"I fully understood all the complexities and implications of every aspect of Brexit and how it affects me, my income, my costs, all further travel arrangements for me and my family, how the solution to the Irish border situation affects me and the rest of the population, the scenarios and situation around sea ports, the implied restrictions to the financial services industry, how the fishing industry will have to change (and the extent to which stocks will have to be shared), the risks around tariffs and non-tariff restrictions, the limitations and impact to the economy brought about by restricting freedom of movement, the medium- and long-term implications to UK GDP, how a backstop should work, how a backstop to a backstop should work, how consumer protection regulations can remain in force (or how we can cope if they're altered) and how all regional beneficiaries of EU funding could continue to receive equivalent investment after we left the EU. But don't make me think about how I might have to mark TWO crosses on a bit of paper: that's far too complicated".
Now that we have arrived close to a BINO deal, many are asking the question: "why bother leaving?" The paradox is that the "no deal" agenda could only be defeated by BINO and not remain. So once a deal is agreed with the EU, it is then politically possible to consider whether that's sub optimal compared to Remain.
From this perspective we might ask why May couldn't move faster on cutting a deal but that's to ignore the fact that her opponents then would have had more time to take her out. Perhaps we have arrived at the right place at the right time, perhaps a few weeks late? But either way, Parliament now has a clear choice, especially now that we have Jo Johnson's resignation and the accompnying announcement. For we can expect him and others to table an amendment to a Brexit deal bill calling for a "people's vote" on the deal. And for that vote to have three options as others have suggested. There is certainly cross party support for this and surely a vote can be organised within three months?
This then becomes an opportunity for the opposition which is clearly a remain party to make a choice. It's either support May's proposed deal or give the final say to the electorate via support for a people's vote amendment. And they have always anticipated that this time would come. Naturally they prefer to bring the government down but is that possible?
No ideas on the arithmetic in Parliament but the commentators and current affairs programmes will surely have a guide soon enough. Those who maintain that Corbyn should have led the fight against the referendum are ignoring the subtleties of the positioning and the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the 2017 election result. Labour have chosen to give May all the space she needed to come up with a deal and allowed for various ministers to resign as they find that they cannot support BINO or vassel state option. Labour have been clear on the Customs Union but ambiguous on the rest - they have simply waited for May and her Cabinet to reach this point where we can all see an outline deal.
I admire your dedication to the cause of arguing that Labour are offering a noticeably different prospectus to the Tories on Brexit. Would that you were right...
The party membership may be for remaining, but the leadership isn't, and, in all honesty, within the Article 50 timeline, the motion agreed at Conference is unworkable if not actually meaningless - all it did was provide the membership with a warm glow.
The problem for those who, because they were in favour of remaining in the EU, have voted for Labour is that they have provided succour to a leadership that does not reflect their wishes - and they will come to see that casting their votes instead for the Greens or Lib Dems could not have been less wasted than supporting the Labour line.
He wants to leave, called for the early triggering of article 50, did next to nothing in the referendum and is doing next to nothing now in the on-going debate.
He is practically invisible on this and most other key issues.
As @rothko said you can't be anti-Brexit and pro-Corbyn.
He just isn't a leader of the opposition. He was a useless backbencher, having achieved nothing in his 30 years, and is even worse on the front bench but he is a useful idiot for those on the left of the labour party.
Brexit is a Tory fuck up. They are in charge. Blair, Umna, Milliband or Wilson cannot influence the outcome. Nor can Corbyn. This shitfest is not Labour's fault.
Brexit is a Tory fuck up. They are in charge. Blair, Umna, Milliband or Wilson cannot influence the outcome. Nor can Corbyn. This shitfest is not Labour's fault.
No of course he can’t be blamed for Brexit. What he can and should be blamed for though is being completely invisible on the biggest issue this country has faced for seventy odd years. He as has been said is a brexiteer but without the balls to admit to it. He is not providing any opposition or leadership. He is perfectly content to sit on the sidelines and accept whatever Brexit the Tories deliver and hope to be given the chance to run with whatever that is. I think his first best preference would be for a no deal exit.
Brexit is a Tory fuck up. They are in charge. Blair, Umna, Milliband or Wilson cannot influence the outcome. Nor can Corbyn. This shitfest is not Labour's fault.
He's meant to be the leader of the opposition.
Of course he caninfluence this outcome or at least try to influence the outcome. That's what he's meant to do.
He doesn't because he doesn't oppose Brexit, he welcomes it.
Corbyn used the Democratic opportunity to be elected leader twice, he also surprised people in the 2017 election. A by-product is that Labour is the political party with the largest membership in Europe. Reckonable things I would say. However Labour on brexit stinks, but doesn't stink to high heaven like the Tories do. Labour did not manufacture this whole brexit crisis, it is totally Tory. Talking of leaders, where is Cameron these days?
Funnily enough it's entirely possible to admire Corbyn's social policy stances and oppose Brexit. The social democrat platform he's running on would be consistent with EU membership. Obviously the game is to keep Labour's enormous pro-Brexit support base onside. It's probably fair to say that Brexit voters tend to vote more emotionally than rationally, and even an inkling that they'd been betrayed by Labour, no matter how much its social program would help them, might send them into the arms of the smiling gentry and their bullshit promises. It baffles me why people can't understand Corbyn's position here.
Obviously, there may soon come a time to change focus and lean harder on the idea of Brexit being impossible. The next couple of months should be interesting.
The World Chess Championship is under way in London. Maybe Corbyn should pick Magnus Carlsen's brains
Well what has interested me is that Corbyn has actually said he voted remain and would do so again. And some people call him a liar. Then these same delusionists accuse those that support him as cultists. I nearly wet myself laughing, every thread they can dig at him they do. I can fully understand why people think he may be a disaster, and may disagree that his policies can work. They don't like it, but the people who blame him for everything they can are the cultists! It's raining now, they would probably blame Corbyn for that if they could!
But I think I know a few things about him. He is not your normal politician - he calls things as he sees them. He is a pacifist. yet he is accused of being a terrorist sympathiser. John Major and Tony Blair achieved a fantastic peace deal by talking to terrorists. If we left it up to the outraged, some of whom are members of CL, we'd still be experiencing atrocities from both sides of the Irish dispute. He has stood up for social justice and the poor all of his life, and he hasn't changed, merely circumstances are changing around him. A bit like they did with Thatcher.
He has publicly stated he supports the state of Israel. Even if you conflate anti zionism with anti-semitism, he is a strange anti-semite with such a position. He is a humanitarian and condemns the plight of palestinians that I'd like to think most right thinking people would do - mind you it seems to me many are not so right thinking.
I could go on - but there is little point with the cult of anti - Corbyn. My own view on Brexit is not so far away from his. I have no love for the EU and have stated my reasons on this thread a few times and don't need to go through them again. I think my reasons for supporting remain are similar to Corbyn's. I realise that it would be an economic disaster for the country which is the reason Corbyn has given for supporting remain depite critism of the EU. The whole problem with the referendum is where you had a competition in terms of who could tell the biggest lies. There was no room for the more nuanced, sensible positions, that to be fair which was probably why Teresa May wasn't that prominent in it either. Maybe a bit of honesty might have made people see some sense in the vote!
Where I differ is I do think there is an opportunity to pull back from this disaster. And Labour party policy from their conference, shows there could still be a way. Maybe it is better Corbyn is not such a vocal remainer. There is still some playing out to do. It's preferred position of either an election or a referendum should suit every remainer.
I was excited that Corbyn got the Labour leadership - I thought for once we might have a positive force for change in this country. Sadly we've seen nothing from him other than a novel approach to PMQs. Seth's right, this stinking Brexit mess is the Tories fault, but Labour under Corbyn are complicit because they have been so ineffectual in their opposition. Frankly, I'd rather vote for a Green Party that has no chance of holding power but that will at least be honest about what they want, than a Labour Party that is going to sit by quietly as my rights are taken away from me.
I was excited that Corbyn got the Labour leadership - I thought for once we might have a positive force for change in this country. Sadly we've seen nothing from him other than a novel approach to PMQs. Seth's right, this stinking Brexit mess is the Tories fault, but Labour under Corbyn are complicit because they have been so ineffectual in their opposition. Frankly, I'd rather vote for a Green Party that has no chance of holding power but that will at least be honest about what they want, than a Labour Party that is going to sit by quietly as my rights are taken away from me.
He has been a positive force for change! People are talking hopefully about reforms that seriously benefit the working classes and the hard-up for the first time in living memory. And suddenly Corbyn's the snake? Not the people who lied and lied and lied until the public gave them what they wanted?
The hatchet job being done on him tells me all you need to know. And the people that lap it up think I am gullible. Like I have said - if people think his policies won't work - fair enough, but people are going further in attacking him and I think a lot of people, whatever their politics can see it is all a bit ridiculous. That is of course the danger for the powers that be - if they go too far in this popularist climate, they might start benefiting him rather than damaging him. Anyway the thread is about Europe and the mess is 100% that of the Conservative party.
I think you can be pro Corbyn and anti brexit, though you'd have to qualify it with "although i believe Corbyn's and actions (and lack thereof) towards brexit have been scandalous". Having said that I don't know how anti brexit pro Corbynites my try to justify it since I think Corbyn has zero credibility
I was excited that Corbyn got the Labour leadership - I thought for once we might have a positive force for change in this country. Sadly we've seen nothing from him other than a novel approach to PMQs. Seth's right, this stinking Brexit mess is the Tories fault, but Labour under Corbyn are complicit because they have been so ineffectual in their opposition. Frankly, I'd rather vote for a Green Party that has no chance of holding power but that will at least be honest about what they want, than a Labour Party that is going to sit by quietly as my rights are taken away from me.
He has been a positive force for change! People are talking hopefully about reforms that seriously benefit the working classes and the hard-up for the first time in living memory. And suddenly Corbyn's the snake? Not the people who lied and lied and lied until the public gave them what they wanted?
And you are correct Leuth. If you really think about it, shifting the governments polices to the left is a Corbyn success. It is possibly a bit too subtle for some and we know that the one thing criticisim of him is not is subtle.
Now that we have arrived close to a BINO deal, many are asking the question: "why bother leaving?" The paradox is that the "no deal" agenda could only be defeated by BINO and not remain. So once a deal is agreed with the EU, it is then politically possible to consider whether that's sub optimal compared to Remain.
From this perspective we might ask why May couldn't move faster on cutting a deal but that's to ignore the fact that her opponents then would have had more time to take her out. Perhaps we have arrived at the right place at the right time, perhaps a few weeks late? But either way, Parliament now has a clear choice, especially now that we have Jo Johnson's resignation and the accompnying announcement. For we can expect him and others to table an amendment to a Brexit deal bill calling for a "people's vote" on the deal. And for that vote to have three options as others have suggested. There is certainly cross party support for this and surely a vote can be organised within three months?
This then becomes an opportunity for the opposition which is clearly a remain party to make a choice. It's either support May's proposed deal or give the final say to the electorate via support for a people's vote amendment. And they have always anticipated that this time would come. Naturally they prefer to bring the government down but is that possible?
No ideas on the arithmetic in Parliament but the commentators and current affairs programmes will surely have a guide soon enough. Those who maintain that Corbyn should have led the fight against the referendum are ignoring the subtleties of the positioning and the obvious conclusions to be drawn from the 2017 election result. Labour have chosen to give May all the space she needed to come up with a deal and allowed for various ministers to resign as they find that they cannot support BINO or vassel state option. Labour have been clear on the Customs Union but ambiguous on the rest - they have simply waited for May and her Cabinet to reach this point where we can all see an outline deal.
Doesn’t “BINO” means status quo for all intents and purposes? That’s not what May is bringing home at all. There will be no freedom of movement (I consider FoM a good thing) for a start and our ability to strike trade deals is going to be hugely compromised. Basically it’s the worst of all worlds, we’ll be wishing for BINO.
Really interesting, @seriously_red - can you expand a bit on this bit please...
"...once a deal is agreed with the EU, it is then politically possible to consider whether that's sub optimal compared to Remain".
Do you mean a scenario where a deal is agreed first by the Government and then by the EU? And are you saying that, at that stage, it would impossible to decide to remain?
I think (but what do I know?) that, even in that scenario, Parliament could reject the agreed deal. In which case, all bets are off and a people's vote (or even a general election) could provide a remain mandate.
My fellow remainers, what do you want? What would your plan be now if you were in power? What can realistically be done when we take into account people's feelings and their crazy views of democracy etc.
Genuinely, what can we do? Everyone is going to the edge of a cliff here, it's just some are trying to sprint to it, whilst others are just walking. The end conclusion the way I see it at the moment will be the same.
There is a pretty simple reason why Labour has a rubbish stance on Brexit, and it is the de facto phenomenological issue that is the problem they and everybody else can't solve. The EU referendum result demands a hard border in Ireland, even with 'a' customs union Kier. The Belfast Agreement demands there isn't. If there is a practical solution to that basic conundrum nobody has suggested it so far, and given all the time that has passed where people could've found a practical solution, the chances are there simply isn't one.
I admire your dedication to the cause of arguing that Labour are offering a noticeably different prospectus to the Tories on Brexit. Would that you were right...
The party membership may be for remaining, but the leadership isn't, and, in all honesty, within the Article 50 timeline, the motion agreed at Conference is unworkable if not actually meaningless - all it did was provide the membership with a warm glow.
The problem for those who, because they were in favour of remaining in the EU, have voted for Labour is that they have provided succour to a leadership that does not reflect their wishes - and they will come to see that casting their votes instead for the Greens or Lib Dems could not have been less wasted than supporting the Labour line.
From an existentialist perspective, much of the above and that which I have written in the past might appear as a "leap of faith" as in a belief that the Labour leadership will do the right thing. That was not the intention for what I have attempted to do is describe the various moving parts alongside my belief that we need to bin the Hard Brexit ideas and their minority support and gather around BINO. Put another way, being a "remoaner" is simply a reactionary perspective (against the referendum) which in turn makes a leap of faith that "somebody" must fix things, and that "somebody" should be Corbyn.
This article outlines the same calculations but from a May perspective. It is my belief that constructing a BINO outcome starts with adopting a Customs Union as part of that solution. Labour did this nine months ago and the May Chequers deal is evolving into a CU option virtually in perpetuity. Many like myself have long held the view that the Referendum was lost and should be turned into an opportunity to understand why and then reshape the policy agenda. As some on here have pointed out that is what Labour did in 2017 and Hammond has just snaffled five major policies into his budget.
The three options have always been BINO, "no deal" or abort the process. And that third option simply didn't fly politically for it would have provoked a massive reaction. The point is to get to BINO which is fundamentally what May, Barnier, Starmer and Varadkar can agree on and then get back to the mainstream policy agenda about the NHS, inequality, massive shortages of police etc. etc. Now that the Tory leadership have ceded on the "need" for austerity the perhaps the dam will break. And that policy shift might not have been made through a Remain only lens.
The liberals and progressive democrats are losing voter share everywhere except in the UK and yet Corbyn is the villain of the piece?
Nevertheless, point taken and we can certainly agree that the Labour leadership have not been flying a Remain kite. But what Labour have done is stay very close to a BINO option through support of the Customs Union and ambiguous support of Single Market participation. Sir Keir Starmer has gone on record in support of a Norway proposal but that is not explicit Labour policy. As per my post above, it is my belief that the pendulum has to swing to BINO first before we can have an adult conversation about aborting the process. For we have seen the Leave contributions in the national debate and they are far from adult!
Cameron stirred up this hornet's nest and to expect Corbyn to make things good again by campaigning against the 2016 result is a failure to recognise both political reality and the futility of that line - as seen by the pathetic Lib Dem performance in 2017. The point is that the Brexit unicorns had to be pitted against reality and crushed one by one. That is an administrative activity coming to a conclusion now. So it's not so much that Labour are offering a "noticeably different prospectus" but that they are allowing events to take their natural course. Whether this is a deliberate calculation or the result of being locked into the immediate aftermath of the 2016 vote is up for discussion. But the point is that we are now entering the critical phase.
For many BINO is a perfectly acceptable outcome and Labour have left May to deliver this without being accused of trying to undermine either May nor the referendum result. And for 30% of the country, BINO is a "sell out" of the Brexit dream but we all know that the Hard Brexit option takes no account of the Irish border nor the Kent ports, let alone the wider economy and the notion of international collaboration and integration - that's what nationalists do! So we needed the likes of Dominic Raab to have his own lightbulb moment and we need May to put a position together with M.Barnier asap.
Let us be clear that in response to intense lobbying over the summer, once Chequers was made public, Labour did shift in their support for a "people's vote". And that has changed the calculation for M.Barnier as well as for the likes of Jo Johnson. We know that Trade Union and Labour leaders suggest that a vote should be between "No deal" and whatever May finally agrees WITHOUT a remain option - and that is the May position too, albeit she wants that to be taken in Parliament. That we are running a tad short of time to convert BINO into abort is neither here nor there! The arithmetic and politics either stacks up or it doesn't - and a BINO option can be built up as a positive outcome during a transition period after we leave next March.
The question is how we might arrive at a Parliamentary vote or a "People's Vote with due consideration of all three options? What we appear to have is the opportunity for a cross party group to amend that bill to support a "people's vote" - one article suggested that there are at least 100MPs who would support that amendment.
So the next question is whether Labour will whip for or against that amendment, and will the 40-50 Tory remainers break ranks? And that is where McDonnell and Corbyn will be held to account by the broader Labour movement as well as the conference motion which was carried unanimously.
Not saying Labour will do exactly what you and I prefer but that choice is there for the taking. There is the opportunity to revisit the 2017 manifesto position in light of the facts and the actual deal on the table. And some will say about time too! There is a genuine debate to be had about BINO or a second referendum leading to Remain. As it happens, some are confused that this might continue after March 2019 but we should be clear that everything changes should we actually leave. I have posted before that April 2019 is the time to fight for the best possible deal and remaining close to the EU but in the real world there will be blame and some remainers who will not work with Labour.
So rather than make leaps of faith and rely upon politicians, let us acknowledge that what we have here is massive disruption with the potential for chaos - an existentialist dream where we can find ourselves again! A disruptive outcome designed by the likes of Farage, Gove and Johnson in response to an actual request for change from the people. It can be an opportunity to reappraise post crash politics and philosophy. And that's the part which makes the liberal element very uncomfortable. They hanker after a successor to Blair, a clone of Macron but perhaps they might care to take a look at French opinion polls?
We always knew May would come up with a deal if only one that is basically written by M.Barnier and his team. The question is what happens next.
Comments
The party membership may be for remaining, but the leadership isn't, and, in all honesty, within the Article 50 timeline, the motion agreed at Conference is unworkable if not actually meaningless - all it did was provide the membership with a warm glow.
The problem for those who, because they were in favour of remaining in the EU, have voted for Labour is that they have provided succour to a leadership that does not reflect their wishes - and they will come to see that casting their votes instead for the Greens or Lib Dems could not have been less wasted than supporting the Labour line.
He wants to leave, called for the early triggering of article 50, did next to nothing in the referendum and is doing next to nothing now in the on-going debate.
He is practically invisible on this and most other key issues.
As @rothko said you can't be anti-Brexit and pro-Corbyn.
He just isn't a leader of the opposition. He was a useless backbencher, having achieved nothing in his 30 years, and is even worse on the front bench but he is a useful idiot for those on the left of the labour party.
It wasn't.a dig, I'm honestly curious, as the contradiction has always interested me.
Despicable man.
Of course he caninfluence this outcome or at least try to influence the outcome. That's what he's meant to do.
He doesn't because he doesn't oppose Brexit, he welcomes it.
Reckonable things I would say.
However Labour on brexit stinks, but doesn't stink to high heaven like the Tories do.
Labour did not manufacture this whole brexit crisis, it is totally Tory.
Talking of leaders, where is Cameron these days?
Obviously, there may soon come a time to change focus and lean harder on the idea of Brexit being impossible. The next couple of months should be interesting.
The World Chess Championship is under way in London. Maybe Corbyn should pick Magnus Carlsen's brains
But I think I know a few things about him. He is not your normal politician - he calls things as he sees them. He is a pacifist. yet he is accused of being a terrorist sympathiser. John Major and Tony Blair achieved a fantastic peace deal by talking to terrorists. If we left it up to the outraged, some of whom are members of CL, we'd still be experiencing atrocities from both sides of the Irish dispute. He has stood up for social justice and the poor all of his life, and he hasn't changed, merely circumstances are changing around him. A bit like they did with Thatcher.
He has publicly stated he supports the state of Israel. Even if you conflate anti zionism with anti-semitism, he is a strange anti-semite with such a position. He is a humanitarian and condemns the plight of palestinians that I'd like to think most right thinking people would do - mind you it seems to me many are not so right thinking.
I could go on - but there is little point with the cult of anti - Corbyn. My own view on Brexit is not so far away from his. I have no love for the EU and have stated my reasons on this thread a few times and don't need to go through them again. I think my reasons for supporting remain are similar to Corbyn's. I realise that it would be an economic disaster for the country which is the reason Corbyn has given for supporting remain depite critism of the EU. The whole problem with the referendum is where you had a competition in terms of who could tell the biggest lies. There was no room for the more nuanced, sensible positions, that to be fair which was probably why Teresa May wasn't that prominent in it either. Maybe a bit of honesty might have made people see some sense in the vote!
Where I differ is I do think there is an opportunity to pull back from this disaster. And Labour party policy from their conference, shows there could still be a way. Maybe it is better Corbyn is not such a vocal remainer. There is still some playing out to do. It's preferred position of either an election or a referendum should suit every remainer.
"...once a deal is agreed with the EU, it is then politically possible to consider whether that's sub optimal compared to Remain".
Do you mean a scenario where a deal is agreed first by the Government and then by the EU? And are you saying that, at that stage, it would impossible to decide to remain?
I think (but what do I know?) that, even in that scenario, Parliament could reject the agreed deal. In which case, all bets are off and a people's vote (or even a general election) could provide a remain mandate.
Genuinely, what can we do? Everyone is going to the edge of a cliff here, it's just some are trying to sprint to it, whilst others are just walking. The end conclusion the way I see it at the moment will be the same.
The EU referendum result demands a hard border in Ireland, even with 'a' customs union Kier.
The Belfast Agreement demands there isn't.
If there is a practical solution to that basic conundrum nobody has suggested it so far, and given all the time that has passed where people could've found a practical solution, the chances are there simply isn't one.
This article outlines the same calculations but from a May perspective. It is my belief that constructing a BINO outcome starts with adopting a Customs Union as part of that solution. Labour did this nine months ago and the May Chequers deal is evolving into a CU option virtually in perpetuity. Many like myself have long held the view that the Referendum was lost and should be turned into an opportunity to understand why and then reshape the policy agenda. As some on here have pointed out that is what Labour did in 2017 and Hammond has just snaffled five major policies into his budget.
The three options have always been BINO, "no deal" or abort the process. And that third option simply didn't fly politically for it would have provoked a massive reaction. The point is to get to BINO which is fundamentally what May, Barnier, Starmer and Varadkar can agree on and then get back to the mainstream policy agenda about the NHS, inequality, massive shortages of police etc. etc. Now that the Tory leadership have ceded on the "need" for austerity the perhaps the dam will break. And that policy shift might not have been made through a Remain only lens.
The liberals and progressive democrats are losing voter share everywhere except in the UK and yet Corbyn is the villain of the piece?
Nevertheless, point taken and we can certainly agree that the Labour leadership have not been flying a Remain kite. But what Labour have done is stay very close to a BINO option through support of the Customs Union and ambiguous support of Single Market participation. Sir Keir Starmer has gone on record in support of a Norway proposal but that is not explicit Labour policy. As per my post above, it is my belief that the pendulum has to swing to BINO first before we can have an adult conversation about aborting the process. For we have seen the Leave contributions in the national debate and they are far from adult!
Cameron stirred up this hornet's nest and to expect Corbyn to make things good again by campaigning against the 2016 result is a failure to recognise both political reality and the futility of that line - as seen by the pathetic Lib Dem performance in 2017. The point is that the Brexit unicorns had to be pitted against reality and crushed one by one. That is an administrative activity coming to a conclusion now. So it's not so much that Labour are offering a "noticeably different prospectus" but that they are allowing events to take their natural course. Whether this is a deliberate calculation or the result of being locked into the immediate aftermath of the 2016 vote is up for discussion. But the point is that we are now entering the critical phase.
For many BINO is a perfectly acceptable outcome and Labour have left May to deliver this without being accused of trying to undermine either May nor the referendum result. And for 30% of the country, BINO is a "sell out" of the Brexit dream but we all know that the Hard Brexit option takes no account of the Irish border nor the Kent ports, let alone the wider economy and the notion of international collaboration and integration - that's what nationalists do! So we needed the likes of Dominic Raab to have his own lightbulb moment and we need May to put a position together with M.Barnier asap.
Let us be clear that in response to intense lobbying over the summer, once Chequers was made public, Labour did shift in their support for a "people's vote". And that has changed the calculation for M.Barnier as well as for the likes of Jo Johnson. We know that Trade Union and Labour leaders suggest that a vote should be between "No deal" and whatever May finally agrees WITHOUT a remain option - and that is the May position too, albeit she wants that to be taken in Parliament. That we are running a tad short of time to convert BINO into abort is neither here nor there! The arithmetic and politics either stacks up or it doesn't - and a BINO option can be built up as a positive outcome during a transition period after we leave next March.
The question is how we might arrive at a Parliamentary vote or a "People's Vote with due consideration of all three options? What we appear to have is the opportunity for a cross party group to amend that bill to support a "people's vote" - one article suggested that there are at least 100MPs who would support that amendment.
So the next question is whether Labour will whip for or against that amendment, and will the 40-50 Tory remainers break ranks? And that is where McDonnell and Corbyn will be held to account by the broader Labour movement as well as the conference motion which was carried unanimously.
Not saying Labour will do exactly what you and I prefer but that choice is there for the taking. There is the opportunity to revisit the 2017 manifesto position in light of the facts and the actual deal on the table. And some will say about time too! There is a genuine debate to be had about BINO or a second referendum leading to Remain. As it happens, some are confused that this might continue after March 2019 but we should be clear that everything changes should we actually leave. I have posted before that April 2019 is the time to fight for the best possible deal and remaining close to the EU but in the real world there will be blame and some remainers who will not work with Labour.
So rather than make leaps of faith and rely upon politicians, let us acknowledge that what we have here is massive disruption with the potential for chaos - an existentialist dream where we can find ourselves again! A disruptive outcome designed by the likes of Farage, Gove and Johnson in response to an actual request for change from the people. It can be an opportunity to reappraise post crash politics and philosophy. And that's the part which makes the liberal element very uncomfortable. They hanker after a successor to Blair, a clone of Macron but perhaps they might care to take a look at French opinion polls?
We always knew May would come up with a deal if only one that is basically written by M.Barnier and his team. The question is what happens next.
In Trump's case he seems to be using large parts of it as his handbook.