Brexit!

[LiberalFox]

4 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

But the 2017 Lib Dem manifesto opposed Hard Brexit and suggested a second referendum based on Remain v whatever deal was put together. How would voting for a leave deal, approved by a second referendum, go against that manifesto pledge? I'd have thought the pledge of another referendum is a pledge to do whatever it says, not still ignore it cos it didn't confirm her desires. 

It's 2019 now and the policy has shifted.

[Kopfkino]

2 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

It's 2019 now and the policy has shifted.

And she hasn't been elected on that policy 

[Facecloth]

6 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

And she hasn't been elected on that policy 

Yet.

 

She's talking about her policy after a future election. As it stands she will stick to the 2017 policy, should there be an election she'll run a campaign based on revoke. Not sure what's so hard to understand.

[Kopfkino]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Yet.

 

She's talking about her policy after a future election. As it stands she will stick to the 2017 policy, should there be an election she'll run a campaign based on revoke. Not sure what's so hard to understand.

 

Yeah I don't know why you're struggling to understand that in July Jo Swinson said on the BBC that she would not vote the enact the result of a second referendum because "I was elected on a firm manifesto pledge to fight for Scotland’s place in the UK and the UK’s place in the EU. That’s what Lib Dems are here to do. That’s the mandate we have”. The mandate the Lib Dems got was "Every vote for the Liberal Democrats in this election is a vote to give the final say tothe British people". She did not say, I wouldn't vote to enact the Leave result in the event that I have been elected on the 2019 policy that we are going to decide upon in 6 weeks time and might be elected on at some point in the future.

 

So yeah not hard to understand at all.

[HappyHamza]

2 hours ago, Wortho said:

And the wonderful Jo Swinson has said that should there be a 2nd referendum and the vote is to leave she will still not accept it. Great!!

 I'm not a fan of the liberal democrats new 'revoke policy but Swindon has been asked about comment  a number of times and has made clear that her position is that she would accept the public vote bit wouldn't change get own mind about brexit.  Which is fair enough. 

 

I actually think Cornyn now has by far the most sensible brexit policy: get a customs union deal and then give the people the final say without the government campaigning either way. 

 

It would be hugely positive if we could have a vote where the cold hard facts are laid out and people make a judgement - honesty about the price of brexit vs freedom to move more towards the US. No more pretence that there'll be no pain, or spin that it's about anything other than moving from the orbit of the EU into the orbit of the US. Unfortunately it won't stop others campaigning.  

[Alf Bentley]

I'm pleased to see this from Caroline Lucas: https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/caroline-lucas-liberal-democrats-revoke-article-50-plaid-cymru-brexit/

 

"Caroline Lucas has ruled out joining forces with Remain parties pledging to immediately revoke Article 50 and scrap Brexit if they get into power, arguing it would be too damaging to do so without calling another referendum first. [...] Ms Lucas said she is “absolutely not” in favour of the approach, describing it as a “dangerous” and “arrogant” policy that could further damage trust in democracy. She said that revocation without another public vote should be considered a “last resort”."

 

"I am deeply concerned about this policy of revocation as a first resort rather than as a very very last resort,” she told ITV. “I think it is a slap in the face of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave. “I think it imperils democracy, it tells people when they thought people don’t listen to them that, actually, they were right because if you go for instant revocation that would basically be what you are doing. You would basically be saying to 17.4 million people you were completely wrong.” She went on: “I think it’s dangerous […] it means people will have less confidence in our democratic system. I think its arrogant, I think its self-indulgent. “Obviously [the] Lib Dems have done some polling that tells them this is the right policy in terms of some short term votes but, in terms of the long term harm that can be done to our country through doing this, I think it’s incredibly dangerous, I am deeply worried about it.” She said the country is already “divided”, and expressed concern over telling all the people who voted for Brexit they were not being listened to would be “the biggest kick in the teeth you could possibly deliver”.

 

In the cynical hope of electoral gain, Swinson has set the Lib Dems up as the extremist mirror image of Farage's Brexit Party & Johnson's No Deal Tories - happy to further divide and polarise the nation in turbulent times, in the hope of party gains.

Utterly irresponsible!

 

Although I've mainly voted Labour in the past, I did vote Lib Dem in the 2001 & 2005 general elections for diverse reasons. Absolutely zero chance of that next time, due to this policy.

[HappyHamza]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I'm pleased to see this from Caroline Lucas: https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/caroline-lucas-liberal-democrats-revoke-article-50-plaid-cymru-brexit/

 

"Caroline Lucas has ruled out joining forces with Remain parties pledging to immediately revoke Article 50 and scrap Brexit if they get into power, arguing it would be too damaging to do so without calling another referendum first. [...] Ms Lucas said she is “absolutely not” in favour of the approach, describing it as a “dangerous” and “arrogant” policy that could further damage trust in democracy. She said that revocation without another public vote should be considered a “last resort”."

 

"I am deeply concerned about this policy of revocation as a first resort rather than as a very very last resort,” she told ITV. “I think it is a slap in the face of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave. “I think it imperils democracy, it tells people when they thought people don’t listen to them that, actually, they were right because if you go for instant revocation that would basically be what you are doing. You would basically be saying to 17.4 million people you were completely wrong.” She went on: “I think it’s dangerous […] it means people will have less confidence in our democratic system. I think its arrogant, I think its self-indulgent. “Obviously [the] Lib Dems have done some polling that tells them this is the right policy in terms of some short term votes but, in terms of the long term harm that can be done to our country through doing this, I think it’s incredibly dangerous, I am deeply worried about it.” She said the country is already “divided”, and expressed concern over telling all the people who voted for Brexit they were not being listened to would be “the biggest kick in the teeth you could possibly deliver”.

 

In the cynical hope of electoral gain, Swinson has set the Lib Dems up as the extremist mirror image of Farage's Brexit Party & Johnson's No Deal Tories - happy to further divide and polarise the nation in turbulent times, in the hope of party gains.

Utterly irresponsible!

 

Although I've mainly voted Labour in the past, I did vote Lib Dem in the 2001 & 2005 general elections for diverse reasons. Absolutely zero chance of that next time, due to this policy.

Yeah I was thinking about voting tactically but potentially moving from labour to lib dem. This had severely undermined that argument despite me being hugely in favour of remain. In needs to be done democratically. I just hope labour can wind it in a like tiny bit in other areas to take more floating voters. Unlikely I suppose but we can't carry on with the tories who have ripped apart the fabric of our society over the last ten years. 

[Kopfkino]

15 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

 

I actually think Cornyn now has by far the most sensible brexit policy: get a customs union deal and then give the people the final say without the government campaigning either way. 

 

What are they putting to a referendum? There won't be a 'deal' to put to referendum. There's a legally binding withdrawal agreement and a wooly political declaration that isn't legally binding that can change as soon as negotiations actually begin. See it'd help if discourse stopped being about a 'deal' as if its final and actually talked about what is happening which is the terms of withdrawal.

[LiberalFox]

Corbyn's policy is a fantasy but let's blame the Lib Dems for having a real one. 

[HappyHamza]

42 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

What are they putting to a referendum? There won't be a 'deal' to put to referendum. There's a legally binding withdrawal agreement and a wooly political declaration that isn't legally binding that can change as soon as negotiations actually begin. See it'd help if discourse stopped being about a 'deal' as if its final and actually talked about what is happening which is the terms of withdrawal.

The point is that the withdrawal agreement itself would change if we agreed to a customs union.  Guarantees on people and environment could be quickly agreed.  I doubt he has any hope of getting some sort of special arrangement with the single market but with the other things in place he might should get access confirmed to make the political declaration less wooly also. Don't forget it's the government's red lines that led to the current agreement. 

 

Labour policy is to seek the above to agree a labour brexit in principle then hold a referendum.

 

That's a far better and more democratic choice than do or die boris or revoke jo are offering. 

Edited 18 September 2019 by HappyHamza

[HappyHamza]

20 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Corbyn's policy is a fantasy but let's blame the Lib Dems for having a real one. 

Which bit is fantasy?

[twoleftfeet]

The withdrawal deal isn't a long term deal it is only due to be in place until a permanent trade deal can be negotiated.

 

 

 

 

   

[LiberalFox]

5 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

Which bit is fantasy?

Corbyn's "Deal".

 

So far we have 3 options:

 

Revoke Article 50 (The EU have indicated they would accept this if done with the intention of remaining).

Leave the EU according to the Withdrawal Agreement.

Leave the EU without coming to an agreement.

 

 

[The Horse's Mouth]

Swinson has definitely hamstrung herself with this, but I've got full respect for her now that shes just being open fully, if pigs were to fly and John Lennon was to rise from the dead and she somehow got a majority then theres no argument that she has the mandate to do it. Agree with the fella above, it does feel like Labour have the most sensible approach now, re neg a deal give it back to the people but I think we're at a point now where both sides are on two extremes that a diplomatic approach wont win an election now.  It's either 100% one way or 100% the other way and we can only really blame the May government for this, what a shambolic prime minister 

[LiberalFox]

Either way it's politically interesting. It took a lot of work to get Vince Cable and Tim Farron on board with even backing the "People's Vote" in 2016/17. Corbyn's stance at the time was "let's get on with brexit". Now we are able to openly promote Revoke and I think giving the electorate that option in a general election is perfectly democratic. I'm not surprised to see Labour leaping into the "compromise" position of a 2nd referendum. Corbyn himself has always been mildly eurosceptic, he's trying to balance his views and his hard left union mates with the majority labour vote. If wanting to continue with the status quo is "extreme" then so be it.

[Kopfkino]

32 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

The point is that the withdrawal agreement itself would change if we agreed to a customs union.  Guarantees on people and environment could be quickly agreed.  I doubt he has any hope of getting some sort of special arrangement with the single market but with the other things in place he might should get access confirmed to make the political declaration less wooly also. Don't forget it's the government's red lines that led to the current agreement. 

 

Labour policy is to seek the above to agree a labour brexit in principle then hold a referendum.

 

That's a far better and more democratic choice than do or die boris or revoke jo are offering. 

 

What's changes about the withdrawal agreement if we agree to a customs union when the technicals wouldn't be agreed until after withdrawal? Nothing on future relationship is confirmed until its a ratified treaty in x amount of years

 

And how is it sensible for a government to negotiate an international agreement and then stay neutral on it? 

[LiberalFox]

It would be a farce. Would Conservative and non-Labour leave voters be happy to have a referendum with a Corbyn re-negotiated Withdrawal Agreement vs Remain where Corbyn was not campaigning for either? Who would campaign on behalf of Corbyn's "deal"? 

[The Horse's Mouth]

11 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Either way it's politically interesting. It took a lot of work to get Vince Cable and Tim Farron on board with even backing the "People's Vote" in 2016/17. Corbyn's stance at the time was "let's get on with brexit". Now we are able to openly promote Revoke and I think giving the electorate that option in a general election is perfectly democratic. I'm not surprised to see Labour leaping into the "compromise" position of a 2nd referendum. Corbyn himself has always been mildly eurosceptic, he's trying to balance his views and his hard left union mates with the majority labour vote. If wanting to continue with the status quo is "extreme" then so be it.

Corbyn was more than mildly eurosceptic, a lot of the kind of policies he would want would mean that a no deal would make more sense. But past 2 years hes certainly mellowed and tried to keep the party together especially after the 2017 election because he does have a genuine chance of power, I think originally he didnt think that would be the case but could at least use his platform to push his policies against an austerity government 

[String fellow]

Does anyone take Jo Swinson seriously when she says 'We WILL revoke Article 50 on day one'? Shouldn't that read 'We WOULD revoke Article 50 on day one'? The conditional tense is required, since her completely undemocratic statement is conditional upon (a) the assumption that the next GE will occur prior to the UK leaving the EU, and (b) the assumption that the Liberal (un)Democrats will win the GE with an overall majority. Imo, she's living in cloud-cuckoo land and has clearly taken leave of her senses, rather like David Steel did when he told his party conference to 'go back to your constituencies and prepare for government'. Whilst having a go at her, I'd also like to make the point that she seemed quite happy to accept the result of the Scottish Independence referendum, despite her wish to nullify the result of the Brexit referendum.     

[HappyHamza]

52 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Corbyn's "Deal".

 

So far we have 3 options:

 

Revoke Article 50 (The EU have indicated they would accept this if done with the intention of remaining).

Leave the EU according to the Withdrawal Agreement.

Leave the EU without coming to an agreement.

 

 

As the EU have stated many times, the withdrawel agreement was the only possible agreement given the government's red lines.

 

Corbyn is proposing a shirt period of renegotiation based on a customs union and then putting whatever deal he can get to the people.

 

It's a sensible approach. 

[HappyHamza]

54 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

It would be a farce. Would Conservative and non-Labour leave voters be happy to have a referendum with a Corbyn re-negotiated Withdrawal Agreement vs Remain where Corbyn was not campaigning for either? Who would campaign on behalf of Corbyn's "deal"? 

I would yes. 

I was expecting to be voting lib dem but revoke without a referendum is a step too far.

I want a government to just set out the reality of the the choices and let me decide, id rather nobody campaigned. That said labour has not actually said it will be neutral.  

Saying that tactical voting might still have to be the order of the day. 

Edited 18 September 2019 by HappyHamza

[HappyHamza]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

What's changes about the withdrawal agreement if we agree to a customs union when the technicals wouldn't be agreed until after withdrawal? Nothing on future relationship is confirmed until its a ratified treaty in x amount of years

 

And how is it sensible for a government to negotiate an international agreement and then stay neutral on it? 

I rather like the idea of a government building a deal then giving the reality of the options people have - all the trade offs we have to consider - then letting us decide.  Why does the government have to push an opinion when it's done it's best to fulfil its mandate and then asks what we want? Its clear it's the governments deal. 

 

That all said, nobody has said that labour will be neutral going into another referendum.  Individuals within labour might be but the party has not said that it will remain neutral, despite headlines to the contrary. 

 

The other two parties have pushed to the extremes and, amusingly, corbyn is actually the one in the middle ground. 

Edited 18 September 2019 by HappyHamza

[HappyHamza]

12 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Does anyone take Jo Swinson seriously when she says 'We WILL revoke Article 50 on day one'? Shouldn't that read 'We WOULD revoke Article 50 on day one'? The conditional tense is required, since her completely undemocratic statement is conditional upon (a) the assumption that the next GE will occur prior to the UK leaving the EU, and (b) the assumption that the Liberal (un)Democrats will win the GE with an overall majority. Imo, she's living in cloud-cuckoo land and has clearly taken leave of her senses, rather like David Steel did when he told his party conference to 'go back to your constituencies and prepare for government'. Whilst having a go at her, I'd also like to make the point that she seemed quite happy to accept the result of the Scottish Independence referendum, despite her wish to nullify the result of the Brexit referendum.     

Swinson and the lib dems actually called for the original referendum

[bovril]

20 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

Swinson and the lib dems actually called for the original referendum

At the time of the Lisbon treaty wasn't it? 8 years before the '16 referendum. 

 

And I agree that Corbyn's new position is quite absurd, as Kopfkino points out why on earth is the EU going to negotiate a WA with the British government if that government aren't going to support it? 

[twoleftfeet]

22 minutes ago, HappyHamza said:

Swinson and the lib dems actually called for the original referendum

And that went so well for them they want to pretend it didnt happen.