The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[darrenm]

Just now, ml1dch said:

As Blandy said, I don't think the policy was derided as being "unicorns" or unattainable. 

It was derided as being politically unsellable and pointless. Why keep everything exactly the same, only with our representation removed? How do argue for that policy? Even the Tories can lie their way through a load of guff about freedom and immigrants on the route they've chosen. 

The point that was being made by many at the time was that if Labour wanted to use their political capital arguing that the future should be exactly the same but without representation, they should just be arguing that they would be better of arguing to keep things as they were.

All I'm saying is that Labour's policy on brexit wasn't unicorns. It was pretty much the only way to leave the EU without either reunifying Ireland or crashing out with no deal. It was backed by the EU and it would have resulted in no-one noticing any difference outside of the UK having slightly less say on the EU's future.

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Just a bit more on this because I find the revisionism a bit funny.

Me too. That archive is good. It explains that Starmer was trying to pull Corbyn’s to his stance, and then details Dunt’s view of what Starmer’s stance was, with the various implications of that stance. Of course, we know Starmer didn’t manage to do that, but still, he tried.

Would it have been better not to?  In terms of where they ended up, possibly- what they ended up with was an awful muddle. Do you blame Starmer for that, or Corbyn and their respective camps), or both. I guess you take your pick. Getting back to my original reply to you from several days ago, I said (and said at the time, too) Labour should have picked a horse and a soft SM & CU Brexit was probably the best one to pick, because you could make a credible argument for it on several levels, both in terms of trade and rights and protections, but also because (leaving aside the throbbers) it would deliver many of the things the Leave campaign promised. The vote was to leave (just) and soft Brexit would be leaving (just).

[darrenm]

Just now, blandy said:

Me too. That archive is good. It explains that Starmer was trying to pull Corbyn’s to his stance, and then details Dunt’s view of what Starmer’s stance was, with the various implications of that stance. Of course, we know Starmer didn’t manage to do that, but still, he tried.

Would it have been better not to?  In terms of where they ended up, possibly- what they ended up with was an awful muddle. Do you blame Starmer for that, or Corbyn and their respective camps), or both. I guess you take your pick. Getting back to my original reply to you from several days ago, I said (and said at the time, too) Labour should have picked a horse and a soft SM & CU Brexit was probably the best one to pick, because you could make a credible argument for it on several levels, both in terms of trade and rights and protections, but also because (leaving aside the throbbers) it would deliver many of the things the Leave campaign promised. The vote was to leave (just) and soft Brexit would be leaving (just).

But the article was about the letter *Corbyn* sent to May. It may have been originally written by Starmer. It may have been Starmer's policy. But you can't say that he didn't manage to pull Corbyn to it because ultimately, it came from Corbyn's pen.

[ml1dch]

10 minutes ago, darrenm said:

All I'm saying is that Labour's policy on brexit wasn't unicorns. It was pretty much the only way to leave the EU without either reunifying Ireland or crashing out with no deal. It was backed by the EU and it would have resulted in no-one noticing any difference outside of the UK having slightly less say on the EU's future.

From the perspective of "would the EU accept this", of course it wasn't. But I don't think anyone questioned whether they would accept that position. Why on earth wouldn't they?

There are certain minor aspects which people said were unrealistic - the one that springs to mind is "having a say on future EU trade deals when outside" is the one that springs to mind. Nothing compared to the bullshit streaming from the other side, but still there.

But also, you've pivoting a bit in the post above (my italics) - EFTA + a customs union, which we're talking about never was Labour's policy, was it? 

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, darrenm said:

But the article was about the letter *Corbyn* sent to May. It may have been originally written by Starmer. It may have been Starmer's policy. But you can't say that he didn't manage to pull Corbyn to it because ultimately, it came from Corbyn's pen.

I don’t read it like that. Part of the article is, yes, but much isn’t . [edit] And “to it” and “towards it“ are not the same “nearer to” isn’t “at the same place”

Quote

It's become a biannual tradition now for Labour to upgrade its Brexit policy in some significant way....  as confusing as these shifts can be, they all follow a similar theme: Keir Starmer pulling Jeremy Corbyn just that inch closer to where he wants to go. And the place he wants to go is quite clearly something like Norway Plus.

Last night, the opposition leader wrote a letter to the prime minister setting out Labour's conditions for supporting a deal. They reveal part of the plan,

Much of the article is about Starmer’s view as gleaned from earlier interviews, rather than the letter on conditions for supporting May’s deal and Dunt is analysing what he thinks Starmer believes and what that mean. Labour never got to that position though.

[darrenm]

Just now, ml1dch said:

From the perspective of "would the EU accept this", of course it wasn't. But I don't think anyone questioned whether they would accept that position. Why on earth wouldn't they?

There are certain minor aspects which people said were unrealistic - the one that springs to mind is "having a say on future EU trade deals when outside" is the one that springs to mind. Nothing compared to the bullshit streaming from the other side, but still there.

But also, you've pivoting a bit in the post above (my italics) - EFTA + a customs union, which we're talking about never was Labour's policy, was it? 

I can only assume you didn't read the long text I quoted from Ian Dunt where he argues that having a say on future trade deals was realistic? And unless you're talking about semantics, then yes EFTA + customs union was Labour's policy. It couldn't be the original EFTA but one along its lines.

[chrisp65]

 

Yesterday the vast majority of Labour MP’s voted in favour of something they could not have read, that they claim they did not to want.

What exactly is the point of Labour and what is the point of Westminster?

 

 

 

 

 

[Xann]

Same people meeping from the traps they plopped into.

[Genie]

 

Quote

The father of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson says he is applying for French citizenship now that Britain has severed ties with the European Union.

Stanley Johnson told France's RTL radio he had always seen himself as French as his mother was born in France.

The 80-year-old former Conservative Member of the European Parliament voted Remain in the 2016 Brexit referendum.

His son Boris spearheaded the Leave campaign and later took the UK out of the EU as prime minister.

Stanley Johnson explained his reasons for seeking French citizenship in an interview broadcast on Thursday, hours before the UK was due to leave EU trading rules.

"It's not about becoming French," he told RTL. "It's about reclaiming what I already have."

He pointed out that his mother was born in France to a French mother. "I will always be European," he added.

Link

I'd bloody love them to deny his application 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Genie

[theboyangel]

7 minutes ago, Genie said:

 

Link

I'd bloody love them to deny his application 

I mean, what does this say about our ‘great Brexit deal’ when the father of the PM is already seeking citizenship in Europe... 

Bunch of clearing in the woods! 

[Awol]

56 minutes ago, theboyangel said:

I mean, what does this say about our ‘great Brexit deal’ when the father of the PM is already seeking citizenship in Europe... 

Bunch of clearing in the woods! 

In fairness Stanley was a remainer. Regardless, after four and a half years those who voted to leave are finally seeing that choice delivered. 

Not a popular opinion round these parts, but I’ll be drinking to that - and 3pts tomorrow - shortly. 

[NurembergVillan]

 

[StefanAVFC]

3 hours ago, Awol said:

In fairness Stanley was a remainer. Regardless, after four and a half years those who voted to leave are finally seeing that choice delivered. 

Not a popular opinion round these parts, but I’ll be drinking to that - and 3pts tomorrow - shortly. 

What bits of the deal do you like? And what tangible benefits to both the whole nation and yourself do you see from the deal we have, leaving the EU?

[Follyfoot]

11 hours ago, Awol said:

In fairness Stanley was a remainer. Regardless, after four and a half years those who voted to leave are finally seeing that choice delivered. 

Not a popular opinion round these parts, but I’ll be drinking to that - and 3pts tomorrow - shortly. 

And very much against HS2

[chrisp65]

I’m already feeling safer.

I’m already pleased as punch we’ve put a stop to things like Erasmus and EU Health Cards.

Glad we now have control of our own parking in Kent and can close the airports if ever there was a pandemic.

Chuffed we can strike our own deals on medicines.

Do we know what day of the week the NHS will be getting the extra £350 Million?

 

 

[Genie]

Anybody yet got a single positive of Brexit, just 1 will do for now.

[Genie]

Considering Brexit is the start of an exciting and prosperous new era for the UK why didn’t it get even a mention in the NYE fireworks and light show?

[bickster]

51 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

And very much against HS2

I'm sure the compo cheque he got that many of his neighbours didn't cheered him up though

[Davkaus]

5 minutes ago, Genie said:

Anybody yet got a single positive of Brexit, just 1 will do for now.

You only need to fill out one customs form, no matter where in the world you're exporting something.

Honestly there's just nothing. We've had our rights to work and live in 27 countries taken from us, and we'll pay more for things, and in exchange some people can fetch a few percent more mackerel. And we'll perhaps see fewer unskilled workers immigrating, though I don't think we've figured out who's picking the fruit yet.

It's a firm step towards Scottish independence and Irish reunification though, so it'll be good for some people perhaps.

[chrisp65]

6 minutes ago, Genie said:

Anybody yet got a single positive of Brexit, just 1 will do for now.

Genuine answer:

This is the start of a process, we can’t really judge it on day one, it’ll take time to work out where the good points are and try our collective best to exploit them so they outweigh or at least counter balance any negatives.

Right now, today, the best thing I can see coming from Brexit is the consistent 52 to 58% in Scotland in favour of Independence. If we can get them over the line then anything can happen.

The future is ours to make of it what we will. Exciting times.