I'd say their plan for a permanent custom union is a significant difference to May's plan.
But to be fair how can they oppose or propose alternatives if May won't bring her deal to parliament
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
I'd say their plan for a permanent custom union is a significant difference to May's plan.
But to be fair how can they oppose or propose alternatives if May won't bring her deal to parliament
Ken Clarke was among a group of Tories that advised Heath to do that in 1970 with the vote to join the then common market. There were loads of anti-europe Tories even then, but a good few pro-europe Labour voters. From an almost hopeless position Heath got a decent majority - over 100 I think.
75% of a minority government isn't anything to boast about but she doesn't even have that by most counts. She doesn't even have half of her own backbench thinking she should lead!
It's amusing hearing Tories try to square brexit debate with their bias towards the government
Yes, but not just a permanent custom union, one that will allow them to manage migration and strike separate trade deals as well, which we all know is impossible, and that was my point.I'd say their plan for a permanent custom union is a significant difference to May's plan.
But to be fair how can they oppose or propose alternatives if May won't bring her deal to parliament
Labour have had a year and more to put forward a realistic plan to the nation and they could do so immediately, it doesn't have to be done in parliament and they don't have to wait for a parliamentary vote.
I was just trying to illustrate the weight of support for this deal across the EU. Of course, if you miss by an inch, you may as well have missed by a mile.
A free vote applied to her party and not the whole parliament. Labour is tirple line whipping its MP's against the deal.
The ruse in 1970 was that if the Tories declared a free vote then Labour would feel that it couldn't whip their MP's. It worked back then, but sure these may be different times.
I'd say their plan for a permanent custom union is a significant difference to May's plan.
But to be fair how can they oppose or propose alternatives if May won't bring her deal to parliament
Why does May need to bring her deal to parliament for Labour to come up with their own vision for Brexit?
That’s the most insane/infuriating thing in all of this. Dickhead politicians sniping from the sidelined about what a terrible deal May has come up with, without making any attempt to explain what a better alternative might be. All so they can make a power grab, without having to fix the shitty situation the Brexit referendum has put the UK in.
It’s blatantly taking the piss out of the Uk electorate. And Corbyn is just as guilty of this as Farrage, Johnson and Reece-Ponce.
This!
If they cannot come up with a feasible alternative then May's vote should win due to no-contest.
This simply won't work.
I don't care how many people you threaten, there's no way you'd get a crowd of people to cry like that for Theresa May.
Mansion house wasn't a deal, it was an intended course of action which included the government's response to a bad deal. This was also backed up in the conservative election manifesto.
Democracy to autocracy.
Ireland reject it.
Both Mansion and Chequers were intended courses of action which were never going to fly, I know the current deal sounds bad, but it's the best there is if the UK intend to eventually leave the CU & SM.
Neither wants the border but they both have to - alternatively NI stays in the CU and SM.
Well yes we all know about that but these are very different times. The deal does not meet labour test and manifesto commitments on which they were elected.
I'm nearly certain you've asked this before and it was explained thoroughly to you at the time? Unless I'm mixing you up with someone else.
Yeah believing financial experts and business leaders is such a silly thing to.
Of coarse it's bloody scare mongering.
And even if it wasn't, no one here has a clue what will actually happen.
This thread is so funny at times.
There isn't one. Withdrawing article 50 is the only way to keep what we've got. Anything else is worse.
That's just wrong. The EU is bound by law and will follow it. There are laws governing trade and interaction with third countries, it is very easy to predict how the EU will respond to the UK becoming one.
Only those that hope for special treatment can possibly think otherwise, they're going to be disappointed.
Why would they? It'd be a mild inconvenience for them to have to deal with our economic struggles but they'd be fine whereas we'd have opted for an extraordinary act of self-sabotage. They aren't - and never were - going to change the way they do things for one member state who'd probably continue moaning anyway.
The proposals suggested at the time and before now though were always unrealistic and unworkable. This was known because people said they were unknowable and unworkable. Any political ideal/decision can sound good if you want to try and do things that can't be achieved.
They can of course talk to the public to promote whatever vision they want but for an actual alternative to the withdrawal agreement to be proposed and put before the house May first needs to bring it before parliament. You call it sniping but that's opposition, only the government can govern.
Labour have asked to be involved in the negotiations from the off but let's not forget they've only had sideline conversations so anything from them is hypothetical. They have no negotiated agreement to bring forth.
I agree they've been poor, vague and disingenuous but at the same time people are expecting things not in their scope
Probably not. I only pop in now and again. Most people here are institutionalised and can't imagine a world without the EU.
Yeah it's so silly it kept from joining the euro. How stupid of us.
The EU makes it's own laws. A free trade deal is a mutual beneficial arrangement. Ask BMW.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36341530
https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/jun/02/britain-euro-what-if-joined
Might you consider for a moment that you're ... wrong?
In general, like.
You'll be wishing you had by the end of all this.
You realise that the offer May has is only a stay of execution. The backstop keeps the UK from falling off the cliff. If the UK ever found a solution to the backstop the rope is cut and off the cliff the UK goes.
I remember it well, that's why the EU is such a great idea.
Yeah it'd be a mild inconvenience to have to go without £38 Bil, and expect the member states to be struck with tariffs in a trade relationship.
So why doesn't the EU want us to be a friendly neighbour with a free trade relationship that's mutually beneficial?
You've still got to pay what you owe, with or without a deal. You realise the UK budget alone is over £900bn per year. £38bn split between 27 nations over many years is peanuts.
What do you want me to ask BMW? The Quandts have enough money, they can live with earning a bit less on the BMW's they sell in the UK (loads of which are made in the US anyways! Let Trump deal with that). BMW doesn't even dictate CSU politics, never mind German or European politics
.Obviously the EU makes it's own laws... How exactly does that make it's reaction to no deal any less predictable!?
Were you around when everyone was talking about the supposed benefits of joining the single currency?
If only they had 27 other member states to source from, or a number of FTAs with countries like Japan. Meanwhile we're stuck with WTO tarriffs on everything we import.
That's before we mention the impact on our exports of tariffs and non-tarriff barriers such as non-recognition of standards.
The economy would collapse instantly.
If it's not such a big deal, it wouldn't have been first up on the negotiation agenda.
The EU operate on four fundamental freedoms. We're wanting to pick and choose which ones we comply with. They've said we can't do that, because the whole point of being in the EU is that it gives you access to them. If you can't leave and pick and choose what you want then there's no point to the EU.
It'd be an inconvenience but they'd cope, and they know it won't happen anyway because we aren't going to opt for utter self-sabotage. Not to mention that the inconvenience would partially be offset by the businesses in Britain who up-sticks and go elsewhere in Europe.