Topic: Brexit: "Vultus inanis est et mori in fossa ego sum!"

[BobOnATank]

Back May’s deal, then hold people’s vote: plan to end Brexit deadlock
Cross-party move likely to be put forward as amendment to EU withdrawal bill

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/back-theresa-may-brexit-deal-then-hold-peoples-vote-backbencher-plan

Gives them the excuse that they "delivered" brexit I suppose.

[killer-heels]

Back May’s deal, then hold people’s vote: plan to end Brexit deadlock
Cross-party move likely to be put forward as amendment to EU withdrawal bill

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/09/back-theresa-may-brexit-deal-then-hold-peoples-vote-backbencher-plan

Gives them the excuse that they "delivered" brexit I suppose.

There is zero chance of that getting through to a majority. In fact if thats put forward it will lose by a pitiful amount.

[ShakaHislop]

"Oh, they'll be rushing to do deals with us" I got from a fella in work today.  Everything I said to ask why they'd be wanting them as soon as the UK's out was just "They will, just wait and see mate".  It genuinely hurts, the level of naivety and borderline stupidity that we're entering this with.  650 elected officials, most of whom wanted to remain, and we're left with the intelligence of John and Sharon leading the way with "Well, we're British, innit.  British is best, innit."

- @FT scoop: UK-Japan trade talks stall, raising risks from no-deal Brexit - rpt by @RobinBHarding @Urbandirt. Signs here of a hardening position by Japan and how hard it will be for UK to strike trade deals

https://twitter.com/TonyTassell/status/1093873255910440960

business sources tell me South Korea is also hoping to use its leverage to extract concessions from the UK over a new trade deal: for example only letting UK count EU industrial parts in "rules of origin" calculations if Seoul can count Chinese parts

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1093891993275641856

[Alan_X]

"Oh, they'll be rushing to do deals with us" I got from a fella in work today...

He's not totally wrong:

https://twitter.com/TonyTassell/status/1093873255910440960



https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1093891993275641856

The rest of the world will be looking forward to picking over the bones of our international economic reputation.

[Trada]

Michael Crick
‏Verified account @MichaelLCrick

The worrying, ludicrous thing about Theresa May’s reply to Jeremy Corbyn’s Brexit plan is that it’s been given a “strict” embargo of 10.30 tonight - so it was given out to media this afternoon on the understanding we can’t publish it until 10.30pm.

[HarryLabrador]

Aintree Grand National could be first casualty of no-deal Brexit
30,000 sport horses, excluding thoroughbreds, move across Irish Sea every year
Marie O'Halloran
 
Aintree Racecourse, Liverpool: A tripartite agreement, which currently exists under EU law, allows for the free movement of and trade in horses between Ireland, Britain and France. Photograph: Getty Images   
Aintree Racecourse, Liverpool: A tripartite agreement, which currently exists under EU law, allows for the free movement of and trade in horses between Ireland, Britain and France.

The Aintree Grand National festival could be the first casualty of a no-deal Brexit on March 29th because free movement of horses would no longer be allowed between Ireland and the UK.

A tripartite agreement which currently exists under EU law allows for the movement of and trade in horses between Ireland, Britain and France without veterinary inspections or health certificates.

However, Fine Gael chairman Martin Hoyden has warned this could be “greatly challenged” if there is no deal on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.

He said the impact on Ireland’s €1 billion equine industry could be similar to the impact on the beef sector “because the Irish and UK markets for the breeding and racing of horses are so interlinked”.

Mr Hoyden, in whose Kildare South constituency the Curragh and a significant slice of the horse breeding industry is based, said the equine industry could be the first affected by no deal by the deadline.

“If there was no deal at the end of March, it would be far more difficult for Irish horses to travel to Aintree the following week for the Grand National festival” which takes place between April 4th and 6th, he said.

And it would get worse, he warned. “Later that month, we want the best of the English horses which have been successful in Cheltenham to come and contest in Punchestown.

“A couple of weeks later we are in the height of the breeding season. Some of the top stallions in the world are found in this country and mares will be travelling to and from this country.”

State aid
Mr Hoyden, in a Dáil parliamentary question, asked Minister for Agriculture Michael Creed if a relaxation of State aid rules would be considered to support the industry.

He also called on Mr Creed to work through Horse Racing Ireland, the national authority for thoroughbred racing, with all those potentially affected both in the short and long term, including the Irish Thoroughbred Breeders Association and racehorse trainers.

Mr Creed said sectors other than the thoroughbred sector would be affected, “because the horse sport sector also sees considerable volume”.

Recent figures suggested that anything up to 30,000 sport horses outside the thoroughbred sector move east to west every year.

Mr Creed said the issue was further complicated by the all-island administration of racing through the Irish Resurfacing Regulatory Board. “There is an all-island stud book for the thoroughbred sector. It is complex,” he said.

He acknowledged that the UK could not be part of the tripartite agreement once it becomes a “third country”.

But he said there was extensive engagement on the issue which would “involve change to the current arrangements but we are endeavouring to make those as user-friendly and efficient as possible”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/aintree-grand-national-could-be-first-casualty-of-no-deal-brexit-1.3788939

[Red-Soldier]

Aintree Grand National could be first casualty of no-deal Brexit
30,000 sport horses, excluding thoroughbreds, move across Irish Sea every year
Marie O'Halloran
 

Horse racing can fuck right off. Barbaric "sport"

[Red-Soldier]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/10/brexit-mps-will-have-another-say-by-end-of-month-says-minister


May rejects Corbyn's offer as businesses warn of Brexit cliff edge

PM’s reply to Labour leader’s letter stresses her objections to UK being in a customs union


Theresa May has effectively ruled out Labour’s ideas for a compromise Brexit plan, shutting off another potential route to a deal as business groups warned that with less than 50 days to go the departure process was entering the “emergency zone”.

The prime minister’s formal response to Jeremy Corbyn’s proposal, in a letter to the Labour leader, stressed her objections to keeping the UK in some form of customs union, saying this would prevent the UK making its own trade deals.




It's more important for the UK to be able to make it's own shitty trade deals, and not be shackled to the Eu's far superior ones!

[Dr. Beaker]

What do we want?
Free movement of horses!
When do we want it?
Before the 2.20 at Fontwell Park!

[Red-Soldier]

What do we want?
Free movement of horses!
When do we want it?
Before the 2.20 at Fontwell Park!

They'll be a load of equines at the Irish border, wont go down well.

[killer-heels]

Would make me laugh if May ran down the clock. When MP’s triggered article 50 and up to this point they were constantly mentioning how parliament would find a way etc. etc.

Such arrogance by them as if they controlled everything.

[oldfordie]

What do we want?
Free movement of horses!
When do we want it?
Before the 2.20 at Fontwell Park!

Some of the horses I back have never heard of freedom of movement

[OneTouchFooty]

They think, the more they will suffer for being British the more British it will make them feel. Which is what they want.

I really hope reality will wake them up. In the same way as going for a cold shower and a run first thing in the morning sounds like a great idea, until you're stood wet, freezing and tired in the dark and realise you can't run for 2 minutes without feeling sick.

I’ve said all along, once you people start taking a hit in their own pocket that’s when, for many, the scales will fall from the eyes and all the nationalistic bravado and denial will subside, of course you’ll always have your hardcore 25/30% but most sensible people will realise they’ve been duped. As you say, it’s a lot easier giving it the big one before the event until the reality hits you in the face.

Just look at America the past week and the number of Trump supporters turning on Trump on social media, who after being promised the tax cuts would leave them better off, are now finding out they’ve been hammered and have seen big increases to their tax bill as lots of previous deductibles have been capped and have screwed them over.

[ShakaHislop]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/10/brexit-mps-will-have-another-say-by-end-of-month-says-minister


May rejects Corbyn's offer as businesses warn of Brexit cliff edge

PM’s reply to Labour leader’s letter stresses her objections to UK being in a customs union


Theresa May has effectively ruled out Labour’s ideas for a compromise Brexit plan, shutting off another potential route to a deal as business groups warned that with less than 50 days to go the departure process was entering the “emergency zone”.

The prime minister’s formal response to Jeremy Corbyn’s proposal, in a letter to the Labour leader, stressed her objections to keeping the UK in some form of customs union, saying this would prevent the UK making its own trade deals.




It's more important for the UK to be able to make it's own shitty trade deals, and not be shackled to the Eu's far superior ones!

Mrs May said securing frictionless trade for goods was "one of our key negotiating objectives".

She added: "The fundamental negotiating challenge here is the EU's position that completely frictionless trade is only possible if the UK stays in the single market.

"This would mean accepting free movement, which Labour's 2017 General Election manifesto made clear you do not support."

Labour also wants the UK to stay in step with the EU if workers' rights improve in Europe.

While the prime minister says existing rights will be protected, there will be no automatic upgrade in line with the EU. Instead, Parliament would be asked if it wanted to follow suit each time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47192233

Glad she's drawn attention to the freedom of movement issue. It'll force Labour to reveal whether it has made a genuine shift in a soft Brexit direction and does now accept the continuation of FOM, or if the leadership is still in cherry picking mode.

The workers rights pledge isn't much for the Labour Brexiteers to point to either.

[Ghost Town]

Surely now Corbyn will have to make a genuine call on a second ref? He's had his big bright idea thrown back in his face with jeers and laughter and piss-taking references to his own Frankenstein manifesto. Has he no self-respect? Doesn't he want to hit back by putting his support behind something that can scupper May's insane suicide pact?

[Ghost Town]

Mostly pissed, as I ever am when I contribute on here, and I'm watching Last Train to Lisbon, with tears threatening at the mere thought of us breaking ties with these rich cultures to the south - not to mention, our oldest ally.

I'm with you Doc

As I've said before, most of the discussion and desperation at the moment is, rightly, about trade and the economy and all that jazz.

But perhaps only in years to come will people begin to see just what an existential own-goal this is as well. How we are proposing to turn away from our own corner of the world, and break ties with those cultures closest to us and most intertwined in our history, our language, and our sense of self. Not to mention to erase a shared but fragile European identity that somewhat unexpectedly, and against-the-odds, took root, sprouted and then was carefully cultivated and allowed to bloom and thrive after a half-century of madness, aggression, war and bloodshed.

And why? Because some people are angry at their situation and want to lash out?

The UK is not just cutting its nose off to spite its face, but also cutting off all it knows to face its spite.

[Dr. Beaker]

I'm with you Doc

As I've said before, most of the discussion and desperation at the moment is, rightly, about trade and the economy and all that jazz.

But perhaps only in years to come will people begin to see just what an existential own-goal this is as well. How we are proposing to turn away from our own corner of the world, and break ties with those cultures closest to us and most intertwined in our history, our language, and our sense of self. Not to mention to erase a shared but fragile European identity that somewhat unexpectedly, and against-the-odds, took root, sprouted and then was carefully cultivated and allowed to bloom and thrive after a half-century of madness, aggression, war and bloodshed.

And why? Because some people are angry at their situation and want to lash out?

The UK is not just cutting its nose off to spite its face, but also cutting off all it knows to face its spite.

Very well said.

[Zeb]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47192233

Glad she's drawn attention to the freedom of movement issue. It'll force Labour to reveal whether it has made a genuine shift in a soft Brexit direction and does now accept the continuation of FOM, or if the leadership is still in cherry picking mode.

The workers rights pledge isn't much for the Labour Brexiteers to point to either.

"I'm glad you mentioned your concerns about the backstop in public because if you don't like that you have to change the Withdrawal Agreement. And you're also saying you don't want to do that."

----

Another shout out to UK in a Changing Europe (think tank at KCL) and the academics who are doing things for it. They've tried to explain the backstop in a series of short essays.

Simon Usherwood has a piece which explains how the EU view the backstop and whether it can be changed.

Spoiler

A popular view in the UK is that the EU is implacable and immovable on the question of the backstop. But a more careful reading of statements from senior EU officials and from figures in the member states suggests that there is some room for manoeuvre, albeit within carefully prescribed limits.

There are three roots to the backstop concept: one principled, one legal and one pragmatic. The principled motivation is the desire to protect the interests of member states. The value of collective action at a European level comes with a requirement to ensure that no member is disadvantaged in relation to non-members. The failure of the UK to recognise that, practically at least, it has moved from member to non-member status is a wider issue in the Article 50 process. This is not least because it means that the concerns of Dublin will always carry more weight than those of London.

This runs into the legal concern. The EU is a rules-based organisation—it cannot rely on informal and emotive buy-in for its work from its citizens—and so it values the commitments made. Thus, the obligations of the Good Friday Agreement on the Irish government count for a considerable amount, as do the EU’s own requirements for market integration. These preclude internal barriers to free movement under the single market between member states, even as World Trade Organisation commitments require checks and controls at the edge of that market. Seen in this light, the backstop is an effort to square the multiple circles of different legal constraints. All of this is reinforced by the pragmatic aspect: in Brussels, the UK is not seen a reliable partner, given its endless vacillations over Article 50, in both procedural and substantive terms. Coupled with this, the numerous public statements from senior British politicians intended to create the strong impression that words might be one thing but they would have to be in binding legal terms to have any value has further eroded trust. Theresa May’s support for the Brady amendment on 29 January merely confirmed for many in the EU that there is a significant danger of discussions on the backstop poisoning the entire Withdrawal Agreement.

Which brings us back to the question of whether and how the EU might move on this issue. If the three roots point towards inflexibility, then it is important to recall that the EU is not an enthusiastic supporter of the backstop on its own terms: instead, it is tolerated as the least worst option given the constraints. Most obviously, the UK-wide temporary customs arrangement was a substantial concession to the British government, while all involved on the EU side of negotiations have repeatedly stressed their desire to see the backstop used only as a last resort and only until another arrangement can be found.

If another proposal were to be put on the table that satisfied the EU’s various needs—protection of its members’ interests and the integrity of EU policies on trade and regulation—then it would certainly be discussed and considered seriously. However, after two years of research and negotiation, the Commission and member states do not see any viable alternative given the UK’s stated preference to leave the single market and customs union (as Anand Menon and Matthew Bevington discuss in this report).

This comes back to the uncertainty over the UK’s intentions. Movement on the preferred form of the future EU-UK relationship (for example, to include participation in a full customs union or in the single market) would be the most obvious factor that could change, affecting the nature and extent of the backstop. However, any policy change by the British government would need to be backed by a solid majority in Parliament.

And this is the key barrier to EU flexibility. At present, the British political system looks blocked. Concessions on even one part of the backstop might turn out to be the thin end of a thick wedge: Tory backbenchers might feel emboldened to require the government to return for more re- negotiations to gain yet more. Without a clear and definitive line from the UK, the EU is liable to keep its counsel and hold its line.

[close]

[Theoldkopite]

They'll be a load of equines at the Irish border, wont go down well.

Will need a very high fence to stop them jumping over. Trump could probably help us with this one.

[Qston]

I'm with you Doc

As I've said before, most of the discussion and desperation at the moment is, rightly, about trade and the economy and all that jazz.

But perhaps only in years to come will people begin to see just what an existential own-goal this is as well. How we are proposing to turn away from our own corner of the world, and break ties with those cultures closest to us and most intertwined in our history, our language, and our sense of self. Not to mention to erase a shared but fragile European identity that somewhat unexpectedly, and against-the-odds, took root, sprouted and then was carefully cultivated and allowed to bloom and thrive after a half-century of madness, aggression, war and bloodshed.

And why? Because some people are angry at their situation and want to lash out?

The UK is not just cutting its nose off to spite its face, but also cutting off all it knows to face its spite.

This echoes more or less my thoughts. The EU is far from perfect, and as you say trade etc is at the centre of the debate at the moment. However, it completely misses as to why the EU came into being in the first place. There is a misplaced prevailing, even arrogant, attitude that the horrors of the last century surely wouldn`t be repeated by our modern outlook. That is quite frankly ignoring all the lessons of history. The slow degrading of the whole concept by predominantly right wing lunatics and marxist ideologues is precisely what got us in this mess in the first place, ignoring the vast majority who sit silently in the middle.

[Trim0582]

They think, the more they will suffer for being British the more British it will make them feel. Which is what they want.

10000%

Thatcher dined on that thinking for her entire premiership, somehow convincing ordinary people to vote for ruinous policies and even vociferously cheer and endorse them. It is some odd form of pious, martyrdom and a national identity of stoicism, lauding courage and fortitude through adversity.

Courage and fortitude are by no means bad, but the idea of creating havoc and disarray, just so, thereafter, you can be seen to weather the storm stoically, is utter madness, it is very troubling.

It is analogous with American gun enthusiasts, who day dream about being caught up in a shooting, so they can play hero.

[Zeb]

Peston (facebook) on changes to Corbyn's original letter to May and why both May and Corbyn would have to split their parties to find an agreement that would pass Parliament.

No matter how many times Theresa May reminds us, it is easy to forget that Labour’s manifesto committed it to delivering Brexit.

Equally it is hard to remember that the notorious motion passed by the last Labour conference that opened the door to the party’s possible support for a Brexit referendum - as a last resort - was also a restatement of the party’s pledge to deliver its own vision of how to leave the EU.

So it was rational for the prime minister to respond in good faith to Jeremy Corbyn’s written offer to negotiate Brexit terms that he and his party could support.

And quite apart from the convention that manifesto commitments should be honoured, she will presumably know - since almost everyone else in the UK does - that Corbyn is less attracted to a referendum than he would be to a job offer from Goldman Sachs.

And by way of further evidence, if such were needed, I am told that the original draft of Corbyn’s letter to May, which was written by Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary Starmer, contained reference to the party’s fallback position of a referendum. And this was struck out by Corbyn’s office before the letter was sent.

But none of that means there is a deal to be done between Corbyn and May - because the scale of compromise for both may well be beyond what their parties can wear and bear.

To get Corbyn and Labour on board, May would have to sacrifice some of the putative freedoms - such as the ability to ever diverge from the EU on Labour or environmental rules, or to negotiate free trade deals with non-EU countries - that for many Tory Brexiter MPs represent the whole point of Brexit.

And to get his party on board, Corbyn would have to explain why he would be doing a deal whose effect could be to sustain the Tory government in office till 2022.

But as I have said before, there is a deal to be done between May and Corbyn that would command parliamentary support - it would be a version of what some Remainy MPs have styled Common Market 2.0 - so long as neither mind that their respective parties would fracture as a price of that deal.

The point is that May’s and Corbyn’s visions of a tolerable Brexit are much more aligned than the views of the Brexiter and Remain wings of their own respective parties.

So it is May’s and Corbyn’s resolve to deliver Brexit and damn the consequences for the institutions that have sustained and nurtured them throughout their entire adult lives that will determine how and even whether the UK leaves the EU.

For both, it is all about whether their perception of the national interest trumps party interest.

Not sure the opposition is meant to deliver on its losing manifesto all the same. And even government manifesto pledges are subject to political realities or the Tories would still be pushing the Poll Tax.

edit: more from Peston on Corbyn's letter being changed -

"I am told Keir Starmer is not the happiest member of the frontbench.  According to multiple sources, he had agreed that the final part of Corbyn’s letter to May would say “if you do not accept this [Brexit offer] there will be a People’s Vote”. One source tells me “LOTO [the leader of the opposition] agreed to this. But then Keir discovered after the letter had been sent and published that the People’s Vote para had gone”. Starmer “called LOTO and was told ‘oh we must have forgotten that paragraph’”. Apparently Starmer’s reaction has not been one of unbridled joy. And even erstwhile Corbyn loyalists are becoming grumpy at what they see as his refusal to follow the revealed will of Labour members and supporters that their should be a referendum. One said: “the only interest” of Corbyn and his aides is “seeing a Tory Brexit through so they can wash their hands of it”."

[kennedy81]

Brexiters desperately trying to spin the latest economic figures. Growth down by 0.4% to 0.2%. Investment into UK down for fourth quarter in a row.

So much for 'OMG the uk has teh fastest growing economy in europe'.

[killer-heels]

Brexiters desperately trying to spin the latest economic figures. Growth down by 0.4% to 0.2%. Investment into UK down for fourth quarter in a row.

So much for 'OMG the uk has teh fastest growing economy in europe'.

Thats a massive drop.

[Dr. Beaker]

So after all this time, we are still here trying (unconvincingly) to pretend that the current party set-up can get us successfully through this national tug-o'-war in which half of the participants on each side are pushing, and party leaders can neither push, for fear of offending pullers, or pull, for fear of offending pushers.

[Schmidt]

So after all this time, we are still here trying (unconvincingly) to pretend that the current party set-up can get us successfully through this national tug-o'-war in which half of the participants on each side are pushing, and party leaders can neither push, for fear of offending pullers, or push, for fear of offending pullers.

We should start a campaign to put the queen back in charge, I'm not a fan of the royals but the brexiters would lap it up and she's pro EU right?

[ShakaHislop]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47192233

Glad she's drawn attention to the freedom of movement issue. It'll force Labour to reveal whether it has made a genuine shift in a soft Brexit direction and does now accept the continuation of FOM, or if the leadership is still in cherry picking mode.

The workers rights pledge isn't much for the Labour Brexiteers to point to either.

Seems like it.

From Tom Watson's interview on Marr yesterday

AM: So the second obvious problem with your proposal is what happens to free movement. One of your front bench colleagues has said in the past week that free movement is on the table. In other words, you might accept free movement, which a lot of your own voters would not regard as Brexit.

TW: Well, look, we’re looking for a new set of arrangements, and it does seem to me that the domestic context across the EU, particularly in Germany, Italy and Spain, on the current free movement arrangements, are under question domestically. So it may be that a new deal around a customs union could refresh the talks about what free movement looks like. And you know, if you’re going to reopen negotiations let’s take a look at that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/10021901.pdf

[thejbs]

10000%

Thatcher dined on that thinking for her entire premiership, somehow convincing ordinary people to vote for ruinous policies and even vociferously cheer and endorse them. It is some odd form of pious, martyrdom and a national identity of stoicism, lauding courage and fortitude through adversity.

Courage and fortitude are by no means bad, but the idea of creating havoc and disarray, just so, thereafter, you can be seen to weather the storm stoically, is utter madness, it is very troubling.

It is analogous with American gun enthusiasts, who day dream about being caught up in a shooting, so they can play hero.

Dunkirk spirit... 

[So… Howard Philips]

We should start a campaign to put the queen back in charge, I'm not a fan of the royals but the brexiters would lap it up and she's pro EU right?

And aren't most of her in-laws German, Danish and Greek?

[Yorkykopite]

Peston (facebook) on changes to Corbyn's original letter to May and why both May and Corbyn would have to split their parties to find an agreement that would pass Parliament.

Not sure the opposition is meant to deliver on its losing manifesto all the same. And even government manifesto pledges are subject to political realities or the Tories would still be pushing the Poll Tax.

edit: more from Peston on Corbyn's letter being changed -

"I am told Keir Starmer is not the happiest member of the frontbench.  According to multiple sources, he had agreed that the final part of Corbyn’s letter to May would say “if you do not accept this [Brexit offer] there will be a People’s Vote”. One source tells me “LOTO [the leader of the opposition] agreed to this. But then Keir discovered after the letter had been sent and published that the People’s Vote para had gone”. Starmer “called LOTO and was told ‘oh we must have forgotten that paragraph’”. Apparently Starmer’s reaction has not been one of unbridled joy. And even erstwhile Corbyn loyalists are becoming grumpy at what they see as his refusal to follow the revealed will of Labour members and supporters that their should be a referendum. One said: “the only interest” of Corbyn and his aides is “seeing a Tory Brexit through so they can wash their hands of it”."

Interesting, thanks.

You're right in what you say about honouring losing manifesto commitments too.

[Trim0582]

Dunkirk spirit...

At least at the time it was to fight encroaching fascism in Europe.

This time that spirit has been hijacked. The EU surely must be one of the greatest examples of peace, through trade and commonality, in human history.

The influence of the EU in stabilising the whole of Europe, is grossly underestimated. It has helped bring 50 years of peace and prosperity, for me it is the ultimate betrayal of a "Dunkirk spirit" if one was to ever have existed.

The boomer generation (not all) seem to be a generation that dined on the glory of the war, without ever actually having been in one, how dare they. 

[Yorkykopite]

The 'Dunkirk spirit' certainly did exist in 1940. But it's obviously the opposite of the spirit prevailing now. Dunkirk was about national unity and the sinking of all differences in order to defend ourselves against the threat of a Nazi invasion. It was also about a 'contract' we made with the rest of the world to fight on until fascism was beaten. *

Brexit, for all the talk of 'The People', is about permanently dividing the country as well as retreating into our own little corner and sticking two fingers up to the rest of the world. 

*EDIT - Bearing in mind the Churchill thread the Dunkirk spirit was also about rallying around our own Fascist White Supremacist government and in that sense was simply a battle between two fascisms. 

[Trim0582]

*EDIT - Bearing in mind the Churchill thread the Dunkirk spirit was also about rallying around our own Fascist White Supremacist government and in that sense was simply a battle between two fascisms. 

Yes, I have read it but managed to refrain from posting.

White, British, war time leader born in 19th century, probably more racist than a 21 year old student it 2019.
Quelle fucking surprise.

Although ironically, he was probably less anti-Semitic than a majority of Corbyns labour party.

I'm sure Churchill will be totally denigrated and written out of history in the fullness of time, any biographical books about him will be pulled from curriculums and subsequently burned. Nothing says progress like, totalitarian proscription and book burning.


FFS Yorky, this is why I stayed out of that thread!

[Zeb]

Interesting, thanks.

You're right in what you say about honouring losing manifesto commitments too.

Alan Johnson's going to be on the phone to Starmer soon saying, "Did I ever tell you about what happened to Corbyn's speeches during the referendum campaign?", isn't he? John Rentoul has it that Corbyn's in purdah again and refusing to speak to even members of the shadow cabinet about Brexit.

I suppose keeping the (blue) Tories in 'til 2022 would allow the real enemy to be fought in the meantime etc.

[oldfordie]

Peston (facebook) on changes to Corbyn's original letter to May and why both May and Corbyn would have to split their parties to find an agreement that would pass Parliament.

Not sure the opposition is meant to deliver on its losing manifesto all the same. And even government manifesto pledges are subject to political realities or the Tories would still be pushing the Poll Tax.

edit: more from Peston on Corbyn's letter being changed -

"I am told Keir Starmer is not the happiest member of the frontbench.  According to multiple sources, he had agreed that the final part of Corbyn’s letter to May would say “if you do not accept this [Brexit offer] there will be a People’s Vote”. One source tells me “LOTO [the leader of the opposition] agreed to this. But then Keir discovered after the letter had been sent and published that the People’s Vote para had gone”. Starmer “called LOTO and was told ‘oh we must have forgotten that paragraph’”. Apparently Starmer’s reaction has not been one of unbridled joy. And even erstwhile Corbyn loyalists are becoming grumpy at what they see as his refusal to follow the revealed will of Labour members and supporters that their should be a referendum. One said: “the only interest” of Corbyn and his aides is “seeing a Tory Brexit through so they can wash their hands of it”."

If Corbyn thinks he can walk away from Brexit without a backlash he's deluded, if he thinks the Brexit issue ends the day we leave he's deluded, if he thinks Labour voters will lay all the blame for Brexit on the Tories he's deluded. Corbyn will never be trusted or forgiven after Brexit.

[Red-Soldier]

Yes, I have read it but managed to refrain from posting.

White, British, war time leader born in 19th century, probably more racist than a 21 year old student it 2019.
Quelle fucking surprise.

Although ironically, he was probably less anti-Semitic than a majority of Corbyns labour party.

I'm sure Churchill will be totally denigrated and written out of history in the fullness of time, any biographical books about him will be pulled from curriculums and subsequently burned. Nothing says progress like, totalitarian proscription and book burning.


FFS Yorky, this is why I stayed out of that thread!

This is about where I'm at with Churchill, and like you, have stayed out of the thread.

[Zeb]

The Economist's Tom Nuttall is covering a Sabine Weyand Q+A. Worth picking up on how blunt the EU are now being about the chances of 'remain'.

Some of what she said:

"when I look at the situation in Britain, I see an extremely polarised country asking difficult questions about globalisation. I'm not seeing a majority in the Commons for a second referendum.

cakeism is found on Remain side as well as Leave. The chances for a reversal of Brexit are non-existent. The only option is to enable a structured exit.

the political declaration is vague because Britain has not decided what relationship it wants with the EU.

Corbyn's letter to May triggered an interesting debate. His proposals deserve to be discussed. Britain's discussion deserves to be given some time."

Extension to negotiate based on amending the political declaration has always been a possibility. Moving the conversation to shooting the unicorns in a non-binding political declaration seems to be the way out of this which the EU are making clear they'd support.

[ShakaHislop]

The Economist's Tom Nuttall is covering a Sabine Wyand Q+A. Worth picking up on how blunt the EU are now being about the chances of 'remain'.

Some of what she said:

"when I look at the situation in Britain, I see an extremely polarised country asking difficult questions about globalisation. I'm not seeing a majority in the Commons for a second referendum.

cakeism is found on Remain side as well as Leave. The chances for a reversal of Brexit are non-existent. The only option is to enable a structured exit.

the political declaration is vague because Britain has not decided what relationship it wants with the EU.

Corbyn's letter to May triggered an interesting debate. His proposals deserve to be discussed. Britain's discussion deserves to be given some time."

Extension to negotiate based on amending the political declaration has always been a possibility. Moving the conversation to shooting the unicorns in a non-binding political declaration seems to be the way out of this which the EU are making clear they'd support.

It feels foolish to talk down the idea of another referendum at a time when pressure seems to be building on Corbyn to make advocating for it Labour's official position, in favour of bigging up Corbyn's letter nonsense in the hope that it will lead to the UK shifting to a non-unicorn soft Brexit. Labour has never explicitly said it'd accept the continuation of FOM post-Brexit, so why the EU has decided to get so excited about that damn letter is puzzling.

Part of the reason we're stuck in this vicious cycle is because the EU tries to be too clever and praise unrealistic proposals from the UK side in the expectation we'll take the hint and turn the original proposal into something realistic. Instead, we take said praise to be white-flag waving from Johnny Foreigner and double down on the piss-takery.

[Zeb]

It seems a bit silly to talk down the idea of another referendum at a time when pressure seems to be building on Corbyn to make advocating for it Labour's official position, in favour of bigging up Corbyn's letter nonsense in the hope that it will lead to the UK shifting to a non-unicorn soft Brexit. There's no evidence there's a Commons majority for FOM either, which would be required for a non-cakey/unicorn Brexit.

It allows for an extension which is the key part, I think, as well as ensuring the Withdrawal Agreement itself becomes cross-party consensus (hoho). To some extent it may just be buying extra time to prep for 'no deal'. I don't think it would necessarily rule out a referendum to ratify whatever ends up being the end state of the political declaration - were remainers to lend support to the 'soft' Brexiters and vice versa. Although that's a hot mess of a compromise for everyone to find. Depends on how long an extension we would want to ask for too.

[Schmidt]

And aren't most of her in-laws German, Danish and Greek?

No one cares about facts like that though, in their gut a ruling monarchy would be a return to the good old days.