advertisement


Vast Brexit thread merge part I

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seanm said:
I'll be happy to explain the position on the doorstep, if it's what we end up with: "Brexit is bigger than any leader, bigger than any party: Corbyn's job will be to make sure the decision of the people is respected. Now, about these cuts..."
Click to expand...
To which they will say, "why will this referendum be respected when the other one wasn't"? Etc, etc.
 
Blank placard is quite refreshing. Corbyns position is, at least, the more democratic option.

This would be the best option if one is looking for a constructive deal.

And puts him in a more positive light than the press show him.
 
Stunsworth said:
"No one knew what leaving involved then, we do now".
Click to expand...
Fair point. It does feel like uncertainty is being answered by neutrality, not ideal. My main gripe is that it makes any future negotiation with the EU impossible. "Can I have a better deal that I don't really know whether I want or can sell"
 
Woodface said:
Fair point. It does feel like uncertainty is being answered by neutrality, not ideal. My main gripe is that it makes any future negotiation with the EU impossible. "Can I have a better deal that I don't really know whether I want or can sell"
Click to expand...

It only makes it impossible to negotiate if you think negotiation has to involve metaphorically shouting ‘give me what I want or I’ll stick a live grenade up my arse’.
 
Woodface said:
Fair point. It does feel like uncertainty is being answered by neutrality, not ideal. My main gripe is that it makes any future negotiation with the EU impossible. "Can I have a better deal that I don't really know whether I want or can sell"
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way. The EU would prefer that the UK remains anyway, but they would expect any deal to be ratified one way or another
 
Dave***t said:
It only makes it impossible to negotiate if you think negotiation has to involve metaphorically shouting ‘give me what I want or I’ll stick a live grenade up my arse’.
Click to expand...
No one with any experience of negotiation would think that, adversarial relationships have been out of fashion in such a context for quite a while. The point remains that such negotiations need to be taken in good faith, I am not sure they can be in this instance.
 
gavreid said:
I don't see it that way. The EU would prefer that the UK remains anyway, but they would expect any deal to be ratified one way or another
Click to expand...
That is true, but what is the point of putting another package together if the recipient will not sell it on? If Corbyn or whoever comes to the EU with a shape of what they want & a plan b of what they will be able to live with then that would be a sensible course of action. May had all these silly red lines which narrowed down a possible solution.
 
To anyone with a sensible approach, and I'm thinking of the sort of guys on this thread, Johnsons position is not a place we wanted to get to. I don't think he's too comfortable with it either.

Swinsons flying pig position is equally, well, just that.

A Corbyn style reboot looks more appealing.
 
Woodface said:
That is true, but what is the point of putting another package together if the recipient will not sell it on? If Corbyn or whoever comes to the EU with a shape of what they want & a plan b of what they will be able to live with then that would be a sensible course of action. May had all these silly red lines which narrowed down a possible solution.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of it, I'm sure. May's red lines painted the UK negotiating team into a corner before discussions had started. Corbyn could approach the EU afresh, without those red lines in place and renegotiate in good faith. I believe the EU would be receptive to that (all talk about this being the only deal in town presupposes May's red lines remain in place).

Assuming, then, that a more sensible and workable Leave deal could be worked out, it would be right to put this before the country. It really is immaterial to the EU whether Corbyn, or his party, gets behind the deal or promotes 'Remain' instead. What matters is that the negotiations would be done in good faith, with the clear intention to get the best deal and the most constructive Brexit arrangement, then put that to the people. Depending on what the final deal looked like, the government position could be 'this is a great deal, we should take it' or 'this is the best we can expect, but it's not as good as what we have now so we recommend not taking it'. Either position, if honestly presented, should not prejudice any renegotiation with the EU, as far as I can see.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
This is the crux of it, I'm sure. May's red lines painted the UK negotiating team into a corner before discussions had started. Corbyn could approach the EU afresh, without those red lines in place and renegotiate in good faith. I believe the EU would be receptive to that (all talk about this being the only deal in town presupposes May's red lines remain in place).

Assuming, then, that a more sensible and workable Leave deal could be worked out, it would be right to put this before the country. It really is immaterial to the EU whether Corbyn, or his party, gets behind the deal or promotes 'Remain' instead. What matters is that the negotiations would be done in good faith, with the clear intention to get the best deal and the most constructive Brexit arrangement, then put that to the people. Depending on what the final deal looked like, the government position could be 'this is a great deal, we should take it' or 'this is the best we can expect, but it's not as good as what we have now so we recommend not taking it'. Either position, if honestly presented, should not prejudice any renegotiation with the EU, as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

Best post on this topic yet. I don’t get why people are confused about Corbs not taking a position. What does it matter what Corbyn thinks, he’s offering us a choice between a soft Brexit and Remain. Either would likely be acceptable to the EU, and get through Parliament. In the circumstances I think it sensible for the Leader to remain neutral and look to people to make their minds up based on the evidence
 
Agree with Sue. But first there is the small matter of winning a GE / being able to form a working majority.
 
ks.234 said:
Best post on this topic yet. I don’t get why people are confused about Corbs not taking a position. What does it matter what Corbyn thinks, he’s offering us a choice between a soft Brexit and Remain. Either would likely be acceptable to the EU, and get through Parliament. In the circumstances I think it sensible for the Leader to remain neutral and look to people to make their minds up based on the evidence
Click to expand...

We're not confused - we just skeptical that it will work (in terms of winning a GE). It will do little to peel remainers away from LibDems (except in seats where they might be better off tactically voting Labour) and does nothing to placate Brexiters (vote labour and get to choose between BrINO and remain).
 
ks.234 said:
Best post on this topic yet. I don’t get why people are confused about Corbs not taking a position. What does it matter what Corbyn thinks, he’s offering us a choice between a soft Brexit and Remain. Either would likely be acceptable to the EU, and get through Parliament. In the circumstances I think it sensible for the Leader to remain neutral and look to people to make their minds up based on the evidence
Click to expand...
But people are confused by it. You may not see it but, with respect, you are probably nontypical in terms of political engagement.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
This is the crux of it, I'm sure. May's red lines painted the UK negotiating team into a corner before discussions had started. Corbyn could approach the EU afresh, without those red lines in place and renegotiate in good faith. I believe the EU would be receptive to that (all talk about this being the only deal in town presupposes May's red lines remain in place).

Assuming, then, that a more sensible and workable Leave deal could be worked out, it would be right to put this before the country. It really is immaterial to the EU whether Corbyn, or his party, gets behind the deal or promotes 'Remain' instead. What matters is that the negotiations would be done in good faith, with the clear intention to get the best deal and the most constructive Brexit arrangement, then put that to the people. Depending on what the final deal looked like, the government position could be 'this is a great deal, we should take it' or 'this is the best we can expect, but it's not as good as what we have now so we recommend not taking it'. Either position, if honestly presented, should not prejudice any renegotiation with the EU, as far as I can see.
Click to expand...
I agree with the majority of what you are saying but I am putting my EU hat on in terms of trying to see it from their viewpoint. Why go to all the bother of corraling the 27 member states for something which will not be taken forward? I am only echoing concerns from Alan Johnson's earlier interview on R4?

Also the general public has had 3 years of this guff, fatigue is probably setting in. Don't expect a rational outcome of any referendum, certainly shouldn't put no deal as an option.
 
sean99 said:
We're not confused - we just skeptical that it will work (in terms of winning a GE). It will do little to peel remainers away from LibDems (except in seats where they might be better off tactically voting Labour) and does nothing to placate Brexiters (vote labour and get to choose between BrINO and remain).
Click to expand...
My starting point is that, while there is only one colour of 'Remain', there are various hues of Remainers. The 'Remain, regardless' ones may find the LibDem's uncompromising and definite 'revoke' stance appealing. But many of the other hues have at least half an eye on the way the country would receive such news. And I think they will be nervous of the gammon backlash in a unilateral 'revoke' situation. And even absent any backlash, an undercurrent of ill-feeling would be corrosive, and best avoided or at least minimised.

So many of the Remainer types, and I include myself in this, would shy away from the LibDem position, on the basis that you don't rebuild trust and any prospect of a community by steamrollering on.

And on Brexiters, frankly the rabid 'no-deal' faction can **** right off. But many Leave voters who do still sit on that side, probably recognise that some form of sensible ongoing relationship is necessary and desirable. A 'soft' Brexit is probably what they wanted all along. I see no insurmountable obstacle to winning those types over to a rational deal, even if the die-hards call it BrINO.

Woodface said:
I agree with the majority of what you are saying but I am putting my EU hat on in terms of trying to see it from their viewpoint. Why go to all the bother of corraling the 27 member states for something which will not be taken forward? I am only echoing concerns from Alan Johnson's earlier interview on R4?

Also the general public has had 3 years of this guff, fatigue is probably setting in. Don't expect a rational outcome of any referendum, certainly shouldn't put no deal as an option.
Click to expand...

I think the EU would also have half an eye on UK stability, as above. If we did remain, it would be much better for the EU if we did so as wholehearted and supportive participants. So I could see it supporting any move that might, in the longer term, damp down the UK's habitual Euroscepticism, perhaps to a dull roar.
 
Woodface said:
I agree with the majority of what you are saying but I am putting my EU hat on in terms of trying to see it from their viewpoint. Why go to all the bother of corraling the 27 member states for something which will not be taken forward? I am only echoing concerns from Alan Johnson's earlier interview on R4?

Also the general public has had 3 years of this guff, fatigue is probably setting in. Don't expect a rational outcome of any referendum, certainly shouldn't put no deal as an option.
Click to expand...
It's a fair point but I believe the EU has a pretty good idea of what Labour's asking for, and it's close enough to one of the existing models to square off quite quickly. The referendum then offers the possibility that the UK might not leave the EU after all which (economically, at least) would be a big prize for the EU member states. Worth fighting for, I'd have thought.
 
Woodface said:
No one with any experience of negotiation would think that, adversarial relationships have been out of fashion in such a context for quite a while. The point remains that such negotiations need to be taken in good faith, I am not sure they can be in this instance.
Click to expand...

It's exactly the way that the govt have been framing the negotiations, and in recent times, at the very least until Rudd's departure, by all accounts were conducting them.

There's plenty of room for motivation to negotiate strenuously and in good faith in the stated position. The deal has to be one that both parties agree won't just land them back in the same position again a couple of years down the line. And if the resultant deal isn't credible, either side can motivate the other amply by just saying 'You know what happens if we can't do better than this? Think of the last 3 years. That. Again.'

The mistake is to assume a desire to just get the negotiation out of the way rather than get it done properly in a way that can satisfy sufficient numbers of people and form the basis for rebuilding bridges as time goes on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top