Brexit at Glasto?

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Is the relatively small downgrade from current EU membership to norway+ really so bad that its worth risking a harder brexit via a referendum? What's worth taking such a risk over? 

Because that risk is entirely fabricated and our own doing. It's not real unless we do it to ourselves. It's like cutting your own hand off to avoid the risk that you might strangle yourself if not. I mean that's logically sound but the obvious response is "how about I just don't strangle myself. Even if Jacob Rees-Mogg is yelling at me to strangle myself".

[Rose-Colored Boy]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

Welcome to the long term effects of nepotism! (and yes I know Corbyn is just as guilty of that as everyone else). Its easy to say x is shit, but good luck on finding where the competent are hiding! 

Mmm.

Have been following Chuka Umunna for years in the hope he’d somehow one day end up as PM, I should’ve seen the writing on the wall as soon as he wimped out of that Labour leadership contest because the Sunday papers had dirt on him.

[Mr.Tease]

1 minute ago, Rose-Colored Boy said:

He had no intention of whipping Labour in favour of it and made that perfectly clear long before PV started distancing themselves from it. Wake up dude

Up to 10 shadow ministers might rebel if whipped and possibly 30 to 40 Labour Mps- why inflict all that on yourself for something that won't win at this time? And will only undermine the PV chances- makes zero sense 

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

im sure this isn't anything to do with EU politics ..... these votes are because of our parliament I would say 

Yeah that was the joke  

Our democracy is so ridiculous in how it works (you can't even fit more than half of our MPs in the commons seats!) and yet Leaver's constantly criticise the EU process.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Ok But then why are PV undermining that?

have PV told Labour to not support it?

And if PV have, why are labour taking advice on HoC tactics from outsiders?

Not wanting the vote to go ahead is a different thing to what you do when it is going ahead.

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

have PV told Labour to not support it?

And if PV have, why are labour taking advice on HoC tactics from outsiders?

Not wanting the vote to go ahead is a different thing to what you do when it is going ahead.

They've said remain Mps should abstain on it.  The statement is very clear on that. 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Is the relatively small downgrade from current EU membership to norway+ really so bad that its worth risking a harder brexit via a referendum? What's worth taking such a risk over? 

so you recommend that after 3 years of tory-induced stupidity it's Labour who should own everything about brexit?  

Cos that's what happens if Jez's plan were to get taken up.

And then Labour are hated by both remainers and brexiters.

And it doesn't put brexit back in the box,. it ensures it continues as a running sore.

Me, I would rather take the risk. If we get a shit brexit it'll at least be what people want.

[DeanoL]

Just now, Mr.Tease said:

Up to 10 shadow ministers might rebel if whipped and possibly 30 to 40 Labour Mps- why inflict all that on yourself for something that won't win at this time? And will only undermine the PV chances- makes zero sense 

When do you consider the vote "going ahead" though?

If I understand this right, there's an amendment for a PV being debated. This *is* going to be voted on. But that's not "the vote" - all that does is see it added as an amendment to the vote tonight on if we should get an extension. That vote then effectively becomes "get an extension and have a PV" versus "don't get an extension and no PV". Essentially adding this on makes that vote very risky. And passing the first motion alone in no way gets us a PV. 

I may have misunderstood this but that seems to be what's going on? Stupid way to do business.

[Mr.Tease]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Because that risk is entirely fabricated and our own doing. It's not real unless we do it to ourselves. It's like cutting your own hand off to avoid the risk that you might strangle yourself if not. I mean that's logically sound but the obvious response is "how about I just don't strangle myself. Even if Jacob Rees-Mogg is yelling at me to strangle myself".

For me it would just be repeating Cameron's folly in the first place. "ooh I can put a stop to these Tory europhobes by holding a referendum on leaving the EU" turns out the risk was people vote leave! Madness in retrospect--why risk so much for so little reward. Second referendum repeats the mistake, fair enough if its the last option vs May's deal passing, but having a genuine one with no deal on it would be daft when you could have just settled for Norway instead. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

They've said remain Mps should abstain on it.  The statement is very clear on that. 

then they're feckin' stupid, as are Labour for going with it.

[Mr.Tease]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

so you recommend that after 3 years of tory-induced stupidity it's Labour who should own everything about brexit?  

Cos that's what happens if Jez's plan were to get taken up.

And then Labour are hated by both remainers and brexiters.

And it doesn't put brexit back in the box,. it ensures it continues as a running sore.

Me, I would rather take the risk. If we get a shit brexit it'll at least be what people want.

It's personal preference at this point, but I just don't think it's worth it- plus the knock on effect is either outcome in a referendum would likely empower Boris's and Mogg

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

then they're feckin' stupid, as are Labour for going with it.

They've given labour cover to not vote for it now. They actually agree with Labour's policy on timing of a PV. Fancy that!

[DeanoL]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

For me it would just be repeating Cameron's folly in the first place. "ooh I can put a stop to these Tory europhobes by holding a referendum on leaving the EU" turns out the risk was people vote leave! Madness in retrospect--why risk so much for so little reward. Second referendum repeats the mistake, fair enough if its the last option vs May's deal passing, but having a genuine one with no deal on it would be daft when you could have just settled for Norway instead. 

But there's no actual majority for Norway is there? I mean May's deal is likely better than Norway (and Norway could still be the end result) but that doesn't have support. The ERG wouldn't support Norway either. Why is it on Labour to compromise?

But yeah, I'm fine with a referendum with no deal as an option as long as remain is too. If that's genuinely the will of the UK people, then so be it. I think people were misled the first time around, I think when they have to vote "for" something (a particular deal, or no deal) as the only options that remain will win by a landslide. Maybe that's utterly naive and actually a majority of the country want to leave with no deal. If that's true, so be it. If nothing else it tells me I don't want to be here any more. But if that's truly what a majority want, we should do it. We shouldn't end up with Norway just because I'm too scared to test my belief.

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

then they're feckin' stupid, as are Labour for going with it.

You should read that article on the splits in the PV campaign, it outlined that there were two factions--Chuka and Co who the others felt were using it to launch their own party (turned out to be correct) and were pushing demanding a PV immediately, and then the other lot who thought it had the best chance as a last minute option. Since Chuka and Co left the other ones are now fully in charge which is why you saw the sudden evaporation of pressure on Corbyn and a happiness to play the long game. Think holding off is the wiser thing at this point. 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Second referendum repeats the mistake

Nope. It removes the mistake in the first ref.

The first ref was a vote for something versus a vote against that something. Because just about everyone can find things they don't like about EU it made it easy to vote against the EU.

A 2nd vote would be a vote for someone versus a vote for something. That makes all the difference, and addresses the biggest error about the first vote.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

But there's no actual majority for Norway is there? I mean May's deal is likely better than Norway (and Norway could still be the end result) but that doesn't have support. The ERG wouldn't support Norway either. Why is it on Labour to compromise?

But yeah, I'm fine with a referendum with no deal as an option as long as remain is too. If that's genuinely the will of the UK people, then so be it. I think people were misled the first time around, I think when they have to vote "for" something (a particular deal, or no deal) as the only options that remain will win by a landslide. Maybe that's utterly naive and actually a majority of the country want to leave with no deal. If that's true, so be it. If nothing else it tells me I don't want to be here any more. But if that's truly what a majority want, we should do it. We shouldn't end up with Norway just because I'm too scared to test my belief.

excellent post!

If you believe in democracy you shouldn't be scared of putting it to the test - which is precisely the rationale that had Labour vote in favour of the ref in the first place. 

[Mr.Tease]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

But there's no actual majority for Norway is there? I mean May's deal is likely better than Norway (and Norway could still be the end result) but that doesn't have support. The ERG wouldn't support Norway either. Why is it on Labour to compromise?

But yeah, I'm fine with a referendum with no deal as an option as long as remain is too. If that's genuinely the will of the UK people, then so be it. I think people were misled the first time around, I think when they have to vote "for" something (a particular deal, or no deal) as the only options that remain will win by a landslide. Maybe that's utterly naive and actually a majority of the country want to leave with no deal. If that's true, so be it. If nothing else it tells me I don't want to be here any more. But if that's truly what a majority want, we should do it. We shouldn't end up with Norway just because I'm too scared to test my belief.

I think there is a majority for Norway (possibly the only thing there is a majority for) - even gove was floating it a while ago (it appeals to ERG, though they may not admit it, over May's deal because it avoids you falling into the backstop, so they live to fight another day) - so you just sell it as 'Norway for now' - appeals to remain tories and some leavers. 

If it fails to gain traction then the only other options are general election (whick I wouldn't be surprised if May ends up going for) or May's deal plus referendum. 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

You should read that article on the splits in the PV campaign, it outlined that there were two factions--Chuka and Co who the others felt were using it to launch their own party (turned out to be correct) and were pushing demanding a PV immediately, and then the other lot who thought it had the best chance as a last minute option. Since Chuka and Co left the other ones are now fully in charge which is why you saw the sudden evaporation of pressure on Corbyn and a happiness to play the long game. Think holding off is the wiser thing at this point. 

As i've already pointed out, I fully accept holding out as a strategy.

But holding out cannot be the strategy when the vote is happening anyway. Whatever they do, they influence what is really playing out.

[Mr.Tease]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope. It removes the mistake in the first ref.

The first ref was a vote for something versus a vote against that something. Because just about everyone can find things they don't like about EU it made it easy to vote against the EU.

A 2nd vote would be a vote for someone versus a vote for something. That makes all the difference, and addresses the biggest error about the first vote.

You're assuming the debate would be rational - in politics its what emotionally resonates that wins at the moment and no deal would emotionally resonate more ( betrayal, immigrants, stick it to the elites etc) 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I think there is a majority for Norway (possibly the only thing there is a majority for) - even gove was floating it a while ago (it appeals to ERG, though they may not admit it, over May's deal because it avoids you falling into the backstop, so they live to fight another day) - so you just sell it as 'Norway for now' - appeals to remain tories and some leavers. 

You've got this completely wrong.

The backstop is not the future trade deal, the backstop is part of the WA.

The backstop remains part of the WA no matter what the future trading relationship might be.

So a deal for Norway+ still has the backstop.

[Mr.Tease]

Just now, eFestivals said:

As i've already pointed out, I fully accept holding out as a strategy.

But holding out cannot be the strategy when the vote is happening anyway. Whatever they do, they influence what is really playing out.

Honestly, I think even if whipped it would lose by a huge margin, at least now when it loses by a huge margin PV can say it wasn't a real vote as they told people not to back it. 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

You're assuming the debate would be rational - in politics its what emotionally resonates that wins at the moment and no deal would emotionally resonate more ( betrayal, immigrants, stick it to the elites etc) 

I merely assume that it would be more rational than the first vote, because the circumstances would make that happen.

Leave wouldn't be able to promise everything to everyone as they did the first time, because what was on offer (no-deal, May's deal, whatever) would already be defined.

[Mr.Tease]

Just now, eFestivals said:

You've got this completely wrong.

The backstop is not the future trade deal, the backstop is part of the WA.

The backstop remains part of the WA no matter what the future trading relationship might be.

So a deal for Norway+ still has the backstop.

I could be wrong but the backstop is only activated if a new deal can't be agreed upon. As the EU would prefer Norway over the backstop, an agreement to that effect is much more likely to be successful thus avoiding the backstop being activated. The backstop was only there to put and absolute bottom cap on how hard a brexit we could have (EU didn't want us failing to meet our legal obligations to Ireland, or becoming a tax haven or undercutting them etc), so if you try to agree a softer brexit then the EU will likely go for that 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Honestly, I think even if whipped it would lose by a huge margin, at least now when it loses by a huge margin PV can say it wasn't a real vote as they told people not to back it. 

oh c'mon. No one would accept that excuse from one side of a public vote that boycotted a vote, and it's naive to think it works any different in the HoC.

[zahidf]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

As i've already pointed out, I fully accept holding out as a strategy.

But holding out cannot be the strategy when the vote is happening anyway. Whatever they do, they influence what is really playing out.

a) the vote may not go ahead

b) Labour's strategy is essentially the same as the PV organisation around the vote. I don't see how they can be criticised for doing the thing the PV asked them to do.