May determined to make it her deal or no deal. Corbyn has asked for No Confidence motion

There's nothing the MPs can do.

Politically they cannot revoke Article 50 because both major parties are apparently ardently pro-Brexit (even though close to 2/3 of the supporters and nearly all of the MPs of one of them are pro-Remain).

Apparently Theresa May's deal is unacceptable.

This only leaves a hard no deal Brexit.

 

EU has a clear conflict of interest to spite the UK from getting a good deal, that's all I'm saying @The Don

 

I think this comes from your spin mill. I don't follow Momentum but I do know that people in the UK left got Diem25 in touch with Corbyn and I understand he agreed with them. The EU needs work, it needs democratising and freedom from neo liberalism but that work can be best done from inside. The working people of the UK will be far worse out ot the EU. I understand that is what he said to people. Some people believe he should have told them all was roses but he was honest and given that most labour voters vote to stay it sounds like they agreed with him. In November Momentum did a poll, 40% wanted a second Referendum, that has to be up from then. Only 17% were opposed to a second Referendum, far less than in the general population which as I put earlier even now is 36%. So quite the opposite of what you are trying to suggest.

 

I'm operating on that Chinese word for crises that's the same as opportunity.

That's me and Brexit.


I never voted for it, I never wanted it, neither did my region of the UK...
but I see an opportunity and want what the PM promised me and Jacob Rees-Mogg at Somerset House. Global Britain meaning Global Britain and a competitive tax rate to make London the financial capital of the world and not Frankfurt.
We even have timezone on our side to make this happen.

 

How does the EU influence the UK's ability to get a good deal with the US ?

 

Which was included in what Gabby said as I put in earlier

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/18/managed-no-deal-brexit

You are being pessimistic, she is being optimistic, saying what needs to be done.

 

Regarding the highlighted.

I agree 100% but that poses the question of why Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party now ardent supporters of Brexit when close to 2/3 of Labour supporters voted to Remain ?

 

I think she is being delusional, not optimistic. There simply isn't time to organise a second referendum before March 29th which leaves revoking article 50 which is impossible because Brexit is the official policy of the two major parties. It would require hundreds of MPs to vote against the whip (and you can be certain that it will be a three-line whip) and ruin their future political careers.

 

LET ME BE CLEAR BRITAIN...

I am your countryman, product of the globalized culture...
Don't **** with my Union Jack right... This is my country too.

 

I want more multinational companies coming IN to London and trading, not coming OUT.

 

Apparently, like so much said by Brexiteers, it's a distortion of the truth:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_word_for_"crisis"

 

I only quote to respond to your quote, never to use your words in your quote unless they're highlighted by me either repeated by me or made bold or underlined...

Don't worry about me quoting what you say, but it's just a correspondence tool I use to posts that make me want to say what ever I've ever said.

 

Then I'm inventing the word if it's not a real word.


Think outside of the box Bro'.


Also, EU, UK, World, think outside of the box, the Hell with the rules, tare up the Lisbon Treaty and ALL get to write something new we can ALL get on board, you dig?

**** the rules.

 

Corbyn unlike many MP's supports democracy. The vote was made and the choice was leave. However once again you try to put spin on this and it would appear find having a go at Corbyn much more fun than looking at the situation we are in.

A Brexit under Corbyn would be very different to a Brexit under the Tories or a Blairite Labour which is pretty much on level with the less extreme right Tories.

Here is an hour long speech he made. I am going to trust the reporting at the moment and not spend an hour listening to the recording. This is EuroNews speaking

I find your interest in using a very critical time in the UK to try more spin on Corbyn annoying. No he would not want to have a neo liberal country as Blairites support. Yes,he accepted the vote but with him it would have been a soft Brexit and a very different Government than the ones we have been living with the last 40 years.

He wants a general election. That is the reason why he has not called for a loss of confidence on the Tories now because he believes that does not have enough people to win and is waiting till it does. He probably would not want to stay in the EU but under a soft Brexit. Others in Labour want the call fr another Referendum. I think you should pay more attention to Starmer.

A soft Brexit and working to get us out of neo liberalism is what Corbyn would ideally provide. The Table was laid when Cameron decided the people of Britain despite the fact most of us knew nothing about the EU were to vote on whether we wanted to stay and leave.

May has offered a deal which no one will accept and is probably going to end up with a No Deal. The people of the UK are going to suffer massively from this. The vote, the money spent, including now on making preparations for no deal is going to cause the Tories to choose to bring in more and harsher austerity. Everyone I read is agreed that that is going to lead to a massive increase in the far right in England. Corbyn is probably the only effective alternative. Both the Tories and Blairite Labour by their actions have correctly lost the trust of the people of the UK as they support Neo Liberlaism which destroys democracy and will create a society not that different from the old feudal one. The vote should have been on that. Neo Liberalism or tell it where to go. Instead the right as always, decided to make it against an other. Corporate Power will always work with fascism and that is where we are almost certainly headed if this is not sorted and at base what needs to be sorted is neo liberlaism and neither the Tories nor Blairite Labour are going to do that.

 

Corbyn wants an election so he can be prime minister. For decades he has called for the UK to leave the EU. As prime minister, he would complete Brexit.

A Blairite Brexit would never happen because there would have been no referendum.

 

who else would you expect him to want to be Prime Minister?

but not the Brexit which is being completed now whether May's deal or No Deal. In any case it would need to be decided by Labour before the election. Then people would have the opportunity to vote.

Here he is speaking about what he would do a week ago

whatever made you think I would want a Blairite Brexit.

It would not happen because neither Blair nor his ites are in power.

 

trump is a gangster, if the UK comes in weak(hard Brexit) you'll be at his mercy and there won't be any shown, it'll be his deal or no deal, you'll be a vassal state

 

There's no kind of Brexit that leaves people better off than remaining. The UK economy has lost 2% already, before it's even happened!

 

why do you think then that Cameron called the Referendum?

and will be losing a lot more now preparing for no deal - they are now saying it is down to the DUP whether May's deal goes through or not.

 

Talking of the UK's financial position deteriorating over Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/19/british-economy-forecast-to-fall-in-gdp-rankings

 

What I meant to communicate is that his actions regarding calling for a no confidence vote in Theresa May (and presumably in the government if he thinks that the motion would pass) have absolutely nothing to do with "saving" the UK from Brexit or anything else for the national good and everything to do with furthering his personal ambitions.

If he were to become Prime Minister and if it is in time to have an influence on the Brexit process then I have no doubt that any calls for a second referendum will cease and instead he will work on his own vision for Brexit. The Labour Party have been short on detail about this but it's apparently a Brexit where we're in the EEA or Customs Union (or at least close to it) without having to provide the four freedoms.

I think that magical thinking would be dashed against the rocks of reality once he and his team have the first encounter with the EU negotiators. If you want a deal which allows close ties and seamless trade then you have to go for something based on the Norway model which requires the four freedoms. The alternative, if you don't want freedom of movement, is a Canada (or plus or plus plus or plus plus plus) which still leaves the issue of the Northern Irish border (and doesn't really address the needs of the service sector which accounts for 80% of the UK economy).

I'm sorry I don't have the time to watch a 10 minute video. I appreciate that Corbyn doesn't want May's deal or no deal - instead he thinks that the Labour Party can magically come up with a great deal despite not wanting the four freedoms - but unless he's willing to knock Brexit on the head it's still a case of deliberately damaging the UK economy in order to satisfy some ideological desire and going against the will of 2/3 of his own party. In any form of Brexit, those who will suffer most are the ones who can afford it least - the people Jeremy Corbyn purports to represent.

I didn't think that - indeed you said that you didn't want a Blairite Brexit. I was pointing out that under Blair, Brexit would never even have been an option because Blairites, like me, are very much in favour of remaining part of the EU.

 

Internal party politics.

There's been a powerful and strongly Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party for decades (as opposed to the Labour Party where the Eurosceptics were largely impotent until Jeremy Corbyn became leader and now Brexit is party policy even though close to 2/3 of Labour Supporters voted to Remain).

John Major, astonishingly enough had the guts to face down the Eurosceptics, David Cameron did not.

What do you propose ? Not preparing for a "no deal" ?

However much people like me (and I presume you) don't want Brexit to go ahead, it's a done deal. It's the official party policy of the two major political parties in the UK.

Because of this there will be no move to cancel Brexit. There's no time to organise a second referendum but even if there were, it would likely be a choice between types of Brexit, not a choice whether to go ahead (because both major parties apparently agree that "the British people have spoken").

If Labour were suddenly to sweep to power, we'd still have Brexit but one of Jeremy Corbyn's devising and I cannot see how it would be much different to Theresa May's because:

• Without the four freedoms (to which Corbyn is opposed) we're not going to be allowed in the EEA
• Being a little more amenable to EU regulation (without allowing the EU to dictate - because that would be a loss of sovereignty) will cut little ice when it comes to being part of a customs union - it's all or nothing
• There's still the issue of the Irish border. If you allow any Pole, Romanian or Czech who ends up in Ireland to just stroll across the border to Northern Ireland (which must happen under the terms of the Good Friday agreement) then you've given up control of your borders.

 

Brexit was Labour Party policy because the people voted for it in a Referendum. I have already spoken to you on that. Did you honestly expect the Government to simply come out and say, 'tough luck' we are not having a Brexit.

I think it had more to do with the papers putting the idea and misinformation into people's minds for the previous ten years or so. The EU tended to be blamed for every problem the UK had. Seems the papers for some reason had an interest in diverting people's attention away from the root of problems.

Cameron has put it down to the 2008 crash

https://www.thenational.ae/world/eu...ing-brexit-referendum-was-inevitable-1.709564

I also read of the old reasons for avoiding the vote which were correct reasons being that people did not know enough to vote (on anything but emotions) were no longer working...but most of all I would say it was the Tories doing their usual thing of moving to the right to stop the right in this case UIKP which they saw as a definite threat.

Why would a Prime Minister do something which he knows will damage his country if the vote goes the way he does not want? You can say he did not expect it to go that way but as Prime Minister he still took the chance of allowing people to vote on something which he believed would be harmful for the country.

Cameron himself says he has no regrets, yet you are suggesting that Labour should have gone against the result of the Referendum. The Tories through Cameron chose to give the Country a vote which the Prime Minister certainly knew if it went wrong would be harmful for the country. You believe Labour should have told the country its vote meant nothing by refusing to accept it.

You have taken what was written out of context to change its meaning. Please desist.


I am not going to waste time on your maybe's The issue which needs to be changed is neo liberalism.and even more important than the effect this will have on the future of Britain is taking time to create this crises rather than dealing with the one which faces the entire world, climate change.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/...exit-is-the-wrong-diagnosis-of-a-real-crisis/

 

I didn't expect the government to do so, after all the majority of Conservatives voted Leave and the Conservatives are also trying to get UKIP voters back in the fold but the Labour Party is the opposition, its supporters voted Remain close to a 2:1 so why couldn't the Labour Party's position be to Remain (like the LibDems and the SNP) ?

The result may have been down to the crash, but the Conservative Party has been split on Europe for decades and it has been causing ructions in the party for at least the last 25 years. The Conservatives had lost support to UKIP and the promise of a referendum was an attempt to slap a sticking plaster over the wound. David Cameron thought that the result would be a foregone conclusion. He was utterly wrong.

He did it because he doesn't give a stuff about the wellbeing of the country, he's a professional politician and he saw it as a way of becoming Prime Minister. There may be a few principled politicians who would put national interests above their own political career but they are few and far between. Most politicians are interested in pushing their own agendas and furthering their own careers.

If Cameron says he has no regrets, he is lying IMO. The result of the Referendum cost him the top job and his actions after the result are anything but the actions of a person with no regrets.

Of course the Labour Party could have gone against the referendum result had they chosen to do so:

• The referendum was non-binding
• The majority was tiny
• Labour Supporters voted to Remain close to 2:1

The reason they didn't was that their leader is as keen on Brexit as Jacob Rees-Mogg. For sure Jeremy Corbyn's vision of Brexit is very different to Rees-Mogg's but it's just as unrealistic and just as unachievable

Then what should I have concluded from what you wrote?

The arch neo-Liberals, the Blairites, would have kept us in the EU because there wouldn't have been a referendum.

Your hero, Jeremy Corbyn is now, and has always been, pro-Brexit (as has the left wing of the party since I joined back in the early 80's). Right now he is as culpable in this mess as Theresa May, the DUP or the ERG. Had Labour joined forces with the SNP and the LibDems and opposed Brexit then we wouldn't be in as bad a mess now as we are.

IMO Hard Brexit is now inevitable and Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party deserve a healthy slice of the blame for the consequences by turning against 48% of the UK electorate and 2/3 of their own supporters.

 

Well guess they are not the Lib Dems or the SNP. As to why they have the attitude they have I have already dealt with this in a reply to you in this thread and given a link to Caroline Flint as an example. If you missed the post I suggest you look back.

It would be nice if we could actually talk about this issues rather than you trying to make it a party fight.

Again all this just to have a go at Corbyn. Are you actually unable to discuss politics without making it into a party infighting

Obviously the person to deal with that with was the person who brought it up.

Quit being offensive. Only people who are only interested in a fight rather than discussing issues stoop to that..

The issue is neoliberalism. I notice you always avoid this trying instead to blame everything on Corbyn.