[Politics] Brexit

[neilbard]

But taking 'no deal' off the table destroys the UK's negotiating position. It's fine if our leaders agree among themselves that we won't leave with no deal, but if that's not even an option for the EU to worry about, then they'd have us over a barrel. Yes we know that no deal would be bad for the UK, but it is also a real fear for many business leaders in the EU. They'd rather give us a fair deal than suffer no deal.

Corbyn demanding that it's taken off the table is like him saying we'll pay for nuclear weapons, but would never use them.

Touché

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Article 50 shouldn't have ever been invoked until a deal was thrashed out.

Go on then ...... explain how exactly this would have worked ?

 

[Bold Seagull]

But taking 'no deal' off the table destroys the UK's negotiating position. It's fine if our leaders agree among themselves that we won't leave with no deal, but if that's not even an option for the EU to worry about, then they'd have us over a barrel. Yes we know that no deal would be bad for the UK, but it is also a real fear for many business leaders in the EU. They'd rather give us a fair deal than suffer no deal.

Corbyn demanding that it's taken off the table is like him saying we'll pay for nuclear weapons, but would never use them.

I completely disagree. I don't think No Deal is or has been a negotiating leverage against the EU as it's pretty obvious it hurts both sides. You can't hold a threat of cutting a nose off if you both have to do it.

The No Deal is purely a threat against Parliament and has been retained as such, it has nothing to do with negotiating with the EU. It has been there the whole time and this is still the best deal we have. Once May effectively lost the GE in terms of a meaningful majority, she has known her party on their own wouldn't vote for any single Brexit deal whether hard or soft because they are too divided. The No Deal is there to threaten Parliament to vote for whatever deal was in front of them. That threat has failed, she needs the rest of Parliament on board, and the rest of Parliament has said take No Deal off the table.

 

[Triggaaar]

It IS though.



It is already a fissure.



A second Leave vote would be hugely better informed, and thus far more respected.

.

Who are you to talk for 'people'? Some 'people' DO want a way out. Only one way to find out how many...



No it isn't. Not at ANY cost.

,

Somewhat problematic? Idiot.



Threats of violence? Really, really strong letters to the Daily Mail? A few idiots refusing to cast their vote for UKIP in later elections? None of that is 'worse' than an economic catastrophe.

.

You don't know that. And there is only one way to find out.



Again - utter tripe. There are many in the 'political class' pro-brexit, and many of 'the people' all for staying. Those people have the right to have their 'will' and future prosperity and freedoms respected too.



You definitely can - and just have.



Yes we can, albeit massively poorer. For no benefit.



there goes the overstating again.

Wow. Presumably your point has been ignored and you're being lambasted for dividing a post into separate quotes?

 

[dingodan]

I don't believe so.

And honestly, you have no idea what 'my politics' are. Other than that I strongly favour the UK remaining in the EU.

You have no idea what gender I am.

Said the guy with his flies undone and his todger out.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Go on then ...... explain how exactly this would have worked ?

The same way that it is working now. The government works out what they want to do, and Parliament votes on it.
Once it passes Parliament, then revoke Article 50, and negotiate with the EU with Parliament's backing. There could be tweaks and amendments in the two years but it would be a lot stronger position than now where the Prime Minister is sitting there blackmailing the rest of the House of Commons.

[tweet]1085848806636351493[/tweet]

 

[Thunder Bolt]

You have no idea what gender I am.

Said the guy with his flies undone and his todger out.

Out of order! Grow up.

 

[Triggaaar]

Article 50 shouldn't have ever been invoked until a deal was thrashed out.

The EU said they wouldn't negotiate at all until article 50 had been triggered.

 

[Baldseagull]

So Teresa May has had over 2 years to speak to the leader of the opposition. Post general election when her working majority she hoped to bypass her hardliners actually shrank, she again didn't look to consult cross party. 6 weeks ago when it was clear her deal, her precious deal was going to fail, with over a 1/3rd of her own party going against it, she still didn't look to speak with any cross party leaders.

So she gets to the point of an historic monumental defeat in Parliament, scrapes through a No Confidence vote through the homophobes...I mean DUP votes, then Corbyn is supposed to just jump out of his seat without any concession whatsoever?

And this is Corbyn's fault?

He has actually asked for less than the other party leaders, that a no deal brexit is confirmed as being off the table. A completely reasonable position to demand on behalf of his party and members, democratically setting their policy through conference. In fact, he is probably going against a fair number in his party in not demanding a referendum, so he is asking for less than the other leaders.

Is that explanation enough?

There is a fear I think, that if she says No Deal is off the table, out loud, that another vote of confidence would see some Tory ERG members or the DUP vote against her. Most won't as they hate Corbyn and his form of socialism more than they hate the EU, but enough might. Both Leaders have demonstrated far greater concern for their own Party and who can win the next election, than they have about getting this done in the best way for the country, there is zero trust between Corbyn and May.
It is a position he is taking to put more pressure on her, I don't think he is acting in a particularly honorable way, I think it will backfire on him as well, it won't make him any more popular in the electorate.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The EU said they wouldn't negotiate at all until article 50 had been triggered.

That isn't going against what I said. I said thrash out a deal with Parliament and then use the two years to negotiate with the EU. Once Parliament had agreed the deal, then we have a strong backing.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The same way that it is working now. The government works out what they want to do, and Parliament votes on it.
Once it passes Parliament, then revoke Article 50, and negotiate with the EU with Parliament's backing. There could be tweaks and amendments in the two years but it would be a lot stronger position than now where the Prime Minister is sitting there blackmailing the rest of the House of Commons.

The EU said they wouldn't negotiate at all until article 50 had been triggered.

Thank you - exactly what I was hinting at but TB missed entirely.

 

[Triggaaar]

I completely disagree. I don't think No Deal is or has been a negotiating leverage against the EU as it's pretty obvious it hurts both sides. You can't hold a threat of cutting a nose off if you both have to do it.

I completely disagree.

The negotiating position should be that we want a deal that works for both sides, and failing that, we'll have no deal which harms both sides. If you make it law that you can't leave without a deal, then the EU simply tell you what their terms are - no negotiation necessary, they just tell you what they want, and that's that, you have to take it or withdraw Article 50. How on earth do you think we could negotiate with that?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Article 50 shouldn't have ever been invoked until a deal was thrashed out.

I said thrash out a deal with Parliament .

I'm afraid you didn't.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'm afraid you didn't.

It reads that way to me. See my post quoting Caroline Lucas.

 

[Triggaaar]

That isn't going against what I said.

Well it is a bit, because you said

The government works out what they want to do, and Parliament votes on it.
Once it passes Parliament, then revoke Article 50, and negotiate with the EU with Parliament's backing.

I get your suggestion that you think Parliament should agree what they want before going to the EU, but you said revoke Article 50 and then negotiate with the EU, which they said they wouldn't do.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I completely disagree.

The negotiating position should be that we want a deal that works for both sides, and failing that, we'll have no deal which harms both sides. If you make it law that you can't leave without a deal, then the EU simply tell you what their terms are - no negotiation necessary, they just tell you what they want, and that's that, you have to take it or withdraw Article 50. How on earth do you think we could negotiate with that?

But that's what the EU did

 

[Bold Seagull]

There is a fear I think, that if she says No Deal is off the table, out loud, that another vote of confidence would see some Tory ERG members or the DUP vote against her. Most won't as they hate Corbyn and his form of socialism more than they hate the EU, but enough might. Both Leaders have demonstrated far greater concern for their own Party and who can win the next election, than they have about getting this done in the best way for the country, there is zero trust between Corbyn and May.
It is a position he is taking to put more pressure on her, I don't think he is acting in a particularly honorable way, I think it will backfire on him as well, it won't make him any more popular in the electorate.

As per Nigel Evans on BBC News, the Conservative Party are entrenched in defining what Brexit means and ruling out a customs union and a single market arrangement – even though this is still leaving the EU, which is all the referendum asked. So it is okay for one party to draw distinct lines in the sand, but when the rest of the house wants a line in the sand against a no deal, they are not serving the public interest.

The Conservatives are obsessed with this leaving the EU that enables them to make these imaginary trade deals around the world that take decades to thrash out, rather than realise a Brexit that leaves the EU fulfilling the referendum result, but leaving us closely aligned with the EU as per the wishes of the 48% is most likely the true democratic solution.

 

[Triggaaar]

Odd how Gove went fully on the attack with some very debatable soundbites that have been argued and proved incorrect before and then May invites him for talks. He’s meant to accept after that? Come on.

Equally you could say that Corbyn has spent his time in opposition insulting the government, and then expects to be invited to talks after that?

Both parties insult each other as part of politics, that's how it works. Either he wants to discuss a way forward, or he doesn't.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Equally you could say that Corbyn has spent his time in opposition insulting the government, and then expects to be invited to talks after that?

Both parties insult each other as part of politics, that's how it works. Either he wants to discuss a way forward, or he doesn't.

And it's taken May until yesterday to ask.

Nigel Evans pretty much confirming they're not prepared to listen on BBC News. They're not prepared to budge on No Deal, they're not going to countenance a customs union or single market arrangements. Its pure PR to make it look like they're asking for cross party support / dialogue when they're intransigent.

What a sham and people are buying it.

If you are prepared to compromise you have to be prepared to change your stance, it's clear from all the leading Tory statements today that isn't going to happen. She is going to tweak her deal and it will get voted down again at the end of the month.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Very impressive speech from Jeremy Corbyn in Hastings just finished. Genuinely impressive from a socialist standpoint. Setting out his stall for the next General Election - including the overturn of Amber Rudd's flimsy majority in Hastings. Impressive on Brexit? Not so much.

I agree. Still, it's got Amber Rudd rattled, so good on him.

[tweet]1085823295574859777[/tweet]