Video: EU and rare honest media comments show May vacuous, not just nebulous

Theresa May’s disastrous return to the EU this week was just as awful as cynical observers anticipated – but even they may have been shocked at just how bereft of ideas she was.

Most of the Establishment media, of course, have been trying to ‘polish the turd’ of her performance – blaming both the EU and, ridiculously, Jeremy Corbyn for the disaster.

But a couple of moments of honesty from ‘MSM’ sources, perhaps unexpectedly, revealed that May was not just nebulous – the word about which she was caught remonstrating with EU Commission President Juncker – but vacuous:

The EU’s Donald Tusk also made plain that May only went to the EU looking for ‘assurances’, not for any meaningful changes to her appalling deal that she was so afraid to put before Parliament.

It ought to unbelievable that – as reported by the Telegraph, a distinctly Tory-friendly source – that May’s desperate absence of ideas was so profound that she resorted to the meaningless ‘Brexit means Brexit’ catchphrase that she hardly dares repeat these days to the UK public:

Sadly, it isn’t at all.

The honesty of the Telegraph’s Crisp and of Sky’s Dominic Waghorn – which regularly outdoes the BBC for in that regard now – put not just May’s incompetence but also the weaseling of the national broadcaster and other mainstream outlets into stark and unflattering relief.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

7 responses to “Video: EU and rare honest media comments show May vacuous, not just nebulous

  1. The least cunning Fox on the planet this morning asked what would happen if in a fresh referendum Remain won by 52/48 but with a smaller turnout – and answered himself by saying that people like him would immediately demand ‘best of three’ – you know – like we don’t with any other fucking vote once we’re over six years old.
    When May called the 2017 snap GE and lost her majority even she didn’t have the gall to demand that the 2015 and 2017 results should be averaged.
    When we win the next GE and Tories say we should make it best of five coz May won the last two what should we reply?

    Yes, I know it’s nonsense – but no more than claiming a vote today reversing a two year old result is undemocratic.

    • Precisely.

      Another aspect is that a constitutional referendum is *not* the same as a periodic and statutory general election. The opposition to another referendum likes to pretend that it is the same, with a simple majority having binding force. But, if this were the case, another vote would be the corollary. Again – cakeism.

      The underlying fact is that in most situations, constitutional issues are usually decided by a convincing majority – even down to the level of local associations and societies. This referendum was decided on the basis of a 37% minority in what was effectively a split vote in terms of a simple majority.

      … and therein lies the current deadlock and the present situation of the country being a laughing stock and the perception that the opposition is part of the problem rather than the solution.

      And no, it’s not all the doing of a neoliberal conspiracy : that was the first referendum (with the emphasis on ‘dum'(b))

      • RH,
        I do seem to be having issues with following your line of reason here, specifically with regards the Outcome of our last Referendum, which if I remember voted in the majority to exit the EU.

        I do find this notion of 37% of the electorate dictating to 63% of the electorate rather lacking, if only based on the fact that I was unaware of any registered voter in the UK being prevented from casting a vote, as we know really is the case in the USA.

        As such, when you speak of dictating, do I take it you mean the side that won by a majority is dictating to the side that lost?

        If nearly 30% of the Electorate cannot be bothered to engage in large constitutional issues does not cause you alarm, it most certainly does me, however, I don’t tally up the actual Leave vote, with the votes of those not cast, to make any case or argument, as said persons could care little and thus decided themselves not to engage in the argument.

        Here’s a suggestion, instead of relying on imaginary votes, or lack thereof, to make claims, lets just stick with the facts, and if the facts worry you, then maybe push for the introduction of Civics Lessons in our education system.

        As it stands, if we follow through on your notions we’ll be having Referendums on a annual basis, which is a consideration, but it would make enacting policy rather difficult.

        Again, the only vote we should be interested in is one that’s called a ‘General Election’ to rid ourselves of the Tories and get ourselves a Corbyn-led government, and, allegedly being the Brextremist I am, if Mr Corbyn decides we annual A50, so be it, and if he decides to Brexit on WTO terms, again, so be it, because at the end of the day, Brexit or no Brexit, I want a Left-of-Centre Labour Government, not more Tory government and not more neoliberal economic prescriptions.

      • “I do seem to be having issues with following your line of reason here, specifically with regards the Outcome of our last Referendum”

        It’s quite simple and factual. Only 37% of the electorate supported Brexit – and I outline the normal requirements of constitutional change.

        “If nearly 30% of the Electorate cannot be bothered to engage in large constitutional issues”

        I can’t judge their motives. But they didn’t support Brexit.

        “As it stands, if we follow through on your notions we’ll be having Referendums on a annual basis”

        Keep up. My point was that the logic of the Leaver position that holds the referendum sacred on the basis of simple majoritarianism is to have a repeat at regular intervals – as we have with general elections.

        The alternative – if you want a properly structured and binding referendum on a constitutional issue – is to have the sort of threshold that is the norm for such issues.

        Politically – if you want ‘ not more neoliberal economic prescriptions’, then you won’t want Brexit, which is entirely an extreme neoliberal project (Just look at the main proponents – they aren’t betting the farm on socialism!)

      • Gotta Love RH folks, I mean, according to him the Electorate that could not be bothered to Vote in 2016 on such an important issue allegedly did not Vote Brexit. Well here’s news for you mate, they did not vote Remain either, how could they as they did not vote, so, the only votes that matter are those from concerned citizens with an interest in their nation, of of that Group a majority voted Leave. Again, do explain exactly what I’m missing and elucidate on the fact of what gives you, or anyone else the right to make presumptions about those who cared little, had actually cared, either way they’d have voted.

        Ain’t democracy strange when the side that musters the largest vote wins, but allegedly did not win because a few bods neglected to vote – lets just annul democracy altogether given at most GE’s only about 70% vote, so no doubt, those who don’t vote support the government of the day!

  2. @RH Politically – if you want ‘ not more neoliberal economic prescriptions’, then you won’t want Brexit, which is entirely an extreme neoliberal project (Just look at the main proponents – they aren’t betting the farm on socialism!)

    Well as far as I understand it the EU is a monumentally neoliberal organisation that is looking after the interests of Big Bus not the people , so I am confused by your remark above that ” if you want ‘ not more neoliberal economic prescriptions’, then you won’t want Brexit ” . Brexit gets us out of the Neoliberal club that is the present EU .
    Now , agreed , as to what follows that then that is down to whom is negotiating things , but the simple statement that somehow staying with in the EU is not being allied to an neoliberal economic regime is not correct IMO.
    Hopefully one thing we are all agreed on is only a JC lead Labour Govt can steer us out of this monumental FU caused and owned by the Tories , and if we want Labours social policies on nationalisation to happen then 1.We leave the EU ,, 2.Somehow we stay and hope that somehow the UK can change this steamroller. Perhaps with a international alliance of the Left in Europe viz Spain , Portugal, UK Greece and maybe France if Macon gets kicked out , then maybe there might be a chance to change and reform the EU.

  3. Deja Vu………but we have to have another referendum next year to cater for next year’s 16 year olds….but what about the following year’s 16 year olds & then………

Leave a Reply to David McNiven Cancel reply