Anyone think Corbyn would have been (or will be) able to get us a better deal?
My cats could do better than May. So yes. Although I hope we get another referendum and stay in.
How would they have got a better deal? I don't think there were any other deals to have. I think in reality it was always going to be either Brexit or no Brexit.
Leavers were foolish to claim at the time of leaving that we could get a great deal. People like Corbyn claiming afterwards that they would be able to get a great deal are just opportunistic.
Anyone think Corbyn would have been (or will be) able to get us a better deal?
Nope, it’s been a shower of shite from day one, would have been interesting though. Whoever was in power for brexit it was always going to be damage limitation.
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
i want to buy my own house, millions died for my right to own property, why can't the rest of the country just get behind me and get me a house and get out of the terrible rental market that's costing me money for no return?
JUST GET ON WITH IT and get me a house.
Did the government hold a referendum promising to abide by any house purchasing promise.
Anyone think Corbyn would have been (or will be) able to get us a better deal?
My cats could do better than May. So yes. Although I hope we get another referendum and stay in.
How would they have got a better deal? I don't think there were any other deals to have. I think in reality it was always going to be either Brexit or no Brexit.
Leavers were foolish to claim at the time of leaving that we could get a great deal. People like Corbyn claiming afterwards that they would be able to get a great deal are just opportunistic.
well said that man and as @bobmunro said we were never going to come out of it better off, well at least not immediately, the majority of voters voted in the manor they did because of immigration that is the bottom line, and the likes of the romanian gypos just being able to turn up here and stay is what ticks people off not the skilled migrants which every country needs.
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
Little boy gets in a strop and tells everybody he's going to run away.... five minutes later a parent sees him at the end of the front drive looking around. "What's stopping you? I thought you were running away." The boy replies "I'm not allowed to cross the road!"
We were always going to arrive at this point and it appears that May has concluded that the UK should not cross the road - we are staying in the CU (for up to 81 years!) and now everybody can see fast moving traffic on the dual carriageway in front of us... or the cliff edge or whatever metaphor people prefer.
The comments on here over the last couple of days appear to be a fair reflection of the situation whatever beliefs and views people bring to the party. And there will be political explosions of varying degree in the near future. This proposal looks sub optimal and it was always going to be this way. It will be interesting to see the response in the media as well as in the polls over the next few weeks. My gut instinct is that it will fail in the house and May goes with it?
The odds on a 2019 general election have gone from 15/8 to 6/4 in the last 24 hours. And that was always the Labour objective, as it should be.
Should the deal fail in the House then the default is "No deal" and then the onus is on the MPs (not the electorate) to resolve. We all know the possible options but extending Article 50 cannot be guaranteed. Also some say that a referendum takes too long to organise. One would think that the House can guarantee to deliver either No Brexit or a BINO Brexit and this current proposal actually goes along way to BINO since it maintains the CU and sets up the distinct possibility of an SM arrangement continuing.
"But that isn't leave". No it isn't but "leave" definition in 2016 is somewhat different to what we are seeing now. Then it was Norway, Switzerland or Canada. Now they determine that it is Canada or vassal state. And this is delusional for if the UK wants frictionless trade with its biggest trading partner then it needs to participate in the CU and aspects of the SM.
Well the Hard Brexit forces who wish to leave everything are going to have to fight that out. And they've already targetted May which was inevitable because a BINO outcome kills their dream stone dead.
Once again, leaving the EU is not the problem. The real issue is that Brexit is simply the pivot around which tremendous political forces revolve. That there have been decades of tension over Europe in the Tory Party has built the tension and also shown that those in the past were able to manage it considerably better than Cameron and May. These two might go down as the last two leaders of what we currently know as the Conservative Party for it is hard to imagine that it will remain intact in the weeks and months ahead.
Again that would be an outcome 100% aligned with Labour strategic objectives. However there can be absolutely no certainty as to how this might pan out nor where we will be on March 29th. The most likely outcome is that we will still be operating in the CU and SM but whether that is as members of the EU or in a transition remains to be seen.
They need a people's vote because there will be a backlash otherwise.
The problem is that in order for there to be another referendum a majority of MPs not only have pass another 'Referendum Act' but also to agree the question(s) that are to be put to the vote in that referendum.
Below is a link to the 2015 European Union Referendum Act and the questions that were agreed to be put in the 2016 EU vote were listed as:
The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
The alternative answers to that question that are to appear on the ballot papers are—
Even if a majority of MPs were to agree to call another referendum it is very unlikely that a majority would agree to there being only two choices.
It is also unlikely that a majority would agree on the same combination of three alternatives - so any possible referendum could very well have four choices:
This 'deal' - a section of the Tories
A different 'deal' - Labour
No 'deal' - The 'Brexit' Tories
Remain - some Tories, some Labour and the Liberal Democrats, SNP and Plaid
Even with some sort of preference/transferable voting system such a referendum could very likely result in an inconclusive 'dog's dinner' that pleases no one....?
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
Never underestimate the Conservatives desire to stay in power.
If they can, they will "compromise" or be "pragmatic" or be "crooks doing dirty deals behind closed door" or perhaps all three if that keeps them in government. They are very good at it as they've had so much practice.
A lot of Tory MPs will be having their ears bent and their arms twisted to put the party interests first.
Never underestimate the Conservatives desire to stay in power.
If they can, they will "compromise" or be "pragmatic" or be "crooks doing dirty deals behind closed door" or perhaps all three if that keeps them in government. They are very good at it as they've had so much practice.
A lot of Tory MPs will be having their ears bent and their arms twisted to put the party interests first.
Never underestimate the Conservatives desire to stay in power.
If they can, they will "compromise" or be "pragmatic" or be "crooks doing dirty deals behind closed door" or perhaps all three if that keeps them in government. They are very good at it as they've had so much practice.
A lot of Tory MPs will be having their ears bent and their arms twisted to put the party interests first.
Well thats a given, after all we are talking about a PM and Party that gave a billion quid to a terrorist party so they could stay in power. Oh look they are now trying to shaft their bedfellows over Northern Ireland...what a surprise.
I have no idea whether Corbyn would have been able to get a better deal or not. In May's position he would have faced similar challenges to be fair, although appeasing hard Brexiters wouldn't have been one of them. it is an irrelevant question, because Brexit was a Conservative party issue that has been tackled by a Conservative government. If Milliband had won the 2015 election, we would not be in this mess.
Jacob Rees-Mogg has put in a call for a vote of no confidence in May, has just stated he would not stand for leader and has is also reported as follows’ ‘There are “streams of talent” in the Conservative party, and plenty of people who could be leader.’ He names a series of Brexiters, including Boris Johnson and David Davis.
To be honest, it only shows how thick Mogg is. Say there is one, who leads the party? A brexiter - that wouldn't go down well. A remainer, well Mogg and his chums would be even more unhappy with that, or another May - if they have one willing to put their name forwards. All that he can achieve is have a vote that May would win and strengthen her position to a certain extent! Although not by much I suspect! But not sure how it helps what he wants!
The press line up in adulation of Sir Jacob of Ree-Mogg.
"How wonderful will a hard Brexit be?" The lapdogs ask as they fawn over his lordship, whilst Jacob pontificates and gives them the usual platitudes.
Not one is asking him why his hedge fund is selling out of the UK and advising their clients to hedge against Britain in anticipation of a hard Brexit. Not one is asking him why if he thinks Brexit is such a good idea why his investments indicate he actually holds a totally opposite view.
We don't have a free press in this country. We have a media wing of the rich and powerful.
The press line up in adulation of Sir Jacob of Ree-Mogg.
"How wonderful will a hard Brexit be?" The lapdogs ask as they fawn over his lordship, whilst Jacob pontificates and gives them the usual platitudes.
Not one is asking him why his hedge fund is selling out of the UK and advising their clients to hedge against Britain in anticipation of a hard Brexit. Not one is asking him why if he thinks Brexit is such a good idea why his investments indicate he actually holds a totally opposite view.
We don't have a free press in this country. We have a media wing of the rich and powerful.
To be honest, it only shows how thick Mogg is. Say there is one, who leads the party? A brexiter - that wouldn't go down well. A remainer, well Mogg and his chums would be even more unhappy with that, or another May - if they have one willing to put their name forwards. All that he can achieve is have a vote that May would win and strengthen her position to a certain extent! Although not by much I suspect! But not sure how it helps what he wants!
Anyone think Corbyn would have been (or will be) able to get us a better deal?
My cats could do better than May. So yes. Although I hope we get another referendum and stay in.
How would they have got a better deal? I don't think there were any other deals to have. I think in reality it was always going to be either Brexit or no Brexit.
Leavers were foolish to claim at the time of leaving that we could get a great deal. People like Corbyn claiming afterwards that they would be able to get a great deal are just opportunistic.
well said that man and as @bobmunro said we were never going to come out of it better off, well at least not immediately, the majority of voters voted in the manor they did because of immigration that is the bottom line, and the likes of the romanian gypos just being able to turn up here and stay is what ticks people off not the skilled migrants which every country needs.
Really?
Well put it this way then, did the approach that the Tories took in announcing their non-negotiable 'red lines', purely in order to win some votes in the soon to be announced election, help or hinder the negotiation process?
She painted her government, and the country, into a corner before we'd even got started.
Jacob Rees-Mogg has put in a call for a vote of no confidence in May, has just stated he would not stand for leader and has is also reported as follows’ ‘There are “streams of talent” in the Conservative party, and plenty of people who could be leader.’ He names a series of Brexiters, including Boris Johnson and David Davis.
The press line up in adulation of Sir Jacob of Ree-Mogg.
"How wonderful will a hard Brexit be?" The lapdogs ask as they fawn over his lordship, whilst Jacob pontificates and gives them the usual platitudes.
Not one is asking him why his hedge fund is selling out of the UK and advising their clients to hedge against Britain in anticipation of a hard Brexit. Not one is asking him why if he thinks Brexit is such a good idea why his investments indicate he actually holds a totally opposite view.
We don't have a free press in this country. We have a media wing of the rich and powerful.
Hi Fiiish - where have you been?
Mostly dealing with stuff in my personal life. I've made a habit of popping on here every now and then (mostly after matches) to read the comments. However there is a lot of Brexit talk today and a lot that needs to be discussed.
So, when will TM capitulate & tell the EU that their plan is dead in the water & that it's either back to the drawing board or exit with no deal. Seems daft now to wait for the 27 to agree it when it's known that the 1 won't agree to it. Let's not waste another 3 weeks (I believe the meaningful vote is set for the 10th Dec) dicking about.....might as well just vote on it now & get it over with.
Jacob Rees-Mogg has put in a call for a vote of no confidence in May, has just stated he would not stand for leader and has is also reported as follows’ ‘There are “streams of talent” in the Conservative party, and plenty of people who could be leader.’ He names a series of Brexiters, including Boris Johnson and David Davis.
Quote from 'Shooters Hill Addick' With the exception of Rees-Mogg and equally lunatic brexiters. A no deal Brexit is universally condemned
Read this para from yesterdays 'left wing' Daily Mirror Letters Page: 'Millions of men died to give this countrt freedom and democracy to rule ourselves. so why can't MPs and the public get behind the PM and get us out of one of the most corrupt organistions in the world, ie the EU'
Serious food for thought!
Serious food for thought? Bollox.
Millions of men from many nations fought and won against tyranny and facism. The founding fathers of the EU had as one of their overiding ambitions to avoid a repeat of that, and for 73 years Europe, certainly western Europe, has been at peace.
Except in 1982. The Falklands conflict was the only deployment of exclusively EU millitary. The French assisted the Argentines and 100sof British soldiers died as a result. The Irish maintained trading relations with the enemy.
Comments
Leavers were foolish to claim at the time of leaving that we could get a great deal. People like Corbyn claiming afterwards that they would be able to get a great deal are just opportunistic.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1387576/How-France-helped-us-win-Falklands-war-by-John-Nott.html
We were always going to arrive at this point and it appears that May has concluded that the UK should not cross the road - we are staying in the CU (for up to 81 years!) and now everybody can see fast moving traffic on the dual carriageway in front of us... or the cliff edge or whatever metaphor people prefer.
The comments on here over the last couple of days appear to be a fair reflection of the situation whatever beliefs and views people bring to the party. And there will be political explosions of varying degree in the near future. This proposal looks sub optimal and it was always going to be this way. It will be interesting to see the response in the media as well as in the polls over the next few weeks. My gut instinct is that it will fail in the house and May goes with it?
The odds on a 2019 general election have gone from 15/8 to 6/4 in the last 24 hours. And that was always the Labour objective, as it should be.
Should the deal fail in the House then the default is "No deal" and then the onus is on the MPs (not the electorate) to resolve. We all know the possible options but extending Article 50 cannot be guaranteed. Also some say that a referendum takes too long to organise. One would think that the House can guarantee to deliver either No Brexit or a BINO Brexit and this current proposal actually goes along way to BINO since it maintains the CU and sets up the distinct possibility of an SM arrangement continuing.
"But that isn't leave". No it isn't but "leave" definition in 2016 is somewhat different to what we are seeing now. Then it was Norway, Switzerland or Canada. Now they determine that it is Canada or vassal state. And this is delusional for if the UK wants frictionless trade with its biggest trading partner then it needs to participate in the CU and aspects of the SM.
Well the Hard Brexit forces who wish to leave everything are going to have to fight that out. And they've already targetted May which was inevitable because a BINO outcome kills their dream stone dead.
Once again, leaving the EU is not the problem. The real issue is that Brexit is simply the pivot around which tremendous political forces revolve. That there have been decades of tension over Europe in the Tory Party has built the tension and also shown that those in the past were able to manage it considerably better than Cameron and May. These two might go down as the last two leaders of what we currently know as the Conservative Party for it is hard to imagine that it will remain intact in the weeks and months ahead.
Again that would be an outcome 100% aligned with Labour strategic objectives. However there can be absolutely no certainty as to how this might pan out nor where we will be on March 29th. The most likely outcome is that we will still be operating in the CU and SM but whether that is as members of the EU or in a transition remains to be seen.
Below is a link to the 2015 European Union Referendum Act and the questions that were agreed to be put in the 2016 EU vote were listed as:
The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
The alternative answers to that question that are to appear on the ballot papers are—
"Remain a member of the European Union"
"Leave the European Union”.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted
Even if a majority of MPs were to agree to call another referendum it is very unlikely that a majority would agree to there being only two choices.
It is also unlikely that a majority would agree on the same combination of three alternatives - so any possible referendum could very well have four choices:
This 'deal' - a section of the Tories
A different 'deal' - Labour
No 'deal' - The 'Brexit' Tories
Remain - some Tories, some Labour and the Liberal Democrats, SNP and Plaid
Even with some sort of preference/transferable voting system such a referendum could very likely result in an inconclusive 'dog's dinner' that pleases no one....?
If they can, they will "compromise" or be "pragmatic" or be "crooks doing dirty deals behind closed door" or perhaps all three if that keeps them in government. They are very good at it as they've had so much practice.
A lot of Tory MPs will be having their ears bent and their arms twisted to put the party interests first.
What a stream of talent that is.
"How wonderful will a hard Brexit be?" The lapdogs ask as they fawn over his lordship, whilst Jacob pontificates and gives them the usual platitudes.
Not one is asking him why his hedge fund is selling out of the UK and advising their clients to hedge against Britain in anticipation of a hard Brexit. Not one is asking him why if he thinks Brexit is such a good idea why his investments indicate he actually holds a totally opposite view.
We don't have a free press in this country. We have a media wing of the rich and powerful.
Well put it this way then, did the approach that the Tories took in announcing their non-negotiable 'red lines', purely in order to win some votes in the soon to be announced election, help or hinder the negotiation process?
She painted her government, and the country, into a corner before we'd even got started.
With regard to Ireland, as a member of the EEC, which implemented wide-ranging sanctions against Argentina, blocking all Argentinian exports to the EEC, for invading the Falklands (https://nytimes.com/1982/04/11/world/europeans-ending-argentine-imports-in-falkland-crisis.html) in contrast to the USA's more limited reaction (https://nytimes.com/1982/05/01/us/us-sides-with-britian-falkland-crisis-ordering-sanctions-against-argentines.html), any ongoing trade will only have been what the sanctions regime will have allowed.
And, as someone who cares passionately about the Falkland Islands, not doubt you support their wish for the UK to remain in the Single Market (https://independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-falklands-islands-single-market-trade-eu-fishing-loligo-squid-government-a8347696.html).