Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chippy_boy said:
[QUOTE="Rascal, post: 12153337, member: 639]
The membership decide not the PLP thankfully.
Click to expand...

I don't wish to trivialise such a long and considered post, but there's your problem right there.

A huge disconnect exists between the political leanings of the PLP and the broader membership. And crucially, between the membership and the general population. The party has become a magnet for those with hard left views. Views very unfortunately which are not typical of most voters. A small group of hard left thinkers - such as yourself - feeling repressed after nigh on 50 years of either right wing or centre ground politics, have jumped on Corbyn's 1970's bandwagon like ducks to water. Opening up membership for twopence a year has had grave unintended consequences and this fringe element has hijacked the party. You may call it "restored traditional Labour values", but voters don't.

So now the result is you have a party which is unelectable. Avd worse still, unable to change course because the members do not recognise they have a problem. The PLP does, but they can do fuck all about it.

Unfortunately there is no room for me to gloat. The Tories are similarly screwed but for different reasons. Since the average age of Tory party members is about 106 and since such members are generally of the "out, out, out" school of nusnced Brexit debate, then necessarily, any Tory wishing to be leader, has to pander to that unrepresentative audience or else not be elected.

What a mess.[/QUOTE]


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sat here dripping wet, just got out of the shower and about to get ready, but before that I will answer your post, I am good like that and I know you are dying to hear my reply :))

At the Cameron/Miliband election, people complained that there was nothing between the parties, politicians were all the same. Cameron offered austerity, Miliband offered a little less austerity and a badly eaten bacon butty. The Lib Dems as usual offered both but their butty was the vegan option with extra lentils. People were fed up with politics and wanted change. They wanted a party that was bold and offered something different and they wanted options.

Cameron ran with the referendum option, Labour returned leftwards as the members were sick of Blairism and knew that whatever Ed Miliband said, his lack of bacon butty eating skills would trump any relevant policy. This was the trivialisation of politics, an election based on bacon butties, kitchens and a fear of the Scots Nats having a say over the English (important this as it ignited English nationalism) Austerity was exhausting, the messages it sent out proved to be false, we were never all in it together and the consequences of that lead to anger which was exploited by Farage and his bunch of fruitcakes. This forced the Tory party rightwards, it had to out Brexit the Brexit party and the ERG stopped being a lunatic fringe and gained traction in the debate.

Labour knew it had to rid itself of the toxicity of the Blair wars, Iraq will forever be a stain on the Labour party. The natural person to rid Labour of the tag of warmongers was the leader of the Stop of the War coalition, which happened to be Corbyn. Members saw this, they knew the party was toxic, they knew what was being said on the doorsteps, in the pubs and on the streets. The PLP had mostly voted for a war the members abhorred and this is where the disconnect began. The Blairites still clung to the notion that war was correct, the members were against it and wanted something new. That an old school Socialist was the answer was never the plan, it was the result and the membership were vindicated in their anti-war stance.

Then along came Brexit, Labour had a man who had long held the traditional Labour leave position of the likes of Benn and Foot, which was based on democratic accountability and Benn's tests of what a democracy is. These views were from before the rise of neo-liberalism as an ideological base for modern Conservatism. Labour should have campaigned to leave, but were hamstring by the Blairite MPs who are Pro-EU on the spurious grounds that the workers protections the EU offered where at least a bulwark against the rise of Neo-liberalism. It is a false dichotomy in my opinion, as the PLP were denying the chance of Socialism based on a sop from the EU. Of course there are Labour remain as their are Tory remain who I am of the opinion are both clinging on to the days of the bacon butty election and its inherent centrism. The broad churches of both main political parties have been stretched and on both sides the extremes are the dominant factors, an exact reversal of the bacon butty election. Their is a clear choice now, which I believe is good for democracy for the simple reason it makes people think seriously about where they lie on the political spectrum rather than just ticking a box and getting the same from whichever party got the most votes.

Post Brexit, these extremes will become narrower and I expect politics to converge once again albeit with distinct ideological differences and only then will we see who has the made the right choices. There is no point at the moment because of the Brexit fog in trying to see a clear view of where anyone stands.

As for my party, we have moved leftwards, we have regained lost ground and renewed hopes for a Socialist future, Corbyn I doubt will ever be PM but I don't think that really matters because he has democratised the party so it can never again become the preserve of the autocratic Blairite wing with their nepotism and self serving aggrandisement. They still have a role in tempering the left, but dominant they will not be. The members now hold sway as they should in any democratic organisation, if the democratic decisions of the members do not translate into majorities at elections then the membership can return and find policies that do, instead of being dictated to by a cabal on one wing of the party. I am a firm believer in what Corbyn has done is the right thing to do for the party, he was the right man at the right time and although that may not translate into election victory, it will set the party on a sound footing for the future and it has begun the fight towards a Socialist Britain.

The Tories will have to under go a similar metamorphis post Brexit and we will see if the One Nation Tories reclaim the party from the hard right ERG, who knows how that will turn out now they have sniffed power and have the enabler Johnson at the helm.

The lib dems meanwhile can always look at Swinsons Tits and think they we have the best tits in politics and they will be correct, they are the biggest tits in politics.

I can still dream of the Fourth International

And on that note, I had best dry myself and have a fag.

Adiós por ahora y nos vemos la semana que viene
 
Chippy_boy said:
It seems to me that the Remainers picking holes in this bill are either being disingenuous and their real intention is to try to stop Brexit. Or they are being naive and not thinking it through.

What is clear after 3.5 years is that there is no overwhelming majority for anything. Indeed up until now, there has been no majority at all for anything, other than the overwhelming endorsement that we must leave, i.e. when MPs passed the A50 legislation with a massive majority. Since then, we've had absolute deadlock and complete impasse.

What is abundantly clear is that since taking over, Johnson has worked relentlessly to try to break this deadlock. It seems to me he's employed 3 fundamental strategies, which IMO all make sense. And I am therefore surprised - unless stopping Brexit is their true intention - that MPs have not recognised this, and not supported it in greater number. His tactics have been these:

1. Johnson has sought to maximise his negotiating power with the EU by threaten no deal. However, this was only ever a ruse. He had no intention of us ever leaving without a deal. No deal was never really on the table.He's been pro EU for all his political career and only relatively recently switched to Leave. There's no evidence at all that he's a hard liner, and all his actions have been to try to get the best deal he can. As evidenced by what he's negotiated.

2. He's had to tread a very difficult balance. This is something both the hard liners and the Remainers seem to have missed. Given the 3 year deadlock, a majority can only be found if a delicate compromise can be found. Johnson has played this really well IMO and more or less got there. He's managed to get all but the hardest ERG supporters on board by painting a picture to them, of a harder Brexit. Maybe even allowed them to think there's a chance of a no deal Brexit at the end of the transition period (although there is no chance of that). And he's managed to get a softer than expected WA drafted, which placated enough Remainers and soft Brexit supporters. This balance is essential, since votes from both sides are needed to get a majority. It is futile to try to harden, or soften the draft WA, because a move in either direction, results in there being no majority and more deadlock. Add a customs union, and the ERG votes are lost. Move it further to the right and the Remain votes are lost. This delicate balance is the only way out of this.

3. He's tried to limit debate. This is a contentious tactic, but in my view a well-intentioned one. He's realised that the more the deal is scrutinised, the more chance both sides have to pick holes in it and demand a move to a harder or softer position, which then gets us into the no majority situation again. Bulldozing it through with as little scrutiny as possible, gets us the best chance of the necessary equilibrium being maintained.

IMO MPs would do well to reflect upon this and to think about what they really want. If they genuinely want to respect the referendum result then they should support Johnson and his draft WA. It's the middle ground - the only middle ground - which moves us forward.

If they do not - as is their right - then they should man up and say so. They should state openly that they do not respect the referendum result and their objective is to cancel it. IMO that would be totally the wrong position to adopt, but I could at least respect that.

But this nonsense of saying you respect the result, whilst doing everything you can to block it, cannot continue.
Click to expand...
"...even allowed them to think there's a chance of a no deal Brexit at the end of the transition period (although there is no chance of that)."

Naive (you) or duplicitous (him)? Certainly the latter - you're praising him for offering cake now to get support from his own members who hold incompatible views. This is still just kicking the can down the road, so that we can't go back and wonder why we're even on this self-harm road.

Why is there no chance? Those who liked the post have been quite happy to say what the legal default position is now. Come the end of next year when we're in the same position as now (facing a default No Deal) they'd be saying "but Parliament voted for this".
 
Chippy_boy said:
It seems to me that the Remainers picking holes in this bill are either being disingenuous and their real intention is to try to stop Brexit. Or they are being naive and not thinking it through.

What is clear after 3.5 years is that there is no overwhelming majority for anything. Indeed up until now, there has been no majority at all for anything, other than the overwhelming endorsement that we must leave, i.e. when MPs passed the A50 legislation with a massive majority. Since then, we've had absolute deadlock and complete impasse.

What is abundantly clear is that since taking over, Johnson has worked relentlessly to try to break this deadlock. It seems to me he's employed 3 fundamental strategies, which IMO all make sense. And I am therefore surprised - unless stopping Brexit is their true intention - that MPs have not recognised this, and not supported it in greater number. His tactics have been these:

1. Johnson has sought to maximise his negotiating power with the EU by threaten no deal. However, this was only ever a ruse. He had no intention of us ever leaving without a deal. No deal was never really on the table.He's been pro EU for all his political career and only relatively recently switched to Leave. There's no evidence at all that he's a hard liner, and all his actions have been to try to get the best deal he can. As evidenced by what he's negotiated.

2. He's had to tread a very difficult balance. This is something both the hard liners and the Remainers seem to have missed. Given the 3 year deadlock, a majority can only be found if a delicate compromise can be found. Johnson has played this really well IMO and more or less got there. He's managed to get all but the hardest ERG supporters on board by painting a picture to them, of a harder Brexit. Maybe even allowed them to think there's a chance of a no deal Brexit at the end of the transition period (although there is no chance of that). And he's managed to get a softer than expected WA drafted, which placated enough Remainers and soft Brexit supporters. This balance is essential, since votes from both sides are needed to get a majority. It is futile to try to harden, or soften the draft WA, because a move in either direction, results in there being no majority and more deadlock. Add a customs union, and the ERG votes are lost. Move it further to the right and the Remain votes are lost. This delicate balance is the only way out of this.

3. He's tried to limit debate. This is a contentious tactic, but in my view a well-intentioned one. He's realised that the more the deal is scrutinised, the more chance both sides have to pick holes in it and demand a move to a harder or softer position, which then gets us into the no majority situation again. Bulldozing it through with as little scrutiny as possible, gets us the best chance of the necessary equilibrium being maintained.

IMO MPs would do well to reflect upon this and to think about what they really want. If they genuinely want to respect the referendum result then they should support Johnson and his draft WA. It's the middle ground - the only middle ground - which moves us forward.

If they do not - as is their right - then they should man up and say so. They should state openly that they do not respect the referendum result and their objective is to cancel it. IMO that would be totally the wrong position to adopt, but I could at least respect that.

But this nonsense of saying you respect the result, whilst doing everything you can to block it, cannot continue.
Click to expand...

I think the peril for remainers is they are thinking in the now and not tomorrow. They are also looking at remain marches in London containing the same people and treating this as though 65m want to remain.

If remainers only wish to reject all deals to hopefully get a second referendum then they begin to gamble our future based upon the assumption that the people want to remain when that is disputed.

The consequences of that gamble is we miss the opportunity of a compromise or deal and end up with no deal in the end anyway.

I think if we can't get this mess sorted then there will be another fight to have a referendum before an election because Labour and others know they cannot win an election. A Tory majority will probably result and then the Tories could put through any Brexit they want.

Do remainers want a Tory majority where even Tory moderates and defectors like Ken Clarke and Soubry are replaced by Brexiteers? That is probably where we are heading if the deal is rejected.
 
lancs blue said:
You mean something like

“7B General implementation of EEA EFTA and Swiss agreements
(1) Subsection (2) applies to all such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations,
restrictions, remedies and procedures as—
(a) would from time to time be created or arise, or (in the case of
remedies or procedures) be provided for, by or under the EEA
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Part 2 — Remaining implementation of withdrawal agreement etc: general EFTA separation agreement or the Swiss citizens’ rights
agreement, and
(b) would, in accordance with Article 4(1) of the withdrawal
agreement, be required to be given legal effect or used in the
United Kingdom without further enactment,
if that Article were to apply in relation to the EEA EFTA separation
agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement, those agreements
were part of EU law and the relevant EEA states and Switzerland were
member States.
(2) The rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and
procedures concerned are to be—
(a) recognised and available in domestic law, and
(b) enforced, allowed and followed accordingly.
(3) Every enactment (other than section 7A but otherwise including an
enactment contained in this Act) is to be read and has effect subject to
subsection (2).
(4) See also (among other things)—
(a) Part 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act
2019 (further provision about citizens’ rights),
(b) section 7C of this Act (interpretation of law relating to the EEA
EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights
agreement etc.),
(c) section 8B of this Act (power in connection with certain other
separation issues), and
(d) Part 1B of Schedule 2 to this Act (powers involving devolved
authorities in connection with certain other separation issues).
(5) In this section “the relevant EEA states” means Norway, Iceland and
Liechtenstein.
(6) In this Act “EEA EFTA separation agreement” and “Swiss citizens’
rights agreement” have the same meanings as in the European Union
(Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2019 (see section 37(1) of that Act).”
Click to expand...
That was even more googledooky than needed. You left in a page heading, viz.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Part 2 — Remaining implementation of withdrawal agreement etc: general.

Take that out and it makes more sense!

Basically, this is what happens if we leave the EU and the EFTA countries and/or Switzerland decide to join the EU.

(Wouldn't MB love that? We join EFTA then the other EFTA countries join the EU!)
 
So leave voters ... Boris’s deal. Is this what you voted for in the original referendum ?

As Farage, the biggest sway for leave Voters says this deal is 95% the same as Mays in which everyone went mental.

So. Common sense. Surely you ask the pubic.

A) Boris Deal
B) Remain

I really don’t see what’s wrong with this, it’s not some clever ploy by remainers to keep us in the EU. It is simply asking the public - now you know the terms of leaving (Which was completely different to what you originally voted for) do you want too leave under Boris deal or remain.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. We need to go. It’s the only chance the country’s got to heal within a generation imo. No point prolonging the agony now we’ve got a highly imperfect but workable deal, that broadly reflects the national consensus. Don’t trust Johnson either, but we need to get this terrible episode over and try to move on - and people need to play with a straight bat, too. Try and be fair to the other side when deciding what’s best for the country. We used to be quite good at that.
Click to expand...
This deal prolongs the agony.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
So leave voters ... Boris’s deal. Is this what you voted for in the original referendum ?

As Farage, the biggest sway for leave Voters says this deal is 95% the same as Mays in which everyone went mental.

So. Common sense. Surely you ask the pubic.

A) Boris Deal
B) Remain

I really don’t see what’s wrong with this, it’s not some clever ploy by remainers to keep us in the EU. It is simply asking the public - now you know the terms of leaving (Which was completely different to what you originally voted for) do you want too leave under Boris deal or remain.
Click to expand...
Leave please.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
So leave voters ... Boris’s deal. Is this what you voted for in the original referendum ?

As Farage, the biggest sway for leave Voters says this deal is 95% the same as Mays in which everyone went mental.

So. Common sense. Surely you ask the pubic.

A) Boris Deal
B) Remain

I really don’t see what’s wrong with this, it’s not some clever ploy by remainers to keep us in the EU. It is simply asking the public - now you know the terms of leaving (Which was completely different to what you originally voted for) do you want too leave under Boris deal or remain.
Click to expand...

Even if remain wins that vote it doesn’t end it.

The leave support, in the public, press and politicians will just say it’s an endorsement we need another deal or no deal, that remain is only preferable to that deal specifically.
 
mancity2012_eamo said:
This is going to get worse.
A lot worse I fear.
This deal certainly won’t make things better for NI or the UK.

Nobody trusts the motives of your government. Not NI nor your own parliament. Not Scotland.
Your whole system is being destroyed.

It’s party politics all around with two main parties that are both fighting battles within and without and pretending it’s all about the referendum result and the people.

And the referendum result was nothing to do with party politics, it was idealogical. English Nationalist ideology.

That itself is at odds with The notion of the Union, which is at odds with a solution to the NI border issues while protecting the union.

This deal is a Tory solution no better than 1922. You got this all arse about face and you can’t be told different.

I’m out of here.
Click to expand...
If they think Johnson has "played this well" they must be drooling over what Varadker has done. Enjoy landing all that Scottish fish and selling it without tariffs.
 
Last edited:
BlueHammer85 said:
So leave voters ... Boris’s deal. Is this what you voted for in the original referendum ?

As Farage, the biggest sway for leave Voters says this deal is 95% the same as Mays in which everyone went mental.

So. Common sense. Surely you ask the pubic.

A) Boris Deal
B) Remain

I really don’t see what’s wrong with this, it’s not some clever ploy by remainers to keep us in the EU. It is simply asking the public - now you know the terms of leaving (Which was completely different to what you originally voted for) do you want too leave under Boris deal or remain.
Click to expand...

agree. If you still want to leave and are happy with the deal you’re more than welcome to vote for it. But it’s not what people were promised.

it doesn’t end it, but what could happen is the leave movement having clearly defined positions. No deal, deal, EFTA etc. if one of these positions can get popular support then fill your boots. It’s what should’ve happened on the first go around
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
"...even allowed them to think there's a chance of a no deal Brexit at the end of the transition period (although there is no chance of that)."

Naive (you) or duplicitous (him)? Certainly the latter - you're praising him for offering cake now to get support from his own members who hold incompatible views. This is still just kicking the can down the road, so that we can't go back and wonder why we're even on this self-harm road.

Why is there no chance? Those who liked the post have been quite happy to say what the legal default position is now. Come the end of next year when we're in the same position as now (facing a default No Deal) they'd be saying "but Parliament voted for this".
Click to expand...
Why not naive (him)?

He's never been for no deal. No deal is an idiotic position which guarantees economic harm and God knows what other harm, guarantees his early demise and guarantees him being remembered as the PM who wrecked the UK. Why on earth would any PM want that? It's ludicrous to imagine he would.

And it is also pointless speculation since this parliament will not allow it anyway, as we have seen.

If Remainers want to maximise the risk however then I would suggest their best bet is to stand in the way of this deal. Force Boris into a GE which could result in a harder line and an emboldened right wing Tory government with a majority. Unintended consequences etc.
 
Vic said:
"...even allowed them to think there's a chance of a no deal Brexit at the end of the transition period (although there is no chance of that)."

Naive (you) or duplicitous (him)? Certainly the latter - you're praising him for offering cake now to get support from his own members who hold incompatible views. This is still just kicking the can down the road, so that we can't go back and wonder why we're even on this self-harm road.

Why is there no chance? Those who liked the post have been quite happy to say what the legal default position is now. Come the end of next year when we're in the same position as now (facing a default No Deal) they'd be saying "but Parliament voted for this".
Click to expand...
Goodness me, you really are stuck in a mire arnt you? Its remain and two fingers to the rest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top