Jump to content

UK Politics: Another vote, just not for anyone who might change their minds


Which Tyler

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, williamjm said:

I think it would be hard for Boris to offer a vote on the current deal given that so much of his campaign has been built on opposing the deal (despite having previously voted for it). The Hard Brexiters would surely see this as a betrayal, and the DUP would almost certainly withdraw their support.

Would they, if the alternative was no-deal? The DUP were all for Brexit, so if it's May deal or no-deal which way are they going to jump? Or are they suddenly going to become remainers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Would they, if the alternative was no-deal? The DUP were all for Brexit, so if it's May deal or no-deal which way are they going to jump? Or are they suddenly going to become remainers?

They may feel strongly about Brexit, but they feel even more strongly about Northern Ireland being part of the UK, so for as long as they perceive May's deal as putting that in peril I don't see how they'll ever back it. What they'll do instead I don't really know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Would they, if the alternative was no-deal? The DUP were all for Brexit, so if it's May deal or no-deal which way are they going to jump? Or are they suddenly going to become remainers?

Difficult to say. The DUP are the dominant Irish political party despite being pro-Brexit and the majority of the population of Northern Ireland voting Remain, including large numbers of DUP voters. So if they choose badly, especially given Northern Ireland's economic exposure and the precarious support for remaining part of the UK, that could blow up in their faces spectacularly at the next election.

That said, they have made themselves such an implacable foe of the backstop, I don't see how they can suddenly pivot on it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially their algorithm seems to be: if we have Brexited w/o a confirmatory vote (and it is unlikely there will be one if Brexit is in October or anytime soon-ish) then remember we were against it, and we had nothing to do with any resulting mess. So irrespective of whether you were Remain or Leave, if you are annoyed (and everyone is annoyed at the moment), vote Labour!

If we still haven't Brexited by the time we are in power, then we have 5 years in hand anyway and we will come up with our own deal i.e. pretend we are Brexiting while leaving everything as much the same as possible (the same thing May tried to do), so if you are a yellow vest kind of low information Brexiter, we have finally given you Brexit, vote Labour! If you are a Remainer, see we saved you from no-deal ERG chaos, vote Labour.

A cunning plan, probably too clever for its own good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

It feels like Corbyn may have been forcibly removed from the fence.

To continue with what I said earlier.

 

Note this is a Labour peer describing the big policy shift.

But let's not be mean and hear from the Politburo directly. Following quote is taken from here.

Quote

Dear member,

I am proud to lead the Labour Party – the greatest political party and social movement in this country.

We all recognise that the issue of Brexit has been divisive in our communities and sometimes in our party too.

As democrats, Labour accepted the result of the 2016 referendum. In our 2017 manifesto, Labour also committed to oppose a No Deal Brexit and the Tories’ Brexit plans – which threatened jobs, living standards, and the open multicultural society that we as internationalists value so much.

I want to pay tribute to Keir Starmer and the shadow Brexit team for holding the Government to account during this process. That helped secure a meaningful vote on their deal – which we then defeated three times – including inflicting the largest ever defeat on any Government. And following their refusal to publish their legal advice, this Government became the first to be held in contempt of Parliament.

Labour set out a compromise plan to try to bring the country together based around a customs union, a strong single market relationship and protection of environmental regulations and rights at work. We continue to believe this is a sensible alternative that could bring the country together.

But the Prime Minister refused to compromise and was unable to deliver, so we ended cross-party talks.

Now both Tory leadership candidates are threatening a No Deal Brexit – or at best a race to the bottom and a sweetheart deal with Donald Trump: that runs down industry, opens up our NHS and other public services to yet more privatisation, and shreds environmental protections, rights at work and consumer standards.

I have spent the past few weeks consulting with the shadow cabinet, MPs, affiliated unions and the NEC. I have also had feedback from members via the National Policy Forum consultation on Brexit.

Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.

In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.

Labour has a crucial, historic duty to safeguard jobs, rights and living standards. But no Brexit outcome alone can do that.

We need a general election. After nine years of austerity, too many people in this country cannot find decent secure well-paid work, and have to rely on public services that have been severely cut back.

Our country is ravaged by inequality and rising poverty, huge regional imbalances of investment, and the government is failing to tackle the climate emergency facing us all.

That is why we need a Labour government to end austerity and rebuild our country for the many not the few.

 

Jeremy Corbyn

 

As you can clearly see, there's nothing to see. A whole lot of words linked together, to form sentences, that appear to be void of any deeper meaning. Typical Corbyn Labour Brexit policy.

Anyway, to go back to what I said earlier about Labour clearly not comiting about what they'd campaign for in a hypothetical GE.

Sorry for the twitter links. I know, I said it in the past and stand by it. Twitter is for Twats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Labour set out a compromise plan to try to bring the country together based around a customs union, a strong single market relationship and protection of environmental regulations and rights at work. We continue to believe this is a sensible alternative that could bring the country together.

Hmmm and how was the Withdrawal agreement from the EU at odds with those objectives that you needed to torpedo it? The future relationship was yet to be agreed.

 

22 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

As you can clearly see, there's nothing to see. A whole lot of words linked together, to form sentences, that appear to be void of any deeper meaning. Typical Corbyn Labour Brexit policy.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In rare non-Brexit news, MPs have voted by massive margins to drag Northern Ireland's abortion and same sex marriage laws into the 21st Century. Technically it is dependent on the Northern Irish parties not managing to form a government at Stormont by October, but that currently seems less likely than the EU giving into all of Boris' demands.

The DUP must be furious about this, I wonder if the Tories committing to implement this might cause a big rift between the parties?

There were also attempts to modify the same bill to frustrate the idea of proproguing Parliament, but most of the attempted amendments weren't selected or were voted down - one did pass but it sounds as if that won't do much on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, williamjm said:

In rare non-Brexit news, MPs have voted by massive margins to drag Northern Ireland's abortion and same sex marriage laws into the 21st Century. Technically it is dependent on the Northern Irish parties not managing to form a government at Stormont by October, but that currently seems less likely than the EU giving into all of Boris' demands.

The DUP must be furious about this, I wonder if the Tories committing to implement this might cause a big rift between the parties?

There were also attempts to modify the same bill to frustrate the idea of proproguing Parliament, but most of the attempted amendments weren't selected or were voted down - one did pass but it sounds as if that won't do much on its own.

The amendments were introduced by Labour and the Tories decided to allow their members a free vote, which is why it passed. The Tories I think have a precedent of allowing free votes on these kind of social issues, so it would have been awkward to have forced their MPs to vote against them. It's also an incentive for the DUP to reform Stormont by October. That said, it's a bit of a gift for Sinn Feinn, who social progressive angle sometimes causes friction in the ranks of its Catholic supporters, so this gives them a get-out-of-jail free card, and I suspect they might now be happy to discuss reinstating Stormont, say, in early November but not before.

Grieve's amendment, which passed by 1 vote, requires the NI Minister to report to Parliament once a week from now until the end of the year on progress on restoring the NI Assembly, which makes proroguing Parliament a lot more difficult since proroguing requires there to be no regular Parliament business going on. In theory they should hold another vote to shoot it down, but given the opposition to proroguing Parliament in the Tory ranks, that will probably not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

Hmmm and how was the Withdrawal agreement from the EU at odds with those objectives that you needed to torpedo it? The future relationship was yet to be agreed.

There the issue was, that May was a lame(r than usual) duck on her way out. And they did not exactly trust the next Tory PM to honour an agreement to negotiate a deal with SM access. Given that the next PM was likely to be Johnson, I cannot say I disagree with their assessment.

That of course doesn't change the fact, that Labour didn't and still does not have a logical coherent Brexit policy that is based in an observable reality. All they have is fudged nonsense with a cherry on top.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After May failed to stand up to Trump, and Johnsons failed to offer any sort of support whatsoever, Kim Darroch has been forced to resign for the sin of doing his job and reporting his honest assessment to his superiors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically that is exactly what whoever leaked the emails wanted. Darroch has been removed and will be replaced by someone who will be afraid to report the truth about Trump, or worse, will have been chosen because they are acquiescent to it (especially if Johnson is reckless and stupid enough to give the job to Farage).

I would say that this is another new low and that whoever was behind the leak deserves to be shot, except that the scuttlebutt is that the Russians were behind it. Though that is possibly even more scary; that they penetrated the UK government like that and are sufficiently contemptuous to reveal it so lightly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, A wilding said:

Basically that is exactly what whoever leaked the emails wanted. Darroch has been removed and will be replaced by someone who will be afraid to report the truth about Trump, or worse, will have been chosen because they are acquiescent to it (especially if Johnson is reckless and stupid enough to give the job to Farage).

Possibly not. One idea being floated is that Darroch realised that without Johnson's support, he'd likely be recalled when Johnson wins the leadership race. However, by resigning now it means that May can appoint the next ambassador and she can pick someone who isn't going to be fawning over Trump's every word (i.e. not fucking Farage). It would then be very politically difficult for Johnson to reverse that decision when he takes office.

The debate last night was farcical. Incompetent, odious shit that he is, but Hunt made absolute mincemeat out of Johnson to the grounds that it was starting to resemble infanticide. Johnson is manifestly unsuited to hold any kind of political office whatsoever, let alone Prime Minister of this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The debate last night was farcical. Incompetent, odious shit that he is, but Hunt made absolute mincemeat out of Johnson to the grounds that it was starting to resemble infanticide. Johnson is manifestly unsuited to hold any kind of political office whatsoever, let alone Prime Minister of this country.

Yet, that's the office he will hold at the end of the process, unless some miracle happens. And it's not like Hunt is suited for that office either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

And they did not exactly trust the next Tory PM to honour an agreement to negotiate a deal with SM access. Given that the next PM was likely to be Johnson, I cannot say I disagree with their assessment.

I'm sure you are likely right - but I'm just pedantically thinking through this:

They could have voted down such a future deal w/o SM access once negotiated and presented to parliament.

Why vote down the WA agreement because you expect the next Tory PM to later bring a future deal with the EU that you think will not meet your expectations - one that you can then vote down?

As you said they don't have a coherent policy and they were likely trying several gimmicks at the same time, but I'm still gobsmacked by his they thought they were going to pull this off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...