Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
This is meaningless though
Of course it doesn't completely stop a No deal but it gets further to stopping a no deal brexit.

If passed, the motion would give MPs control of the parliamentary agenda on 25 June. The same motion could then potentially be used to begin legislation to prevent the UK from leaving the EU without a deal.

There really is feck all Labour can do if tories MP's don't vote against their party.
On the second referendum Corbyn's still hesitant about fully endorsing one and it very much still seems to come with the caveat of it'll happen if a deal isn't reached.
We've had this discussion a million times. If the only thing that makes some happy is Corbyn turning into a EU loving, face painted cheerleader then sorry but the fault is on them.
 
Of course it doesn't completely stop a No deal but it gets further to stopping a no deal brexit.



There really is feck all Labour can do if tories MP's don't vote against their party.

We've had this discussion a million times. If the only thing that makes some happy is Corbyn turning into a EU loving, face painted cheerleader then sorry but the fault is on them.

When is Brexit being cancelled then because so far parliament has voted for no deal.
This is not about Corbyn it's about common sense which seems rather lacking in the UK at present. You can't have an agreement with yourself.

PS The Tories have done nothing but vote against themselves over Brexit - if Labour had voted for the WA the UK would be leaving with an agreement.
 
Last edited:
It's sort of pointless if you don't read the whole post.

I never doubted that Labour's/Corbyn's ambition is to force an election and win it. It's what they are willing to do/risk on Brexit to achieve that goal that I take issue with.

I mean you're just assuming that Labur is playing 4d chess (baiting leave voters with lies in the process btw?) for the greater good?! While to me it just looks like Labour is letting the country speed into the wall that is Brexit by only putting up token resistance.
Taking control of the day's agenda for example does nothing to stop no deal brexit. It's the default, it doesn't need ratification. The only way to stop no deal is to get a different solution through parliament. Did Labour support May's deal? No, they told fairytales and lies about being able to negotiating something entirely different. Does Labour support a second referendum? " Labour respects the result of the referendum, and Britain is leaving the EU."
What is left without a deal or a second referendum? Hard Brexit.
 
We've had this discussion a million times. If the only thing that makes some happy is Corbyn turning into a EU loving, face painted cheerleader then sorry but the fault is on them.

That's a completely different point entirely - you're arguing Corbyn has backed a second referendum, the caveat it he's reluctantly doing so in certain circumstances. Considering a deal of any sort now appears to be off the table it's fairly meaningless rhetoric and clearly doesn't satisfy Remainers.
 
I never doubted that Labour's/Corbyn's ambition is to force an election and win it. It's what they are willing to do/risk on Brexit to achieve that goal that I take issue with.

I mean you're just assuming that Labur is playing 4d chess (baiting leave voters with lies in the process btw?) for the greater good?! While to me it just looks like Labour is letting the country speed into the wall that is Brexit by only putting up token resistance.
Taking control of the day's agenda for example does nothing to stop no deal brexit. It's the default, it doesn't need ratification. The only way to stop no deal is to get a different solution through parliament. Did Labour support May's deal? No, they told fairytales and lies about being able to negotiating something entirely different. Does Labour support a second referendum? " Labour respects the result of the referendum, and Britain is leaving the EU."
What is left without a deal or a second referendum? Hard Brexit.
will be interesting to see if that survives conference
Motion to Labour Party conference 2019

Stop Brexit, Transform Britain and Europe

Word count (not including title and this notice): 250

Conference notes the vast majority of Labour members and voters oppose Brexit. Our policy must reflect members’ overwhelming support for a public vote.

We cannot go into a general election without a clear Brexit policy.

If we leave the EU, Brexit does not end. We face years of negotiations and neoliberal trade deals. Any form of Brexit threatens jobs, workers’ rights, migrants, the NHS, public services and the environment, and makes it harder to deliver a radical manifesto.

Brexit is part of a right-wing nationalist exploitation of global economic and social crisis.

We will challenge the narratives of the far right, addressing the reasons people voted Leave. We will attack poverty, insecurity and inequality; rebuild communities with public investment and ownership; boost wages and union rights; and combat the climate crisis. We will defend free movement and extend migrants’ rights.

The Leave vote is three years old. What was meant by Leave was never clear. There is no mandate for any Brexit settlement. Democracy demands the people have a final say.

Labour will campaign energetically for a public vote and to Remain. We support revoking Article 50 if necessary to prevent No Deal.

Capitalism is transnational; we need transnational institutions and workers’ movements to challenge it. We will build cross-border alliances to transform Europe with socialist policies, starting with a Green New Deal, levelling up of wages and rights, and ending Fortress Europe. Labour will convene an international conference of left parties, unions and social movements to coordinate this struggle.
https://www.anothereurope.org/motion-for-labour-party-conference-2019/
suspect there will be a lot of similar motions and Im not sure its going to be viable to keep them all off the agenda
 
That's a completely different point entirely - you're arguing Corbyn has backed a second referendum, the caveat it he's reluctantly doing so in certain circumstances. Considering a deal of any sort now appears to be off the table it's fairly meaningless rhetoric and clearly doesn't satisfy Remainers.

Is the goal to satisfy remainers?

That's the issue with your side of the debate they've wanted cheerleading for the sake of it. Even the people's vote campaign has recognised that it's about getting things through parliament rather than pointless protesting.

Nothing is going to occur on a second referendum for a good few months now that May stood down. Labour can bang the drum but it won't achieve anything more than satisfying remainers discontent at not having their opinions reflected directly.
 
Is the goal to satisfy remainers?

That's the issue with your side of the debate they've wanted cheerleading for the sake of it. Even the people's vote campaign has recognised that it's about getting things through parliament rather than pointless protesting.

Nothing is going to occur on a second referendum for a good few months now that May stood down. Labour can bang the drum but it won't achieve anything more than satisfying remainers discontent at not having their opinions reflected directly.

Unless the government collapse, then yeah, it's very unlikely we'll see a PV but by the same token a managed deal isn't any more likely - Corbyn's stance still somewhat seems to be that once he's in power the EU will be more willing to acquiesce to his unrealistic demands than they currently are to the Tories. Which is obviously an unrealistic stance.

In an ideal world there'd be room for prominent politicians at the top with a nuanced and balanced view of the EU issue, but considering the polarisation we now have you've very much got to either be solidly for Leave or against Brexit completely at this point; sitting in the middle-ground isn't going to get you particularly far for the most part. If the PV campaign want to mount pressure on the current government and turn the tide of public opinion then they're obviously going to want the head of the biggest Remain party to be someone who actually believes in their cause. In the same way Brexiteers are now at the point where they're demanding a proper Brexiteer be at the helm.

But I was largely responding to the wider point that Corbyn supports a second referendum: he only tacitly supports one in certain circumstances because he's being forced to for the most part. That's hardly the endorsement Remainers want to see and to suggest it is would be quite dishonest.
 
I never doubted that Labour's/Corbyn's ambition is to force an election and win it. It's what they are willing to do/risk on Brexit to achieve that goal that I take issue with.

I mean you're just assuming that Labur is playing 4d chess (baiting leave voters with lies in the process btw?) for the greater good?! While to me it just looks like Labour is letting the country speed into the wall that is Brexit by only putting up token resistance.

Taking control of the day's agenda for example does nothing to stop no deal brexit. It's the default, it doesn't need ratification. The only way to stop no deal is to get a different solution through parliament. Did Labour support May's deal? No, they told fairytales and lies about being able to negotiating something entirely different. Does Labour support a second referendum? " Labour respects the result of the referendum, and Britain is leaving the EU."
What is left without a deal or a second referendum? Hard Brexit.

What resistance could they do ? If they back another referendum(Which they have in the past)it won't make tories vote against their party and it won't turn labour leave mp into remain mps. Labour have tabled motions on a public vote but it was defeated by again tories not voting against their party and Labour leave MPs. There is nothing the leadership of the party can do if they don't have the votes in parliament.

And this isn't me just defending Corbyn/Labour, all of this shit show could of been avoided if the party democratised itself and gave members a vote on it's brexit policy.


That's a completely different point entirely - you're arguing Corbyn has backed a second referendum, the caveat it he's reluctantly doing so in certain circumstances. Considering a deal of any sort now appears to be off the table it's fairly meaningless rhetoric and clearly doesn't satisfy Remainers.

It doesn't satisfy a certain section of remain voters. The he's backed a public vote just take the win for feck sake.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't satisfy a certain section of remain voters. The he's backed a public vote just take the win for feck sake.

He hasn't unequivocally backed a public vote though, he's still saying he only backs one if a managed deal with the EU can't be reached. That isn't the same as properly backing one.

And scepticism is warranted. If Blair had been on the verge of losing in, say, 2005 but had promised a more leftist platform in order to get elected, would you have actually believed a word he'd been saying? You'd have been completely justified in not buying into him.
 
What resistance could they do ? If they back another referendum(Which they have in the past)it won't make tories vote against their party and it won't turn labour leave mp into remain mps. Labour have tabled motions on a public vote but it was defeated by again tories not voting against their party and Labour leave MPs. There is nothing the leadership of the party can do if they don't have the votes in parliament.

And this isn't me just defending Corbyn/Labour, all of this shit show could of been avoided if the party democratised itself and gave members a vote on it's brexit policy.

They presumably didn't want to do that because the membership is overwhelmingly pro-Remain and would've immediately put pave to any of Corbyn's pro-Brexit whims.
 
Unless the government collapse, then yeah, it's very unlikely we'll see a PV but by the same token a managed deal isn't any more likely - Corbyn's stance still somewhat seems to be that once he's in power the EU will be more willing to acquiesce to his unrealistic demands than they currently are to the Tories. Which is obviously an unrealistic stance.

In an ideal world there'd be room for prominent politicians at the top with a nuanced and balanced view of the EU issue, but considering the polarisation we now have you've very much got to either be solidly for Leave or against Brexit completely at this point; sitting in the middle-ground isn't going to get you particularly far for the most part. If the PV campaign want to mount pressure on the current government and turn the tide of public opinion then they're obviously going to want the head of the biggest Remain party to be someone who actually believes in their cause. In the same way Brexiteers are now at the point where they're demanding a proper Brexiteer be at the helm.

But I was largely responding to the wider point that Corbyn supports a second referendum: he only tacitly supports one in certain circumstances because he's being forced to for the most part. That's hardly the endorsement Remainers want to see and to suggest it is would be quite dishonest.

They are related though as the hesitancy is related to not making a potentially damaging choice if it's pointless anyway. That's fairly common sense. Now if we're arguing that politically the current choice is not going to win votes then i agree.

I said it ages ago but the EU are the only ones who can take us out of this loop. They need to provide alternative options, not changing the current WA but laying out Option B and Option C. It would close off any such unicorns we keep hearing as all would be on the table for parliament to decide, which do you want? A, B, C, no deal or no brexit.
 
He hasn't unequivocally backed a public vote though, he's still saying he only backs one if a managed deal with the EU can't be reached. That isn't the same as properly backing one.
As @Smores says the goal of the party is not be a cheerleader for tiny section remain people. Corbyn wrapping himself in a EU flag and representing the views of the people on Remain marches doesn't actually change anything.

Look if the ultra remain people were serious, they would have joined the labour membership after 2016 and try to democratise the party with the goal of changing labour Brexit position. But what they've instead done is complain and moan on twitter about politicians not meeting their every cultural preference(Liberal have turned into the left of the past).


And scepticism is warranted. If Blair had been on the verge of losing in, say, 2005 but had promised a more leftist platform in order to get elected, would you have actually believed a word he'd been saying? You'd have been completely justified in not buying into him.
Mate I wouldn't be voting for Blair post 2002.

But who said not to be sceptical ? But had Blair made similar left wing moves as Corbyn has done to Remain, I would have considered it a win for the left but in the end my answer will always be the same, it doesn't particular matter because without a democratised party everything else is pretty much useless.


They presumably didn't want to do that because the membership is overwhelmingly pro-Remain and would've immediately put pave to any of Corbyn's pro-Brexit whims.

Pretty much but had there been a democratisation of the party since Corbyns time(Which the left have wanted but the Labour Right/PLP/Union don't) then the actual position the party took would have been far more difficult to justify.
 
They are related though as the hesitancy is related to not making a potentially damaging choice if it's pointless anyway. That's fairly common sense. Now if we're arguing that politically the current choice is not going to win votes then i agree.

I said it ages ago but the EU are the only ones who can take us out of this loop. They need to provide alternative options, not changing the current WA but laying out Option B and Option C. It would close off any such unicorns we keep hearing as all would be on the table for parliament to decide, which do you want? A, B, C, no deal or no brexit.

The EU need to provide alternative options?

What sort of alternative options are you thinking about (which doesn't include unicorns)?

The UK won't agree to maintain citizens rights, pay what they owe or maintain the GFA , that's what parliament, Tories and Labour and all the rest of them have voted against.
 
They are related though as the hesitancy is related to not making a potentially damaging choice if it's pointless anyway. That's fairly common sense. Now if we're arguing that politically the current choice is not going to win votes then i agree.

I said it ages ago but the EU are the only ones who can take us out of this loop. They need to provide alternative options, not changing the current WA but laying out Option B and Option C. It would close off any such unicorns we keep hearing as all would be on the table for parliament to decide, which do you want? A, B, C, no deal or no brexit.

Why though? Our inability to reach a deal is our fault, not theirs. They have stated their terms and conditions from the start. Either we match them or we don't get anything - struggle to see that changing.
 
Why though? Our inability to reach a deal is our fault, not theirs. They have stated their terms and conditions from the start. Either we match them or we don't get anything - struggle to see that changing.

It is our fault absolutely but their relatively non-political nature should have them work above whomever the PM is that week. Given the timetables involved it would have made sense at the start not to restrict options to only those our current government desired. It should have been advisory, here's your options now decide as a nation what you want. What they couldn't do and i agree with it is speak to the opposition directly to form another route as that would be political interference.

And i know that the WA is less about options than the political declaration element but this has and will always be discussed as one.
 
It is our fault absolutely but their relatively non-political nature should have them work above whomever the PM is that week. Given the timetables involved it would have made sense at the start not to restrict options to only those our current government desired. It should have been advisory, here's your options now decide as a nation what you want. What they couldn't do and i agree with it is speak to the opposition directly to form another route as that would be political interference.

And i know that the WA is less about options than the political declaration element but this has and will always be discussed as one.
most of the restrictions came from Mays red lines not the EU, they've said they're willing to remove the backstop if the UK is willing to agree to other measures that remove the need for an Irish border, i.e permanent customs unions

the reason they won't renegotiate is because the UK is only adding red lines rather removing them

and at some point when you're negotiating, if the demands are excessive you just have to give up and accept it won't happen, and the EU has accepted that
 
Yesterday's news.

You can't stop "no deal" unless Brexit is cancelled or parliament ratifies the WA - both rejected by parliament. Yes it's sort of pointless.

I just wish that people would focus on the facts and not their emotions.
The facts are those you have started about and have consistently stated almost since the beginning.

I just have to laugh when I hear candidates trying to convince people that THEY will be able to get the EU to renegotiate the WA.
It ain't going to happen...

Has any candidate said that we must accept the WA and move on to negotiate the FA ?
 
Why though? Our inability to reach a deal is our fault, not theirs. They have stated their terms and conditions from the start. Either we match them or we don't get anything - struggle to see that changing.

It won’t.
 
I just wish that people would focus on the facts and not their emotions.
The facts are those you have started about and have consistently stated almost since the beginning.

I just have to laugh when I hear candidates trying to convince people that THEY will be able to get the EU to renegotiate the WA.
It ain't going to happen...

Has any candidate said that we must accept the WA and move on to negotiate the FA ?

Only Rory Stewart from what I’ve seen. Struggling to give a flying feck about the race though so may have missed it
 
Government defeats cross-party bid to allow MPs to legislate to rule out no-deal
The government has won by 309 votes to 298 - a majority of 11.
 
Government defeats cross-party bid to allow MPs to legislate to rule out no-deal
The government has won by 309 votes to 298 - a majority of 11.
any breakdown available of who voted for what - would be interesting to see how many opposition didnt block no deal (and who) and equally who in the government votes to block it

in fact actually there is 650 MP's ... I find it crazy that apparently 43 of them (over 6%) either couldnt be bothered or dont have an opinion on the matter
 
I just wish that people would focus on the facts and not their emotions.
The facts are those you have started about and have consistently stated almost since the beginning.

I just have to laugh when I hear candidates trying to convince people that THEY will be able to get the EU to renegotiate the WA.
It ain't going to happen...

Has any candidate said that we must accept the WA and move on to negotiate the FA ?


There are several problems, there's the emotional side but also some sense of party loyalty so if one is staunch Labour or staunch Tory they will defend that point of view regardless of how ridiculous it is.
Plus many people seem to believe that the WA will include some kind of trade deal. The public in the UK have been told so many lies, looking from the outside it looks incomprehensible that the UK is in this state.

Both the Tory party and Labour party are only interested in being in power, Brexit is a side-show. When the music stops and the party in power at the time of Brexit have to sort out all the consequences they'll wish that they weren't in power.
 
Javid's launch now, astonishingly annoying due to how highly he clearly thinks of himself.
 
Feel the same about the Tories, except I don't have a viable alternative.
No matter which side you're on, it's amazing how gloriously ineffectual the parties in British politics have become. I'd seriously go back to the days of Cameron, with the proviso that "austerity measures" and George Osborne are flung out of the nearest window by the end of this year at the latest.
 
No matter which side you're on, it's amazing how gloriously ineffectual the parties in British politics have become. I'd seriously go back to the days of Cameron, with the proviso that "austerity measures" and George Osborne are flung out of the nearest window by the end of this year at the latest.

The thing is, if this Brexit bollocks hadn't stopped the Government getting on with the business of running the country, we would most probably be all done with it by now and we would be looking at a rosier future.
 
So why does Britain have to go ahead with Brexit? Why can't the decision be reversed?