Brexit Discussion Thread VI

LuckyLloyd

230 votes is such a chasm that the EU will struggle to agree to more renegotiation imo. A limit on the backstop or tweaks to its mechanism isn't going to close that. They'd have to remove the backstop entirely. That simply isn't an option.

Professor Moriarty

Penn wrote: »

After May likely survives the No Confidence vote and it proceeds to what happens next, I saw some MPs last night say that what's required is a discussion and vote on the different options in front of them so they could see what option would pass the parliamentary vote.

But say there are four options; A) May's current deal again, No deal, C) Ask to extend Article 50, D) Go back to the EU and try negotiate another deal (just as an example).

Let's say Option D gets 40% of MPs backing it, B gets 30%, the other two get 15% each. If it then went to a Parliamentary vote, surely that still doesn't mean Option D would pass a parliamentary vote because the other 60% could still vote is down.

Basically, I don't think any option will actually pass a vote because there are too many options, too many MPs who still think that willing a better deal into existence will make it happen or that in the event of a No Deal they'll suddenly have all these brand new trade deals in place, too many MPs playing the political game (including Corbyn) and too many MPs who would simply prefer to end up with No Deal regardless of the harm it'd cause the country.

I think at this stage that even if the EU agreed to an end date on the Backstop that the vote wouldn't pass. I think we're looking at an almost certain No Deal scenario.

The backstop is a straw man put forward by Brexiteers. There is no doubt that if the backstop was removed, then the Brexiteers would immediately shoot holes in other parts of May's deal. Or any updated deal she is likely to strike with the EU. While the reasons for voting against the amendment were complex and varied, a indication of how 'important' the backstop is to all cohorts of MPs is that only 24 MPs voted for Baron's amendment to ensure that the backstop was time limited. 600 MPs took the time and trouble to vote against it. As usual, the Tory right is lying.

Leroy42

Its is very hard to trust the UK on the backstop when they openly threaten to withhold their financial obligations of €39bn unless they get their way. The two positions are completely contradictory.

I also love the fact that Brexiteers continue with the line that the deal is poor because May is really a Remainer and never believed. This, of course, completely removes the fact that Davis formerly and Raab after, had the single job of negotiating with Barnier an despite their clear belief couldn't achieve anything. So much so that both had to resign as failures.

Johnson, as Foreign Secretary, had total access to all the EU leaders and main players, yet even he failed to make any inroads.

On a separate point, it was mentioned above about Barnier getting an extended applause for his speech. It is clear that the EU are, mostly, acting as one on this. Compare that video with the chaotic schemes in the HoC.

murphaph

MarkHenderson wrote: »

I'm hearing more and more of this type of sense in the UK media the last few days. The UK is getting prepared to leave whilst our politicians sit on their hands hoping the EU will save us.

Nonsense. Ireland is probably the best prepared country for Brexit. I've read articles in German praising the level of preparedness compared to Germany. That doesn't mean it won't hit hard, but we couldn't have done much more to prepare for the insanity next door.

The UK aren't really preparing for no deal by the way. They probably couldn't even pass all the required legislation in time now for no deal. It's a huge bluff that is being called at the moment.

The UK will end up with a BRINO or revoking A50 imo.

VinLieger

Hurrache wrote: »

Don't just paste links and one-liners please.

It was a comment about the story I linked to. To remove the link to the story and my comment is over the top.

What more do you actually want, stifle debate?


Here's a story worth reading so as to give you an insight, and a sad reflection, of the English voter.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-fatigue-it-s-been-two-or-three-years-nearly-we-re-sick-of-it-1.3759103

I dont know why but its constantly surprising to me how uninformed the average english person is as to Ireland being a completely separate entity

VinLieger

MarkHenderson wrote: »

I'm hearing more and more of this type of sense in the UK media the last few days. The UK is getting prepared to leave whilst our politicians sit on their hands hoping the EU will save us.

What absolute garbage we have mountains of legislation written and ready to be passed, its being held off for as long as possible in case it may not be neccessary. The UK have nothing of the kind prepared.

Then look at their complete lack of preparation in their ports and customs services to name but one critical sector which in comparison we are far better prepared for and have been hiring for since the middle of last year.

Professor Moriarty

Hurrache wrote: »

Don't just paste links and one-liners please.

It was a comment about the story I linked to. To remove the link to the story and my comment is over the top.

What more do you actually want, stifle debate?


Here's a story worth reading so as to give you an insight, and a sad reflection, of the English voter.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-fatigue-it-s-been-two-or-three-years-nearly-we-re-sick-of-it-1.3759103

The level of ignorance, or perhaps wilful disengagement, is breathtaking. One can only assume it is the result of decades of conditioning by the British Press.

Zubeneschamali

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Until somebody starts to actually address the issues behind the Brexit vote and why the UK is so divided nothing will change.

I am fine with nothing changing. Pull A50 and forget Brexit was ever a thing.

Berserker

robinph wrote: »

But the majority of the country are not happy to leave on those terms. Only a teeny tiny number of MP's would accept no deal and only a small subset of those who voted leave would be happy with no deal. The vast majority of the population want to either remain or leave with a deal and those are both far more acceptable options.

The majority voted for Brexit and a no-deal Brexit is the only viable option of the table at the moment. I'm hoping we can all agree that the deal on the table is dead now.

MarkHenderson wrote: »

I'm hearing more and more of this type of sense in the UK media the last few days. The UK is getting prepared to leave whilst our politicians sit on their hands hoping the EU will save us.

Yep, the people will get on with life and deal with the challenges that Brexit brings. I've every faith that people will step up and meet the challenges that Brexit will bring. As for the politicians ....

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly what did the majority vote for?

To leave the EU.

Enzokk wrote: »

"We know it: Brexit is a broken right-wing failure. But the Labour l'ship seems ok with it, so long as blame for the chaos can be pinned on the Tories. In a grave crisis, it is playing politics, ducking responsibilities it ought to shoulder. If you aspire to power, that's the gig."

The Labour l'ship has been spectacularly bad of late. But for Brexit, I think he'd be long gone as leader of the party.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You do realise that the whole point of Brexit is that the UK wants to take part in global gloabalisation rather than be tied simply to the EU.

That's not what Brexit is about. The UK can do that, as a result of Brexit but that'd be well down the list of reasons why people voted for Brexit.

Water John

A series of discussions and votes in the HoC as per Hilary Benn would be very useful.For example it would show what little appetite there is for a Crash Out Brexit for one. that would go off the table. Is there a majority for a softer Brexit?
What support is there for a 2nd Ref? Tease it out over a number of days of intense discussion. Unicorns like May's Deal with no backstop, which isn't a runner as the EU won't accept it, should be ruled out.
I believe it would work.
From what I understand a section of the Tory Party, under Dominic Grieve would side with a soft Brexit which then would have a majority in Parliament. I think many Remainers might accept it too.
The real discussions should be between the soft Brexiteers and the Remainers. Whatever they conclude to agree on would be a majority in Parliament and TM can deal with that or step aside.

Professor Moriarty

Berserker wrote: »

To leave the EU.

So did they vote for WTO rules, A Norway Deal, May's Deal? Or what did they all vote for?

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

He is almost as bad as May in that he will say and do what he wants.

This is really tiresome. When Corbyn says: “Labour believes that a general election would be the best outcome for the country if this deal is rejected tonight.” he is literally repeating Labour policy, which I just stated.


Slanting this as "Corbyn offers no hope to Remainers" is just more anti-Corbyn propaganda.


Only if the No Confidence vote fails does the policy support a referendum, and Corbyn is not going to pivot to that unless and until the vote actually does fail.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Only if the No Confidence vote fails does the policy support a referendum, and Corbyn is not going to pivot to that unless and until the vote actually does fail.

I'll believe it when I see it, frankly. The Corbyn policy of listening to Labour's members seems to be being ignored as of late.

DrumSteve

VinLieger wrote: »

I dont know why but its constantly surprising to me how uninformed the average english person is as to Ireland being a completely separate entity

It's not that they are uninformed; they just don't care.

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

"We know it: Brexit is a broken right-wing failure. But the Labour l'ship seems ok with it, so long as blame for the chaos can be pinned on the Tories. In a grave crisis, it is playing politics, ducking responsibilities it ought to shoulder. If you aspire to power, that's the gig."

More of this anti-Labour nonsense. Labour are not in power, so they have no power to slow, stop or change the Governments Brexit madness.


What possible good does it do anyone for Labours leadership to "seem like they are not OK with Brexit?" It is absolutely meaningless.


What matters is getting power off the Tories.

LuckyLloyd

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The backstop is a straw man put forward by Brexiteers. There is no doubt that if the backstop was removed, then the Brexiteers would immediately shoot holes in other parts of May's deal. Or any updated deal she is likely to strike with the EU. While the reasons for voting against the amendment were complex and varied, a indication of how 'important' the backstop is to all cohorts of MPs is that only 24 MPs voted for Baron's amendment to ensure that the backstop was time limited. 600 MPs took the time and trouble to vote against it. As usual, the Tory right is lying.

As Tony Conneally reported recently, EU officials in Brussels were stumped when they made a massive concession on allowing the whole UK to remain in the customs union arrangement as part of the backstop and the entire political / media conversation in the UK failed to notice. What’s the point of making more concessions?

EKRIUQ

Deleted User wrote: »

A new PM won't really help anyone. It's added chaos for the possibility of much of the same from Corbyn.

Not too sure about that, I'd love to see Boris or Rees Mogg or any staunch brexiter in the PM position at least then we would know their position and could quit all this messing about and just get on with it.

Same goes for Corbyn but with him or his party they still haven't a clue what they want.

Theresa May is just going to both sides plus the EU and trying to appease both.

secman

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

More of this anti-Labour nonsense. Labour are not in power, so they have no power to slow, stop or change the Governments Brexit madness.


What possible good does it do anyone for Labours leadership to "seem like they are not OK with Brexit?" It is absolutely meaningless.


What matters is getting power off the Tories.

No chance off that with Corbyn at the helm.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Corbyn policy of listening to Labour's members seems to be being ignored as of late.

In what way? Please be specific.


In September, at Conference, it was decided in a compromise to oppose May's deal. Corbyn did that and won a crushing victory over the Government, the biggest in more than a century.


Next, it was decided that if that happened, a motion of No Confidence should be put down. Corbyn did that too, even though we can be reasonably sure it will fail.


And next the policy says if that happens, he will pivot to supporting a 2nd referendum.


And suddenly no-one believes that because Corbyn bad humbug humbug.

Leroy42

Berserker wrote: »

That's not what Brexit is about. The UK can do that, as a result of Brexit but that'd be well down the list of reasons why people voted for Brexit.

That is exactly what Brexit is about. They want to move away from a dying Europe and open up the UK to the wider world, a world that is growing.

They no longer want to live with the rules based system of the EU but rather the non rules based system of open trading, where anything goes as long as you get what you want.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

More of this anti-Labour nonsense. Labour are not in power, so they have no power to slow, stop or change the Governments Brexit madness.


What possible good does it do anyone for Labours leadership to "seem like they are not OK with Brexit?" It is absolutely meaningless.


What matters is getting power off the Tories.

But hasn't it become more difficult to get rid of the ruling party since the fixed parliaments act? As we see the there are 117 Conservatives who has no confidence in Theresa May to be leader of their party and 118 of them voted against her plan for Brexit but they will vote against a motion of no confidence in the government later.

In any case even if he manages to win the no confidence motion someone like Gove could take over as PM from May (as an example) and form a new government within 14 days and have confidence of the House of Commons. So getting rid of the Tories is incredibly difficult but making a difference with Brexit is not. This is why I think people are frustrated with Corbyn and Labour. He has an opportunity to make a difference but he is steadfastly refusing to lead and is letting Brexit happen.

In any case we will have to wait and see what happens tonight. If he loses the vote and starts asking for a people's vote then I will gladly eat humble pie and admit I was wrong.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In what way? Please be specific.


In September, at Conference, it was decided in a compromise to oppose May's deal. Corbyn did that and won a crushing victory over the Government, the biggest in more than a century.


Next, it was decided that if that happened, a motion of No Confidence should be put down. Corbyn did that too, even though we can be reasonably sure it will fail.


And next the policy says if that happens, he will pivot to supporting a 2nd referendum.


And suddenly no-one believes that because Corbyn bad humbug humbug.

The constant flimflamming to avoid saying anything definitive so as to try and keep all of the Labour voters on side simply to win a GE instead of averting Brexit which will decimate the economy and especially the working classes.

The people Corbyn associates himself with like Seumas Milne and John McDonnell are Eurosceptics as may he himself be. It suits him to allow it to happen and then blame the Tories for it.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

As Tony Conneally reported recently, EU officials in Brussels were stumped when they made a massive concession on allowing the whole UK to remain in the customs union arrangement as part of the backstop and the entire political / media conversation in the UK failed to notice. What’s the point of making more concessions?

I was a bit disappointed at the time that the EU made the concessions that they did but it was probably acceptable to get it done. Just have to hope they hold strong now, I haven't seen much to say they won't.

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In what way? Please be specific.


In September, at Conference, it was decided in a compromise to oppose May's deal. Corbyn did that and won a crushing victory over the Government, the biggest in more than a century.


Next, it was decided that if that happened, a motion of No Confidence should be put down. Corbyn did that too, even though we can be reasonably sure it will fail.


And next the policy says if that happens, he will pivot to supporting a 2nd referendum.


And suddenly no-one believes that because Corbyn bad humbug humbug.

I think, Zubeneschamali, the point people are trying to make is that A) Corbyn was so poor that in 2017 TM felt she had the opportunity to cement her majority and ended up with the DUP. A stronger opposition would have avoided this as TM would have never risked it.
b) Corbyn has not held TM to account in the way the leader of the opposition should. He has rowed in completely with Brexit, giving little to no voice to the 48% that voted to stay. Corbyn ran for leader on the promise of listening to the members, yet has steadfastly refused to do so as they don't agree with him.
c) Yes he is sticking to the Labour policy from September, but one must remember that many did not want that and it was essentially a compromise as it was as far as they could push Corbyn.

This is not to say that the majority of the blame doesn't lie with TM and the Tories, but Corbyn and the Labour party have failed to articulate just where TM is going wrong and thus it is very hard to change peoples mind when they really are just seeing two shades of the same colour.

Water John

No problem with Corbyn going for a No Confidence vote, it's what an opposition party in any country would do, considering last nights vote.
If and when that fails, then Lb must move on to 2nd Ref. Any stalling by Corbyn would then be wrong.

Beserker basically you're saying there will be a Crash out Brexit and its Labour's fault!!!

kowtow

One important point briefly referenced, I think, by May last night but often missed by those who feel there is a majority for some sort of "softer" Brexit ... aka full Customs Union or the like.

Corbyn has previously suggested that such a full Customs Union would obviate the need for an Irish backstop but I wonder if he is being disingenuous. A Customs Union would of course obviate the need for a border whilst it existed, but bear in mind that such a union could not bind the UK into perpetuity... they would have to be free to leave it at will in the future, would we accept that? Or would we still require an "Irish backstop" to ensure that the North was left behind if some other solution was not created in the meantime.

It's going to be very hard to get Westminster to swallow a deal which includes a perpetual backstop... as we saw last night.

Is the truth of this that whatever the underlying Brexit, this is going to be backstop or no deal?

Berserker

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So did they vote for WTO rules, A Norway Deal, May's Deal? Or what did they all vote for?

People voted to leave the EU. Have you not seen the ballot paper? They made that decision and delivering on that decision was left up to the politicians. It was their responsibility to deliver it. The deal they have come back with is not acceptable, so exiting on a no-deal basis is the only way the UK can leave the EU now.

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is exactly what Brexit is about. They want to move away from a dying Europe and open up the UK to the wider world, a world that is growing.

If you asked one hundred leave voters why they want to leave, how many would cite the above as the reason they voted to leave?

Imreoir2

Penn wrote: »

After May likely survives the No Confidence vote and it proceeds to what happens next, I saw some MPs last night say that what's required is a discussion and vote on the different options in front of them so they could see what option would pass the parliamentary vote.

But say there are four options; A) May's current deal again, No deal, C) Ask to extend Article 50, D) Go back to the EU and try negotiate another deal (just as an example).

I think the point of these votes is not to simply instruct the government to go back and get some other kind of deal, but to indicate what parliament want's in that deal. For example, May has ruled out membership of a permenant customs union. Parliament could instruct her to put aside that red line and persue a deal that included membership of the customs union and also perhaps the single market. If it goes like that, it might be the basis for the EU reopening discussion on the political declaration to make the commitments around the future trade relationship more specific. Parliament would then have to decide if a clearer committment to their preferences on the future relationship is enough for them to accept the WA as is, backstop included.

Imreoir2

Berserker wrote: »

People voted to leave the EU.

They also voted for a "strong and stable government", you don't always get what you want.

Keatsian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In September, at Conference, it was decided in a compromise to oppose May's deal. Corbyn did that and won a crushing victory over the Government, the biggest in more than a century.


Next, it was decided that if that happened, a motion of No Confidence should be put down. Corbyn did that too, even though we can be reasonably sure it will fail.


And next the policy says if that happens, he will pivot to supporting a 2nd referendum.

Not exactly, the motion passed at the conference says "f we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote. If the Government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public."


He must support leaving the option of a second referendum on table - whatever that means. It doesn't compel him to support a second referendum.