Non - Brexit

Don't worry. Theresa May has declared she's on our side and none of this mess is her fault. Well, madam, you're not on my side nor the 16.5 million people who voted to remain. You're on your own.
 
And how does his announcement "interfere"? I'd argue it doesn't at all. It may try ad influence but it plainly doesn't interfere.
If Donald Tusk was trying to "influence" the UK parliament he would something like;

"Don't you think it would be better if .... ?
""Why not consider .... ?
or even,
"In my opinion, you might ...

But, no.

Donald Tusk's exact words were:

“In the light of the consultations that I have conducted over the past days I believe that a short extension will be possible but to be conditional on a positive vote on the withdrawal agreement in the House of Commons,”

The word "conditional" is a rather large clue, isn't it?

He means, you either do as I say, or ...

As this has degenerated into a debate over semantics, let me make it absolutely clear what Donald Tusk said.

The UK will only get an extension if Parliament votes for a deal.

Interference, abso-jolly-lutely. Other words such as, coercion, manipulation are not entirely out of place, are they?
 
Don't worry. Theresa May has declared she's on our side and none of this mess is her fault. Well, madam, you're not on my side nor the 16.5 million people who voted to remain. You're on your own.
Didn't the "we are all in this together" mantra go out of style when Dodgy Dave took his ball home and ran away?
 
...David Cameron epitomised all that is wrong with politicians, especially those who are in power governing the country. He was complacent, ill advised and so out of touch with those he was supposed to be representing. The only good thing he did was to resign (in shame) at the mess he left behind.

That said we have had plenty of time to either tell The Eu that they either agree to a deal that was balanced and fair to The UK or we walk away and leave them to contemplate one of their richest members aborting all ties.

Unfortunately where our politicians should have shown strength and rigid decision we have shown weakness and fragility, thus allowing The EU to pull us apart.
 
As this has degenerated into a debate over semantics, let me make it absolutely clear what Donald Tusk said.

The UK will only get an extension if Parliament votes for a deal.
As this is still a debate over semantics, let me make it absolutely less clear what Donald Tusk said.

The UK will only get a short extension if Parliament votes for a deal.

That says nothing about a long extension. Tusk, for good reasons or bad, is right. There is not enough time in the short extension to do any other good apart from ratify May's deal or to decide after all to No-Deal it. Since the only thing Parliament has been clear on so far is that it doesn't want No Deal, that leaves May's deal. Those are May's words and his. They are both effectively banging the same drum.

So if they don't want May's deal - and after last night's speech I think that's less likely than ever - then what's the point of a short extension? Go long or don't go at all. May herself and her team said as much 48 hours ago.
 
If Donald Tusk was trying to "influence" the UK parliament he would something like;

"Don't you think it would be better if .... ?
""Why not consider .... ?
or even,
"In my opinion, you might ...

But, no.

Donald Tusk's exact words were:

“In the light of the consultations that I have conducted over the past days I believe that a short extension will be possible but to be conditional on a positive vote on the withdrawal agreement in the House of Commons,”

The word "conditional" is a rather large clue, isn't it?

He means, you either do as I say, or ...

As this has degenerated into a debate over semantics, let me make it absolutely clear what Donald Tusk said.

The UK will only get an extension if Parliament votes for a deal.

Interference, abso-jolly-lutely. Other words such as, coercion, manipulation are not entirely out of place, are they?
Man appointed to negotiate on behalf of 27 parties with a mandate from them in order to present a clear and united front rather than going back every ten minutes and trying to negotiate every detail with all 27 is more effective at making his side present a strong position than... whatever the heck is going on the other side shock.

I admit it isn't the snappiest of headlines.

It's his job to get a deal through on behalf of the EU, not to pander to the wants and needs of May or UK parliament. He's negotiated and agreed a deal with the UK. It got rejected by the UK parliament, not at his end. He then reopened the negotiations at the request of the UK and agreed a new deal. That also got rejected by UK parliament.

Putting pressure on the UK to accept the deal that has been (re)negotiated by the UK team with him and agreed as acceptable by the UK team with him isn't interfering. It's telling them this is what you asked and agreed to, why should we now change everything again because you don't know what the heck you want?

Try and pin the blame on the EU all you want, but this is a mess on the side of the UK and the ridiculous party politics that has been played by the two party leaders and the factions within in their parties in what should have been something where some level of consensus across the house was sought from the start.
 
If Donald Tusk was trying to "influence" the UK parliament he would something like;

"Don't you think it would be better if .... ?
""Why not consider .... ?
or even,
"In my opinion, you might ...

But, no.

Donald Tusk's exact words were:

“In the light of the consultations that I have conducted over the past days I believe that a short extension will be possible but to be conditional on a positive vote on the withdrawal agreement in the House of Commons,”

The word "conditional" is a rather large clue, isn't it?

He means, you either do as I say, or ...

As this has degenerated into a debate over semantics, let me make it absolutely clear what Donald Tusk said.

The UK will only get an extension if Parliament votes for a deal.

Interference, abso-jolly-lutely. Other words such as, coercion, manipulation are not entirely out of place, are they?
That's what he said but if they don't vote for the WA he'll come up with something else. It's a fairly hollow threat designed to influence the outcome of the vote. Sounds like it was dreamed up by him and May and it's almost as useless as her terrible speach last night.
 
As this is still a debate over semantics, let me make it absolutely less clear what Donald Tusk said.

The UK will only get a short extension if Parliament votes for a deal.

That says nothing about a long extension. Tusk, for good reasons or bad, is right. There is not enough time in the short extension to do any other good apart from ratify May's deal or to decide after all to No-Deal it. Since the only thing Parliament has been clear on so far is that it doesn't want No Deal, that leaves May's deal. Those are May's words and his. They are both effectively banging the same drum.

So if they don't want May's deal - and after last night's speech I think that's less likely than ever - then what's the point of a short extension? Go long or don't go at all. May herself and her team said as much 48 hours ago.
:clap:
 
Man appointed to negotiate on behalf of 27 parties with a mandate from them in order to present a clear and united front rather than going back every ten minutes and trying to negotiate every detail with all 27 is more effective at making his side present a strong position than... whatever the heck is going on the other side shock.

I admit it isn't the snappiest of headlines.

It's his job to get a deal through on behalf of the EU, not to pander to the wants and needs of May or UK parliament. He's negotiated and agreed a deal with the UK. It got rejected by the UK parliament, not at his end. He then reopened the negotiations at the request of the UK and agreed a new deal. That also got rejected by UK parliament.
NO.

The role of the President is set out in article 15 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU). In particular, the President of the European Council is responsible for:
  • chairing European Council meetings and driving forward its work
  • ensuring the preparation of European Council meetings and the continuity of their work, in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council configuration
  • helping to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council
  • presenting a report to the European Parliament after each European Council meeting
The President of the European Council also ensures the external representation of the EU at the level of heads of state or government:
  • on issues related to the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), alongside the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy who helps put into effect the CFSP and ensure its unity, consistency and effectiveness
  • at international summits, usually alongside the President of the European Commission
It's all there, if you look.

Donald Tusk does not have a mandate to negotiate on behalf of or speak for the member states, let alone cajole or interfere with any member states' parliament.

Oh and don't forget, Britain is a member of the EU too!

PS. Regarding the text in bold red. Donald Tusk has not negotiated anything at all to do with the conditions for Brexit. This is the job of the Commision, NOT the Council.

Does anyone actually bother to find out how the EU functions? If the EU is so wonderful and great, why do so few people take the trouble to understand who does what, how, why and when?
 
NO.

The role of the President is set out in article 15 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU). In particular, the President of the European Council is responsible for:
  • chairing European Council meetings and driving forward its work
  • ensuring the preparation of European Council meetings and the continuity of their work, in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council configuration
  • helping to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council
  • presenting a report to the European Parliament after each European Council meeting
The President of the European Council also ensures the external representation of the EU at the level of heads of state or government:
  • on issues related to the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), alongside the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy who helps put into effect the CFSP and ensure its unity, consistency and effectiveness
  • at international summits, usually alongside the President of the European Commission
It's all there, if you look.

Donald Tusk does not have a mandate to negotiate on behalf of or speak for the member states, let alone cajole or interfere with any member states' parliament.

Oh and don't forget, Britain is a member of the EU too!

PS. Regarding the text in bold red. Donald Tusk has not negotiated anything at all to do with the conditions for Brexit. This is the job of the Commision, NOT the Council.

Does anyone actually bother to find out how the EU functions? If the EU is so wonderful and great, why do so few people take the trouble to understand who does what, how, why and when?
Here we go with the Erik logic. ;)
 
Tusk, for good reasons or bad, is right. There is not enough time in the short extension to do any other good apart from ratify May's deal or to decide after all to No-Deal it. Since the only thing Parliament has been clear on so far is that it doesn't want No Deal, that leaves May's deal. Those are May's words and his. They are both effectively banging the same drum.
True, in that eight days is not enough time to negotiate a new agreement

May's deal has been sunk twice now. It gives to many concessions to the EU for the leavers to stomach and doesn't give a customs union to placate the remainers.

So, it's May's deal or no deal, eh?

Or why not simply revoke article 50 and start again?