In amidst all of that Labour bashing conservative rhetoric in the posts above ..I'm still waiting for you or any sensible person to tell me , why May wouldn't rule out a no brexit deal and by consequence open up meaningful cross party brexit talk ?
The posts above highlight Labours policy, which Corbyn is refusing to implement.
A party with a majority of pro EU members, voters, and MPs, was likely to have problems being led by a lifelong Eurosceptic.
Maybe the negotiations would have gone better had The Tories chosen a leader who had been a leave voter.
What policy is he refusing to implement ?...grass root opinion is not policy.
He clearly doesn't want a second referendum, which was agreed at their conference.
Is that the best you can come up with ? come on Haysie ..to start with , If you listened and watched the conference earlier you would know full well that he clearly said that was on the cards as an option ....If you are going to make ridiculous accusations that he is not implementing policy , then at least back it up with substance .
John McDonnel, and Keir Starmer have both said many times in interviews that if they fail to get a General Election, they will support a second referendum.
In amidst all of that Labour bashing conservative rhetoric in the posts above ..I'm still waiting for you or any sensible person to tell me , why May wouldn't rule out a no brexit deal and by consequence open up meaningful cross party brexit talk ?
The posts above highlight Labours policy, which Corbyn is refusing to implement.
A party with a majority of pro EU members, voters, and MPs, was likely to have problems being led by a lifelong Eurosceptic.
Maybe the negotiations would have gone better had The Tories chosen a leader who had been a leave voter.
What policy is he refusing to implement ?...grass root opinion is not policy.
He clearly doesn't want a second referendum, which was agreed at their conference.
Is that the best you can come up with ? come on Haysie ..to start with , If you listened and watched the conference earlier you would know full well that he clearly said that was on the cards as an option ....If you are going to make ridiculous accusations that he is not implementing policy , then at least back it up with substance .
John McDonnel, and Keir Starmer have both said many times in interviews that if they fail to get a General Election, they will support a second referendum.
The problem is that Corbyn doesn't want one.
Watch the conference video , which I posted earlier.
On the prospect of a second EU referendum, Mr Corbyn reiterated that "all options are on the table" for Labour and "given the severity of the crisis, it would be wrong to rule any of them out"
In amidst all of that Labour bashing conservative rhetoric in the posts above ..I'm still waiting for you or any sensible person to tell me , why May wouldn't rule out a no brexit deal and by consequence open up meaningful cross party brexit talk ?
The posts above highlight Labours policy, which Corbyn is refusing to implement.
A party with a majority of pro EU members, voters, and MPs, was likely to have problems being led by a lifelong Eurosceptic.
Maybe the negotiations would have gone better had The Tories chosen a leader who had been a leave voter.
A number of Labour MPs are visiting The Pm against Corbyns specific orders.
To be honest ....everyone should be more concerned about the complete ineptitude of May and her government in delivering a Brexit deal that the country voted for , rather that trying to pick holes in the opposition .
The opposition are just as bad, and equally short of solutions.
Which Brexit deal did the country vote for?
I dont believe that there is a deal that could currently get through Parliament.
The problem is The Backstop. Parliament wont have it, and The EU wont do a deal without it.
The only solution is The Customs Union. Although I am not sure how many would vote for a Customs Union, as that would prohibit trade deals with other countries.
In amidst all of that Labour bashing conservative rhetoric in the posts above ..I'm still waiting for you or any sensible person to tell me , why May wouldn't rule out a no brexit deal and by consequence open up meaningful cross party brexit talk ?
The posts above highlight Labours policy, which Corbyn is refusing to implement.
A party with a majority of pro EU members, voters, and MPs, was likely to have problems being led by a lifelong Eurosceptic.
Maybe the negotiations would have gone better had The Tories chosen a leader who had been a leave voter.
What policy is he refusing to implement ?...grass root opinion is not policy.
May lays out why she cant remove the no deal option , Phillip hammond says it could be removed in a matter of days , and Andrea Leadsom warns that taking " no deal " off the table would be irresponsible ( suggesting that it is possible ) . So which one of these Tories is actually telling the truth ?...if any .
May lays out why she cant remove the no deal option , Phillip hammond says it could be removed in a matter of days , and Andrea Leadsom warns that taking " no deal " off the table would be irresponsible ( suggesting that it is possible ) . So which one of these Tories is actually telling the truth ?...if any .
They are spending £4billion on no deal preparations, and robbing peoples pensions at the same time. (see politics thread)
She has also reassured The ERG this afternoon, that she wont contemplate a Customs Union, and has no intention of ruling out no deal.
May lays out why she cant remove the no deal option , Phillip hammond says it could be removed in a matter of days , and Andrea Leadsom warns that taking " no deal " off the table would be irresponsible ( suggesting that it is possible ) . So which one of these Tories is actually telling the truth ?...if any .
May lays out why she cant remove the no deal option , Phillip hammond says it could be removed in a matter of days , and Andrea Leadsom warns that taking " no deal " off the table would be irresponsible ( suggesting that it is possible ) . So which one of these Tories is actually telling the truth ?...if any .
They are spending £4billion on no deal preparations, and robbing peoples pensions at the same time. (see politics thread)
She has also reassured The ERG this afternoon, that she wont contemplate a Customs Union, and has no intention of ruling out no deal.
Yea corbyn said in his speech about 4.8 billion being put aside for no deal .
As far as the no deal issue ...i'm genuinely confused ...this is from the bbc news site
"In a letter to the Labour leader, the PM wrote that ruling out no deal was an "impossible condition" as it was not within the government's power to do it.
The following was in her letter to Corbyn : " "I note that you have said that 'ruling out' no deal is a precondition before we can meet, but that is an impossible condition because it is not within the Government's power to rule out no deal.
"Let me explain why. Under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and the Withdrawal Act 2018, we will leave the EU without a deal on 29 March unless Parliament either agrees a deal with the EU or the UK revokes article 50 and chooses to stay in the EU permanently.
"So there are two way to avoid no deal: either vote for a deal, in particular a Withdrawal Agreement, that has been agreed with the EU, or to revoke Article 50 and overturn the referendum result.
"I believe it would be wrong to overturn the referendum result."
Why are there no politicians , ( that I have seen ) , querying the validity of that statement?
May lays out why she cant remove the no deal option , Phillip hammond says it could be removed in a matter of days , and Andrea Leadsom warns that taking " no deal " off the table would be irresponsible ( suggesting that it is possible ) . So which one of these Tories is actually telling the truth ?...if any .
They are spending £4billion on no deal preparations, and robbing peoples pensions at the same time. (see politics thread)
She has also reassured The ERG this afternoon, that she wont contemplate a Customs Union, and has no intention of ruling out no deal.
Yea corbyn said in his speech about 4.8 billion being put aside for no deal .
As far as the no deal issue ...i'm genuinely confused ...this is from the bbc news site
"In a letter to the Labour leader, the PM wrote that ruling out no deal was an "impossible condition" as it was not within the government's power to do it.
The following was in her letter to Corbyn : " "I note that you have said that 'ruling out' no deal is a precondition before we can meet, but that is an impossible condition because it is not within the Government's power to rule out no deal.
"Let me explain why. Under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and the Withdrawal Act 2018, we will leave the EU without a deal on 29 March unless Parliament either agrees a deal with the EU or the UK revokes article 50 and chooses to stay in the EU permanently.
"So there are two way to avoid no deal: either vote for a deal, in particular a Withdrawal Agreement, that has been agreed with the EU, or to revoke Article 50 and overturn the referendum result.
"I believe it would be wrong to overturn the referendum result."
Why are there no politicians , ( that I have seen ) , querying the validity of that statement?
Reason is very simple. It is correct.
It takes 2 people to make a deal-in this case the UK and the EU. How can just 1 of those parties completely rule out not making a deal with the other?
On the 1 side you have a PM who has zero people skills desperately trying to make friends within her own party and (belatedly) other parties.
The only sensible thing Corbyn has said on the subject, as you rightly said, is that "all options remain on the table". And then the first thing he says when invited to talks, is to demand as a precondition that one option is removed from that self-same table. Completely ignoring the fact that May is desperately trying to avoid no deal. The fool. He has to be the only Labour politician who could fail to have a 10-point lead in the polls. I'd almost rather have Tory Blair back.
If we end up as no deal, if economists are right, then many businesses will fail. And many people will lose their jobs. And that may well spell the end of the Conservative and Labour parties as we now know them. Perhaps if more MPs had ever had a real job, rather than just working for think tanks, they might realise that.
May lays out why she cant remove the no deal option , Phillip hammond says it could be removed in a matter of days , and Andrea Leadsom warns that taking " no deal " off the table would be irresponsible ( suggesting that it is possible ) . So which one of these Tories is actually telling the truth ?...if any .
They are spending £4billion on no deal preparations, and robbing peoples pensions at the same time. (see politics thread)
She has also reassured The ERG this afternoon, that she wont contemplate a Customs Union, and has no intention of ruling out no deal.
Yea corbyn said in his speech about 4.8 billion being put aside for no deal .
As far as the no deal issue ...i'm genuinely confused ...this is from the bbc news site
"In a letter to the Labour leader, the PM wrote that ruling out no deal was an "impossible condition" as it was not within the government's power to do it.
The following was in her letter to Corbyn : " "I note that you have said that 'ruling out' no deal is a precondition before we can meet, but that is an impossible condition because it is not within the Government's power to rule out no deal.
"Let me explain why. Under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and the Withdrawal Act 2018, we will leave the EU without a deal on 29 March unless Parliament either agrees a deal with the EU or the UK revokes article 50 and chooses to stay in the EU permanently.
"So there are two way to avoid no deal: either vote for a deal, in particular a Withdrawal Agreement, that has been agreed with the EU, or to revoke Article 50 and overturn the referendum result.
"I believe it would be wrong to overturn the referendum result."
Why are there no politicians , ( that I have seen ) , querying the validity of that statement?
Reason is very simple. It is correct.
It takes 2 people to make a deal-in this case the UK and the EU. How can just 1 of those parties completely rule out not making a deal with the other?
On the 1 side you have a PM who has zero people skills desperately trying to make friends within her own party and (belatedly) other parties.
The only sensible thing Corbyn has said on the subject, as you rightly said, is that "all options remain on the table". And then the first thing he says when invited to talks, is to demand as a precondition that one option is removed from that self-same table. Completely ignoring the fact that May is desperately trying to avoid no deal. The fool. He has to be the only Labour politician who could fail to have a 10-point lead in the polls. I'd almost rather have Tory Blair back.
If we end up as no deal, if economists are right, then many businesses will fail. And many people will lose their jobs. And that may well spell the end of the Conservative and Labour parties as we now know them. Perhaps if more MPs had ever had a real job, rather than just working for think tanks, they might realise that.
It can be done according to this.
Theresa May could easily rule out no-deal Brexit. She won’t – she needs the threat of chaos to survive The reason May won’t make the commitment isn’t legal, it’s political: she needs to maintain the threat of no deal, even though she knows the country is ill-prepared for it
May lays out why she cant remove the no deal option , Phillip hammond says it could be removed in a matter of days , and Andrea Leadsom warns that taking " no deal " off the table would be irresponsible ( suggesting that it is possible ) . So which one of these Tories is actually telling the truth ?...if any .
They are spending £4billion on no deal preparations, and robbing peoples pensions at the same time. (see politics thread)
She has also reassured The ERG this afternoon, that she wont contemplate a Customs Union, and has no intention of ruling out no deal.
Yea corbyn said in his speech about 4.8 billion being put aside for no deal .
As far as the no deal issue ...i'm genuinely confused ...this is from the bbc news site
"In a letter to the Labour leader, the PM wrote that ruling out no deal was an "impossible condition" as it was not within the government's power to do it.
The following was in her letter to Corbyn : " "I note that you have said that 'ruling out' no deal is a precondition before we can meet, but that is an impossible condition because it is not within the Government's power to rule out no deal.
"Let me explain why. Under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and the Withdrawal Act 2018, we will leave the EU without a deal on 29 March unless Parliament either agrees a deal with the EU or the UK revokes article 50 and chooses to stay in the EU permanently.
"So there are two way to avoid no deal: either vote for a deal, in particular a Withdrawal Agreement, that has been agreed with the EU, or to revoke Article 50 and overturn the referendum result.
"I believe it would be wrong to overturn the referendum result."
Why are there no politicians , ( that I have seen ) , querying the validity of that statement?
Reason is very simple. It is correct.
It takes 2 people to make a deal-in this case the UK and the EU. How can just 1 of those parties completely rule out not making a deal with the other?
On the 1 side you have a PM who has zero people skills desperately trying to make friends within her own party and (belatedly) other parties.
The only sensible thing Corbyn has said on the subject, as you rightly said, is that "all options remain on the table". And then the first thing he says when invited to talks, is to demand as a precondition that one option is removed from that self-same table. Completely ignoring the fact that May is desperately trying to avoid no deal. The fool. He has to be the only Labour politician who could fail to have a 10-point lead in the polls. I'd almost rather have Tory Blair back.
If we end up as no deal, if economists are right, then many businesses will fail. And many people will lose their jobs. And that may well spell the end of the Conservative and Labour parties as we now know them. Perhaps if more MPs had ever had a real job, rather than just working for think tanks, they might realise that.
It can be done according to this.
Theresa May could easily rule out no-deal Brexit. She won’t – she needs the threat of chaos to survive The reason May won’t make the commitment isn’t legal, it’s political: she needs to maintain the threat of no deal, even though she knows the country is ill-prepared for it
No, she can't unilaterally demand an agreement with someone else, particularly when we have already rejected their terms. That said, it would be easy to agree that that particular backstop is one that will be the last resort.
Completely true that she is using no deal as the boogeyman-that is no more and no less ridiculous than the Labour position. All party politics, no actual work being done.
Norway plus Customs Union. This means Freedom of movement, no trade deals, being under European Court jurisdiction, accepting rules, and paying an annual fee. You would think that we would just stay in.
Tory rebel Nick Boles says 400 MPs back a soft Brexit as he calls for Article 50 to be extended by nine months but ditches his plan for MPs to seize control of the crunch talks
Nick Boles MP has tabled a Bill to delay Brexit and give MPs control of the talks He is pushing for a softer Norway style Brexit deal to be struck with Brussels Theresa May is scrambling to come up with a Plan B after her devastating defeat
May lays out why she cant remove the no deal option , Phillip hammond says it could be removed in a matter of days , and Andrea Leadsom warns that taking " no deal " off the table would be irresponsible ( suggesting that it is possible ) . So which one of these Tories is actually telling the truth ?...if any .
They are spending £4billion on no deal preparations, and robbing peoples pensions at the same time. (see politics thread)
She has also reassured The ERG this afternoon, that she wont contemplate a Customs Union, and has no intention of ruling out no deal.
Yea corbyn said in his speech about 4.8 billion being put aside for no deal .
As far as the no deal issue ...i'm genuinely confused ...this is from the bbc news site
"In a letter to the Labour leader, the PM wrote that ruling out no deal was an "impossible condition" as it was not within the government's power to do it.
The following was in her letter to Corbyn : " "I note that you have said that 'ruling out' no deal is a precondition before we can meet, but that is an impossible condition because it is not within the Government's power to rule out no deal.
"Let me explain why. Under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and the Withdrawal Act 2018, we will leave the EU without a deal on 29 March unless Parliament either agrees a deal with the EU or the UK revokes article 50 and chooses to stay in the EU permanently.
"So there are two way to avoid no deal: either vote for a deal, in particular a Withdrawal Agreement, that has been agreed with the EU, or to revoke Article 50 and overturn the referendum result.
"I believe it would be wrong to overturn the referendum result."
Why are there no politicians , ( that I have seen ) , querying the validity of that statement?
Reason is very simple. It is correct.
It takes 2 people to make a deal-in this case the UK and the EU. How can just 1 of those parties completely rule out not making a deal with the other?
On the 1 side you have a PM who has zero people skills desperately trying to make friends within her own party and (belatedly) other parties.
The only sensible thing Corbyn has said on the subject, as you rightly said, is that "all options remain on the table". And then the first thing he says when invited to talks, is to demand as a precondition that one option is removed from that self-same table. Completely ignoring the fact that May is desperately trying to avoid no deal. The fool. He has to be the only Labour politician who could fail to have a 10-point lead in the polls. I'd almost rather have Tory Blair back.
If we end up as no deal, if economists are right, then many businesses will fail. And many people will lose their jobs. And that may well spell the end of the Conservative and Labour parties as we now know them. Perhaps if more MPs had ever had a real job, rather than just working for think tanks, they might realise that.
It can be done according to this.
Theresa May could easily rule out no-deal Brexit. She won’t – she needs the threat of chaos to survive The reason May won’t make the commitment isn’t legal, it’s political: she needs to maintain the threat of no deal, even though she knows the country is ill-prepared for it
No, she can't unilaterally demand an agreement with someone else, particularly when we have already rejected their terms. That said, it would be easy to agree that that particular backstop is one that will be the last resort.
Completely true that she is using no deal as the boogeyman-that is no more and no less ridiculous than the Labour position. All party politics, no actual work being done.
And March draws ever closer.
Most of the latter arguments have focused on the fact that Brexit will happen automatically on 29 March, deal or no deal. Labour’s critics note that, unless the Commons reaches a majority for an alternative, then no deal remains the default. Only with such a majority could the PM withdraw the threat of no deal, and as there is no majority today, Corbyn’s demand is impossible for May to agree.
This view has the law on its side, but its proponents forget that law falls within the realm of politics. Corbyn’s demand for no deal to be “off the table” is not at this stage a legal demand; it is a political demand that can be met by specific assurances from the PM, which would also ease the path to parliamentary agreement on an alternative.
May could offer such assurances today. She could tell the country that – while she continues to believe that her deal represents the best means to deliver Brexit – she accepts that the House of Commons thinks differently. She could acknowledge that, above all else, most MPs want to avoid the prospect of leaving without a deal on March 29, and that avoiding this disaster is their priority, whatever they might individually prefer as an alternative. She could then offer a commitment that the government will not stand in the way of any majority Commons proposal to prevent no deal on March 29, and that this commitment is made without preconditions. So extending or revoking Article 50 must be on the table, as must a customs union or second referendum. The details can be agreed during talks; it’s not necessary for either party to spell these out now, and if Corbyn were to reject this proposal he could fairly be criticised.
There is no legal obstacle to May making this offer, because it is a purely political commitment. If “stop no deal unconditionally” is agreed by the two main parties, the legislative mechanisms would easily win parliamentary support. The removal of the government’s red lines would have the added benefit of making the path to agreeing an alternative proposition much easier.
The case to kill no-deal Brexit now has only been strengthened by reports of Philip Hammond’s comments to UK business leaders, in which he declared that a private members’ bill from Nick Boles mandating the government to seek an Article 50 extension if no deal was agreed would likely pass the Commons and – those words again – take no deal on 29 March “off the table”
Corbyn could face string of resignations if he backs 'people's vote'
Some Labour supporters are raising pressure on Corbyn to support a second referendum. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA Jeremy Corbyn could face up to a dozen resignations from the Labour frontbench if the party backs a second referendum as a way out of the Brexit crisis. A string of junior shadow ministers have told the Guardian they are strongly opposed to the idea of a second referendum, which they fear would expose Labour to a vicious backlash in leave-voting constituencies.
With Corbyn’s hopes of a general election fading with the prime minister’s narrow victory in the no-confidence vote, some Labour supporters are raising pressure on Corbyn to support a second referendum. A snap poll conducted after the crushing defeat of May’s Brexit plan has found a 12-point lead for remaining in the EU – the largest margin since the 2016 vote.
Anti-Brexit campaign group Labour for a People’s Vote published a list of 71 Labour MPs who support its cause on Wednesday, and claimed many more were privately supportive.
Other shadow cabinet ministers, including the deputy Labour leader, Tom Watson, and the shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, are more sympathetic towards a second referendum.
In a further development, a poll conducted by YouGov of more than 1,000 voters on Wednesday found 56% would now vote to stay in the EU, against 44% who want to leave. Exactly the same proportion of voters said they wanted a second EU referendum – three points higher than recorded in a similar poll before Christmas. Backing for a so-called people’s vote among Labour supporters stood at 78%. The remain lead was extended further when respondents were asked to compare it to May’s withdrawal agreement or the option of leaving the EU without a deal. Against the prime minister’s deal, remain led by 65% to 35%, while against no-deal was 59% to 41% in favour of staying in the EU.
Hammond says government could delay Brexit to avoid no deal
The UK government could delay Brexit to avoid a catastrophic no-deal scenario, according to reports. Chancellor Philip Hammond is understood to have reassured businesses after Theresa May’s Brexit deal was voted down by parliament in a crushing defeat last night. He told business leaders on a private conference call last night that parliament could vote next week on a plan to push back the UK’s March 29 exit date. The Financial Times reports that Hammond made clear the government would not put “obstacles” in the way of a controversial amendment that could delay Brexit and even see a cross-party group of MPs take charge of finding a deal. “There is a large majority in the Commons that is opposed to no deal,” the chancellor is said to have told firms.
Farage urges Brexiteers to prepare for second referendum
Press Association video•18 January 2019 Nigel Farage has urged Leave campaigners to prepare for a second referendum as Britain's Brexit deadlock continues. The former Ukip leader, and MEP, spoke at a packed Leave Means Leave rally in London.
Johnson to make major speech, in what will be seen as act of disloyalty
Boris Johnson claims now is the time to "use Brexit to unite the country", in a major speech which will be seen as the latest move in his Tory leadership campaign. In a "wide-ranging speech", a label widely seen by MPs as code for a leadership bid, Mr Johnson will urge the government to focus on the "issues that drove Brexit". Coming only days after Theresa May suffered a humiliating Commons defeat by a record 230 votes on her Brexit deal, the speech will be seen as a further act of disloyalty.
Comments
The problem is that Corbyn doesn't want one.
On the prospect of a second EU referendum, Mr Corbyn reiterated that "all options are on the table" for Labour and "given the severity of the crisis, it would be wrong to rule any of them out"
Which Brexit deal did the country vote for?
I dont believe that there is a deal that could currently get through Parliament.
The problem is The Backstop. Parliament wont have it, and The EU wont do a deal without it.
The only solution is The Customs Union. Although I am not sure how many would vote for a Customs Union, as that would prohibit trade deals with other countries.
They are spending £4billion on no deal preparations, and robbing peoples pensions at the same time. (see politics thread)
She has also reassured The ERG this afternoon, that she wont contemplate a Customs Union, and has no intention of ruling out no deal.
As far as the no deal issue ...i'm genuinely confused ...this is from the bbc news site
"In a letter to the Labour leader, the PM wrote that ruling out no deal was an "impossible condition" as it was not within the government's power to do it.
The following was in her letter to Corbyn :
" "I note that you have said that 'ruling out' no deal is a precondition before we can meet, but that is an impossible condition because it is not within the Government's power to rule out no deal.
"Let me explain why. Under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and the Withdrawal Act 2018, we will leave the EU without a deal on 29 March unless Parliament either agrees a deal with the EU or the UK revokes article 50 and chooses to stay in the EU permanently.
"So there are two way to avoid no deal: either vote for a deal, in particular a Withdrawal Agreement, that has been agreed with the EU, or to revoke Article 50 and overturn the referendum result.
"I believe it would be wrong to overturn the referendum result."
Why are there no politicians , ( that I have seen ) , querying the validity of that statement?
It takes 2 people to make a deal-in this case the UK and the EU. How can just 1 of those parties completely rule out not making a deal with the other?
On the 1 side you have a PM who has zero people skills desperately trying to make friends within her own party and (belatedly) other parties.
The only sensible thing Corbyn has said on the subject, as you rightly said, is that "all options remain on the table". And then the first thing he says when invited to talks, is to demand as a precondition that one option is removed from that self-same table. Completely ignoring the fact that May is desperately trying to avoid no deal. The fool. He has to be the only Labour politician who could fail to have a 10-point lead in the polls. I'd almost rather have Tory Blair back.
If we end up as no deal, if economists are right, then many businesses will fail. And many people will lose their jobs. And that may well spell the end of the Conservative and Labour parties as we now know them. Perhaps if more MPs had ever had a real job, rather than just working for think tanks, they might realise that.
Theresa May could easily rule out no-deal Brexit. She won’t – she needs the threat of chaos to survive
The reason May won’t make the commitment isn’t legal, it’s political: she needs to maintain the threat of no deal, even though she knows the country is ill-prepared for it
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-brexit-no-deal-negotiations-eu-jeremy-corbyn-labour-conservatives-a8732871.html
Completely true that she is using no deal as the boogeyman-that is no more and no less ridiculous than the Labour position. All party politics, no actual work being done.
And March draws ever closer.
This means Freedom of movement, no trade deals, being under European Court jurisdiction, accepting rules, and paying an annual fee.
You would think that we would just stay in.
Tory rebel Nick Boles says 400 MPs back a soft Brexit as he calls for Article 50 to be extended by nine months but ditches his plan for MPs to seize control of the crunch talks
Nick Boles MP has tabled a Bill to delay Brexit and give MPs control of the talks
He is pushing for a softer Norway style Brexit deal to be struck with Brussels
Theresa May is scrambling to come up with a Plan B after her devastating defeat
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6599281/Nick-Boles-says-400-MPs-soft-Brexit-plan-piles-pressure-Theresa-May.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ito=1490&ns_campaign=1490
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/may-will-stick-to-brexit-principles-in-cross-party-talks-says-no-10
This view has the law on its side, but its proponents forget that law falls within the realm of politics. Corbyn’s demand for no deal to be “off the table” is not at this stage a legal demand; it is a political demand that can be met by specific assurances from the PM, which would also ease the path to parliamentary agreement on an alternative.
May could offer such assurances today. She could tell the country that – while she continues to believe that her deal represents the best means to deliver Brexit – she accepts that the House of Commons thinks differently. She could acknowledge that, above all else, most MPs want to avoid the prospect of leaving without a deal on March 29, and that avoiding this disaster is their priority, whatever they might individually prefer as an alternative.
She could then offer a commitment that the government will not stand in the way of any majority Commons proposal to prevent no deal on March 29, and that this commitment is made without preconditions. So extending or revoking Article 50 must be on the table, as must a customs union or second referendum. The details can be agreed during talks; it’s not necessary for either party to spell these out now, and if Corbyn were to reject this proposal he could fairly be criticised.
There is no legal obstacle to May making this offer, because it is a purely political commitment. If “stop no deal unconditionally” is agreed by the two main parties, the legislative mechanisms would easily win parliamentary support. The removal of the government’s red lines would have the added benefit of making the path to agreeing an alternative proposition much easier.
The case to kill no-deal Brexit now has only been strengthened by reports of Philip Hammond’s comments to UK business leaders, in which he declared that a private members’ bill from Nick Boles mandating the government to seek an Article 50 extension if no deal was agreed would likely pass the Commons and – those words again – take no deal on 29 March “off the table”
Some Labour supporters are raising pressure on Corbyn to support a second referendum. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA
Jeremy Corbyn could face up to a dozen resignations from the Labour frontbench if the party backs a second referendum as a way out of the Brexit crisis.
A string of junior shadow ministers have told the Guardian they are strongly opposed to the idea of a second referendum, which they fear would expose Labour to a vicious backlash in leave-voting constituencies.
With Corbyn’s hopes of a general election fading with the prime minister’s narrow victory in the no-confidence vote, some Labour supporters are raising pressure on Corbyn to support a second referendum.
A snap poll conducted after the crushing defeat of May’s Brexit plan has found a 12-point lead for remaining in the EU – the largest margin since the 2016 vote.
Anti-Brexit campaign group Labour for a People’s Vote published a list of 71 Labour MPs who support its cause on Wednesday, and claimed many more were privately supportive.
Other shadow cabinet ministers, including the deputy Labour leader, Tom Watson, and the shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, are more sympathetic towards a second referendum.
In a further development, a poll conducted by YouGov of more than 1,000 voters on Wednesday found 56% would now vote to stay in the EU, against 44% who want to leave.
Exactly the same proportion of voters said they wanted a second EU referendum – three points higher than recorded in a similar poll before Christmas. Backing for a so-called people’s vote among Labour supporters stood at 78%.
The remain lead was extended further when respondents were asked to compare it to May’s withdrawal agreement or the option of leaving the EU without a deal.
Against the prime minister’s deal, remain led by 65% to 35%, while against no-deal was 59% to 41% in favour of staying in the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/corbyn-could-face-string-of-resignations-if-he-backs-peoples-vote
The UK government could delay Brexit to avoid a catastrophic no-deal scenario, according to reports.
Chancellor Philip Hammond is understood to have reassured businesses after Theresa May’s Brexit deal was voted down by parliament in a crushing defeat last night.
He told business leaders on a private conference call last night that parliament could vote next week on a plan to push back the UK’s March 29 exit date.
The Financial Times reports that Hammond made clear the government would not put “obstacles” in the way of a controversial amendment that could delay Brexit and even see a cross-party group of MPs take charge of finding a deal.
“There is a large majority in the Commons that is opposed to no deal,” the chancellor is said to have told firms.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/hammond-says-government-delay-brexit-avoid-no-deal-101354296.html
Press Association video•18 January 2019
Nigel Farage has urged Leave campaigners to prepare for a second referendum as Britain's Brexit deadlock continues. The former Ukip leader, and MEP, spoke at a packed Leave Means Leave rally in London.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/video/farage-urges-brexiteers-prepare-second-012922570.html
Boris Johnson claims now is the time to "use Brexit to unite the country", in a major speech which will be seen as the latest move in his Tory leadership campaign.
In a "wide-ranging speech", a label widely seen by MPs as code for a leadership bid, Mr Johnson will urge the government to focus on the "issues that drove Brexit".
Coming only days after Theresa May suffered a humiliating Commons defeat by a record 230 votes on her Brexit deal, the speech will be seen as a further act of disloyalty.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/johnson-to-make-major-speech-in-what-will-be-seen-as-act-of-disloyalty/ar-BBSoB8C?ocid=spartandhp