Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Joe_ Public

FrancieBrady wrote: »

you are comparing that to belittling the assassination of an MP?

Really?

Of course it's ridiculous to compare what Tom Watson is saying to the offensive drivel Johnson was coming out with and there's no question, for all the whatabouttery, that the most sinister commentary is coming from the right. That said, however, i wish Watson and others would be a bit more precise when considering their language. The word "extremist" is being shovelled around with such abandon that it's meaning is beginning to drift alarmingly for me. If you start casually tossing that label around, what then do you do when you have to deal with some truly nasty elements on the far right of the spectrum? It's used about those on the left too, it cheapens and coarsens language in my view and isn't in any way helpful.

FrancieBrady

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Of course it's ridiculous to compare what Tom Watson is saying to the offensive drivel Johnson was coming out with and there's no question, for all the whatabouttery, that the most sinister commentary is coming from the right. That said, however, i wish Watson and others would be a bit more precise when considering their language. The word "extremist" is being shovelled around with such abandon that it's meaning is beginning to drift alarmingly for me. If you start casually tossing that label around, what then do you do when you have to deal with some truly nasty elements on the far right of the spectrum? It's used about those on the left too, it cheapens and coarsens language in my view and isn't in any way helpful.

You call them 'nasty extremists' if that's what they are.

Bannasidhe

fr336 wrote: »

I would be over the moon if this government was brought down by a confidence vote this week when they already think they've won and Corbyn is temporary PM. Then in opposition Boris makes such a shamble of things that we end up with a rainbow coalition of Labour and other opposition parties as the government. This is the only guaranteed route to blowing apart Johnson and Cumming's plans and it would be a delight to see the look on their faces. Time to call their bluff.

The Lib Dems are, imho, trying to play kingmaker.
They are the main stumbling bloc due to their continued refusal to accept the leader of the largest opposition party as caretaker PM.

If they held their nose, backed Corbyn then Boris is gone. It could happen on Monday.

Failure to do so is simply prolonging the whole farce.

It really does come down to if you truly wish to stop Boris then call a VONC - install Corbyn who calls a GE. Otherwise you are just working to keep Boris there.

LP have 246 seats
SNP have 35

So that's 281 to the Tories 288.

If Plaid Cymru and the Green join it makes 286 to 288 - are the Lib Dems and the ex-Tories really going to vote to keep Boris and the threat of No Deal when it could easily be off the table and a GE called to be held in November??

Will Labour MPs vote to keep Boris?!?!

Playing party politics while the country heads towards a cliff is the kind of thing that has the UK in this mess in the first place.

Joe_ Public

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You call them 'nasty extremists' if that's what they are.

Yes, no problem, you can call them whatever you want, within the bounds of reason. No issue with that. Just personally, i dont find it helpful or illuminating to see such words bandied around, often a little carelessly. I mean more so in general. Go back in this thread and you'll see it used about both the right and the left in this argument, and i think it's just a bit careless. But just my opinion.

Inquitus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Lib Dems are, imho, trying to play kingmaker.
They are the main stumbling bloc due to their continued refusal to accept the leader of the largest opposition party as caretaker PM.

If they held their nose, backed Corbyn then Boris is gone. It could happen on Monday.

Failure to do so is simply prolonging the whole farce.

It really does come down to if you truly wish to stop Boris then call a VONC - install Corbyn who calls a GE. Otherwise you are just working to keep Boris there.

LP have 246 seats
SNP have 35

So that's 281 to the Tories 288.

If Plaid Cymru and the Green join it makes 286 to 288 - are the Lib Dems and the ex-Tories really going to vote to keep Boris and the threat of No Deal when it could easily be off the table and a GE called to be held in November??

Will Labour MPs vote to keep Boris?!?!

Playing party politics while the country heads towards a cliff is the kind of thing that has the UK in this mess in the first place.

Ken Clarke would be the ideal man for the job, not re-standing at the next election, Father of the House, and should be palatable enough for everyone, if the Lib Dems can't get over their Corbyn issues. This is however the clearest best way forwards, avoiding any shens Bojo might try and play with the Benn Act.

Varta

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Lib Dems are, imho, trying to play kingmaker.
They are the main stumbling bloc due to their continued refusal to accept the leader of the largest opposition party as caretaker PM.

If they held their nose, backed Corbyn then Boris is gone. It could happen on Monday.

Failure to do so is simply prolonging the whole farce.

It really does come down to if you truly wish to stop Boris then call a VONC - install Corbyn who calls a GE. Otherwise you are just working to keep Boris there.

LP have 246 seats
SNP have 35

So that's 281 to the Tories 288.

If Plaid Cymru and the Green join it makes 286 to 288 - are the Lib Dems and the ex-Tories really going to vote to keep Boris and the threat of No Deal when it could easily be off the table and a GE called to be held in November??

Will Labour MPs vote to keep Boris?!?!

Playing party politics while the country heads towards a cliff is the kind of thing that has the UK in this mess in the first place.

Playing party politics is exactly what the labour party is doing. They want the unelectable Corbyn as PM so they can go into an election with their leader as PM.

Sam Russell

Inquitus wrote: »

Ken Clarke would be the ideal man for the job, not re-standing at the next election, Father of the House, and should be palatable enough for everyone, if the Lib Dems can't get over their Corbyn issues. This is however the clearest best way forwards, avoiding any shens Bojo might try and play with the Benn Act.

I agree.

The Gov of National Unity (for want of a better name) should look to stay in power for six months though, and aim to hold a second ref before the GE because FPTP distorts the result of a GE. The question on the ballot paper is to be decided, but Remain vs the WA would appear to be the best.

Also, they could implement all BJ's promised spending on health and policing and an end to Tory austerity. They could also start an enquiry into the original Vote Leave campaign and all that followed.

beggars_bush

Varta wrote: »

Playing party politics is exactly what the labour party is doing. They want the unelectable Corbyn as PM so they can go into an election with their leader as PM.

I don't think that'll make any difference

Bannasidhe

Varta wrote: »

Playing party politics is exactly what the labour party is doing. They want the unelectable Corbyn as PM so they can go into an election with their leader as PM.

Like it or not the LP is the biggest party in opposition by a huge margin. Their vote was increased in the last GE under Corbyn's leadership. They enjoyed a swing of 9.6% and gained 30 seats.
That was a year after the Brexit Ref.

So saying they are 'unelectable' is pure hyperbole.

The conventions are clear - the leader of the largest opposition party is invited to form a caretaker government until a GE can be called. If he/she cannot then look elsewhere.

The LibDems want to ignore the conventions that don't suit their agenda - which makes them 'guilty' of doing exactly the same thing as Johnson - but the LP are accused of playing party politics because they are looking to abide by the long standing conventions??

Seriously?

Varta

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Like it or not the LP is the biggest party in opposition by a huge margin. Their vote was increased in the last GE under Corbyn's leadership. They enjoyed a swing of 9.6% and gained 30 seats.
That was a year after the Brexit Ref.

So saying they are 'unelectable' is pure hyperbole.

The conventions are clear - the leader of the largest opposition party is invited to form a caretaker government until a GE can be called. If he/she cannot then look elsewhere.

The LibDems want to ignore the conventions that don't suit their agenda - which makes them 'guilty' of doing exactly the same thing as Johnson - but the LP are accused of playing party politics because they are looking to abide by the long standing conventions??
Seriously?

Yes, seriously, the Labour party is playing party politics. As is every other party bar the SNP, whose motivation is another indy referendum. I don't believe any party in the UK is capable of putting party politics or personal interest aside for the good of the country, which partly explains the mess that they are in.

CelticRambler

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Gov of National Unity (for want of a better name) should look to stay in power for six months though, and aim to hold a second ref before the GE

On this basis, with Ken Clarke as caretaker PM, Harriet Harman as caretaker deputy PM, it would surely be possible for the Lib Dems to agree a Confidence and Supply arrangement with a Lab/SNP caretaker coalition. And if that were the case, I have no doubt the EU would quite happily offer a 6- or even a 9-month extension.

Dyr

Most of the criticism of Corbyn and the SNP is bascially: "Why are these people, who I completely disagree with and would never vote for, not doing the things I want them to?"

Enzokk

Varta wrote: »

Yes, seriously, the Labour party is playing party politics. As is every other party bar the SNP, whose motivation is another indy referendum. I don't believe any party in the UK is capable of putting party politics or personal interest aside for the good of the country, which partly explains the mess that they are in.

The SNP is in the enviable position of knowing the polling is showing them picking up seats for standing by their position. This means they can happily pursue stopping Brexit and still pick up support, which is not the case for Labour.

I agree with what they are doing, but I think it is a little disingenuous to say they are not playing party politics. It is just that at the moment party politics is working out for them.

Varta

Enzokk wrote: »

The SNP is in the enviable position of knowing the polling is showing them picking up seats for standing by their position. This means they can happily pursue stopping Brexit and still pick up support, which is not the case for Labour.

I agree with what they are doing, but I think it is a little disingenuous to say they are not playing party politics. It is just that at the moment party politics is working out for them.

Perhaps I was unclear. You are right of course in saying that the SNP are playing party politics. What I meant was that they are not playing those politics with regard to HoC, but with regard to a Scottish indy ref. I have noticed over the past few days on various fora that Labour supporters are talking of a GNU that might not be short lived, which shows their hand.

briany

Enzokk wrote: »

The SNP is in the enviable position of knowing the polling is showing them picking up seats for standing by their position. This means they can happily pursue stopping Brexit and still pick up support, which is not the case for Labour.

I agree with what they are doing, but I think it is a little disingenuous to say they are not playing party politics. It is just that at the moment party politics is working out for them.

Shouldn't be a surprise that current party policy is a fairly accurate indicator of its base's views. Labour's ambivalent stance reflects the fact that its base is still hopelessly split on the issue of Brexit. The question Labour have to ask is if they could really afford to take a firmer stance. Choosing either way puts them in a battle with either CON or LD. It's cynical to take an amorphic stance on Brexit, but it would at least be lawful cynicism, unlike the attempted prorogation.

Joe_ Public

I have heard this about Labour supposedly playing party politics in terms of a unity government they see as being of longer term than assumed, but i cant see how this can be so without the continued support of opposition parties who can simply pull the plug on it anytime they feel like? How could labour survive on that basis? I think it's also possible to argue that their brexit stance is a strange way to play party politics, given it hasn't been going down well with the electorate on either side. Doesn't necessarily mean it's a glittering monument to integrity either, but it's not a cowardly option as i have heard it described on here before. The less brave option, surely, would be simply to pick a side - ie remain - because that is people seem to want.

Roger_007

briany wrote: »

Shouldn't be a surprise that current party policy is a fairly accurate indicator of its base's views. Labour's ambivalent stance reflects the fact that its base is still hopelessly split on the issue of Brexit. The question Labour have to ask is if they could really afford to take a firmer stance. Choosing either way puts them in a battle with either CON or LD. It's cynical to take an amorphic stance on Brexit, but it would at least be lawful cynicism, unlike the attempted prorogation.

Labour have made horrendous mistakes on the whole issue of Brexit.
They should have opposed the holding of a binary in-out referendum when the question was so complex.
They should have opposed the triggering of Art 50 until the principles of the exit deal were negotiated and agreed with the EU.
They should have produced an actual alternative to May's deal instead of just voting against it.
Labour's position is now hopeless. Their policy of negotiating a deal and then campaigning against it is laughable.
When the GE comes, Labour have no hope of getting a majority. The best they can hope for is that they can form a coalition with the Lib Dems and the SNP.

A Dub in Glasgo

Roger_007 wrote: »

They should have opposed the triggering of Art 50 until the principles of the exit deal were negotiated and agreed with the EU.

They could not do that as the EU cannot negotiate a Withdrawal Agreement until Article 50 is invoked

PeadarCo

Bannasidhe wrote:

The LibDems want to ignore the conventions that don't suit their agenda - which makes them 'guilty' of doing exactly the same thing as Johnson - but the LP are accused of playing party politics because they are looking to abide by the long standing conventions??

The problem is that Corbyn is just as divisive as Johnson. Which says a lot about Corbyn. Labour would be in a far better situation in a general election if their leader wasn't as extreme. However currently both Labour and Tory members value ideological purity above competence which naturally involves compromise. If Lib Dems are trying to appeal to middle of road voters backing either 2 of the extremes doesn't make sense. What the UK needs I'd argue is to see both extremes defeated at the ballot box in the long run anyway. Now obviously that is difficult given FPTP.

Corbyn won't be able to get a better deal at least in terms of the withdrawal agreement. The actual long term trade agreement is different. Given that Labour don't have a defined position what's the point of making him PM when he doesn't have an opinion on the one decision he has to make.

GM228

I guess Johnson isn't the only one possibly under Police investigation:-

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsPolitics/status/1177925950702534656?s=19

But he was supposed to say:-

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1177932689321730050?s=19

He said "take knife to pen pushers", but was supposed to say "take the axe", yea I can see how he could easily make that mistake...

Tell me how

AllForIt wrote: »

It seems that if your on the right side of the Brexit argument you can just about say whatever you like and are exempt from feeling thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

you are comparing that to belittling the assassination of an MP?

Really?

All sides use evocative language at times, Jess Philips, David Lammy, John McDonald, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Tom Watson etc, and Brendan Cox was correct to point it out.

But, there was a marked difference between most utterances and what happened during the week. Everything said in the HoC is seen as part of the legislative conversation of the country and it was clear that Johnson was being deliberately antagonistic repeatedly even after being asked to refrain.
Also, he deliberately misconstrued Jo Cox's position on Brexit in saying that the best way to honour her was to deliver Brexit.

Also, this 'right side of the argument' thing is subjective. Time and again people are frustrated with what appears to be bias in terms of how Brexiteers are supported on the BBC for example.
We saw a story surrounding Naga Munchetty last week and the BBC defended their finding that she had acted improperly in saying that 'it should not be possible to determine the views of the presenter' or words to that effect. It was queried in several locations why such rigour has not being applied to the utterances of Jon Humphries or Andrew Neil both of whom, would strongly seem to be on a different side of the argument to what you are implying above.

P.S. Brendan O'Neil flat out called for 'physical action' (riots) during the week on the BBC and they have not commented on it.

Strazdas

GM228 wrote: »

He said "take knife to pen pushers", but was supposed to say "take the axe", yea I can see how he could easily make that mistake...

Even "take the axe" means to get rid of them, which sounds pretty extreme in itself.

CrabRevolution

Roger_007 wrote: »

Labour have made horrendous mistakes on the whole issue of Brexit.
They should have opposed the holding of a binary in-out referendum when the question was so complex.
They should have opposed the triggering of Art 50 until the principles of the exit deal were negotiated and agreed with the EU.
They should have produced an actual alternative to May's deal instead of just voting against it.
Labour's position is now hopeless. Their policy of negotiating a deal and then campaigning against it is laughable.
When the GE comes, Labour have no hope of getting a majority. The best they can hope for is that they can form a coalition with the Lib Dems and the SNP.

The EU would never agree to such a suicidal proposition.

Imagine if it were possible to see what deal a country would get upon leaving the EU without having to actually commit to leaving. You would have countries perpetually negotiating to leave in order to hold the EU to ransom and try to get more favorable treatment.

prawnsambo

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The EU would never agree to such a suicidal proposition.

Imagine if it were possible to see what deal a country would get upon leaving the EU without having to actually commit to leaving. You would have countries perpetually negotiating to leave in order to hold the EU to ransom and try to get more favorable treatment.

Putting that aside (and it's obviously true), May should have called for all party involvement in trashing out a brexit policy that they all agreed with. She had to know that she didn't, and wouldn't have the support of the ERG and certainly shouldn't bank on it, so getting a bilateral or trilateral deal agreed by a cross-party committee would have made more sense. Even if it was just at the level of what red lines they should hold.

Roger_007

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The EU would never agree to such a suicidal proposition.

Imagine if it were possible to see what deal a country would get upon leaving the EU without having to actually commit to leaving. You would have countries perpetually negotiating to leave in order to hold the EU to ransom and try to get more favorable treatment.

I don't disagree with that, but it would have been a much better plan to get broad agreement in the HoC on what the approach to the negotiations was going to be before agreeing to trigger Art 50. It was triggered without anyone having the faintest idea what the HoC would /would not accept in a withdrawal agreement. It was like agreeing to buy a house in 2 years time without knowing the location, the condition or the price.

Spanish Eyes

Brexiteers have gone mad, they are members of a cult now, and cannot escape without losing face big time.

They have no counter argument as to what a No Deal means for everyone in their country, NI, Scotland, Wales and England. (and their near neighbours too). But they don't care anymore. It is do or die now.

Very strange and unsettling although it seems to be OK for them and by god are they fighting it out. I am baffled.

I blame it on the education system, and the fact that there is no point in engaging in politics if you happen to live in a Safe Seat constituency. FPTP is magic isn't it.

Capt'n Midnight

GM228 wrote: »

He said "take knife to pen pushers", but was supposed to say "take the axe", yea I can see how he could easily make that mistake...

Especially when the media is in a frenzy about knife crime.

A Dub in Glasgo

Roger_007 wrote: »

I don't disagree with that, but it would have been a much better plan to get broad agreement in the HoC on what the approach to the negotiations was going to be before agreeing to trigger Art 50. It was triggered without anyone having the faintest idea what the HoC would /would not accept in a withdrawal agreement. It was like agreeing to buy a house in 2 years time without knowing the location, the condition or the price.

100% correct although that is the fault of the Tories, not Labour

CrabRevolution

Roger_007 wrote: »

I don't disagree with that, but it would have been a much better plan to get broad agreement in the HoC on what the approach to the negotiations was going to be before agreeing to trigger Art 50. It was triggered without anyone having the faintest idea what the HoC would /would not accept in a withdrawal agreement. It was like agreeing to buy a house in 2 years time without knowing the location, the condition or the price.

Yeah that's more accurate to say, there should have been a very detailed plan set out as to what they wanted.

That said, judging from Corbyn's "we'll renegotiate to keep all the benefits while still leaving the EU" stance that he holds to this day, I'd argue that the HoC were very united at the time of A50 being triggered. Despite repeated denials by the EU, most UK politicians (even centrist and pro-EU ones) assumed the overriding concern of the EU is to avoid conflict and upsetting the economic status quo (German cars, French wine etc.), and as a result would just hand the UK what it wanted.

Rjd2

I think you need to speak to Lib Dem people about the relationship with Corbyn. I knew it wasn't cordial but recently spoke to someone and damn its bad.

Its not just high profile MPS that have defected such as Chuka, its a lot of people in all different areas of the party. They feel the abuse aimed at them by the online Corbyn cult was to much and are not keen to do anything to help him.

Swinson who has got a lot of abuse online has numerous times said she won't work with Corbyn so many in the party would be very upset if after all that she made him PM even briefly.

Labour can moan, but their loyalists are learning you can't insult people for years and then be upset when they refuse to make your Messiah PM.

EDIT

This was trending in the UK last night...

https://twitter.com/hashtag/ResignJoSwinson?src=hash

Oh dear.