Stunsworth
pfm Member
I think the basic plan is not to hold a vote of no confidence, allow the Tories to implode and then win the general election that will only be held if the Tories lose a vote of no confidence.
Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+11)?
- Thread starter Colin L
- Start date
- Status
I think the basic plan is not to hold a vote of no confidence, allow the Tories to implode and then win the general election that will only be held if the Tories lose a vote of no confidence.
stephen bennett
Mr Enigma
People like Fox assume Japan will just cut and paste the EU deal into a UK one.
I think they are in for a shock. Why would they? Japan will look to get a better deal for them from a weaker country. We would. Fox would if he could.
Expect tax payers ‘investment'* in Japanese car companies to rise post Brexit. There’ll be ‘subsidies’** for Japanese tech and energy companies and the opening up of any market that the Japanese see will benefit them. Basically anything they wanted from the EU but had to compromise on we’ll have to give them or they’ll take Nissan away.
Stephen
*subsidy
**tax breaks
jackbarron
Chelsea, London
The Guardian's Anushka Asthana hit Labour's idiot nail bang on head during The Andrew Marr Show. The Party's front bench, specifically Corbyn, aren't asking for second referendum because they don't want one.
Meanwhile May plans to hold off the meaningful vote on her deal until January 21st. A second referendum will be one of the options on the table for Labour after that, as the clock starts to run out of tick-tocks.
Shadow Communities Secretary Andrew Gwynne MP was questioned at length about this by Marr. He asked him whether Labour would back Leave or Remain if there was a second referendum and he refused to say.
Labour leaders are knowingly playing a political game at a very dangerous time.
It wouldn't surprise me if there is a No Deal Brexit. If there is one, the Tory and Labour Parties will be responsible for it, plus the people - many of them racists - who voted for Brexit.
Jack
Meanwhile May plans to hold off the meaningful vote on her deal until January 21st. A second referendum will be one of the options on the table for Labour after that, as the clock starts to run out of tick-tocks.
Shadow Communities Secretary Andrew Gwynne MP was questioned at length about this by Marr. He asked him whether Labour would back Leave or Remain if there was a second referendum and he refused to say.
Labour leaders are knowingly playing a political game at a very dangerous time.
It wouldn't surprise me if there is a No Deal Brexit. If there is one, the Tory and Labour Parties will be responsible for it, plus the people - many of them racists - who voted for Brexit.
Jack
Seanm
pfm Member
Rawnsley’s great advantage as a pundit is that he genuinely doesn’t understand anything and really believes that his ideas occur to him spontaneously. Lots of his peers have earn their keep the hard way, pretending to believe in this kind of recycled bien pensant crap.
Tony L
Administrator
The current Labour position is still either a lame facing all ways at one of some fantasy unicorn daydream of negotiating something better than May. They are utterly delusional as the Tories. Utter shite the pair of them. I have nothing but contempt for both parties.
My fear at this point is there are enough treacherous bell-ends within Labour to back a highly biased ‘cross-party’ Tory second referendum with just ‘May’s deal’ and ‘no deal’ options on the paper, i.e. side against offering ‘remain’ as they are inherently gammon. Something that would laughably be sold as a centrist pragmatic solution but is clearly anything but.
droodzilla
pfm Member
Why on earth would you think that? It's pure fantasy.
The vast (read: all but 5 or 6 nuts like Hoey and Field) majority of Labour MPs viscerally oppose both May's deal and no deal. There is no chance Labour will go down this path (which, incidentally, would negate any prospect of the GE Labour is aiming for).
Your post is a perfect example of how the Brexit debate has completely deranged even supposedly intelligent people.
droodzilla
pfm Member
Yeah, 50/50, both parties are to blame. Sensible.
I treat articles that lean heavily on the concept of "the national interest" with scepticism these days. Clegg used it to justify hopping on the coalition bandwagon and five years of eviscerating the poor and the vulnerable while simultaneously scapegoating them for all known ills. That turned out well di'n't it?
What would be very much in the national interest right now is if the Conservative Party ripped itself to shreds and never got a sniff of power again. If saying that makes me petty, "partisan" or "tribal", pass me my spear.
Rawnsley also seems to overlook the fact that Ken Clarke came out in favour of Theresa May's deal in his rush to fawn over "the father of the House" ("a sane voice in a deranged world"; give me strength!).
notaclue
pfm Member
Irish Times is echoing the view of Martin Wolf https://www.irishtimes.com/business...3733034?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
"Any one of these three options looks unlikely. To avoid hard Brexit, something needs to be done, but all of the three available policy levers are marked ‘too hard to pull’.
So, amidst all the sound and fury, the probability of an economic, political and social catastrophe is growing by the day. These things are terribly subjective, but it seems to me that the risks of an accidental Brexit, the one that only the fanatics want, are now higher than ever. Perhaps catastrophe is now the most likely outcome of all. It’s worth repeating: something rather dramatic now needs to happen to avert this."
If, as seems almost certain, May's statement tomorrow is along the lines of negotiations on her deal will continue with the EU and the meaningful vote will be delayed until late January then I think we'll see a stepping up of 'no deal' preparations everywhere. Grant Thornton also expecting this http://politicsandeconomy.grantthornton.co.uk/post/102f7bj/how-to-plan-for-no-deal
If January comes and goes and we still haven't had the meaningful vote then I think 'no deal' becomes more likely than not.
"Any one of these three options looks unlikely. To avoid hard Brexit, something needs to be done, but all of the three available policy levers are marked ‘too hard to pull’.
So, amidst all the sound and fury, the probability of an economic, political and social catastrophe is growing by the day. These things are terribly subjective, but it seems to me that the risks of an accidental Brexit, the one that only the fanatics want, are now higher than ever. Perhaps catastrophe is now the most likely outcome of all. It’s worth repeating: something rather dramatic now needs to happen to avert this."
If, as seems almost certain, May's statement tomorrow is along the lines of negotiations on her deal will continue with the EU and the meaningful vote will be delayed until late January then I think we'll see a stepping up of 'no deal' preparations everywhere. Grant Thornton also expecting this http://politicsandeconomy.grantthornton.co.uk/post/102f7bj/how-to-plan-for-no-deal
If January comes and goes and we still haven't had the meaningful vote then I think 'no deal' becomes more likely than not.
Tony L
Administrator
Whenever I see Labour MPs on the TV of late they all seem to argue against a second referendum and spout “TWOTP” guff to suggest Brexit must happen. As such they have to be viewed in the light I suggest. The Labour Party just does not appear to be a useful tool in averting the disaster that is Brexit. Sure, there are a couple of sane voices within (Chuka U etc), but there is a strong whiff of stale gammon from a far wider area than just Hoey, Stuart, Mann and the leadership. Reiner on QT, the one on Marr this morning etc etc. The party is full of them.
kendo
Prussian bot
From the Labour Party web site...
Negotiating Brexit
"Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.
We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a meaningful role to Parliament throughout negotiations.
We will end Theresa May’s reckless approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.
“Labour will always put jobs and the economy first”
We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first.
A Labour government will immediately guarantee existing rights for all EU nationals living in Britain and secure reciprocal rights for UK citizens who have chosen to make their lives in EU countries. EU nationals do not just contribute to our society: they are part of our society. And they should not be used as bargaining chips.
It is shameful that the Prime Minister rejected repeated attempts by Labour to resolve this issue before Article 50 was triggered. As a result three million EU nationals have suffered unnecessary uncertainty, as have the 1.2 million UK citizens living in the EU.
A Conservative Brexit will weaken workers’ rights, deregulate the economy, slash corporate taxes, sideline Parliament and democratic accountability, and cut Britain off from our closest allies and most important trading partners.
Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and, if needs be, negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’ for the UK economy.
The issues that affect our continent now will continue to do so in the future – and Labour will continue to work constructively with the EU and other European nations on issues such as climate change, refugee crises and counter-terrorism."
If this is still the Labour stance on Brexit, there doesn't appear to be much wiggle room for anything but Brexit albeit they reject a "no-deal" scenario.
C'mon Jeremy, support your potential future coalition govt. partners and initiate this No Confidence vote this week.
Playing for time works in football, not with this clusterfuque of a process!
Negotiating Brexit
"Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.
We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a meaningful role to Parliament throughout negotiations.
We will end Theresa May’s reckless approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain.
“Labour will always put jobs and the economy first”
We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first.
A Labour government will immediately guarantee existing rights for all EU nationals living in Britain and secure reciprocal rights for UK citizens who have chosen to make their lives in EU countries. EU nationals do not just contribute to our society: they are part of our society. And they should not be used as bargaining chips.
It is shameful that the Prime Minister rejected repeated attempts by Labour to resolve this issue before Article 50 was triggered. As a result three million EU nationals have suffered unnecessary uncertainty, as have the 1.2 million UK citizens living in the EU.
A Conservative Brexit will weaken workers’ rights, deregulate the economy, slash corporate taxes, sideline Parliament and democratic accountability, and cut Britain off from our closest allies and most important trading partners.
Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and, if needs be, negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a ‘cliff-edge’ for the UK economy.
The issues that affect our continent now will continue to do so in the future – and Labour will continue to work constructively with the EU and other European nations on issues such as climate change, refugee crises and counter-terrorism."
If this is still the Labour stance on Brexit, there doesn't appear to be much wiggle room for anything but Brexit albeit they reject a "no-deal" scenario.
C'mon Jeremy, support your potential future coalition govt. partners and initiate this No Confidence vote this week.
Playing for time works in football, not with this clusterfuque of a process!
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
Exactly, Brexit is the pressing matter in hand and rather than circle around it looking for party political gain, they could be taking a position of acting, even if that means exposure. If they’re prepared to allow Brexit to proceed and screw the prospects of their voters then I find that really disingenuous. Time to come out the closet on Brexit and message to Jeremy on referendum-
if you’re not going to shit, get off the pot, there’s a queue outside and the bell’s about to sound.
Stunsworth
pfm Member
There’s a rather cynical view that Labour want a no deal Brexit, and that the damage caused by that will mean they’ll win an election in 2020.
As things stand I can’t see there being an election before then. Tories and the DUP might vote against May’s proposals, but they’re not going to side with Labour in a vote of no confidence and risk a Labour government.
eternumviti
Insufficient privileges to reply.
It all falls apart immediately. How would they propose to 'retain the benefits of the SM and the CU' without retaining freedom of movement? The only way that the benefits of the SM & CU can be retained is by staying in them, and accepting FoM, paying in, and the diktats of the CJEU. This has been said time and again, not least here, and is exactly the problem that is bringing May and the tories to their knees.
Bob McC
Living the life of Riley
Barrymagrec
pfm Member
So did Renault - these days it`s more the other way round...
PsB
Citizen of Nowhere™
Quite. That is the major risk with Labour's roadmap/decision tree or whatever it is. No GE, no 2nd referendum. Stasis, followed by bad Brexit, with Labour inheriting a substantially weakened economy in 2020.
Nick_G
pfm Member
I read an article somewhere recently that suggested that the reason that the country has become so divided is that voters now mainly see themselves as Leavers or Remainers first, rather than whatever party they previously showed allegiance to. If this is correct, then Labour's refusal to come clear on where they stand on Brexit could be a big problem for them, because their ambiguous stance speaks to mostly no-one. The longer this goes on the more despair I feel that it'll all be too little too late.
Personally, neither the main two parties speak for me at the moment, and I'm increasingly feeling ignored. This is probably how many Leave supporters felt, and I can understand why some lashed out, even if they were aiming at the wrong target. Disenfranchising large sections of the population is not the answer though. Can we please have a coherent, clear policy on Brexit from Labour? God knows we need one.
Personally, neither the main two parties speak for me at the moment, and I'm increasingly feeling ignored. This is probably how many Leave supporters felt, and I can understand why some lashed out, even if they were aiming at the wrong target. Disenfranchising large sections of the population is not the answer though. Can we please have a coherent, clear policy on Brexit from Labour? God knows we need one.
PsB
Citizen of Nowhere™
As you know, there are perfectly reasonable provisions on EU FoM that the UK has, for reasons best known to itself, elected not to enforce until now. A new government could build something around those existing but unused provisions, assuming of course the political will was there to start with.
Last edited:
- Status