Brexit discussion thread III

First Up

blanch152 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The story it tells is that the integrity of the Single Market is not up for discussion. If a hard border is to be avoided, it is for the UK to to ensure the necessary compliance.

What it is really telling the UK is that it is wasting its time trying to use the Irish border as a negotiating tool for market access.

So when it comes down to it and the UK says our measures to avoid a hard border are the following technical measures blah blah blah, and the EU says we don't agree to that, and are imposing a hard border, the UK can say we met our commitment, you just didn't agree to it. And everyone can just walk away and Ireland is left with the problem.

Now, being honest, I don't see things getting that far as the UK will end up in a quasi Single Market situation if they have any sense, but if it goes badly, it is possible.

Yes, quite possible.

Professor Moriarty

blanch152 wrote: »

So when it comes down to it and the UK says our measures to avoid a hard border are the following technical measures blah blah blah, and the EU says we don't agree to that, and are imposing a hard border, the UK can say we met our commitment, you just didn't agree to it. And everyone can just walk away and Ireland is left with the problem.

Now, being honest, I don't see things getting that far as the UK will end up in a quasi Single Market situation if they have any sense, but if it goes badly, it is possible.

If we step away from a purely economic perspective for a moment, that would a politically stupid position to take considering the continuing divisions in NI. If one side 'wins' from whatever form of border/Brexit emerges then the other side 'loses' and we all know where that road takes us all including Britain.

cml387

Meanwhile away from the deary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone, the British government are facing defeat in the commons on the Brexit bill tonight.

BBC News:

The government is facing the threat of a defeat by rebel backbenchers when MPs vote on its flagship EU legislation.
Led by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve - a Conservative MP - the rebels want to insert a legal guarantee that MPs should get a vote on any final Brexit deal before it is finalised.

And Mrs May is facing a trip to Brussels tomorrow.

First Up

cml387 wrote: »

Meanwhile away from the deary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone, the British government are facing defeat in the commons on the Brexit bill tonight.

Whether MPs like the final Brexit deal or not is irrelevant. Its the deal they will get.

Tell me how

First Up wrote:

Whether MPs like the final Brexit deal or not is irrelevant. Its the deal they will get.

It's not irrelevant. If she can't get it accepted. She'll end up going, likely will be a GE and Corbyn will come in.

I'm not saying it'll get better, for them, but it's far from irrelevant.

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

Whether MPs like the final Brexit deal or not is irrelevant. Its the deal they will get.

Exactly. This reality didn't stop Gove spouting nonsense again last week when he said that voters will be able to change the deal if they don't like it. No they won't. They can change the government after the deal and the new government may wish to go back to the negotiating table. But they may well find the table empty.

cml387

First Up wrote: »

Whether MPs like the final Brexit deal or not is irrelevant. Its the deal they will get.

Well it's the "take it or leave it " approach that is concerning MP's.
The vote would be :- accept the deal or it's a hard Brexit.
That is gun to the head stuff.

Water John

Tories will give way to Grieve motion. They got their noses bloodied on this before. Parliament not Govn't is legally paramount.

First Up

Tell me how wrote: »

First Up wrote:

Whether MPs like the final Brexit deal or not is irrelevant. Its the deal they will get.

It's not irrelevant. If she can't get it accepted. She'll end up going, likely will be a GE and Corbyn will come in.

I'm not saying it'll get better, for them, but it's far from irrelevant.

Its irrelevant to the EU.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Tories will give way to Grieve motion. They got their noses bloodied on this before. Parliament not Govn't is legally paramount.

They've been giving way on a lot of motions around Brexit where they knew they would be defeated. Such are the vagaries of a tiny majority.

blanch152

First Up wrote: »

Its irrelevant to the EU.

True, and it is clear that the EU is prepared to sacrifice the UK's interests in order to protect the SM and CU. The EU has been sending this message since day one.

The problem for Ireland is that we are also not as important as the SM and CU.

First Up

blanch152 wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Its irrelevant to the EU.

True, and it is clear that the EU is prepared to sacrifice the UK's interests in order to protect the SM and CU. The EU has been sending this message since day one.

The problem for Ireland is that we are also not as important as the SM and CU.

That'd why the EU put the border at the top of the agenda and has forced a sizeable commitment from the UK. This has both removed the border as a market access lever and made the price of reneging on that commitment high enough to soften the cough of all but the most pig ignorant Brexiteers.

UK politics are in such a mess that you couldn't trust them to do anything but there isn't much more the EU can do at this stage.

Tell me how

First Up wrote:

Its irrelevant to the EU.

Not exactly. Davis will go in this scenario and it will prolong the process or have them constantly referring to the unagreed agreement.

Not saying the EU will care much, but again it ultimately is relevant.

steddyeddy

Irelabd to ay an important, distinct role in phase 2 of the trade negotiations. The DUP should love this.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/2017/12/13/news/ireland-given-distinct-strand-in-brexit-trade-negotiations-1209234/

First Up

Tell me how wrote: »

First Up wrote:

Its irrelevant to the EU.

Not exactly. Davis will go in this scenario and it will prolong the process or have them constantly referring to the unagreed agreement.

Not saying the EU will care much, but again it ultimately is relevant.

The EU is dealing with the UK government, not parliament.

MPs can make all the noise they want and Davis can listen to them if he likes. It doesn't affect the EU.

Water John

But the EU knows how weak UK Govn't, and their word is (Davis). Now insisting its legally written. That brings UK Parliament, to the fore. There really cheesed off with Davis's back tracking, at the weekend.

flaneur

steddyeddy wrote: »

Irelabd to ay an important, distinct role in phase 2 of the trade negotiations. The DUP should love this.

https://www.irishnews.com/news/2017/12/13/news/ireland-given-distinct-strand-in-brexit-trade-negotiations-1209234/

They're going to have to get through their heads that Ireland is a long established member of the EU and not only that but one of the core that make up the Eurozone.

The UK is about to become a third country and non member and has always had a semidetached and even hostile relationship with the EU institutions and is coming across as only wanting to use them for their ample markets and other than that mocks and undermines.

Yet when it comes to negations, there's shock and outrage that a core member that is going to be hugely impacted by all of this will be backed up by the EU?!

There's a persisting lack of understanding in the UK about what leaving the EU means. You are no longer going to be a member state and will be treated as a competitor and only worked with where it suits the EU. They're not going to bend over backwards to facilitate anything and they will no longer particularly care what happens the UK, as long as it doesn't impact the EU.
Sure, there might be some mutual projects between the two but, as it stands the UK has threatened to be a tax and regulatory haven which I don't think will go well for relations with the EU or the USA for that matter either.

You're divorced - you move on. That's what you voted for.

First Up

Water John wrote: »

But the EU knows how weak UK Govn't, and their word is (Davis). Now insisting its legally written. That brings UK Parliament, to the fore. There really cheesed off with Davis's back tracking, at the weekend.

Its calling out Davis for his play-acting. The UK is discovering the hard way that the old practice of constructive ambiguity is no longer available to them.

It doesn't make parliament any more of a factor. The UK took parliament out of it by entrusting the country's future to an idiotic referendum. Now its just background noise.

Water John

Referendum was not legally binding, Parliament is sovereign.
Agree on Davis. The fact that we are part of the Euro Currency Group gives us a lot more standing.

flaneur

I think you're also seeing a big difference in political and governmental mentality. The British system is all about ambiguities. You've an unwritten constitution that's interpreted like reading the tealeaves, an as hoc and somewhat chaotic system of devolution which is completely confusing, all sorts of fudges in the governmental system that allow weird things to persist like having the bishops of the Church of England sitting in the legislature as Lords etc etc etc.

Then you've a political layer of "winner takes all" rather than proportionality or a sense that you've got to seek consensus positions. That's very at odds with most of Northern Europe (including Ireland) and also the EU itself

Meanwhile the EU system comes largely from a post WWII, rational, secular, technocratic, written, accurate, civil code type background.

Everything is about locking-down meaning and removing ambiguity and ensuring everyone understands exactly what is meant, even in multiple working languages.

It's all about written treaties, negotiated and mutually understood unambiguous positions, finding compromises, but clearly.

It's like chalk and cheese. You can't just waffle your way through this. It simply won't work. They do lovely waffles in Brussels, but only the edible type.

First Up

Water John wrote: »

Referendum was not legally binding, Parliament is sovereign.
Agree on Davis. The fact that we are part of the Euro Currency Group gives us a lot more standing.

Except that parliament ceded sovereignty to the referendum result. Many MPs voted for Brexit on the strength of the referendum, even though they were against it.

They abdicated their responsibility; they can't bring it back selectively.

Water John

Yeah, the Civil Code goes right back to Napoleon standardising his Empire.

ancapailldorcha

Keir Starmer, perhaps the best hope for many Europhiles has just whipped MP's into abstaining on voting for a Liberal Democrat amendment which would have prevented MP's voting to create barriers to the single market. In short, the question of where Labour stands on the EU remains unresolved.

https://twitter.com/tony_nog/status/940875608141287424

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Keir Starmer, perhaps the best hope for many Europhiles has just whipped MP's into abstaining on voting for a Liberal Democrat amendment which would have prevented MP's voting to create barriers to the single market. In short, the question of where Labour stands on the EU remains unresolved.

https://twitter.com/tony_nog/status/940875608141287424

Labour has no more credibility in this than the Tories.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

Labour has no more credibility in this than the Tories.

It's likely that they're going to be in power given the state of the latter. It'd be farcical if they fall on the same sword the Tories are currently impaled on.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Labour has no more credibility in this than the Tories.

It's likely that they're going to be in power given the state of the latter. It'd be farcical if they fall on the same sword the Tories are currently impaled on.

I have no confidence that they would be much better.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's likely that they're going to be in power given the state of the latter. It'd be farcical if they fall on the same sword the Tories are currently impaled on.

It really wouldn't, you know.

And fall on the same sword they would, given the ideological chasm that separates the Corbyn clique from the Blairite clique.

One of the many reasons why I still can't see the UK (government and/or Parliament) managing to square the Brexit circle in good time by October 2018/March 2019.

flaneur

Water John wrote: »

Yeah, the Civil Code goes right back to Napoleon standardising his Empire.

Well, most countries, including Ireland and the US don't use purely common law and are at least partially codified. The lack of a clear constitution or even description of how the state should be structured is quite bizzarely unique to the UK.

backspin.

flaneur wrote: »

They're going to have to get through their heads that Ireland is a long established member of the EU and not only that but one of the core that make up the Eurozone.

Ireland is a net contributor to the EU these days so i'm sure the EU would like to ensure that continues and we don't go back to being a drain on the EU resources.

ambro25

flaneur wrote: »

Well, most countries, including Ireland and the US don't use purely common law and are at least partially codified. The lack of a clear constitution or even description of how the state should be structured is quite bizzarely unique to the UK.

With respect, Ireland is a common law jurisdiction and the UK is replete with substantially the same paraphernalia of Acts, SIs <etc.> as the Republic (ironically enough, many of them lifted wholesale from the UK at the time of gaining its independence or since, and that state of statutory affairs is typical of the UK's ex-colonies).

The UK does lack a written Constitution, but has a non-trivial body of written statutes and case law, which provide a sufficiently firm basis to genuinely confer it the moniker of "constitutional law". Recently visited by the Supreme Court, fairly comprehensively, in the government's appeal of the Miller win at first instance on the topic of sovereignty.

It's certainly a bag of snakes that takes a lot of straightening given any particular set of circumstances or politico-legal imbroglio (e.g. and topically, Henry VIII powers, Humble Address), relative to the (comparatively-) crystalline clarity of a written constitution on the Irish, French, American (or other) model. But it would be wrong to hold that, because the UK lacks a written constitution, its internal affairs are not arranged on a statutory bedrock. The Supreme Court judgement to which I referred above, bears that fact.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

It really wouldn't, you know.

And fall on the same sword they would, given the ideological chasm that separates the Corbyn clique from the Blairite clique.

One of the many reasons why I still can't see the UK (government and/or Parliament) managing to square the Brexit circle in good time by October 2018/March 2019.

I disagree. The turmoil within the Conservative party should be spurring their opponent to try and agree on some sort of common ground. Jeremy Corbyn is heading for number 10 and isn't daft enough to see the damage being done to the Tory party. If they don't fix this and get elected it'll be the same nonsense again and again unless some sort of UK En Marche appears.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. The turmoil within the Conservative party should be spurring their opponent to try and agree on some sort of common ground. Jeremy Corbyn is heading for number 10 and isn't daft enough to see the damage being done to the Tory party. If they don't fix this and get elected it'll be the same nonsense again and again unless some sort of UK En Marche appears.

I have zero doubt that Mr Corbyn has long been fully aware of the self-inflicting damage which the Conservatives are still merrily engaging in to this day, in fact since long before the referendum was even promulgated by Act in 2015.

That does not mean that he owns enough political capital to permanently silence the Europhile wing of his party and, insofar as his stance about the EU is concerned, by the historical evidence of his votes going back decades, and the common political make-up of his closest circle (à la McDonnell) Mr Corbyn is not for turning.

So I see Labour in-fighting over Brexit just as inevitable as the ongoing Conservatives in-fighting, with the background tic-toc'ing acting as an accelerant.

flaneur

Water John wrote: »

Yeah, the Civil Code goes right back to Napoleon standardising his Empire.

It goes back along way before that and it tends to be associated with a notion in the French republican tradition that the law needs to be accessible to all and not some obscure system that has to be interpreted by expensive lawyers.

My point isn't even about common law vs civil code.

The UK is uniquely chaotic in how it structures its constitutional structure. It's all a big ambiguous fudge that somehow works. Most other common law jurisdictions, including Ireland and the US federal system, have pretty clear structures and written constitutions. There's also a bigger focus on primary legislation. Also codification of law isn't unique to civil code. Common law Systems do it too.

Ireland actually going through a process of codifying criminal law that's been running since 2002.

Our current criminal law is a bit of a mess and that’s part of the reason you see such enormous variations in outcomes of cases that go to trial. Some quite serious crimes end up being tried, often relying on citing precedents that are very ambiguous or very very old and of questionable use in 2017. It’s even worse in a small country where certain crimes are (thankfully) rare, so precedent is poorly developed and you end up citing cases that could be ridiculously old. Over that time social mores have changed, society has changed etc etc etc. So, the relevance is highlu questionable.

My point however about the EU vs the UK is that the EU bases itself on facts and documents. The UK bases itself on politics and interpretation of ambiguous precedents and language.

Political waffle vs logic. Logic will win.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

I have zero doubt that Mr Corbyn has long been fully aware of the self-inflicting damage which the Conservatives are still merrily engaging in to this day, in fact since long before the referendum was even promulgated by Act in 2015.

That does not mean that he owns enough political capital to permanently silence the Europhile wing of his party and, insofar as his stance about the EU is concerned, by the historical evidence of his votes going back decades, and the common political make-up of his closest circle (à la McDonnell) Mr Corbyn is not for turning.

So I see Labour in-fighting over Brexit just as inevitable as the ongoing Conservatives in-fighting, with the background tic-toc'ing acting as an accelerant.

I'm not advocating silencing anyone. My point is that as leader he needs to get both factions to agree to some sort of compromise. Losing access to the world's most lucrative single market isn't going to help unions one iota.

cml387

Corbyn can still see Labour losing its gains in an election against the backdrop of a shoddy EU compromise to a resurgent UKIP who would doubtless allege that the ordinary people's referendum win had been overturned by the establishment.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not advocating silencing anyone. My point is that as leader he needs to get both factions to agree to some sort of compromise. Losing access to the world's most lucrative single market isn't going to help unions one iota.

That is well understood here...But how do you reconcile this point, with the factuality of the continuing "constructive ambiguity" of Labour about Brexit, as manifested e.g. in your own post #1524 of 12:07?

It's one thing to maintain ambiguity in interviews, speeches and sound bites to curry and husband political favour across the voting spectrum, from (of late-) EU-loving Unions to EU-hating die hard communists, as Labour did pre-GE2017 and still.

But quite another to embrace Brexit when it actually matters (in the sense of your point), i.e. at each Parliamentary ballot, with substantially the same gusto as the Conservatives, in the same time period.

"Do as I say, not as I do" springs to mind. Well, some of us are paying attention to the "doing" as well as the "saying": so far, that Labour "doing" says the exact same Brexit as the Conservatives. Until I'm given reason to believe different, that looks, walks and quacks like Corbyn's ideological alignment.

Enzokk

ambro25 wrote: »

I have zero doubt that Mr Corbyn has long been fully aware of the self-inflicting damage which the Conservatives are still merrily engaging in to this day, in fact since long before the referendum was even promulgated by Act in 2015.

That does not mean that he owns enough political capital to permanently silence the Europhile wing of his party and, insofar as his stance about the EU is concerned, by the historical evidence of his votes going back decades, and the common political make-up of his closest circle (à la McDonnell) Mr Corbyn is not for turning.

So I see Labour in-fighting over Brexit just as inevitable as the ongoing Conservatives in-fighting, with the background tic-toc'ing acting as an accelerant.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not advocating silencing anyone. My point is that as leader he needs to get both factions to agree to some sort of compromise. Losing access to the world's most lucrative single market isn't going to help unions one iota.

I think that Labour will be in the same position as the Tories if they get into power before article 50 is concluded. There is still a huge amount of people out there that believe in Brexit and want to leave the EU no matter what. They see the EU as a bureaucratic mess because that is what they have been told. For Labour the problem is if you commit to a soft Brexit you lose those votes. A lot of people in traditional Labour areas voted to leave the EU.

Jeremy Corbyn I feel is probably, like the SNP, biding his time and letting the Conservatives dig that hole they are currently digging as deep as they want to. What they don't want to do is fall in while watching. The country is steadily going backwards and the local problems will not go away with Brexit. The NHS will still be underfunded and under pressure. There will still be a housing crisis and wages will keep falling due to Brexit and inflation. Labour doesn't have to light the dynamite stick of taking a position, any position, on Brexit because the current government is doing such a smashing job of it so far. Let the Conservatives get to toxic and once they pass a point where it doesn't matter what position Labour takes it won't matter as people would then just want to get rid of the other guys. That is what happened in 2010, and it will probably happen with the next election.

The official stance for Labour on Brexit is pretty much as the Conservatives, they just haven't set down red lines that will make them look like idiots when they break it.

It follows a BBC radio interview on Monday when Corbyn appeared to have softened the party’s position on staying in the single market. He said Labour was flexible as long as the UK was still able to trade within the single market after Brexit.

“We want a relationship which allows us to trade within the single market,” he said. “Whether that’s formal membership – which is only possible, I believe, if you are actually a member of the EU – or whether it’s an agreed trading relationship, is open for discussion. The outcome is more important than the nomenclature on the way.”

Jeremy Corbyn calls for UK to retain 'full access' to EU single market

kowtow

ambro25 wrote: »

I have zero doubt that Mr Corbyn has long been fully aware of the self-inflicting damage which the Conservatives are still merrily engaging in to this day, in fact since long before the referendum was even promulgated by Act in 2015.

That does not mean that he owns enough political capital to permanently silence the Europhile wing of his party and, insofar as his stance about the EU is concerned, by the historical evidence of his votes going back decades, and the common political make-up of his closest circle (à la McDonnell) Mr Corbyn is not for turning.

So I see Labour in-fighting over Brexit just as inevitable as the ongoing Conservatives in-fighting, with the background tic-toc'ing acting as an accelerant.

Exactly, it is easy to forget that while May has rebellious backbenchers on the question of Brexit, Corbyn does not yet enjoy the support of his Parliamentary party as a whole, albeit that they have stayed quieter since the Election.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

That is well understood here...But how do you reconcile this point, with the factuality of the continuing "constructive ambiguity" of Labour about Brexit, as manifested e.g. in your own post #1524 of 12:07?

It's one thing to maintain ambiguity in interviews, speeches and sound bites to curry and husband political favour across the voting spectrum, from (of late-) EU-loving Unions to EU-hating die hard communists, as Labour did pre-GE2017 and still.

But quite another to embrace Brexit when it actually matters (in the sense of your point), i.e. at each Parliamentary ballot, with substantially the same gusto as the Conservatives, in the same time period.

"Do as I say, not as I do" springs to mind. Well, some of us are paying attention to the "doing" as well as the "saying": so far, that Labour "doing" says the exact same Brexit as the Conservatives. Until I'm given reason to believe different, that looks, walks and quacks like Corbyn's ideological alignment.

Well, your honour I'm not a Corbyn supporter or even a Labour voter. I am simply expressing my dismay at Keir Starmer's political cowardice and duplicity in attempting to use "Constructive ambiguity" to secure victory which is an incredibly short-sighted and in the long term, suicidal strategy. Labour overspending will soon be replaced by Labour ambiguity or cluelessness or some expletive to be decided upon later.

Blowfish

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I disagree. The turmoil within the Conservative party should be spurring their opponent to try and agree on some sort of common ground. Jeremy Corbyn is heading for number 10 and isn't daft enough to see the damage being done to the Tory party. If they don't fix this and get elected it'll be the same nonsense again and again unless some sort of UK En Marche appears.

It could even be worse than the Tories. The City really really don't like his policies. If he had pivoted towards a soft Brexit, it wouldn't be quite so bad, but if Labour are still divided by the time he gets in, it'll likely cause a ramping up of the exodous of financial services.

murphaph

I think it's slowly dawning on Corbyn and his senior followers that leaving the SM will see such a reduction in living standards that it won't be worth it. Ideals are fine and well until they cost lives and livelihoods.

I can understand that they want to hold off for as long as possible before openly declaring Brexit to be a mistake because time allows the government to display how bad an idea it is.

However it's infuriating nonetheless.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, your honour

I work the other side of the fence

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not a Corbyn supporter or even a Labour voter. I am simply expressing my dismay at Keir Starmer's political cowardice and duplicity in attempting to use "Constructive ambiguity" to secure victory which is an incredibly short-sighted and in the long term, suicidal strategy. Labour overspending will soon be replaced by Labour ambiguity or cluelessness or some expletive to be decided upon later.

Personally, at this stage, Stamer's naked opportunism is no more aggravating to me, than the continuing antics of Davis & Co, and Farage before them: politicians will be politicians and act like politicians, everything is smoke and mirrors, and fair game for the sake of clinging on and inching up that greasy pole. "National interest"? DFQ is that?

The EU referendum and, more than that, its political exploitation to date, is the epitome of that state of affairs. If you could cast yourself back 20, or even 10, years ago, I daresay you couldn't even imagine everything that's happened in the UK since February 2016, so far are the facts beyond belief. It's like a dystopia slowly materialising for real.

So long as the current bunch of UK politicians remain in charge of handling Brexit, and the FPTP system remains the voting system in place, them's your apples. Which is, amongst so many other reasons, why we're leaving. "People get the government they deserve", in this day and age still. And in the current context -which is no different than other periods of nationalistic protectionism that followed severe economical crises- it pays not to be an "other". Word to the wise and all that.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, your honour I'm not a Corbyn supporter or even a Labour voter. I am simply expressing my dismay at Keir Starmer's political cowardice and duplicity in attempting to use "Constructive ambiguity" to secure victory which is an incredibly short-sighted and in the long term, suicidal strategy. Labour overspending will soon be replaced by Labour ambiguity or cluelessness or some expletive to be decided upon later.

Good afternoon!

Why are you surprised? In the general election Labour ran on a manifesto that supported leaving the customs union and the single market. They have fluctuated between all positions in between.

Labour aren't the party of remain. They've got a substantial leave contingent and a fair number of leave supporting MPs. Corbyn is naturally biding his time to ensure that he won't alienate Labour voters who voted out.

If you want a remain party go for the Lib Dems or the SNP. I think the best policy for remainers is to seek the best exit from the EU at this stage. The "defeats" that the media are speaking about with such excitements are merely modifications to the exit legislation. It isn't to keep the UK in the EU.

I'd be interested to ask - what are you looking for and what do you expect? Moreover how realistic are these two things?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, your honour I'm not a Corbyn supporter or even a Labour voter. I am simply expressing my dismay at Keir Starmer's political cowardice and duplicity in attempting to use "Constructive ambiguity" to secure victory which is an incredibly short-sighted and in the long term, suicidal strategy. Labour overspending will soon be replaced by Labour ambiguity or cluelessness or some expletive to be decided upon later.

How could Labour be anything other than ambiguous? Nobody knows what the people voted for so how can Labour give them what they want? Did they vote for a hard Brexit? A soft Brexit? Do they want the sauce on the side? We know what the staunch Brexiteers want but is that what the people want? The only parties who can be definitive about Brexit are those who are solidly Remain.

Incidentally, I blame Corbyn's cowardly and lukewarm leadership of Labour for Brexit - especially during the campaign.

Peregrinus

blanch152 wrote: »

Having been involved in drafting international agreements albeit more than 20 years ago, I read them carefully for language. Those phrases are all carefully considered. Davis has already explained the difference between "no regulatory divergence" and "regulatory alignment".

Similarly there is a huge difference between being committed to doing something and having an agreement in place to do something. Take boards for example.

I am committed to avoiding warnings, infractions and bans. That is a genuine commitment and can be taken in good faith by everyone and I signed up to that commitment when joining. However, that commitment is a long long way from there being an agreement between me and all the mods that I won't get any warnings, infractions and bans (as the record suggests:)).

Similarly, the absence of the EU from the commitment to no hard border tells a very significant story.

It's important to put this in context. There are no commitment from the EU to avoid a hard border because the EU has already done everything it needs to do to deliver an open border. That's why we have an open border right now. The commitment of the EU to an open border is not in any doubt.

It's the decisions and actions of the UK that threaten the open border. Therefore, it's the UK that is being asked to offer assurances that it won't implement its decision in a way that threaten or result in a hard border. A similar commitment from the EU is not sought, because the EU is not doing anything to alter the status quo; only the UK is. Therefore the responsiblity for acting in a way which protects the open border rests with the UK. And the UK tacitly accepts this by entering into an agreement in which it guarantees to avoid a hard border, but does not seek a corresponding commitment from the EU.

Zubeneschamali

murphaph wrote: »

I think it's slowly dawning on Corbyn and his senior followers that leaving the SM will see such a reduction in living standards that it won't be worth it.

There is also the fact that many of the new voters for Labour last election (and the most enthusiastic) are young people, who are much less europhobic than Corbyn is.

Stating a pro-Europe position before the next election (such as a goal to stay in the single market) would help him with that demographic, but I can see why he would stay out of it until then and let the Tories fight it out between them.

demfad

In uncertain times that tend to see authoritarianism rise from the swamp a clear and certain vision for the future is needed.
If remaining is still possible then the remain position would need a future, a direction.
Climate change politics and economics will be here sooner than realised. In fact the scale of the situation is being revised constantly.
This would provide the likes of Corbyn with an opportunity to use green economics to protect the UK economy from globalisation. He could argue that the UK could lead the EU in this regard. It is also a relavent point that services would not be subject to green protectionism using a relatively tiny amount of energy compared to global product trade. The UK is set up nicely to take advantage right now.
You also have the crises of big data control. This is not just an issue for cyber warfare but also for local democracies and freedoms. It is clear that the billionaires want more control of our data, lives, spending and votes. This cant be allowed to happen. Europe is best placed to deal with this and a left leaning Europe more so.
Corbyn could propose a strong EU left alliance, keeping corporate power and control under check via the environment and big data whilst protecting local economies and jobs.
Take back control.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

I work the other side of the fence
Personally, at this stage, Stamer's naked opportunism is no more aggravating to me, than the continuing antics of Davis & Co, and Farage before them: politicians will be politicians and act like politicians, everything is smoke and mirrors, and fair game for the sake of clinging on and inching up that greasy pole. "National interest"? DFQ is that?

The EU referendum and, more than that, its political exploitation to date, is the epitome of that state of affairs. If you could cast yourself back 20, or even 10, years ago, I daresay you couldn't even imagine everything that's happened in the UK since February 2016, so far are the facts beyond belief. It's like a dystopia slowly materialising for real.

So long as the current bunch of UK politicians remain in charge of handling Brexit, and the FPTP system remains the voting system in place, them's your apples. Which is, amongst so many other reasons, why we're leaving. "People get the government they deserve", in this day and age still. And in the current context -which is no different than other periods of nationalistic protectionism that followed severe economical crises- it pays not to be an "other". Word to the wise and all that.

Starmer had previously talked a lot of sense about Brexit and the single market previously. A friend of mine even met him on the tube once and came back singing his praises. Seemed to be a wholly different breed of animal than Jeremy Corbyn. It's just disappointing to see him exposed as a fraud is all.

I wholly agree with your latter 2 paragraphs.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why are you surprised? In the general election Labour ran on a manifesto that supported leaving the customs union and the single market. They have fluctuated between all positions in between.

I'm talking about a senior Labour Europhile, not the party as a whole.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Labour aren't the party of remain. They've got a substantial leave contingent and a fair number of leave supporting MPs. Corbyn is naturally biding his time to ensure that he won't alienate Labour voters who voted out.

Most them are remainers and most don't approve of Jeremy Corbyn.

solodeogloria wrote: »

If you want a remain party go for the Lib Dems or the SNP. I think the best policy for remainers is to seek the best exit from the EU at this stage. The "defeats" that the media are speaking about with such excitements are merely modifications to the exit legislation. It isn't to keep the UK in the EU.

I'd be interested to ask - what are you looking for and what do you expect? Moreover how realistic are these two things?

I want a referendum on the final deal to put this nonsense to bed and, yes I am a registered Liberal Democrat so I know which party actually backs giving the electorate the agency to sign off on Brexit. The best deal in my opinion is the Norway option and that's what I'm hoping for.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How could Labour be anything other than ambiguous? Nobody knows what the people voted for so how can Labour give them what they want? Did they vote for a hard Brexit? A soft Brexit? Do they want the sauce on the side? We know what the staunch Brexiteers want but is that what the people want? The only parties who can be definitive about Brexit are those who are solidly Remain.

Incidentally, I blame Corbyn's cowardly and lukewarm leadership of Labour for Brexit - especially during the campaign.

Well, it's going to be awkward for them if they get elected, no? The biggest challenge facing the nation since the second world war and they don't know what they collectively think of it.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, it's going to be awkward for them if they get elected, no? The biggest challenge facing the nation since the second world war and they don't know what they collectively think of it.

Of course it is. It will be awkward for anyone with a country so evenly split and without a definitive mandate. But that's not Labour's fault per se. It's Cameron's plus UKIP, Tory Eurosceptics and a few Labour MPs who put forward a campaign based on lies. A campaign they had no intention of winning.

Labour's problem is that they are not ideologically unified as a party which then creates their Brexit ambiguity. Best thing that could happen British politics is if Brexit forces the disintegration of the Tories and Labour and their realignment into Right, Centre Right, Centre Left, Left. Where that would leave the Lib Dems is anyone's guess. Maybe they could assimilate centrist Tory and Labour MPs. However, it may take a very damaging Brexit to create the circumstances for a realignment.

An Ciarraioch

Whatever happens in the UK, looks like we'll have some insulation here against the eventual Brexit outcome, judging by the 4% growth prediction for 2018:

https://www.rte.ie/news/economy/2017/1213/927015-esri/