Jeremy Corbyn

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

You would still have to go through the process set out in the treaties

which says leaving is done via a member state's own constitution.

[Scott129]

40 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

why would anyone support remain-and-lose-all-say? Remaining in the EU is clearly better (cos we keep a say), while remain-and-lose-all-say is nothing of what leavers voted for.

A compromise is meant to make most people happy about some things. That would make no happy about anything.

 

But it's nothing that's agreed or that the EU have indicated would be agreed.

I agree which is why i would turn down Norway plus. A customs union ends freedom of movement (the primary reason for leave imo) whilst protecting jobs and protecting standards. Thats a fair compromise imo

Its not agreed, but Turkey are in a customs union with the EU without free movement so i'm fairly confident we could agree

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

Its not agreed, but Turkey are in a customs union with the EU without free movement so i'm fairly confident we could agree

EU/Turkey has a border, not no-border.

3 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

i'm fairly confident we could agree

A customs union is classic cakism. It says we can have the benefits without the obligations.

Jez's version also has the EU asking the UK if it's OK if the EU sign a new custom's deal, which is never going to happen.

[DeanoL]

7 hours ago, eFestivals said:

but it can.

It just can't cherry pick all the nice stuff and leave with no consequences.

Except we've mostly been allowed to. The EU have basically given us everything we asked for. We didn't ask for a Customs Union, we didn't ask for membership of the Single Market. We ruled those out at various points as "not Brexit enough". The EU probably wouldn't have given them without freedom of movement, they're quite clear on that. But we didn't even ask. We told the EU we didn't want them.

7 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).

While that's true, I don't understand it. Do you think Boris and so on actually give a shit about sovereignty? It feels to me like an excuse to not back the deal. I mean, no hard border in Ireland was like the first thing both us and the EU agreed was necessary, and every UK MP seemed to emphatically agree. And so May and the EU deliver a deal that ensures no hard border in Ireland in the only way possible (ie. we will do a trade agreement, but on the off chance we can't, there's a backup plan which is what we all agreed). The backstop feels like a manufactured problem, because there's actually nothing in May's deal that most Leavers would object to.

4 hours 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.

With Corbyn's support could she not just repeal it though?

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The EU have basically given us everything we asked for.

They've said we can end free movement and have a trade deal with them down the line, but the devil is in the detail. Whatever that deal ends up being it won't be as good as the deal we already have.

4 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Do you think Boris and so on actually give a shit about sovereignty?

Boris doesn't care about anything.

Most other MPs are smart enough to recognise they'd be signing away UK sovereignty over NI under duress and that's not a politically acceptable thing for any politician to do (apart from when surrendering in war).

As well sovereignty being a big deal it also means the EU have us by the short and curlies in that future trade negotiation where they can use NI as leverage.

7 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

It feels to me like an excuse to not back the deal.

No shit sherlock.  

Nothing about the bill that Labour is refusing to support (May's deal) ends the possibility of anything they've said they want from brexit. Labour are using the backstop as a reason to not support it (it was the first thing Corbyn raised in the debate).

The headbangers are using it because it brings the chance of a no-deal brexit closer, and they'd prefer that.

And the DUP just like to say 'no' to everything.

If we're leaving the EU the deal is in about the terms anyone sensible would expect and want - apart from the backstop. That does make it tricky.

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The backstop feels like a manufactured problem, because there's actually nothing in May's deal that most Leavers would object to.

You're not particularly wrong IMO ... but the sovereignty and leverage thing are both real issues for some, even some of those who are supporting the deal already.

 

[Alex DeLarge]

Good luck to Labour if they want to run with Norway. Freedom of movement is consistently polled as one of the least favourable aspects of the EU. 

[uscore]

I personally think we're relatively safe from a no-deal hard Brexit.  I think at the very last second parliament will delay until they can delay no more, then reluctantly sign whatever deal is currently on the table, or throw for another referendum.  Anything to avoid no-deal, which only a minority wants.  

And I'm not even sure everyone in that minority really wants no-deal.  I think it's just a useful political position to take, so they can criticise whatever deal is eventually made for not being hard enough.

[eFestivals]

34 minutes ago, uscore said:

And I'm not even sure everyone in that minority really wants no-deal

true.

The mindset of many brexiters is one of religion, where there's a perfection to be had if only the right person does it (lol). 

The reality of a no-deal brexit will be the opposite of perfect and none of those who said they want no-deal brexit will like what they've caused or even accept responsibility for causing it.

[Mr.Tease]

5 hours ago, Alex DeLarge said:

Good luck to Labour if they want to run with Norway. Freedom of movement is consistently polled as one of the least favourable aspects of the EU. 

Name a solution that's popular

[Alex DeLarge]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Name a solution that's popular

Hahaha you've got me there Tease mate!

In an ideal world I would like to remain but obviously that won't happen so I am all for the Norway deal. The thing is though, I have no idea how on Earth it's going to work. Farage, Johnson etc. will scream betrayal if we continue free movement and May has categorically ruled it out.

[Mr.Tease]

8 minutes ago, Alex DeLarge said:

Hahaha you've got me there Tease mate!

In an ideal world I would like to remain but obviously that won't happen so I am all for the Norway deal. The thing is though, I have no idea how on Earth it's going to work. Farage, Johnson etc. will scream betrayal if we continue free movement and May has categorically ruled it out.

Yep, that's where I stand- I'd accept Norways plus to avoid the risk of no deal, but it's still a shit solution. Really a case of pick your poison!

Bottom line is the brexiteers I think are happy screaming betrayal because that's their default position. At the end of the day they won the referendum, then they all fled rather than opt to be in control of the process (Boris, Gove and Leadsome all pulled out of the leadership contest). They then backed May to do it. They then complained at May's solution. They then said Norway wasn't acceptable (despite Farage and Gove saying in the referendum campaign that would be okay). It's 100% their fault,  but they're happy to blame everyone else and make out they're the ones hard done by.

[stuartbert two hats]

59 minutes ago, uscore said:

And I'm not even sure everyone in that minority really wants no-deal.  I think it's just a useful political position to take, so they can criticise whatever deal is eventually made for not being hard enough.

The scary thing is that the swivel eyed loons in the general public who have embraced a no-deal option genuinely want it, and no amount of project fear is going to dissuade them.  

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I'd accept Norways plus to avoid the risk of no deal, but it's still a shit solution.

I'd say it's worse than no-deal.

because if we did a Norway option, not only couldn't we "remain and reform" - it's remain and no reform - it also means that a few years down the line we go thru all of the same thing again and then hard-brexit.

Norway doesn't put brexit back in the box, it ensures it's open until we 'proper' brexit.

A new ref and a remain vote is the only thing which has half a chance of putting brexit back in its box. It might not, but if we don't try we get all the shit anyway.

[Mr.Tease]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'd say it's worse than no-deal.

because if we did a Norway option, not only couldn't we "remain and reform" - it's remain and no reform - it also means that a few years down the line we go thru all of the same thing again and then hard-brexit.

Norway doesn't put brexit back in the box, it ensures it's open until we 'proper' brexit.

A new ref and a remain vote is the only thing which has half a chance of putting brexit back in its box. It might not, but if we don't try we get all the shit anyway.

I think there's a 30% rump of people who feel passionately about hard brexit, there's 10% who'd quite like to leave and then there's 10% to 20% at the moment who don't want to leave but think we have to respect the first referendum. Norway plus hopefully peals off the later two removing the numbers the hardcore brexiteers need to get change further down the line. 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I think there's a 30% rump of people who feel passionately about hard brexit, there's 10% who'd quite like to leave and then there's 10% to 20% at the moment who don't want to leave but think we have to respect the first referendum. Norway plus hopefully peals off the later two removing the numbers the hardcore brexiteers need to get change further down the line. 

doing a form of brexit won't marginalise the brexiters, it'll just make them far worse.

They'll be emboldened because they got some of it, while saying things are only bad because it wasn't done properly. So on and on and on and on it goes, with those brexiters chipping away and the same electorate willing to suck it up.

Whereas if we vote now on options, we can prove once and for all that no form of real-world brexit has majority support - and while the brexiters still won't shut up about wanting brexit, they'll be proven as a busted flush.

(and if a form of brexit did somehow win a vote, at least it'll be a clear win for a particular plan instead of a vote for unicorns).

Brexit doesn't go away once the WA is signed. That's only the start of something which will go on for decades fucking up this country.

[Mr.Tease]

54 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

doing a form of brexit won't marginalise the brexiters, it'll just make them far worse.

They'll be emboldened because they got some of it, while saying things are only bad because it wasn't done properly. So on and on and on and on it goes, with those brexiters chipping away and the same electorate willing to suck it up.

Whereas if we vote now on options, we can prove once and for all that no form of real-world brexit has majority support - and while the brexiters still won't shut up about wanting brexit, they'll be proven as a busted flush.

(and if a form of brexit did somehow win a vote, at least it'll be a clear win for a particular plan instead of a vote for unicorns).

Brexit doesn't go away once the WA is signed. That's only the start of something which will go on for decades fucking up this country.

But for me you'll never placate those 30% (even if you did a hard brexit and it went to shit, they'd just move on to blaming immigrants who are already here), the key is separating the others who are aligned with them at the moment.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

But for me you'll never placate those 30% 

correct - but there's a big difference to their influence when their wants are the driving path compared to when their wants have been shown as minority opinion (if that's what happens).

And if there wants are to be the driving path because its majority opinion, then let's at least have them own it by having them state precisely which version of real-world brexit they want.

Otherwise they'll get brexit and they'll claim it's a fuck-up because of someone else and not them - and won't be placated and will keep on driving us off every cliff in the world.

[uscore]

Ironically enough, if you are looking for a truly hard brexit, or no deal, then your best bet might be to support another referendum.  I reckon the signs are clear that parliament will vote for some kind of deal before the deadline expires, and it'll probably be much softer than you want.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, uscore said:

and it'll probably be much softer

which only means the campaign for a "real" brexit will continue, with the brexiters being the leading political voices.

There's only one way to marginalise them, by proving they hold marginal views with another ref.

Edited January 23, 2019 by eFestivals

[jackarmy]

As we edge closer to the possibility of a 2nd referendum these things have to be considered. I can't see Chukka, Soubry, Mandelson etc. willingly letting go of the reins as the face of the Remain campaign. Maybe we'd have to see two prominent Remain groups, like Leave had in the last referendum.

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, jackarmy said:

As we edge closer to the possibility of a 2nd referendum these things have to be considered. I can't see Chukka, Soubry, Mandelson etc. willingly letting go of the reins as the face of the Remain campaign. Maybe we'd have to see two prominent Remain groups, like Leave had in the last referendum.

that only proves that another group to 'the Blairite group' is more concerned with 'the Blairite group' than they are the bigger issues. Twats.

Why the fuck do they think lifetime-brexiter/remain-and-reform-and-go-on-holiday/sit-on-the-fence/remain-and-can't-reform/dither/dither/dither Corbyn is going to be a better advocate?

 

[Superscally]

On 1/22/2019 at 10:43 AM, Mr.Tease said:

But for me you'll never placate those 30% (even if you did a hard brexit and it went to shit, they'd just move on to blaming immigrants who are already here), the key is separating the others who are aligned with them at the moment.

Is there any chance we could deport those who make up the 30%?

[Scott129]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

that only proves that another group to 'the Blairite group' is more concerned with 'the Blairite group' than they are the bigger issues. Twats.

Why the fuck do they think lifetime-brexiter/remain-and-reform-and-go-on-holiday/sit-on-the-fence/remain-and-can't-reform/dither/dither/dither Corbyn is going to be a better advocate?

 

Is it not more the fact that the Blairite faction would represent the elite and status quo that many leave voters rallied against? 

Nothing to do with having an issue with them, but if remain wants to win a second referendum then it can't simply argue for the status quo, it has to accept that left behind communities have legitimate grievances and put forward a proposition that addresses these alongside EU membership

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Scott129 said:

Is it not more the fact that the Blairite faction would represent the elite and status quo that many leave voters rallied against? 

Nothing to do with having an issue with them, but if remain wants to win a second referendum then it can't simply argue for the status quo, it has to accept that left behind communities have legitimate grievances and put forward a proposition that addresses these alongside EU membership

was it 'the elite' they were having a pop at? Or was it the prime minister? Or did they have more-reasoned objections to the EU over things such as as FoM or sovereignty?

The fact is that no vote can be won from those making up their own arguments; they can't be reasoned with.

In comparison, some of those who objected due to FoM or sovereignty can be won over in light of the real facts of what would happen post-brexit, such as immigration continuing at much the same rate and that compromises always have to be made to make agreements.

Fuck idiot factionalism. There's an argument to be won on the facts.

[Scott129]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

was it 'the elite' they were having a pop at? Or was it the prime minister? Or did they have more-reasoned objections to the EU over things such as as FoM or sovereignty?

The fact is that no vote can be won from those making up their own arguments; they can't be reasoned with.

In comparison, some of those who objected due to FoM or sovereignty can be won over in light of the real facts of what would happen post-brexit, such as immigration continuing at much the same rate and that compromises always have to be made to make agreements.

Fuck idiot factionalism. There's an argument to be won on the facts.

Imo a lot of it was a protest vote against the establishment from communities that were dismantled and forgotten about from the Thatcher Period. Yes FOM and sovereignty were important issues but the whole feel of the vote felt like a big middle finger to the establishment. I dont think centrists politicians arguing for more of the same would convince many leave voters whereas a progressive leader like Carolyn Lucas (i think you've suggested her previously) would at least be able to say "we've heard your concerns, we are going to fix them, but that is best done inside the EU"

I completely agree that there can't be factionalism and the remain camp must be united once the campaign starts, but I just feel that if remain wants to win it can't have prominent faces who are as representative of the establishment and metropolitan elite as Blair Chuka etc. In fact theyd be best served to lock Blair in a cupboard for the entire campaign