Brexit delayed

[Digby]

Then the EU really should’ve allowed the UK’s requests for preliminary negotiations to start prior to A50 being triggered and should’ve allowed concurrent negotiations rather than demanding they be staggered.

I'm sure they would on pre A50 negotiations, concurrent would have been a bigger issue , but on this we folded far too quickly to pander to some absurdist notion we were getting on with delivering it.

But political problems were bound to delay such an enormous venture into foreign affairs. And quite frankly that we had no idea what we wanted is a much bigger problem, actually it still is, we've got Labour, Conservatives, UKIP and Brexit Party all being pro leave, and never mind agreeing with each other what Brexit means they don't bar the Brexit Party even agree with themselves what it means, and the Brexit Party is one drunken lunatic who doesn’t think having any actual policies to put before the electorate is valid

The EU categorically ruled out any negotiations prior to triggering A50 and refused to start negotiations until we agreed to the timetable. I don’t blame them, other than the fact it’s hardly the act of an ally to condemn talks to almost certain failure from the very outset.

I agree that there is no consensus to what different factions want. Though, how that sits with your belief that May should sort consensus prior to triggering A50 I don’t know.

I know what the EU said, but I don't believe that would have proved a tenable position, not even close
And if we think the EU is proving obstructionist in negotiations we're going to hate dealing with Japan, India, China, Russia, the USA et al

And my position on concensus is sort it before Brexit negotiations start, and if you cannot sort it don't start

[Digby]

I must have missed all those sooth sayers three years ago.

I don’t know how, they basically rolled out the people who wrote A50 saying the conclusion on doing so was nobody would be stupid enough to initiate such a short countdown to leaving

And you seem like the sort to listen to Radio 4

Really? Was that immediately after the vote, when you claim it was obvious that we'd be having EU elections despite voting to leave.

And if that's meant to be some sort of insult, so be it. But I don't.

Certainly within months of the vote, how soon before or after A50 was triggered I don't specifically recall

And it wasn’t an insult, listening to Radio 4 is an act of a sound sort. Other than the Archers, that's for weirdos

[Mellsblue]

I'm sure they would on pre A50 negotiations, concurrent would have been a bigger issue , but on this we folded far too quickly to pander to some absurdist notion we were getting on with delivering it.

But political problems were bound to delay such an enormous venture into foreign affairs. And quite frankly that we had no idea what we wanted is a much bigger problem, actually it still is, we've got Labour, Conservatives, UKIP and Brexit Party all being pro leave, and never mind agreeing with each other what Brexit means they don't bar the Brexit Party even agree with themselves what it means, and the Brexit Party is one drunken lunatic who doesn’t think having any actual policies to put before the electorate is valid

The EU categorically ruled out any negotiations prior to triggering A50 and refused to start negotiations until we agreed to the timetable. I don’t blame them, other than the fact it’s hardly the act of an ally to condemn talks to almost certain failure from the very outset.

I agree that there is no consensus to what different factions want. Though, how that sits with your belief that May should sort consensus prior to triggering A50 I don’t know.

I know what the EU said, but I don't believe that would have proved a tenable position, not even close
And if we think the EU is proving obstructionist in negotiations we're going to hate dealing with Japan, India, China, Russia, the USA et al

And my position on concensus is sort it before Brexit negotiations start, and if you cannot sort it don't start

If you know what they said why did you say that they would’ve started negs before A50 was triggered when the categorically stated they wouldn’t?
So what should the UK do? Just stand there and both refuse to budge? The EU are used to just taking fairly untenable positions and refusing to budge. Any reading on their previous negotiations will tell you that.
This isn’t a discussion about future talks but this one. It’s a very different discussion from leaving a trading bloc, and more, than it is to form one. As I said I don’t necessarily blame the EU for the stance, other than its not a good way to deal with an ally and net contributor to EU over decades. It’s also very bad faith to setup negotiations to fail at the very outset. Which, according to you, was blindingly obvious to all.

You’ve missed my point on consensus. As can be seen at present, there is no consensus. Just not starting negotiations and allowing that to frustrate the result of a referendum is also untenable.

[Banquo]

I don’t know how, they basically rolled out the people who wrote A50 saying the conclusion on doing so was nobody would be stupid enough to initiate such a short countdown to leaving

And you seem like the sort to listen to Radio 4

Really? Was that immediately after the vote, when you claim it was obvious that we'd be having EU elections despite voting to leave.

And if that's meant to be some sort of insult, so be it. But I don't.

Certainly within months of the vote, how soon before or after A50 was triggered I don't specifically recall

And it wasn’t an insult, listening to Radio 4 is an act of a sound sort. Other than the Archers, that's for weirdos

Well that's convinced me.....

[Digby]

The EU categorically ruled out any negotiations prior to triggering A50 and refused to start negotiations until we agreed to the timetable. I don’t blame them, other than the fact it’s hardly the act of an ally to condemn talks to almost certain failure from the very outset.

I agree that there is no consensus to what different factions want. Though, how that sits with your belief that May should sort consensus prior to triggering A50 I don’t know.

I know what the EU said, but I don't believe that would have proved a tenable position, not even close
And if we think the EU is proving obstructionist in negotiations we're going to hate dealing with Japan, India, China, Russia, the USA et al

And my position on concensus is sort it before Brexit negotiations start, and if you cannot sort it don't start

If you know what they said why did you say that they would’ve started negs before A50 was triggered when the categorically stated they wouldn’t?
So what should the UK do? Just stand there and both refuse to budge? The EU are used to just taking fairly untenable positions and refusing to budge. Any reading on their previous negotiations will tell you that.
This isn’t a discussion about future talks but this one. It’s a very different discussion from leaving a trading bloc, and more, than it is to form one. As I said I don’t necessarily blame the EU for the stance, other than its not a good way to deal with an ally and net contributor to EU over decades. It’s also very bad faith to setup negotiations to fail at the very outset. Which, according to you, was blindingly obvious to all.

You’ve missed my point on consensus. As can be seen at present, there is no consensus. Just not starting negotiations and allowing that to frustrate the result of a referendum is also untenable.

I didn't say don't start negotiations I said don't trigger the countdown. Also what would the EU have done by refusing to negotiate? They on daily basis would have strengthened the anti EU feeling across Europe, it wasn’t remotely going to play for them, better brexit than a dismantling of the whole, and they would have been struggling along with the UK reasonably gumming up anything and everything they wanted to discuss outside brexit

And I've no idea why you would want to start negotiations without knowing what you wanted to achieve just because of stuff

[Mellsblue]

I know what the EU said, but I don't believe that would have proved a tenable position, not even close
And if we think the EU is proving obstructionist in negotiations we're going to hate dealing with Japan, India, China, Russia, the USA et al

And my position on concensus is sort it before Brexit negotiations start, and if you cannot sort it don't start

If you know what they said why did you say that they would’ve started negs before A50 was triggered when the categorically stated they wouldn’t?
So what should the UK do? Just stand there and both refuse to budge? The EU are used to just taking fairly untenable positions and refusing to budge. Any reading on their previous negotiations will tell you that.
This isn’t a discussion about future talks but this one. It’s a very different discussion from leaving a trading bloc, and more, than it is to form one. As I said I don’t necessarily blame the EU for the stance, other than its not a good way to deal with an ally and net contributor to EU over decades. It’s also very bad faith to setup negotiations to fail at the very outset. Which, according to you, was blindingly obvious to all.

You’ve missed my point on consensus. As can be seen at present, there is no consensus. Just not starting negotiations and allowing that to frustrate the result of a referendum is also untenable.

I didn't say don't start negotiations I said don't trigger the countdown. Also what would the EU have done by refusing to negotiate? They on daily basis would have strengthened the anti EU feeling across Europe, it wasn’t remotely going to play for them, better brexit than a dismantling of the whole, and they would have been struggling along with the UK reasonably gumming up anything and everything they wanted to discuss outside brexit

And I've no idea why you would want to start negotiations without knowing what you wanted to achieve just because of stuff

The EU have no obligation to start negotiating before A50 is triggered. Junker stated that they would refuse to negotiate prior to that, and the EU had every right to take that stance.
Ignoring a referendum result is not ‘stuff’. Scores of MPs have sort to overturn Brexit and have failed to find consensus even once A50 was triggered. What on earth makes you think they would’ve found consensus prior to triggering A50. Even if the UK govt/parliament did find consensus, how would the govt/negotiating team know it was even close to what the EU would agree to? We could’ve wasted months negotiating amongst ourselves (not that I think a decision would ever be made) only for the EU to say that our position was nowhere near anything they’d agree to and then you’re back to square one after months of wasted time.

[Puja]

If you know what they said why did you say that they would’ve started negs before A50 was triggered when the categorically stated they wouldn’t?
So what should the UK do? Just stand there and both refuse to budge? The EU are used to just taking fairly untenable positions and refusing to budge. Any reading on their previous negotiations will tell you that.
This isn’t a discussion about future talks but this one. It’s a very different discussion from leaving a trading bloc, and more, than it is to form one. As I said I don’t necessarily blame the EU for the stance, other than its not a good way to deal with an ally and net contributor to EU over decades. It’s also very bad faith to setup negotiations to fail at the very outset. Which, according to you, was blindingly obvious to all.

You’ve missed my point on consensus. As can be seen at present, there is no consensus. Just not starting negotiations and allowing that to frustrate the result of a referendum is also untenable.

I didn't say don't start negotiations I said don't trigger the countdown. Also what would the EU have done by refusing to negotiate? They on daily basis would have strengthened the anti EU feeling across Europe, it wasn’t remotely going to play for them, better brexit than a dismantling of the whole, and they would have been struggling along with the UK reasonably gumming up anything and everything they wanted to discuss outside brexit

And I've no idea why you would want to start negotiations without knowing what you wanted to achieve just because of stuff

The EU have no obligation to start negotiating before A50 is triggered. Junker stated that they would refuse to negotiate prior to that, and the EU had every right to take that stance.
Ignoring a referendum result is not ‘stuff’. Scores of MPs have sort to overturn Brexit and have failed to find consensus even once A50 was triggered. What on earth makes you think they would’ve found consensus prior to triggering A50. Even if the UK govt/parliament did find consensus, how would the govt/negotiating team know it was even close to what the EU would agree to? We could’ve wasted months negotiating amongst ourselves (not that I think a decision would ever be made) only for the EU to say that our position was nowhere near anything they’d agree to and then you’re back to square one after months of wasted time.

Is that significangly worse than negotiating with the EU without knowing what we wanted only for parliament to say that the deal was nowhere near anything they'd agree to, and ending up back at square one after years of wasted time? Cause, frankly, that option's not feeling brilliant right now.

Puja

[Banquo]

I didn't say don't start negotiations I said don't trigger the countdown. Also what would the EU have done by refusing to negotiate? They on daily basis would have strengthened the anti EU feeling across Europe, it wasn’t remotely going to play for them, better brexit than a dismantling of the whole, and they would have been struggling along with the UK reasonably gumming up anything and everything they wanted to discuss outside brexit

And I've no idea why you would want to start negotiations without knowing what you wanted to achieve just because of stuff

The EU have no obligation to start negotiating before A50 is triggered. Junker stated that they would refuse to negotiate prior to that, and the EU had every right to take that stance.
Ignoring a referendum result is not ‘stuff’. Scores of MPs have sort to overturn Brexit and have failed to find consensus even once A50 was triggered. What on earth makes you think they would’ve found consensus prior to triggering A50. Even if the UK govt/parliament did find consensus, how would the govt/negotiating team know it was even close to what the EU would agree to? We could’ve wasted months negotiating amongst ourselves (not that I think a decision would ever be made) only for the EU to say that our position was nowhere near anything they’d agree to and then you’re back to square one after months of wasted time.

Is that significangly worse than negotiating with the EU without knowing what we wanted only for parliament to say that the deal was nowhere near anything they'd agree to, and ending up back at square one after years of wasted time? Cause, frankly, that option's not feeling brilliant right now.

Puja

Yes, we could have had the indicative votes before we started, and .....er.....um.......

[Mellsblue]

The EU have no obligation to start negotiating before A50 is triggered. Junker stated that they would refuse to negotiate prior to that, and the EU had every right to take that stance.
Ignoring a referendum result is not ‘stuff’. Scores of MPs have sort to overturn Brexit and have failed to find consensus even once A50 was triggered. What on earth makes you think they would’ve found consensus prior to triggering A50. Even if the UK govt/parliament did find consensus, how would the govt/negotiating team know it was even close to what the EU would agree to? We could’ve wasted months negotiating amongst ourselves (not that I think a decision would ever be made) only for the EU to say that our position was nowhere near anything they’d agree to and then you’re back to square one after months of wasted time.

Is that significangly worse than negotiating with the EU without knowing what we wanted only for parliament to say that the deal was nowhere near anything they'd agree to, and ending up back at square one after years of wasted time? Cause, frankly, that option's not feeling brilliant right now.

Puja

Yes, we could have had the indicative votes before we started, and .....er.....um.......

Exactly. We didn’t get any consensus, other than no to no deal, and that was with a deadline looming. Imagine how long they would’ve debated it in a vacuum.

[Puja]

Is that significangly worse than negotiating with the EU without knowing what we wanted only for parliament to say that the deal was nowhere near anything they'd agree to, and ending up back at square one after years of wasted time? Cause, frankly, that option's not feeling brilliant right now.

Puja

Yes, we could have had the indicative votes before we started, and .....er.....um.......

Exactly. We didn’t get any consensus, other than no to no deal, and that was with a deadline looming. Imagine how long they would’ve debated it in a vacuum.

I don't see that as an argument for the "Let's negotiate with the EU first and then see what we want" POV. The fact that we don't know what we want is an argument against starting negotiations, not a sign that we should start them and hope for the best.

I'm not entirely sure why or how one can negotiate without knowing what one wants.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

Yes, we could have had the indicative votes before we started, and .....er.....um.......

Exactly. We didn’t get any consensus, other than no to no deal, and that was with a deadline looming. Imagine how long they would’ve debated it in a vacuum.

I don't see that as an argument for the "Let's negotiate with the EU first and then see what we want" POV. The fact that we don't know what we want is an argument against starting negotiations, not a sign that we should start them and hope for the best.

I'm not entirely sure why or how one can negotiate without knowing what one wants.

Puja

Those that negotiated did know what they wanted. What they didn’t know was that the political class would throw a group tantrum and that those who demanded compromise still wouldn’t vote for a compromise when a compromise was put before them.

[Banquo]

Exactly. We didn’t get any consensus, other than no to no deal, and that was with a deadline looming. Imagine how long they would’ve debated it in a vacuum.

I don't see that as an argument for the "Let's negotiate with the EU first and then see what we want" POV. The fact that we don't know what we want is an argument against starting negotiations, not a sign that we should start them and hope for the best.

I'm not entirely sure why or how one can negotiate without knowing what one wants.

Puja

Those that negotiated did know what they wanted. What they didn’t know was that the political class would throw a group tantrum and that those who demanded compromise still wouldn’t vote for a compromise when a compromise was put before them.

I'd also argue what they wanted (as per May's 12 objectives) was both undoable and they were out-manoeuvred/out negotiated by a united team with a stronger hand- that's what caused the resignations of Davies (who realised he was out of his depth) and BoJo etc. Failure of expectation setting compounded by utter ineptitude multiplied by no such thing as cake and eat it.

[Which Tyler]

If only there were some sort of way to find out what people think, or would be likely to vote for.
Maybe some kind of communication, involving... I dunno... words or something.
Tongue, voiceboxes, fingers, that sort of thing.

Ah well, I guess we'll never know what could have happened with the slightest degree of competence.

[Banquo]

If only there were some sort of way to find out what people think, or would be likely to vote for.
Maybe some kind of communication, involving... I dunno... words or something.
Tongue, voiceboxes, fingers, that sort of thing.

Ah well, I guess we'll never know what could have happened with the slightest degree of competence.

Do you mean people or parliament?

[Mellsblue]

I don't see that as an argument for the "Let's negotiate with the EU first and then see what we want" POV. The fact that we don't know what we want is an argument against starting negotiations, not a sign that we should start them and hope for the best.

I'm not entirely sure why or how one can negotiate without knowing what one wants.

Puja

Those that negotiated did know what they wanted. What they didn’t know was that the political class would throw a group tantrum and that those who demanded compromise still wouldn’t vote for a compromise when a compromise was put before them.

I'd also argue what they wanted (as per May's 12 objectives) was both undoable and they were out-manoeuvred/out negotiated by a united team with a stronger hand- that's what caused the resignations of Davies (who realised he was out of his depth) and BoJo etc. Failure of expectation setting compounded by utter ineptitude multiplied by no such thing as cake and eat it.

Agreed. The negotiations were a shambles but what part of it hasn’t!! Davis’ resignation was because he realised May had undercut him and that DExEU was nothing more than an expensive letter head, not that he was out of his depth. He was, but he’d never allow himself to realise it.

[Puja]

Exactly. We didn’t get any consensus, other than no to no deal, and that was with a deadline looming. Imagine how long they would’ve debated it in a vacuum.

I don't see that as an argument for the "Let's negotiate with the EU first and then see what we want" POV. The fact that we don't know what we want is an argument against starting negotiations, not a sign that we should start them and hope for the best.

I'm not entirely sure why or how one can negotiate without knowing what one wants.

Puja

Those that negotiated did know what they wanted. What they didn’t know was that the political class would throw a group tantrum and that those who demanded compromise still wouldn’t vote for a compromise when a compromise was put before them.

It's wonderful that those that negotiated knew what they wanted. However, given that they a) weren't the ones who get to make the decision on our end, b) didn't share that plan with the body that makes the decision, and c) didn't check that the body that actually decides was with them on that plan, them knowing what they wanted seems as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Puja

[Banquo]

Christ alive, I've stupidly been onto Twitter, a beeb feed on the Farage interview with Marr....and the majority of the responses (2k ++) see Farage as the next messiah, and including phrases like 'so what if he doesn't have a manifesto' and 'he tells it like it is'. We are doomed.

[Mellsblue]

I don't see that as an argument for the "Let's negotiate with the EU first and then see what we want" POV. The fact that we don't know what we want is an argument against starting negotiations, not a sign that we should start them and hope for the best.

I'm not entirely sure why or how one can negotiate without knowing what one wants.

Puja

Those that negotiated did know what they wanted. What they didn’t know was that the political class would throw a group tantrum and that those who demanded compromise still wouldn’t vote for a compromise when a compromise was put before them.

It's wonderful that those that negotiated knew what they wanted. However, given that they a) weren't the ones who get to make the decision on our end, b) didn't share that plan with the body that makes the decision, and c) didn't check that the body that actually decides was with them on that plan, them knowing what they wanted seems as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Puja

Checking with that body also seems as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Given what’s happened in the last month or so, I really don’t understand this ‘if only they’d sought agreement via parliament first, it would all have been hunky-dory by now’ logic.
The WA is pretty much a compromise between the Conservative and Labour policies as per their GE manifesto, albeit a lot closer to Lab’s, yet, even given that, it wasn’t even close to being voted through. Labour’s stated Brexit policy is to try to force a GE. Doesn’t bode too well to finding consensus.

[Mellsblue]

Christ alive, I've stupidly been onto Twitter, a beeb feed on the Farage interview with Marr....and the majority of the responses (2k ++) see Farage as the next messiah, and including phrases like 'so what if he doesn't have a manifesto' and 'he tells it like it is'. We are doomed.

So many people have moved into extreme positions.....Farage is the messiah.....WTO is the only true Brexit......all Leavers are thick racists.....Brexit will lead to economic Armageddon and a Nazi govt. The rhetoric is ridiculous. The biggest problem is previously sensible politicians have followed suit.

It’s pathetic.

[Puja]

Those that negotiated did know what they wanted. What they didn’t know was that the political class would throw a group tantrum and that those who demanded compromise still wouldn’t vote for a compromise when a compromise was put before them.

It's wonderful that those that negotiated knew what they wanted. However, given that they a) weren't the ones who get to make the decision on our end, b) didn't share that plan with the body that makes the decision, and c) didn't check that the body that actually decides was with them on that plan, them knowing what they wanted seems as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Puja

Checking with that body also seems as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Given what’s happened in the last month or so, I really don’t understand this ‘if only they’d sought agreement via parliament first, it would all have been hunky-dory by now’ logic.
The WA is pretty much a compromise between the Conservative and Labour policies as per their GE manifesto, albeit a lot closer to Lab’s, yet, even given that, it wasn’t even close to being voted through. Labour’s stated Brexit policy is to try to force a GE. Doesn’t bode too well to finding consensus.

The problem is that the Conservatives turned it into a Conservative deal, a policy and direction decided solely by Conservatives and presented to Parliament as "the Government's deal". This after spending several years shouting loudly that Labour were the enemy and nothing more than demented lunatics whose sole aim was to wreck the economy. It may be petty party politics for Labour to refuse to back it, but at the risk of sounding pettier, they did start it! Also, Labour's stated Brexit policy all the way through has been nothing more than "Fuck the Tories" which would've been a lot harder to stick to if they'd been invited to give their tuppence at the beginning (and thus actually had to have one).

The difference with trying to gain a consensus first on what Brexit actually meant (aside from Brexit, of course) is that if a consensus couldn't be reached, then there would have been time for options like elections, citizens assemblies,cross-party committees, basically anything you like apart from, "Here's the deal that we've spent ages negotiating and which is now the only one on the table - like it or lump it." Plus we wouldn't have spunked away precious goodwill from the EU side by fighting them tooth and nail over a deal that it turns out we don't want.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

It's wonderful that those that negotiated knew what they wanted. However, given that they a) weren't the ones who get to make the decision on our end, b) didn't share that plan with the body that makes the decision, and c) didn't check that the body that actually decides was with them on that plan, them knowing what they wanted seems as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

Puja

Checking with that body also seems as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Given what’s happened in the last month or so, I really don’t understand this ‘if only they’d sought agreement via parliament first, it would all have been hunky-dory by now’ logic.
The WA is pretty much a compromise between the Conservative and Labour policies as per their GE manifesto, albeit a lot closer to Lab’s, yet, even given that, it wasn’t even close to being voted through. Labour’s stated Brexit policy is to try to force a GE. Doesn’t bode too well to finding consensus.

The problem is that the Conservatives turned it into a Conservative deal, a policy and direction decided solely by Conservatives and presented to Parliament as "the Government's deal". This after spending several years shouting loudly that Labour were the enemy and nothing more than demented lunatics whose sole aim was to wreck the economy. It may be petty party politics for Labour to refuse to back it, but at the risk of sounding pettier, they did start it! Also, Labour's stated Brexit policy all the way through has been nothing more than "Fuck the Tories" which would've been a lot harder to stick to if they'd been invited to give their tuppence at the beginning (and thus actually had to have one).

The difference with trying to gain a consensus first on what Brexit actually meant (aside from Brexit, of course) is that if a consensus couldn't be reached, then there would have been time for options like elections, citizens assemblies,cross-party committees, basically anything you like apart from, "Here's the deal that we've spent ages negotiating and which is now the only one on the table - like it or lump it." Plus we wouldn't have spunked away precious goodwill from the EU side by fighting them tooth and nail over a deal that it turns out we don't want.

Puja

Good to see that this Conservative govt started adversarial politics. There are quite a few politics texts books that need rewriting. As for the govt’s deal, that is literally how our political system works - a govt is formed and they put their manifesto policies to parliament.
I’m really not sure that Labour would have moved away from their ‘f**k the Tories’ policy. Despite unbelievably terrible personal ratings, below both May and Don’t Know, Corbyn seems determined to stay on message.
There was of course a GE after the referendum that returned the Conservatives as the largest party and Labour as the second largest (both taking record shares of the vote and numbers of votes) both of which ran on pro-Brexit platforms and there is a cross party Brexit committee, chaired by Hillary Benn of the opposition, in place. I’m surprised you suggest citizens assemblies as you, amongst many others, have denounced the general public for not being intelligent enough to know what is best for them.
How you get to the idea that we have spunked away any good will by fighting tooth and nail with the EU, I don’t know. It’s seems to me that there have been robust negotiations leading to an agreement that led one EU official to declare they had their first colony. If anything ‘spunked away precious goodwill’ it is the embarrassment of a legislature unable to decide what it wants once a deal was agreed upon.
I say all this whilst thinking May et al have made a massive hollicks of it all and believing May is a terrible leader, but I believe that blaming them and them only for not seeking consensus is incredibly one eyed.

[Puja]

Checking with that body also seems as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Given what’s happened in the last month or so, I really don’t understand this ‘if only they’d sought agreement via parliament first, it would all have been hunky-dory by now’ logic.
The WA is pretty much a compromise between the Conservative and Labour policies as per their GE manifesto, albeit a lot closer to Lab’s, yet, even given that, it wasn’t even close to being voted through. Labour’s stated Brexit policy is to try to force a GE. Doesn’t bode too well to finding consensus.

The problem is that the Conservatives turned it into a Conservative deal, a policy and direction decided solely by Conservatives and presented to Parliament as "the Government's deal". This after spending several years shouting loudly that Labour were the enemy and nothing more than demented lunatics whose sole aim was to wreck the economy. It may be petty party politics for Labour to refuse to back it, but at the risk of sounding pettier, they did start it! Also, Labour's stated Brexit policy all the way through has been nothing more than "Fuck the Tories" which would've been a lot harder to stick to if they'd been invited to give their tuppence at the beginning (and thus actually had to have one).

The difference with trying to gain a consensus first on what Brexit actually meant (aside from Brexit, of course) is that if a consensus couldn't be reached, then there would have been time for options like elections, citizens assemblies,cross-party committees, basically anything you like apart from, "Here's the deal that we've spent ages negotiating and which is now the only one on the table - like it or lump it." Plus we wouldn't have spunked away precious goodwill from the EU side by fighting them tooth and nail over a deal that it turns out we don't want.

Puja

Good to see that this Conservative govt started adversarial politics. There are quite a few politics texts books that need rewriting.

That wasn't exactly what I said, but I guess it is easier to attack, which nicely illustrates both of our points as well as what's wrong with politics in this country.

As for the govt’s deal, that is literally how our political system works - a govt is formed and they put their manifesto policies to parliament.

I'm familiar with that. But also literally how our political system works is that votes are put to parliament and, if a government is so weak as to not be able to get their manifesto policies through, then they either amend them to try and get enough MPs on side or they don't get them through.

I’m really not sure that Labour would have moved away from their ‘f**k the Tories’ policy. Despite unbelievably terrible personal ratings, below both May and Don’t Know, Corbyn seems determined to stay on message.

You're not wrong, but given a slightly less incompetent government, he would've had a lot more trouble keeping all his MPs onside.

There was of course a GE after the referendum that returned the Conservatives as the largest party and Labour as the second largest (both taking record shares of the vote and numbers of votes) both of which ran on pro-Brexit platforms and there is a cross party Brexit committee, chaired by Hillary Benn of the opposition, in place. I’m surprised you suggest citizens assemblies as you, amongst many others, have denounced the general public for not being intelligent enough to know what is best for them.

Okay, lots of sophistry there. Firstly, the GE was fought on anything but Brexit and a combination of the mess that is FPtP and Labour's tightrope of mendacity on Brexit means that a lot of Remain voters voted Labour as a "Not the Tories" vote or a "Fuck the Tories" vote or a "Corbyn will be gone and Labour will then oppose Brexit" vote. So parrotting May's line that 82.4% of people voted for pro-Brexit parties is specious and you're too intelligent not to know that.

Secondly, the select committee scrutinises the work of the Department of Exiting the EU. It has no powers to set policy or any input into the negotiations. They get to criticise (and they do), but there's no decision-making capacity there.

And yes, I am generally of the opinion that "The People" have the collective wisdom of an out-of-date tin of Aldi salmon and wouldn't ideally want them polled at any time, but my point is that there would be an option, there would be things that we could do, rather than just the unedifying choice of May's deal or No Deal with a ticking clock in the background. Since The Will of The People (TM) has become so sacrosanct since 2016, an assembly might've been an option to work out what that Will actually was.

How you get to the idea that we have spunked away any good will by fighting tooth and nail with the EU, I don’t know. It’s seems to me that there have been robust negotiations leading to an agreement that led one EU official to declare they had their first colony. If anything ‘spunked away precious goodwill’ it is the embarrassment of a legislature unable to decide what it wants once a deal was agreed upon.

Oh, the EU are a bag of dicks as well, no argument there. Doesn't change the fact that taking 2 years to negotiate a deal that we manifestly don't want is not a good way to build a future relationship.

I say all this whilst thinking May et al have made a massive hollicks of it all and believing May is a terrible leader, but I believe that blaming them and them only for not seeking consensus is incredibly one eyed.

And so we agree once again - everyone involved is a fucking idiot and we're all doomed. I believe we reached exactly the same point the last time we had this argument.

Puja

[Stom]

Christ alive, I've stupidly been onto Twitter, a beeb feed on the Farage interview with Marr....and the majority of the responses (2k ++) see Farage as the next messiah, and including phrases like 'so what if he doesn't have a manifesto' and 'he tells it like it is'. We are doomed.

Until some people realise that for there to be real political change they need a left leaning party made of non-political insiders...

There's a bit of a debate here atm, because Fidesz are so strong despite really starting to turn the screw on being bastards...

There is literally nowhere for anyone left of centre to go. They're all useless career politicians. Meanwhile, the far-right have their "we're not political insiders" speak, so pick up votes left right and centre.

It's the key reason why Change UK will fail: they've not realised that their bubble is...a bubble. The average person will never vote for them as they don't offer any real change, they just offer Tories light or Labour right, depending on your viewpoint.

And compared to over here, it would be piss easy to get a new party going in the UK...

Step one: Go to big local employers and ask them what is the biggest problem they face. Then ask them if they'd fund a party who took steps to overcome that.

Put together a bare-bones manifesto based upon those problems + democratic socialist concepts.

Collect a bunch of activists who feel very strongly about the plight of the country, see if they would be willing to subscribe to the manifesto you've put together, and then get them to be your candidates.

Run targeted ad campaigns promoting these individuals as voices of reason. OUTSIDE OF ELECTION TIME! Push them hard into local newspapers, plaster them all over FB, get them on the radio...

And hey presto, you've suddenly got a political entity people will vote for.


Politicians look at politics as insiders. Most "socialist" politicians are also political students and insiders. Only the "right-wing" have actually realised the power of the outsider, how everyone is pissed off at politics and wants nothing more than to not vote for Tories or Labour...

I just think it's insane.

[Mellsblue]

The problem is that the Conservatives turned it into a Conservative deal, a policy and direction decided solely by Conservatives and presented to Parliament as "the Government's deal". This after spending several years shouting loudly that Labour were the enemy and nothing more than demented lunatics whose sole aim was to wreck the economy. It may be petty party politics for Labour to refuse to back it, but at the risk of sounding pettier, they did start it! Also, Labour's stated Brexit policy all the way through has been nothing more than "Fuck the Tories" which would've been a lot harder to stick to if they'd been invited to give their tuppence at the beginning (and thus actually had to have one).

The difference with trying to gain a consensus first on what Brexit actually meant (aside from Brexit, of course) is that if a consensus couldn't be reached, then there would have been time for options like elections, citizens assemblies,cross-party committees, basically anything you like apart from, "Here's the deal that we've spent ages negotiating and which is now the only one on the table - like it or lump it." Plus we wouldn't have spunked away precious goodwill from the EU side by fighting them tooth and nail over a deal that it turns out we don't want.

Puja

Good to see that this Conservative govt started adversarial politics. There are quite a few politics texts books that need rewriting.

That wasn't exactly what I said, but I guess it is easier to attack, which nicely illustrates both of our points as well as what's wrong with politics in this country.

As for the govt’s deal, that is literally how our political system works - a govt is formed and they put their manifesto policies to parliament.

I'm familiar with that. But also literally how our political system works is that votes are put to parliament and, if a government is so weak as to not be able to get their manifesto policies through, then they either amend them to try and get enough MPs on side or they don't get them through.

I’m really not sure that Labour would have moved away from their ‘f**k the Tories’ policy. Despite unbelievably terrible personal ratings, below both May and Don’t Know, Corbyn seems determined to stay on message.

You're not wrong, but given a slightly less incompetent government, he would've had a lot more trouble keeping all his MPs onside.

There was of course a GE after the referendum that returned the Conservatives as the largest party and Labour as the second largest (both taking record shares of the vote and numbers of votes) both of which ran on pro-Brexit platforms and there is a cross party Brexit committee, chaired by Hillary Benn of the opposition, in place. I’m surprised you suggest citizens assemblies as you, amongst many others, have denounced the general public for not being intelligent enough to know what is best for them.

Okay, lots of sophistry there. Firstly, the GE was fought on anything but Brexit and a combination of the mess that is FPtP and Labour's tightrope of mendacity on Brexit means that a lot of Remain voters voted Labour as a "Not the Tories" vote or a "Fuck the Tories" vote or a "Corbyn will be gone and Labour will then oppose Brexit" vote. So parrotting May's line that 82.4% of people voted for pro-Brexit parties is specious and you're too intelligent not to know that.

Secondly, the select committee scrutinises the work of the Department of Exiting the EU. It has no powers to set policy or any input into the negotiations. They get to criticise (and they do), but there's no decision-making capacity there.

And yes, I am generally of the opinion that "The People" have the collective wisdom of an out-of-date tin of Aldi salmon and wouldn't ideally want them polled at any time, but my point is that there would be an option, there would be things that we could do, rather than just the unedifying choice of May's deal or No Deal with a ticking clock in the background. Since The Will of The People (TM) has become so sacrosanct since 2016, an assembly might've been an option to work out what that Will actually was.

How you get to the idea that we have spunked away any good will by fighting tooth and nail with the EU, I don’t know. It’s seems to me that there have been robust negotiations leading to an agreement that led one EU official to declare they had their first colony. If anything ‘spunked away precious goodwill’ it is the embarrassment of a legislature unable to decide what it wants once a deal was agreed upon.

Oh, the EU are a bag of dicks as well, no argument there. Doesn't change the fact that taking 2 years to negotiate a deal that we manifestly don't want is not a good way to build a future relationship.

I say all this whilst thinking May et al have made a massive hollicks of it all and believing May is a terrible leader, but I believe that blaming them and them only for not seeking consensus is incredibly one eyed.

And so we agree once again - everyone involved is a fucking idiot and we're all doomed. I believe we reached exactly the same point the last time we had this argument.

Puja

Can’t be bothered to reply to all other than your options to find a solution to Brexit. As you say, we’re just going over old ground.
You ask for a GE but not a GE like the last GE and every other GE. The whole point of a GE is that it isn’t about a single issue. Why do you think the next one would be any different I don’t know.
You ask for a cross party committee, have it pointed out there is one and then say it’s not the correct sort of one and ask for the committee to have powers that are contrary to how our parliament functions. The committee has authored a few reports and most have been denounced and savaged by the members that don’t agree, ie a very large minority, because a committee is based on parliaments political makeup. Committee is just parliament in microcosm which will just lead to the same issues as parliament has, ie they don’t have an consensus answer to the problem either. If the committee were able to set policy (again, not how parliament functions) that policy would still need to go through parliament which, as above, doesn’t know what it wants. I suppose parliament could set up a committee to suggest possible Brexit paths to be put to parliament but we’ve pretty much had that and it didn’t work. You’ll also be glad to know that Hillary Benn, as chair of the committee, has met with Barnier to discuss negotiations, as have a Labour delegation and numerous other factions and parties, numerous times.
You also ask for a citizens assembly whilst admitting you think the public at large have the IQ of a dead fish, which, assuming you’re correct on the dead fish analogy, doesn’t seem a particularly sensible route to take. Even if we did have a citizens assembly, parliament would not vote for it recommendations if they thought the answer they were given to be wrong, as they did the result of the referendum.
The issue is that parliament can’t get over the fact that they don’t like or agree with what they have been told/advised to do by the referendum. Any amount of different avenues and packaging of deals doesn’t surmount that fact.

[Sandydragon]

Fundamentally, there still ain’t a majority for anything in this parliament.

We can’t keep in wasting time like this. A second referendum is probably the beat solution, and this time make it clear what the vote means so there is no argument thereafter.