Forum menu
It would require MPs currently on the government payroll to vote for it.
This is where it comes down to the choice bit it's one from 3
1) Vote For May's Deal
2) Vote it down along with everything else and go no deal
3) Pass it to the people
Payroll or not voting or not voting for one delivers one of the others. There is no more time
People speculate way too much on here and come to a sarcastic conclusion before an official announcement with detail has been made - within minutes of announcements.
Labour are delivering on their conference. And will now also seed hatred by those on the right/press for doing this. It's very likely that this could be extremely damaging for them in my constituency.
I can see why they've put it off.
But we will see what happens.
@rone - this is genuinely too late for a lot of serious debate, they have dodged the question had all the opportunity to deal with this - what other option will they present? Why bother they should have done this while there was time to go back to the EU. Even if they win a vote for their plan somebody needs to go to the EU who will say piss off (most likely). Then that takes us to about the 20th March if we are lucky to set out to push for a 2nd ref.
It then relies on the EU to grant an extension long enough to hold the vote.
They are putting pointless steps in the way of the position they are going to have to end up at.
Ah, you know better then? Do tell.
You told us about the rumour, so it's up to you to provide evidence to support your claim. Or is that too difficult?
You want evidence that there's a rumour?
You want evidence that there’s a rumour?
That's not unreasonable is it? Otherwise you might as well just say "I reckon there's a rumour".
People speculate way too much on here and come to a sarcastic conclusion before an official announcement with detail has been made – within minutes of announcements.
Plenty of time. Let's not speculate.
FFS
Or, the announcement could have come with detail. There has been time to flesh this out in the last THREE YEARS.
Tick. Tock.
You want evidence that there’s a rumour?
As I said, you were making the claim, not me.
Anyway, from ITV:
Labour’s Emily Thornberry tells @itvnews there should be a second referendum. It should be Remain versus Theresa May’s deal on the ballot paper. She would vote for Remain. She would campaign for Remain. Jeremy Corbyn would campaign for Remain.
You want evidence that there’s a rumour?
That’s not unreasonable is it?
Isn't that the whole point of rumours - that they haven't got evidence..?
Mind you, it is amusing watching the usual suspects tie themselves in knots, scrabbling around to find a reason to dislike exactly what they've been asking for.
Isn’t that the whole point of rumours – that they haven’t got evidence..?
There could be evidence of the rumour without there being evidence of the subject of the rumour. I just wanted to check which was being sought. But, you know, SQUIRRELS....
Watching the repeat of 4 news it looks like the plan is to try and get red unicorns through, for this to be adopted instead of May's deal, which won't happen, but 'at least we tried to deliver brexit', then push the amendment for a vote which will be binding on May's deal or remain.
I think there might be a glimmer of hope worth looking to.
Fingers crossed.
Btw Thornbury did say 'it's perfectly clear' (;
Mind you, it is amusing watching the usual suspects tie themselves in knots, scrabbling around to find a reason to dislike exactly what they’ve been asking for.
When a Labour backed amendment hits the floor asking for a second referendum people will probably believe it, currently that is quite a way down the line
Btw Thornbury did say ‘it’s perfectly clear’ (;
Damn. Anyway, I thought she was… for the first time for months… it increased my levels of hope significantly (yes, I know).
When a Labour backed amendment hits the floor asking for a second referendum people will probably believe it, currently that is quite a way down the line
They're doing exactly what they said they would do. If that stops being the case then of course they should be criticized, but the one-eyed opprobrium on here is truly pathetic.
They’re doing exactly what they said they would do.
What push for a GE and if that fails hold a second referendum? They had a shot at that a few weeks back, this is try for a deal that cannot pass and then maybe a 2nd referendum if there is time. It's not what they said they would do.
What push for a GE and if that fails hold a second referendum?
No, deliver a Brexit deal as per the terms they set out in their manifesto.
Plenty of time. Let’s not speculate.
FFS
Or, the announcement could have come with detail. There has been time to flesh this out in the last THREE YEARS.
Tick. Tock.
So what purpose does forum speculation achieve?
Other than everyone tying themselves in knots?
It could however be part of a deal with the EU for a short extension with a vote of the Deal or remain being put to the people and implemented as soon as the votes are counted.
Holyshitballs something he said i agree with
However grandad may just be a slithering as maybot as he has been and weaseled his way round Brussels recently with his own vision of red brexit
(I'm guilty of my own criticism here but) I very much fear that a 2ref will give the Tories ammo in a general election to sink Labour as the party that went against the people. (Toby Jones and co are already at it.)
And then we will have a Tory Government for a long time.
That's a proper FFS.
Labour as the party that went against the people
If the result of the second ref was remain, they could hardly be going against the will of the people. Doesn't make sense, but then, it doesn't have to these days.
No, deliver a Brexit deal as per the terms they set out in their manifesto.
I thought we had done the evolving nature of politics here, that was at the last election since then there was a commitment from their conference to move on from that position and if they were unable to secure their brexit (hint they have not) they would push for a 2nd ref. That is the bit they should have been at last wee or the week before.
I thought we had done the evolving nature of politics here,
Certainly a matter for debate, but it seems to me that if Corbyn fed the 5000, folk here would be complaining that there was no gluten free option.
So what purpose does forum speculation achieve?
Sorry, I must be in the wrong place.
ransos
Subscriber
I thought we had done the evolving nature of politics here,
Certainly a matter for debate, but it seems to me that if Corbyn fed the 5000, folk here would be complaining that there was no gluten free option.
I'd certainly think it was a bit inconsiderate tbh. No vegetarian either, he preferred ham as.
Certainly a matter for debate, but it seems to me that if Corbyn fed the 5000, folk here would be complaining that there was no gluten free option.
Not really though is it, unless you just want to argue irrelevant points here. We could go back to their 97 manifesto if you want. The position of the party is from the last conference.
Chapeau, Northwind. Chapeau! Lol.
We could go back to their 97 manifesto if you want. The position of the party is from the last conference.
So the manifesto all of its current MPs were elected on is irrelevant. Aye right.
So the manifesto all of its current MPs were elected on is irrelevant. Aye right.
Well they all voted to update their position. That is a FACT, does that mean the position was updated or was it a non binding vote?
Well they all voted to update their position. That is a FACT, does that mean the position was updated or was it a non binding vote?
Is their most recent manifesto irrelevant, yes or no?
Oh, and give the shouty capitals a miss.
They lost. Their last manifesto for government is dead. In opposition they can oppose government policy if they wish, however they wish, and begin work on their next manifesto… both based on how the world is now, and in the coming years, not in 2107… and how they do both will inform whether people vote for them at the next election.
Pathetic gestures really.
This is just UK political shape shifting.
Labour are just as impotent as the Conservatives in this respect.
A second ref will be damaging and pointless.
Brexit needs to be stopped on facts, not UK political one-upmanship. It's catastrophically damaging, what more reason is needed?
They lost.
This is most of what needs saying. They lost to a really really shit government with an even shitter campaign. Parties do not lose MPs under competent leadership.
Corbyn has realised too late that his support for Brexit has sunk him.
This gesture is simply too little too late
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1100161171632594944?s=19
They lost. Their last manifesto for government is dead
That's not how our electoral system works.
Is it not? Well, that's me told. No new policies from any opposition parties 'till… when?
Is it not? Well, that’s me told. No new policies from any opposition parties ’till… when?
You appear to be refuting an argument I haven't made.
Best way to respond to that is to repeat the whole of my post you selectively replied to. But what would be the point?
More government payroll MPs flexing muscles it seems. Don't rule them out when looking at parliamentary vote arithmetic.
But what would be the point?
Do you need me to answer that for you?
Do you need me to answer that for you?
Please do, from what I've read, you're either brain dead or a non-dom..
Which is it?
Please do, from what I’ve read, you’re either brain dead or a non-dom..
Which is it?
An ellipsis has three dots.
Which is it?
Well, he’s certainly not living in Ramsbottom.
Well, he’s certainly not living in Ramsbottom
And has resorted to pointing out petty grammatical corrections rather than making a valid point.
... Makes you laugh.
The Labour Party carries out it’s policy which it always said it would, and we get two pages of ridiculous speculation as to their motives. Is it at all possible that there is not some conspiracy, and that they always intended on doing so as they very clearly said they would?
You can argue about the timing and whether it would have been better or worse to do it earlier, but you can’t now argue that they are closet hard brexiteers as they have unambiguously declared themselves against that.
They have declared "themselves" against no deal… but the leadership still say they want Hard Brexit. If they can't get a Labour Hard Brexit, they will support us having a say over a Tory Hard Brexit.
That front benchers feel free to say that they, and the leader, will support Remain (against a Tory Hard Brexit), if it ever comes to it, is to be welcomed with open arms. But policy is still to try and get "a" customs union and a "close" relationship with the Single Market, as non-EU members, with no FoM. There is still an opening there for May to get Labour support for her deal, with those two things being added to the "Political Declaration setting out the framework for the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom"… and then no public vote on that. I don't see May being that flexible though… despite their positions being so close in reality… so… fingers crossed.
Matthew 7:16
And you know this stuff about Corbyn being an intractable dictator unwilling to listen to or adopt the collective view even if he personally disagrees with it? You can put Brexit in the same box as nuclear weapons.
He's lost MPs, and many still in the party where threatening to jump ship, or form a new "grouping" inside the party, including his deputy leader. He's being dragged to it… and he isn't even there yet. Clive Lewis (a strong supporter of Corbyn on nearly everything) said he was very disappointed with the vagueness of the meeting of MPs this evening… as what was said did not propose/support a Remain option, even if a referendum is supported at some point.
If you missed me banging on about sorting your medical supplies, if they are life maintaining… here we go one more time… compare these two paragraphs…
Local stockpiling is unnecessary and could cause shortages in other areas, which could put patient care at risk. It is important that patients order their repeat prescriptions as normal and keep taking their medicines as normal.
While we never give guarantees, we are confident that, if everyone – including suppliers, freight companies, our international partners, and the health and care system – does what they need to do, the supply of medicines and medical products should be uninterrupted in the event of exiting the EU without a deal.
… from here :
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-medicines-and-medical-products-supply-as-we-exit-the-eu
but the leadership still say they want Hard Brexit. If they can’t get a Labour Hard Brexit,
Utter nonsense. totally the opposite of the consistent statements.
Thanks Kelvin. Have passed that onto my family who seem to be getting it into their remorseful leaver thick heads that May will happily sail us off the cliff for the sake of her party.
Utter nonsense. totally the opposite of the consistent statements.
You don't expect facts to change their minds, do you? The irony is that they have more in common with the ERG than anything else.
If the result of the second ref was remain, they could hardly be going against the will of the people. Doesn’t make sense, but then, it doesn’t have to these days
Yeah but you know how it will be spun.
(And 70% a leave constituency won't see it like that as they already voted.)
They have declared “themselves” against no deal… but the leadership still say they want Hard Brexit. If they can’t get a Labour Hard Brexit, they will support us having a say over a Tory Hard Brexit.
That's ridiculous.
Sounds like a thick of it script extract.
The Labour Party carries out it’s policy which it always said it would, and we get two pages of ridiculous speculation as to their motives. Is it at all possible that there is not some conspiracy, and that they always intended on doing so as they very clearly said they would?
Sense.
Timing has been a question of Parliament and party politics.
but the leadership still say they want Hard Brexit.
Can you point us to where the Labour party leadership have said they want a hard Brexit, no didn't think so.
Sigh - "Hard Brexit" means outside the Single Market and the Customs Union, and the Labour proposals, that rule out freedom of movement of workers, mean precisely that. And the policy is still to chase a Labour version of Hard Brexit before going anywhere near any kind of public vote if, and only if, they fail to get their own vision of a Hard Brexit.
Defeating "no deal" Brexit is nearly everyone's aim… but both leaderships are chasing a Hard Brexit, with a sensible transition/implemention period to it. EEA or a Norway, or Swiss style relationship that lets us operate in the Single Market is ruled out by both. Staying in the Customs Union also ruled out by both.
"A" customs union is just the customs arrangement/facilitation that was May's policy, 'till she had to try and put it in a document for scrutiny by people who know what they are taking about.
A "close" relationship with the Single Market, is just the "frictionless trade" but outside the Single Market that was May's policy, 'till she was told that without keeping free movement of people it could not and would not happen.
Sounds like a thick of it script extract.
I don't disagree. I'm just repeating (current) Labour policy for you, as we keep being told it. Hopefully something will actually move now we have a signal that Labour (and ex-Labour) MPs have promoted a very welcome shift in tone from the Labour front bench.
Is their most recent manifesto irrelevant, yes or no?
Hold the front page. "Political party fails to honour manifesto pledge".
As has been pointed out many, many times; Corbyns 'policy' of pursuing 'a labour Brexit' is just red unicorns, and as utterly nonsensical, cakist and ridiculous as anything Boris Johnson espoused, and would be immediately rejected by the EU
Once again, for the 17,938th time on this thread: The 4 freedoms of the EU are indivisible
Thats it!
It really is that simple.
So it's freedom of movement, and the rest that goes with it, or its nothing. No cherrypicking. You want a customs union? You want access to the single market? Then accept freedom of movement
Jezza won't. So all else is academic
Corbyn knows this is non-negotiable, yet still he peddles the myth that this is an option
You have to be pretty hard of thinking not to see that he'd be laughed out of Brussels in 2 minutes flat, and we'd therefore be heading for a no deal Brexit. He knows this full well
Ergo: He's a hard brexiteer
He wants a no deal Brexit. He just doesn't want the blame for th chaos it would cause. Hence being perfectly happy to see it happen, as he' whipped his MPs to facilitate it at every turn, but he wants to be able to point the finger at someone else when the blame is being metered out
He's a liar, a fraud and a charlatan, who's as dishonest, self-serving and disingenuous as Boris Johnson
Funnily enough thats not what the EU back channels have said about labour discussions. Give me a quote where labour policy is that FOM must be stopped - once again when asked to provide the evidence y9u won't be able to because it is pure nonsense.
It really is astonishing to me how so many of you are so gullible to the constant anti labour propaganda.
This will not be yet another column fantasising about how Labour is run by a cabal of revolutionary grandads all huddled together on some Kremlin-sponsored allotment to plot the downfall of capitalism. It plainly isn’t, although I would pay good money to see that film.
says it all to me.
Wasn't there an amendment to an amendment on the 29th of Jan by Labour (backbench) for an option of a 2nd ref that Soubry voted against?
I can't reconcile the timeline any longer.
It really is astonishing to me how so many of you are so gullible to the constant anti labour propaganda.
But he’s a secret ERG sponsored nazi plotting the communist revolution with his totalitarian grip on the Labour Party. Can you really not see that?
Just for you Uncle Jezza as you seem to be going LA-LA-LA..I'M NOT LISTENING!!!
Labour party position on Brexit - from the Labour Party Website:
Immigration
Labour offers fair rules and reasonable management of migration. In trade negotiations our priorities favour growth, jobs and prosperity. We make no apologies for putting these aims before bogus immigration targets.
Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union. Britain’s immigration system will change, but Labour will not scapegoat migrants nor blame them for economic failures.
Happy now? Pretty unambiguous that, isn't it? So therefore... you know... red unicorns...
Give me a quote where labour policy is that FOM must be stopped
Go and watch any interview with any member of the Labour front bench where they are asked about this.
You want a customs union?... Then accept freedom of movement
Factually incorrect.
Corbyn still wants Brexit
Youre very naive if you don't see this as a panicked response to millions of voters deserting them for Chukka & co.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1100161171632594944?s=19But the offer of a 2nd referendum is too late to make any difference, the likes of Gardiner on Newsnight yesterday saying the exact opposite of what he's been saying for months & months is hard to square.
The time for Labour to do this was after their confidence motion in the government failed, not a few weeks before Brexit day.
True @ransos… "a" customs union is undefined, so some kind of customs arrangement without FoM is entirely possible… …it won't give us what the actual Customs Union gives us though, and only once it's fleshed out will we know what the trades off will be, and if the EU will acccept it, and if nonEU partners will accept it (will we be signing our own new trade deals or be included in new EU trade deals, etc… how will regulatory and tariff aspects of trade deals be separated… etc).
Red unicorns, comrade?
It really is astonishing to me how so many of you are so gullible to the constant anti labour propaganda
I'm astonished that you can't see that Corbyn is making the party unelectable without any real help from "Goebbelian Propaganda" as Galloway likes to put it.
If Corbyn enables Brexit, then we need to slash corporation tax, slash public health spending and social care, get in bed with the yanks even more than we are and make ourselves useful to the far flung disparate friends that we have left by spending 3-4 percent of our GDP on the Royal ****ing Navy.
Corbyn is the last person I'd want managing Brexit. In a no deal Brexit scenario, deranged lunatics like Mogg are probably actually the right people to have at the helm - not someone who is going to cause the yanks to embargo us like Cuba.
Red unicorns, comrade?
Yep, better to carry on with the abuse than admit you're wrong.
Your wasting your time raybanwomble
Its a cult. No criticism of the glorious leader will be tolerated, and no actual evidence will be considered before praising St Jeremy, Freedom Fighter and National Hero
Have you seen the latest tractor production figures, comrade?
> wasting time - forget it <
Your wasting your time raybanwomble
Its a cult. No criticism of the glorious leader will be tolerated, and no actual evidence will be considered before praising St Jeremy, Freedom Fighter and National Hero
Have you seen the latest tractor production figures, comrade?
Yep, better to carry on with the abuse than admit you’re wrong.
How is that abuse? Starting to realise you may just be trolling.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. Repeated ageism and references to fantasist communism is all meant kindly.
Ageism?
Go on.....? I'm intrigued now?....
I’m astonished that you can’t see that Corbyn is making the party unelectable without any real help from “Goebbelian Propaganda” as Galloway likes to put it.
Whereas I'm not at all astonished that you called me an anti-semite and then ran away rather than explain yourself.