Jeremy Corbyn

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Reading between the lines (and from what Kier said in his interview this weekend, when he suddenly said agreeing to the backstop might be unavoidable at this stage), I think what the EU might offer is keep the backstop but change it to temporary/fixed date/unilateral exit mechanism IF the UK agrees to a permanent customs union. Which kind of makes sense. 

defo can't see it unless it was "the" customs union - because anything else is something undefined, yet to be agreed, and there might be no agreement.

But even with "the" customs union I think it's unlikely, because there's still nothing to bind the UK to an agreement of no border in Ireland without the backstop.

[Scott129]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

but that's nothing of the issue that's stopping MPs voting for anything.

There's a reason why May is going back (yet again) to the EU about the backstop. MPs won't vote thru a deal which hands over the UK's sovereignty over Northern Ireland to the EU on a permanent basis (until the EU says otherwise).

If Corbyn could get 600 MPs to agree to a customs union those MPs still wouldn't vote thru a deal that included the backstop.

Well a permanent customs union would avoid a hard border in ireland, so there wouldnt even be a need for backstop. Id suggest there is a majority for one in the commons, if May and the tory remainers backed it

 

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Corbyn wants brexit.

I disagree, I personally think he is ambivalent to it and probably just wishes it would go away. 

Brexit isnt Corbyns raison d'etre in the way it is for some centrists. 

But anyway my point was the remain campaign woyld need to attack the leave campaign rather than Corbyn if it hopes to win. It also needs to put forward a positive vision of EU membership rather than project fear

i can't see it doing either

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

Well a permanent customs union would avoid a hard border in ireland, so there wouldnt even be a need for backstop.

That's not correct.

The backstop is in the legally-binding withdrawal agreement.

A permanent customs union can only be formally agreed after we've left and without a backstop the UK could change its mind about no-border in Ireland.

Which is why there will always be a backstop is in the legally-binding withdrawal agreement.

Edited January 21, 2019 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

Brexit isnt Corbyns raison d'etre in the way it is for some centrists. 

you what?   

In votes for over 30 years he's defied the labour whip to vote with the tory brexit headbangers to try to stop further UK integration with the EU and to vote for a referendum so that the UK could leave the EU.

As far as Corbyn's desire to be in the EU goes he might as well be Rees Mogg.

And he says May wants to run the clock down, while he avoids committing Labour to anything and the clock runs down.

[Scott129]

Just now, eFestivals said:

That's not correct.

The backstop is in the legally-binding withdrawal agreement.

A permanent customs union can only be formally agreed after we've left and without a backstop the UK could change its mind about no-border in Ireland.

Which is why there will always be a backstop is in the legally-binding withdrawal agreement.

And the EU has said it will renegotiate the withdrawal agreement if May drops her red lines. 

The backstop comes into place if necessary to avoid a hard border in Ireland. If there was a permanent customs union then it would avoid that, so there would be no backstop. 

But regardless, I dont think the remainers in Parliament have a problem with a backstop, just the hard brexiteers (who would never be won over by a customs union regardless). I think most remainers' primary concern was the lack of concrete promises as to workers rights and the "blindfold" nature of the withdrawal agreement 

[Scott129]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

you what?   

In votes for over 30 years he's defied the labour whip to vote with the tory brexit headbangers to try to stop further UK integration with the EU and to vote for a referendum so that the UK could leave the EU.

As far as Corbyn's desire to be in the EU goes he might as well be Rees Mogg.

And he says May wants to run the clock down, while he avoids committing Labour to anything and the clock runs down.

Corbyn's primary concern is to get Labour into power so that he can bring about radical change and implement his social democratic manifesto. He clearly would rather not have the brexit issue to deal with at this moment

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

The backstop comes into place if necessary to avoid a hard border in Ireland. If there was a permanent customs union then it would avoid that, so there would be no backstop. 

As I said, that's not correct.

There *CANNOT* be a permanent customs union agreed until after we've left the EU via the withdrawal agreement (that inevitably *MUST* contain the backstop).

Because otherwise we could just trick thew EU into having no backstop. They are not prepared to take that risk, and that is why it's the EU's own redline no matter what is in the non-binding future relationship doc.

Edited January 21, 2019 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Scott129 said:

Corbyn's primary concern is to get Labour into power so that he can bring about radical change and implement his social democratic manifesto. He clearly would rather not have the brexit issue to deal with at this moment

His primary concern is get Labour into power, but with brexit as part of that.

It currently looks like his plan is to try and make May put no-deal thru.

[Scott129]

it would never come into place though because you would have a permanent customs union, so it wouldnt be necessary. 

As I have said, the people labour need to (and could) convince about a customs union don't care about the backstop. Even the DUP said it would accept a soft brexit provided it was the same for northern ireland and the rest of the UK

[Scott129]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It currently looks like his plan is to try and make May put no-deal thru.

Surely you don't actually believe this? Labour helped win the meaningful vote for Parliament, it whipped in favour of Cooper and Grieve's seperate amendments to prevent no-deal, it is going to whip in favour of Boles amendment requiring the government to extend article 50 rather than leave on no deal. 

If he wanted to make May leave on no-deal then why would he do all that?

[Mr.Tease]

10 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

Corbyn's primary concern is to get Labour into power so that he can bring about radical change and implement his social democratic manifesto. He clearly would rather not have the brexit issue to deal with at this moment

I agree, I think Tony Benn was a lot more passionate on this issue, where as I've never got the impression Corbyn is- think he'd be fine with a soft brexit, but it doesn't seem an make or break issue for him. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Scott129 said:

it would never come into place though because you would have a permanent customs union, so it wouldnt be necessary. 

only if the UK follows thru with what it says.

But even without any of May's red lines, Ireland always said that a backstop would be its own redline.

Plus of course you're saying "a" customs union, which is an undefined thing and so neither side can guarantee agreement.

But even if "the" customs union is what the UK wants, it's still the case that the only way to bind the UK to no-border in Ireland is with a legally-binding clause in the withdrawal agreement.

(I agree that the backstop would be easier for MPs to swallow if the plan was a customs union, but the backstop would still be in the WA)

[Mr.Tease]

Are there any polls that ask what options people wouldn't accept or would as a last resort? I've read a few that ask people's first preference, but those are useless! 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Scott129 said:

Surely you don't actually believe this? Labour helped win the meaningful vote for Parliament, it whipped in favour of Cooper and Grieve's seperate amendments to prevent no-deal, it is going to whip in favour of Boles amendment requiring the government to extend article 50 rather than leave on no deal. 

If he wanted to make May leave on no-deal then why would he do all that?

Labour - Corbyn - whipped its MPs to vote thru the "crash out with no-deal" clause that is now being raised as an issue.

The votes for Coopers and Grieves amendments are later today, and there's no word on whether labour are whipping for them yet.

 

[Scott129]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

only if the UK follows thru with what it says.

But even without any of May's red lines, Ireland always said that a backstop would be its own redline.

Plus of course you're saying "a" customs union, which is an undefined thing and so neither side can guarantee agreement.

But even if "the" customs union is what the UK wants, it's still the case that the only way to bind the UK to no-border in Ireland is with a legally-binding clause in the withdrawal agreement.

(I agree that the backstop would be easier for MPs to swallow if the plan was a customs union, but the backstop would still be in the WA)

You can't be in "the" customs union unless your in the EU. Labour would match or beat the EU on workers rights, environmental standards, standards of goods etc so you could have frictionless trade (so no hard border) 

 

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The votes for Coopers and Grieves amendments are later today, and there's no word on whether labour are whipping for them yet.

 

I was referring to Coopers previous amendment on one of the finance bill which limited the governments power in the event of no deal and Grieve's amendment that required May to return to Parliament today (limiting her ability to run down the clock to no deal). Both got through because Labour whipped for them

[Scott129]

9 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Are there any polls that ask what options people wouldn't accept or would as a last resort? I've read a few that ask people's first preference, but those are useless! 

Its difficult to tell, as it depends on what the options are against. No deal seems to be more popular than Mays deal, with remain ahead of both. A straight remain v leave poll puts remain slightly ahead, but not much. 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

You can't be in "the" customs union unless your in the EU. Labour would match or beat the EU on workers rights, environmental standards, standards of goods etc so you could have frictionless trade (so no hard border) 

If it's not "the" CU then it's something yet to be defined, and therefore cannot be agreed until it is defined.

And when defined, it cannot be formally agreed until after the UK has left the EU on a WA including the backstop.

 

4 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

I was referring to Coopers previous amendment on one of the finance bill which limited the governments power in the event of no deal and Grieve's amendment that required May to return to Parliament today (limiting her ability to run down the clock to no deal). Both got through because Labour whipped for them

Labour whipped its MPs to vote thru the no-deal default in the first place.

[Scott129]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Labour whipped its MPs to vote thru the no-deal default in the first place.

What do you mean sorry? No deal is the default of article 50 expiring with no deal in place. 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

What do you mean sorry? No deal is the default of article 50 expiring with no deal in place. 

a law was passed to cause that; Labour whipped it thru.

[Scott129]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

a law was passed to cause that; Labour whipped it thru.

What law? Are you referring simply to the law triggering article 50? 

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

What law? Are you referring simply to the law triggering article 50? 

Nope. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

It sets in law that we leave with no deal if a deal isn't agreed.

It's why it's not in May's power to take no-deal off the table.

Edited January 21, 2019 by eFestivals

[Scott129]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

It sets in law that we leave with no deal if a deal isn't agreed.

It's why it's not in May's power to take no-deal off the table.

So it sets out what is already law under article 50 (i.e to paraphrase May, it changes nothing). You surely cant use that as evidence of Corbyns desire for no deal? Particuarly given everything else he has done to try and prevent it. 

[Thunderstruck]

37 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

Surely you don't actually believe this? Labour helped win the meaningful vote for Parliament, it whipped in favour of Cooper and Grieve's seperate amendments to prevent no-deal, it is going to whip in favour of Boles amendment requiring the government to extend article 50 rather than leave on no deal. 

If he wanted to make May leave on no-deal then why would he do all that?

Although I'm no expert from speaking to various people the feeling seems to be that Corbyn would rather drop out with no deal than risk staying in the EU. He's massively anti EU and sees it as a capitalist club. I'd imagine a lot of the party members (majority?) who voted him in are pro-eu, but they will be disappointed if they think Corbyn will pay any attention to them.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

You surely cant use that as evidence of Corbyns desire for no deal?

the evidence for that is him backing away from all attempts to stop it.

Gove and Liddington (acting as May's secret agents) asked Vince to provide them with his detailed plans for another ref the other day, while Corbyn says no one in Labour is allowed to speak to them (this is the guy who says it's always worth talking to terrorists, don't forget).

He's asking may to promise the impossible as his reason to refuse talks.
(I agree that May is playing games around it too, tho).

But anyway, I wouldn't say "desire". i'd say "preferred option" - as long as he feels the responsibility for it falls on May.

Edited January 21, 2019 by eFestivals

[Scott129]

8 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

Although I'm no expert from speaking to various people the feeling seems to be that Corbyn would rather drop out with no deal than risk staying in the EU. He's massively anti EU and sees it as a capitalist club. I'd imagine a lot of the party members (majority?) who voted him in are pro-eu, but they will be disappointed if they think Corbyn will pay any attention to them.

He definitely thinks the EU is a capitalist club but he certainly doesnt want to leave with no deal, hence why he has whipped his mps to vote in favour of amendments that limit that possibility. 

The vast majority of members (while being pro EU) are still very much behind Corbyn. 

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the evidence for that is him backing away from all attempts to stop it.

Gove and Liddington (acting as May's secret agents) asked Vince to provide them with his detailed plans for another ref the other day, while Corbyn says no one in Labour is allowed to speak to them (this is the guy who says it's always worth talking to terrorists, don't forget).

He's asking may to promise the impossible as his reason to refuse talks.
(I agree that May is playing games around it too, tho).

But anyway, I wouldn't say "desire". i'd say "preferred option" - as long as he feels the responsibility for it falls on May.

But whether that legislation was in place or not, no deal would be the default so it changed nothing. 

And today May is going to Parliament to say she is ignoring all other parties opinions and pressing on trying to secure amendments for her deal. Corbyn was right not to fall into Mays PR exercise, when she was never going to deviate from her red lines. The whole point of it was so she could come to Parliament today and say "none of the other parties want to deliver the 'real brexit' so we need to push on with my deal". You can only negotiate if there is a genuine chance of a change of position

He's not asking for her to legally commit to ruling out no deal (which would be impossible). He was asking her to politically rule it out by saying she would extend article 50 if it came to it (which the EU has already said it would)