‘Contempt of Parliament’

[ff1d1l]

^Well then it's no deal after all, because a GE, a referendum, revoking A50, Norway+ are all going to involve negotiation. If you take the EU at their word you should be backing May to the hilt.

The EU's word is revoking article 50 is as easy as doing it.
On the other hand, re the deal they've said their piece. What possible reason would they have to move from that position? Why would they prioritise yet ANOTHER accommodation of dipshit UK politicians wanting fantasy football deals? They have nothing to gain. What they want is us back in, our money, thanks very much, and settle down and get on with your work. Honestly, if you don't see this you are in for a rude awakening.
You mightn't have noticed, but France and Belgium have other stuff on their minds at the moment.

 

[Seanm]

Like I say, if you actually believe all that, you should back May.

 

[ff1d1l]

Like I say, if you actually believe all that, you should back May.

Bollocks, she's toast.
Backing another ref. As are many on here. As are many out there. As are many in the Labour party. As are many who would vote Labour if only....

 

[Tony L]

Bollocks, she's toast.
Backing another ref. As are many on here. As are many out there. As are many in the Labour party. As are many who would vote Labour if only....

FWIW I’d like to see a party with the spine to call the referendum fraudulent, which it very clearly was, and just to render it null and void. That alone is basis for a future referendum, but no great rush, any time in the next century would be fine! I really don’t see why we should flush our future economy, prosperity and rights down the shitter based on a series of lies, criminality and political incompetence. If this had been any sporting event the results would have been overturned by now. If it had a been a business contract it would have been ruled fraudulent/void and the company would be sued for mis-selling.

 

[Stunsworth]

Bollocks, she's toast.
Backing another ref. As are many on here. As are many out there. As are many in the Labour party. As are many who would vote Labour if only....

Well McCluskey had said members would see it as a betrayal if Labour campaigned for a second referendum...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-labour-against-backing-second-eu-referendum

 

[ff1d1l]

Well McCluskey had said members would see it as a betrayal if Labour campaigned for a second referendum...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-labour-against-backing-second-eu-referendum

Yes, I read that. Some members undoubtedly would. But not a majority. No matter what McGammony says.

 

[matthewr]

Last week no deal was the only alternative to May's deal, because certain people said so. Come on. There is going to be a renegotiation, one way or another.

^Well then it's no deal after all, because a GE, a referendum, revoking A50, Norway+ are all going to involve negotiation. If you take the EU at their word you should be backing May to the hilt.

But that's not what Corbyn is saying. He is saying he is going to renegotiate and get a single market and customs union equivalent outside the EU deal without freedom of movement and no hard border in NI by March 29th. This is every bit as delusional as it was when William Rees-Mogg, David Davis said it 2 years ago. If his policy is to open re-negotiations, agree an extension and negotiate with different red lines (which is entirely possible) then he should say that.

I spent the evening with my Islington Labour party friends who have known Jeremy for 30 years and literally love him. They couldn't explain it either and just kept telling me how nice he was.

 

[Seanm]

But that's not what Corbyn is saying. He is saying he is going to renegotiate and get a single market and customs union equivalent outside the EU deal without freedom of movement and no hard border in NI by March 29th. This is every bit as delusional as it was when William Rees-Mogg, David Davis said it 2 years ago. If his policy is to open re-negotiations, agree an extension and negotiate with different red lines (which is entirely possible) then he should say that.

I spent the evening with my Islington Labour party friends who have known Jeremy for 30 years and literally love him. They couldn't explain it either and just kept telling me how nice he was.

The broader point is that there is obviously going to be a renegotiation, of some kind. I think everyone acknowledges this and yet all conversations on the topic are routinely punctuated with the observation that the EU have said there will be no more negotiation, so there won't be. Can we agree that in negotiations people say all sorts of things that aren't really true? That the EU saying there will be no more negotiation is, taken at face value, as "delusional" as something Rees-Mogg might say?

Labour, like the EU, are engaged in a performance. People seem shocked at this, often the same people who've been demanding that Corbyn perform better in PMQs etc.

Anyway, they have to play out the rope and exhaust every possibility afforded them by parliamentary procedure before making extraordinary demands or they risk losing legitimacy. This is a thing! It's not just something people say to weasel out of a second referendum. Messing with the first one is genuinely problematic. Leavers have to experience their constraints.

So here's how that rope might play out:

• MAy's deal fails
• OK May, go back and get a better one
• They won't hear it you say? OK, stand aside and let us try
• No? OK, GE etc. (cloudy bit, leading to...)
• Labour now in a position to negotiate
• EU agree, because new negotiators, no red lines
• One possible outcome: EU agree to temporary freeze on FOM, plus clarification of state aid rules, in return for very close regulatory alignment (closer than May's deal), meaningful oversight, clear system of sanctions. Or something that may be palatable, and better than May's deal. Well, OK
• Second possible outcome: EU won't accept Labour's perfectly reasonable offer, they'll only offer X, which we think is ___t, worse than remain. So...
• Referendum, Brussel's best offer or remain on the ballot
• ?

Or something like that. Key points are 1) Brussels will of course renegotiate 2) Labour can't act peremptorily or everything will blow up in their hands and May's Brexit will be saved or worse 3) it's a performance, a serious one obviously, but just because something sounds stupid because of something else someone else said doesn't actually make it delusional.

 

[ff1d1l]

The broader point is that there is obviously going to be a renegotiation, of some kind. I think everyone acknowledges this and yet all conversations on the topic are routinely punctuated with the observation that the EU have said there will be no more negotiation, so there won't be. Can we agree that in negotiations people say all sorts of things that aren't really true? That the EU saying there will be no more negotiation is, taken at face value, as "delusional" as something Rees-Mogg might say?

Labour, like the EU, are engaged in a performance. People seem shocked at this, often the same people who've been demanding that Corbyn perform better in PMQs etc.

Anyway, they have to play out the rope and exhaust every possibility afforded them by parliamentary procedure before making extraordinary demands or they risk losing legitimacy. This is a thing! It's not just something people say to weasel out of a second referendum. Messing with the first one is genuinely problematic. Leavers have to experience their constraints.

So here's how that rope might play out:

• MAy's deal fails
• OK May, go back and get a better one
• They won't hear it you say? OK, stand aside and let us try
• No? OK, GE etc. (cloudy bit, leading to...)
• Labour now in a position to negotiate
• EU agree, because new negotiators, no red lines
• One possible outcome: EU agree to temporary freeze on FOM, plus clarification of state aid rules, in return for very close regulatory alignment (closer than May's deal), meaningful oversight, clear system of sanctions. Or something that may be palatable, and better than May's deal. Well, OK
• Second possible outcome: EU won't accept Labour's perfectly reasonable offer, they'll only offer X, which we think is ___t, worse than remain. So...
• Referendum, Brussel's best offer or remain on the ballot
• ?

Or something like that. Key points are 1) Brussels will of course renegotiate 2) Labour can't act peremptorily or everything will blow up in their hands and May's Brexit will be saved or worse 3) it's a performance, a serious one obviously, but just because something sounds stupid because of something else someone else said doesn't actually make it delusional.

Labours 6 conditions are also red lines...or do you think they'll get that one over on the EU?
Everything from about point 4 on is, well, fantasy...depends on a shrinking of the Brexiters initial assertion "We're British, we're special" to "We're Labour, we're special".
The shrift this will be given by the EU will be similarly short.

 

[Seanm]

Labours 6 conditions are also red lines...or do you think they'll get that one over on the EU?
Everything from about point 4 on is, well, fantasy...depends on a shrinking of the Brexiters initial assertion "We're British, we're special" to "We're Labour, we're special".
The shrift this will be given by the EU will be similarly short.

They were red lines designed for the Tories, to get us to this point. Unlike May's red lines, no-one in Labour actually gives a shit about them. They might still have some strategic usefulness but I'd imagine any or all of them could be jettisoned at any time and no-one would care. I can't even remember them TBH.

As for the short shrift, that's OK: if Labour are brushed off at any point then they move straight to the referendum. Isn't that what you wanted? But this way, they've exhausted every possibility first.

 

[Mullardman]

Indeed. Not so sure about Labour as thinking it is special, but it is certainly misguided notions of British 'exceptionalism' which provided the voter base which got us into this shit in the first place.

 

[ff1d1l]

"but I'd imagine any or all of them could be jettisoned at any time and no-one would care"
Really? Then won't anything they negotiate be a bit, er faecal, in that case? Worse than staying in?

 

[Seanm]

"but I'd imagine any or all of them could be jettisoned at any time and no-one would care"
Really? Then won't anything they negotiate be a bit, er faecal, in that case? Worse than staying in?

Sure! I mean, in many people's eyes. Don't see what the absence of red lines has to do with that though.

 

[ff1d1l]

Sure! I mean, in many people's eyes. Don't see what the absence of red lines has to do with that though.

Ok, then call it the absence of Labours 6 conditions.
And how will jettisoning them play in the eyes of the faithful? Or the not so faithful?

 

[Seanm]

Ok, then call it the absence of Labours 6 conditions.
And how will jettisoning them play in the eyes of the faithful? Or the not so faithful?

I would be amazed if any of the faithful you spoke to could name more than 2 of them. The Labour Party faithful is not the ERG. In my experience anyway, any time they come up amongst Labour peeps it's just to confirm they're a trap. "They're a trap, right?" "Oh aye."

 

[ff1d1l]

I would be amazed if any of the faithful you spoke to could name more than 2 of them. The Labour Party faithful is not the ERG. In my experience anyway, any time they come up amongst Labour peeps it's just to confirm they're a trap. "They're a trap, right?" "Oh aye."

So...

Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

Jettisonable crap?

Maybe you'd like to rank them in order, like a balloon debate?

 

[Seanm]

So...

Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

Jettisonable crap?

Maybe you'd like to rank them in order, like a balloon debate?

Well, seeing them laid out like that, they seem pretty reasonable. Apart from the "exact same benefits" one. You'd expect them to be part of any negotiating process. But they're clearly of a different order to May's red lines, which are much more specific and substantive. These are just, "It should be a good deal". How would you jettison them, or cross them, if they're red lines? How could you tell?

 

[ff1d1l]

Well, seeing them laid out like that, they seem pretty reasonable. Apart from the "exact same benefits" one. You'd expect them to be part of any negotiating process. But they're clearly of a different order to May's red lines, which are much more specific and substantive. These are just, "It should be a good deal". How would you jettison them, or cross them, if they're red lines? How could you tell?

My point was if they are not met, anything negotiated - not that it could - would be worse than remain.

 

[Mullardman]

And just to fog it all.. we have to remember that 'yer average' leave voter wants his 'sovrinty' back. He doesn't know what it is, but he misses it like ****.
Also, he wants the EU to stop making our laws. He can't name any examples apart from straight bananas, but he wants it stopped.
And he wants to stop all them immigrants coming in from the black countries in the EU.

 

[ff1d1l]

And just to fog it all.. we have to remember that 'yer average' leave voter wants his 'sovrinty' back. He doesn't know what it is, but he misses it like ****.
Also, he wants the EU to stop making our laws. He can't name any examples apart from straight bananas, but he wants it stopped.
And he wants to stop all them immigrants coming in from the black countries in the EU.

LOLs