Getting brexit done!

[Guest MattP]

15 hours ago, ScouseFox said:

 

ahahahaha 

 

4 hours ago, bovril said:

I feel sorry for them, as stupid as their decision was. What's depressing is that British immigrants in Europe are often painted as rich gammons living in the Spanish sun, but actually the majority of them are working-age, often with families, extremely worried about their future.

This is a story from last year around February when we were approaching the "No Deal" March deadline.

 

Why this guy has tweeted about it in 2020 week after the withdrawal agreement has passed I have no idea

 

Nothing changes aside from making sure your residency data and details are confirmed.

 

https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2020/01/14/british-ambassador-to-spain-hugh-elliott-issues-brexit-warning-to-expats-as-uk-prepares-to-leave-eu-in-just-17-days/

 

Even under no deal healthcare will be reciprocated - providing we do the same and there is literally no chance we wouldn't given the amount of people we have in Spain.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-47213212?__twitter_impression=true

 

2 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I see people are still taking the decision as well as ever

I expected a few Remainers to go a bit mental after the election but Marty McFlying back in time to fight battles they have already lost in the future has taken me by surprise.

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

4 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I see people are still taking the decision as well as ever

 

It really is okay to accept the result but still be unhappy about it.

[Guest MattP]

24 minutes ago, StanSP said:

It really is okay to accept the result but still be unhappy about it.

That's exactly what many of them should have done in 2016. Be unhappy, but then try to find compromise to implement the result.

 

Had they done that they wouldn't be sitting here now with Boris until 2024 with a 80 seat majority.

 

I still think a lot of the "people's vote" mob, for whatever reason, thought they could gamble it all but still be shielded from defeat in doing so, life isnt like that.

[st albans fox]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

That's exactly what many of them should have done in 2016. Be unhappy, but then try to find compromise to implement the result.

 

Had they done that they wouldn't be sitting here now with Boris until 2024 with a 80 seat majority.

 

I still think a lot of the "people's vote" mob, for whatever reason, thought they could gamble it all but still be shielded from defeat in doing so, life isnt like that.

The Labour Party played politics with the county’s future ....... and lost ....... they let down the vast middle ground of the electorate who voted leave/remain but weren’t hard brexit/were content to respect the result. May’s soft brexit was a reasonable compromise and labour are responsible for the harder version that we are likely to get now.  I’m surprised how little the MSM have delved into this........ it’s actually unforgivable given how this has played out with the country suffering tremendously economically and another 11 months at least still to go ....... maybe longer ....... 

[WigstonWanderer]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

That's exactly what many of them should have done in 2016. Be unhappy, but then try to find compromise to implement the result.

 

Had they done that they wouldn't be sitting here now with Boris until 2024 with a 80 seat majority.

 

I still think a lot of the "people's vote" mob, for whatever reason, thought they could gamble it all but still be shielded from defeat in doing so, life isnt like that.

Fair comment

[LiberalFox]

We are getting soft Brexit. You could argue the efforts of remainers took no deal off the table. Farage essentially disbanding the Brexit party and agreeing to support the withdrawal agreement. Rees-Mogg and his ERG group ****ing off from front line politics. The DUP forced to accept Northern Ireland being treated differently to the rest of the UK. 

[Alf Bentley]

16 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

We are getting soft Brexit. You could argue the efforts of remainers took no deal off the table. Farage essentially disbanding the Brexit party and agreeing to support the withdrawal agreement. Rees-Mogg and his ERG group ****ing off from front line politics. The DUP forced to accept Northern Ireland being treated differently to the rest of the UK. 

 

Sorry, but I think that the Brexit in the pipeline is anything but Soft....

 

- Soft Brexit used to be defined as staying in the Single Market and/or Customs Union. We're leaving both.....apart from N. Ireland, which is getting a sort of mongrel Soft Brexit, but with major GB/NI divisions.

- No Deal is NOT off the table. Personally, I don't think it will happen (I'm expecting a bare bones, arm's-length future relationship agreement) but No Deal could still happen in December.....except on those issues settled in the Withdrawal Agreement: UK/EU citizens, the divorce settlement & the Irish border

- Rees-Mogg & the ERG have not ****ed off. It's yet to be seen whether their hold over the Govt has been diluted, but it only takes 40 Tory MPs to vote against the Govt to eliminate their majority. In the last parliament there were about 80 ERG MPs. After the expulsion/retirement/resignation of at least a dozen pro-EU Tory MPs before the election & the rightward shift in the Tory party, there could well be more than 80 now.

- One of the other "Softer" elements of May's deal was her commitment to a "level playing field" on employment/social standards etc. She had that in the binding Withdrawal Agreement. Johnson shifted it to the non-binding Political Declaration...presumably because he wants greater freedom to diverge from EU standards. 

- Johnson's repeated insistence that there'll be no extension beyond December also suggests a distant EU-UK relationship, unless he plans a quick close alignment deal. If so, (a) why remove the "level playing field" from the binding WA? (b) would his party really allow him to align with all sorts of EU standards and regulations.....anathema to most ardent Brexiteers?

[LiberalFox]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Sorry, but I think that the Brexit in the pipeline is anything but Soft....

 

- Soft Brexit used to be defined as staying in the Single Market and/or Customs Union. We're leaving both.....apart from N. Ireland, which is getting a sort of mongrel Soft Brexit, but with major GB/NI divisions.

- No Deal is NOT off the table. Personally, I don't think it will happen (I'm expecting a bare bones, arm's-length future relationship agreement) but No Deal could still happen in December.....except on those issues settled in the Withdrawal Agreement: UK/EU citizens, the divorce settlement & the Irish border

- Rees-Mogg & the ERG have not ****ed off. It's yet to be seen whether their hold over the Govt has been diluted, but it only takes 40 Tory MPs to vote against the Govt to eliminate their majority. In the last parliament there were about 80 ERG MPs. After the expulsion/retirement/resignation of at least a dozen pro-EU Tory MPs before the election & the rightward shift in the Tory party, there could well be more than 80 now.

- One of the other "Softer" elements of May's deal was her commitment to a "level playing field" on employment/social standards etc. She had that in the binding Withdrawal Agreement. Johnson shifted it to the non-binding Political Declaration...presumably because he wants greater freedom to diverge from EU standards. 

- Johnson's repeated insistence that there'll be no extension beyond December also suggests a distant EU-UK relationship, unless he plans a quick close alignment deal. If so, (a) why remove the "level playing field" from the binding WA? (b) would his party really allow him to align with all sorts of EU standards and regulations.....anathema to most ardent Brexiteers?

We were never going to stay in the single market or customs union so that was never an option. 

 

No deal was leaving without a withdrawal agreement. Once we have left it becomes up to the current and future governments as to how they negotiate with the EU. 

 

 

[st albans fox]

53 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

We are getting soft Brexit. You could argue the efforts of remainers took no deal off the table. Farage essentially disbanding the Brexit party and agreeing to support the withdrawal agreement. Rees-Mogg and his ERG group ****ing off from front line politics. The DUP forced to accept Northern Ireland being treated differently to the rest of the UK. 

No deal remains on the table ........ the Labour Party, having spent month after month telling us that their primary objective was to ensure it would be off the table screwed it up by playing a stupid game. Had they voted for may’s deal, they would have probably got some amendments through to soften it even further and we would still have a hung parliament and they would have a chance of being elected within the next five years - not now they won’t ! 

[LiberalFox]

9 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

No deal remains on the table ........ the Labour Party, having spent month after month telling us that their primary objective was to ensure it would be off the table screwed it up by playing a stupid game. Had they voted for may’s deal, they would have probably got some amendments through to soften it even further and we would still have a hung parliament and they would have a chance of being elected within the next five years - not now they won’t ! 

I can see a good argument for saying Labour should have voted for the May deal, at the least it would have accelerated the whole process by a significant amount and avoided some of the costs of the uncertainty. I'd have always have preferred if the negotiations were cross party wherever possible but it didn't happen.  

[jammie82uk]

1 minute ago, LiberalFox said:

I can see a good argument for saying Labour should have voted for the May deal, at the least it would have accelerated the whole process by a significant amount and avoided some of the costs of the uncertainty. I'd have always have preferred if the negotiations were cross party wherever possible but it didn't happen.  

Apparently Conservatives tried to do a deal with Labour when they had the sit down talks while May was PM after her Deal had been voted down but Labour wasn’t interested to the point that when Conservatives presented a plan to Labour Kier Starmer went on the offensive saying it wasn’t acceptable picking out points in the plan as not workable, the kicker was that the points he was deriding was points that Labour had sent to conservatives by email as a way forward

[Alf Bentley]

58 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

We were never going to stay in the single market or customs union so that was never an option. 

 

It was an option that the Tory Govt chose not to take - and that Parliament failed to achieve.

 

May could have sought a Soft Brexit deal with at least a decent chunk of some opposition parties - but prioritised Tory party unity.

 

At the indicative votes, parliament came close to supporting both SM and CU (the latter only lost by 3 votes): https://ig.ft.com/brexit-second-round-indicative-votes/

"Who was responsible for Monday’s deadlock at Westminster? In some ways, everyone. Most Conservative MPs voted against all the alternatives to Theresa May’s Brexit deal. The SNP abstained on the proposal to keep the UK in a customs union, which otherwise would have won a majority. The Liberal Democrats and the Independent Group similarly scuppered a proposal to keep the UK in the customs union and single market. And Labour backbenchers tipped the balance against a second referendum".

 

Here's the BBC defining "Soft Brexit" (Economist & others give similar definitions): " When people talk about a "soft Brexit" they are usually referring to the kind of economic relationship the UK will have with the EU in the future. And most of the debate revolves around two things: membership of a customs union and membership of the EU single market".

 

I've not quoted that to be petty and pedantic, but to show how language is twisted. Just as some would have you believe that Boris' deal is "Soft Brexit", they'd have you believe that "Hard Brexit" is a synonym for "No Deal". Once upon a time, Soft Brexit was as defined above, Hard Brexit was a deal but outside SM/CU and No Deal was No Deal.

 

58 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

No deal was leaving without a withdrawal agreement. Once we have left it becomes up to the current and future governments as to how they negotiate with the EU. 

 

 

You're right that "No Deal" has mainly been used to refer to no deal whatsoever, not even on our terms of departure.

 

But that's the only deal we've got at the moment - apart from the transition period to December. Unless there is an unexpected last-minute obstacle, such as the European Parliament blocking the WA, we'll have a deal on the divorce payment, EU/UK citizens' rights (though implementation is proving problematic), no hard border in Ireland, a border in the Irish Sea and a transition period.

 

But we currently have no deal on trade in goods, trade in services, security cooperation, fishing rights, data access, employment/environmental/social standards, crime cooperation, aviation landing rights, Gibraltar border, Irish Sea trade documentation, educational exchanges, joint scientific projects & a multitude of important issues. I'm not expecting No Deal on all of those, but it is theoretically possible: e.g. if negotiations break down in acrimony. If Johnson is serious about not extending beyond December, there is certainly a big chance that we'll fully leave the EU at the end of the transition period with No Deal on some of those important issues and/or only skeleton deals & arm's-length relations on others.

[Alf Bentley]

44 minutes ago, jammie82uk said:

Apparently Conservatives tried to do a deal with Labour when they had the sit down talks while May was PM after her Deal had been voted down but Labour wasn’t interested to the point that when Conservatives presented a plan to Labour Kier Starmer went on the offensive saying it wasn’t acceptable picking out points in the plan as not workable, the kicker was that the points he was deriding was points that Labour had sent to conservatives by email as a way forward

 

Do you have any source for that "apparent" information?

[st albans fox]

9 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

I can see a good argument for saying Labour should have voted for the May deal, at the least it would have accelerated the whole process by a significant amount and avoided some of the costs of the uncertainty. I'd have always have preferred if the negotiations were cross party wherever possible but it didn't happen.  

The basic point is that the opportunity of a softish brexit was there and with the make up of the parliament end 2018, it would have ended up far more soft than hard.....

 that’s the brexit that would have reflected the closeness of the vote and split in the country......  labour had the chance to put country before party but didn’t ....... and I appreciate the party before country in the Tory party which has existed over the past few years but then the GE result has sort of dissed that somewhat .....

[Alf Bentley]

16 hours ago, MattP said:

That's exactly what many of them should have done in 2016. Be unhappy, but then try to find compromise to implement the result.

 

Had they done that they wouldn't be sitting here now with Boris until 2024 with a 80 seat majority.

 

I still think a lot of the "people's vote" mob, for whatever reason, thought they could gamble it all but still be shielded from defeat in doing so, life isnt like that.

 

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

The basic point is that the opportunity of a softish brexit was there and with the make up of the parliament end 2018, it would have ended up far more soft than hard.....

 that’s the brexit that would have reflected the closeness of the vote and split in the country......  labour had the chance to put country before party but didn’t ....... and I appreciate the party before country in the Tory party which has existed over the past few years but then the GE result has sort of dissed that somewhat .....

 

With hindsight, the case can be made that Labour - and other opposition parties - should have compromised more in late 2018 / early 2019 so as to get a Soft Brexit deal under May.

 

Hats off to @Kopfkino who said around that time that Labour should back the Withdrawal Agreement and then pursue the Soft Brexit struggle over the future relationship. That looks a good judgment now.....though that is with hindsight after multiple other events that weren't fully predictable. At the time, it was a gamble either way....and other events could have derailed such a strategy.

 

I'm not sure that Labour can be blamed for not compromising 2016-18. At that stage, they were the party of Soft Brexit (and got a lot of flak from Remainers & other opposition parties for not backing a referendum). Plus, May was absolutely not open to compromise with Labour. Her strategy was focused on getting a Brexit majority within her party (while she had a majority, up to 2017) or within her alliance after she became reliant on the DUP. Her attitude was understandable, from a party perspective, as she'd have risked splitting her party down the middle by agreeing to a Soft Brexit compromise deal with Labour.

 

When Matt says it's "what many of them should have done in 2016", that might be true of the "People's Vote mob" but that's a different argument. Some assumed that a second referendum would inevitably lead to a Remain vote, but many others saw it as a calculated gamble worth taking.....a matter of opinion. I didn't support a second referendum, on democratic grounds, until 2019 when it seemed there was no chance of a Soft Brexit deal (notwithstanding Kopf's suggestion).

 

When I refer to "hindsight" re. Labour not backing May's Deal in Spring 2019, here are some of the things that happened after then.....

- The indicative votes led nowhere (some of them defeated by the SNP & Lib Dems, not Labour)

- Negotiations between the May and Corbyn teams led nowhere (they blamed each other)

- The newly-formed Brexit Party had a massive surge at the Euro elections in May

- May was overthrown by the Tories & replaced by Johnson

- Tory popularity surged under Johnson (Labour had been about level until he took over)

- The Opposition parties were stupid enough to give Johnson the election he craved (& SNP/LDs went for this first)

- Brexit Party stood down candidates where it would help the Tories

- Labour changed its Brexit policy at the last minute

- Lib Dems shot themselves in the foot with their Revoke policy

- Labour ran a dreadful election campaign

 

Some of those events could have been foreseen as possibilities, but not all, and some were absolutely avoidable. So Labour not backing May's WA in March/April 2019 was a more reasonable gamble than it seems with hindsight.

A Softer Brexit or second referendum might have ensued if some of the above events hadn't happened.

 

There would also have been risks in Labour voting for May's WA 

- May might have continued to reject any Soft Brexit compromise; her Brexit was Softer than Johnson's but still involved leaving the SM/CU while no deal on employment/environment/social issues had been agreed with EU

- May might have been overthrown anyway, particularly if she had compromised with Labour & with Farage breathing down Tory necks

- If such a compromise had happened, it could have caused turmoil within Labour as some MPs & many members & voters backed a 2nd referendum

- If negotiations broke down, we'd have risked No Deal (no guarantee the EU would agree to an extension - or would continue doing so)

- As May led a minority govt, the DUP were unhappy & ERG would've been unhappy with Soft Brexit, an early election might still have happened, maybe with a similar outcome, particularly if the Tories ditched May

[st albans fox]

56 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

With hindsight, the case can be made that Labour - and other opposition parties - should have compromised more in late 2018 / early 2019 so as to get a Soft Brexit deal under May.

 

Hats off to @Kopfkino who said around that time that Labour should back the Withdrawal Agreement and then pursue the Soft Brexit struggle over the future relationship. That looks a good judgment now.....though that is with hindsight after multiple other events that weren't fully predictable. At the time, it was a gamble either way....and other events could have derailed such a strategy.

 

I'm not sure that Labour can be blamed for not compromising 2016-18. At that stage, they were the party of Soft Brexit (and got a lot of flak from Remainers & other opposition parties for not backing a referendum). Plus, May was absolutely not open to compromise with Labour. Her strategy was focused on getting a Brexit majority within her party (while she had a majority, up to 2017) or within her alliance after she became reliant on the DUP. Her attitude was understandable, from a party perspective, as she'd have risked splitting her party down the middle by agreeing to a Soft Brexit compromise deal with Labour.

 

When Matt says it's "what many of them should have done in 2016", that might be true of the "People's Vote mob" but that's a different argument. Some assumed that a second referendum would inevitably lead to a Remain vote, but many others saw it as a calculated gamble worth taking.....a matter of opinion. I didn't support a second referendum, on democratic grounds, until 2019 when it seemed there was no chance of a Soft Brexit deal (notwithstanding Kopf's suggestion).

 

When I refer to "hindsight" re. Labour not backing May's Deal in Spring 2019, here are some of the things that happened after then.....

- The indicative votes led nowhere (some of them defeated by the SNP & Lib Dems, not Labour)

- Negotiations between the May and Corbyn teams led nowhere (they blamed each other)

- The newly-formed Brexit Party had a massive surge at the Euro elections in May

- May was overthrown by the Tories & replaced by Johnson

- Tory popularity surged under Johnson (Labour had been about level until he took over)

- The Opposition parties were stupid enough to give Johnson the election he craved (& SNP/LDs went for this first)

- Brexit Party stood down candidates where it would help the Tories

- Labour changed its Brexit policy at the last minute

- Lib Dems shot themselves in the foot with their Revoke policy

- Labour ran a dreadful election campaign

 

Some of those events could have been foreseen as possibilities, but not all, and some were absolutely avoidable. So Labour not backing May's WA in March/April 2019 was a more reasonable gamble than it seems with hindsight.

A Softer Brexit or second referendum might have ensued if some of the above events hadn't happened.

 

There would also have been risks in Labour voting for May's WA 

- May might have continued to reject any Soft Brexit compromise; her Brexit was Softer than Johnson's but still involved leaving the SM/CU while no deal on employment/environment/social issues had been agreed with EU

- May might have been overthrown anyway, particularly if she had compromised with Labour & with Farage breathing down Tory necks

- If such a compromise had happened, it could have caused turmoil within Labour as some MPs & many members & voters backed a 2nd referendum

- If negotiations broke down, we'd have risked No Deal (no guarantee the EU would agree to an extension - or would continue doing so)

- As May led a minority govt, the DUP were unhappy & ERG would've been unhappy with Soft Brexit, an early election might still have happened, maybe with a similar outcome, particularly if the Tories ditched May

Excellent summary Alf and hindsight is a wonderful thing indeed - BUT labour had the opportunity to mould the future relationship with the EU but decided to pursue a policy that they thought may lead them to government.... or a confirmatory vote ...... or a second ref.... the point being that the party couldn’t decide what it really supported. What they did have was a hung parliament where May couldn’t call an election without their support and where the opposition could dictate the type of brexit deal via amendments and votes  - they gambled and lost - half of nothing is nothing and that’s precisely what they’ve got now !

 

i maintain that the labour policy made it all to easy for the Tory right to take control of the future - they are now possibly looking at two parliaments+ with no influence whereas they already had in their hands three years ahead with plenty of influence ...... 

 

the majority of the country needed a credible leader of the opposition with leadership qualities to lead the brexit agenda and we didn’t have one ....corbyn and labour were relevant a year ago ........

[Alf Bentley]

53 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Excellent summary Alf and hindsight is a wonderful thing indeed - BUT labour had the opportunity to mould the future relationship with the EU but decided to pursue a policy that they thought may lead them to government.... or a confirmatory vote ...... or a second ref.... the point being that the party couldn’t decide what it really supported. What they did have was a hung parliament where May couldn’t call an election without their support and where the opposition could dictate the type of brexit deal via amendments and votes  - they gambled and lost - half of nothing is nothing and that’s precisely what they’ve got now !

 

i maintain that the labour policy made it all to easy for the Tory right to take control of the future - they are now possibly looking at two parliaments+ with no influence whereas they already had in their hands three years ahead with plenty of influence ...... 

 

the majority of the country needed a credible leader of the opposition with leadership qualities to lead the brexit agenda and we didn’t have one ....corbyn and labour were relevant a year ago ........

 

That they gambled and lost big-time is clearly true. I also share your low opinion of Corbyn.

 

I take your point about their confusing position on Brexit, which was partly due to poor & over-complicated presentation. The fence-sitting came because the party was divided on Brexit - MPs, members and voters, to varying degrees: worth remembering that Labour represented some of the most pro-Leave and most pro-Remain constituencies.....a pretty impossible situation. The Tories were similarly divided on Brexit (more so their MPs than their members or voters).

 

But....

- .Labour sought compromises on Customs Union membership & guaranteed employment rights etc, but May didn't offer these as she saw her interest as maintaining Tory unity....as a Remainer who wanted close alignment she's also a big loser

- At the indicative votes, Labour overwhelmingly supported several compromise motions (Ken Clarke's Customs Union, a Common Market option etc.) but lost....suggesting limits to their ability to "mould the future relationship with the EU", even in alliance with Tory Soft Brexit rebels. Remember Lab started off 60+ MPs short of a majority, then lost a dozen more, many who would only accept a 2nd referendum (the Change UK bunch), there were only about 20 pro-EU Tory rebels & Labour couldn't control the Lib Dems or SNP

- May didn't want to call an election, after her 2017 fiasco & the wider Tory party & DUP didn't want one either, as they'd have risked losing power/influence & Brexit as May was low in the polls. Labour didn't have the numbers to get an election

- When the Tories did want an election (under Boris), they got one & it was the SNP & Lib Dems who gave them the chance. Labour joined in, but couldn't have stopped Boris' election even if they'd all voted against it

- If an alliance of the Opposition & Tory Remainer rebels had started dictating Brexit via amendments, I'm sure the rest of the Tory party would have deposed May & replaced her with Boris...but anyway this didn't work when they tried it via indicative votes

 

I also don't buy the idea that the Tories are now guaranteed 2+ parliaments. The "let's get Brexit done" sentiment won't apply next time. Hopefully Labour will replace Corbyn with a more credible leader & will offer a much better policy platform & campaign. In the meantime, there's an awful lot that could go wrong with Brexit & for the Johnson Govt generally. Maybe not. Maybe Brexit will be wonderful, tax revenues will flow into the Treasury, a brilliant PM will rejuvenate struggling areas & Labour will choose another idiot leader and disappear up its own arse......but the Tories are going to have a difficult 5 years, I think. Labour need to ensure they're an effective opposition & credible alternative govt, and they could win by 2024.

[Alf Bentley]

Top Lib Dem Nick Harvey wrote to Private Eye - an honest letter about the SNP/LD role in gifting Boris his 5-year majority & opportunity for a Hard Brexit:

https://www.libdemvoice.org/her-disastrous-mistake-sir-nick-harveys-view-on-support-for-december-election-63074.html

 

"Though I had departed by then, the Lib Dem pivot on 28 October to back an election appears to have been taken that weekend under SNP pressure, and left Labour no choice but to follow suit. It was a catastrophic mistake, gift-wrapping everything Boris wanted and handing it to him for Christmas… majority government, Brexit, and given the state of the Labour Party, potentially ten years in office. Defeated Lib Dem MPs, Jo Swinson among them, paid a heavy price for her disastrous miscalculation".

 

Labour deserves plenty of blame for lots of things it did wrong.......but there is major blame to spare for some others, too.

[mabrah]

16 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

That they gambled and lost big-time is clearly true.

I thought at the time that Corbyn was going 'all in'. It seemed like his 'now or never' decision. I guess I can get that but it was naive. And of course it's buggered things up for Labour foreseeably (and maybe socialism for all time, which I reckon must now be as dirty a word in the UK as it is in the US) 

 

Whilst I personally bought into it (testimony to my earnest youth in the Red Wedge 80s!) I really couldn't see the UK at large going for it, though I must be honest I did underestimate the strength of the anti-Corbyn feeling in the UK. I reckon the Labour left has it's work cut out at the moment and I'm really not sure RLB is a wise choice of leader at the moment, I think they need to distance themselves from anything that's seen or interpreted as old school socialism. 

 

Edited 18 January 2020 by mabrah

[st albans fox]

22 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That they gambled and lost big-time is clearly true. I also share your low opinion of Corbyn.

 

I take your point about their confusing position on Brexit, which was partly due to poor & over-complicated presentation. The fence-sitting came because the party was divided on Brexit - MPs, members and voters, to varying degrees: worth remembering that Labour represented some of the most pro-Leave and most pro-Remain constituencies.....a pretty impossible situation. The Tories were similarly divided on Brexit (more so their MPs than their members or voters).

 

But....

- .Labour sought compromises on Customs Union membership & guaranteed employment rights etc, but May didn't offer these as she so her interest as maintaining Tory unity....as a Remainer who wanted close alignment she's also a big loser

- At the indicative votes, Labour overwhelmingly supported several compromise motions (Ken Clarke's Customs Union, a Common Market option etc.) but lost....suggesting limits to their ability to "mould the future relationship with the EU", even in alliance with Tory Soft Brexit rebels. Remember Lab started off 60+ MPs short of a majority, then lost a dozen more, many who would only accept a 2nd referendum (the Change UK bunch), there were only about 20 pro-EU Tory rebels & Labour couldn't control the Lib Dems or SNP

- May didn't want to call an election, after her 2017 fiasco & the wider Tory party & DUP didn't want one either, as they'd have risked losing power/influence & Brexit as May was low in the polls. Labour didn't have the numbers to get an election

- When the Tories did want an election (under Boris), they got one & it was the SNP & Lib Dems who gave them the chance. Labour joined in, but couldn't have stopped Boris' election even if they'd all voted against it

- If an alliance of the Opposition & Tory Remainer rebels had started dictating Brexit via amendments, I'm sure the rest of the Tory party would have deposed May & replaced her with Boris...but anyway this didn't work when they tried it via indicative votes

 

I also don't buy the idea that the Tories are now guaranteed 2+ parliaments. The "let's get Brexit done" sentiment won't apply next time. Hopefully Labour will replace Corbyn with a more credible leader & will offer a much better policy platform & campaign. In the meantime, there's an awful lot that could go wrong with Brexit & for the Johnson Govt generally. Maybe not. Maybe Brexit will be wonderful, tax revenues will flow into the Treasury, a brilliant PM will rejuvenate struggling areas & Labour will choose another idiot leader and disappear up its own arse......but the Tories are going to have a difficult 5 years, I think. Labour need to ensure they're an effective opposition & credible alternative govt, and they could win by 2024.

Had they voted for may’s deal then they would have been in a position to put forward many amendments. I appreciate the Indic votes point  but they had nothing solid  riding on them. Had the CU been an amendment as part of the deal passing through the commons then I’m pretty sure it would have got through  - the point being that labour had a huge opportunity to show the future of the country post brexit and now they don’t  - they misjudged the situation badly ...... 

 

the Tories couldn’t have dropped may because she had won the leadership challenge last December ....... it’s just so frustrating Alf that we now have another year of uncertainty ahead when it could be pretty well sorted ......business is pretty well on its knees out there .......

[st albans fox]

20 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Top Lib Dem Nick Harvey wrote to Private Eye - an honest letter about the SNP/LD role in gifting Boris his 5-year majority & opportunity for a Hard Brexit:

https://www.libdemvoice.org/her-disastrous-mistake-sir-nick-harveys-view-on-support-for-december-election-63074.html

 

"Though I had departed by then, the Lib Dem pivot on 28 October to back an election appears to have been taken that weekend under SNP pressure, and left Labour no choice but to follow suit. It was a catastrophic mistake, gift-wrapping everything Boris wanted and handing it to him for Christmas… majority government, Brexit, and given the state of the Labour Party, potentially ten years in office. Defeated Lib Dem MPs, Jo Swinson among them, paid a heavy price for her disastrous miscalculation".

 

Labour deserves plenty of blame for lots of things it did wrong.......but there is major blame to spare for some others, too.

The Lib Dem’s made a shocking decision 

 

the SNP wanted to accelerate a situation where they feel they can gain independence..... tbh, a soft brexit wouldn’t be so good for them 

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Had they voted for may’s deal then they would have been in a position to put forward many amendments. I appreciate the Indic votes point  but they had nothing solid  riding on them. Had the CU been an amendment as part of the deal passing through the commons then I’m pretty sure it would have got through  - the point being that labour had a huge opportunity to show the future of the country post brexit and now they don’t  - they misjudged the situation badly ...... 

 

the Tories couldn’t have dropped may because she had won the leadership challenge last December ....... it’s just so frustrating Alf that we now have another year of uncertainty ahead when it could be pretty well sorted ......business is pretty well on its knees out there .......

 

The CU was defeated by 3 votes at the indicative votes, and that was with the cabinet abstaining. I'm sure they'd have been voting against such an amendment to actual legislation, so I think you're over-estimating how much influence Labour could have exerted via amendments. Easy to forget how fragmented it all was: some Lab MPs wouldn't have supported it, there was a limited number of Tory rebels, Lib Dems & SNP didn't support it at indicative votes.... Parliament had already spent almost 3 years failing to agree on anything.

 

Fair point that May might have stayed in post. I'd forgotten that she resigned despite being able to stay unchallenged until December, if she'd chosen to. But that also applied when she DID stand down - under pressure, she agreed to resign. Every reason to think that she'd have done the same if her Govt had started losing to Labour amendments legislating for a Soft Brexit......No way would most Tory MPs have been ready to tolerate that. François would probably have murdered her! 

 

I think that takes us back to the situation of "Lab not backing May's WA looks a disastrous miscalculation......in hindsight". Maybe it would have somehow worked out better if Lab had backed May's deal, but it might have made no difference or made things worse. Impossible to tell as there were so many different factors that intervened later - or that might or might not have intervened if they had backed May............."We move on....", as NP used to say after we'd lost! 

 

Unfortunately, depending on sector, business could yet have more than a year's uncertainty. It sounds as if the EU response to Boris' desire to diverge but do a deal by December will be to ensure that it gets its priorities sorted as part of a bare bones deal, with stuff like services possibly left until after we've fully left in December.....and if trade in goods is sorted by December, we might have to accept tariffs & quotas in exchange for regulatory divergence. Hope I'm wrong. Long way to go.....

[Kopfkino]

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Hats off to @Kopfkino who said around that time that Labour should back the Withdrawal Agreement and then pursue the Soft Brexit struggle over the future relationship. That looks a good judgment now.....though that is with hindsight after multiple other events that weren't fully predictable. At the time, it was a gamble either way....and other events could have derailed such a strategy.

I received an email from an old professor of mine, David Soskice, recpinting a conversation we had in seminar last December about a week before May's no confidence vote in which I told him May would extend seek long extension, the Cons would ditch her and Gove or Boris would swoop in, call an election based on doing Brexit properly with Canada minus, get a big majority to ditch the DUP and go back to the EU to revert to NI-only backstop. 

Pretty decent effort I'd say (tho I didn't stick to it myself tbf) although in hindsight having an oven-ready deal rather than promising to go back to the EU after the election was key to the result.

 

He asked for my next prediction so here it is: Labour will suffer a net loss of seats at the next election. Might have overextended myself with that one

 

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

Labour sought compromises on Customs Union membership & guaranteed employment rights etc, but May didn't offer these as she saw her interest as maintaining Tory unity....as a Remainer who wanted close alignment she's also a big loser

But that just highlights how stupid they were,the WA was de facto a future CU of some sort because the backstop was in operation until superseded by other arrangements. It was ludicrous that they wanted something in the PD that she couldn't do because she couldn't admit it for the sake of party politics but was essentially already there in WA. Raoul Ruparel has basically confirmed this since and plenty of trade experts said it at the time. 

It would not surprise me if those in Labour were too stupid to realise this at the time(not that they knew why they wanted a CU), I mean they went into the negotiations demanding the UK remains part of the European Arrest Warrant which was never possible. Just don't think they knew what they were doing. 

 

 

Which is why, given he was at the centre of so much of this, I now can't see how Keir Starmer is a good option for leader. At no point did he show any great understanding of the Brexit situation, both on a technical or political level despite clearly being a smart man. He was at least partly responsible for a terrible Brexit policy and alongside Thornberry was the one pushing a 2nd referendum. Where's the evidence he has any of the political feel that he needs? Also, I don't know much of his political views, but it seems he's probably more to the left than I realised (some of it could just be posturing for the membership ofc but slagging Kinnock off for being neo-Keynesian suggests it has historical foundation). In fact I'm doubling down on my belief he is just Ed Miliband with a better tailor. Might even be unfair on Miliband. 

Edited 18 January 2020 by Kopfkino

[oxford blue]

Regarding the Lib Dems - they had only 10 or 11 MP's who were elected as LD's - yet Swinson must have seen an opportunityto cemet her position as leader and stop Brexit. This poll was typical of those when the election was called:

Con	33%	-
Lab	29%	+2
LD	18%	-
Brex	12%	-
Green	4%	-
SNP	4%	-
UKIP	<1%	-
Other	1%	-1

(% in second column relate to Savanta ComRes/Daily Express 15^th October 2019)

Figures add up to 101% due to rounding

• Amongst 2016 Leave voters, the Conservatives lead the polls with 53% of the vote. Conversely, amongst 2016 Remain voters, Labour lead with 42% of the vote, with the Liberal Democrats on 30%.
• Labour’s share of the vote has increased by 2 percentage point since the 15^th of October 2019.
• If the parties were to achieve these vote shares at a General Election it would result in Conservatives being the largest party but 10 seats short of a majority (Con 316, Lab 243, LD 33, Brex 0, Green 1, SNP 36, PC 3, UKIP 0. Source: www.electoralcalculus.co.uk).

Therefore, Swinson must have seen this an opportunity to thwart Brexit, particularly as at that time it was unclear all Conservative candidates would have to agree to Johnson's proposed Brexit.

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

He asked for my next prediction so here it is: Labour will suffer a net loss of seats at the next election. Might have overextended myself with that one

 

 

Yes, I paid due deference to your wisdom earlier. But, while you might be proven correct, I think you are punting in the dark there. 

 

There are certain minor gaps in information essential to such a judgment.......such as what the hell will happen with Brexit, what the hell a Boris Govt will do for 5 years, what the hell Labour will do for 5 years, what the hell will happen to the economy and what the hell will happen with the world.....