceptable position for the EU to accept (none of this "eat cake and have it too" nonsense we've ended up with where we will leave but retain all the benefits we want) and a legitimate prediction of the economic impacts.

When they have that, we'll talk about another referendum to leave again. They will campaign in said referendum only on what is included in that document. Any claims not included in that document used by politicians involved in the campaign or by the press will be met with fines as an attempt to mislead the public. We will not have a repeat of the factual void that was the original referendum.
The fact that this doesnt even appear to be an option, much less that it isn't being actively debated, is a sad reminder of how absurd politics are.

I think that Donald Tusk just offered it again at a news conference?

Yep, https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1016327348919193601

Politicians come and go but the problems they have created for people remain. I can only regret that the idea of #Brexit has not left with Davis and Johnson. But...who knows?
— Donald Tusk (@eucopresident) July 9, 2018

Also, @DINLT, what the hell gives you the idea that Remainers will “go full Euro”? We were happy with the status quo, no one was proposing joining the Euro, or Schengen, or abandoning the rebate.

**r_squared**

KTG17 wrote:
BTW... I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit. I know leaving is a delicate dance, and I am not sure what the UK has to offer the world without being part of the EU. I work in a financial company and they have offices in the UK and they are already moving jobs out because of this. I am sure this will have economic effects in the short term. I also think the UK loses some clout politically too.

So, you support Brexit based on what then?

KTG17 wrote:
But I can understand the frustration over immigration. I would be pissed too if my country couldn't control over who immigrated into the country. I am not sure I can say its worth losing some wealth to have greater control over the border, and I sympathize with those wrestling with that. But I have to think, where will the UK be in 50 years? Not that it needs the immigration part, but economically? I don't know if this makes the UK stronger in that regard in the long term, or even keeps it where it is.

Being a member of the EU we have, and always had, complete control over our borders, our Govt just chose not to implement controls. The anti-EU right wing media blamed all problems on the EU, and as it suited the agenda of the various govts of the time they allowed them to carry the can for the last 30 years.

**Future War Cultist**

If article 50 was revoked, what would the EU want in return?

**KTG17**

r_squared wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
BTW... I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit. I know leaving is a delicate dance, and I am not sure what the UK has to offer the world without being part of the EU. I work in a financial company and they have offices in the UK and they are already moving jobs out because of this. I am sure this will have economic effects in the short term. I also think the UK loses some clout politically too.

So, you support Brexit based on what then?

KTG17 wrote:
But I can understand the frustration over immigration. I would be pissed too if my country couldn't control over who immigrated into the country. I am not sure I can say its worth losing some wealth to have greater control over the border, and I sympathize with those wrestling with that. But I have to think, where will the UK be in 50 years? Not that it needs the immigration part, but economically? I don't know if this makes the UK stronger in that regard in the long term, or even keeps it where it is.

Being a member of the EU we have, and always had, complete control over our borders, our Govt just chose not to implement controls. The anti-EU right wing media blamed all problems on the EU, and as it suited the agenda of the various govts of the time they allowed them to carry the can for the last 30 years.

I was under the assumption that those within the EU can move wherever they want, and by being a member of the EU, the UK couldn't deny anyone in it, the ability to migrate to the UK. Which is one of the biggest issues I hear about it.

I support Brexit along the lines that if the people in the UK feel that their country is changing too much do to migration, mostly due to immigrants coming from other parts of the EU, and want more control over who comes in, then I can understand that. I am just saying I see that coming with a price. But if they think that's worth it...

**Herzlos**

KTG17 wrote:
BTW... I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit. I know leaving is a delicate dance, and I am not sure what the UK has to offer the world without being part of the EU. I work in a financial company and they have offices in the UK and they are already moving jobs out because of this. I am sure this will have economic effects in the short term. I also think the UK loses some clout politically too.

But I can understand the frustration over immigration. I would be pissed too if my country couldn't control over who immigrated into the country. I am not sure I can say its worth losing some wealth to have greater control over the border, and I sympathize with those wrestling with that. But I have to think, where will the UK be in 50 years? Not that it needs the immigration part, but economically? I don't know if this makes the UK stronger in that regard in the long term, or even keeps it where it is.

But we need migration to offset the elderly population and low unemployment, and nothing was done about it despite the UK having powers which were unused. The EU was a scapegoat from Wesminsters failings.

**Mr. Burning**

The Irony over UK membership of the EU is that a lot of directives and regulatory powers have been followed with a zeal other member states can barely muster.

It is no lie to say that successive governments have set whitehall to implement the latest rule whilst bemoaning that nasty technocratic bureaucracy in brussels for meddling in our own affairs.

**KTG17**

Well, I am not assuming anyone would cut immigration completely off. Just have some system in place to follow, that's all. My understanding was that once you were accepted as a migrant to anywhere in the EU, well, that meant you could settle anywhere you wanted. So all those Syrians in Germany would be free to re-settle anywhere they wanted eventually.

And listen, you think there are migration issues in Europe now? Wait till global warming causes mass migration out of the middle east and africa. They are saying some parts along the Persian Gulf, like Kuwait, wont be able to sustain human life. So the UK might as well do this now, because I expect far more people to be knocking at the EU's door in a few decades. You guys will actually look like you were ahead of the curve.

**Vaktathi**

KTG17 wrote:
r_squared wrote:
KTG17 wrote:
BTW... I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit. I know leaving is a delicate dance, and I am not sure what the UK has to offer the world without being part of the EU. I work in a financial company and they have offices in the UK and they are already moving jobs out because of this. I am sure this will have economic effects in the short term. I also think the UK loses some clout politically too.

So, you support Brexit based on what then?

KTG17 wrote:
But I can understand the frustration over immigration. I would be pissed too if my country couldn't control over who immigrated into the country. I am not sure I can say its worth losing some wealth to have greater control over the border, and I sympathize with those wrestling with that. But I have to think, where will the UK be in 50 years? Not that it needs the immigration part, but economically? I don't know if this makes the UK stronger in that regard in the long term, or even keeps it where it is.

Being a member of the EU we have, and always had, complete control over our borders, our Govt just chose not to implement controls. The anti-EU right wing media blamed all problems on the EU, and as it suited the agenda of the various govts of the time they allowed them to carry the can for the last 30 years.

I was under the assumption that those within the EU can move wherever they want, and by being a member of the EU, the UK couldn't deny anyone in it, the ability to migrate to the UK. Which is one of the biggest issues I hear about it.

I support Brexit along the lines that if the people in the UK feel that their country is changing too much do to migration, mostly due to immigrants coming from other parts of the EU, and want more control over who comes in, then I can understand that. I am just saying I see that coming with a price. But if they think that's worth it...

The big issue there is that there was no discussion, concensus or agreement on what immigration policy should be if the UK left the EU. It was like voting to go on a roadtrip but not having a destination or route planned and nobody wants to actually volunteer to drive, but they all want to go somewhere different

**Future War Cultist**

Mr. Burning wrote:
The Irony over UK membership of the EU is that a lot of directives and regulatory powers have been followed with a zeal other member states can barely muster.

It is no lie to say that successive governments have set whitehall to implement the latest rule whilst bemoaning that nasty technocratic bureaucracy in brussels for meddling in our own affairs.

That’s right. We had one of the best track records for actually implementing EU rules. Not that it ever got us any recognition or favours. By comparison, France have one of the worst. If they don’t like the rule they just don’t implement it. And jack gak is said about it. And then there’s the second parliament building and all that bollocks.

**Mr Morden**

Mr. Burning wrote:
The Irony over UK membership of the EU is that a lot of directives and regulatory powers have been followed with a zeal other member states can barely muster.

It is no lie to say that successive governments have set whitehall to implement the latest rule whilst bemoaning that nasty technocratic bureaucracy in brussels for meddling in our own affairs.

True - its damming that not only did we implement everything but other nations often didn;t bother and without apparent consequences. rightly or wrongly it did feed into the idea that the set up was unfair.

Everyone hates the double parliment but its France's cash cow so no one can do anything about it.

**reds8n**

KTG17 wrote:
Well, I am not assuming anyone would cut immigration completely off. Just have some system in place to follow, that's all. My understanding was that once you were accepted as a migrant to anywhere in the EU, well, that meant you could settle anywhere you wanted. So all those Syrians in Germany would be free to re-settle anywhere they wanted eventually.
.

...the "eventually" there is a pretty big disclaimer is it not ?

and irrelevant to the UK anyway

Long-term residency is not enough to secure free movement rights
If refugees end up staying in Europe permanently they can acquire long-term resident status – subject to meeting certain conditions – as per the 2003 EU Directive on the status of non-EU nationals who are long-term residents. This gives them the same rights as that of EU member state’s nationals in certain areas, although it does not bestow an absolute right to free movement on par with EU nationals.

In any event, the UK, along with Ireland and Denmark, are exempt from this directive. This means that the UK does not have to allow non-EU nationals who are long-term residents of other member state into the UK if it does not want to. If it does allow them entry to the UK it is on the same basis as other non-EU nationals, i.e. meeting any relevant skills and income criteria. Therefore, the UK already has additional controls over immigration policy compared to other EU member states.

Migrants can however obtain full EU citizenship – how does this work?
It is true that if migrants or refugees were to obtain full citizenship of another EU member state they will then be able to exercise full EU free movement rights. EU citizenship can only be obtained via naturalisation, i.e. by obtaining the citizenship of a member state. This process varies from country to country, with each having its own conditions and criteria that need to be satisfied. Below is a summary of the conditions for acquiring the citizenship of the five EU member states that have experienced the highest influx of refugees/migrants:

Germany (288,800 asylum applications Jan-Sept 2015)
Acquiring German citizenship via naturalisation is conditional on eight years of legal residence, although this is shorter for spouses of German nationals. It also requires oral and written German language skills, a clean criminal record and a commitment to respecting the German constitution. In general, those applying for naturalisation must also give up their foreign nationality.

Hungary (175,960 asylum applications Jan-Sept 2015)
Acquiring Hungarian citizenship is conditional on having continuously lived in Hungary on the basis of permanent residence for three years, a clean criminal record, being financially self-sufficient, not posing a threat to the country’s public and national security, and passing an examination in basic constitutional studies in the Hungarian language. It should also be noted that Hungary has quite a high rejection rate for asylum applications.

Sweden (73,065 asylum applications Jan-Sept 2015)
Acquiring Swedish citizenship usually requires five years of legal residence in normal circumstances, although this drops to four years for refugees or stateless persons, and three years for people married to Swedish nationals.

Italy (59,165 asylum applications Jan-Sept 2015)
Acquiring Italian citizenship for non-EU nationals usually requires ten years of legal residence although this drops to five years for refugees or stateless persons.

France (50,840 asylum applications Jan-Sept 2015)
Acquiring French citizenship requires five years’ continuous residence and being able to demonstrate integration into French culture and society, providing evidence of a clean criminal record and of an employment history.

This means that not only do refugees/migrants have to live in another EU member state for a defined period of time – up to eight years in the case of Germany – they also have to be able to demonstrate a certain level of social and economic integration (typically being able to speak the language). This level of integration is likely to act as a brake on people’s willingness to subsequently move to another EU country, even if they acquire the right to do so.

In addition, as demonstrated above, many member states, including Germany explicitly state that a clean criminal record is also a precondition for acquiring citizenship. Finally, long-term residency comes with virtually all the same domestic benefits as full citizenship (in terms of access to jobs, social security and public services) which will further restrict the incentive for full naturalisation, as will the prospect of potentially having to give up their original citizenship which people may have an emotional or practical attachment to.

Will all refugees even be eligible for naturalisation?
As noted above, in most countries acquiring citizenship is dependent on permanent or formal residence, yet due to the high influx, Germany and Sweden are now only issuing temporary residence permits to new arrivals. In Germany, this runs up to three years after which “the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees examines whether there are grounds for a possible withdrawal of the status (e.g. a change of the political situation in the country of origin).” Only if no such reasons are identified can the temporary residence permit be converted into a permanent one.

Likewise in Sweden, the naturalisation rules depend on long-term residence or formal refugee status: “As a rule you must have been resident in Sweden for a continuous period of five years… Whether you are allowed to count all your time in Sweden as a period of habitual residence depends on why you settled here and what permit you have had during your time here.”

staying with germany as the example :

http://www.bamf.de/EN/Willkommen/Einbuergerung/InDeutschland/indeutschland-node.html

Conditions
You have a right to naturalisation if you fulfil the following conditions:

you have an unrestricted right of residence at the time of being naturalised,
you have passed the naturalisation test (knowledge of the legal and social system, as well as living conditions in Germany),
your habitual, lawful place of residence has been in Germany for eight years (this period can be reduced to seven years if you attend an integration course successfully, and can be reduced to as few as six years in the case of special integration measures),
you have independent means of securing a living (including for family members entitled to maintenance) without resorting to welfare payments and unemployment benefit II,
you have adequate German-language skills,
you do not have any convictions on account of a criminal offence,
you are committed to the free democratic constitutional order of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, and
you have lost or given up your former nationality (exceptions apply with regard to this point, depending on the country of origin; please contact the naturalisation authority).

I don't know all of the issues, but in a nutshell I do support Brexit

That's the case with most of the pro Brexit brigade, fret not.

meanwhile in the UK
https://twitter.com/JacquiMckenzie6/status/1015129848711405568

Client received a letter from the Passport Office yesterday advising that her 8 year old son who is British and has a British passport and British father named on his birth certficate, cannot have his passport renewed without a paternity test.

.. what are we turning into ?

**Kilkrazy**

Only EU citizens have the right to move to other EU countries. Non-EU citizens, such as Syrians, only have the normal rights their citizenship grants them.

**KTG17**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Only EU citizens have the right to move to other EU countries. Non-EU citizens, such as Syrians, only have the normal rights their citizenship grants them.

Ah, then I fail to see what all the hysterics are about. I only really heard about complaints about immigration.

**Iron_Captain**

KTG17 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Only EU citizens have the right to move to other EU countries. Non-EU citizens, such as Syrians, only have the normal rights their citizenship grants them.

Ah, then I fail to see what all the hysterics are about. I only really heard about complaints about immigration.

Some people in Britain think other EU citizens from Poland and the Baltics and such are trying to steal their jobs.

**GoatboyBeta**

Looks like May will live to fight another day, reportedly leaving the 1922 meeting to cheers. It would seem that the threat of a Corbyn government is still enough to cow the Tories into submission.

**Kilkrazy**

Quite.

The existential horror of perhaps waking up to find a Hungarian moving in next door.

But that is to be flippant. There are mixtures of various reasons why people voted Leave.

A lot of it is to do with a sense of English identity, and the immigration fed into that by exposing people in various "local" places to foreigners for the first time. It's notable, for example, that places in London with high immigration nonetheless voted Remain, perhaps because the local population were already used to immigrants.

Another issue was economic deprivation, which often overlapped with the immigration point by making people think the immigrants were responsible for it.

Then you got the Brexiteers lying about the EU being responsible for the UK's problems, by imposing red tape, for example, and preventing the country from making trade deals (the UK has trade deals with over 70 nations, thanks to membership of the EU.) And the bendy bananas, and so on.

40 years of that kind of stuff and a lot of people were affected. W've even got our own government spreading similar lies, such as the blue passports and the fishing quotas.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Looks like May will live to fight another day, reportedly leaving the 1922 meeting to cheers. It would seem that the threat of a Corbyn government is still enough to cow the Tories into submission.

Replacing the PM doesn't trigger a general election. The fact that May has won shows the Hard Brexiteers either are too weaker to force the issue, or too scared of the consequences of a three month leadership contest in the three months the government has left to agree a deal with the EU.

**GoatboyBeta**

Kilkrazy wrote:

Replacing the PM doesn't trigger a general election. The fact that May has won shows the Hard Brexiteers either are too weaker to force the issue, or too scared of the consequences of a three month leadership contest in the three months the government has left to agree a deal with the EU.

True replacing May by itself wouldn't do it. But as you said the potential fallout(internal and external) from a leadership contest at this time could deal the Tories a heavy blow that they would struggle to come back from. Basicaly they are fine with letting Rome burn as long as they are the ones in charge.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Jeremy Hunt as Foreign Secretary????

You gotta be fething kidding me!!!!

That's it. I'm out. Somebody phone up North Korea, because I'm defecting!!!

Long live Marxism-Leninism. Workers of the world unite!!!

I need a drink...

**beast_gts**

Hunt replaces Johnson as foreign secretary - BBC

**Herzlos**

At least it gets the cretin away from the NHS.

KTG17 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Only EU citizens have the right to move to other EU countries. Non-EU citizens, such as Syrians, only have the normal rights their citizenship grants them.

Ah, then I fail to see what all the hysterics are about. I only really heard about complaints about immigration.

Neither do most of us. Apparently surveys show people thought migration was about 7x higher than it was, and the right wing press has been blaming foreigners for everything for decades.

The UK also had various powers to kick out EU migrants who weren't self sufficient after 3 months, but they were never used.

So it's an almost non issue but whipped up into hysterics by populists for their own gains.

**Omega-soul**

Leaving EU just because of immigrants is nonsense.
But that is a symptom of a basic EU problems.

And Basic EU problems is self-identification. The thought - we will have a common foreign policy, but different national policy would never work the way current EU try to.

And you may see this difference in various topics. There is no EU country that wouldn't have some sort of problems.

In Germany there is the same immigrant problems - but the real problems is not immigrants itself - problem is inability to make mutual agreement across not just all the members of EU - but even on a national parlaments level.

So The Brexit, is not just short term problem - Brexit is the thought that make agreement in one country would be easier than in 27.

And plan for Brexit is not as bad as it sounds - but only under one condition - if you have unified country willing to change for the better.
In a long run - that is a safer position - it's like moving in adaulthood where you take all the responsobilities for your life.

But if you plan to lay on couch like you do in parents house - of course your life will quickly falls apart.

And remainers should be aware of Greece fate - greeks have only so much influence on their government -so they suffer and can't do anything about it.
And remainers do know how it feels when your opinion doesn't matter.

Silver lining is - inability to communicate with each other is the greatest modern problem and it exists on the very basic level - not just politics.

**Whirlwind**

Kilkrazy wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Looks like May will live to fight another day, reportedly leaving the 1922 meeting to cheers. It would seem that the threat of a Corbyn government is still enough to cow the Tories into submission.

Replacing the PM doesn't trigger a general election. The fact that May has won shows the Hard Brexiteers either are too weaker to force the issue, or too scared of the consequences of a three month leadership contest in the three months the government has left to agree a deal with the EU.

The issue May has is that she has to take this proposal to Parliament. Assuming Labour vote against it, then the agreement comes crashing down and May has nowhere to go. It's likely only those that prefer remain that are cheering. They know that the EU will not accept some of the suggestions and May is softening to an ultrasoft Wrexit which at that point you may as well have another referendum.

This however is perhaps May's get out card though. Call another referendum on either the proposals or stay in. If as likely will happen from the polls that it favours remain then it undermines the legitamcy of the hard Wrexiters. Of course it will probably destroy the Tories and send 20% of their vote packing to UKIP again. However regardless now the damage to the Tories is likely to quite severe as it is showing just how incompetent the Tories and Government is.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

An odd to Brexit.

**GoatboyBeta**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Jeremy Hunt as Foreign Secretary????

You gotta be fething kidding me!!!!

That's it. I'm out. Somebody phone up North Korea, because I'm defecting!!!

Long live Marxism-Leninism. Workers of the world unite!!!

I need a drink...

Yes but he is a better choice for the job than Boris(that said Larry the number 10 cat would have been a better choice than Boris).