UK Politics: Deal, or No Deal. To May and Beyond.

[Zorral]

4 hours ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/17/brussels-plans-for-status-quo-in-few-key-sectors-in-case-of-no-deal-brexit

Quote

 

Downing Street had said it would be sending the government’s most senior legal officer, Jonathan Jones, to Brussels this week to open talks on further “legal and political assurances” over the hated Northern Ireland backstop.

But on Monday the European commission’s chief spokesman ruled out such talks with the UK, in what appeared to be a deliberate contradiction of claims emanating from Downing Street.

“The deal that is on the table is the best and only deal possible, we will not reopen it, it will not be renegotiated,” the commission spokesman said. “As [the European council’s] President [Donald] Tusk said, the European council has given the clarifications that were possible at this stage so no further meetings with the UK are foreseen.”

 

Per usual, been listening to the BBC's (radio) discussion of this.  Not per usual though, I'm also addressing Christmas cards.

Addressing Christmas cards isn't helping me understand any of this any better, and especially Corbyn and what it is he wants or why he wants it.

 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

11 minutes ago, Zorral said:

4 hours ago:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/17/brussels-plans-for-status-quo-in-few-key-sectors-in-case-of-no-deal-brexit

Per usual, been listening to the BBC's (radio) discussion of this.  Not per usual though, I'm also addressing Christmas cards.

Addressing Christmas cards isn't helping me understand any of this any better, and especially Corbyn and what it is he wants or why he wants it.

 

 

Put simply. May is trying to run down the clock, so that comes January she tries to to force parliament to accept her WA, as in M(a)y Deal, or Crash.

Although, the EUCJ ruling, that the UK could apparently expand the article 50 period has taken quite some sting out of this threat.

As for Jay C. Pretty much what Werthead said, he wants the UK to leave the EU, while the Tories are in charge. The way things are going, Labour can't vote for May's deal without getting killed electorally by their voters. So he is fine with a crash, as long as he is not in charge, and wants to win the next GE, so he can rule over charred bones and ashes. That only works for as long as Labour's remain voters don't turn on him openly. So as lng as he is able to string them along he is fine.

 

[williamjm]

51 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

That only works for as long as Labour's remain voters don't turn on him openly. So as lng as he is able to string them along he is fine.

It's a risky strategy for him, since the patience of his MPs might run out at some point. The abject failure of the last coup they launched against his leadership might make them wary of trying again, but they may well strike if they feel his support is starting to wane among party members.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Put simply. May is trying to run down the clock, so that comes January she tries to to force parliament to accept her WA, as in M(a)y Deal, or Crash.

Although, the EUCJ ruling, that the UK could apparently expand the article 50 period has taken quite some sting out of this threat.

As for Jay C. Pretty much what Werthead said, he wants the UK to leave the EU, while the Tories are in charge. The way things are going, Labour can't vote for May's deal without getting killed electorally by their voters. So he is fine with a crash, as long as he is not in charge, and wants to win the next GE, so he can rule over charred bones and ashes. That only works for as long as Labour's remain voters don't turn on him openly. So as lng as he is able to string them along he is fine.

 

Thank you!  S:heesh, this doesn't sound as if anyone has the welfare of the people of Britain at heart at all, no matter what their political label.  It's all about their dreams of advancing themselves, no matter what and no matter who suffers, and suffers a very great deal.  Sounds familiar, alas . . . .

String up all the b*st*rd$ sez moi!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Thank you!  S:heesh, this doesn't sound as if anyone has the welfare of the people of Britain at heart at all, no matter what their political label.  It's all about their dreams of advancing themselves, no matter what and no matter who suffers, and suffers a very great deal.  Sounds familiar, alas . . . .

String up all the b*st*rd$ sez moi!

I think we could have drawn this conclusion after the Leave campaign flagrantly lied to the public.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think we could have drawn this conclusion after the Leave campaign flagrantly lied to the public.

Yes, indeed, we did. But that the Labor party was such a piece of ...  too, that wasn't exactly as clear as it is now.

OTOH, Corbyn has never made much sense to me, but then, I don't live in Britain so there's so much I don't know and I don't get, unlike here, where due to my dad and life I've lived all this personally and upfront and close, i.e. always paying attention to all of them.  And then the history, which I've been studying all my life too -- well, at least since the 4th grade. 

[mormont]

Well, whatever Corbyn's alleged genius at nine-dimensional simultaneous games of poker and chess was supposed to achieve, it appears to have actually achieved SFA. The ERG and DUP have declared they'd support the PM in a vote of no-confidence, if it was going to happen, which it isn't, because the government don't have to allocate time to debate a no-confidence motion in the Prime Minister.

Even if Corbyn's only intent was to make it look like he was doing something, that failed, because now he looks like he was just wasting everyone's time.

[Nevarfeather]

18 minutes ago, mormont said:

 because now he looks like he was just wasting everyone's time.

He's always looked like that

it's pitiful to watch his disciples defend him this morning as if it was part of some great plan. It's nothing but a cynical effort to avoid backing a 2nd referendum at any cost. I think Jez is underestimating Remain voters who will turn on him. He will never be PM. And as much as Brexit is a Tory project - Labour now own responsibility too. 

[SeanF]

32 minutes ago, Nevarfeather said:

He's always looked like that

it's pitiful to watch his disciples defend him this morning as if it was part of some great plan. It's nothing but a cynical effort to avoid backing a 2nd referendum at any cost. I think Jez is underestimating Remain voters who will turn on him. He will never be PM. And as much as Brexit is a Tory project - Labour now own responsibility too. 

A second referendum is a process, not an outcome.

Corbyn would have to pick a question, and pick which side he was going to campaign on.

[SeanF]

14 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Put simply. May is trying to run down the clock, so that comes January she tries to to force parliament to accept her WA, as in M(a)y Deal, or Crash.

Although, the EUCJ ruling, that the UK could apparently expand the article 50 period has taken quite some sting out of this threat.

As for Jay C. Pretty much what Werthead said, he wants the UK to leave the EU, while the Tories are in charge. The way things are going, Labour can't vote for May's deal without getting killed electorally by their voters. So he is fine with a crash, as long as he is not in charge, and wants to win the next GE, so he can rule over charred bones and ashes. That only works for as long as Labour's remain voters don't turn on him openly. So as lng as he is able to string them along he is fine.

 

I thought the ECJ ruling was that the UK could unilaterally revoke A50, once.  Extending A50 requires the consent of the other 27 States.  They'd probably agree a short extension, if the UK had a referendum, but not beyond the EU elections.

 

[Nevarfeather]

43 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I thought the ECJ ruling was that the UK could unilaterally revoke A50, once.  Extending A50 requires the consent of the other 27 States.  They'd probably agree a short extension, if the UK had a referendum, but not beyond the EU elections.

 

Yes that is my understanding too, you can revoke unilaterally but to extend you need permission of the EU27. They have indicated they would grant an extension for a referendum or an election but not for more can-kicking-nebulous-indecision

Also agree another referendum is a process not an outcome but Jez is avoiding making a decision and picking a side at all costs. It's pretty shameful behaviour, who does he think he's fooling with this fence sitting? If it's a long game - he's pretty much run out of time. But it's hard to know because the man refuses to interact with the media so we must just believe his disciples and yes-men. I hate T May for what she's done to the country. But I loath Jeremey. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

I thought the ECJ ruling was that the UK could unilaterally revoke A50, once.  Extending A50 requires the consent of the other 27 States.  They'd probably agree a short extension, if the UK had a referendum, but not beyond the EU elections.

Possibly, but then again: asuming May's deal gets shot down, and parliament wants to avoid no-deal, what else is there to do? Revoke article 50 or return it to the public to sort out.

5 hours ago, Nevarfeather said:

Labour now own responsibility too. 

Now? IMHO they did ever since that fateful three line whip. And Labour's policy with regards to Brexit has been ridiculous and pathetic ever since.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

As this thread was running the risk of getting a too optimistic tone for my liking. I think it's time to pour some water on it.

 

The comment section is... interesting.

[The Marquis de Leech]

18 hours ago, Nevarfeather said:

Also agree another referendum is a process not an outcome but Jez is avoiding making a decision and picking a side at all costs. It's pretty shameful behaviour, who does he think he's fooling with this fence sitting? If it's a long game - he's pretty much run out of time. But it's hard to know because the man refuses to interact with the media so we must just believe his disciples and yes-men. I hate T May for what she's done to the country. But I loath Jeremey. 

The reason Corbyn doesn't pick a side is pretty straight-forward. If he picks a side, he loses - the only way to win is not to play.

[mormont]

So this morning we finally get to the meat of Brexit, the thing that Theresa May truly believes in, her one actual red line and target: immigration.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46613900

The depressing thing is, she may not be wrong in believing that in the end, what Brexit voters really wanted was 'less foreigners'. They may or may not have cared about trade, the Irish border, Britain's place in the world: security, the economy or employment standards. But they probably did have a vague idea that there are too many foreigners and Something Should Be Done. And on that, the PM's history shows she clearly agrees. 

[Heartofice]

I'd say like most nations in Europe, the ability to control borders and immigration is a major issue in the UK. At least May understands that on some level, even if she is seemingly ignorant of almost all other issues. 

[HexMachina]

Didn’t Britain (partly by virtue of being an island, partly because our government’s stance) have more control over its borders than most other EU countries anyway?

and this is just anecdotal but I find a lot of Leave voters had a problem with immigration, but when pressed their “issues” (leaving aside for the moment whether those were legitimate issues) were with immigration from outside of the EU. So again, a case of voting without giving real thought to the issue

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Didn’t Britain (partly by virtue of being an island, partly because our government’s stance) have more control over its borders than most other EU countries anyway?

and this is just anecdotal but I find a lot of Leave voters had a problem with immigration, but when pressed their “issues” (leaving aside for the moment whether those were legitimate issues) were with immigration from outside of the EU. So again, a case of voting without giving real thought to the issue

Well the Labour government at the time of the EU extending eastwards had the choice of limiting when and how many immigrants from Eastern Europe it would take, but it decided that allowing early free access to the UK would be good for the economy. That in hindsight was where one of the first big mistakes happened. 

There is clearly a clash of interests which divides the country, and its that clash that is at the heart of Brexit.

[mormont]

21 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

So again, a case of voting without giving real thought to the issue

Absolutely. Most voters who name immigration as an issue just have a vague feeling about it, and don't understand the complexities: nobody's ever bothered to explain the benefits to them, all they hear is complaints. For some reason, the response to this among the major parties is not to make the case for immigration, but to accede to this woolly nonsense at any cost. And here we are: cutting off our own noses to spite our face. 

[Which Tyler]

46 minutes ago, mormont said:

Absolutely. Most voters who name immigration as an issue just have a vague feeling about it, and don't understand the complexities: nobody's ever bothered to explain the benefits to them, all they hear is complaints. For some reason, the response to this among the major parties is not to make the case for immigration, but to accede to this woolly nonsense at any cost. And here we are: cutting off our own noses to spite our face. 

I think we're going further than that - more like cutting off our faces to spite our head!