Er....there's nothing to defend sadly, I like anyone else think Labour Brexit is rubbish but I would the criticism of Labour far more seriously if it didn't come from people who have in the past couple of years got everything wrong politically. Just because Corbyn isn't playing the magical 4d chess some have in their heads doesn't mean what he or labour are doing is wrong.
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.
them, they are the simpletons, and the document proves it. I can see why Davis and Raab resigned.Not who the simpleton is here, me or you...
Has it actually been released as to what this agreed deal entails?
Like a bullet-pointed, by the numbers list of everything involved with the deal?
If so could someone post a link to it?
Like a bullet-pointed, by the numbers list of everything involved with the deal?
If so could someone post a link to it?
He could get a different deal. The Tories had their priorities on what they wanted to give the EU the deal it wanted. Labour would have different priorities. The EU has conceded on some of the Tory priorities to get the deal they wanted while none of the Labour priorities have been even aired let alone agreed to. If May needed Labour to get this deal through parliament then she should have invited them to the negotiating table so they could get some of the things they wanted in the agreement.
If the Tories negotiate an agreement solely on their priorities and with only their input then it is up to them to get it through parliament.
The fact that other parties have been shit politically isn't - again - an excuse for Corbyn to be so himself on the issue. He's perfectly capable of putting forward a solid argument about why leaving the single market and customs union is a bad idea politically, in the same way he's often passionately argued for other issues that are key to the future of the country. And the arguments about it not being popular to do so again fall flat when Corbyn's entire mantra has been to advocate for his own left-wing principles in spite of the fact they had him polling poorly until just before last year's election. And again, I know the EU isn't particularly left-wing, but continuing cooperation with it is pretty much the only viable option unless you're advocating a hard border with Northern Ireland and the chaos that a hard Brexit brings. Something which Corbyn's earlier commitment to leaving the single market was basically arguing in favour of, even if the party as a whole were remarkably unclear on that publicly.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/26/how-will-your-mp-vote-on-theresa-mays-brexit-deal
If MPs vote as suggested in this article and Labour MPs vote as Corbyn wants them to, then Corbyn's going to get the blame for the no deal catastrophe. Cunning plan.
If MPs vote as suggested in this article and Labour MPs vote as Corbyn wants them to, then Corbyn's going to get the blame for the no deal catastrophe. Cunning plan.
Corbyn's never detailed what they are though. All we've had from him is his same benefits, but out of SM/CU fantasy or fluff like 'a Brexit that works for everyone'.
Corbyn was(And still is)unpopular but the platform he ran on wasn't at all, most of his left wing principles are very popular. There's isn't to my mind some ethical duty Corbyn has to do because in 2015 he talked about - kinder, honest politics(Or whatever the slogan was). I hate to break it to people but this politics , if you want to change his or the party mind then you'll have to 1)Hurt them in polling 2)Join the Labour Party and change it from the inside.
Fair judgement in one sense, but if it doesn't get through parliament then a no deal hard brexit it will be. I get you think he could renegotiate, but first he would have to win a vote of no confidence, then win a general election, then even harder persuade the EU to completely change their mind and negotiate again, all this while leaving the EU in March is already written into both EU and UK law. Times have moved on, Barnier's tick tock hasn't gone away, renegotiation isn't going to happen.
What are the Tory benefits that May fought so hard for?
She got what she was given.
She got what she was given.
Shame Jez wants to move the goalposts now it’s got some traction.
If he had been invited to the table he would have had to negotiate those priorities or declined to participate which he couldn't have done.
It's all what ifs though. No way Labour would've invited the Tories along if the boot was on the other foot.
This was certainly something that in theory would've been best negotiated by a cross-party body, but even then, look at the divides in Lab and Con. Whole thing was impossible.
The EU doesn't want a hard Brexit anymore than we do. If this is voted down, which I think it will be then they will wait and see what the options are. Any deal is going to be 90% what this deal is. Labour may get to add somethings they want to get it through parliament though.
It's interesting that she thinks the public deserve to hear what she has to say but don't deserve a vote afterwards
If they didn't have the votes then they would have to if they wanted to get it through parliament.
The thing about a cross party comity is that if it fails all parties fail. There would be no political gain in seeing it fail.
Ah yeah, that would be messy tbf.
70%+ of his party are already in favour of another vote and he’s just ignoring their wishes.
So, I see Brexit playing out like this;
1) Commons vote on May's plan
2) Is rejected
3) Amendments added to the text from every corner, remain, leave, lib dem, labour, SNP, hard, soft, boiled
4) Most of those are rejected. Except a hard amendment which allows the transition and backstop to remain except a hard brexit following that (Chequers is dead).
And that's it. Brexit passes with the promise of a hard brexit in 2+ years time
1) Commons vote on May's plan
2) Is rejected
3) Amendments added to the text from every corner, remain, leave, lib dem, labour, SNP, hard, soft, boiled
4) Most of those are rejected. Except a hard amendment which allows the transition and backstop to remain except a hard brexit following that (Chequers is dead).
And that's it. Brexit passes with the promise of a hard brexit in 2+ years time
Good. The UK doesn't want chlorinated chicken and privatized healthcare.
This still sounds like the UK can make all the amendments they want and argue amongst themselves about it.
Any amendments have to be agreed by the EU27. They keep saying this is it, negotiations are over.
The only way the UK gets transition is if they vote for this deal.
If the Uk leaves the backstop thereafter it's a hard Brexit anyway .
Do you think countries trade healthcare systems back and forth?
He's right if he means an independent trade deal between the UK and USA. Until the UK leave the CU they can't have trade deals with anyone - but they have the trade deals the EU have.
Trade deals usually mean reciprocal standards and regulations, so the risk is that the US would call the NHS an unfair subsidy impacting its insurance/pharma companies. Or something like that.
We do want JD though
If there is a backstop we can't leave it without the EU's agreement so that means that there won't be a hard Brexit.
So he's wrong because he doesn't say we won't be able to negotiate a trade deal but that we won't be able to trade.
US Pharma has been lobbying to get rid of regulations that stop them sell medicine at your mental prices, nty bro.
Yes, so this deal is utterly pointless but it complies with the Referendum result which asked should the UK leave the European Union which they are on 29th March.
At the end of the day it is a choice between staying in the EU or a Hard Brexit.
The deal May has means the UK is not in the EU but if they ever stray from the agreement it is a Hard Brexit otherwise it's BINO.
Depends what he means by trade. The UK and USA are trading now and the USA is currently the UK's biggest customer. None of it makes sense.
Obviously not.
Is it just me that doesn't know what BINO is? Anyone kind enough to translate?
Brexit In Name Only
Brexit in name only. The UK have left but are still in the CU and SM but have no representation in the EU parliament , no vote, no say but still making contributions.
The Tories would trade it for tickets to Halloween Horror Nights.
Thanks both, bit slow today.
That's what I expected but it's still strange to actually read the agreement and basically every other article stipulates that things are under "Union laws". You just have to question the usefulness of this process.
That's a bit insincere. We've all known the process to be useless from beginning
. This is just the logical conclusion of that uselessness.May's trying to make herself as some kind of super negotiator that she's managed to get this agreement, Corbyn thinks he has even more superior negotiating skills that he would have even more benefits than May thought she could have whereas in fact the EU have given the UK exactly what we knew they would.
Trying to find something the UK could have done that would have surpassed this idiocy, maybe declare war on Trump?