Vortex2 wrote:Hmmm .. I don't recollect for voting for Stay in EU or Leave EU but with a 'deal' which ties the UK to the EU.
& therein lies the problem...., the Referendum was so ill defined....
Although Mrs May says that 'Brexit means Brexit', there are many shades of Brexit.
Trouble is, everybody who voted Brexit thinks that their shade is the 'correct' one, and what everyone else voted for also.....
This is clearly not the case.
No it wasn't ill defined. That is a lie. Both sides of the campaign, at the very highest level, in public, on the record, over and over again, made it unambiguously and transparently clear that this was an in or out referendum and that, if Leave won, would maen leaving the single market and customs union
Granted, some people said that, but many others put a different spin on it. You know that, but you only want to see your version of Brexit - see above
The additional issue was that no country has done this before, so there's no blueprint/model to follow. All this is new ground.
I'm sure many other countries/parties are watching this very closely.
Almost more interesting than what Corbyn and the PM said to each other this afternoon was who accompanied the Labour leader to the meeting.
He was joined by his chief of staff Karie Murphy and his director of strategy Seumas Milne (as well as the chief whip Nick Brown) but not by his Brexit secretary Keir Starmer.
Why does that matter?
In the battle over whether Labour should ever back a Brexit referendum or People's Vote, Murphy and Milne are implacably opposed, and Starmer is battling to keep that option alive.
So it matters that in choosing to explain what kind of Brexit deal Labour would support, Corbyn was accompanied by the two influential aides who are convinced that Labour should deliver Brexit and not ask the views of the people again.
This was a signal, his colleagues say, of Corbyn's own clear preference to avoid another referendum.
What also matters is that Corbyn felt - I am told - that the meeting was more than a going through the motions, that the Prime Minister genuinely listened and probed, as he and his colleagues outlined their plan for membership of the customs union, partial membership of the EU's single market, and further protections for workers' rights.
In terms of the technical nitty gritty, Corbyn and team said they wanted dynamic alignment with the EU on employment regulations - as opposed to the standstill written into the so-called backstop - and non-regression or a standstill on state aid rules.
This seems to me all of a piece with a pincer movement by Milne and Murphy with Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, to try to engineer a Brexit deal before 29 March that Labour could officially fall in behind - since McCluskey too, who is close to Corbyn, is set against a referendum.
McCluskey, for example, on Monday met the business secretary Greg Clark - who as it happens is on my show tonight - to discuss legislation to protect and extend workers' right after Brexit.
And tomorrow more junior officials from Unite, the TUC, the GMB and Unison will meet Sarah Healey, the director of economic and domestic affairs at the Cabinet Office and Chris Thompson from the business department to take the agenda forward on what the government can do to secure trade union support for Brexit.
For what it's worth, my understanding is that Corbyn sees the failure to secure a majority yesterday of the Cooper and Grieve motions - and Labour's own one, which explicitly mentions the possibility of a referendum - as proof that MPs really don't want a People's Vote.
Even more striking is that those close to Labour's leader tell me they can indeed envisage a moment in the coming weeks when it will be official Labour policy to vote for a Brexit plan.
Those at the top of Labour, and in the grassroots, who want a referendum should fear they are being properly outmanoeuvred.
So, as expected, it looks like life-long Brexiteer Corbyn will ensure that Brexit happens! Wonderful news.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
EU isn't going to capitulate on the backstop, not just because it doesn't want to, but because it can't. If it tries to reopen the WA, the Spanish and French will demand concessions on fisheries and Gibraltar.
Tories are closing ranks. They all care far more about tory party unity than they do about brexit, provided some sort of brexit takes place (ie May's deal or no deal). If no deal happens, they'll just try to blame the EU and Jeremy Corbyn. But it looks like whatever happens, they won't vote with the opposition on a VonC, it now looks unlikely May will call an election. She'll let no deal happen before that.
And Labour is not going to bail the tories out. They will not vote for May's deal and they won't abstain in order to let it slip through. If no deal happens, they'll blame the tories.
All sides are now maneuovering to avoid blame and minimise damage rather than actually breaking the deadlock, and I can't see what is going to change things.
So, as expected, it looks like life-long Brexiteer Corbyn will ensure that Brexit happens! Wonderful news.
Not necessarily. If Corbyn can ensure brexit happens in a way that breaks the tory party, he'll do it. What he won't do is allow the tories to use Labour both to get brexit through and minimise damage to tory party at the same time. There would have to be a price.
UE may just needs enough Labour mps to support her by voting for her deal or abstaining. Already 16 Labour mps rebelled against Corbyn to reject the cooper amendment.
You assume Corbyn is in full control of his party. He is not.
Lord Beria3 wrote:UE may just needs enough Labour mps to support her by voting for her deal or abstaining. Already 16 Labour mps rebelled against Corbyn to reject the cooper amendment.
Rebelling to stop the Cooper amendment is not the same as rebelling to support May's deal. The Cooper amendment was seen as trying to stop brexit completely. It was leading to no brexit. Being asked to support May's deal in order to prevent no deal is a completely different ball game. Even if some Labour MPs were to rebel on that, they would be different MPs to the 16 that rejected Cooper's amendment.
It's the difference between being anti-no-brexit and anti-no-deal. But the bottom line is I don't believe more than two or three Labour MPs would ever vote for May's deal with the backstop in place. More like none at all would.
All sides are now maneuovering to avoid blame and minimise damage rather than actually breaking the deadlock, and I can't see what is going to change things.
Problem is they're only focused on minimising damage to their electoral prospects and keeping their pretty cushy jobs rather than generalised damage to everybody else. I can't see what is going to change things either. Things being said by politicians seem to get more absurd by the day. It is real last days in the bunker stuff.
Overconfidence, not just expert overconfidence but general overconfidence,
is one of the most common illusions we experience. Stan Robinson
"Arriving separately, Mr Banks told the Press Association that the DUP MPs had been very supportive of the campaign he was involved in for the UK to leave the EU, and said that he wanted to reciprocate that.
“I think the DUP have been fundamental, if Brexit gets delivered, it will be because of the DUP,� he said."
Overconfidence, not just expert overconfidence but general overconfidence,
is one of the most common illusions we experience. Stan Robinson
I see the eu have described gibraltar as a 'british colony' at the behest of spain. Pathetic eu. Pathetic spain. Pathetic europeans. Pathetic spanish.
The dup have a real pr problem. 'Loyalist' communities in general have this. But boy, they are right to be worried.
I've said it before. The eu is doomed simply because it can't go beyond itself and leave its individual nation roots. Oh, and the fact that each member has a knife at its throat AND one at its back. Nice.
Pathetic EU
And this guff about worries that the uk will shift to an extreme right. When europe has been IN THE RECENT PAST littered with countries with questionable rulers and governments.
Last edited by Snail on 01 Feb 2019, 23:22, edited 1 time in total.
What is it with europe. I'd have been interested in voting remain if they showed any direction and belief about being a third power offering an alternative view in the world. Something different from usa and china. But little to nothing. I guess they're ashamed (quite rightly too) about their past. Hitler, franco, mussolini, vichy, etc. Maybe their shame has embarrassed the eu into paralysis. What good is it for the world.
Maybe that's why they seem so diabolical when dealing with the uk. They haven't got over the war! Right vs wrong. Afterall, chaining countries with the euro is troublesome enough. I've always felt the idea that the eu is punishing the uk to prevent others from leaving is overblown. The euro automatically tripples the difficulty of an italian or greek exit afterall. This is personal.
They would probably prefer the uk outside their Eu 'project'. Britain is different than mainland europe. Shared suffering brings people together, and the uk suffered against much of europe. Come on Eu negotiators. Get smart, and save yourself some later pain.
Last edited by Snail on 01 Feb 2019, 23:37, edited 1 time in total.
Mark wrote:
& therein lies the problem...., the Referendum was so ill defined....
Although Mrs May says that 'Brexit means Brexit', there are many shades of Brexit.
Trouble is, everybody who voted Brexit thinks that their shade is the 'correct' one, and what everyone else voted for also.....
This is clearly not the case.
No it wasn't ill defined. That is a lie. Both sides of the campaign, at the very highest level, in public, on the record, over and over again, made it unambiguously and transparently clear that this was an in or out referendum and that, if Leave won, would maen leaving the single market and customs union
Granted, some people said that, but many others put a different spin on it. You know that, but you only want to see your version of Brexit - see above
The additional issue was that no country has done this before, so there's no blueprint/model to follow. All this is new ground.
I'm sure many other countries/parties are watching this very closely.
For fracks sake. They have the euro. This benefits germany. At the expense of everybody else. The wealth flows to germany and they can't recycle and use a fair mechanism to resend some of this wealth back to the other countries.
So other countries become beggars, and their people vote for more and more extreme parties who ....
