RugbyRebels

After an hour's chat, VdL has tweeted:
'I had a phone call with @Boris..
on the EU-UK negotiations. Differences remain. No agreement feasible if these are not resolved. Chief negotiators will reconvene tomorrow. We will speak again on Monday.'

No Deal / Internal Market Bill looming...
Can't see the EU parliament agreeing to anything on the hoof.

Can someone remind me when the original Brexit date was? It feels like a decade ago at this point.

Cameron EU speech jan 2013:
'The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people..'
7/5/15: General Election - Tory win, small majority.

Some dates from wiki; It's been a slow dance, not sure if the music will ever stop:

23/6/16: Referendum on whether to leave the European Union.
( 52% vote to leave.)
(27/7/16: The European Commission nominates Michel Barnier as European Chief Negotiator for the United Kingdom Exiting the European Union.)
29/3/17: A letter from Theresa May is handed to President of the European Council to invoke Article 50, starting a two-year process with the UK due to leave the EU on 29 March 2019.
(8/6/17 General Election - Tories lose majority)
19/6/17: Brexit negotiations commence.

It's a sad sign when ballix-speak starts to gush freely in the open..
another TLA now - 'LPF'. ffs.

VdL:..'To use a line from TS Eliot, what we call the beginning is often the end, and to make an end is to make a beginning.'
BJ: 'That’s the good news from Brussels, now for the sprouts..'

Good to see ongoing co-operation with green energy.

twitchy wrote:

If we had known then what we do now.

Although the better solution from my point of view would have been a continuation of the coalition for another five years.

I suspect that would have just kicked the can down the road.

What was the point in voting against the deal? I get that MPs want to show dissatisfaction with brexit in general, but surely voting against the last minute deal is effectively voting for a no deal?

Would the EU have offered another extension if we'd asked?

Did the parliaments in Belfast and Cardiff do the same and Edinburgh and vote against approving it?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:What was the point in voting against the deal? I get that MPs want to show dissatisfaction with brexit in general, but surely voting against the last minute deal is effectively voting for a no deal?

Would the EU have offered another extension if we'd asked?

Did the parliaments in Belfast and Cardiff do the same and Edinburgh and vote against approving it?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I think the point was to protest and get themselves on the record as having not supported it. With both Labour and Conservatives whipped to vote Aye, there was zero chance of it not passing, so there's posturing from people considering future leadership bids, on both sides.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:What was the point in voting against the deal? I get that MPs want to show dissatisfaction with brexit in general, but surely voting against the last minute deal is effectively voting for a no deal?

Would the EU have offered another extension if we'd asked?

Did the parliaments in Belfast and Cardiff do the same and Edinburgh and vote against approving it?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I think the point was to protest and get themselves on the record as having not supported it. With both Labour and Conservatives whipped to vote Aye, there was zero chance of it not passing, so there's posturing from people considering future leadership bids, on both sides.

Puja

I can kinda see that, it just seems like abstaining would've made the same point without also making it look like you're actively voting for a no deal brexit.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Donny osmond wrote:

Puja wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:What was the point in voting against the deal? I get that MPs want to show dissatisfaction with brexit in general, but surely voting against the last minute deal is effectively voting for a no deal?

Would the EU have offered another extension if we'd asked?

Did the parliaments in Belfast and Cardiff do the same and Edinburgh and vote against approving it?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I think the point was to protest and get themselves on the record as having not supported it. With both Labour and Conservatives whipped to vote Aye, there was zero chance of it not passing, so there's posturing from people considering future leadership bids, on both sides.

Puja

I can kinda see that, it just seems like abstaining would've made the same point without also making it look like you're actively voting for a no deal brexit.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

My vote (out of three bad options) would have been abstain.

Vote against and opponents can claim that you voted for No Deal (although I think the sting of this will evaporate now that No Deal is not a possibility).

Vote for and you boost this poor deal and BJ's credibility and will have 'well, you voted for it' thrown back in your face literally every time you complain about it. And you appear weak, supine even.

This leaves abstain. A political message rather than a meaningful action, but then that's true of most votes in the face of this majority.

Really don't get what Starmer is doing with this. OK that's not true, I see that he's trying to leave Brexit behind. But I don't think that's actually possible as our new relationship with the EU will continue to evolve. A mistake.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think the point was to protest and get themselves on the record as having not supported it. With both Labour and Conservatives whipped to vote Aye, there was zero chance of it not passing, so there's posturing from people considering future leadership bids, on both sides.

Puja

I can kinda see that, it just seems like abstaining would've made the same point without also making it look like you're actively voting for a no deal brexit.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

My vote (out of three bad options) would have been abstain.

Vote against and opponents can claim that you voted for No Deal (although I think the sting of this will evaporate now that No Deal is not a possibility).

Vote for and you boost this poor deal and BJ's credibility and will have 'well, you voted for it' thrown back in your face literally every time you complain about it. And you appear weak, supine even.

This leaves abstain. A political message rather than a meaningful action, but then that's true of most votes in the face of this majority.

Really don't get what Starmer is doing with this. OK that's not true, I see that he's trying to leave Brexit behind. But I don't think that's actually possible as our new relationship with the EU will continue to evolve. A mistake.

I think he's aiming to be able to say that he gave Boris Johnson every opportunity to make his plan work. That way when the inevitable problems arise, he can't be accused of having caused them by being an obstructive Remoaner - he'll be able to say that he made sure the government had everything they needed and they still screwed it up.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I can kinda see that, it just seems like abstaining would've made the same point without also making it look like you're actively voting for a no deal brexit.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

My vote (out of three bad options) would have been abstain.

Vote against and opponents can claim that you voted for No Deal (although I think the sting of this will evaporate now that No Deal is not a possibility).

Vote for and you boost this poor deal and BJ's credibility and will have 'well, you voted for it' thrown back in your face literally every time you complain about it. And you appear weak, supine even.

This leaves abstain. A political message rather than a meaningful action, but then that's true of most votes in the face of this majority.

Really don't get what Starmer is doing with this. OK that's not true, I see that he's trying to leave Brexit behind. But I don't think that's actually possible as our new relationship with the EU will continue to evolve. A mistake.

I think he's aiming to be able to say that he gave Boris Johnson every opportunity to make his plan work. That way when the inevitable problems arise, he can't be accused of having caused them by being an obstructive Remoaner - he'll be able to say that he made sure the government had everything they needed and they still screwed it up.

Puja

Agreed. Unfortunately it makes him look more like a civil servant than the leader of the opposition. In this game you don't get extra credit for being reasonable, which you can use later. Boris will simply enjoy being left off the hook for as long as it lasts.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: My vote (out of three bad options) would have been abstain.

Vote against and opponents can claim that you voted for No Deal (although I think the sting of this will evaporate now that No Deal is not a possibility).

Vote for and you boost this poor deal and BJ's credibility and will have 'well, you voted for it' thrown back in your face literally every time you complain about it. And you appear weak, supine even.

This leaves abstain. A political message rather than a meaningful action, but then that's true of most votes in the face of this majority.

Really don't get what Starmer is doing with this. OK that's not true, I see that he's trying to leave Brexit behind. But I don't think that's actually possible as our new relationship with the EU will continue to evolve. A mistake.

I think he's aiming to be able to say that he gave Boris Johnson every opportunity to make his plan work. That way when the inevitable problems arise, he can't be accused of having caused them by being an obstructive Remoaner - he'll be able to say that he made sure the government had everything they needed and they still screwed it up.

Puja

Agreed. Unfortunately it makes him look more like a civil servant than the leader of the opposition. In this game you don't get extra credit for being reasonable, which you can use later. Boris will simply enjoy being left off the hook for as long as it lasts.

He might also be trying to preempt future Boris attack lines in the north of, "Labour didn't listen to the people; they voted against Brexit!"

Puja

There aren't any good positions for Keir to take on Brexit, nor are there for Boris, though Boris did rather shit his own bed ending up without there being any good decisions left available to him

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think the point was to protest and get themselves on the record as having not supported it. With both Labour and Conservatives whipped to vote Aye, there was zero chance of it not passing, so there's posturing from people considering future leadership bids, on both sides.

Puja

I can kinda see that, it just seems like abstaining would've made the same point without also making it look like you're actively voting for a no deal brexit.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

My vote (out of three bad options) would have been abstain.

Vote against and opponents can claim that you voted for No Deal (although I think the sting of this will evaporate now that No Deal is not a possibility).

Vote for and you boost this poor deal and BJ's credibility and will have 'well, you voted for it' thrown back in your face literally every time you complain about it. And you appear weak, supine even.

This leaves abstain. A political message rather than a meaningful action, but then that's true of most votes in the face of this majority.

Really don't get what Starmer is doing with this. OK that's not true, I see that he's trying to leave Brexit behind. But I don't think that's actually possible as our new relationship with the EU will continue to evolve. A mistake.

I disagree. We have a deal on the table and to abstain with the risk of the Tory right voting against would have been hugely irresponsible. Starmer can’t magic up a better deal so the choices are literally the Boris deal or no deal. The Labour stance seems sensible to me and can be sold as such.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I can kinda see that, it just seems like abstaining would've made the same point without also making it look like you're actively voting for a no deal brexit.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

My vote (out of three bad options) would have been abstain.

Vote against and opponents can claim that you voted for No Deal (although I think the sting of this will evaporate now that No Deal is not a possibility).

Vote for and you boost this poor deal and BJ's credibility and will have 'well, you voted for it' thrown back in your face literally every time you complain about it. And you appear weak, supine even.

This leaves abstain. A political message rather than a meaningful action, but then that's true of most votes in the face of this majority.

Really don't get what Starmer is doing with this. OK that's not true, I see that he's trying to leave Brexit behind. But I don't think that's actually possible as our new relationship with the EU will continue to evolve. A mistake.

I disagree. We have a deal on the table and to abstain with the risk of the Tory right voting against would have been hugely irresponsible. Starmer can’t magic up a better deal so the choices are literally the Boris deal or no deal. The Labour stance seems sensible to me and can be sold as such.

But do you actually think this is a good strategy for Starmer, political ie will he gain votes because of it? (I realise this is a bit of a stretch for you as you'd have to imagine voting for Labour ).

Yes and no, whatever Starmer does he's going to annoy a tranche of potential Labour voters. Unless anyone has a cunning way of avoiding any and all potential loss of voters.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: My vote (out of three bad options) would have been abstain.

Vote against and opponents can claim that you voted for No Deal (although I think the sting of this will evaporate now that No Deal is not a possibility).

Vote for and you boost this poor deal and BJ's credibility and will have 'well, you voted for it' thrown back in your face literally every time you complain about it. And you appear weak, supine even.

This leaves abstain. A political message rather than a meaningful action, but then that's true of most votes in the face of this majority.

Really don't get what Starmer is doing with this. OK that's not true, I see that he's trying to leave Brexit behind. But I don't think that's actually possible as our new relationship with the EU will continue to evolve. A mistake.

I disagree. We have a deal on the table and to abstain with the risk of the Tory right voting against would have been hugely irresponsible. Starmer can’t magic up a better deal so the choices are literally the Boris deal or no deal. The Labour stance seems sensible to me and can be sold as such.

But do you actually think this is a good strategy for Starmer, political ie will he gain votes because of it? (I realise this is a bit of a stretch for you as you'd have to imagine voting for Labour ).

You're falling into the trap most "liberal" voters fall into, which is thinking that a left wing party is for them and not for workers.

And those workers voted for Brexit. And those workers voted Tory, many of them for the first time in their life.

Starmer's job isn't to convince you or me or any member of the "liberati" or any "snowflakes" to vote for him. His job is to win back the traditional Labour voters.

We're not exactly going to vote for Boris, are we...

Starmer is slowly trying to repair bridges. Once he does that, he can concentrate on winning votes. He's got a little while.

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I disagree. We have a deal on the table and to abstain with the risk of the Tory right voting against would have been hugely irresponsible. Starmer can’t magic up a better deal so the choices are literally the Boris deal or no deal. The Labour stance seems sensible to me and can be sold as such.

But do you actually think this is a good strategy for Starmer, political ie will he gain votes because of it? (I realise this is a bit of a stretch for you as you'd have to imagine voting for Labour ).

You're falling into the trap most "liberal" voters fall into, which is thinking that a left wing party is for them and not for workers.

And those workers voted for Brexit. And those workers voted Tory, many of them for the first time in their life.

Starmer's job isn't to convince you or me or any member of the "liberati" or any "snowflakes" to vote for him. His job is to win back the traditional Labour voters.

We're not exactly going to vote for Boris, are we...

Starmer is slowly trying to repair bridges. Once he does that, he can concentrate on winning votes. He's got a little while.

If only it were that easy for Starmer, he needs to win back 'traditional' labour voters whilst also cementing and even improving on his reach into the middle classes. And those aims often contend with each other, rarely more so than over Brexit. If he can't do both he's not going to come close to power

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: But do you actually think this is a good strategy for Starmer, political ie will he gain votes because of it? (I realise this is a bit of a stretch for you as you'd have to imagine voting for Labour ).

You're falling into the trap most "liberal" voters fall into, which is thinking that a left wing party is for them and not for workers.

And those workers voted for Brexit. And those workers voted Tory, many of them for the first time in their life.

Starmer's job isn't to convince you or me or any member of the "liberati" or any "snowflakes" to vote for him. His job is to win back the traditional Labour voters.

We're not exactly going to vote for Boris, are we...

Starmer is slowly trying to repair bridges. Once he does that, he can concentrate on winning votes. He's got a little while.

If only it were that easy for Starmer, he needs to win back 'traditional' labour voters whilst also cementing and even improving on his reach into the middle classes. And those aims often contend with each other, rarely more so than over Brexit. If he can't do both he's not going to come close to power

Well sure, but voting "against Brexit" is only likely to make him worse off with the traditional voters, not improve his standing that much with the middle classes.

The only way to beat populism is remove the crutch on which they stand. If Starmer can help make Boris the most unpopular leader in history, his job will be that much easier. So don't do anything stupid and let the buffoon do your work.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
You're falling into the trap most "liberal" voters fall into, which is thinking that a left wing party is for them and not for workers.

And those workers voted for Brexit. And those workers voted Tory, many of them for the first time in their life.

Starmer's job isn't to convince you or me or any member of the "liberati" or any "snowflakes" to vote for him. His job is to win back the traditional Labour voters.

We're not exactly going to vote for Boris, are we...

Starmer is slowly trying to repair bridges. Once he does that, he can concentrate on winning votes. He's got a little while.

If only it were that easy for Starmer, he needs to win back 'traditional' labour voters whilst also cementing and even improving on his reach into the middle classes. And those aims often contend with each other, rarely more so than over Brexit. If he can't do both he's not going to come close to power

Well sure, but voting "against Brexit" is only likely to make him worse off with the traditional voters, not improve his standing that much with the middle classes.

The only way to beat populism is remove the crutch on which they stand. If Starmer can help make Boris the most unpopular leader in history, his job will be that much easier. So don't do anything stupid and let the buffoon do your work.

IMO the traditional Labour voter isn't that interested in this kind of signalling, so I doubt they'd be particularly bothered. But the voters he could lose to the Lib Dems are more sensitive to this kind of thing.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:
If only it were that easy for Starmer, he needs to win back 'traditional' labour voters whilst also cementing and even improving on his reach into the middle classes. And those aims often contend with each other, rarely more so than over Brexit. If he can't do both he's not going to come close to power

Well sure, but voting "against Brexit" is only likely to make him worse off with the traditional voters, not improve his standing that much with the middle classes.

The only way to beat populism is remove the crutch on which they stand. If Starmer can help make Boris the most unpopular leader in history, his job will be that much easier. So don't do anything stupid and let the buffoon do your work.

IMO the traditional Labour voter isn't that interested in this kind of signalling, so I doubt they'd be particularly bothered. But the voters he could lose to the Lib Dems are more sensitive to this kind of thing.

The traditional labour voter who went with the slogans of let's spend that money on the NHS instead, and get Brexit done isn't interested in nonsensical signalling? 'tis an interesting take

So apparently the government rushed through legislation in Dec that changed the laws around VAT. Now foreign suppliers have to register with HM customs. This has resulted in many companies cutting supplies to the UK. What a shambles. On the plus side, maybe our trade deficit with become healthier?