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

[KerrAvon]

Fancy yourself as a debater do you?

Ok, please allow me to take apart just one of your arguments here:

"Your party voted for no deal when it joined with others to vote down the May deal"

Did the rejection of that deal mean that all other options were off the table and that it was the end of the process? Yes/No?

You see it's as simple as that darling?

That's why I use questions frequently to reveal huge holes in your arguments, which you then avoid answering. You still have 3 posts outstanding by the way.

Where have I fancied myself as a debater? I took the mickey out of your habit of marking your own homework and giving yourself a gold star and you responded by doing it again. Lol.

Parliament, including Labour, incorporated a hard leave date into the withdrawal legislation. They then voted down the only deal on the table with less than three months to go and with no guarantee that the EU would agree to extend, even if we asked. They are struggling with the logical consequence of that in much the same way that you are. No deal isn't inevitable, but now has to be highly likely.

And why did Labour vote the May deal down? It can't be because they don't like the temporary customs union that forms the backstop, given that Corbyn is now proposing making that arrangement permanent. Could it be that they were putting their desire for a general election before trying to get a Brexit deal?

[ragingpup]

Where have I fancied myself as a debater? I took the mickey out of your habit of marking your own homework and giving yourself a gold star and you responded by doing it again. Lol.

Parliament, including Labour, incorporated a hard leave date into the withdrawal legislation. They then voted down the only deal on the table with less than three months to go and with no guarantee that the EU would agree to extend, even if we asked. They are struggling with the logical consequence of that in much the same way that you are. No deal isn't inevitable, but now has to be highly likely.

And why did Labour vote the May deal down? It can't be because they don't like the temporary customs union that forms the backstop, given that Corbyn is now proposing making that arrangement permanent. Could it be that they were putting their desire for a general election before trying to get a Brexit deal?

I think you missed my question, and are still trying to follow May's argument of 'My Deal v No Deal'

You stated: "Your party voted for no deal when it joined with others to vote down the May deal"

In return I asked you: Did the rejection of that deal mean that all other options were off the table and that it was the end of the process? Yes/No?

Are you struggling with the question? It only requires a reading of it and a response of a 'Yes' or a 'No'.

Let me know if the question is confusing you.

Your misunderstanding of this is quite crucial. If it happens that the answer is 'No', then we can start to look at other options that might actually form a consensus in Parliament.

[KerrAvon]

A cursory look at the length of your posts well in excess of 3-400 words compared to mine of 3-4 dozen speaks for itself as the time spent on your posts is a function of the number of words used & on that basis you spend far more time than I do

I'm sceptical. Can I see your workings out?

And have you taken into account that I type with more than two fingers?

[Exiletyke]

I'm sceptical. Can I see your workings out?

And have you taken into account that I type with more than two fingers?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours

Yes I have taken into account that you probably type with all twelve

[KerrAvon]

In response:

1, Corbyn's plan represents a crap outcome for the UK.

It wouldn't be Corbyn's plan though would it? It would be a negotiated outcome of what May and Corbyn would to agree to take forward into further discussions with the EU. This would involve our own revised red lines.

2. Accepting a customs union would put her in breach of the 2017 Tory manifesto.

June 2017 is a long time ago. Who, when that manifesto was drawn up was even aware of the need for a backstop. Times change. And when we are facing a challenge and an economic disaster, we need leaders to be able to deal with the actual problem that is ahead of us, talk and compromise to try and find solutions.

3. Because it would be a crap outcome and place her in breach of her manifesto she wouldn't get a customs union deal through the Tory Party, let alone Parliament.

You're calling at a crap outcome before the leaders have even talked about what they can agree. It may not even involve anything like the CU as we know it - it may need a complete reinvention of terms and concepts. You leader is there too, and both of them will have to negotiate and compromise on their red lines. We don't automatically have to take rules, we have to negotiate an agreement that works for us and for the EU.

That said: in order to try and avoid a no deal, would you personally be happy if May and Corbyn agreed to negotiate a different type of deal or are you sticking with No Deal? If so, at least you'll make one or two friends on here!

For clarity, I'm not saying you quoted "we should grab the May deal with both hands" - as you well know, you are deflecting again. You promoted the acceptance of May's deal and I was using a figure of speech to reflect your argument. Why do you feel the need to deflect like that? It makes you seem smaller, as others have noted before.

Where are you going with this post?

Your question was:. What is there to lose from May and Corbyn getting together and negotiating a plan that is based around the idea of a Customs Union

In response, I pointed out why I didn't think May would waste her time on such a venture. It now turns out you didn't actually mean a customs union, but actually had in mind some wierd and wonderful arrangement based upon a complete reinvention of terms and concepts that, presumably, hasn't occurred to anyone in the two negotiating teams over the last two years.

It's not for me to decide who May talks to. I thought it pretty foolish of Corbyn to hide in his office for two weeks after May offered to meet him after the meaningful vote, but I didn't rant at you about it.

I'd like a deal, but not the piss poor one that Corbyn is offering to talk about.

I'm pleased that you have dropped your grab it with both hands claim. I see that you paint me as the bad guy and accuse me of 'deflection' for asking you to justify it. The better question is why you chose to grossly misrepresent my position in the first place.

[ragingpup]

Where are you going with this post?

Your question was:. What is there to lose from May and Corbyn getting together and negotiating a plan that is based around the idea of a Customs Union

In response, I pointed out why I didn't think May would waste her time on such a venture. It now turns out you didn't actually mean a customs union, but actually had in mind some wierd and wonderful arrangement based upon a complete reinvention of terms and concepts that, presumably, hasn't occurred to anyone in the two negotiating teams over the last two years.

It's not for me to decide who May talks to. I thought it pretty foolish of Corbyn to hide in his office for two weeks after May offered to meet him after the meaningful vote, but I didn't rant at you about it.

I'd like a deal, but not the piss poor one that Corbyn is offering to talk about.

I'm pleased that you have dropped your grab it with both hands claim. I see that you paint me as the bad guy and accuse me of 'deflection' for asking you to justify it. The better question is why you chose to grossly misrepresent my position in the first place.

Labour have compromised already and are seeking further talks with May. As in any negotiation, they've highlighted where they would like to go, but seem to be indicating that they are willing to discuss a further compromise with May that would focus on a deal that would prioritise job and rights protection. I can't speak for Corbyn, but I would like all options to be on the table (and off it, if a customs union is off the table for May but they can agree on other angles, whatever those might be) and for the 2 leaders to re-approach and negotiate a joint approach with shared priorities and shared bottom lines. This should have happened from day 1 but May's straitjacketing by her backbenchers prevented her entering such talks. I think we were all surprised that she made the invite, Corbyn should have accepted immediately but chose to be a berk. Now that's changed, let's move forward.

Corbyn's deal which you call piss poor has no red lines other than to find a way to renegotiate a deal that would a) get through parliament and b) be acceptable to the EU. Yes, some compromises would have to be made that hard Brexit seekers will hate, but why should we play to a minority in parliament? We need the leaders to discuss and agree a deal that will get the majority of moderates behind them. Corbyn will have to give some on this, but so will May.

I don't think there is anything like a complete reinvention of terms. We know the approach the EU would favour as it would hugely favour them also. The Austrian PM on the Marr show yesterday interestingly said that whilst it would be seen as us cherry picking to suggest that we could have benefits of the CU AND have a say or veto on future EU legislation, she most certainly, and very tellingly, did not rule out that possibility. She did however rule our any changes to the backstop as the EU are united behind their nation Ireland abd the Good Friday agreement. She isn't Barnier for sure, but I think her view on possible flex here would be quite prominent in the EU27 and negotiations along these lines should be explored.

I am not asking you to comment on whether you think May should talk to Corbyn or not. I'm asking you if you personally would like to see the two leaders actually get together to agree and move on common ground in order to avoid a No Deal?



(as an aside, I would hardly call me saying that you would "grab with both hands" May's deal, when you repeatedly argued on here that it was a good deal a "gross misrepresentation" you touchy little snowflake...). Ok I accept that it wasn't an attempt by you to deflect the argument, and that neither I, nor anyone else on here would ever think that you deliberately seize on small details in order to deflect from arguments when you struggling to hold your line together)

[KerrAvon]

Why do I get the feeling that for you discussing Brexit has become secondary to trying to score points over me (even appointing yourself as the umpire to do so)? Are you trying to join my stalkers?

Even now you choose to misrepresent me on the May deal... Here's what I said about it on 3rd December when asked by you:

I think May's is a flawed deal, because you don't need to see the AG's legal advice to know that we risk having the backstop being used against us as a bargaining chip. If you accept the premise that we are leaving, however and also accept that May would not choose to accept the backstop in its current form if there was any sign that the EU would shift on it then, yes, it's the best deal.

The backstop needs to be time limited, but the EU says that it won't shift on that. If defeated, I think May will go back and ask and we will then have some weeks of brinkmanship to see if the EU or Parliament blinks first.

And here's your response:

Searching hard for your actual opinions. I see that I have just about extracted a grudging opinion that you think that May's deal is the best we can get.

Perhaps you could put up some examples of me repeatedly arguing it was a good deal, as opposed to it being flawed?

Note that we could have saved a lot of faffing around, given that I said exactly where things would go.

Do you seriously believe that the EU is going to give a non-member country the right to veto it's legislation? Seriously? How do you think that is going to work? Do you envisage that we would we continue to elect MEPs or would the EU send us draft legislation for approval? Lol. I know you are concerned about no deal, but you are becoming detached from reality. I hope our politicians will not waste such time as there is left chasing such unicorns.

And no, the Austrian PM is not Barnier. Far more importantly, she isn't Merkel or Macron.

[MillerBill]

What Corbyn is suggesting is No Brexit.Still being tied to the ruthless EU and having no freedom to create our own trade deals.Why would anyone want to jeopardize the endless opportunities we and future generations would have?

[ragingpup]

I hope our politicians will not waste such time as there is left chasing such unicorns.

And what do you suppose May is doing in travelling over to the EU? How exactly is that time well spent in trying to avoid No Deal?

Some hope from Rory Stewart's in interview this morning. Asked if May was looking at some sort of compromise with the opposition leader, Stewart told BBC Breakfast: “Yes. I think she feels, as I do, that there isn’t actually as much dividing us from the Labour party as some people suggest.”

A direct CU might well be off the table for May, but clearly there is hope that she will discuss areas where an agreement can be reached to make for a safer Brexit. Sadly, she is operating in a straitjacket as she knows the power that the hard right occupy in her own party, and where they want to take us regardless of other people's livelihoods and lives that are at stake. Sad also that you are protecting this direction of travel.

I'm wondering now, if grown up discussions to stop a Bad Deal being forced up parliament and the country vs a No Deal if momentum will suddenly emerge out of sheer desperation, as a last gasp, to force a 2nd referendum on May's bad deal v Remaining and letting the country decide. I've always opposed this, but if we are forced in this direction, if May's bad deal is the only one left on the table and she succeeds in running down the clock, then I would willingly back a decisive vote. I think your party's stubbornness and unwillingness to compromise in any way might come back to haunt you and the other hard Brexiters on here?

[KerrAvon]

My your Momentum what to think Twitter feed has been busy.

The Brady amendment changed the landscape insofar as the May deal is concerned. As I explained a couple of weeks ago, the EU now has to decide when and if to blink. At the moment, they still have hopes that Parliament will back something daft like a permanent CU and all the baggage that goes with it.

As long as Corbyn clings to his customs union, there is little ground for compromise with May as it is not a line that she can cross for the reasons that I have explained. That hasn't been forced on anyone, it reflects a desire to deliver a decent Brexit as opposed to a half in half out fudge.

As for your reference to a 'direct' CU, I'm intrigued; what the hell is an indirect one?

I agree that it is pleasing that Labour and, one assumes, MPs from other parties have woken up to what they have voted for and are starting to act like grown ups.

In what way do you say the May deal is a bad one? How does the backstop customs union differ from the permanent customs union that Corbyn wants (other than we know that his is permanent)?

As for a second referendum, where is your parliamentary majority for that coming from?

I didn't vote for no deal, so doubt whether I will be haunted by it. I'll just have to live with it like everyone else.