The most brilliant and brutal take-down of PM May's Brexit plan

Tory MP Andrea Jenkyns rips into May about Brexit. It’s a very short clip.

And it’s an MP from her own side. The glare May gives Jenkyns is something to behold.

At what point was it decided that Brexit means Remain?

When those in charge realized that, in practical terms, Brexit is impossible.

To an outside observer, what really stands out about the Brexit debate is how one side brings up multiple specific concerns (Irish border conundrum, anyone?) and the other side simply tries to wave them away.

So she just wants to go forward without any plans like “ANDREAAAA JENNKIINNNSS!”

There’s a *plan *?! Somebody should clue May in.

“Would that be the plan to continue with total slaughter until everyone’s dead except Field Marshal Haig, Lady Haig and their tortoise, Alan?”

“Great Scott! Even you know it!”

<golf clap>

There is no coherent plan. There has never been a plan. The Leave campaign was heavily based on delusional aspirations that could never be achieved, and post-referendum they immediately abandoned all responsibility to present an actual exit or post-exit plan. Johnson, Gove and Farage should be forced to come up with plans or be literally pilloried in Trafalgar Square for fucking up the country so badly.

I have little sympathy for Theresa May, particularly as she made her position worse with the last election and her deal with the DevilUP, but she got handed a poisoned chalice that comes with endless refills and is constantly being told to drink up.

I still think David ‘Who, me?’ Cameron should have been forced to stay and come up with a plan - this is all his bloody fault, and he’s just skipped off into the sunset, with barely a ‘good luck chums’ as he departs.

You can a an attaindar for Cameron in the Great Repeal Bill…Hanged Drawn and Quartered.
You can have it at Wembly and broadcast it live; maybe recoup some Brexit costs?

Maybe. But I think it’s fair to point out that in 2015, the Brexit referendum was approved as it was, with no clear definition of what the Leave campaign winning would entail, by every Parliamentary group except the SNP.

So yes, Labour and the Libdems should share some of the finger pointing.

Help an American understand something about Brexit, please. In all of the aftermath of the vote, I don’t think I ever saw this answered.

Why was something so monumental put to a vote that only required a simple majority to pass?!?! Is there something about the way referenda work in the UK that necessitated this, or did Cameron miscalculate even worse than I think he did by even putting it to a vote at all?

It just seems to me that such a sea change in European relations should need a 2/3 or even 3/4 vote to get enacted.

50/50 referenda aren’t uncommon. the choice to enter the EU, for many countries including the UK, for instance, was one.

It appears the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks Andrea Jenkyns is a ‘stupid woman’

What amazes me is not the simple-majority requirement for passing the Brexit referendum, but that a non-binding referendum has somehow morphed into a binding one.

The Economist in the most recent edition says Britain has three terrible options to choose among:

  1. Use crashing out of the European Union without a deal as a threat to get Parliament to compromise.
  2. Ask voters to elect a new Parliament that is up to the task.
  3. Hand it back to the electorate for a second referendum.

They advocate the third option is the least bad.

I’m saddened to see that Britain is on the same collective suicide path that America is.

“Least bad” sums it up - in an ideal world we’d have a vote on the basis of a clearer understanding of what Britain leaving the EU would entail but in reality it would be the same screaming, howling divisive mess - egged on by the Russians and the Daily Mail, both of whom have much to gain from division and chaos - that we had last time.

I am not British, but if I were, there would be a second referendum, but not just leave v. remain. It would have several options and voters would get to rate them. Among the options would be
– Ask the EU to allow remaining
– Hard withdrawal including a new Irish border
– Attempt to negotiate a status similar to Norway’s
– Muddle on (with better name; maybe continue to negotiate)

and any others you can think of.

This government continues to look even more foolish. Stockpiling food? Not even the most ardent remainer was suggesting famine would be a result of leaving the EU

It makes sense. A harsh winter could lead to a shortage of certain locally farmed products (say, lettuce).

Until now they could be shipped from Southern Europe at regular prices, since economic union and so on. From now on, with a no deal exit, a harsh winter would lead to very, very expensive lettuce, because market forces, and supply and demand and whatnot.

I don’t think this is about kids starving on the streets, but about keeping stores well supplied.

The UK imports more than half of its food. Of the imports, well over half come from the EU and, of the rest, much is imported under the terms of EU trade deals with third countries from which the UK will drop out when it leaves the EU.

A crash-out Brexit is also expected to lead to massive congestion at UK ports.

This is about more than a shortage of out-of-season lettuces.

More worrying, perhaps, is that the UK is also stockpiling medicines and medical supplies against the possibility of a no-deal Brexit.

Fellow confused American here, but I think the idea is that you exit the way you entered. If it took only a simple majority to enter the EU, it wouldn’t be fair to require a 3/4 majority to leave it.

The UK entered the EU on the basis of a parliamentary vote. There was no referendum.

Plus this was an advisory referendum and not binding. I’m sure quite a few of the vote leave people are now dead.