Brexit negotiations thread

[callan]

Labour will provide a "realistic alternative" to HMG by voting against Tory Brexit plans in the "meaningful vote".

Corbyn, unlike May, has always been consistently against the EU.Both major parties are committed to taking the UK out of the EU.How is the issue here.All will be revealed in time.

That time is running out, which is why I'm keen to know as no doubt are others how Labour intend to bring us out of the EU which is their stated position having supported the triggering of article 50.

They like the Tories have had plenty of time now to come up with a clear Brexit policy, the fact that Labours supporters are unable to tell us what that is, whilst attacking the government for equally having no clue is double standards.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

That time is running out, which is why I'm keen to know as no doubt are others how Labour intend to bring us out of the EU which is their stated position having supported the triggering of article 50.

They like the Tories have had plenty of time now to come up with a clear Brexit policy, the fact that Labours supporters are unable to tell us what that is, whilst attacking the government for equally having no clue is double standards.

It's not double standards it realism. The opposition need to react to the changes in the situation dictated by the government position, and when that becomes an actual thing rather than an ongoing internal discussion, they then need to react to the EU's reaction to the government position.
If Labour voters and constituencies were primarily Leave or Remain then Labour could take a position and stick to it. As that is not the case they would be foolish to take a fixed position on a fluid situation.

Why are you so insistent on fully understanding the opposition position? Do you feel thoroughly let down by the government dealings on this and are looking for an alternative when this government folds?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

That's not quite correct though, the question was do you wish to remain in the EU, not a sum of it's parts.

52 per cent voted leave as we know, meaning that the advise given to those in our Parliament by a majority was to exit the European Union.

Are you now suggesting we put it back to the people as our Parliament have failed to follow our original advice?

I think government need to decide their preferred path and then put it to the people whether to go down that path (the alternative being to remain).

This would have been unnecessary if Leave had campaigned on a single route. Instead they tried to have their cake and eat it by offering simultaneously EEA membership and WTA rules and everything in between which meant that they offered incompatible things.

If we're talking about the will of the people:
I'm certain there is not a majority for a Hard Brexit - too many people who voted Leave would change their vote if that was the alternative.
I don't believe there's a majority for the Canada or Switzerland models. Again, this would disappoint too many Leavers who'd either change their vote or abstain.
I don't believe there's a majority for the Norway model if the alternative is Remain (although if the alternative is Hard Brexit/Canada+ this is probably the option that garners the most support as this will attract some Remainers who see it as a way of limiting the damage).

I'm willing for this to be put to the test by way of a referendum (I'm not a great fan of referenda on such multi-facted matters, but having let the genie out of the bottle, I think this is the most sensible way to proceed). Are leavers who shout that this is the will of the people prepared to put this to the test?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

It had the backing of 48.1%, which is more than any of the alternatives given those who voted Leave voted for a number of contradictory plans, none of which has a majority.

In a First Past the Post system, remaining in the EU is actually still the most popular option.

May declared the 2017 GE to be a request to give her a Brexit mandate. She lost her majority but the only party offering a 2nd referendum got 8%

I want to remain in the EU as much as anyone but currently there is not a majority to remain, and there seems to be no consensus on how to leave either. It's a **** up and I expect it to fail expect that to mean we remain in the EU but acknowledge that the failure may mean we leave with no deal.

All down to the Tories from start to finish though, what happens between now and the theoretical leave date is still in their hands.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

May declared the 2017 GE to be a request to give her a Brexit mandate. She lost her majority but the only party offering a 2nd referendum got 8%

I want to remain in the EU as much as anyone but currently there is not a majority to remain, and there seems to be no consensus on how to leave either. It's a **** up and I expect it to fail expect that to mean we remain in the EU but acknowledge that the failure may mean we leave with no deal.

All down to the Tories from start to finish though, what happens between now and the theoretical leave date is still in their hands.

Indeed there's no majority on how to leave.

Therefore the course of action with the most support is actually to remain!

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Indeed there's no majority on how to leave.

Therefore the course of action with the most support is actually to remain!

really what the referendum required was 'if you voted Leave move on to section 2, if you voted Remain move on to section 3' etc to find out what people actually wanted, but Cameron assumed a Remain result so didn't plan beyond that.

 

[MK Shrimper]

really what the referendum required was 'if you voted Leave move on to section 2, if you voted Remain move on to section 3' etc to find out what people actually wanted, but Cameron assumed a Remain result so didn't plan beyond that.

He knew either way, it wouldn't affect him.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

really what the referendum required was 'if you voted Leave move on to section 2, if you voted Remain move on to section 3' etc to find out what people actually wanted, but Cameron assumed a Remain result so didn't plan beyond that.

That would make no sense either if a narrow majority voted Leave but there was minimal support for any of the Leave options. The mistake was it not providing a clear alternative to remain. Had the referendum been any of Remain v Norway; Remain v Canada; Remain v WTO rules Remain would have won.

A clear tactical error from Cameron.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

That would make no sense either if a narrow majority voted Leave but there was minimal support for any of the Leave options. The mistake was it not providing a clear alternative to remain. Had the referendum been any of Remain v Norway; Remain v Canada; Remain v WTO rules Remain would have won.

A clear tactical error from Cameron.

if those intending to vote Leave didn't want to back any of the Leave options they would vote Remain or not vote at all

 

[callan]

It's not double standards it realism. The opposition need to react to the changes in the situation dictated by the government position, and when that becomes an actual thing rather than an ongoing internal discussion, they then need to react to the EU's reaction to the government position.
If Labour voters and constituencies were primarily Leave or Remain then Labour could take a position and stick to it. As that is not the case they would be foolish to take a fixed position on a fluid situation.

Why are you so insistent on fully understanding the opposition position? Do you feel thoroughly let down by the government dealings on this and are looking for an alternative when this government folds?

I feel let down by both parties.

Neither has a clear path of direction on leaving and both are split on the best way to enact the will of the people which is to leave.

I have asked with increasing regularity on this thread what is Labours brexit position...the closest we have got so far is that it is something like EEA but not that.

It should, for a nailed on Labour supporter and activist like yourself be easy to answer, so why can't do so?

My take is that they don't actually have a position and are hopping from one foot to another, if they have a position of their own that is potentially better than HMG's surely it would be there for all to see?

 

[callan]

I think government need to decide their preferred path and then put it to the people whether to go down that path (the alternative being to remain).

This would have been unnecessary if Leave had campaigned on a single route. Instead they tried to have their cake and eat it by offering simultaneously EEA membership and WTA rules and everything in between which meant that they offered incompatible things.

If we're talking about the will of the people:
I'm certain there is not a majority for a Hard Brexit - too many people who voted Leave would change their vote if that was the alternative.
I don't believe there's a majority for the Canada or Switzerland models. Again, this would disappoint too many Leavers who'd either change their vote or abstain.
I don't believe there's a majority for the Norway model if the alternative is Remain (although if the alternative is Hard Brexit/Canada+ this is probably the option that garners the most support as this will attract some Remainers who see it as a way of limiting the damage).

I'm willing for this to be put to the test by way of a referendum (I'm not a great fan of referenda on such multi-facted matters, but having let the genie out of the bottle, I think this is the most sensible way to proceed). Are leavers who shout that this is the will of the people prepared to put this to the test?

You could aim exactly the same arguments at remain, we will change from within etc despite Camerons failed attempt to do exactly that.

In addition you will see remainers swing to leave if there is any chance that the democratic outcome not be observed.

I would be happy for another referendum on the terms of leaving but remain should not be an option based that there is a majority to leave in place , I'm sure you would agree that the debate on being members of the EU was already lost, and would be an affront to those in the Majority who have already put it to the test in the 2016 referendum.

It would be like insisting that the remain option come without freedom of movement and so forth.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I feel let down by both parties.

Neither has a clear path of direction on leaving and both are split on the best way to enact the will of the people which is to leave.

I have asked with increasing regularity on this thread what is Labours brexit position...the closest we have got so far is that it is something like EEA but not that.

It should, for a nailed on Labour supporter and activist like yourself be easy to answer, so why can't do so?

My take is that they don't actually have a position and are hopping from one foot to another, if they have a position of their own that is potentially better than HMG's surely it would be there for all to see?

In opposition you can afford to have policies when you need them. Hence Labour was in discussion with itself (often in disagreement with itself) in 2015 to 2017 and when an election was called they pulled that together and set out its stall in the 2017 manifesto.


The Tories didn't seem to go through that process and at the 2017 GE didn't lay out their policies.


The Tories are in the same position now - not laying out their policies on Brexit. Labour are in opposition. When called on, at the point where policy is needed from them they will take stock of where the Tories have got to with the EU and announce policy that fits the situation at that time.


Again - Labour need to keep options open.


Again - I don't know why you would stress about policy that can't be acted on, when there is policy desperately needed from the current government.


Again - Starmer on Marr is the place to look rather than an interpretation of that on here.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

if those intending to vote Leave didn't want to back any of the Leave options they would vote Remain or not vote at all

I didn't say those voting to Leave didn't want to back any of the Leave options. My point was that they would only back some, not all, of the Leave options.

I am very confident in saying that no one Leave option has more than 48%.

You could aim exactly the same arguments at remain, we will change from within etc despite Camerons failed attempt to do exactly that.

In addition you will see remainers swing to leave if there is any chance that the democratic outcome not be observed.

I would be happy for another referendum on the terms of leaving but remain should not be an option based that there is a majority to leave in place , I'm sure you would agree that the debate on being members of the EU was already lost, and would be an affront to those in the Majority who have already put it to the test in the 2016 referendum.

It would be like insisting that the remain option come without freedom of movement and so forth.

You can't say definitively there is still a majority to leave in place. The vote took place in a different Parliament and it is a fundamental tenet of British democracy that you can't bind your successors. Remain should therefore remain on the table as an option.

 

[callan]

In opposition you can afford to have policies when you need them. Hence Labour was in discussion with itself (often in disagreement with itself) in 2015 to 2017 and when an election was called they pulled that together and set out its stall in the 2017 manifesto.


The Tories didn't seem to go through that process and at the 2017 GE didn't lay out their policies.


The Tories are in the same position now - not laying out their policies on Brexit. Labour are in opposition. When called on, at the point where policy is needed from them they will take stock of where the Tories have got to with the EU and announce policy that fits the situation at that time.


Again - Labour need to keep options open.


Again - I don't know why you would stress about policy that can't be acted on, when there is policy desperately needed from the current government.


Again - Starmer on Marr is the place to look rather than an interpretation of that on here.

The only thing I am stressing is the point that Labour do not have a policy on Brexit, now after several attempts you have finally admitted this... despite one of the most important political events of our time and two years since the leave vote took place, stating that options need to be kept open.

As I have already pointed out Labour supported the enactment of article 50, did they do so without a notion of how they envisaged we should leave?

Starmer on Marr told us that, due to deep divisions they are struggling to get a position as a sizeable amount of Labour Mp's want full EEA membership whilst others don't...

We have both known all along that Labour is in as much disarray as the Tories on how to handle the process of leaving.

 

[callan]

I didn't say those voting to Leave didn't want to back any of the Leave options. My point was that they would only back some, not all, of the Leave options.

I am very confident in saying that no one Leave option has more than 48%.



You can't say definitively there is still a majority to leave in place. The vote took place in a different Parliament and it is a fundamental tenet of British democracy that you can't bind your successors. Remain should therefore remain on the table as an option.

The vote was two years ago, as you pointed out earlier the Lib Dems offered the remain option in their manifesto at the 2017 election so there was an opportunity there if voters wished to perform a U-turn under a different parliament.

How much more definitive to you wish to be.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The vote was two years ago, as you pointed out earlier the Lib Dems offered the remain option in their manifesto at the 2017 election so there was an opportunity there if voters wished to perform a U-turn under a different parliament.

How much more definitive to you wish to be.

I think it is fair to say there is room to be more definitive than the versions of Brexit the Tories and Labour are currently offering. There are hard decisions for both parties to make when they will have to alienate elements of their support. They have been unwilling to make those calls so far.

All your criticisms of Corbyn to *** are just as applicable to May.

 

[callan]

I think it is fair to say there is room to be more definitive than the versions of Brexit the Tories and Labour are currently offering. There are hard decisions for both parties to make when they will have to alienate elements of their support. They have been unwilling to make those calls so far.

All your criticisms of Corbyn to *** are just as applicable to May.

Absolutely you can apply the same to both Parties and Leaders, May is as hamstrung by her party as much as Corbyn.

I have no issue with a referendum on how we leave, but a remain option should not feature for the reasons I gave earlier.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

The only thing I am stressing is the point that Labour do not have a policy on Brexit, now after several attempts you have finally admitted this... despite one of the most important political events of our time and two years since the leave vote took place, stating that options need to be kept open.

As I have already pointed out Labour supported the enactment of article 50, did they do so without a notion of how they envisaged we should leave?

Starmer on Marr told us that, due to deep divisions they are struggling to get a position as a sizeable amount of Labour Mp's want full EEA membership whilst others don't...

We have both known all along that Labour is in as much disarray as the Tories on how to handle the process of leaving.

I haven't finally admitted anything - I'm very open about the fact that Labour don't need a fixed Brexit policy - if you scroll through you'll see that.


Some of those who would not be keen on voting Labour seem very keen on Labour having a definitive policy - presumably to take their share of the **** show that is two years of post Brexit chit chat still no government policy.


Labour couldn't stand in the way of Article 50, it would seem undemocratic. Labour didn't need a plan for what came after that - they aren't in government.


It's not their's to share. It's 100% a Tory **** up until they get to the point that they want to throw the towel in.


Brexit belongs to the Tories.


They just don't know what to do with it.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-fails-to-appease-tory-rebels-on-eu-withdrawal-bill-11404922

They probably thought no one would notice the change! Now, next week will we see what balls the Tory rebels have?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-fails-to-appease-tory-rebels-on-eu-withdrawal-bill-11404922

They probably thought no one would notice the change! Now, next week will we see what balls the Tory rebels have?

delay, delay, delay and hope it will go away

two years of this and time is nearly up