IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 6, 2019 12:47:21 GMT
Makes the point that Corbyn is trying to stay quiet on Brexit because if he goes openly pro-Remain he'll lose Labour leave supporters and they're key to Labour winning the next election. I also wonder whether Labour's election plans - lots of nationalization - would be allowed if the UK remained in the EU. Plus, lots of people say that Corbyn's always been anti-EU.
Sunday Times also has an article - www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/mps-threaten-trump-style-shutdown-over-brexit-x0tkr3xs7 - about a cross-party group on MPs thinking of messing with the Finance Bill unless MPs agree to May's deal (in order to prevent a no-deal). Never going to happen, given Labour will never go with any deal that May comes up with, plus DUP and many Tories still against it. I accept that most MPs may be against a no-deal exit, but to avoid that they have to come up with a 'proper' deal that can get through the house and the EU - and there's no sign of that. Although latest poll suggests that Labour will be wiped out if it supports a Brexit plan. Might be enough for the Tories to call Corbyn's bluff and offer his the permanent Customs Union he says he wants. www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/05/brexit-corbyn-electoral-catastrophe-yougov-poll
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 6, 2019 12:49:41 GMT
Makes the point that Corbyn is trying to stay quiet on Brexit because if he goes openly pro-Remain he'll lose Labour leave supporters and they're key to Labour winning the next election. I also wonder whether Labour's election plans - lots of nationalization - would be allowed if the UK remained in the EU. Plus, lots of people say that Corbyn's always been anti-EU.
Sunday Times also has an article - www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/mps-threaten-trump-style-shutdown-over-brexit-x0tkr3xs7 - about a cross-party group on MPs thinking of messing with the Finance Bill unless MPs agree to May's deal (in order to prevent a no-deal). Never going to happen, given Labour will never go with any deal that May comes up with, plus DUP and many Tories still against it. I accept that most MPs may be against a no-deal exit, but to avoid that they have to come up with a 'proper' deal that can get through the house and the EU - and there's no sign of that. Although latest poll suggests that Labour will be wiped out if it supports a Brexit plan. Might be enough for the Tories to call Corbyn's bluff and offer his the permanent Customs Union he says he wants. www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/05/brexit-corbyn-electoral-catastrophe-yougov-pollExcept i) lot of Labour MPs would say "we agree with that, thanks, now if you also give us membership of the Single Market we'll vote for it", ii) Customs Union would lose Tories votes.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 6, 2019 12:49:55 GMT
But maybe there is no "proper deal" that will honour what people were told in the referendum campaign? Probably not, but I didn't vote Leave conditional on a 'proper' deal (rather than WTO deal) being done, so if no-deal is the way forward, so be it. Fair enough, but other people likely voted Leave with deals in mind, as they were told would be super easy during the campaign. In any event, public are 2 to 1 against a no deal exit, as is Parliament, so my hat may not need eating!
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 6, 2019 12:53:50 GMT
Except i) lot of Labour MPs would say "we agree with that, thanks, now if you also give us membership of the Single Market we'll vote for it", ii) Customs Union would lose Tories votes. Indeed, it might take a SM and CU deal (for now) to get Brexit over the line. That can always be renegotiated (and if I were in charge, I would have reached out for a cross party/cross Remain/Leave vote consensus and done that to begin with, pending the longer negotiation over many years of a Canada +++ if it could be done).
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,953
Likes: 4,386
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 6, 2019 13:07:22 GMT
20% of Leavers have changed their minds, so it'll be less now. And our antiquated electoral system leaves them little place to go - UKIP hasn't ever won a seat even with double digit % support. But anyway, there will be a lot of unhappy people whatever happens, but the most unhappiness will occur with a no deal Brexit, so that simply isn't going to happen. I will eat the late Paddy Ashdown's hat if it does. Also, there's no mechanism for delaying a no deal Brexit by a year. You have to either withdraw Article 50 (i.e. cancel Brexit) or get all the other 27 EU countries to agree to an Article 50 delay - which they won't if it is for the purpose of a no deal Brexit in 1 year. The utter stupidity of invoking Article 50 before we had an agreed plan is more glaringly apparent by the (gradually running out) day. Is there any evidence for the 20% figure? The polls that I have seen briefly on TV seem to show the 2 sides still quite close, and certainly nowhere near a 20% majority for remain
If the EU won't play ball on the 12 month extension, then worst case scenario is to withdraw atricle 50 tomorrow, and resubmit it the following day, which would give 2 years to get ready.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 6, 2019 13:41:34 GMT
20% of Leavers have changed their minds, so it'll be less now. And our antiquated electoral system leaves them little place to go - UKIP hasn't ever won a seat even with double digit % support. But anyway, there will be a lot of unhappy people whatever happens, but the most unhappiness will occur with a no deal Brexit, so that simply isn't going to happen. I will eat the late Paddy Ashdown's hat if it does. Also, there's no mechanism for delaying a no deal Brexit by a year. You have to either withdraw Article 50 (i.e. cancel Brexit) or get all the other 27 EU countries to agree to an Article 50 delay - which they won't if it is for the purpose of a no deal Brexit in 1 year. The utter stupidity of invoking Article 50 before we had an agreed plan is more glaringly apparent by the (gradually running out) day. Is there any evidence for the 20% figure? The polls that I have seen briefly on TV seem to show the 2 sides still quite close, and certainly nowhere near a 20% majority for remain
If the EU won't play ball on the 12 month extension, then worst case scenario is to withdraw atricle 50 tomorrow, and resubmit it the following day, which would give 2 years to get ready.
20% change of Leave mind is from latest You Gov poll ("80% of people who voted Leave two years ago still say they want Brexit to go ahead"). www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/05/brexit-corbyn-electoral-catastrophe-yougov-pollYou can't mess around with A50 - has to be in good faith - which revoking then invoking again the next day would not be, and I suggest would be easily challenged in Court (as well as completely p*ssing off the people with whom we do still need to get along, even in a No Deal Brexit scenario. Unlike some recent Brextremist rhetoric, it isn't a war like the Falklands).
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Jan 6, 2019 14:29:30 GMT
The EU will allow anything, including playing ping pong with Article 50, if a) it increases the chances of the EU continuing to receive budget contributions from the UK and b) improves the chances of demonstrating that leaving or attempting to leave the EU Reich is injurious to the perpetrator.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,953
Likes: 4,386
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 6, 2019 15:08:43 GMT
Is there any evidence for the 20% figure? The polls that I have seen briefly on TV seem to show the 2 sides still quite close, and certainly nowhere near a 20% majority for remain
If the EU won't play ball on the 12 month extension, then worst case scenario is to withdraw atricle 50 tomorrow, and resubmit it the following day, which would give 2 years to get ready.
You can't mess around with A50 So the EU would rather we left on 29th March without a deal, rather than defer the departure date? I think not.
They are in as much of a mess as we are when it come to preparing for no deal.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jan 6, 2019 16:41:48 GMT
This is an unfortunate choice of phrase, which a lot of people would find deeply upsetting or offensive. However, I’m sure you have only used this out of ignorance as to the historical context, and not out of malice. As such, I thought it might help if I described briefly why it’s a problematic choice.
In English the term “Reich” is used to refer to Germany under the Nazi regime of 1933-1945. This was a totalitarian dictatorship, who brutally suppressed political, economic and social freedoms during the 12 years they were in power. The Nazi regime subscribed to a murderous ideology of violence, repression and military force, both internally and externally. The “Reich” was the attempt to construct a Nazi empire, spanning Europe and then the globe.
In 1938, Austria was annexed. In early 1939, so was Czechoslovakia, followed by parts of Lithuania. Finally, the invasion of Poland in September resulted in the formal declaration of war between Nazi Germany and Britain and France. This was the beginning of a large war, known as the Second World War. By the end of the war in 1945, over 70 million people had died, and most of Europe lay in ruins.
During this time, Nazi Germany perpetrated the worst genocide the world has seen. Six million European Jews were systematically executed between 1941 and 1945 in a genocide known as the Holocaust. Additionally, the Nazi regime conducted systematic campaigns of murder, starvation and torture against millions of other civilians in occupied territories.
I hope this, very brief, summary is enough to indicate to you why it is deeply inappropriate to use language which compares the European Union (a peaceful, democratic collaboration of individual nations) to the vile Nazi regime. I would urge you in future to think very carefully about such language. The words we use matter.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 6, 2019 16:53:17 GMT
carolus Perhaps you should get a job editing readers' comments on The Guardian, enough abuse on there to keep you busy for life.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Jan 6, 2019 16:55:09 GMT
This is an unfortunate choice of phrase, which a lot of people would find deeply upsetting or offensive. However, I’m sure you have only used this out of ignorance as to the historical context, and not out of malice. As such, I thought it might help if I described briefly why it’s a problematic choice.
In English the term “Reich” is used to refer to Germany under the Nazi regime of 1933-1945. This was a totalitarian dictatorship, who brutally suppressed political, economic and social freedoms during the 12 years they were in power. The Nazi regime subscribed to a murderous ideology of violence, repression and military force, both internally and externally. The “Reich” was the attempt to construct a Nazi empire, spanning Europe and then the globe.
In 1938, Austria was annexed. In early 1939, so was Czechoslovakia, followed by parts of Lithuania. Finally, the invasion of Poland in September resulted in the formal declaration of war between Nazi Germany and Britain and France. This was the beginning of a large war, known as the Second World War. By the end of the war in 1945, over 70 million people had died, and most of Europe lay in ruins.
During this time, Nazi Germany perpetrated the worst genocide the world has seen. Six million European Jews were systematically executed between 1941 and 1945 in a genocide known as the Holocaust. Additionally, the Nazi regime conducted systematic campaigns of murder, starvation and torture against millions of other civilians in occupied territories.
I hope this, very brief, summary is enough to indicate to you why it is deeply inappropriate to use language which compares the European Union (a peaceful, democratic collaboration of individual nations) to the vile Nazi regime. I would urge you in future to think very carefully about such language. The words we use matter. I was alluding to the EU empire which is largely controlled by Germany and so I considered it appropriate to use a German word to describe that "empire", "kingdom", "realm", the connections that you have made to a particular unpleasant period have nothing to do with what I said.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jan 6, 2019 16:58:44 GMT
carolus Perhaps you should get a job editing readers' comments on The Guardian, enough abuse on there to keep you busy for life. Perhaps true that in the end I'm just howling at the moon. I remain hopeful that this forum could have a higher standard of discourse than the general internet, however.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 6, 2019 17:03:11 GMT
carolus Perhaps you should get a job editing readers' comments on The Guardian, enough abuse on there to keep you busy for life. Perhaps true that in the end I'm just howling at the moon. I remain hopeful that this forum could have a higher standard of discourse than the general internet, however. It certainly has a higher standard than The Guardian (but that's quite a low bar)
|
|
dApps
Posts: 91
Likes: 80
|
Post by dApps on Jan 6, 2019 18:35:31 GMT
In English the term “Reich” is used to refer to Germany under the Nazi regime of 1933-1945. This was a totalitarian dictatorship, who brutally suppressed political, economic and social freedoms during the 12 years they were in power. The Nazi regime subscribed to a murderous ideology of violence, repression and military force, both internally and externally. The “Reich” was the attempt to construct a Nazi empire, spanning Europe and then the globe.
Is the period referred to not known as 'the Third Reich' anymore? (Pity if not. The earlier ones weren't exactly insignificant.)
|
|
|
Post by charlata on Jan 6, 2019 19:17:52 GMT
The one and only reason eurosceptics don't want a second vote is because they would lose. That's a perfectly sensible position, so why not just own it?
|
|