For the british public it will be like swallowing a pineapple. You spend 50 years doing everything to have a special treatment, you threaten to leave, finally leave and comeback with the same status than Croatia.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
For the british public it will be like swallowing a pineapple. You spend 50 years doing everything to have a special treatment, you threaten to leave, finally leave and comeback with the same status than Croatia.
I get what you're saying and he should have used the ammunition long ago but if the UK has already left the EU or even the CU/SM it will be too late, reversing the damage will not be something that could be fixed within a few years. If no deal is the outcome both May and Corbyn are finished, she'll get the blame for doing it and he'll get the blame for not stopping her.
Not really, this particular aspect of things is based on treaties, not directives, it's not negotiable. So the EU would have to create a new constitution which is a long and complicated process and won't be done for a foreign country.
Sad but true.Don't act as if May would allow a magic money tree to be planted in Westminster if the seed had been found by labour
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...seek-brexit-talks-barnier-eu-chief-negotiator
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-may-to-revive-her-no-deal-threat-to-brussels
Couple of stories from the weekend.
Can't someone tell the moggie that the £39bn is nothing to do with getting a trade deal. If the no deal is a threat to the EU why does he want a trade deal.
If the UK don't pay does he realise the UK's membership to the WTO will be blocked and the UK won't be signing trade deals with anybody and if there is a no deal the UK are obliged to erect a hard border in Ireland. This is so basic and yet no journalist or Corbyn points this out.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-may-to-revive-her-no-deal-threat-to-brussels
Couple of stories from the weekend.
Can't someone tell the moggie that the £39bn is nothing to do with getting a trade deal. If the no deal is a threat to the EU why does he want a trade deal.
If the UK don't pay does he realise the UK's membership to the WTO will be blocked and the UK won't be signing trade deals with anybody and if there is a no deal the UK are obliged to erect a hard border in Ireland. This is so basic and yet no journalist or Corbyn points this out.
So you're saying criticise the government's bullshit position by offereio bullshit arguments. Effectively saying the people you're trying to persuade are idiots.
The thing is, he's already under pressure to make his positions clear and that's partly why he made that statement. At some point in the next few months he's going to stick or twist.
Last edited:
The absence of a position isn't the same as a position where one promises something impossible to achieve. Why shouldn't one criticise the governments bullshit regardless of the own position? Corbyn's position is currently irrelevant to the outcome of brexit, it can only influence brexit if he wins an election, and to do that he'll need both leavers & remainers.
For the sake of it let's just assume he did have some brilliant idea that made the whole tory mess alright again in a fortnight. The tories and their press would tear it apart regardless of how perfect it might be just because it was Corbyn who came up with it.
What he said is inaccurate, you can't just say that you are working towards a free trade agreement, you need to have an official interim agreement which means that you have a plan and schedule for the formation of a custom union/free trade area within a reasonable length of time.
Then there is the problem that according to WTO and art.24 a free trade area is the substitution of two or more custom territories for one, now people probably imagine what Ireland's custom territory is, so Rees-Mogg is playing with people ignorance.
He just offered a solution that isn't a solution at all. He wants to negotiate a CU agreement to resolve the NI border issue. Problem is a CU agreement doesn't do that.
What you're asking is that the public and labour members blindly trust Corbyn on an issue he has offered very little on.
Wow JR-M 'said that he supported May, whom he described as “the most impressive and dutiful leader that this country has had”.'
There's nothing the EU can do to force the UK to pay up what it owes. That doesn't mean that there won't be repercussions though
a- the UK will come across as a country you simply can't trust. That's bad news for global Britain
b- the EU will react directly by turning its borders with the UK into a nightmare. Goods will be bogged up at customs for ages which of course will destroy any company relying on selling perishable goods or/and those whose supply line is tied with Europe. Visas will take ages too which of course will hit the UK workers badly. Expats on both sides of the channel will be hurt as they will find their statuses and rights vanish overnight.
c- the EU will also act indirectly. It will put all kind of stops to WTOs membership and it will be difficult towards countries who give the UK a generous trade deal.
Once the UK gets hooked to the US through a trade deal then I think it will be close to impossible. The US multinationals and powerful US farming lobbies will take the UK to the cleaners. Once hooked they won't let go easily, not without the US government stepping in to defend their corner.
Quite so. It's the story of Brexit, people's ignorance.
You know that whatever he says, the opposite will be true.
That's what I meant, any remaining credibility the UK government may have after all this will disappear and WTO will not be open.
The US are already briefing in the open that they can't wait to have us for breakfast.
Some of their proposals are scary. I can't see a free trade deal with the US any time soon. It will never pass parliamentary scrutiny.
I don't know about Brexit stopping if Corbyn went, necessarily. But I would be interested to see where we'd be now if we had a Labour leader who either opposed Brexit or at the very least was championing a 'final say' referendum. The Tories are lucky to have Corbyn there as he has no desire to challenge them on any of it. Isn't necessarily anti-Corbyn either to point that out, although obviously I am. The whole thing couldn't have gone much worse for the Tories and they're fortunate that the man who should be nailing their balls to the cross over it, has absolutely no interest in doing so.
Even with Labour's current 'Six tests' plan, I've absolutely no confidence Corbyn won't whip his MPs into voting for May's deal whatever it is.
Where we would be now?
May would have a majority government and wouldn’t be relying on keeping the DUP sweet. They’d care less about the Irish border and be pushing for an even harder, even more damaging Brexit.
We'd be wherever the Labour leader wanted us to be. Combination of opposition parties (sans DUP) and Tory rebels, at the very least softening the harder edges of Brexit would in theory be a fairly straight forward thing to do. He doesn't even have to try in the Lords, although when he does intervene there it seems to be whipping his peers into not voting against the government. The government is in an extremely precarious position on Brexit and knows it, there is a massive open goal for a Labour leader to be massively influential over the shape and direction of Brexit. As it is Labour are almost completely irrelevant to the debate, sadly.
Don't think you could be in a worst position. Almost 2 years have gone by since the referendum. In those two years there has been virtually no challenge to the government's ramblings from the press and no serious challenge from the opposition and certainly not from their leader. The government have had an easy ride and the country is just drifting off into limboland.
In those two years plenty of challenges could have been made and woken the electorate sufficiently to reality at least to change the perspective.
As it is the public must be saying , well the Tories think it's a good idea and so seemingly do Labour, so it must be a good idea.
Again for those who want rid of Corbyn the German SPD says hi.
Brilliant argument. We must keep a leader of a party who's doing a poor job because, and I quote, "the German SPD says hi"
Well I'm convinced. Go Jez. I'm surprised you don't hear that argument made more, I can't imagine any discontent at his leadership possibly existing after rebels being warned that a German political party would say 'hi' if they continued to make a fuss.
That's a pretty rubbish argument all told though.
Their situation is more analogous with the Lib Dems than anyone else in the UK political sphere and more about the politics of coalitions than policy.
The narrative I really struggle with is the idea that with the government divided and unable really to get anything through its own cabinet let alone Parliament, that somehow the leader of the opposition has, with some success, presented himself as somewhat as a bystander in the whole affair. I don't see how you can look at the lay of the land, the numbers in the Commons and come to the conclusion that: 'I'm just the leader of the opposition. What could I possibly do?' is at all acceptable but that does really seem to be where we are with Corbyn and Brexit.
The truth is that if Labour had a leader that wanted to hold Tory's feet to the fire then it's all set up for them to do so. I have an issue with pretending that somehow Corbyn's hands are tied - they're not. He's choosing to sit on them. Also think it reflects badly on him and possibly feeds into his poor poll ratings that he is seen to either not want to smash the ball into an open goal, or isn't capable of doing it. If May could pick her own opposition on her Brexit balls-up she'd struggle to pick any better.
The truth is that if Labour had a leader that wanted to hold Tory's feet to the fire then it's all set up for them to do so. I have an issue with pretending that somehow Corbyn's hands are tied - they're not. He's choosing to sit on them. Also think it reflects badly on him and possibly feeds into his poor poll ratings that he is seen to either not want to smash the ball into an open goal, or isn't capable of doing it. If May could pick her own opposition on her Brexit balls-up she'd struggle to pick any better.
Last edited:
Why do we assume Labour would have done worse under a different leader? Just because Milliband was so terrible?
I actually want some of Corbyn’s policies, but overall he hasn’t done a great job as leader. He’s done a good job at reinvigorating young Labour voters, but he’s been terrible on Brexit, and failed to hold the government over the coals countless times.
Indeed. As impressive as the narrowing of the gap was it does make you wonder what could have been achieved if Labour were led by someone who didn't have to overcome such a massive polling deficit to begin with.
The Lib Dem argument doesn't make sense as the Lib Dems have and are a small party that is mostly centre right, they've never had the size or historical importance of the SDP. The coalition had little impact of what people thought of the Lib Dems because most people don't think about the Lib Dem(The thing that hurt them most of the gleeful love of ''sensible centre'' politics lying and homophobia )
The SPD like the Labour Party is a historic social democratic party that turned to the right with thirdway-ism/neoliberalism, which had short term success but cost the party in various way(Party membership, political identity, lost of it's core base etc..)Now one of these parties chose to break away from the model and is seeing giant increases in party membership and party participation, gains both in general and local elections while the other is been after then by the far right.
And the SPD is just one of many examples(The Dems in the US, Socialists party in France)of centre left parties dying at slow death because of a failure to break away from a broken model.
Last edited:
Nah, you've ignored the point that I actually made in that second sentence. Labour/SPD are, and were, in completely incomparable situations, and forcing some 'centre left parties are in retreat and only Corbyn can save us' narrative onto what happened in Germany completely misrepresents the electoral landscape in Germany.
Minority partners in coalitions, which the SDP were, get a kicking if people don't like what they've been getting up to in coalition. If you're an SDP voter who is happy with how things were run as part of a coalition with the CDU then you might continue to vote for the SDP, or you might even just cut out the middle man and vote CDU. If you're an SDP voter who is unhappy with the coalition then you're not going to vote SDP again, because that's just voting for the status quo.
It happened in 2008, where the SDP – after years of ruling – became the minority party in a Grand Coalition with the CDU, took a drubbing and were replaced by the FDP as minority partners. The FDP then got absolutely wiped out in 2013 (failing to meet the 5% threshold) and the SDP received their share of the vote becoming the minority partner again and, unsurprisingly, took a kicking again in 2018.
It's a far more comparable situation to the collapse of the Lib Dem vote in 2015, as their voters gave them a pounding for facilitating the Tories, than it is to Labour in 2018.
That's not to say that the SDP doesn't have policy issues as well, but any analysis of their poor result in 2018 can't discount the grand coalition.
It's no surprise Eddie Marsan spends his days pretending to be anybody but himself. What a miserable sod.
That's not really fair, prior to the coalition they were polling very strongly. This was the YouGov polling in 2010, immediately prior to the election:
They eventually pulled 22%, which is hardly insignificant.
Their main problem was that for years they'd offered a 'best of both worlds' position to moderates from both parties. By entering coalition with the Tories, they basically guaranteed that they'd torpedo their support on the left, and for people who actually liked what the Tory coalition delivered there was the question of 'why not just vote Tory then?'. I understood why they did it, having not being in any kind of position of power before, but it was a pretty stupid move all things considered.
It's also worth remembering that prior to the coalition, they weren't considered particularly 'centre-right', if anything they were thought of as more centre-left on most issues, but with a more centrist economic manifesto than Labour.
It's not forcing a narrative, it's a pretty well mentioned example -
Exactly, this is my point. So why are the SDP constantly taking a kicking or failing to win elections, why have the SPD lost almost half of its members and why are they now completely dying in the polls ? I would say the reason is that they've failed to do what the Labour Party has done and change their politics.
Agree. But I'm also saying this is the problem with the SPD and that this would have been the problem Labour faced had it not been for Corbyn and the Left taking over the party.
Last edited:
By 'different leader' you mean Owen Smith, remember. None of the names that usually get thrown around possessed the bollocks to run against Corbyn. As laughable a candidate Owen was, I respect him considerably more than the media approved faces who shat themselves when the time came.
True, although they may have just seen how things were going with the Labour base and made the calculation that it was better to let him fail and swoop in as the saviour rather than risk being embarrassed. Not a more commendable attitude by any means, but politicians are expected to be shrewd if they want to get anywhere.
Of course instead he’s managed to lock down dissent in the party for the most part, and a change of leadership looks far away, despite the party not seeming to be really getting anywhere.
I didn't say you were solely responsible for forcing the narrative, I said it is forcing a narrative. Both those articles are guilty of it as well.
You've bolded an extract from the end of a long paragraph about minority partners in coalitions to argue that it says something completely different to what it does say.
You're comparing two parties operating in completely different electoral systems, faced with completely different challenges, and a different electorate to argue for one, one sized fits all solution, and – in doing so – completely bulldozing through the fairly obvious differences between the situation of the two parties.
The SDP are in a mess, no one's doubting that, but it's a mess caused by far similar pressures to those the Lib Dems faced in 2015 (and are continuing to face) than the ones Labour face(d). Shoehorning a narrative about centre left politics on to it is a step too far (and besides there's better examples of that phenomenon happening in Europe than Germany, for my money).
Besides, the whole post starts off under the flawed assumption that those that want rid of Corbyn want Labour to return to the left of centre, which doesn't necessarily follow. I'd like Corbyn to go, I think, but I'm happy with the direction he's taken the party in; I'd just prefer him replaced with a pro-EU candidate that doesn't have to spend most of his time fighting a string of self inflicted PR own goals. That person might not exist in the Labour party, but a man can dream.
I have sympathy for your view but we are now just entering fantasy football for politics. I should say I wouldn't mind Corbyn stepping down at some point in the future, the reason I back him now is because I know that the only way to get democratic and radical Labour party is for the far labour left to be in the leadership. If the party was democratised then I would be more then willing to vote for someone less left wing and more ''electable''.
Last edited:
And that's a fair enough view. I just cannot accept that the non-existent opposition to Brexit is a price worth paying for a 'democratic and radical Labour party', or that such a Labour party ruling over the rubble after Brexit is more desirable for the country than a non 'radical' party arguing strongly against the lunacy that is Brexit.
1. I am not the epitome as I had no right to vote, I have kept an eye on the thread but posted less mainly cos there's just a load of remainers agreeing with each other and so much of it's drivel and doom scenarios. Some of which I may understand if I saw each country in Europe with the same standard of living, same prosperity and equal voice, I don't.
2. I don't believe the tories are doing a great job but in or out of the when have they ever done a good job for uk folk? Why you guys keep voting them in is a mystery to me, any downturn due to brexit I blame on the voters. people could have voted labour and got a pm that was a euro skeptic, they could have voted democrats that are anti brexit but no, they voted for someone that doesn't believe in the vote and does everything to stay in power. Before paul steps in, Corbyn could grab power immediately but he is standing for what he believes in. Paul would rather have a useless tory in power spewing shite she does not believe in, I don't get that train of thought. I don't get why 48% did not vote for democrats.
3. UK will be fine, there will be no mad max scenario. Best thing to come out of all this so far is no more Cameron & Osborne, take the positives.
Corbyn couldn't win a lottery if he bought all the tickets, what does he believe in - neither May nor Corbyn will be in power when the dust settles. I don't like this Tory government any more than you do but somehow the alternative is even more hopeless.
The only way the UK will be fine is if they cancel Brexit and even then it will be damage limitation.
I have no doubts that UK will be fine, but do you think that still be positive (like you thought at the begining) or will be negative economically speaking?
Well, you'd think so. But the problem is that there's not really a lot of options on the table to avoid a hard crash out. Any kind of common sense would say it can't happen because it would be economic suicide, but the problem we have is that it's the default scenario. Unless the government get agreements in place in time, we DO crash out without any safety cushion.
What's worse is that the government have also stood solid on this 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' line. What happens if they don't cave in on some of their red lines and find agreement with the EU negotiators? Rees-Mogg and the other hardline morons are just sitting there waiting to pounce on May if she gives up too much ground, but at the same time she has to do exactly that or else there will be no agreement. Even if they do find an agreement, what happens if parliament refuses to pass it? There's nothing in place to magically extend the leave date until they do find a deal they're happy with. The way things stand, we just crash out.
I keep hoping beyond hope that at some point rational thinking will take over and they'll prevent the unthinkable from happening, but that's becoming harder and harder to believe when we're only 10 months away from exit and right now there are basically no signs of any rational solution.
So if there is no real difference on Brexit between Tories and Labour, who would you vote for? Obviously no one voted democrats so lets see a show of hands for those that voted Tory.