Brexit discussion thread IV

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Corbyn, and Labour, have been part of the problem. With TM being in such a weak position, a leader like Blair would have held them to account for the sheer imcompetence of how it was being handled. Rammed him the divisions within the Tory party, demanded that the DUP were questioned more the impact of their position on the UK as a whole.

The fact that the leader of the opposition would prefer to avoid talking about Brexit, its the single biggest thing that has happened to the UK in generations and he not only wants to talk about something else, he actively avoids talking about it.

It would actually be far better for the UK if he came out and supported TM, that would remove the threat of ERG and the others and TM and the UK would actually be as one and be in a stronger position. One of the main problems that TM, shown up in the December Agreement, is that she has no control. She can wail all she likes, she can bang the table and make demands, but the EU know that nothing is agreed until she goes back and asks others if its ok.

All those people that supported Corbyn, and seemingly continue to do so, baffle me. He may talk about change and a new way but he has shown himself to be quite incapable of leading. He only did relatively well in the last GE because TM was so abject, he is only doing relatively well in the polls now because again TM is so abject and the Tories are in such disarray. It is clear that Corbyn will never be able to deliver on what he talks about simply because he will never be able to make the tough decisions. He has never had to.

It is a real shame for the UK that in this time when it needs leaders it is 'led' by TM and the only alternative if Corbyn. In addition, the smaller parties, mainly Lib Dem, have completely imploded. At a time that they should be surging they are devoid of anything even resembling energy.

I don't blame Corbyn for Brexit or the reaction to it immediately after the vote. The general consensus was that it was the Labour vote that won it for Leave, but after the 2017 election this seems to not be as clear cut or simple as that. But what seemed apparent what that a lot of Labour areas voted to leave the EU and thus Corbyn or Labour couldn't just go against the result of the vote.

Once the dust has settled though and it became obvious that the Brexit that was promised cannot be delivered and that there was cheating by the Leave side, Labour should have changed tack and rowed in behind either reversing article 50 citing the election irregularities or failing that a new referendum. I blame him for sitting idle on this. At the same time he has probably increased his chances by just staying quiet in a election, if that comes to pass who are we to say he was wrong?

lawred2 wrote: »

As an EU member the Irish government would not be able to partake in such trade talks surely..

prawnsambo wrote: »

And there you have it. Brexiter logic. What David Davis spent 18 months trying to do and TM thought she could do via Macron etc. Even Donald Trump got it on the eleventh attempt with Angela Merkel. You MUST deal with the EU.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its almost as if the UK haven't bothered to work out the actual details of the EU and what it entails.

It could be that they are not proposing that they only talk with Ireland, but that the EU agrees to an Irish-UK deal only leaving us effectively outside of the EU. Its still a bonkers plan that has zero chance of any success either way.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I see what you're getting at. He expected a remain result and he didn't expect the referendum result to define his government so he wanted it out of the way as soon as possible. There was no contingency plan for a Leave victory as we saw save for Mark Carney's for the Pound. He then went on to hobble the Stronger In campaign so that we got the limp-wristed scaremongering that failed so dismally.

Whether UKIP would have continued to chew at the Conservatives voter bloc is a question that will never be answered. Nigel Farage said on multiple occasions that they were winning, not with Tory voters but with disaffected working class communities in the north who usually vote Labour. First past the post does a surer job of protecting the incumbent parties than people voting for them ever will. Cameron had already ceded ground to his Eurosceptics by leaving the EPP and promising a referendum on future transfers of powers to Brussels and all it did was to whet their appetite.

I think he was expecting at best a new coalition with the Libdems where he didn't have to honour his referendum pledge in the manifesto. The Libdems would then block the talk of a referendum in the talks to form a government as one of their conditions in forming a government. That way he could fudge it on until he left, I believe Cameron had plans to step down before 2020 and a new election in any case. Then the Eurosceptics would someone else's problem.

I don't know if we should listen to Nigel Farage on where his vote came from. What is evident is that the Libdems went from 23% of the vote in 2010 to 8% in 2015. UKIP went from 3% in 2015 to 12.6% in 2015. Count those together and you get, about the same number of votes from one election to the next. The SNP had massive gains as well so you add their numbers in to those and it is almost the exact same as what the Libdems had in 2010.

Labour increased their vote share from 2010 to 2015 from 29% to 30% and their total votes by more than 700 000. You have to take into account that the SNP siphoned off 300 000 or so of Labour votes in Scotland as well so in England and Wales they actually seemed to have done marginally better than in 2010, even with the UKIP surge. The turnout wasn't that much different either at 65% and 66% between the elections.

The Libdem vote collapsed dramatically while the UKIP vote replaced those lost votes, at least in terms of number of votes. Both Labour and the Conservatives picked up more votes but FPTP meant that the Tories picked up more seats. Labour won 10 seats from the Conservatives and the Conservatives won 8 seats from Labour in 2015. Labour lost 40 seats to the SNP. The Conservatives gained their seats from the Libdems and not from Labour.

In 2017 Labour picked up their vote total dramatically. The interesting thing is that the Conservatives did the same as the UKIP vote collapsed. UKIP lost 3.2m votes and Labour gained 3.5m votes. You could argue that Labour picked up all the UKIP votes, but how do you explain the Conservatives picking up more votes? They only picked up 300 000 more votes in Scotland out of 2.3m more votes in the election. So that is 2m voters from somewhere. When you consider the demographics of who votes for which party I think we can make a safe assumption that the drive to register new voters were not for the Conservatives.

What does this all mean? I really don't know, what is clear is that Nigel Farage is very lax with the truth and him saying they were winning with the Labour vote may have some grain of truth, but I think it would be more accurate to say that their voters were more likely to be Tory voters that were unhappy with the party but returned after Cameron delivered on the EU referendum and UKIP had nothing to offer the party any longer.

I do think if there is a general election the Scotland vote would collapse for Ruth Davidson. She campaigned to stay in the EU, her stance and that of the Scottish Conservatives is pro-EU yet their votes are bringing about Brexit. She will have to explain that to voters that are a lot more savvy than those in England. The SNP may not pick up all of their lost seats as I believe Labour will get some gains as well, but the Conservatives would be lucky to have one seat in Scotland.

In England I think Labour will set out a Brexit plan. As long as its not continue with the economic suicide their plan will be better than Theresa May or whoever will lead the Tories. They will also hammer the Tories on their economic record and what is happening in the NHS. I can only see one result and it will be a majority for Labour, if not a landslide as people are tired of the shambles of a Conservative government.

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Still trying to figure out exactly what FF would do different in the Brexit negotiations - Chambers was on the radio today stressing the importance of exports to the UK, but the first 12 months were spent trying to convince them to remain in the Customs Union, so unless there's a dramatic u-turn in the next few weeks, there's nothing we can do about trade with GB, at any rate. Then she was complaining that the backstop hadn't been delivered yet, but unless and until the British provide legal text for their version, even an eleventh hour fudge to keep the border open would be impossible.

They are trying to be smart but any scrutiny will show them up for the games they are trying to play. Remember they cannot attack the government on policies as they are the ones allowing the government to implement those same policies so they have to attack them either personally (as they have done with Leo Varadkar) or where they aren't involved. At the moment that is only Brexit, but they are rowing against the tide here as FG has not done a lot wrong.

kowtow wrote: »

The logic would be that Corbyn has done as well as he will ever do.. in other words the threat of Corbyn will be enough to force Tory voters into the polling booths (including the older generation who she threw away last time with dementia tax).

Meanwhile there is a whole host of Blair voters who wouldn't touch Corbyn for personal interest reasons.

And Corbyn would be under much more scrutiny with the scene set by his apparent Brexit fence-sitting & the (somewhat contrived, I think) anti-antisemitism row.

The big unknown for the Tories is the car-crash which Brexit has turned out to be and the possible reluctance of people to vote for a party that hasn't been able to gather around a single sensible plan. Presumably they'd have to sort out some sort of position as well as bring the ERG et.al. into line in time for the polling booths.

Tricky one, but not impossible for the Tories to pull off a bigger majority.

I cannot see the Tories getting much joy in an election, even with Corbyn as leader. Once an election is called and the media stories will start focusing on policies rather than personal attacks people will realise that Labour isn't that bad. That is what happened at the last election, and Corbyn was absolute poison before it. That is why May thought she would win a super majority.

Whoever is in charge of the Tories will have to own Brexit and the mess it has become and they will have to own 8 years of austerity as well. Add in chaos in the NHS and the trains and the....you get the point. Brexit will be a major issue but if Labour plays it well they could inflict serious damage to the Tories. By playing it well I mean put down a policy that everyone will either agree with or not, then focus on the other policies where they will destroy the Conservatives. Labour has better organization on the ground to register new voters or get their message across. Every day a new potential Labour voter turns 18 as another Tory voter...well dies.

An Ciarraioch

Water John wrote: »

This the one from the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA)?
This the crowd with the second bank account, unknown donors.

Yes, pretty much a non-starter, as it suggests that the UK would begin trade talks with India, Australia etc, immediately, rather than waiting for Brexit negotiations to conclude, according to the Guardian.

Rain Ascending

kowtow wrote: »

In any case some sort of a pivot towards Canada seems the likely direction.

The Irish border issue is going to be more dramatized, rather than less I think.

Will be an interesting time for Leo & Co.

If avoiding a "no deal" scenario, or to be more precise, getting an acceptable WA signed, is the main objective then a pivot to Canada has to be welcomed at this stage.

Chequers has a fatal flaw in that it tries to solve all UK needs at once which means from a negotiation process standpoint, the UK hadn't made any compromises. And we need a lot of movement in the UK position to reach a deal.

Canada helps in that it recognizes that if you leave the SM and CU there has to be at least some friction on the border, specifically in this case at Dover and the Channel Tunnel. Canada gives up on trying to save JIT-based manufacturing in the UK and with one exception, meets all UK and EU red lines.

The exception is, of course, the NI backstop.

It should be noted that making the wet Irish Sea "border" softish/low friction is much easier than doing the same for the Republic/NI land border. This suggests that finding a negotiation path to an agreement is easier with acceptance of the backstop if there were more flexibility on the UK side.

I know, I know, we haven't seen much of that. But we can work out what are the prerequisites to get that flexibility:

1. May needs to go and be replaced by a Brexit centrist (in Tory terms). Her reputation is too wedded to Chequers to give up on it and she has set her face against a wet border.
2. Parliamentary arithmetic needs to change. Canada + NI backstop loses both the DUP and the extremes of the Tory party.

#1 is actually more feasible than #2. Neither Mogg nor Boris Johnson may be able to get enough support from MPs to avoid an unstoppable coronation of, say, a Javid campaign to become a temporary leader ("we don't have enough time to go to the membership if we want a deal by November - let's put Javid in for the moment and then have a proper leadership context in April").

#2 is much more problematic. Unless fear of "no deal" becomes overwhelming then I can't see any of the opposition parties even abstaining and therefore there is no majority in the House of Commons for a Canada + NI backstop deal. The obvious solution is a general election -- but that's just as likely to deliver a Labour government as a Tory one and I struggle to see any Conservative leader opening up that can of worms. None of the candidates (e.g. Javid) for that accursed role have the ability to bring the UK electorate along with them on that journey of enlightenment.


Bottom line: The backstop needs to become palatable from a UK political perspective, for a Canada+backstop deal to be done. Despite the challenges outlined above, it is still the most feasible route to avoiding the disaster that is no-deal.

EdgeCase

murphaph wrote: »

I suppose the road would need a fence. The only example I can think of is Basel airport, which is actually in France, but has separate customs channels do you can arrive into either France or Switzerland. If you arrive into CH you must exit the airport onto this road which only leads to CH and iirc has fences along it.

It's very different. They're talking about a customs clearance centre in Milton Keynes, which is 218km from Dover by road and takes over 2h30 to get to and longer in heavy traffic and freight would end up routing to it via the M25 around London. It's also 185km to. Felixtowe, their largest container port.

It would be the equivalent of routing traffic from Dublin Port via a depot onbthr outskirts of Galway and enduring it all arrived via the M50.

They'll certianly have plenty of space for queuing trucks anyway but ensuring they started on route would be very hard given the distances involved and the fact it's through some of the most densely populated parts of England.

Basel is roughly 6.5 km along the Route Douanière (customs road) from Airport Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg. It's the difference between a fenced motorway to Dublin Airport from Dublin Port and a fenced motorway to Galway.

But obviously we are all being luddites and it can be solved with sellotape, WiFi routers, cameras and apps. I mean apps can do anything, right?!?

It appears that any referendum put forward by Labour won't have stay as an option.

Harika

Deleted User wrote: »

It appears that any referendum put forward by Labour won't have stay as an option.

What are their options then?
[ ] Take the Tory suicide
[ ] Make a better deal

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

It appears that any referendum put forward by Labour won't have stay as an option.

Sure why bother then... just carry on as they are. Such a referendum would serve no purpose other than to waste precious time.

Fairly clear I would have thought that that is not what their members have asked for..

Corbyn's anti EU bias coming into play again?

I agree that it's pointless. The only way it could make sense is if there was a deal sitting waiting that the EU and parliament had agreed to, and then let the people decide between that or No Deal.

How on Earth do you turn up at a negotiation and "Sorry EU, our people voted against No Deal. You must give us something."

Split the cheque for dinner that evening? Does that count as a deal?

farmchoice

the motion that goes before the labour conference tomorrow reads,


''If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table including campaigning for a public vote.''


it does not state what question would be asked.

fash

Should the UK seek a:
"Norway type deal" OR
"Canada type deal with backstop of NI inside customs (or other solutions if possible)"

Harika

From the independent

You know what Cameron should have done?
Got a ballot drawn up with 2 questions:

1. Remain with the new negotiations I arranged with the EU
2. Remain on the same terms as now.

I'm sure it would have gone down well.
Well it would have been a referendum, wouldn't it?

Labour is committed to leave the EU too, they want a GA to get in power and then remodel the UK after their ideas without the shackles of the EU. The conservatives have to laugh in tears and be unbelievers in their own luck.

The Boris Johnson wing might also want to get a GA to put one of theirs into power, so the next weeks will be very uncomfortable for May again.

The ballot should be:

┌ Leave Option 1
└ Leave Option 2
Remain

Votes for the top two get added. Decide based on that.

Leroy42

That is some cop out by Corbyn. All those people that have been taken in by him, a grassroots movement, someone finally listening to the people.

But when the 'people' in his party don't agree with him, he simply fudges the issue and does his best to ignore them.

I cannot believe people still have any faith in Corbyn. He failed them during the campaign, has failed to stand up for remainers since and now has effectively opted out of listening to the party membership. The Labour party is passing up a unique chance to return to government on the basis of some as yet unknown brilliance from Corbyn, yeet at every turn hie is a disappointment.

Is Brexit his fault? No. Is the way it is being handled his fault? Well a bit. A stronger opposition would have never let the Tories simply sleepwalk into this mess. They would have been demanding answers, demanding deadlines and concrete proposals.

Effectively Labour is saying that the UK are leaving the EU no matter what. The deal doesn't matter, the Tories don't matter, what the people think doesn't matter.

Water John

Labour would have leaving but staying in the CU.
Doubt if they would include SM in their New Deal.

CrabRevolution

It's a strange logic I've seen in comments regarding the mandate the EU referendum apparently gives. Because the UK voted for something, a totally different party which didn't have a say or involvement in the vote (the EU) is obliged to give the UK everything it wants?

Can we organise a referendum in Ireland for Germany to give each Irish citizen a free BMW?

First Up

Deleted User wrote:

It appears that any referendum put forward by Labour won't have stay as an option.

That is the opinion of one member of the shadow cabinet. It is not a decision.

jooksavage

Folks in the UK really not being served by their politicians at the moment. For all the adulation, I can't imagine anyone except Corbyn making such an absolute balls of this. I feel for them.

Harika

First Up wrote: »

That is the opinion of one member of the shadow cabinet. It is not a decision.

Laura Kuenssberg reported yesterday from the Labour meeting and what was clear was that the leadership doesn't want a Stay-Leave vote, so the motion was watered down instead of a clear commitment to a Stay-Leave vote. Now many Labour member and MPs do think the motion they got last night allows for such a vote, so this still could be on the table but Corbyn and his shadow ministers don't want that vote, that is clear.

First Up

jooksavage wrote:

Folks in the UK really not being served by their politicians at the moment. For all the adulation, I can't imagine anyone except Corbyn making such an absolute balls of this. I feel for them.

They get the politicians they elect - and deserve.

FreudianSlippers

Harika wrote: »

Laura Kuenssberg reported yesterday from the Labour meeting and what was clear was that the leadership doesn't want a Stay-Leave vote, so the motion was watered down instead of a clear commitment to a Stay-Leave vote. Now many Labour member and MPs do think the motion they got last night allows for such a vote, so this still could be on the table but Corbyn and his shadow ministers don't want that vote, that is clear.

I think this will backfire on Labour as Tony Blair predicted earlier this month - the membership clearly support in a majority a referendum on accepting the terms of a deal or remaining in the EU, and not a deal-or-no-deal question.

First Up

First Up wrote: »

That is the opinion of one member of the shadow cabinet. It is not a decision.

Well I did say, It appears that..

Harika

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think this will backfire on Labour as Tony Blair predicted earlier this month - the membership clearly support in a majority a referendum on accepting the terms of a deal or remaining in the EU, and not a deal-or-no-deal question.

When was the last time, a large group in UK called to boycott a referendum, cause this is the logic course if you are a remained, to not vote at all.

flatty

Harika wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

That is the opinion of one member of the shadow cabinet. It is not a decision.

Laura Kuenssberg reported yesterday from the Labour meeting and what was clear was that the leadership doesn't want a Stay-Leave vote, so the motion was watered down instead of a clear commitment to a Stay-Leave vote. Now many Labour member and MPs do think the motion they got last night allows for such a vote, so this still could be on the table but Corbyn and his shadow ministers don't want that vote, that is clear.

Corby and Co don't want any vote at all. They have made that clear.

jooksavage

First Up wrote: »

They get the politicians they elect - and deserve.

I actually think the UK would benefit from the PR-style voting system we have here. It would push politicians away from the margins. If there was more of a gravitational pull to the centre at the moment we'd all be a hell of lot better off.

Leroy42

So it seems that Canada Plus is the new angle that the UK are going to push for (when I say new I meean for them as of course the EU have signaled it from the start).

Is the plus in relation to t services as these are largely absent from CETA and make up a large portion of the UK economy?

My understanding, is that whilst it largely gets rid of tariffs, it doesn't create frictionless borders and the standards do not have to be the same.

But how likely are the EU to accept this given that it doesn't meet the 4 pillars?

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

So it seems that Canada Plus is the new angle that the UK are going to push for (when I say new I meean for them as of course the EU have signaled it from the start).

Is the plus in relation to t services as these are largely absent from CETA and make up a large portion of the UK economy?

My understanding, is that whilst it largely gets rid of tariffs, it doesn't create frictionless borders and the standards do not have to be the same.

But how likely are the EU to accept this given that it doesn't meet the 4 pillars?

The report (Davis and Johnson plan) also said that the UK should start negotiating with US and India and negotiate an Anglo-Irish trade deal with Ireland. This is impossible as Ireland is in the EU and cant negotiate bilaterally.

A Canada deal is perfectly acceptable as long as Northern Ireland is exempt and remains in SM/CU.

laugh

Seems labour are afraid of declaring outright support for a remain vote and then an election being called.

Winters

jooksavage wrote: »

I actually think the UK would benefit from the PR-style voting system we have here. It would push politicians away from the margins. If there was more of a gravitational pull to the centre at the moment we'd all be a hell of lot better off.

They had a referendum on changing to the STV in 2011 and voted against it.

jooksavage

demfad wrote: »

The report (Davis and Johnson plan) also said that the UK should start negotiating with US and India and negotiate an Anglo-Irish trade deal with Ireland. This is impossible as Ireland is in the EU and cant negotiate bilaterally.

A Canada deal is perfectly acceptable as long as Northern Ireland is exempt and remains in SM/CU.

I cant see them leaving NI in the customs union, not after last weeks guff from May. I suppose we'll see how much of that was posturing to keep DUP and hardliners onside.

I wonder if anyone will suggest a vote for NI themselves as to whether they want to stay in the CU? Its absolutely ridiculous that the DUP are now presuming to speak for NI as a whole.

demfad

Last night at the Labour convention delegates fought hard to remove the line that the vote would be 'on the deal'.
This was undermined today by McDonnell who implied on UK radio that it would be Deal or No Deal (no remain option).

At first this sounded ludicrous as it is handing the Tories a get out free card from the upcoming disaster: It was the people's choice-twice. Also what would Labour campaign for? They would have presumably just voted down May's deal: would they be campaigning for 'no-deal (disaster) or May's deal (2 year stay of execution to potential disaster)?

McDonnell/Corbyn would hope that the referendum would be May's deal or give Labout a go. Only slightly less ludicrous.

Corbyn's promised democracy is clearly dead in Labour already.

Howevs: This weekend Starmer criticised May's plan for ending Freedom of Movement. Also, McDonnell said that Labour's manifesto could be realised under SM rules.
That is two major impediments to Norway + Customs Union removed for Labour.
If Labour were in power this would be easy to negotiate and EU might extsnd A50 for that.

Taken from this by Ian Dunt:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/09/24/labour-s-people-s-vote-stitch-up