UKC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43250035

Total crap really.

Can anyone convince me otherwise?

Did you expect anything different?

At a guess she's hoping that she's going to have a heart attack or something, so can be relieved of dealing with all the chaos that she has created, pretty much single-handedly, by giving out contradictory and mutually exclusive undertakings.

She's toast, but unfortunately so are we. Expect the EU to collectively shrug its shoulders and leave us to get on with it, Good Friday and all. 

No. It's crap.

Apparently though we are all meant to forget that and be nice and friendly to the extremists running the show because it's been decided.  Like being asked to get on with a burglar whose taken all your belongings as its all in the past, isn't it.

There was certainly no push back on hard Brexiters and from what I hear nothing much else. The following struck me as a fine example of platitudinous shite "So rather than having to bring two different systems closer together, the task will be to manage the relationship once we are two separate legal systems".

The only concession to EU rules that was even hinted at was aligning with the EU position on state aid, the one thing about Brexit that might have actually benefited all those steel workers in S Wales that voted for it.

The Mash nailed it: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/unite-around-my-n...

That's not satire, unfortunately.

No.

It's her 'vision' for the UK's relationship with the EU after Brexit.
We just don't know what hallucinogens she's taking.

Prozak.

Well, actually I think she did a good speech, relative to the other ones. Obviously if you still had any hope it was going to be a soft Brexit you would have been be disappointed, but it seems to me rather obvious that this ship had sailed a long time ago anyway. At least the speech was a bit more honest, and set lower, more realistic expectations. But there was no surprise and we didn't learn anything new.

But of course there is still a long way to go, the approach she set out is essentially the same three baskets approach we started hearing about a year ago, which is clearly a no go for the EU, for rather obvious reasons.

The most ridiculous bit was on the customs union, this idea that somehow we would be able to track goods that come in to the UK and end up on the EU market in advance is complete nonsense. 

Problem remains, her beautifully crafted compromise, that would amount to the softest version possible of a Hard Brexit, will not survive the negotiation one second. We are still well in cake cuckoo land.

The reality is that strategically speaking, the EU has no interest in such a compromise. They have no interest of keeping the UK close, unless it's with tied hands.

At least she is introducing the Brexit voters to the indisputable fact that they are going to be worse off. 

By the way doesn't the WTO have a "court" or something that we are going to have to defer to. And don't we have to acknowledge the international court of justice. Aren't there lots of arbitration bodies that we have to "obey" in order to conduct our business.

Mogadon

Yes, I understand she said this. I haven't heard the speech, for some reason the R4 seemed to report on it without playing any of it - presumably because it was all vacuous twaddle and they couldn't find any meaningful bits to extract? But did she say that it'll make us poorer, but that's actually a good thing, because economic growth is actually rubbish, and it's better being poor? Or did she concede that while it is bad being poor, the spiritual uplift we will gain from taking back control will outweigh the practical problems of not having a job or being able to afford to feed your children?

I don't understand how you can support Brexit, indeed be in charge of implementing it, and believe that it'll make us worse off. Is it going to make us poorer in the short-medium term, but the magic crystal ball tells her that in the long term it'll make us richer?

I did hear both Soubry and Reece-Mogg say they thought it was alright, which can only mean that she said absolutely nothing except "these are some words chosen very carefully so that neither Soubry nor Reece Mogg will rapidly eject toys from prams towards my face and I can continue skating feebly on this thin ice for another week or two".

Like I say, I haven't heard the speech but I'll be flabbergasted if this analysis doesn't prove to be accurate. 

I listened to most of the speech on Sky News. It was, at least, a speech in grown up language. I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt : she feels she is the only grown-up in the room and feels she has a duty to see it through because if the Brexit Ayn Randists get hold of the reins we are going to be well and truly knackered. The new word is "pragmatic". I predict the "taking back control" mantra is going to be heard less and less frequently over the coming months.

I'm reminded of the Yorkshire toast :

Eat all , sup all, pay nowt!

As a succinct way of expressing the Brexit policy with regard to Europe.