Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Smores]

Because it's a classic case of using past performance to indicate future success. All that tells you is that Corbyn pulled it out of the bag in 2017 (well, relatively speaking), it can't tell you that he's currently doing a good job in keeping the party together, or that people who voted Labour (at both ends of the Remain/Leave spectrum) would continue to do so right now. They may do, but it's not a conclusion you can draw from that data.

I think the only conclusion you can draw is it's a fecked situation for Labour which everyone should already know. When a 'broad' party is forced to reflect on a single divisive issue you can't please all voters.

If it becomes a GE with Labours position tied to a referendum it'll lose those seats and then the question is will Tory remainers vote Corbyn? I don't think they will. Two new leaders please

 

[Thunderhead]

So let's say we leave without a deal on the 12th April. I'm in Paris and flying to Iceland the next day, then fly to Canada a few days later.

Am I going to have problems travelling with my EU passport?

no, Canada and USA have open skys agreement and as long as you have 6 months then you'll be fine getting to Iceland

 

[villain]

Because it's a classic case of using past performance to indicate future success. All that tells you is that Corbyn pulled it out of the bag in 2017 (well, relatively speaking), it can't tell you that he's currently doing a good job in keeping the party together, or that people who voted Labour (at both ends of the Remain/Leave spectrum) would continue to do so right now. They may do, but it's not a conclusion you can draw from that data.

But what else can they use? Until we have another election those constituencies are still represented by Labour MP's.
Also I don't think they're using it to indicate any future success, they haven't implied that Corbyn is going to win the next election, just showing the broad spectrum of Labour voters that he has to appease.

 

[NinjaFletch]

But what else can they use? Until we have another election those constituencies are still represented by Labour MP's.
Also I don't think they're using it to indicate any future success, they haven't implied that Corbyn is going to win the next election, just showing the broad spectrum of Labour voters that he has to appease.

Well that's what polls are for. They've definitely been grimmer for Corbyn (e.g. before 2017) but they're not pretty either.

And let's be real that's exactly what he's doing. His tweet claims that this is proof of Corbyn's success in keeping the party together. And, even if it didn't, he's one of the Novaro Media weirdos that would defend Corbyn from literally anything.

No one's denying that Corbyn has been dealt a difficult hand. He also just hasn't played it that well.

 

[GloryHunter07]

So let's say we leave without a deal on the 12th April. I'm in Paris and flying to Iceland the next day, then fly to Canada a few days later.

Am I going to have problems travelling with my EU passport?

You are screwed mate sorry.

 

[Rajma]

So let's say we leave without a deal on the 12th April. I'm in Paris and flying to Iceland the next day, then fly to Canada a few days later.

Am I going to have problems travelling with my EU passport?

I would have blue passport done in your place while in Europe.

 

[711]

I haven't said anything about him keeping the party together, that was inferred in the tweet, not in any of my posts.
Apart from the 8 MP's who recently left, the other MP's left because they deem him to be too far left, which is neither here nor there considering he's survived 2 leadership contests - and at the time was popular with the majority of labour voters (if that's still true, remains to be seen)

I was simply asking for thoughts on his actions (or inaction) when it comes to his stance on Brexit. i.e as the opposition party leader, any definitive position he takes on Brexit will likely have an impact in future GE's. No matter what happens with Brexit, there are going to be large factions of Pro-EU or Pro-Brexit in Labour & other marginal constituencies, and as things stand it doesn't look like either faction will be satisfied with the end result.
So with all that in mind, what's the best Brexit strategy for a party leader who aspires to be PM?
I don't know the answer, but I thought it would be interesting to see what others thought.

If you're just asking for opinions then mine is that the minimum I expect of the leader of the Labour party is to be honest about their own views. Corbyn, and McDonnell, are lifelong Brexiters from the Benn/Foot school. They first lied when they supposedly backed Remain in the referendum, although they then kept a very low profile of course. Since the referendum they have said they back Brexit, but only because that was the referendum result. Yeah, right. I watched the Labour party conference, with demonstration after demonstration calling for a people's vote, completely ignored by the leaders until the last minute when they reluctantly included 'we don't rule one out'. Well they wouldn't want a people's vote would they, it might be for Remain?

 

[sun_tzu]

no, Canada and USA have open skys agreement and as long as you have 6 months then you'll be fine getting to Iceland

probably fine the only issue would be if any planes that were due to pick you up are delayed due to it being a Uk carrier that had intended to fly EU to EU prior as that might not be allowed though I suspect most airlines have planned for that as much as they can... the mention of the USA does bring an additional bit of admin as you need the ESTA as well but you need this now anyway so that does not change

 

[711]

Incidentally travellers, Radio 5, moneybox I think, said if you want bargain flights look at this weekend. Apparently sales were very low as people thought it was Brexit weekend so were frightened to book, hence lots of cheap seats about.

I'm otherwise engaged, or I'd be doing a bit of googling.

 

[MadMike]

I haven't said anything about him keeping the party together, that was inferred in the tweet, not in any of my posts.
Apart from the 8 MP's who recently left, the other MP's left because they deem him to be too far left, which is neither here nor there considering he's survived 2 leadership contests - and at the time was popular with the majority of labour voters (if that's still true, remains to be seen)

I was simply asking for thoughts on his actions (or inaction) when it comes to his stance on Brexit. i.e as the opposition party leader, any definitive position he takes on Brexit will likely have an impact in future GE's. No matter what happens with Brexit, there are going to be large factions of Pro-EU or Pro-Brexit in Labour & other marginal constituencies, and as things stand it doesn't look like either faction will be satisfied with the end result.
So with all that in mind, what's the best Brexit strategy for a party leader who aspires to be PM?
I don't know the answer, but I thought it would be interesting to see what others thought.

I could really write an essay on this, but I don't want to derail the thread. I'll write something relatively short instead, but obviously that's entirely my opinion and there's no proof things would be any better this way. Here goes...

My opinion is that he should have gone for the angle that access to the Single Market is quite important to the nation's financial prosperity and peace (wrt Irish Border). Therefore he would get behind a soft Brexit which also respects the referendum result and in the event of no Parliamentary majority, a 2nd referendum to solve the impasse. And for the (rightly) disillusioned Labour Brexit supporters who are mostly of poor areas, his message should be that the EU enables wealth generation and what is skewed in this country is wealth distribution, which was already a problem even before austerity. And which is not solved by hurting wealth generation in general, on the contrary. That the anger towards the EU is misplaced and it's become an instrument of convenience for absolving consecutive governments of their failures.

The reason he's sitting on the fence is because Unions in general (who are his strong backers) are anti-EU. Because they feel that an open labour market, as operated by the EU, hurts them. The argument being that when an employer can pick any worker from the whole EU, why employ a local unionised worker. With diverse, flexible work forces unions are losing negotiating power, which means they lose memberships. And the ideology among the radical left in the Labour party is that should unions lose power the worker becomes worse off.

I personally feel that the above is merely a case of vested interests as happens with other politicians and their backers. And the angle politicians like Corbyn (and Sanders in the US) have is that they are supposed to stand for more integrity and the little guy instead of vested interests. Yet he's obviously failing to do so, in my opinion.

 

[RedChip]

Thoughts?

Tenous at the very least to attribute that distribution to Labour. More likely the constituencies have the same demographics that indicate Labour support.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Tenous at the very least to attribute that distribution to Labour. More likely the constituencies have the same demographics that indicate Labour support.

Precisely. Correlation not causation is entirely feasible here given the demographic bases and Labour tending to dominate in poorer and more deprived areas.

 

[Maticmaker]

It was this question at the end of my post I was interested in hearing your thought on mate.

My point was that because of the restraints on the EU via its own treaty's etc. it could not come to the table and negotiate a WA, and a future trade deal at the same time. Hence it was pointless the UK Government getting embroiled in the WA only, because that was the only indeterminate element that gave the Government leverage in the A50 process itself and on negotiating trade issues.

Hence the only way the Government could have respected the Referendum result was to go for the 'no deal' option, from day one, but instead it tried to pitch its approach somewhere in the middle, stating "nothings agreed until everything's agreed" which was patently untrue and which led to all sorts of complications, the border issue in Ireland being just one. If you are truly going to negotiate there should be no pre-conditions, from either side otherwise its not a negotiation. If you ignore this maxim, you will lose, and that is what has happened to the Government, its options are now limited it can either go for a 'No deal' for which it would seem the EU is more prepared for than us, or it can choke on revoking A50 and accept the political consequences... which in the longer term, the effects are likely to be more serious than a 'No Deal'.

 

[Smores]

May looks fecking awful i don't know why she's hanging on.

Decent to meh speech from Corbyn in response. If parliament votes against indicative votes again I'm going to cry

 

[JPRouve]

My point was that because of the restraints on the EU via its own treaty's etc. it could not come to the table and negotiate a WA, and a future trade deal at the same time. Hence it was pointless the UK Government getting embroiled in the WA only, because that was the only indeterminate element that gave the Government leverage in the A50 process itself and on negotiating trade issues.

Hence the only way the Government could have respected the Referendum result was to go for the 'no deal' option, from day one, but instead it tried to pitch its approach somewhere in the middle, stating "nothings agreed until everything's agreed" which was patently untrue and which led to all sorts of complications, the border issue in Ireland being just one. If you are truly going to negotiate there should be no pre-conditions, from either side otherwise its not a negotiation. If you ignore this maxim, you will lose, and that is what has happened to the Government, its options are now limited it can either go for a 'No deal' for which it would seem the EU is more prepared for than us, or it can choke on revoking A50 and accept the political consequences... which in the longer term, the effects are likely to be more serious than a 'No Deal'.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[Maticmaker]

You didn't answer the question

I thought I had, but you'd better repeat it then!

 

[Rooney24]

She is hinting at a longer extension and UK taking part in the EU elections here....

 

[JPRouve]

I thought I had, but you'd better repeat it then!

How a no deal plan can be compatible with the GFA?

 

[SteveJ]

May says there is not enough support for another meaningful vote at the moment.

Isn't this cheating? Surely it's not supposed to be a vote where the dice is loaded in her favour?

 

[Maticmaker]

How a no deal plan can be compatible with the GFA?

We don't apply any hard border in Ireland!

I have answered this previously, we don't want a hard border, the Irish (north and south) don't either and the EU says it doesn't... so who will implement it?

 

[Smores]

MPs shouldn't bother with this farce of the PM not actually answering simple questions. Just walk out or shout her down until she answers, stop the fecking formalities

 

[Sweet Square]

We don't apply any hard border in Ireland!

I have answered this previously, we don't want a hard border, the Irish (north and south) don't either and the EU says it doesn't... so who will implement it?

I'm mean it could work......................

 

[JPRouve]

We don't apply any hard border in Ireland!

I have answered this previously, we don't want a hard border, the Irish (north and south) don't either and the EU says it doesn't... so who will implement it?

Okay, so you don't intend to have any custom checks at all and obviously no trade deals?

 

[Maticmaker]

Okay, so you don't intend to have any custom checks at all and obviously no trade deals?

As far as the first part is concerned, not at the present, because the same trading laws/regulations/tariffs currently apply in the north and south. If there are changes in the future then customs checks may become necessary, however by then we are told reliably that the new customs technology advances we hear about should be operating everywhere.
Trade deals will change as an when required, at the moment its hard to see how things would change rapidly as it would not be in the interests of either side for that to happen, neither side , as I understand it, actually wants to stop trading with each other, certainly not on the Island of Ireland.

 

[Steerpike]

The nation state as a concept is barely even 200 years old. And during its existence we had two devastating world wars. You might say those had nothing to do with nation states but let's just say those wars did little to help the argument that nation states are the best way to manage politics.

The UK has never been a nation state. Ever. It was an empire. During the brief period after it had stopped being the empire but before joining the EEC it experienced an awful economic crisis. Because, well, being alone is a lot harder than being a global colonial power.

Freedom of movement allows for a lot of things. Governments can subsidise certain sectors, they can aim for creating certain types of jobs to make sure that most EU workers have the 'desired skills', whatever those might be. The only thing FoM prevents is turning away someone who is offered a job in the country.

England was already a nation state at the time of the Norman conquest, so the concept is a good deal more than 200 years old (even if the term itself isn't). Being the seat of an empire, and being a nation state, are not mutually exclusive - most of the European powers had empires at some point, but were still nation states on their own account.

You could argue that the UK ceased to have an empire shortly after World War 2 when India was granted independence (1947). The course had been set by that event, even if the process of divesting the overseas possessions lasted quite a bit longer. The economic crisis you refer to broadly encompassed the late 1960s and the whole of the 1970s. There is little evidence to support the view that joining the EU was the main cause of the recovery, though I wouldn't dispute that it played a part. Also the EU at the time was more of a trading bloc, and was called the European Economic Community (more informally, the Common Market). More important factors in the recovery by far were North Sea oil and the deregulation of the financial markets.

If the EEC had remained as simply a trading bloc, and not morphed into the EU (Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon), I doubt that there would be many people at all wanting to leave it.

 

[JPRouve]

As far as the first part is concerned, not at the present, because the same trading laws/regulations/tariffs currently apply in the north and south. If there are changes in the future then customs checks may become necessary, however by then we are told reliably that the new customs technology advances we hear about should be operating everywhere.
Trade deals will change as an when required, at the moment its hard to see how things would change rapidly as it would not be in the interests of either side for that to happen, neither side , as I understand it, actually wants to stop trading with each other, certainly not on the Island of Ireland.

Is that a joke or you have no idea about international trade and WTO?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

This page depresses me.

 

[Maticmaker]

Is that a joke or you have no idea about international trade and WTO?

I thought we were talking about the implications of the GFA on border issues? You are now on to something else entirely, you wouldn't by any chance be trying to change the subject?

 

[JPRouve]

I thought we were talking about the implications of the GFA on border issues? You are now on to something else entirely, you wouldn't by any chance be trying to change the subject?

No, I'm not changing the subject. Why do you think a border is necessary outside of a custom+free trade agreement aka No deal?

 

[Sassy Colin]

 

[Maticmaker]

Why do you think a border is necessary outside of a custom+free trade agreement

I don't think this has anything to do with what we started to discuss, you are changing the subject.

 

[JPRouve]

I don't think this has anything to do with what we started to discuss, you are changing the subject.

I'm not but you seem to not understand the subject and the implications of a No deal.

 

[Eire Red United]

As far as the first part is concerned, not at the present, because the same trading laws/regulations/tariffs currently apply in the north and south. If there are changes in the future then customs checks may become necessary, however by then we are told reliably that the new customs technology advances we hear about should be operating everywhere.
Trade deals will change as an when required, at the moment its hard to see how things would change rapidly as it would not be in the interests of either side for that to happen, neither side , as I understand it, actually wants to stop trading with each other, certainly not on the Island of Ireland.

Wish it was that simple chap. Even leaving aside trade, free movement of people is a big issue wrt the border in Ireland. As per EU rules, any EU citizen can travel into Ireland and at the minute, there is free travel between north and south and as the north is part of the UK, anyone can travel freely between the north and Britain.

Now obviously a big thing for the Brexiteers is ending freedom of movement, taking back control of your borders, but how do you suggest this is done without either stopping free travel between Ireland and the EU, (not going to happen), ending freedom of movement in Ireland (there would literally be war) or ending freedom of movement between the north and Britain.

 

[horsechoker]

Labour’s Stephen Doughty asks why it is acceptable for May to call three votes on her deal, but for the public to be denied a second vote.

May says the Commons has to implement the results of the referendum.

Is she obtuse or a literal robot?

 

[Maticmaker]

Wish it was that simple chap. Even leaving aside trade, free movement of people is a big issue wrt the border in Ireland. As per EU rules, any EU citizen can travel into Ireland and at the minute, there is free travel between north and south and as the north is part of the UK, anyone can travel freely between the north and Britain.

Now obviously a big thing for the Brexiteers is ending freedom of movement, taking back control of your borders, but how do you suggest this is done without either stopping free travel between Ireland and the EU, (not going to happen), ending freedom of movement in Ireland (there would literally be war) or ending freedom of movement between the north and Britain.

It can be much simpler with goodwill, but I take your point about free movement of people. I said way back in my posts that one of the reasons we are in this predicament is because the EU cannot (apparently) change or vary its rules on this , or any other of the four freedoms, treaty's etc. That's why my original argument was that the UK should have moved to 'no deal' first if it truly wanted to implement the results of the referendum; however the problem as I have tried to explain to others is that there is no such thing as a 'good deal' unless it involves both political (treaty amendments) as well as economic ones. Since then we have strayed off into other areas involving GFA and now it seems WTO issues.

 

[Siorac]

England was already a nation state at the time of the Norman conquest, so the concept is a good deal more than 200 years old (even if the term itself isn't). Being the seat of an empire, and being a nation state, are not mutually exclusive - most of the European powers had empires at some point, but were still nation states on their own account.

You could argue that the UK ceased to have an empire shortly after World War 2 when India was granted independence (1947). The course had been set by that event, even if the process of divesting the overseas possessions lasted quite a bit longer. The economic crisis you refer to broadly encompassed the late 1960s and the whole of the 1970s. There is little evidence to support the view that joining the EU was the main cause of the recovery, though I wouldn't dispute that it played a part. Also the EU at the time was more of a trading bloc, and was called the European Economic Community (more informally, the Common Market). More important factors in the recovery by far were North Sea oil and the deregulation of the financial markets.

If the EEC had remained as simply a trading bloc, and not morphed into the EU (Treaties of Maastricht and Lisbon), I doubt that there would be many people at all wanting to leave it.

No, England was not a nation state before the Normann conquest. That is factually wrong on a number of levels. The modern concept of nation didn't even exist back then. The Kingdom of England was no more of a nation state than the Kingdom of Poland. Or the Holy Roman Empire.

And I hear often that 'if only the EU had remained a trading block'. First, for the UK it's still pretty close to being just that: you opted out of almost everything else yet it's clearly still not enough.

Second, I'm pretty sure the UK would want out of the EEC if it was still called that. Because even when you joined it was already a lot more than a simple trading block. It already had freedom of movement for workers. It had already been working towards further integration. Because it had never been intended to be a simple trading block.

What’s happening now is basically the return of the idea of splendid isolation. It shows that the British still don't really consider themselves to be part of Europe. You want out because you can't dictate the terms. Because you think you don't need those pesky Europeans who are such a bother and you can do just fine without them. Yes, we'll grant them the favour of trade but otherwise leave us alone.

It's a shame because European cooperation could really use the Brits. But they simply don't want it.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

It can be much simpler with goodwill, but I take your point about free movement of people. I said way back in my posts that one of the reasons we are in this predicament is because the EU cannot (apparently) change or vary its rules on this , or any other of the four freedoms, treaty's etc. That's why my original argument was that the UK should have moved to 'no deal' first if it truly wanted to implement the results of the referendum; however the problem as I have tried to explain to others is that there is no such thing as a 'good deal' unless it involves both political (treaty amendments) as well as economic ones. Since then we have strayed off into other areas involving GFA and now it seems WTO issues.

What you are describing is cake and eat it, take the bits the UK want and not the bits they don't like.

The only solution to the Irish border problem is for NI to be in the CU and the SM.

 

[Maticmaker]

I'm not but you seem to not understand the subject and the implications of a No deal.

I do understand the implications, but my initial point has been that given the restrictions on the UK to be able to enter true negotiations with the EU (i.e. no preconditions) on all aspects WA and Trade issues at the same time, then 'No deal' was the better option for leaving. It has always been a binary choice between No deal /Leave or Remain/revoke A50 and still is IMO, everything else is nonsense.

 

[Maticmaker]

What you are describing is cake and eat it, take the bits the UK want and not the bits they don't like.

Yes, that is what we were supposed to be after wasn't it? The only way that might have been achieved was to go to 'No deal' first, every other course of action was a no win' for the UK, even I suspect now, revoking A50, the damage has been done!

 

[Honest John]

Doesn't the common travel area still exist? If so any un-checked movement via a soft border, post- Brexit by non-Irish EU citizens is not free and would therefore be illegal. Am I wrong?