Then it wouldnt be May's deal with ribbons on any more. Makes no difference to the argument.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
Then it wouldnt be May's deal with ribbons on any more. Makes no difference to the argument.
That makes sense, but why leave if the EU does sit down and renegotiate the deal?
If you're suggesting McDonnell will do the opposite of what he said on Sunday, when he said quite clearly he would campaign to remain after negotiating the deal, then yes, it's possible. Whether you're saying he deliberately lied or just doesn't know what he's doing I don't know.
Well, if the EU doesn't do it, who will protect the warfare of the chickens, the environment and whoever hasn't the financial freedom to have to work in the horrific conditions where battery hens are bred with just enough room to breath?
Your whole argument is essentially "I couldn't care less what happens downstream the supply chain; as long as there is demand for a product, then it is ok." What is the difference between what you are saying and, say, demand for fast fashion produced off the back of child labour in horrific conditions? Fortunately, the EU does not worship the market enough to think it can regulate itself robustly enough to protect vulnerable animals, people and the environment.
Chlorinated chicken you say?
This is where Labour's policy is ambiguous. They've said that they'll campaign to Remain if the options are May's deal or No Deal. They've also said they'll renegotiate the deal if they win the general election. From this and Labour's previous (but now out of date) stated policy positions it can be implied that if they got a new deal from the EU they would campaign to leave with that deal in a second referendum. However, they refuse to say that explicitly, though the Leaders office has briefed the press to that effect in the past.
To make things more confusing, people like the shadow chancellor, the shadow foriegn sec and the shadow home sec have all said they'd campaign to Remain regardless of what deal Labour got. Its unclear to what degree they're talking about just their personal positions or if this is an emerging party position.
They are all over the shop.
Northern Irish Judges rule shutdown is legal.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...dges-rule-boris-johnson-prorogation-is-lawful
Though I thought it was about whether Brexit risked the peace deal.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...dges-rule-boris-johnson-prorogation-is-lawful
Though I thought it was about whether Brexit risked the peace deal.
That was always going to be virtually impossible to prove.
To add to the above,
Appeal this afternoon apparently.
Appeal this afternoon apparently.
I honestly don't find the Labour position terribly confusing. I understand that simple clear messages likely win elections but Labour's position seems to be:
i) The country did vote democratically to leave. You can't ignore that.
ii)However, no deal is catastrophic and must be avoided. Therefore a deal is essential.
iii)However, May's deal is not suitable. So Labour would look to renegotiate a more suitable (to their mind) deal.
iv) Yet it is the case that the country is divided as is Parliament. Also the understanding of what Brexit means is now better understood. So a second ref between this new deal and remain is needed.
v) The Labour party is split between a minority of leavers and a majority of remainers. It is possible, if a party line is taken at all, that Labour might then campaign against their own negotiated deal with worst case scenario being leaving with an approved deal.
I am staunchly remain but this seems a nuanced and mature, rather than confused position to me.
Exactly.
Absolute tish tosh, Labour will not be campaigning to leave as party policy and you won't find a single bit of evidence to back that assertion up.
From reports Labour will adopt a free platform allowing MPs to campaign either side if they so wish which goes along with the general policy of finding the best deal but ultimately it's for the people to decide.
This is obviously it. We had a referendum a few years ago about a trade agreement with Ukraine. People voted against it, because feck off, I don't want these Polish (lol) people taking my job. Had feck all to do with anyone coming here of course, but there you go. Luckily our government had the sense to say, myeaaah, take the result of that referendum and stick it up yer arse, thanks.
They should abolish referenda all together. The masses aren't fit to decide on who win's big brother, let alone complicated geo political matters.
I mean feck, scousers get a vote too you know.
Yep it really isn't difficult at all.
As I previously stated things that are harmful (as you state in your second paragraph) are regulated by government, things that are merely unpalatable are self-regulating.
You're also somewhat naive if you think EU regulation protects against fast-fashion produced in squalid conditions... They do not. The have external tariffs that make it more expensive, however in this sector it's still cheaper than equivalent products manufactured in the EU. So this is literally a situation where the EU are making things more expensive for poor people for no purpose whatsoever. Child labour has also become self regulating... Have you not seen the negative press suffered by the likes of Nike & Adidas that has caused them to implement safe supply chain policies? This wasn't as a result of Eu Regulation (they don't give a shit as cheap clothing isn't an area that would be lobbied by big business); it was a result of the vociferous nature of UK press in tandem with the moral beliefs of the people in stating the would not buy products that are made in these conditions. The same is occurring now with Brazilian beef/leather; companies are stating they will not use Brazilian products because this becomes a selling point for their business "we respect the Amazon, we're responsibility". Being environmentally friendly is now good business.
The misnomer that we've been fed is that EU regulations and standards are all for the benefit of the common man, which is obviously nonsense. How often do governments enact policies with the sole intention of protecting the common man? Almost never and when they do it's generally because the policy is also aligned with corporate interests.
Let's assume for the sake or argument you're somewhat left wing and that a modern equivalent of Thatcher had just been elected prime minister. The first thing they enacted was a swath of Trumpian policies that taxed and banned products from the rest of the world to Britain under the guise of "better standards" (particular Asia, Africa and South America); the net effect being products becoming much more expensive which disproportionately affected poor people. Would your first reaction to these policies be "thank god Maggie v2 is protecting us from all these awful products we've been buying for years", or would it be "Bloody Tories looking after their big business buddies by forcing us to buy expensive products made by their buddies instead of cheap products from abroad".
I can guarantee this entire forum would be up in arms at putting the profits of big business ahead of poor people... For some reason though the EU spin it "EU regulations" and champagne socialists jizz their pants. It's so strange as the EU is inherently similar to Donald Trump, the latter of which is rightly castigated by the same people.
You are avoiding the part which is that it is based on a complete fantasy. Re-negotiating the deal is complete hokum at this stage. It is not a viable postition to take. It's either May's deal, no deal or no brexit. Labour is unable to commit to any of these.
Which fantasy world do you live in?
1) They're not negotiating at all. We know this
2) They have no idea how to resolve the backstop. We know this also
3) There will be but the question is whether Johnson will do as he's told and ask for it
Quite, so no election on the horizon by mid-October and it's farewell.
At this stage, yes. With a change of Govt. not necessarily. Labour can't commit to those three options as, in order, they don't agree with the terms, no deal is unacceptable and no Brexit is a huge issue due to the ref vote.
So, if they can renegotiate they would post election.
He means the position not the negotiations surely?
Point 3 is interesting.
It suggests that they believe that negotiating with the conservatives is an impossible and pointless task and that with another government a solution could be found.
It suggests that they believe that negotiating with the conservatives is an impossible and pointless task and that with another government a solution could be found.
There's two obvious issues. Most importantly, the outcome of the scenario you outline should be straightforward enough for Labour to confirm or disconfirm at this late stage. They want a second election, they want to renegotiate the deal and they want a referendum on that new deal. But if they win that election and get that new deal and have that referendum, they dont know what they would do next. That's certainly confused.
The other issue is that, as I mentioned above, its a bizarre negotiating position to go to the EU and ask for a better deal, but if they don't get it, they'll campaign for Remain. The EU want us to Remain, so what possible incentive is there for the EU to renegotiate in those circumstances? Even as someone who wants to Remain, that tactic is totally illogical.
Both - the negotiation on Corbyn's terms are a non-starter but let's say in a fantasy world they are - and Corbyn gets the agreement he wants - then what - Are Labour pro-the agreement they negotiated or pro-Remain and cancelling A50.
People would probably like to know before an election which one.
It's just trying please everyone but pleasing no-one apart from Corbyn fans - it's not them he needs to win an election because clearly they'd vote for him whatever he says.
Bang on. It's not sitting on the fence, it's just being responsible and nuanced.
I don't find that confused or illogical. They don't know yet what the line would be at the referendum in terms of party position (although, I would disagree that that is the same as not knowing what they'd do after the referendum as I assume clear plans based on either decision would actually be prepared this time) . They may even suspend the whip (although I suspect they wouldn't). I find that mature and not confused but do understand it might not work with voters.
I don't find it a bizarre negotiating with the possibility of campaigning against the deal. The people may still want to leave . That eventuality must be prepared for with a suitable deal. I don't get this position of "weakening our hand" which seems to me to be a moderately hostile position which, to my mind and experience, sours negotiations.
However, the biggest issue is that nuance no longer appeals politically. We live in an environment of simplistic us and them political sloganing.
I'm not a Corbyn fan (although I don't dislike him either) and I think consensus politics is pretty essential now (on Brexit specifically to be clear). Going hard revoke A50 at all costs will only lead to further polarisation. I find the Labour position most coherent and reflective of reality of all the parties (SNP don't count as they have a revoke A50 mandate).
Last edited:
I'm fairly sure that if Corbyn offered the EU a brexit in name only type deal, they would be very happy to negotiate it.
After all, that was surely the only sensible way to leave anyway. Gradual steps.
No idea what you're on about. I clearly said that a) the position is ambiguous that b) it has never been explicitly stated c) the only policy statements that exist are now out of date and d) any conclusion can only be implied. How you judge me to be making hard claims about policy I have no idea.
So, producing chicken in cages so small they cannot even move is just 'merely unpalatable'? OK.
The EU regulations for chicken production are actually stricter than the US; if the UK market opens up to the US, UK producers will have to drop their own standards to compete. So I do not think your arguement that EU regulations in this area are merely a protectionist scheme quite stands up to scrutiny.
Child labour is not self-regulating in the EU; there are EU laws against it. And the reason for the regulation is precisely because neither companies nor consumers give enough of a shit to ensure self regulation works.
Also, I did not say that regulations are just to protect the common man, as you put it: they also intend to protect animals and the environment from production methods that are so crude that high mortality from disease is dismissed as mere colateral.
Remember what happened last time though? The vast majority of the party wanted a promise of a second ref and they ended up with a mealy mouthed statement about maybe a 2nd ref if they couldn't get an election. I'm expecting more of the same honestly.
Surely that could potentially explode in their faces in the supreme court case?
Isn't the major obstacle UNITE/McClusky? They just hashed out a position with the trade unions though I think, so we should see something somewhat coherent.
He expects to have "exactly the same benefits" as being in the EU but stopping FoM and expects the UK to be able to negotiate their own trade deals whilst in a customs union. I may totally disagree with the Tories position and their thought that the backstop can be removed is fantasy but Labour's position is just as ridiculous. There's no easy answer to the Brexit problem but whatever happens a lot of people are going to be unhappy. The country's best interest should come way ahead of party's best interest but it isn't.
I guess they can just say those 2 sentences aren't linked. The fact they've printed it twice actually helps with that argument.
The issue here is that you can't reasonably fight a general election on the basis of a free vote or other hypothetical somewhere down the line. Whether I want to Leave or Remain, how can I vote Labour if even they dont know how their MPs will vote on it?
I've never agreed with the idea that you have to keep no deal on the table or any of that guff. This is something quite different. The EU have already negotiated a deal and are well within their rights to refuse to change it, as they have done several times now, most recently with Johnson. Given that Labour would almost certainly campaign to Remain if they dont renegotiate, which is what they want, why would they change the deal to suit us?
Hard to say they aren't linked while simultaneously claiming prorogation has nothing to do with Brexit. There was absolutely zero reason for even mentioning Brexit if what they say is true.
If it’s in direct response to an objection to prorogation it would seem a bit weird to say, “that sentence isn’t linked to the subject matter”