[tomtom]

I wonder if corbyns letter to May will give the green light for a load of remain/centre labour mps to jump ship.

[Will Hunt]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47143135
It’s hard to disagree.

Sorry to be a boring old bastard again. I totally agree with his sentiment, but don't think it's a piece of rhetoric becoming of the President of the EC. If Donald Trump had said such a thing about an issue that >50% of, say, Mexicans or Canadians had voted for, our response would be one of outrage. We should hold our allies to the same standards as our opponents.

[spidermonkey09]

Sorry to be a boring old bastard again. I totally agree with his sentiment, but don't think it's a piece of rhetoric becoming of the President of the EC. If Donald Trump had said such a thing about an issue that >50% of, say, Mexicans or Canadians had voted for, our response would be one of outrage. We should hold our allies to the same standards as our opponents.

Will, I think you're misinterpreting what he said. Its specifically aimed at the leaders of the campaign, 'without a sketch of a plan' about how to carry out Brexit 'safely.' Its not aimed at those who voted for it, although it was unhelpfully reported as such. However, I agree with you that its a pretty inflammatory thing to say in any case. I can only presume that hes as fed up to the back teeth of the whole farrago as everyone else is, and dealing with our government must be like dealing with the worst client at work, x a million.

[Oldmanmatt]

Sorry to be a boring old bastard again. I totally agree with his sentiment, but don't think it's a piece of rhetoric becoming of the President of the EC. If Donald Trump had said such a thing about an issue that >50% of, say, Mexicans or Canadians had voted for, our response would be one of outrage. We should hold our allies to the same standards as our opponents.

Will, I think you're misinterpreting what he said. Its specifically aimed at the leaders of the campaign, 'without a sketch of a plan' about how to carry out Brexit 'safely.' Its not aimed at those who voted for it, although it was unhelpfully reported as such. However, I agree with you that its a pretty inflammatory thing to say in any case. I can only presume that hes as fed up to the back teeth of the whole farrago as everyone else is, and dealing with our government must be like dealing with the worst client at work, x a million.

^^^ This.

[Will Hunt]

Sorry to be a boring old bastard again. I totally agree with his sentiment, but don't think it's a piece of rhetoric becoming of the President of the EC. If Donald Trump had said such a thing about an issue that >50% of, say, Mexicans or Canadians had voted for, our response would be one of outrage. We should hold our allies to the same standards as our opponents.

Will, I think you're misinterpreting what he said. Its specifically aimed at the leaders of the campaign, 'without a sketch of a plan' about how to carry out Brexit 'safely.' Its not aimed at those who voted for it, although it was unhelpfully reported as such. However, I agree with you that its a pretty inflammatory thing to say in any case. I can only presume that hes as fed up to the back teeth of the whole farrago as everyone else is, and dealing with our government must be like dealing with the worst client at work, x a million.

I think you're being a bit naive there, Jim. Yes, he made sure that he didn't directly have a go at the electorate, because he's a politician. But it is quite clear that he knew how his remarks would be interpreted (and in a sense he is directing his ire at those who voted to leave the EU because they too voted without consideration or care for NI), otherwise he wouldn't have said it and then followed it up with an identical tweet, because he's a politician.

You don't get to become the President of the EC without being able to hold your tongue when dealing with difficult people or situations (even if, as you say, those people are very difficult). It's a calculated outburst and the reason he resorted to violent religious imagery was because he knew it would get his speech and meeting with the Taoiseach onto the front page, rather than being buried at the back of the news agenda or even unreported. The reason he wants his meeting to be in the news is because it puts the image of a united EC and Irish government into millions of homes during the tea time news.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be presenting a united front, but he should have avoided the use of such a blunt rhetorical instrument. All it does it anger Leave voters (understandably since they've just been told by a very powerful political heavyweight that they are either a) desperately and pathetically naive and probably unable to function as adults, or b) should rot in Hell). Given that the only thing that can prevent a No Deal scenario is to achieve some form of meaningful, legislatable consensus in parliament (which the Spelman amendment doesn't achieve), then deepening the divisions between the two sides of the argument is actually spectacularly unhelpful.

[spidermonkey09]

I completely agree its calculated and can totally see his rationale behind saying it. From the EU's perspective they need to present a united front to put pressure on the UK government. I don't see it as that unhelpful to be honest, its no different to what the ERG have been spouting for years on end and everyone seems to take them seriously in the UK corridors of power for some reason. The battle lines, as they are, have been drawn for ages and no one is changing their minds, particularly by some religious imagery. Anyone that scared of the fires of hell is beyond hope. 

The threat of No Deal is obviously real and a very shit prospect for the UK. I'm not convinced its such a shit prospect for the EU as I keep reading it is, and the increased risk of it happening is perhaps exactly why Tusk has doubled down on the 'united front' rhetoric, to try and bind the EU 27 together as they cast the UK into the wilderness. Its working quite well so far. A shit deal for them is one which gives the UK too many cherries and allows other nations to think 'hang on.' No Deal would at least allow them  to say 'the grass isn't always greener' and point over the Channel at our medicine shortages.

[Will Hunt]

There's a balance to be struck, mind. I don't think they're as keen on making post-Brexit as miserable as you suggest. A very significant factor in Leave voter's opinions is that they believe the EU to be an uncaring and disconnected body of foreign rule. Being overzealous is only going to prove the point of those in Italy and France who already have plenty of momentum behind their campaigns ("just look at what they did to poor old Britain"). Remember that Leave voters voted to leave in spite of the knowledge that it could/would make them worse off (as did many Scots in the Indy Ref) because they'd rather be free and poor than shackled and rich.

This is a really good read.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/01/poorer-brexiters-worse-off-working-class-leavers?fbclid=IwAR1nVtPKEeIlECO8-5SSDc3KfKSE79yCIp6dcSEGgb0-CYIAOYjhLzLpu8Q
Particularly the breaking down of assumption by Remainers about why Leave voters voted in the way that they did. Remainers are happy to accept less sovreignity for the prize of international co-operation; Leave voters don't trust the establishment that they've devolved power to. And before I catch myself saying "but we are sovereign" again, it's interesting to note that the Council of Europe actually describes the EU as a body which members delegate their sovreignity to in its two sentence description of what the organisation is (https://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/do-not-get-confused).

[Oldmanmatt]

There's a balance to be struck, mind. I don't think they're as keen on making post-Brexit as miserable as you suggest. A very significant factor in Leave voter's opinions is that they believe the EU to be an uncaring and disconnected body of foreign rule. Being overzealous is only going to prove the point of those in Italy and France who already have plenty of momentum behind their campaigns ("just look at what they did to poor old Britain"). Remember that Leave voters voted to leave in spite of the knowledge that it could/would make them worse off (as did many Scots in the Indy Ref) because they'd rather be free and poor than shackled and rich.

This is a really good read.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/01/poorer-brexiters-worse-off-working-class-leavers?fbclid=IwAR1nVtPKEeIlECO8-5SSDc3KfKSE79yCIp6dcSEGgb0-CYIAOYjhLzLpu8Q
Particularly the breaking down of assumption by Remainers about why Leave voters voted in the way that they did. Remainers are happy to accept less sovreignity for the prize of international co-operation; Leave voters don't trust the establishment that they've devolved power to. And before I catch myself saying "but we are sovereign" again, it's interesting to note that the Council of Europe actually describes the EU as a body which members delegate their sovreignity to in its two sentence description of what the organisation is (https://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/do-not-get-confused).

That’s all very nice.

Doesn’t change the reality, that we will all be poorer for this. The reality that people who were asked to make this decision, were poorly informed and lied too.
Frankly, you seem to believe that the “why we are here” thing is going to materially change the outcome. Which is that old “you must believe harder and it’s just you  being negative, that is messing this up” argument; slightly tarted up and bathed in glitter.

About as effective as trying to avoid an STI with a Vagazzle.

If.

If, we end up in dire Straits and the shit hits the proverbial. Those same people, that you eloquently defend, who clearly knew exactly what they were voting for, will be lobbing Molotovs in the street.
They will be poorer, sadder, unemployed and hungry.
At that point the laudable notion of “Sovereignty” will, likely, seem a little more abstract.

Or, to put it another way, I don’t believe they “”really” knew what it meant.
Have you ever met someone who, say, joined the Army; then three weeks into the (perfectly predictable) training, realised it was way worse than they expected?

I think it’s going to be quite a lot like that.

[Oldmanmatt]

Actually, and in reference to the “if” that I singled out in the last post.

When our collective “debating society” rhetoric and hyperbole is set aside (something almost all contributers here, have employed at times), I tend to feel that this piece in the Guardian is our most likely future.
This tallies well with Pete’s argument, except the writer (and myself) disagree on the long term consequences of our actions.

I’ve said it many times, here. Diminished.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/no-deal-brexit-medieval-siege-eu-britain-industries?CMP=fb_gu

[Will Hunt]

Perhaps go back and actually read my posts, Matt.

[tomtom]

We are all already poorer for the referendum result.

Growth is stunted. Investment has winnowed away (external and internal) normal governance hs shrunk and things that would normally be scandalous (eg homeless numbers as one of many possible examples) are ignored because of the bigger worry. Our position as a global economic power has already been reduced - and frankly our behaviour as a nation and our governments behaviour is embarrassing.

There is no upside to anything that has happened - or will happen. We are Justifying the “benefits” Of the shit deal on offer based on comparison to no deal disaster.

The insane logic of this is like getting in your car and deciding you are going to go and crash it. Then being really glad that you only decided to drive into a gatepost rather than sideways into a tree at speed.

[largeruk]

No deal: self-strangulation while performing an act of autoerotic asphyxiation

[Oldmanmatt]

Perhaps go back and actually read my posts, Matt.

Ok, more specific.

There’s no “balance” to be struck. Equilibrium, of a temporary nature (on “no deal”) will be a practical necessity for the 27. That is to say, they will put their collective toes on their end of the see-saw, push down hard enough to tip it gently in their favour, hold it there until all the goodies flow smoothly down to them and then (slightly less gently) let our end sink to where it may.

All, regardless of internal squabbling.

[duncan]

Apparently Donald Tusk was a rope-access worker in his youth. Boris Johnson wasn't.

[Oldmanmatt]

https://www.ft.com/content/5ce60af2-2b90-11e9-a5ab-ff8ef2b976c7

So, I’m assuming this bodes ill for the auto industry in the UK.

[Oldmanmatt]

Apparently Donald Tusk was a rope-access worker in his youth. Boris Johnson wasn't.

Interesting to check Tusk’s Wikipedia entry. Seems he wasn’t unfamiliar with a bit of the ‘ol street violence and at some considerable risk of a lifetime ticket to the Gulag. Possibly, he really does think the people protesting his comments, could do with a little more spine.

[TobyD]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/09/a-hidden-government-is-preparing-for-brexit-by-keeping-us-in-the-dark

"The British stiff upper lip cannot explain the absence of fear: if it ever existed, it wilted long ago. Rather, the deep complacency of British and in particular English life, which sleeps soundly beneath all the noise of the news cycle, still makes the average citizen believe it can’t happen here. The only major European country to escape both communism and fascism, or occupation by the armies of Hitler or Stalin, has an ingrained bias against taking the possibility of disaster seriously. We’ve always managed before, previous alarms have turned out to be false, are the default responses of a country that has yet to learn that the past does not always determine the future."

[nai]

Is this just wishful thinking, seems to have come somewhat out of the blue.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/back-theresa-may-brexit-deal-then-hold-peoples-vote-backbencher-plan

[sdm]

Is this just wishful thinking, seems to have come somewhat out of the blue.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/back-theresa-may-brexit-deal-then-hold-peoples-vote-backbencher-plan

The article doesn't say anything about a time line. Would the plan be to negotiate an extension to Article 50? I can't see a referendum being held before we leave in 47 days. So without an extension, presumably the question would be to continue with brexit or to rejoin the EU (potentially or worse terms)?

I've no idea how much support this amendment has but I don't see many tories voting for it. The default position is that we leave the EU, I don't think enough of them are scared enough of no deal to risk no brexit.

[TobyD]

Is this just wishful thinking, seems to have come somewhat out of the blue.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/back-theresa-may-brexit-deal-then-hold-peoples-vote-backbencher-plan

This is the sort of thing that the Guardian / Observer publish all the time, It is a potential amendment, supported by 5 noted pro European MPs, I'd bet any money that it will come to nothing and not be accepted as an amendment much less voted through.
This isn't to say that I disagree with it, but with both main parties headed by small insular cadres who basically want to leave but not really to say that that is their intention, no chance. The combined duplicity of May and Corbyn is breathtaking. In the last couple of days, the ferry debacle, followed by May asking MPs for a bit more time; and (in a Guardian report) a senior Labour meeting where they didn't discuss Brexit at all. The energies of both parties appears to be entirely directed towards trying to mask fundamental disagreements within them, and postpone splits which seem almost inevitable in some form or other.

[Offwidth]

The article doesn't say anything about a time line. Would the plan be to negotiate an extension to Article 50? I can't see a referendum being held before we leave in 47 days. So without an extension, presumably the question would be to continue with brexit or to rejoin the EU (potentially or worse terms)?

I've no idea how much support this amendment has but I don't see many tories voting for it. The default position is that we leave the EU, I don't think enough of them are scared enough of no deal to risk no brexit.

The EU have said many times an extension of article 50 for a new election or a new referendum would be OK even up to the wire..

I doubt the amendement will be supported even though it should be. Neither Tory nor Labour leadership will back down easily.

[highrepute]

, but with both main parties headed by small insular cadres who basically want to leave but not really to say that that is their intention, no chance.

I think they've both been pretty clear they want to leave and they wouldn't back a second referendum, that would be the reason this amendment would fail.

Is the a reason why you say it differently?

[TobyD]

, but with both main parties headed by small insular cadres who basically want to leave but not really to say that that is their intention, no chance.

I think they've both been pretty clear they want to leave and they wouldn't back a second referendum, that would be the reason this amendment would fail.
Is the a reason why you say it differently?

Corbyn has been anything but clear. He has been notable for trying to avoid Brexit at every stage. Clearly because coming down on either side would alienate half of his support.

[mrjonathanr]

Reasons for voting leave... this article puts across a clear picture.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/11/england-brexit-broken-neoliberalism

[sdm]

Voting leave because you are angry about austerity, poverty and under investment in Northern towns makes about as much sense as me being angry after having a crap day at work and deciding to get back at my boss by driving my car through my living room wall before signing over power of attorney to my boss.