WTF is the point of a Brexit debate 2 days before the vote?

[Bearbehind]

Just that really.

What are TM and JC trying to achieve?

[lonelyplanetmum]

TM's point is to sell her outline of a deal.

JC's point to sell a JC vision of government.

[Bearbehind]

But TM is a shite speaker unless it’s scripted so she’s not capable of ‘debate’

Plus her deal is also shite so she’s on a hiding to nothing.

[Bearbehind]

She’s not even a good speaker when it’s scripted - it sounds scripted.

[HollowTalk]

The whole thing is absolutely shambolic. We must be a laughing stock in Europe.

[HoustonBess]

There will probably be a general election without enough time to have a full campaign with TV debates. TM is on top of the detail about the detail whereas JC isn't because he didn't negotiate it. They're both shit speakers. Plus the Labour Brexit position is slippery and very similar to the Tory one.

I reckon TM knows she's for the chop but for the sake of the party she's giving it a last push to help Tories win in a general election.

[OhYouBadBadKitten]

In answer to the question fuck knows.

JC why why you idiot? he's just pushing us further into Brexit. His input will damage things further.

[Havanananana]

Despite what the press and May herself say, there is no 'deal'.


There is an aspirational 'To Do' list, but nothing has been agreed regarding the future relationship between the UK and the EU.

e.g. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The political declaration just talks about cooperation, not full membership. - May says the exact relationship has to be negotiated.
Medicines Agency? - to be negotiated - and so on from Agencies A to Z, all to be negotiated/agreed/discussed/clarified over the next 2 years.


Likewise, The Withdrawal Agreement only answers one of the 3 key questions about the UK's withdrawal (the fact that the UK leaves on 29th March being a given once the Art 50 notice was issued, so didn't need to be negotiated.)

The Withdrawal Agreement is 500+ pages of agreeing to cooperate and some technical stuff about how this should happen, but the three key issues (of the WA) have been the same since June 2016:

• Will the UK pay for the expenditure already agreed? - Yes, and the figure is £39bn
  
• Are the rights of EU citizens already in the UK protected? - A short-term agreement is in place, but long term situation unknown (the same as for UK citizens in the EU)
  
• Is there a solution to the UK-ROI border that complies with the International Treaty terms of the GFA? - No. The WA backstop provides no permanent solution and the situation remains the same until a solution is found that the EU approves of.

[1tisILeClerc]

That is roughly what I was thinking it means Havana.

If {- Are the rights of EU citizens already in the UK protected? - A short-term agreement is in place, but long term situation unknown (the same as for UK citizens in the EU)} can be stretched out to about 20 years that will do me I think.

[BettySundaes]

WTF is the point of a Brexit debate FULL STOP?

TM going out to the country to appeal to the British people - if they were holding another vote understandable, but its the MPs not US who are getting to have their say.

[bellinisurge]

She's doing everything she can, even the things she is shit at, to convince the public. They might then lobby their MPs to vote to accept the withdrawal agreement. Better her on TV than those ERG twats. And as Corbyn has left all the heavy lifting on Brexit to Starmer, he won't be ready.

[Bearbehind]

I’ve got a theory which is the only thing that makes any sense, and even then it’s madness.

Is TM is actually participating in the debate in order to get annihilated?

Is this how she’s planning to avoid Brexit?

[bellinisurge]

@Bearbehind , it's a dangerous game if that is what she's playing.
I genuinely think she wants to avoid No Deal and anything other than supporting this risks that.
Hate the Tories, voted Remain but I would rather have this shit deal than no deal. If she can get enough MPs of whatever party to agree with that, the deal will be voted through.
Corbyn can't order his MPs to vote with him because he defied the leadership when he was a backbencher all the time. The Parliamentary Labour Party hates him anyway. If he debates as poorly on Brexit as he has done in the House of Commons maybe that will embolden enough Labour MPs to defy him.

[Yaralie]

No point at all in having this debate. May hopes JC will look so foolish that folk will urge their MPs to support her.

Unfortunately, she already looks foolish. I would not have either of them in a gift. We need a leader to advocate the sensible outcome-_REMAIN in the EU.

[bellinisurge]

@Yaralie - but that's not going to happen.

[Bearbehind]

It is seriously dangerous and I’m pretty sure she’s not actually clever enough to be doing it but but nothing else makes sense.

She’s a crap speaker and can’t handle questions. Add to that the fact her plan has more holes than a Swiss cheese and she can’t possibly be expecting this debate to convince people to support her plan.

Even now all she is saying is that her plan is shit but it’s better than no deal.

With a bit of luck she’s actually using the opportunity to prove Remaining is actually the right choice.

[lljkk]

I think... TM is going to do well in this debate. b/c we all know the WA is as unsellable & has every flaw the Brexiters say it has. Yet we still admire her tenacity in trying to get it thru and her resilience in the face of so much opposition. Pus, she's right that it's the only realistic WA & it does deliver on many key points, not least of stopping UK going off the cliff.

Commons will vote her WA down but her conscience is clear she did the best anyone could have done in her place.

[Butterymuffin]

It'll be awful. Soundbite city from two people who can't debate well or think on their feet, who both want the impossible but also don't want to come out and say what the real situation is. I can't think of any less illuminating thing you could show on television.

[lljkk]

... TM has done brilliantly fielding criticisms in Commons, recently. She did well on the radio phone in. You may hate her bloody mindedness, but it's saving her reputation now. She has nothing to lose so her reputation is going up.

[Bearbehind]

How can she do well defending a plan even she has to concede is going to make the country worse off?

Even a politician with the gift of the gab would struggle with that.

She’s a dreadful speaker who just recites pre-programmed phrases that will convince no one.

[1tisILeClerc]

I see 'Remain' as unlikely as too many in the UK don't want it, and would be disruptive if we did. The EU are probably not wanting remain either as the UK has been a thorn in their side for 40 years. Norway with a few pluses is probably around the best that can be done with the materials available although the 'rule taking' element will cause considerable friction.
Much of the world is now governed by 'big business' so in a way individual politics is almost unimportant. I don't know how embedded China is in the UK but Africa and countries around the South China sea are effectively in the Chinese pocket with the vast loans they have received. OK while the going is good but would be pulled up sharply if they want to do something different. Even the USA is (I believe) significantly indebted to China and if Trumps shouting gets too much could cause a big problem.

[lljkk]

"How can she do well defending a plan even she has to concede is going to make the country worse off?"

Because it's "The Will of the People".
Fig me, it falls to fervent Remainers like me to defend this crap. We are supposed to suck it up, though, so that's what's been shoved down my throat for last 2.5 yrs. And I will duly keep sucking.

There is no 'good' WA. There is no 'good' Brexit. There are only varying shades of crap. This deal is far better than the worst Brexit. So hey ho, "The People" will get what they voted for and rest of us won't get quite as shafted as we feared. THAT is the 'Good deal for Britain' on the table. The only sort of Brexit there could be.

[Bearbehind]

But the ‘will of the people’ wasn’t and isn’t to make themselves poorer.

And now it’s confirmed that’s what’s going to happen, it’s not such a convincing argument.

[AlphaJuno]

Don't get it tbh. It's not like a GE has been called. She didn't want to debate with JC at the last one! It's not really a party issue because both parties before the ref were on the same side (remain) officially, although there are leavers in both parties. But both parties have now stated they are going to 'respect the will of the people' 'honour the referendum' and 'get on with it'. JC is going to accept otherwise people would be moaning he was too scared to debate it. He however didn't call it. TM did. But it's not the public that have to decide, it's the mps. Waste of time imo.

[Motheroffourdragons]

If she is so convinced the will of the people is for her to deliver her version of brexit, I don't understand why she wants a debate at all, never mind one with a closet brexiteer anyway.

It's not us she has to convince is it? We are not getting a say on it, for now anyway.

[FishesaPlenty]

I think you'll find that all the loudest leavers agree that a bit of economic pain is a small price to pay for taking back control etc. Of course there's not much economic pain when you've got a triple-locked pension under your belt.