briany wrote: » Why not just resign?
quokula wrote: » But he has a position. He's consistently had a position and repeated it over and over again. Labour accept that the referendum happened and they accept the democratic outcome. However, they want to maintain a close relationship with the EU including customs union membership. They also want to maintain alignment with EU environmental standards and workers rights. They have no red lines with regard to freedom of movement or the ECJ like the Tories do. Ultimately they'll end up with a deal something akin to Norway, which would cause minimal damage. Further to that, they want to put this deal to the people in a referendum to ensure it has the support of the country, rather than wanting to remain once they see what is on the table. I realise that this position can't be turned into a pithy soundbite like "No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal" or "Bollox to Brexit", but that's because it's a serious policy dealing with a serious and complex issue. Ultimately their position is a second referendum, with Remain vs Soft Brexit. It's the absolute best case scenario for both the UK and the EU.
robinph wrote: » Don't think he can. Johnson can try for calling an early election, which he failed at. Johnson can resign. Any other MP can call for a vote of no confidence, just not Johnson. If he wasn't confident in himself then that is a resignation and that isn't what he wants as it removes him as PM and leader of the party and he can't win an election from not being the party leader. He wants someone else to do it for him so that he can still take his chances at being PM.
Memnoch wrote: » A government of national unity is no more likely to be achieved than the various votes in the house of Parliament that stood for anything. The only thing Parliament can agree on is what they disagree on. But they have yet to be able to achieve any kind of consensus on a way forward.
quokula wrote: » Ultimately their position is a second referendum, with Remain vs Soft Brexit. It's the absolute best case scenario for both the UK and the EU.
J Mysterio wrote: » Whatever about what I think about such a proposal (worse than current arrangement, leaves UK a rule taker with no say), Labour are not advocating for this. They are not advocating for in or out. They should take a position now in what they believe in and argue for that. I also can't see that the majority of the 51% will see the Leave option you describe as a leave option. It's too far gone, Britain is a mess. Anyway, EU have to agree to an extension, agree to full renogation and then agree to a referendum. It's not clear if this might happen, though it would probably be for the best, even though it means suffering more of it.
VinLieger wrote: » Fair enough but his refusal to say which he would prefer is bullsh1t and exactly how we ended up where we are now due to Cameron and his government not taking the original referendum campaign or the leave side seriously. No serious government should be able to consider declaring a referendum on such an important issue as this without being able to say which side they support which Corbyn has said will be what a Labour government will do in the case of a 2nd referendum. Its just more pathetic fence sitting.
Memnoch wrote: » You can be sure that when a referendum actually happens labor will crystallize a position more strongly.
Memnoch wrote: » Also, I would add that the general election as a proxy for a second referendum plays right into Boris Johnson's hands. This allows it to be a single issue election and for the conservatives do not have to defend or discuss their record in power and the devastating policies that they have inflicted upon the British public. Yes, brexit is the biggest issue at stake. But if it is the only issue being argued then that makes it much easier for the conservative party to fight their campaign.
briany wrote: » How can Corbyn have a real position one way or another? To do so would alienate half of the party. His strategy is to ride the middle ground, which could end up being worse than going one way or the other, but it's how he's chosen. I think opponents of Corbyn and Labour would much prefer him to pick a firm side as it would give a better idea of their election strategies against him and his party.
maebee wrote: » https://news.sky.com/story/exclusive-pm-was-advised-by-attorney-general-suspension-was-lawful-11818599 Massive error by Cox. He'll surely have to go. Wonder who leaked this to Sky News?
Joe_ Public wrote: » Maybe your right and well entitled to that opinion. For whatever it's worth, i'd just state for the record that there is a very famous precedent for such a course when Harold Wilson did it in the 1975 EU referendum and managed to get the result he wanted. Maybe people called it pathetic fence sitting then too, not sure on that one tbh.
J Mysterio wrote: » Hence why Corbyn should lay his position out there. There is no avoiding the fact this will be a single issue GE. Its an existential crisis ffs.
J Mysterio wrote: » Ok. Corbyn's position is assuming that the EU will grant: 1. Time for general election. And - if Labour win a majority: 2. Time to renegotiate the entire WA. 3. Time for 2nd referendum.
Memnoch wrote: » A single issue general election makes it far too easy for the Tories. For a lot of people it will be. And it would be all the more so if the Labour Party took a hard remain stance now. In my view, it is imperative that the Labour Party draw attention to what the conservatives have done in government. Brexit alone is very polarizing and a strong wedge issue. It is the kind of issue that right-wing parties love to lean on in order to fight elections. If the Labour Party had a hard remain stance there might be a lot of people who would vote against them in key areas on that issue alone. But those same people might be motivated to vote for them if they thought that they would still have their say on brexit in a referendum but still be able to repudiate the conservative government for its behaviour over the past decade.
Enzokk wrote: » The renegotiation will be quick. It will be the WA with a political declaration that has a customs union and close relationship with the EU. It will not be a renegotiation of the WA as a whole, more just the PD as that is all the EU will offer. The deal on the table is the best the UK will ever get, Labour or Tories in charge. The quicker people get this the better, so if people had a problem with May's deal, they will have a problem with any deal out there. As for no-deal, they can vote for the Brexit Party if they want no-deal. Seeing that they will only get around 30% of the vote at a maximum, they will never get to implement that madness. So in the end the people will get their vote, if Labour gets a majority, on May's deal with a Labour PD vs remain and remain should win everytime in any rational world. But we live in a world where adults thinks it is right to abuse a 16 year old concerned about the environment.
VinLieger wrote: » The only way this is not going to be a single issue elections is if they actually do leave on October 31st, thinking in the case of an extension an election in the current political climate can be about anything other than Brexit is incredibly naive.
Memnoch wrote: He has been smeared from every direction and in every manner possible. Misinformation is too polite a term for what has taken place. The full weight of the British political, media and financial establishment has been brought to bear to prevent there being any real democratic change in the structure of British governance.
CelticRambler wrote: » That's not entirely true any more. Yes, at the time of that bizarre series of votes on "what do we want?" motions, it was everything, nothing and anything as long as it wasn't what the other crowd wanted. But the prorogation débacle has been a great catalyst for collaborative working, and I doubt we've seen the end of its effect. Right now, all of the opposition parties (except the Brexit Party) have one objective: to push Johnson and the Tory Party over the cliff, and have them assume full responsibility for every bad Brexit thing. Once that's done, there's ample opportunity for the other parties to "review our position in the light of the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves." The simplest version of that - for every party except the BxP and UKIP, but including the Tories and Labour - is to say: "The last three years have seen three Prime Ministers succumb to the challenge of delivering Brexit on time and in a way that is acceptable to the British people. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, it would be insane for yet another Prime Minister to follow the same path. Accordingly, we are going to ask Parliament to revoke Article 50 for the time being, and establish a Citizens' Brexit Commission within the next three months to thoroughly review the financial, logistical and legal aspects of the UK's exit from the EU; and we will put that Commission's recommendations to the People in a binding referendum by the end of 2022."Today SC judgement isn't just a kick in the teeth for Boris Johnson - it's a warning to all MPs that they'd better be damn sure they know what's right and legal if they want to run the country - and in that context, it'll be a heck of a lot easier for a leave-leaning MP to back a call for "time out" and cross-party discussions.
maebee wrote: » Massive error by Cox. He'll surely have to go. Wonder who leaked this to Sky News?
Yes Minister wrote: The ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top
PeadarCo wrote: » Ah come on this is Trumpian. Blaming the media so you don't have to answer hard questions. One of the biggest issues with the whole Brexit debate has been to shoot the messanger. Don't like the expert projections call it project fear, don't want to answer hard questions don't turn up to press conferences. What you saying with this comment is that Labour are lead by another version of Boris Johnson(a person who runs away from questions) and to be fair if you didn't know better you could easily ask what is a Tory doing leading the Labour Party for the last few years. So ineffective Corbyn has been. Remember odd 50% of voters give or take supported remain. Corbyn has abandoned them to try out Brexit the Brexiters. Corbyn whether he likes it or not has questions to answer. If you are potentially the next leader of a country you are going to and should expect to face close media inspection. That's a free press doing it's job. Look at Johnson and the rumours around his personal life. Look at the situation in Luxembourg where he was embarrassed by the media. Now both Johnsons and Corbyns saving grace is that they both have a hardcore of supporters that are also happy to ignore difficult questions. Corbyn anti semetism issues and Johnson the result of the court case today.
Memnoch wrote: » A better deal is very viable without Theresa May's redlines on the single market and free movement. Labor clearly do not subscribe to these.
serfboard wrote: » My money's on Cummings.
VinLieger wrote: » It can't be cummings, him going would be an admission that Johnson made a mistake hiring him so it would only exacerbate and reinforce the calls for Johnson to resign
woohoo!!! wrote: » Corbyn is dealing with both demonisation from Blairites within, and demonisation from Tories and Lib Dems externally. He is being crucified in the press from all sides. He's taking a more nuanced approach to both respecting the Brexit vote and offering a referendum with a remain position. Viewed through Irish eyes, he should be taking the lib dems approach. However, a thing to remember about them, they're essentially fluffier Tories. Their voting record when in bed with the Tories attest to this. Yet there is cheer leading from Irish sites for them. It is also worth rembering that under Major, the peace process stalled cos of the head bangers in the Tories. It was under Labour that GFA was agreed. The best chance from an Irish perspective to solve this whole mess, is under a Labour government.
