The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (114 Viewers)

[CCFCSteve]

We have a media that holds the opposition and its leader to account, but incapable of doing the same to the party in power..

Thats not quite accurate Ian, May has been (rightly in certain areas) slaughtered in some of the media. The fact is Corbyn politicised a massive national issue for his own gain and like May with the calling of the GE early (which I could understand to some extent due to the split in the party and anticipated issues), is getting some payback

 

---

[Captain Dart]

Interesting comment by Vince Cable on Corbyn

"Since he appears to be determined to play party political games rather than acting on the wishes of his own members and MPs, he will no longer be able to rely on our support for further no-confidence motions.

I believe other parties are taking the same view. It’s time Mr Corbyn got off the fence and made his position plain."

Scuppered his plan for regular no confidence votes ! It also puts him under increasing pressure to agree to support a second referendum (which he doesn't want to do) as after GE, second ref was next for party members.

Dead man walking.

 

[Ian1779]

Interesting comment by Vince Cable on Corbyn

"Since he appears to be determined to play party political games rather than acting on the wishes of his own members and MPs, he will no longer be able to rely on our support for further no-confidence motions.

I believe other parties are taking the same view. It’s time Mr Corbyn got off the fence and made his position plain."

Scuppered his plan for regular no confidence votes ! It also puts him under increasing pressure to agree to support a second referendum (which he doesn't want to do) as after GE, second ref was next for party members.

I find it laughable that a man that spent 5 years playing party politics in a coalition (remember swapping welfare sanctions for a carrier bag charge!) has the cheek to call someone else out on it.

The Lib Dems abstaining on any future votes will have no impact on Labour as a party, and you are actually incorrect as the next stage of action for party members was the notion of a People's Vote... not a 2nd referendum.

 

[Astute]

if she offers keeping us in the CU I think it will be a game changer.
The problem they have is I think that will be seen as a betrayal of the referendum. I think May and Corbyn would go for it like a shot if each could guarantee they could pin it on the other.

May certainly would. But unsure what Corbyn really wants. He was always wanting out of the EU. Now does he just want the opposite of MAY?

 

[Ian1779]

Thats not quite accurate Ian, May has been (rightly in certain areas) slaughtered in some of the media. The fact is Corbyn politicised a massive national issue for his own gain and like May with the calling of the GE early (which I could understand to some extent due to the split in the party and anticipated issues), is getting some payback

May's very strategy is completely politicised. She is putting conservation of the Tories above everything else, including what she actually wants.

 

[Astute]

May's very strategy is completely politicised. She is putting conservation of the Tories above everything else, including what she actually wants.

Or it was always the plan.

 

[Captain Dart]

It begins. The 'real' Labour leaders have broken ranks.

 

[skybluetony176]

It begins. The 'real' Labour leaders have broken ranks.
View attachment 11340

Hillary Benn is Chair of the brexit select committee and Yvette Cooper is chair of the home affairs select committee. They may be bound by position to be there. Yvette Cooper might not even be there regarding Brexit.

 

[Ian1779]

Hillary Benn is Chair of the brexit select committee and Yvette Cooper is chair of the home affairs select committee. They may be bound by position to be there. Yvette Cooper might not even be there regarding Brexit.

But Captain Conservative has got his fresh Tory propaganda to pedal.....

 

[Captain Dart]

Hillary Benn is Chair of the brexit select committee and Yvette Cooper is chair of the home affairs select committee. They may be bound by position to be there. Yvette Cooper might not even be there regarding Brexit.

Not how sky news just presented it. If you read the tweet i posted they are ignoring the appeal sent by jezza to his MPs. Chukka was also on saying he thought the issue stood above party politics.

 

[skybluetony176]

But Captain Conservative has got his fresh Tory propaganda to pedal.....

TBF Tom Newton Dunn is the political editor for the Sun so it’s perhaps a little unfair to expect him to be aware of the positions that the two said MP’s hold and the duty that entails

 

[skybluetony176]

Not how sky news just presented it. If you read the tweet i posted they are ignoring the appeal sent by jezza to his MPs. Chukka was also on saying he thought the issue stood above party politics.

No I’m not ignoring the appeal from “Jezza”. It doesn’t mean that if the two respective committees are called to number 10 that the chairs for those committees can pull a sick note from “Jezza”. They have a commitment to their committees and a commitment to their role within their committees. Sky news indeed.

 

[Captain Dart]

No I’m not ignoring the appeal from “Jezza”. It doesn’t mean that if the two respective committees are called to number 10 that the chairs for those committees can pull a sick note from “Jezza”. They have a commitment to their committees and a commitment to their role within their committees. Sky news indeed.

Yeah right. LOL.

 

[skybluetony176]

Yeah right. LOL.

Here’s the outcome of the meeting



So if not for the reason of them being chairs of two select committees, both intrinsically linked to brexit why these two labour MP’s exactly? What other reason would there be? They’re not exactly random Labour MP’s are they?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I find it laughable that a man that spent 5 years playing party politics in a coalition (remember swapping welfare sanctions for a carrier bag charge!) has the cheek to call someone else out on it.

The Lib Dems abstaining on any future votes will have no impact on Labour as a party, and you are actually incorrect as the next stage of action for party members was the notion of a People's Vote... not a 2nd referendum.

Labour shouldn’t take any notice of this because they need Tory rebels to vote against the Government to win such a vote. The only way this is possible is if a no deal Brexit is the alternative. In this scenario, to believe the other opposition parties wouldn’t back a motion of no confidence if the alternative was a no deal Brexit in laughable. Jeremy Corbyn shouldn’t budge on his current position. Get the Government to oppose a no deal and if they contemplate this and joining the Customs Union it will rip the Tory apart. I doubt May is willing to pay that price for Brexit — it’s also in the national interest to minimise the potential economic damage of Brexit.

Getting Labour to publicly back a second referendum is a trap and Corbyn shouldn’t take the bait.

 

[oakey]

I just wish enough MPs had the courage to do what the majority of them want to do.
We keep hearing there is no majority in the house for any option, but there is, they are just too scared to say it or enact it.
This is what the majority think - There is no good Brexit deal: soft medium or hard that I can persuade the rest to vote for. A 'No deal' is out of the question. A people's vote though it might be convenient will cause more anger and division and probably just kicks the can down the road.
The only option left is revoke article 50 and remain in the EU. I know this is for the best but for many reasons I am scared to do it:
1) We voted to have a referendum. Doh!
2) We voted to trigger article 50. Oops.
3) We said in our manifestos we would honour the result. Duplicitous of us, agreed
4) People are very angry and there could be unrest. Indeed.
5) The twitter trolls will harass me. Unpalatable
6) My personal safety is at risk from nutjobs.
7) I could be deselected.
8) My party could split, collapse, implode. I love my party most of all.
9) I could lose my seat. Gulp!
10) I can't wait around for history to vindicate me.

Asking them to ignore all of the above and do the right thing - cancel Brexit, apologise to the nation, offer to stand down at the next GE - is asking for courage, vision and genuine patriotism.
So it won't happen and on with this national catastrophe we go.

 

[Astute]

Not how sky news just presented it. If you read the tweet i posted they are ignoring the appeal sent by jezza to his MPs. Chukka was also on saying he thought the issue stood above party politics.

And so it should be above party politics. Only those with an agenda would disagree.

 

[Astute]

I just wish enough MPs had the courage to do what the majority of them want to do.
We keep hearing there is no majority in the house for any option, but there is, they are just too scared to say it or enact it.
This is what the majority think - There is no good Brexit, deal, soft medium or hard that I can persuade the rest to vote for. A 'No deal' is out of the question. A people's vote though it might be convenient will cause more anger and division and probably just kicks the can down the road.
The only option left is revoke article 50 and remain in the EU. I know this is for the best but for many reasons I am scared to do it:
1) We voted to have a referendum. Doh!
2) We voted to trigger article 50. Oops.
3) We said in our manifestos we would honour the result. Duplicitous of us, agreed
4) People are very angry and there could be unrest. Indeed.
5) The twitter trolls will harass me. Unpalatable
6) My personal safety is at risk from nutjobs.
7) I could be deselected.
8) My party could split, collapse, implode. I love my party most of all.
9) I could lose my seat. Gulp!
10) I can't wait around for history to vindicate me.

Asking them to ignore all of the above and do the right thing - cancel Brexit, apologise to the nation, offer to stand down at the next GE - is asking for courage, vision and genuine patriotism.
So it won't happen and on with this national catastrophe we go.

Spot on. But get your tin hat on as it is supposed to be the fault of May only.

 

[clint van damme]

Dead man walking.

Lib dems propping up a lame duck Tory government, what's new?

 

[clint van damme]

It begins. The 'real' Labour leaders have broken ranks.
View attachment 11340

And gone to speak with the real Tory leaders?

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

And so it should be above party politics. Only those with an agenda would disagree.

It ought to be above party politics, but it’s not. The Government has been just as, if not more guilty than the Opposition, of playing politics with Brexit. The unnecessary election of 2017 is indicative of that.

 

[rob9872]

Can those of you closer to this, explain to a 'thickie' like me, why it's important for no deal to be taken off the table before they'll speak?

Taking aside that some of you do or don't want Brexit, I do get it. I can also see why lots are opposed to no deal. However, assuming that Brexit will still happen in some shape or form, how can it be sensible to announce that no deal isn't an option as it surely weakens any bargaining power if we're to go back to the EU and ask for more to get a deal through. Even if secretly they don't want it, the threat of it being there might surely help achieve a better UK deal, so what am I missing?

Ta

 

[martcov]

We are not allowed to extend it unilaterally

Needs consent of 27 countries. Then comes the problem with the EU elections. According to EU law we have to have representative in the EU parliament if we have not left the EU. Sorry I meant undemocratic EUSSR or 4 Reich. Eu has said it would only consider it if there was a GE or second referendum.

 

[rob9872]

It ought to be above party politics, but it’s not. The Government has been just as, if not more guilty than the Opposition, of playing politics with Brexit. The unnecessary election of 2017 is indicative of that.

Come now, everyone was saying she had to go to the polls as we didn't vote for her as PM and therefore she didn't have a mandate to negotiate Brexit. Not a viewpoint I agree with since we vote for a party not a person, similar to when Blair stood aside for Brown and I have no issue with that. It massively backfired of course, but that's with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Grendel]

It ought to be above party politics, but it’s not. The Government has been just as, if not more guilty than the Opposition, of playing politics with Brexit. The unnecessary election of 2017 is indicative of that.

You said if May resigned and was replaced it would be undemocratic to not have an election so I’d assumed you approved of that election

Your constant view changing to suit a particular argument is staggering

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Come now, everyone was saying she had to go to the polls as we didn't vote for her as PM and therefore she didn't have a mandate to negotiate Brexit. Not a viewpoint I agree with since we vote for a party not a person, similar to when Blair stood aside for Brown and I have no issue with that. It massively backfired of course, but that's with the benefit of hindsight.

That’s a valid view point. But, it also happened to be the case that Labour were 20% behind and looked like they would’ve got pummelled to the tune of their worst ever election result of the modern era.

 

[martcov]

Can those of you closer to this, explain to a 'thickie' like me, why it's important for no deal to be taken off the table before they'll speak?

Taking aside that some of you do or don't want Brexit, I do get it. I can also see why lots are opposed to no deal. However, assuming that Brexit will still happen in some shape or form, how can it be sensible to announce that no deal isn't an option as it surely weakens any bargaining power if we're to go back to the EU and ask for more to get a deal through. Even if secretly they don't want it, the threat of it being there might surely help achieve a better UK deal, so what am I missing?

Ta

It leaves May‘s deal, GE or second referendum. Or the mystery plan, plan B. May‘s deal is dead. Corbyn wants a GE, or if that fails, his party will probably go for a second referendum. May is snookered if she agrees to take no deal off the table. Corbyn would take a CU. But, that sounds like cake and eat it. Don’t think anyone would like that. Too close to the EU for leavers, pointless from the point of view of remain. May as well be in the EU.

Easiest is to cancel article 50. People would not be happy unless that was done after a second referendum confirming remain. Some would still be unhappy, but many are unhappy with leave.

What a mess.

 

[oakey]

Can those of you closer to this, explain to a 'thickie' like me, why it's important for no deal to be taken off the table before they'll speak?

Taking aside that some of you do or don't want Brexit, I do get it. I can also see why lots are opposed to no deal. However, assuming that Brexit will still happen in some shape or form, how can it be sensible to announce that no deal isn't an option as it surely weakens any bargaining power if we're to go back to the EU and ask for more to get a deal through. Even if secretly they don't want it, the threat of it being there might surely help achieve a better UK deal, so what am I missing?

Ta

I think one reason is that there is a suspicion that TM (and the shadowy figures of hard Brexiteers) will just be trying to run down the clock as it is the default option. In other words they don't have to negotiate seriously.
Another reason is that most of the opposition parties are genuinely scared of a No deal, so it's like putting the guns down before parleying.
FWIW I think it is a priority to avoid No deal, but tactically, if it's still on the table you can play hardball with the EU.
Personally I hate the game playing and think it's cards on the table time, but then I'm not a politician and I like straight talkers.

 

[rob9872]

It leaves May‘s deal, GE or second referendum. Or the mystery plan, plan B. May‘s deal is dead. Corbyn wants a GE, or if that fails, his party will probably go for a second referendum. May is snookered if she agrees to take no deal off the table. Corbyn would take a CU. But, that sounds like cake and eat it. Don’t think anyone would like that. Too close to the EU for leavers, pointless from the point of view of remain. May as well be in the EU.

Easiest is to cancel article 50. People would not be happy unless that was done after a second referendum confirming remain. Some would still be unhappy, but many are unhappy with leave.

What a mess.

I'm still not sure I quite understand it or how it helps us (I mean all of us not a particular political party or viewpoint) by removing it, but thanks for trying to explain anyhow.

 

[rob9872]

I think one reason is that there is a suspicion that TM (and the shadowy figures of hard Brexiteers) will just be trying to run down the clock as it is the default option. In other words they don't have to negotiate seriously.
Another reason is that most of the opposition parties are genuinely scared of a No deal, so it's like putting the guns down before parleying.
FWIW I think it is a priority to avoid No deal, but tactically, if it's still on the table you can play hardball with the EU.
Personally I hate the game playing and think it's cards on the table time, but then I'm not a politician and I like straight talkers.

Ta

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

You said if May resigned and was replaced it would be undemocratic to not have an election so I’d assumed you approved of that election

Your constant view changing to suit a particular argument is staggering

I was for an election then, and I am for an election now. But, to say the Tories weren’t politically motivated to take advantage of the massive gap in the polls is an incredibly naïve position to take.

If May really believed in mandates as strongly as she did in 2017, she would put her deal to the public in another GE. It just so happens that despite having been defeated on key legislation by a record margin, she’s still going when the convention is for a PM to resign or call a new election in these circumstances.

 

[skyblueinBaku]

Needs consent of 27 countries. Then comes the problem with the EU elections. According to EU law we have to have representative in the EU parliament if we have not left the EU. Sorry I meant undemocratic EUSSR or 4 Reich. Eu has said it would only consider it if there was a GE or second referendum.

I don't like 4 Reich, Mart. I think that EUSSR is closer to the reality than 4 Reich.

 

[skyblueinBaku]

I think one reason is that there is a suspicion that TM (and the shadowy figures of hard Brexiteers) will just be trying to run down the clock as it is the default option. In other words they don't have to negotiate seriously.
Another reason is that most of the opposition parties are genuinely scared of a No deal, so it's like putting the guns down before parleying.
FWIW I think it is a priority to avoid No deal, but tactically, if it's still on the table you can play hardball with the EU.
Personally I hate the game playing and think it's cards on the table time, but then I'm not a politician and I like straight talkers.

I'm sure that, given the EU is a little frightened of a 'no deal' exit, leaving that option on the table would strengthen our position in any future negotiations.

 

[Grendel]

I'm still not sure I quite understand it or how it helps us (I mean all of us not a particular political party or viewpoint) by removing it, but thanks for trying to explain anyhow.

It actually can’t be removed by the uk alone and the Eu have already said they want any extension limited to July to stop the farce of MEPs from the uk going to Brussels

The process to consider removing it would take is very close to deadline day. The second referendum argument becomes dead in the water as that would take months to organise - home office estimate 1 year

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Can those of you closer to this, explain to a 'thickie' like me, why it's important for no deal to be taken off the table before they'll speak?

Taking aside that some of you do or don't want Brexit, I do get it. I can also see why lots are opposed to no deal. However, assuming that Brexit will still happen in some shape or form, how can it be sensible to announce that no deal isn't an option as it surely weakens any bargaining power if we're to go back to the EU and ask for more to get a deal through. Even if secretly they don't want it, the threat of it being there might surely help achieve a better UK deal, so what am I missing?

Ta

'No deal is better than a bad deal.

We still got a bad deal.

Which is still better than no deal.

So our position is already improved on no deal.