O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

[ragingpup]

And weirdly enough one of the only Labour Leavers MPs, Kate Hoey represents a constituency that voted Remain, but she can say she's representing the country as a whole and standing up for democracy.

And she's right to do so, but in doing so she needs to seek an outcome that represents the views of all of her constituents.

[KerrAvon]

Murky innit?

The only way around it I can see are indicative votes to establish which options have the biggest consensus.

Broadly, they represent all of us, remainers and leavers and have to establish a consensus for how we go about leaving, either type of deal or no deal at all. I sympathise that many feel that the 52% "won" but the 48% still live and pay their way here and their views and interests should be represented in the outcome.

It should have been a cross party effort all along with compromises made from all. Ridiculous that the PM didn't lead in this direction. instead just talking to her own back benchers, even though they could never have got a majority this way.

I can see that you are sticking to the official Labour line like glue.

A ‘cross party effort’ was never a realistic option, because the fault lines within Parliament cut across party lines. In addition, the main choices to be made are binary ones. So, if you take a look at the current Labour position, they want a Customs Union arrangement. It’s possible to either be in a Customs Union or not in a Customs Union – it's an either/or choice - it’s not possible to be 48% in and 52% out. There is no room for compromise on that, not least because the Tories won the 2017 General Election upon a manifesto that stated unequivocally that the position of that party was that we would not enter into such an arrangement. It’s also not possible to pay only 48% of the budget contribution that the EU would want a CU arrangement or accept only 48% of the EU legislation and 48% of the jurisdiction of the ECJ that comes with it.

The fallacy at the heart of your position can be demonstrated by your post here:

And she's right to do so, but in doing so she needs to seek an outcome that represents the views of all of her constituents.

Hoey can’t seek an outcome that ‘represents the views of all of her constituents’, because her constituents will hold different views that will at times be diametrically opposed. Hoey has come off the fence.

In light of the latest pronouncement from Tusc, it looks like Labour are going to have to decide whether to stop voting alongside the ERG for a no deal exit next week.

[Exiletyke]

Just a reminder of Tory manifesto if we're talking fallacies

We believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside our withdrawal, reaching agreement on both within the two years allowed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK.

[KerrAvon]

Sadly, the EU refused to negotiate upon the terms of our future partnership alongside our withdrawal. We might not be where we are, but for that. The best that they would do was the political declaration.

I see that Corbyn has walked out of a meeting with the PM and other party leaders this evening. So much for a cross party effort.

[Exiletyke]

Last edited by KerrAvon; Today at 07:46 PM. Reason: Breaking news.

Real reason: Not wishing to miss the opportunity to put the boot in which I can understand, but at least be honest about it

Any idea why the walkout?

No support for Corbyn & his antics but the abject failures of the Tory leader which have brought us to this position cannot as much as you would like be laid at his doorstep
As I understand it no approach to the opposition or anyone else for that matter to "come on board" until January [ie 2 months ago] was made by Maybot
Only about two years too late
I think the conceited Maybot believed she was the saviour of our nation & needed no help
Well that's how I see it

[ragingpup]

I can see that you are sticking to the official Labour line like glue.

A ‘cross party effort’ was never a realistic option, because the fault lines within Parliament cut across party lines. In addition, the main choices to be made are binary ones. So, if you take a look at the current Labour position, they want a Customs Union arrangement. It’s possible to either be in a Customs Union or not in a Customs Union – it's an either/or choice - it’s not possible to be 48% in and 52% out. There is no room for compromise on that, not least because the Tories won the 2017 General Election upon a manifesto that stated unequivocally that the position of that party was that we would not enter into such an arrangement. It’s also not possible to pay only 48% of the budget contribution that the EU would want a CU arrangement or accept only 48% of the EU legislation and 48% of the jurisdiction of the ECJ that comes with it.

The fallacy at the heart of your position can be demonstrated by your post here:



Hoey can’t seek an outcome that ‘represents the views of all of her constituents’, because her constituents will hold different views that will at times be diametrically opposed. Hoey has come off the fence.

In light of the latest pronouncement from Tusc, it looks like Labour are going to have to decide whether to stop voting alongside the ERG for a no deal exit next week.

Why do you insist on pointing out others following perceived party lines when you are following May's Conservative party line to the letter?

As said numerous times, if that ever came to pass, Labour would enter cross party talks with desire to retain customs union arrangement. But the idea is that they, like the tories must be willing to compromise on this and other aspects of their desired outcomes if they are to reach a cross party agreement. As would the tories.

That's cross party negotiation.

What part of that do you find so difficult to understand?

Instead, we're forced to accept a deal that was rejected in the biggest defeat in history. Twice.

You know as well as I do that if we went to the EU asking for time to agree a cross party deal that would get greater parliamentary support, they would accept that. But May has made it clear she won't do that to them, so they are laying down these terms to have done with her. And us.

[animallittle3]

Walked out when he saw Chuka was in attendance apparently .

[great_fire]

EU are trying to push a similar crap deal on Switzerland but they're not having it.

Their politicians and civil service aren't all pro-EU though.

[ragingpup]

Walked out when he saw Chuka was in attendance apparently .

That's what seems to be the case. Apparently cos Chuka isn't the leader of a party and it was a meeting for leaders of other parties.

Bad move from Corbs. Another own goal and much as I don't like Chuka, not the time to do this. Stupid man

[KerrAvon]

Why do you insist on pointing out others following perceived party lines when you are following May's Conservative party line to the letter?

As said numerous times, if that ever came to pass, Labour would enter cross party talks with desire to retain customs union arrangement. But the idea is that they, like the tories must be willing to compromise on this and other aspects of their desired outcomes if they are to reach a cross party agreement. As would the tories.

That's cross party negotiation.

What part of that do you find so difficult to understand?

Instead, we're forced to accept a deal that was rejected in the biggest defeat in history. Twice.

You know as well as I do that if we went to the EU asking for time to agree a cross party deal that would get greater parliamentary support, they would accept that. But May has made it clear she won't do that to them, so they are laying down these terms to have done with her. And us.

When and where have I followed the Tory line to the letter? And why would I given that I am not and never have been a member of that party and have never voted for them in a GE?

You really should try standing back from slavishly accepting whatever line Labour feeds you and start thinking things through. If you did, perhaps you would be able to see the reality of what Labour has been voting for.

As I have explained, membership or otherwise of a CU is a binary choice, so if Labour are willing to compromise upon it then you are saying that they are willing to abandon it. If that is the case what do they actually stand for? What do they want if they are willing to give up on a CU? Pray tell (and no checking your Twitter feed to find out).

And cross party negotiations requires that Corbyn stay in the room for more than ten minutes instead of having a tantrum and walking out.

Parliament is not being forced to accept anything other than to recognise the reality of their decisions and the consequences of their actions – something that I pointed out would happen several weeks ago.

I don't think the EU would agree a longer extension to allow for a cross party deal, because there is no prospect of such a deal and because the EU want to get on with other things.