Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask how anyone can justify the fact Theresa May categorically refused to say she thinks Brexit is a good idea

129 replies

Bearbehind · 29/05/2017 22:04

Seriously, the Prime Minister has basically just said she doesn't agree with Brexit but 'it's the will of the people' so she'll carry on regardless.

Doesn't that make anyone think twice?

OP posts:
WrongTrouser · 29/05/2017 23:53

Are you still struggling with the basic concepts of democracy Bear? One doesn't have to believe a policy is the best choice to implement it, if that is what has been democratically decided.

People do it all the time, in workplaces, in sports teams, in families, in the army. Collective decision making. Otherwise you have either anarchy or dictatorship.

DeidreInaQuandry · 30/05/2017 00:00

She could have said "I believe we're committing economic suicide based on lies told by (amongst others) my Foreign Secretary. We'll negotiate the exit terms and then put it to the electorate again. If we've got a shit deal they can vote Remain".

ExplodedCloud · 30/05/2017 00:13

Of all the things Paxman could have chosen to push her on that was probably the easiest because even as a dyed in the wool Labour voter I accept that if we wanted a party leader who was vociferously pro-Leave we would have had Farage involved. If Cameron hadn't been such a lily livered coward then he would have been leading the negotiations.
There are plenty of other self made fuck ups he could have pushed on.

IvorHughJarrs · 30/05/2017 00:23

Plus Corbyn said almost exactly the same thing. The policies any party enacts are a product of discussion not his own views. He is anti-monarchy but the manifesto does not reflect that because the party is not slavishly following the leader. Does that make him unfit to be PM as he is not being true to his own values?
There is no logic to your argument

BertrandRussell · 30/05/2017 00:24

I am amazed-well, no I'm not, but for the purposes of argument I am- that Corbyn was pushed on the IRA and Hamas, but there was no mention of Saudi arms deals to May..........

SwedishEdith · 30/05/2017 00:26

I think it's more promising that she didn't say there were any positives to leaving because that means she doesn't believe there are. She knows it's a fuck-up. That's the one positive I take from this.

ExplodedCloud · 30/05/2017 00:43

Absolutely Bertrand

BasiliskStare · 30/05/2017 03:04

I voted remain. Didn't happen. More people voted leave.

I agree with this
"That's what being part of a parliamentary democracy means. She can think it's a bad idea- but she's the Prime Minister so has to follow the will of the people."

annandale · 30/05/2017 03:12

Agree Swedish.

May is not an impressive politician but watching her slog round the world getting cold shouldered and glad handed at least shows she is willing to take on the crap jobs. Prime Minister of Brexit is the ultimate crap job.

Happyfeet1972 · 30/05/2017 04:00

I voted remain, will not be voting Tory and don't particularly like TM. However on this point I don't think she did anything wrong. Everyone knows she was on the remain side so she was damned whichever she answered the question; if she'd have said she now thought brexit was a great idea she'd look stupid for campaigning against it last year

No one knows whether brexit will turn out to be a success or not as it's not actually happened yet. I'd be very worried about the PM saying it's now a great idea, contrary to what she said previously, purely on the basis that more people voted for it than not. Just because it's been voted for doesn't mean it's a good idea. And as a remain voter I am yet to be convinced that it is so don't blame TM for not saying so.

As pp have said, people have to implement ideas they aren't convinced of at work all the time. As long as they have the capability to do that and are committed to the job then their personal feelings shouldn't matter. However based on other stuff she said I don't she does have the capability.

OhtoblazeswithElvira · 30/05/2017 04:00

I think the issue is that TM is doing something that she believes is bad for the country. And that if she wanted the best for the country she would either:

a) not go ahead with it
b) resign and let someone else take the country through Brexit

I don't think this is about "getting on with the job" and "making a success of Brexit" - this is about TM taking her only chance at being PM.

Interesting that so many people think that the best person to lead on Brexit is someone who thinks it's bad idea!

Trifleorbust · 30/05/2017 05:43

I am a lifelong Labour voter and voted to Remain, but what is there not to respect about May saying she respects the people of this country and their directly expressed collective will?

makeourfuture · 30/05/2017 06:06

She may very well be stuck with the decision.(she's not), but making no plan at all is idiocy.

intheknickersoftime · 30/05/2017 06:17

This is essentially Camerons mess. He gambled the future of our country without any prior plan in place in order to win power. I don't think anyone thought the referendum would turn out as it has. You now have to spoil your ballot paper but you do have to decide who you think should lead us out. May said, no deal is better than a bad deal. I think that position is untenable but others support her on this. That is hard Brexit, being prepared to walk away without a trade agreement and believing we can survive. This will probably mean working more with other countries outside the EU. Or we have Jeremy Corbyn who I think is much more of a negotiater and will definitely do a deal. I think he spoke very clearly about his vision for Brexit as did May. I think you must choose. This is too important not too.

intheknickersoftime · 30/05/2017 06:20

Sorry that middle sentence made little sense! You now have to decide who you think should lead us out

intheknickersoftime · 30/05/2017 06:23

On reflection, I do think it's somewhat odd that as a remainer she is going for hard Brexit and I don't respect her for that as it shows her to be hypocritical.

Charmageddon · 30/05/2017 06:28

I am amazed-well, no I'm not, but for the purposes of argument I am- that Corbyn was pushed on the IRA and Hamas, but there was no mention of Saudi arms deals to May..........

Paxman was monumentally shit with the pair of them quite frankly, but yes - he should have asked that question.

May on Brexit? She's right.
She's PM - I expect her to enact Brexit.

nooka · 30/05/2017 06:29

The UK is not a direct democracy though, it is a system where every area votes for a representative to act on their behalf in Parliament. As we have a party system each party has a mandate and the expectation is that party leadership move those mandates forward. So your local representative is expected to carry their party mandate forward and act for their constituents. The party leader is also an MP so should like all other MPs act for their constituents, but also has wider responsibilities, to lead their party to success and to act for the country.

Just because a referendum has given a particular direction doesn't mean that the other responsibilities disappear. When it comes to Brexit this poses a challenge. Is it good for the constituents of Maidenhead (May's constituency who voted remain)? Is it good for the country? Would it be political suicide for the Conservatives not to follow the referendum results, as although it was advisory only it was the Tories that championed having one in their manifesto?

However none of that explains the insistence on hard Brexit, and it's that that IMO needs explaining as to why it's in everyone's interest.

Trifleorbust · 30/05/2017 06:40

No, the UK isn't a direct democracy, but in cases where a direct vote is offered, the will of the people, so expressed, is sovereign over the will of the representatives. May has a clearer understanding of this than I think some of the people on this thread do.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 30/05/2017 06:43

She did nothing wrong. She has the same standpoint as Corbyn allegedly Voted remain but recognise the majority voted leave.

ADuckNamedSplash · 30/05/2017 07:16

Why is no one questioning the fact there are still no economic positives to quote about Brexit even a year on from the vote?

Err, because nobody expects any positives at this point? I'm a Leaver and voted with the expectation that it will be short term pain for long term gain. Why you'd expect to start seeing those gains purely on the basis of the vote, is beyond me. Brexit hasn't happened yet, of course there are no benefits of it yet Confused

intheknickersoftime · 30/05/2017 07:22

But no-one can tell us where the long term gain will come from. It's certainly true that universities are already struggling to get EU funding to continue research even though Brexit hasn't happened yet. But they are already feeling the effects.

mummytime · 30/05/2017 07:39

She supported Remain.
But now she has committed to push through Brexit at whatever cost.
This is just one of the many reasons so can't understand why anyone could think she is strong and stable. She bows to "the will of the people" all the time.
Or at least how the will of the people is portrayed by the press.
So U-turns on: social care and NI contributions, and a slight one on grammar schools.
You are not a good negotiator if you are rude and aggressive to people. That is a basic rule of salesmanship.
The people didn't know and still don't know the full consequences of Brexit. So why can the whole future and future constitution of the country be dictated by a vote by a slim majority of the voters who had been systematically lied to and manipulated?

And don't even mention her "Great Repeal Bill" which will massively change the rules of this country with minimal parliamentary scrutiny.

PigletWasPoohsFriend · 30/05/2017 07:44

mummytime

The thing is there is a party that is offering the opposite to this - the LibDems. However they are getting no traction at all anday in fact that they will be lucky if they gain an extra couple of seats.

TaraCarter · 30/05/2017 09:22

Wouldn't "respecting the will of the people" require not overturning the ban on fox hunting?

Labour were elected in 1997, with 'ban fox hunting' as part of their manifesto, and I would say the number of seats they gained gave them a clear mandate to go ahead with that! In the years since, there is no evidence British public opinion has changed.

So how come it's okay for her to propose to ignore the will of the people on that matter, but she can pursue the "will of the people" on a referendum that was insanely close, in which only 73% of the population voted? 52% of 73% is just under 38% and I am sure a significant proportion of those people changed their mind within the week of the referendum.

It reminds me of an angry parent at the end of their tether trying to teach a young child a lesson.

Mummy: No, Zach. I asked you if you wanted to go straight home then and you said you did."

Zach: "Mummy, please. I changed my mind! I disn't know about the ice cream van! Please, Mummy."

Mum: No!

However, I would think the public's opinion on Brexit is more important than an ice-cream, and they should be allowed to change their opinion to take account of new information. We are past taking a young child's word for it about leaving the park- to which you can always go another day- and now in the league of a harassed parent telling his or her son that he can't do A-level Maths because he said he hated maths last year.

To which any sensible child might say, "Mum, I didn't realise how important it would be to take A-level Maths then, and that I need it for what I want to do."

How would it be if his mother said, "No! You said you didn't want to drop out of maths as soon as you could during your GCSEs. That's it. That was your decision".

May is not interested in 'respecting the will of the people', she is leaping on the bandwagon, because it has given her the opportunity to be Prime Minister at a point when she must have given up on ever being more senior than a cabinet minister.