Another new Brexit thread

[Gabriel]

Unless I'm missing something, there only seems to be you who's speculating about a deal followed by a second referendum?

From my perspective, the talk of a second referenfum has been driven by, predicated upon, the lack of progress and inability of parliament to agree upon a deal, or even a position.

Were that to change and a deal were to emerge which a majority of MPs find acceptable, then any need or even thought of a second referenfum evaporates.

Remember the VAST majority of MPs, irrespective of their personal Remain or Leave leanings, are supportive of respecting the 2016 referenfum result. To be in a position where a viable deal is on the table and then to still be calling for another referendum, is incompatible with that position.

In short, I disagree. If a workable deal is found, we won't be having another referendum.

Don’t disagree with your main points, but I think that MPs’ positions on upholding the referendum may become as fluid as the negotiations, so just because they favored something then, it does not necessarily hold that they will favor the same thing now or in the future. The current prime minister has himself demonstrated considerable flexibility on what he deems appropriate, so we cannot expect all MPs to be fixed in their views. Not saying it’s right, just predicting that circumstances will change and with that interpretations.

This shifting is one more factor which will make resolving this situation devilishly difficult.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Momentum has 40k members out of 560k party members.

Not all momentum members are party members and vice versa. Their influence is over egged, they are a Corbynite campaign group first and foremost and in my opinion they are losing traction rather than gaining it. I believe there influence to be minimal but they do shout loudest.

So in a room where more than 1 in 12 are Momentum supporters and they shout the loudest, they will have no influence? I'd be more than surprised.

If you are right, then there is a small ray of hope for the Labour Party since they could once again be a party with a realistic chance of governing with a majority if they got rid of the hard-left loonies who have a stranglehold on the party, elected a moderate leader and dramatically changed course to pursue a less controversial agenda. Personally I think there is no chance of that any time soon.

 

[bluejon]

Take comfort in any way you want

Also - I did answer it - my words were clear and the consequences of them obvious. I have also said many times that had the EU not opted for weaponising the border issue then the Irish and UK would have found ways to deal with the border challenges without drama and yes the GFA would have been subject to changes

I've gone for the full combination of bold, italics and underline here out of respect for the ridiculousness of this comment. Bravo sir. The history of the island of Ireland is the reason this issue is weaponised, not the EU. Furthermore, it is not the EU who is trying to change things that are potentially going to break the peace agreement, it is the UK. And if you didn't understand there would be an issue with the border then that just shows you're a bit clueless.

 

[cibaman]

Unless I'm missing something, there only seems to be you who's speculating about a deal followed by a second referendum?

From my perspective, the talk of a second referenfum has been driven by, predicated upon, the lack of progress and inability of parliament to agree upon a deal, or even a position.

Were that to change and a deal were to emerge which a majority of MPs find acceptable, then any need or even thought of a second referenfum evaporates.

Remember the VAST majority of MPs, irrespective of their personal Remain or Leave leanings, are supportive of respecting the 2016 referenfum result. To be in a position where a viable deal is on the table and then to still be calling for another referendum, is incompatible with that position.

In short, I disagree. If a workable deal is found, we won't be having another referendum.

The Labour Party has spent the last year dragging Corbyn kicking and screaming to the point where he has accepted that any Labour deal would be subject to a confirmatory referendum. It would be truly bizarre if, now that Labour's official policy to put their own deal to a referendum, they would vote through a Tory deal without a referendum. Perhaps 5-10 Labour MPs might be prepared to vote against a confirmatory referendum in the face of a 3 line whip in favour of a referendum. The Lib Dems are officially a Revoke party, but if a confirmatory referendum is within their grasp they'll take it. As will all of the other minor parties apart from the DUP.

It would take 320/321 votes to be sure of voting down an amendment in favour of a confirmatory referendum. The tories would looking at something like 288 tories + 10 DUP + say 10 Labour + say 10 independent tories = 318 votes. Its quite possible that more independent tories and/or Labour MPs would vote against a confirmatory referendum but it would be impossible for Johnson to be 100% certain of that when he puts his deal to a vote. He couldnt be sure that some Labour MPs, who have told the tory whips that they would vote against a confirmatory referendum, aren't telling porkies or will subsequently changetheir mind.

Unless he's 100% sure that he wouldn't end up with a referendum he surely can't put a deal to a vote. Which is just one of the reasons why I believe the current 'negotiations' are a sham.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Don’t disagree with your main points, but I think that MPs’ positions on upholding the referendum may become as fluid as the negotiations

I think it cuts to the core of just how honest have they been in saying they respect the result of the referendum. It's easy to say the words - especially when saying the opposite would be so controversial and inflammatory. It's even easier when you can say it, but are not obliged to act in any way commensurate with that statement, which would seem to have been what's happened for 3 years.

So if a deal does emerge imminently - and actually I am coming around to thinking that it will - then their stated respect for democracy will be put to the test.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The Labour Party has spent the last year dragging Corbyn kicking and screaming to the point where he has accepted that any Labour deal would be subject to a confirmatory referendum. It would be truly bizarre if, now that Labour's official policy to put their own deal to a referendum, they would vote through a Tory deal without a referendum. Perhaps 5-10 Labour MPs might be prepared to vote against a confirmatory referendum in the face of a 3 line whip in favour of a referendum. The Lib Dems are officially a Revoke party, but if a confirmatory referendum is within their grasp they'll take it. As will all of the other minor parties apart from the DUP.

It would take 320/321 votes to be sure of voting down an amendment in favour of a confirmatory referendum. The tories would looking at something like 288 tories + 10 DUP + say 10 Labour + say 10 independent tories = 318 votes. Its quite possible that more independent tories and/or Labour MPs would vote against a confirmatory referendum but it would be impossible for Johnson to be 100% certain of that when he puts his deal to a vote. He couldnt be sure that some Labour MPs, who have told the tory whips that they would vote against a confirmatory referendum, aren't telling porkies or will subsequently changetheir mind.

Unless he's 100% sure that he wouldn't end up with a referendum he surely can't put a deal to a vote. Which is just one of the reasons why I believe the current 'negotiations' are a sham.

That's fair analysis. Let's see what pans out.

 

[Neville Kneville]

I kind of stopped reading at that point to be honest. It's pretty obvious that the ERG would back a deal which does not include the current backstop, given they were coming around to voting for the May deal on third time of asking. To suggest otherwise, completely ignores that fact and moreover fails to accommodate any additional motivations to support it due to concern of Boris being trashed if he doesn't deliver and then the corresponding risk (likelihood) of the Tories not winning a majority in the next GE, and perhaps not being able to govern at all. At which point, any kind of Brexit is dead. Far, far better from their perspective to support a softer Brexit than no Brexit at all.

That you don't like these facts is pretty obvious but your keep stating the opposite, doesn't change them.

If you need some crumbs of comfort - and it would seem you are fairly desperate for them - then I suggest you draw them from the very high possibility that Labour won't back any deal of any kind presented by the Tories. And in which case, even if Boris gets all but a handful of the ERG on board, then that probably would not be enough.

Right then, describe to me, the 'workable deal' involving the Irish border, which the ERG are going to back, which is about to be presented to Parliament.

Unless we are just talking fantasy shite for the sake of it, in which case perhaps intergalactic war will break out & the whole thing be postponed.

Please describe the 'workable deal' the ERG will back. 'Workable' remember, as opposed to 'unworkable'.

 

[Vic]

Take comfort in any way you want

Also - I did answer it - my words were clear and the consequences of them obvious. I have also said many times that had the EU not opted for weaponising the border issue then the Irish and UK would have found ways to deal with the border challenges without drama and yes the GFA would have been subject to changes

Like getting blood out of a stone.

If I'd misunderstood what you'd said you would have called me a "twister". If I ask you to clarify and you say "I was clear" you call that an answer.

So, in your view there is no solution to the border question which does not mean altering an international peace treaty with the risks that entails. So long as we know. When did the people of NI consent to this?

 

[Rascal]

So in a room where more than 1 in 12 are Momentum supporters and they shout the loudest, they will have no influence? I'd be more than surprised.

If you are right, then there is a small ray of hope for the Labour Party since they could once again be a party with a realistic chance of governing with a majority if they got rid of the hard-left loonies who have a stranglehold on the party, elected a moderate leader and dramatically changed course to pursue a less controversial agenda. Personally I think there is no chance of that any time soon.

Oi! I am a hard left loony and I cancelled my Momentum membership.

The next leader will be the democratic choice of the membership and whoever that is will have my full support just as Blair did despite our obvious differences.

Corbyn I expect will fight the election, then if he wins power he will stand aside after a couple of years, if he loses he will stand aside immediately and in those circumstances I hope my wing of the party elects somebody on the left of the party as I don't want these years of opposition and fighting to change the party to go wasted as we return to the Blairite right, although I could just about accept Lisa Nandy, I would prefer Rebecca Long-Bailey with Andrew Gwynne as Deputy.

 

[yerwot?]

The idea that the way to heal the division is to "honour" the referendum and leave sums up where the brexit/tory faction seems to be. For that to be true, remainers would have to wave white flags, tug their forelocks and doff their flat-caps, "Fair cop guvnor we were out of order, we knew the vote meant what-ever the tories wanted it to mean, and a bit of a bind inevitable, that the hated back-stop and the undemocratic GFA had to go, that it was Labour responsible for austerity and uncontrolled immigration, and the so-called anti-EU campaign by the media was just sour grapes by us losers, so off we all toddle, swapping EU flags for bull-dog waist-coats and St George banners, join the we-love-boris marches and subscribing to the daily mail."
Can only speak for myself, but I doubt that will happen, it seems more like trying to extinguish a fire by pouring petrol on it. But what do I know, I still haven't been able to discover how the vast majority stand to benefit, at all, in any way, by leaving. Or see how a "special relationship with the worst POTUS of all time is desirable. I do see how the tiny number of billionaire brexit-backers fear the EU anti-money laundering measures, and the EU closing the tax-dodging loop-holes, and thatcher 2.0 with added nasty is so appealing to tories. HEALING THE RIFT... for the sake of fuck.......

 

[mcfc1632]

not that old chesnut again.

Not really an old chestnut is it?

It is quite an important subject that Remainers lazily post inaccurate nonsense about

It has not been debated / discussed - the closest we got was one of the pack saying the views were bollocks but then he ran for cover rather than debate the topic - probably because he knew that he would have his arse handed to him

 

[mcfc1632]

That is a bit unfair, I am on balance around 60/40 in favour of leave, I am full of outrage at Johnson for his disregard for Parliament and his numerous fidelities and peccadillos

you are not the norm

that is not meant unkindly

 

[mcfc1632]

Nothing in the offing is designed to heal divisions.

Not having a referendum is your preferred method to avoid seeing whether the electorate thinks Brexit should be stopped.

Absolutely correct

The difference is that I am honest about that and don't try and hide my true feelings on the subject

 

[Didsbury Dave]

The idea that the way to heal the division is to "honour" the referendum and leave sums up where the brexit/tory faction seems to be. For that to be true, remainers would have to wave white flags, tug their forelocks and doff their flat-caps, "Fair cop guvnor we were out of order, we knew the vote meant what-ever the tories wanted it to mean, and a bit of a bind inevitable, that the hated back-stop and the undemocratic GFA had to go, that it was Labour responsible for austerity and uncontrolled immigration, and the so-called anti-EU campaign by the media was just sour grapes by us losers, so off we all toddle, swapping EU flags for bull-dog waist-coats and St George banners, join the we-love-boris marches and subscribing to the daily mail."
Can only speak for myself, but I doubt that will happen, it seems more like trying to extinguish a fire by pouring petrol on it. But what do I know, I still haven't been able to discover how the vast majority stand to benefit, at all, in any way, by leaving. Or see how a "special relationship with the worst POTUS of all time is desirable. I do see how the tiny number of billionaire brexit-backers fear the EU anti-money laundering measures, and the EU closing the tax-dodging loop-holes, and thatcher 2.0 with added nasty is so appealing to tories. HEALING THE RIFT... for the sake of fuck.......

Yep. You're dead right. If we do leave the EU and start falling further and further behind the EU members, and people are losing their jobs and houses, the anger and resentment will rise, not fall.

 

[mcfc1632]

I can't remember, it was that long ago. Perhaps you should have asked back then.

You are a very strange person.

Yep - I am consistent, calm and think things through rather than spout

These indeed do appear to be strange attributes on this thread

 

[blueparrot]

Oi! I am a hard left loony and I cancelled my Momentum membership.

The next leader will be the democratic choice of the membership and whoever that is will have my full support just as Blair did despite our obvious differences.

Corbyn I expect will fight the election, then if he wins power he will stand aside after a couple of years, if he loses he will stand aside immediately and in those circumstances I hope my wing of the party elects somebody on the left of the party as I don't want these years of opposition and fighting to change the party to go wasted as we return to the Blairite right, although I could just about accept Lisa Nandy, I would prefer Rebecca Long-Bailey with Andrew Gwynne as Deputy.

What do you think will happen should Labour not win a majority but are in a position to govern with SNP or Liberal support. Assuming both those would probably insist on a different Labour PM.

 

[mcfc1632]

So the answer is none there, you quite clearly cannot answer.

How is making up our trade agreements post no deal not relevant to preparations?

Just daft deflection from the point I was making - carry-on

 

[DrBlueBob]

No. "This deal is not better than staying in. It does not meet the criteria we set for what would be an acceptable deal. If it does not break the Good Friday Agreement then, in accord with the original referendum and honouring the votes of the 16m who voted Leave and are still alive, we will not vote against the deal. Just don't blame us when (a) it doesn't 'put an end to it' and (b) you realise there are no unicorns."

There's the get out. Well done Vic, you've cracked it.

 

[mcfc1632]

Momentum have no influence on who is chosen as Labour leader.

Its called Maths

Hmmm - I know the process

I was making an entirely accurate point

 

[Chippy_boy]

The idea that the way to heal the division is to "honour" the referendum and leave sums up where the brexit/tory faction seems to be. For that to be true, remainers would have to wave white flags, tug their forelocks and doff their flat-caps, "Fair cop guvnor we were out of order, we knew the vote meant what-ever the tories wanted it to mean, and a bit of a bind inevitable, that the hated back-stop and the undemocratic GFA had to go, that it was Labour responsible for austerity and uncontrolled immigration, and the so-called anti-EU campaign by the media was just sour grapes by us losers, so off we all toddle, swapping EU flags for bull-dog waist-coats and St George banners, join the we-love-boris marches and subscribing to the daily mail."
Can only speak for myself, but I doubt that will happen, it seems more like trying to extinguish a fire by pouring petrol on it. But what do I know, I still haven't been able to discover how the vast majority stand to benefit, at all, in any way, by leaving. Or see how a "special relationship with the worst POTUS of all time is desirable. I do see how the tiny number of billionaire brexit-backers fear the EU anti-money laundering measures, and the EU closing the tax-dodging loop-holes, and thatcher 2.0 with added nasty is so appealing to tories. HEALING THE RIFT... for the sake of fuck.......

Half of your post strayed off into the flogged to death debate about why leaving the EU is a bad idea. I agree with you, it's a bad idea. Others disagree.

But that is not the debate. The (very) unfortunate fact is that the great British public, for whatever reason, daft or otherwise, voted for it. You and I may wish that was not the case, but that doesn't change the fact that they did.

And that being the case, it puts the two options of (a) leaving the EU and (b) not bothering to, on completely different footings. You cannot say both options are equal, least of all in terms of the disharmony and divisions they will cause if enacted. Leaving the EU - however that is implemented - has the mandate of the British people. Staying in, does not. Leaving the EU is accepted by most people as the right course given most peoples' respect for a democratic referendum result. No such parity exists for the "cancel Brexit" option. No Leavers will back "cancel Brexit" on the basis that it was mandated in a 2016 Referendum result, because it wasn't. They will NEVER accept Leave being cancelled, irrespective of if/how the 2016 result is overturned.

Therefore any course of action which does not include us leaving the EU is dead set for angry protest, disruption and strangling of other political debate, for years and years. Maybe decades of more of this. We cannot go on like this.