blandy Posted November 20, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2017 1 minute ago, peterms said: Opposition parties have been calling for this, but cannot make it happen. However I do think they are trying to hold the government to account in this. Yes, they can't make all of it happen, but they can make some of it happen. We know, to his credit, Corbyn has for example been talking to the EU, as has Nicola Sturgeon...etc. There's nothing to stop Corbyn talking to representatives from whichever sectors. There are a number of scientists, professors, analysts...etc. writing papers and internet on all kinds of aspects of Brexit. From WTO rules, to Medicine, Aviation and so on. My sense is that Kier Starmer is doing a decent job of the holding to account stuff. I'm less sure (well I'm sure he's not) Corbyn is doing similar. I sense that he is almost deliberately avoiding Brexit matters as a far as possible, and where he hasn't, he's made a mess of it. Perhaps the two things are related? But the Gov't is such a calamitous shambles that he really ought to be doing a lot better than he is. We're in the situation where the tories are going to utterly eff the country up (again and more so) and Corbyn is sort of passively aiding them in this, due to being hapless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Quote MPs have voted to reject a bill that recognises that animals feel pain and emotion. Affecting the EU Withdrawal Bill, the clause would have enshrined into UK law the recognition that animals feel pain and emotion, an admission currently covered by EU law. Metro Our post Brexit Utopia gets better and better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted November 20, 2017 Moderator Share Posted November 20, 2017 So EU banking authority goes to Paris and EU medicines agency goes to Amsterdam Oh and apparently we're all a few hundred quid a year worse off because of Brexit before it's even happened Marvelous, I'm getting that warm fuzzy proud to be an independent nation feeling already 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 46 minutes ago, blandy said: to his credit, Corbyn Four words I never thought I would see from you in sequence. 46 minutes ago, blandy said: due to being hapless. ...but you had to go and spoil it, dincha? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 54 minutes ago, blandy said: My sense is that Kier Starmer is doing a decent job of the holding to account stuff. I'm less sure (well I'm sure he's not) Corbyn is doing similar. I sense that he is almost deliberately avoiding Brexit matters as a far as possible, and where he hasn't, he's made a mess of it. Perhaps the two things are related? A variation on plausible deniability. Deliberately keep him as far away as possible from any opportunity to confuse the EU and the EEA. Or the Customs Union and the Single Market. Or Lichtenstein and Latvia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 19 minutes ago, ml1dch said: A variation on plausible deniability. Deliberately keep him as far away as possible from any opportunity to confuse the EU and the EEA. Or the Customs Union and the Single Market. Or Lichtenstein and Latvia. Or letting the brexit minister handle brexit stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 18 minutes ago, darrenm said: Or letting the brexit minister handle brexit stuff Yeah, it is one of those issues where you only really see Starmer and Davis talking about it. It'll probably just sort it's self out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 31 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Yeah, it is one of those issues where you only really see Starmer and Davis talking about it. It'll probably just sort it's self out. Well, you see a range of people contfibuting to the discussion, but if you have lead speakers on issues then you really do have to let them lead. If you don't as a PM/opposition leader, you get discontent, resentment and possibly resignations. If as a minister you encroach too much on someone else's brief, you break very well recognised protocols, acquire a poor reputation, invite retaliation, and maybe get sacked. There are boundaries, and people breach them at their peril. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted November 20, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted November 20, 2017 Remember those European agencies, the EMA and EBA, that employ a few hundred people between them that David Davis told us wouldn't need to leave at Brexit? They've going to Amsterdam and Paris respectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Decided on the flip of a coin ....democracy at its best, but, maybe it’s how we should finalise the uk settlement figure , though knowing Davis we could slip a double headed coin in and he’d call tails Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 I like how our chaps are still pretending they're not going to be bent over a barrell on the settlement fee. It stinks a bit to me, the EU are extorting money from the UK on the basis that they won't even negotiate a trade deal, that we need more than they do, before we've paid them off. Makes this Brexit business seem a bit daft doesn't it? Perhaps we should have the chance to change our minds. There's never a bad time to reverse a poor decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 21, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2017 10 hours ago, peterms said: Well, you see a range of people contfibuting to the discussion, but if you have lead speakers on issues then you really do have to let them lead. If you don't as a PM/opposition leader, you get discontent, resentment and possibly resignations. If as a minister you encroach too much on someone else's brief, you break very well recognised protocols, acquire a poor reputation, invite retaliation, and maybe get sacked. There are boundaries, and people breach them at their peril. Letting the clearly more capable Starmer lead is good. Letting others contribute is good. That’s all fine. I’m less sure that failing to use the opportunity of PMQs for example is good. Neither the tories, nor Labour has a clear consistent line on Europe. In May and Corbyn, whatever people think about their personal qualities, we’ve got two of the worst leaders we’ve ever had, at a time when we need (probably) the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 20 minutes ago, blandy said: I’m less sure that failing to use the opportunity of PMQs for example is good. Neither the tories, nor Labour has a clear consistent line on Europe. PMQs is a dreadful tribal forum for rehearsing simple clear lines and shouting people down (by the way I see the torygraph is running a story on how the tories are instructed to stand in a certain place in May's line of sight and bay loudly, to try to bolster May and unsettle Corbyn). If Labour policy is in transition, as I argue it is, then it's not a great place to try to explore and explain things which are complex and which are expected to change. And because the setup encourages the exaggeration of division between two clearly identified sides, and therefore emphasising tribal loyalty instead of exploring concerns and resevations, it's also a poor forum for discussing a series of points on which Tory MPs may disagree with their leadership. Things like the amount of money the UK will pay to leave the EU may be suited to the simplistic taunting of PMQs and the soundbite reporting of such that our dismal media engage in; many of the more detailed aspects of the discussion would be better managed in a less pantomime format, and it will be easier to probe and exploit the divisions in the Tory group in a setting other than PMQs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 21, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted November 21, 2017 On 20/11/2017 at 08:09, HanoiVillan said: Subsequently, during the EU (Withdrawal) Bill discussion, the position moved even closer to a 'soft' Brexit: 'Corbyn would not rule out Labour keeping the UK in the single market permanently. His office said later that Labour policy had not changed, but Corbyn’s comments (see 1.07pm) implied that he would be happy to the UK to have a Norway-style relationship with the EU, as a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) or the European Free Trade Association (Efta). In July, in an interview with Andrew Marr (pdf), Corbyn said that if the UK left the EU, it would be leaving the single market because “the two things are inextricably linked” . . . He said that he wanted UK to remain a member of many EU-related agencies after Brexit.' https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/sep/11/eu-withdrawal-bill-vote-boris-johnson-refuses-to-rule-out-free-movement-staying-during-brexit-transition-politics-live?page=with%3Ablock-59b6a6c5e4b0e3ccf89ec885 EU figures are also seemingly of the impression that he might be amenable to remaining in the Single Market and/or Customs Union long-term: 'Barnier was impressed by Corbyn at their October meeting, as were other senior Eurocrats. Adonis said: “What everybody told me is that they had very good meetings with Jeremy. They said he had been very on the ball and came across as being in favour, broadly, of staying in the single market and the customs union. I’ve had that both from people in the European Commission and in the parliament. They liked him. He came across very positively.”' https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2017/11/plot-stop-brexit I'm not saying Labour are going to switch to a pure Remain position any time soon, or even necessarily at all, but the direction of travel in their policy is very clearly towards an ever-softer Brexit with an ever-longer transitional deal to get there. Yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 13 minutes ago, blandy said: Yesterday. And was Ian Murray's amendment practical? What can you tell me about it? There are hundreds of proposed amendments to this bill. Barry Gardiner calls it 'illiterate': So who is right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 14 hours ago, bickster said: So EU banking authority goes to Paris and EU medicines agency goes to Amsterdam Oh and apparently we're all a few hundred quid a year worse off because of Brexit before it's even happened Marvelous, I'm getting that warm fuzzy proud to be an independent nation feeling already Come on mate, roll your sleeves up and 'muck in'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: And was Ian Murray's amendment practical? What can you tell me about it? There are hundreds of proposed amendments to this bill. Barry Gardiner calls it 'illiterate': So who is right? I'm genuinely confused by this one. There are loads of people having a meltdown over it but Barry Gardiner (who should know what he's talking about in this respect) says it's a bad amendment. Just not sure who to believe so it'd be great to have someone who's studied the amendment and understands the implications to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 44 minutes ago, darrenm said: I'm genuinely confused by this one. There are loads of people having a meltdown over it but Barry Gardiner (who should know what he's talking about in this respect) says it's a bad amendment. Just not sure who to believe so it'd be great to have someone who's studied the amendment and understands the implications to explain it. To be honest, it's more Gardiner who's right on this one. The amendment basically said that under any new system, EU imports would be exempt from the tariffs that we would set on goods from elsewhere. Regardless of how that fitted into any plan (sic). Obviously it will be crippling to be outside the Single Market, and that point should be shouted a lot louder than it currently is being, but the way to do that isn't by putting an effective ban on any alternative into legislation and that binding the hands of this and future Governments. It's not quite as stupid as the Government's "put the date on the legislation" amendment, but it's not especially helpful. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakotaDakota Posted November 21, 2017 Share Posted November 21, 2017 EU agencies moving to an EU country, Who would have thunk it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted November 21, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted November 21, 2017 Nigel Evans doing a great impression of an a-hole on the subject in "debate" with Caroline Lucas on BBC Breakfast this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts