UKC

… has just written to me, unfortunately I'm still not clear what his policy is:

'Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.

In those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for Remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs. '

There are so many ambiguities in this: should there be a referendum anyway, no deal, deal or Remain? That wouldn't be fair as the Brexit vote would be split. And what if the Tories argued that a new deal DID protect jobs, prosperity and worker's rights (ha!) - would Corbyn NOT campaign for remain?

Why on earth can't the entire might of the Labour party come up with a single coherent policy: "In the light the many factors that may not have been discussed adequately at the time of the last referendum, but have since proved insuperable obstacles to an exit that maximised economic prosperity, guaranteed the pound, maintained the spirit and letter of the Good Friday agreement and so minimised the potential for a return to violence both in Ireland and on the UK mainland, reduced the pressure for Scotland to break away from the union, and  does not involve paying a £39 billion divorce settlement, the Labour party has now amended it's position and demands a referendum to either confirm the Brexit terms agreed between the government and the EU or the revoke Article 50 and so remain a full member.'

You almost sound surprised.

I've got issues with the current leadership but this isn't one of them.

That's clear, any Tory deal or no deal should go back to the people.

That's not a single coherent policy.

The big problem is what to do if there is a general election soon. Neither you or Corbyn deal with that. And it is a problem.....there's no magic fix.

In summary he's saying Tory brexit = bad, Labour brexit = good.

Hope that clears up any confusion 😶

He seems to be saying that he's pro any kind of Brexit unless there's no chance whatsoever of claiming Labour had any say in achieving it. In which case he'll allow people in his party to campaign against it without fear of deselection.

You're right, but I have a day job … but this IS Corbyn's day job!

It's an interesting question about a GE. If Boris (and it will be Boris) hurtles towards a no deal Brexit then will there be enough MPs to call and win a no confidence vote? That could happen, and if Labour then stepped up to the plate and unambiguously campaigned to Remain they could yet win...

I really don't want JC as PM but I don't think he would last long, and I'd prefer him for a short while to a long term Brexit catastrophe.

You have just put into words an embryonic thought that I was having. Thanks and I agree with you. It's the least worst option.

Basically as I read this and his previous stuff, his order of preference would be

1) General election, Labour win, negotiate soft Brexit that protects manufacturing jobs (to some extent) and keeps us aligned with European standards of worker and consumer protection (to some extent) and avoids flogging the NHS to the Americans in exchange for a trade deal.

2) Remain.

3) Hard Brexit or no-deal.

This is, IMO, not an awful position. I'm hard remain myself, but I can see the pragmatic sense in wanting to try to deliver a compromise Brexit rather than just telling half the population to sit down and shut up. At the moment, though, he doesn't see much chance of the Tories deciding to call it quits and let him have a go, so he's more vocal in support of second referendum / remain.

Tricky, isn't it? Would I vote for a soft Brexit Labour or Remain LibDem/Plaid/SNP... Whichever stood bests chance of winning I suppose.

And I'm not sure I agree with this 50% of voters being disenfranchised, it was 52% of those that voted, I'm not sure what proportion of those were die hard Brexiters (the few people I know who voted Brexit did so rather casually IMHO); it feels to me that Brexit is being forced on us by a particularly noisy, vociferous and bullying minority of a few 100 thousand or so,  who with the demographic changes since 2016, no longer represent a majority view - if they ever did.

Labour are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Brexit party are a real threat in many constituencies. Fence sitting,or to be more accurate admitting the split in the party and in the support, may be the best option. Labour will have to go into coalition with parties that would demand a referendum.

He's today come out in favour of Remain.

I'm obviously missing a lot here.

I wasn't aware that when the people of the UK voted to leave or stay in the EU that we then had to put up with what the MPs wanted or didn't want.

My understanding was that I would cast my vote, which I did, and the government would honour the majority result, no matter how narrow and finish the job. 

No one said that MPs had to agree, or even political parties had to agree. There was no minimum margin set for the result, ie it has to be a margin of 10% if not things stay as they are, so why all the infighting just because some folk don't like the result.

I'm not sure how a change in government would mean renegotiation. The result of the referendum stays the same, like it or not surely. 

Cameron is to blame for all this. He should have stayed in office and seen this through instead of bailing and much as I don't like politicians of any party Cameron should have left a contingency plan.

At my age I don't give a flying frack about it, but it will affect my children and their children.

That's the illusion he'd want you to believe. If you read his words more carefully he'd only back remain if it becomes the only way to prevent a Brexit that isn't to his liking.

Well it hasn't proven quite as straightforward as you were led to believe, has it? But now you know what the difficulties are you can make a better informed decision on behalf of your grandchildren, if not yourself.  One little cross on a ballot paper surely isn't too much to ask so that the most significant change to the UK since 1945 is still truly the 'will of the people'.

Yes that was my take too.

That might be my confirmation bias because it's what I'd like to happen. :-| 

Of course it hasn’t been straightforward. A large group of people have been trying to subvert democracy for their own ends.

Do you know why we haven't left the EU?

What was the result?  Soft Brexit as advocated by numerous leave politicians before the result and believed by a significant proportion of leave voters, or the no-deal suggestion now - totally discounted in the run up to the referendum - and only favored by 20 something % of people?  If the former had been pursued we'd be out by now, but pandering to the right wing of the Tory party we're at the latter.

Your children and grandchildren will be fracked in any Brexit, it's just how fracked do you want them to be?  

I thought it was a small group of people.

You're not wrong there about the Tories and those Brexit Party bastards wanting to push through a form of Brexit that only a fifth of people want, with such wheezes as proroguing parliament .

There is a parliamentary majority to leave the EU. We haven't because a group of Tory MPs and the DUP want an extreme form of Brexit that was never touted as an option during the referendum campaign. 

The trouble with a soft Brexit is it pisses everyone off, 

we will have to pay the EU

we will have to agree to abide by EU standards and laws

we will have still have free movement 

we LOSE our democratic vote and voice at the table

Basically soft Brexit makes half the lies told by UKIP come true

please explain how labour expects anyone to support this with any modicum of enthusiasm.

I understand that compromise should leave all parties slightly pissed off, but should we be giving up democracy as a compromise? 

FTFY

B*llocks you did. Have you not noticed MPs are voting against their party without consequence?

I don't agree with all your statement but the logical conclusion of your argument is that there is no middle ground between full membership and no-deal, yes?

I think a mutually beneficial partnership could be negotiated........ given that the UK will never engage meaningfully with the European Parliament, and will not go with the ever closer union the Eurozone needs.

FTFY

What an odd assertion to present as fact!

It's obviously an assertion of belief. Yer plum.

You seem to be confusing pedantry with 'fixing'. Try to think more about the overall picture. When some MPs from both parties are are voting against the whip repeatedely with no consequence, what does that mean? What about the sitting government losing votes by record margins (hundereds!)

Businesss as usual?

It was presented as a "given", an axiomatic base from which to draw logical inferences. I don't think you need to be a mathematician or logician to recognise that if you start with pure conjecture then the inferences you then draw may not be quite as robust as you might like.

I agree that Parliament is in a dire state and many MPs are taking big risks with their careers on certain votes, but I very much disagree that you can deduce from that that all votes in Parliament reflect the personal beliefs of each individual MP. It might be severely unruly but it hasn't yet descended into anarchy.

Yes, I suppose so 650 odd. But there seems to be a bunch of people on the internet also committed to complaining that the result wasn’t fair. 

That isn't what you said in your 15:26 post.

121 Labour MPs voted to revoke article 50 to avoid no deal, during the indicative votes. Do you think Corbyn told them to do that?

Edit: I'd rank 'personal belief' and 'pressure from constituents' roughly equal, with 'party whip' coming 3rd.

And who out of these 121 MPs actually proposed a real vote to revoke a50? There is simply no majority for remain in the HoC.

We agree. I made virtually the same point at 14:29, then the conversation went off on a tangent.

sorry to be pedantic, but the gradual movement of soft brexit to hard brexit to no deal brexit as the standard option really annoys me. So I would say:

 1) General election, Labour win, negotiate HARD Brexit that protects manufacturing jobs (to some extent) and keeps us aligned with European standards of worker and consumer protection (to some extent) and avoids flogging the NHS to the Americans in exchange for a trade deal.

 2) Remain.

 3) Hard Brexit that is very similar to Labour's hard brexit but is negotiated by the tories or no-deal.

As long as Labour does not unambiguously state that they want to keep up freedom of movement and stay in the single market, they are proposing a hard brexit. The relevance of staying in the custom union is much smaller than that of staying in the single market.

Why do you have to complicate it all? he has said they will be backing a second referendum does that not bring a huge relief to remainers? And if a GE is called then they will face that when they come to it but whatever happens they want a second referendum now isn't that what everyone on here wants?

Some people are never happy. 

ah, agreed.

It's great... best opportunity for the LibDems in a generation.

The 2016 referendum was only ever advisory to parliament. It was always the responsibility of MP's to use their discretion and judgement in response to the result. Obviously most MP's don't want to appear to be obstructive towards a majority vote, but if the consequences of such a vote were serious enough, it would be incumbent upon them to oppose its implementation. That's the difference between a parliamentary democracy and mob rule. The right-wing fanatics in the Tory party and elsewhere are simply using the referendum result as an excuse to potentially ignore and block parliament.

Labour has never really known what it wants out of the paradox that is Brexit. And it still doesn’t, regardless of appearing to now organise itself into  having a policy. Because we all know it’s not a policy. It’s a facade, that tested, will fall apart. 

Corbyn is neither statesman nor leader. Just a weak opportunist, out of his depth and living in the past. Just nice Mr Corbyn really. 

Genuinely interested, I don't know.

Boris will lower the bar on all of those.

Nobody votes for lib dems as that's a wasted vote. 

The bar couldn’t get any lower I’m afraid. Nice Mr Corbyn has been perpetually terrified to commit, lest he lose some of his tenuous popularity.

Num Num doesn't like Corbyn. Does Num Num like Boris?

Labour's in a grim situation over Brexit, like the Tories. The leader can't square that circle.

Now that the unicorn vendors have been flogging their wares (unsuccessfully, so far) for so long, it's difficult to see any options that could reasonably be described as feasible. A slim Remain win would at least have the advantage of preserving economic viability while the politicians continue to fight over impossible alternatives.

If you don't have any cash for a new car and someone manages to convince you that the one you've been driving happily for years is a deathtrap waiting to happen, you're going to be short of acceptable outcomes. Time to doubt the fearmonger.

I couldn’t own to liking Boris particularly. But at least he can commit, regardless of how that may or may not affect his popularity, politics aside.

I wouldn’t dispute the rest of what you say apart from the level of the bar, it cannot get any lower than Corbyn’s vanity. 

Brexit is a paradox. There will be no winners

Boris is committed to his own ambition, that's it. We'll see how he deals with the political realities soon enough.

You've got Corbyn wrong, he'd love to commit to Brexit ( his version), but he can't get it past the party. If he was worried about popularity he'd go full remain.

You could say the same for a real soft Brexit.... without the risk of a 2nd ref (which does seem to get overlooked!).

I think you’ve got Boris wrong. Any politician who was committed to his own ambition would be well advised to steer well clear of leading the country through Brexit. A bit like nice Mr Corbyn really.

Judging by the fact that he has said nothing after his return from meeting with the EU negotiators rather suggests that it won't get past them either. 

He'll do what he did in the run up to the General Election and slowly modify his personal beliefs to win votes. If push comes to shove and he thinks it will get him into No 10, then he'll become a 100% Remainer.

Depends where you live. Voting labour would be wasted in my constituency.

No vote is a waste. But not voting at all is a waste of a right. 

There won’t be another referendum and there won’t  be a GE before October 31st. 

There seems to be a complete absence of any clear thought in this country. Another 3 months of uncertainty? It’s crazy. 

The clock is ticking. 

There are plenty of people, including politicians, thinking clearly. Unfortunately there are also plenty of people, again including politicians but also including disaster capitalists and some working for foreign interests, who are continually muddying the waters for personal or party gain.

It is a good question, I don't know either!

I remember back in 2016 Dutch papers writing that a narrow remain victory would be the worst possible outcome. The argument being that the UK leaving and thereby being sidelined from EU decision making would be preferable to the UK using the closeness of the referendum as an argument to block all UK further contribution to EU integration. And integration is seen as unavoidable (although everybody is trying to extend the timeframes involved...) for the survivability of the union.

I think that the original UK special deal with all the optouts was unsustainable. Not because it could not have worked in principle, but because the UK seems incapable of accepting that more optouts means less influence in the running of the EU. The eurocrisis made clear that the core countries of the EU will do whatever it takes for the euro, and UK's interests are not that important in that respect.

In some sense brexit was a logical step in the context of UK's EU policies. Let's consider Cameron's renegotiation plans. Where was the outrage about this amongst the UK public and political class? Which politicians were arguing for more integration instead of putting the UK at a special place in the EU's perimeter?

But now the situation has changed a lot.

There is now a large pro-EU grassroots campaign in the UK that in due course will get political representation. And there is a reasonable chance that in 5 years a UK government that participates in a positive way with the EU emerges again.

The UK has wasted a ridiculous amount of goodwill and also its image of competence. This will seriously limit the power of the UK in the EU in the next 5 years. The other member states will not be tempted in cases of special favours for the UK and it will be easier to pressure the UK into conforming with the views of the EU27.

This makes it from the EU's point of view more feasible to have the UK revoke, and frankly, we cannot do anything about it anyway

The crucial question is what happens in the UK. Brexiteers will hate it and the problem will be that the country remains divided. The rate of leave to remain conversion is still extremely low. It will take another 5 years before remain has a reasonable majority (67%)? And the remain political leadership (which is barely existent today) will need to find a consensus position for the UK's position in the EU including a strategic plan for future participation in integration. Just "we revoke and everything will return to the 2016 situation" will not do.

I still think a leave with a long (5 to 10 year) transition during which negotiations will fail because brexiteers cannot agree on what they want, leading to a rejoin process is less risky.

And why should a remainer vote for Labour? Their current position is literally: if we are in opposition we will fight for a second referendum and for remain. If we are in power we fight for brexit.

But if they are in power they will still give us a second EU membership referendum. 

Will they?
Corbyn has been typically vague and non-committal to what *he* would actually do if he gets to be PM.

He isn't really a leader though. He didn't exactly step forward and make the announcement in the media himself, or take questions etc..  I just don't see how he can be PM. He can't send his understudy to the G20 etc. 

I agree, it isn't so simple as pro or anti Brexit. Many people in he UK have joined the 2 very polarised groups, but not everybody, including some in the Labour party (so it isn't a straight 2 way split).

Not really, it's all about what the leadership, MPs and members can agree on (well, get a decent majority for).

Most can agree on a referendum on a Tory Brexit, and to campaign against it.

The question of what to take to an election is much more divisive. Because of that, and 'Brexhaustion', there is no current policy. 

The party's split. May was very committal about what she was going to do, once upon a time, but then reality caught up.

Boris is currently waddling round the country giving it the big I am, but reality will catch up with him too.

Yes he said so yesterday. 

There will be a second vote now what does it take for you guys to give some credit to Corbyn and the Labour Party for providing some hope to remainers and those who vote leave but now wish they hadn't? 

I'm a member of the Labour Party. I got the email from Jeremy. It might be clear to you what he means; it isn't to me.  

I think Corbyn could say anything and you would still hate him.

Corbyn has actually stated that there will be a second vote if he is PM?

Both of those might well be true.
However, the thread is about Corbyn and his Brexit/Remain policy which still remains vague to the point of being useless.

'Hate' is a bit strong; but he has spent a lifetime indulging in fashionable causes without having to take responsibility for the possible consequences; he has spent his entire political career having the benefit of the Labour party whip while feeling perfectly free to vote against the party whenever it suited him; he has shown himself to be a liar (remember sitting on train floors, anyone?), ineffectual, vacillating, cowardly (is he REALLY that afraid of John Humphries?) and a shocking communicator. I still hold him responsible for losing the Brexit vote - if he had thrown the weight of the Labour party behind a well organised and coherent rationale for Remain, then that would have tipped the result - and I hold him responsible for missing any number of open goals when pitted against the worst government in living memory.  

Apart from that, what's not to like?

The email - 

"Whoever becomes the new Prime Minister should have the confidence to put their deal, or No Deal, back to the people in a public vote.{ second referendum} in those circumstances, I want to make it clear that Labour would campaign for remain against either No Deal or a Tory deal that does not protect the economy and jobs.{or campaign for leave if economy and jobs protected but still a second vote} Today is a step in the right direction but our members and supporters are clear that any kind of Brexit gives us less than we have now and Labour should not support it.” {The Labour Party doesn't want any brexit} 

{my words} 

Edit: just seen your post above and it's now obvious - as someone rightly pointed out - that it doesn't matter what Corbyn does you will find fault or concoct some lie or exaggeration about it. 

Well I'm not a fan, obviously, but what lies or exaggerations have I made?

if he had thrown the weight of the Labour party behind a well organised and coherent rationale for Remain, then that would have tipped the result

Just maybe he thought the people should decide - not him/Labour.... your final comment betrays you.

The policy as the opposition is clear as day, restated above.

On what to do if in government, you think Corbyn should bullshit like Boris? Cos that's the only other option.

Betrays what? So JC thought  Remainers should have stood idly by while a combination of petty demagogues,  chancer Tories, swivel eyed loons relieving WW II and uber rich sh*t stirring media barons combined forces and came out with a torrent of lies, abuse and misinformation? 

You have no effing idea just how bad news Brexit is going to be, yet the signs are all around you.  There is no good news.

It's absolutely not less risky because of the economic damage.

The first couple of years out after a no deal Brexit the UK is going to be totally f*cked.  Not only will its trading relationship with Europe be screwed but its trading relationship with everybody else in the world will no longer be covered by the EUs excellent set of trade agreements.   Everything will be broken,  there will be massive upheaval and no matter what path the UK government chooses to take some industries will no longer be competitive and will go bust.

Then we will discover that all our transport infrastructure such as ports has evolved to work efficiently trading with Europe and is not efficient when we try and replace Europe with countries elsewhere in the world.

If the UK government was competent - which it clearly is not - then maybe after five years it could have a decent set of trade deals and have moved us firmly into the US sphere of influence and we'd see industry evolve to match the new circumstances and things begin to improve.  

If we leave with no deal the likely time to return to the EU is in the first year or two.   That's when the economic pain will be unbearable and governments will fall.   The policies needed to get through that period without rejoining the EU will tie us to the US and block the path back to the EU.   Unless the EU and US themselves converge as a result of a comprehensive trade deal, then once the UK adapts to become a US-satellite going back to the EU will be almost as disruptive as coming out.

The only sensible course of action for the UK with the October deadline looming is to revoke Article 50.   If that doesn't happen the only sensible course for Scotland is to leave the UK and stay in the EU.

Can England (and Northern Ireland) join you in leaving the UK as well please.

We can always rebuild Offa's Dyke.

Scotland can't stay in the eu because Scotland isn't currently an eu member. I'm surprised you didn't know.

Re read the email and the Labour Parties confirmed position for anti- brexit good news. 

Of course they will have to go into coalition. They will never be able to swing any Tory seats and they've lost Scotland forever. It should be Jobs First not a "Jobs First Brexit". Brexit in all circumstances will be ruinous

And Remain can't be hard remain. Remain is just normality. It's not so much a choice of Brexit or Remain as of Lunacy or Normality. Labour should come out and declare for Revoke. 

Hi Tom,

You are right about a no deal departure. I support parliament signing the current deal as soon as possible to eliminate the risk of no deal. No deal is not only an economic disaster, it is also a disaster with respect to all the UK's relations with other countries in the world. It will demonstrate that the UK is not to be trusted upon to keep up its obligations under international law. It is also a disgrace with respect to the treatment of EU27 citizens in the Uk and UK citizens in the EU27 and for the people living close to the border in Ireland.

Hans

There is another option in stating clearly (preferably years ago already) that Labour will directly revoke a50 once in power.

We can discuss whether this is a feasonable scenario for the long term development of the UK....

But I can imagine a lot of people being upset with Corbyn for not leading public opinion on this topic. They will argue that doing this for the good of the country is more important than keeping the current labour voter distribution together. Country above party. And it will solve the problem that a two-party political system cannot properly make democratic decisions about large issues if the parties don't take a stand.

What would you think of Corbyn if he were to have a similar position on austerity?

Normality isn't what it used to be.

If only it were that simple! The consequence of that would be to hand the Brexit party a load of seats on a plate.

It's does get discussed but there are a number of problems. A lot of the base support would be lost in areas Labour has held for years. That's areas that would vote for a democratic socialist party. There's no guarantee Labour would win other seats going up against the Lib Dems (they tend to catch centrist Tory refugees). 

Also, the seats Labour will lose will go to the Brexit party, leading to a Tory/Brexit Party coalition. Basically, a spectacular backfire of a policy.

It's easier to envisage someone like Chuka Umanu, if he'd still have been in Labour I'd tell him to join the Lib Dems

I.E. Brexit bad, remain good. Until everyone gets behind my thoughts those that don't are bad.

Not all are bad. Farage, Johnson, Banks, Fox … yep, wicked and cynical beyond belief.

Some - the majority - were just taken in by lies and empty promises. It's happened before - tell big enough lies often enough and people will start to believe them. Sadly it never ends well. 

You still don't get it do you. I'll spell it out simply - lies are being told by both sides. No you don't agree, not unexpectedly.

I'm out...

Not by me. Bye. (And in the time you save by not coming here, read some history. )

I have no doubt that liars can be found across the political spectrum but the concentration of untruths associated with key Brexiters is off the scale compared to that from key Remainers. To dismiss all lies as in some way mutually cancelling is a gross and dangerous misrepresentation of reality.

As usual you assume something for your liking...

You could do worse than start with Mein Kampf.

Maybe. The Brexit Party Ltd has one policy: the word "Brexit", nothing about how, just do "it". What hasn't been tried properly is an equally simple and contrary policy: "Bollocks to Brexit!". It might just work. Argument and reason doesn't seem to cut any ice and farting about with Corbyn is doing what you'd expect it to do: losing votes.

How much of this loss would be because Labour MPs are unwilling to explain the benefits of the EU to the people?

nice one

Very little. Most of MPs do and have continued to try, but it is very difficult after the referendum. People do not like being told they were wrong or got conned, it tends to just further entrench views. Brexit just isn't an issue people are taking a lead from politicians on.  Even more difficult in this era of social media.

People tend to rant at their MP about brexit, not listen.... and I believe it can get very tiresome. I've had a taste of it myself leafleting.

Aren’t the MPs supposed to be taking a lead from the people? This is why we have disenfranchised voters. It’s a case of the tail wagging the dog. The MPs have agreed to deliver Brexit it’s not up to them to decide whether the voters have been ‘conned’ because as far as the Brexiteers can see, it’s the MPs that have been, and continue to be, the ones that are doing the conning. 

In a representative democracy, it works 2 ways.

As I pointed out to you before, there is a parliamentary majority for Brexit. It did not go through because a number of Tory MPs and the DUP want no deal.

It certainly is not up to Labour MPs to vote through a Tory Brexit.

And don't come back with Brexit is Brexit bullshit. You voted on a very vague notion.... there were many different versions of Brexit touted by the leave campaign before the referendum.

WTF are you Brexiters still smoking? EVERYTHING that Remainers warned about is coming true before your very eyes. Manufacturing jobs are being exported to EU countries; financial institutions are deserting London; the £ continues to fall; we've seen how great our new  'best friend' the US is going to be; the preparations are still chaotic and even now the food industry doesn't know how it's going to put food on the shelves. Literally. You don't have to believe experts, just watch the news.

Fake news :-/

Not fake news but maybe selective news.

I'd be very grateful if you could point to a single item of good news that is attributable to Brexit.

Which Brexiteers are you talking to?

Literally everything I see is due to incompetence from a bunch of MPs who have delayed and delayed and failed to start any trade talks with anyone outside the EU. 

UNCERTAINTY! Who is going to invest in a country with an uncertain future. The Remainers and the Brexiteers  continue to argue pointlessly about who is right and who is wrong and fail to see what the impact of a divided country is doing. 

It’s not leaving the EU that’s the problem. It’s not not leaving or not staying that’s the problem. 

I can point to good news despite Brexit.

Your picture of doom, gloom and imminent disaster isn’t the whole picture hence my selective news comment.

Given the undeniable chaos surrounding Brexit one would expect the UK economy to be in serious difficulties but that isn’t the case, is it?

And a number of Tory, DUP, Liberal and Labour MPs don’t want Brexit. 

All the DUP want it.

Anyway, not enough to stop Brexit. You should be mad at the Brexit ultras who stopped May's deal going through.... but will the faithful ever criticise the high priests?

May’s deal is rubbish and not actually a deal at all.

I’d rather stay in the EU and annoy them than accept that withdrawal agreement

Why not stay in the EU and help make it even better? Isn't this continual insulting of the EU … well, just a bit childish?

I love the idea that somehow we can remain in the EU and change it.

The chances of that are shown by the concessions extracted, or not, by Cameron before the referendum.

The EU didn’t take leavers as being serious so why should they be treated with any respect?

Obviously I’m being ironic, I’m a little worried your not, please do sell me on the positives 

Reform is a long and committed process, not dashing off in the hope of a couple of gifts from an organisation you've been slagging off for the last five years. There are other countries within the EU that are up for reforming it, so build alliances with them and not the right-wing complainiacs that the Tories in Europe have been bedding down with in recent years.

How did they not treat leavers as being serious? By not giving yet more concessions to the least committed country in the union?

We're still in the single market. The headwinds will start if / when we leave that.

Of course it will change and evolve - that's what institutions do. Why you all think the relationship between the members has to be constantly adversarial is baffling; yes there are conflicting interests but most of the states know they have a lot more to gain by cooperating than by playing Trumpian games.

I'll spell it out: you have been misled by the constant barrage of misinformation that you have received for the last 40 years from a media that has pandered to the most pathetic sentiments and ill informed opinions of the electorate. For every 'straight bananas' lie that Johnson has been busily inventing, the EU has quietly got on with harmonising trade, setting quality standards, (bet you don't climb on gear that isn't CE marked), extending workers rights and investing in infrastructure throughout the EU. If you can't see that then I probably can't convince you that the moon landings  actually took place, or that your children really need the MMR jab, or 9/11 wasn't a CIA plot, or any other madness that otherwise seemingly rational people seem to fall for. 

Why should I be mad at a particular group of people? They’re all as bad as each other with their constant bickering. 

Trying to apportion blame is missing the elephant in the room. 

The EU has ever closer union at its heart.

Ever since we joined we’ve opted out of many of the EU’s ideas with the exception of the expansion of the EU itself.

When a referendum was looming Cameron convinced the EU that he could deliver a remain result and they believed him.

An even more reluctant UK in the EU is their worst nightmare and it would be interesting to see how the EU would greet that idea.

This might be true but I was responding to Rob’s assertion that it was already happening.

The likely next Commission  President has already said she would prefer it.

It is! When was the last time you bought currency? 

If true (which I question), so what?

It is not in the heart of the national leaders who appoint the commission and it is not in the heart of the electorates who elect MEPs.

You’ll have noticed from my posts over the last few years that I’m not a rabid leaver.

There are many things that the EU does well and that I’m perfectly happy with.

I’d just like the UK to do those things without  being part of the political and social experiment that is the EU.

I'm pleased to hear it, but I don't think that it quite works. If you want frictionless trade, or cooperation then you NEED freedom of movement - what sort of economy would the US have created if workers had to have passports every time they needed to cross state lines?

The idea that there is even an appetite within the EU for 'ever closer integration' is I think questionable - sure it will be a bureaucratic aspiration - that's what bureaucrats do - but their political masters have their own electorates to  answer to. And the when push comes to shove, the French would no more want to relinquish control of their armed forces than we would. And Italy really isn't going to become a hotter version of Germany any time soon. 

Having worked in Windsor for a few years I can tell you the Ambassador Bridge at the US/Canadian border sees close to 20 thousand vehicle movements a day.   

While we have freedom of movement you still need to show your passport to enter the UK. doesn’t seem to bring the country to a halt.

While there might not be any further integration within the EU it will be difficult to convince leaves while EU officials and foreign politicians are saying otherwise.

They are the ones with a responsibility to vote with the government and in this case enable Brexit. They did not.

Nope, MPs are a very varied bunch, and the 'bickering' is called democracy.

You answered my question. The highs priest of Brexit are sacrosanct and cannot be criticised by the faithful.

What about the ones who haven’t voted to rescind A50?

It’s bickering. Democracy is when people have reasoned discussions, look at the pros and cons in a dispassionate way, compromise and move on.

I still don’t understand this comment. 

Freedom of movement isn’t about poping to the Costa Blanca for sun and sangria, it about BA engineers going to Lyon and vice versa, service engineers from UK companies working across the EU, lecturers moving around universities, cern etc. or in my case I work in Holland all of this is what freedom of movement is about, not about an extra five minutes in a queue 

That's an overwhelming majority of MPs, parliament was never going to vote to rescind article 50, it's irrelevant.

We would have done but the Brexit Ultras and DUP would not compromise!

It's the inevitable consequence of May's red lines and the EUs. The EU is a much bigger economy and populace than we are so they were never going cave in to our demands.

Sounds like we need a confirmatory referendum!

And the EU will annoy the UK back! What a great solution...

Just as the EU has the power to specify the sequencing of the negotiations, most of the contents of the withdrawal agreement, and the possible choices for the UK regarding the future relationship, the union will also have the power to prevent the UK from obstructing EU decision making.

My point  was that freedom of movement might disappear but it won’t stop people from moving to work or study. Apply for the job, get a visa and go.

(Unless EU countries aren’t going to employ the best person for the job?)

Like they used to before the EU.

I don’t think we had any demands, did we?

Exceptof course for the Irish backstop.

And That hasn’t been contentious, has it?

What a crack team of negotiators we must have.

Did you miss the bit where I said that the UK should remain in the EU?

It is not really relevant whether there is appetite for closer integration. The EU integrates when internal or external crises with respect to the functioning of the single market and the political system forces the member states to integrate.

Example: the single market has a boundary that has to be controlled regarding smuggling. This was first left to the nation states. This obviously didn't work. So guidelines for procedures and collaboration were developed. Still too many problems. And now we have FRONTEX as an EU border control agency.

Something similar is happening with the EU prosecution office that will be able to reach over national judicial systems in prosecuting crimes with respect to e.g., corruption.

The EU is in the proces of state formation. But it won't be a nation state as is commonly understood. A lot of important aspects of politics will stay at the national level, such as most of taxation, education, social care, etc. It is all about multilevel (local, regional, national, EU) power distributions.

no, I was talking about a situation where the UK stays in the EU and tries to "annoy them".

It’s things like ‘the EU having the power to stop the UK’ that worry some leavers.

Your post of 17.17 doesn’t make me feel any easier about the UK’s future relationship with the EU should we remain.

This works well for long term jobs but not for short term jobs.

E.g., a construction company building a house abroad.

or a company that sells expensive equipment with service contracts that require maintenance engineers to be present at the site a couple of days a year.

I can imagine But the solution is to avoid getting into adversarial situations where the EU27 are united against the UK. Brexit fails miserably in this respect.

The EU is a construct that limits the power the member states can exert against eachother and magnifies the power that member states can exert against outsiders.

Yes. I think a lot of the UK's remain movement underestimates the entanglement of nation states inherent in the EU. Leave as well, btw. It was in my view the greatest lie of the 2016 referendum campaign. Remain was unwilling to touch the topic out of fear of alienating voters (leading to the project fear prognosis without decent explanation why it would be so bad) and leave did not want to touch the topic out of fear of people realizing that leaving the EU was not so easy after all.

If you put two roughly equal athletes on a track one running a straight 100m and one doing the hurdles, who crosses the finish line first?

and I’m sure you’ll agree our current PM selection contest proves that the best person doesn’t always get the job

The mutually beneficial partnership is EU membership

Well, the favoured Tory alternative to the backstop contains a whopping demand, they basically want access to the single market and free movement of goods without any of the obligations, not being in a customs union ect. They basically want the EU to leave a huge backdoor open to the single market while the UK makes new trade deals with other countries (Non starter in terms of international trade anyway).

They don't just want that for NI but for the whole UK, so Kent doesn't become a big car park. They couch it in other language but that's what they want.

I voted remain! But we are were we are.

Realistically, the path to staying in the EU involves a general election and a referendum... there is absolutely no guarantee of both of them going the way you want (even if Corbyn dons a blue suit with gold stars and the top hat) I consider there may be alternatives to that high risk approach.

The EU is not just committed to ever closer union, they need to do it and get on with. It's clear that the UK will not be involved fully, always on the sidelines. Given that, it's daft to insist that there is no reasonable alternative to full membership of that organisation, and its just what the likes of Farage wants to hear from remainers.

My point is that the compromise is going to be unsatisfactory in an unhealthy way and one that leaves us with no democratic say.

Europe is what we make it, we haven’t been on the sidelines we’ve been fully involved, it’s just our politicians don’t like to admit it, treating their involvement in EU politics as some seedy affair they should keep hidden from the public unless they had secured some concession then it was all “up yours Delores”

We were one of the “big three” in the EU we had countries such as Holland and Denmark that roughly aligned with us on a slightly eurosceptic view, we had a hand on the steering wheel. I don’t see us giving up our democratic right to vote in European elections as anything but a retrograde step in the evolution of democracy in this country.

our view of the EU as one entity with one vision is very blinkered it’s 27 other countries with different views on integration and non willing to give up their sovereignty  

Also our fear of offending Mr Farage and his followers has effectively allowed a non elected person to herd British politics in his direction and Labour has fallen into this trap, Nigel Farage has more control of labour policy on the most contentious issue facing us than the labour executive does.

I'm sorry but sharing a currency and monetary policy is a huge pooling of sovereignty. That was the fork in the road and you are mistaken if you think we've been fully involved since then.

Their are currently 9 EU countries that don’t use the Euro, like I say not one homogeneous entity, I’m quite happy to slow down joint fiscal policy but only possible if we’re  around the table, but if we’re  out gravity still matters and Europe is a huge financial mass next door to us. In or out decision made in Brussels effect us and there is only one way to effect those decisions to our benefit.  

Codswollop. If that was the case we'd have left the EU with no deal.

All countries apart from Denmark are committed to join the Euro.

The point is they need to fiscally integrate to make a success of the Euro, and they have been doing. We should not try to slow it down!

Politics is rarely that binary

I rather wonder whether voters in Sunderland, Bridgend, Broughton and the rest aren't maybe having second thoughts.

But you make my point, Nigel Farage isn’t going to win those seats but may deflect enough votes to upset results.

Labour has a duty to those traditional seats to also highlight that they could be screwed by brexit, representative politics is about doing what is best for everyone in your constituency within your party policies and in consultation with experts, the civil service various committees, and representatives from the community , it isn’t about explicitly and blindly doing what a referendum says, especially in the light of developing information.

Euro election results and polls suggest otherwise. UKIP did well in Euros but never sustained high figures in nation voting intention polls, unlike Brexit party.

Brexit party could win those seats. Britain is now a four party marginal.

Most MPs and activists have been doing that. The party got it's eurosceptic leader to campaign for remain (you can debate his enthusiasm but that's a another matter).

I totally agree with your point about representative democracy, I made the same point to a Brexiteer up thread. However, you also have to deal with the new reality.

I thought that the Euro elections - though a weird form of proxy - weren't the spectacular success for Brexit that was claimed, Remain parties did pretty well and if you added them together exceeded the unambiguous Brexit vote?

Exactly.

I know it's only a council by-election but Bridlington North went from the Tories to the Lib Dems by a significant margin yesterday, with the Tory support dropping from 70% of the votes to 26%, and Labour also losing vote share by 24%. Considering Brid North has traditionally been massively Tory, is in a heavily leave voting constituency (c.58% leave) and is near areas dominated by the fishing industry I think it's an interesting result for the Lib Dems.

Not in the seats we are talking about, take a look at the NE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2019_European_Parliament_elect...

Then there's the polls, yes there's a margin of error but there is a clear pattern emerging.... 4 way split.

I’m not a Brexiteer. 

And I suggest that’s where the Remainers are going wrong. There was a referendum, then the MPs voted whether or not to legitimise the result in law.

Why would Boris call a GE?

He could have a parliamentary majority of 3 (including the DUP). As some Tory Mps will be in open rebellion, 3 isn't enough.

Why would he call a GE?

If he is blocked from getting brexit in October, he may see it as the only option to hanging on.  Either win a majority and brexit, or lose a majority and he is no worse off.

Blocked by who? The only way it can be blocked is if the EU agreed to yet another delay... If they do that it starts to make them look just as silly as us. 

If they agree to another delay the damage to  confidence in the UK will deepen. 

Parliament.  The choice could be repeal or an election.

Not really.  They would I am sure wait for an election.  They don't want to lose us.

I don't really see how?  Regardless, if we leave without a deal confidence will evaporate.

When Boris ends up in a no deal scenario around 30th October there will be a vote of no confidence. Up to 30 of his own MPs will vote against the government and thus bring about a GE.

He could have a parliamentary majority of 3 (including the DUP). As some Tory Mps will be in open rebellion, 3 isn't enough.

You’ve just written what you wrote before. It still doesn’t make sense. 

A bit late then. 

Europe will deal with the consequences of a no deal Brexit. They’ve had since Match to prepare and have another 3 months. They don’t want anymore distractions. We either accept the WA, no deal, or withdraw A50. There are no longer any other options. 

Well yes, the question was rhetorical.

They won’t. 

That’s a matter of opinion. 

We can only speculate, however, I'd wager if an election was called in November, they would definitely extend again.  There is no downside for them doing so. E.g.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-delay-extension-se...

The only people who will table a motion of no confidence are the LibDems. Then (assuming the other MPs support them, which I think is unlikely as they know they’re going to lose) go to the polls with a withdraw A50 as their leading policy.

No party in their right mind will table another referendum.  

What was the result of that meeting? 

Read the article.  One outcome was  Leo Varadkhar saying "So I think an extension could really only happen if it were to facilitate something like a general election in the UK, or even something like a second referendum, if they decided to have one."

Well no. That was the Irish ministers view when arriving for the summit. The article was written before the meeting. The article also says they were only going to discuss it briefly and there was a lot of hostility to any further extension.

Which part of it do you not understand? Do you know how government works in the UK? Are you numerate?

As the official opposition, Labour can and would table a motion of no confidence. Lib dems can't.

How do you see the Government getting Brexit through Parliament without another GE?

A lack of majority does not automatically force an election.