Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
Her choice - she had a majority, called a snap election and her stated reason was to strengthen her hand in Brexit negotiations
Her call - the blame for all this is on her.
|
Here in Scotland the result wasn’t all that bad. We got rid of both Angus Robertson and Alex Salmond. Not bad for one night’s work.
The national outcome is difficult, granted, but at the same time the parliamentary maths may have contributed to a harder Brexit deal than if she had been able to guarantee waving whatever she brought back from Brussels through on a massive majority. So I’m happy about that, and to be frank I’ll be even happier if the parliamentary arithmetic leads to us leaving without any deal at all.
I believe the short term upheaval will finally concentrate minds in the Treasury, and in the European Commission, and negotiating a final relationship with the EU under such circumstances would be better for us than with the threat of the Backstop hanging over us. If London starts looking like Singapore-on-Thames for even five minutes, certain Eurozone economies will start quaking in their boots, and Varadkar will finally start to understand that pizzing off your closest neighbour, whom you rely on for masses of trade and through-transport to most of the rest of your markets, is generally a very bad idea.
---------- Post added at 23:51 ---------- Previous post was at 23:47 ----------
Oh and just so this stays on topic ... no, she mustn’t. That would be extraordinarily silly this close to 29 March.