24 comments

[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 69.8 ms ] thread
She put party above country and made a right mess.

Good riddance.

Her party has been trying to get her out for a while. She’s been a lame duck. I’ll give her tenacity but it had to end. The negotiations are a disaster. Her own party is at odds with her. She should have stepped down last confidence vote.
And the country has been trying to get her party out - but there's no constitutional way to do so.

So now we're going to have less than 100,000 tribal party extremists choosing the next Prime Minister for a country of 66 million people.

>Her party has been trying to get her out for a while. She’s been a lame duck. I’ll give her tenacity but it had to end. The negotiations are a disaster. Her own party is at odds with her. She should have stepped down last confidence vote.

Nobody else is dumb enough to want to be left holding the bag, though.

> Nobody else is dumb enough to want to be left holding the bag, though.

I present to you one Boris Johnson.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he engineers himself out of the contest in some way.
And then what? I don't have the impression that the Tories have the next Pitt in the wings waiting to take over.
She put party above country and made a right mess

???

She drove her party and her career into the ground pushing for a deal she (appeared to) believed was the best deal for country. I cannot see how any argument can be made that she put party above, well anything.

Agreed. To her, following through on the result of the referendum was her paramount mission, however she had to deliver that without breaking the country. Which as we've seen results in so many compromises, that leaves no-one happy.

Where she may have gone wrong, is leaving it way too late before involving the rest of parliament, however it can be argued, that as the leader of the party in power as voted in by the populous, she had no obligation to bring anything to the house for ratification.

There was a clear set of expectations and 'red lines' set out early on by all parties that she seemed too willing, with a wry grin, to ignore. It looked like a belabored attempt to strongarm a deal nobody, except somehow May, wanted. I do not understand how it was allowed to go on so long, except by the spectre of hard-brexit, which seems more overblown each day compared to the current mess.
(comment deleted)
UK politics are a dysfunctional shitshow run by power-hungry leaders pushing policy they don't believe in putting their parties first.
This wont change a thing. Regardless who her successor is, be it a brexiteer or a remainer, the country, and the house is split on what to do about Brexit.

The next PM will try to bring yet another withdrawal agreement to the house, and for all the same reasons it'll get rejected.

The only upside that may come out of this, is that we'll get another vote about leaving. Then one way or another everyone will be forced to agree about what to do next.

Well they had a vote already, so then with a do over precedent, do officials just keep asking for do overs until they get the desired results? It's messy.
If the "people" do not "accept" the result of the previous vote, but are more accepting of the results of the new vote, there's nothing wrong with it. That's kind of how democracy works. It may feel wrong, but if the people's opinion change, then so can the result
And if the second vote fails, do you have a third and a fourth vote? Until the outcome is desired?
if you agreed to get ice-cream next year, then become lactose-intolerant, do you refuse to reconsider?
Not the same issue really.

Political stunts can cause damage. I call it a stunt because it was never meant to pass, but it did...

I think it is more important that the second vote could be more definitive. Hopefully it would split more than 2% one way or the other this time. And indeed, if it once again goes leave, then I think it's reasonable for the UK to leave basically right away, no plan or anything. It's only right
(comment deleted)