Emmanuel Macron sums up the chaos of Brexit perfectly in just two minutes The French President lashed out at the politicians who "lied" to the British public and "manipulated" the referendum with "fake news"
In a scathing parting shot, Macron added: "Good luck to the representatives of the nation who has to implement a thing which doesn't exist and has to explain to the people: you have voted on a thing, we lied to you."
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.
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 says in his interview with Andrew Marr that he will abide by the decision made at Conference. Conference voted 72% in favour of second referendum.
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”
This makes sense as a way of excluding " no deal " ...never going to happen though is it .
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.
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”
This makes sense as a way of excluding " no deal " ...never going to happen though is it .
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.
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.
The Lib Dems have said that they will not vote with Labour, on any more no confidence votes, that makes any immediate future attempts pointless.
The pundits are suggesting that a snap election is becoming more likely as a way out.
Theresa May, the remainer will obviously have to stand on a Brexit manifesto, to honour the referendum etc, etc.
What would Labour stand on. A huge majority of their members, and voters are in favour of remaining, as are a majority of their MPs.
They would have to end their so called constructive ambiguity.
A very difficult decision for a life long Eurosceptic leader.
Assuming the deadlock, continues, and no deal is ruled out, the only solutions would appear to be a Peoples Vote, either in the form of a General Election or a referendum.
I would prefer a referendum, as the result could be just implemented. I think you could have a choice of a deal, remaining, and even no deal, without no deal having any chance of winning, but would allow the radicals to have less cause for complaint, because it was on the ballot.
The point is that if remain won, we would stay in, and if the deal won, we would just implement the deal. There would be no need for any further discussions or negotiations. The news would be able to cover alternative topics.
Yet a General Election would put the same or a new Government back in the same boat, with negotiations for years to come, and perhaps the same deadlock.
The pundits are also suggesting that Labour supporting another referendum will split the party.
The PM relying on Labour support to get a deal through would split The Tory Party. When she is extremely unlikely to get any deal through relying on her own party plus The DUP.
It is an absolute mess, without an obvious credible solution.
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.
Poll: Voters in every Labour-held constituency support a people's vote on Brexit'
Voters in every seat held by a Labour MP support the idea of a so-called 'people's vote' on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, according to a large-scale new poll released on Friday. The YouGov survey, conducted as part of the People's Vote campaign, asked just under 26,000 people their thoughts. With 'don't know' or 'no vote' answers excluded, it found that in all 259 Labour-held seats, voters from all parties would support giving the public the final say on the deal drawn up. The highest degree of support was 74%, recorded in the constituencies of Bristol West, Manchester Withington and Islington North - the seat held by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. The lowest level of support still came out in overall favour at 53%, recorded in Ashfield. The difference was even higher among Labour supporters, with at least two-thirds of those who voted for Mr Corbyn's party in 2017 backing the idea.
This poll shows millions of Brexit voters now want to remain in the EU
Around 2.6 million voters have switched their support from leaving the EU to remaining, major new polling shows. Around a million voters have switched their support in the other direction, meaning a net total of 1.6 million more voters now support remaining in the EU compared to 2016. Campaigners say it adds pressure on the government to arrange a new Brexit referendum.
New plan to stop no deal: Now Labour MP Yvette Cooper tables draft laws to let MP seize control of Brexit - as May faces mass resignations if she tries to stop them
Senior Labour MP Yvette Cooper has become the latest MP to draft laws that would seize control of the Brexit process from the Government. Ms Cooper's proposals are an evolved version of a plan produced by Tory Nick Boles earlier this week. If it were to pass, the Bill would force the Government to delay exit day if there is no deal in place by March 5.
The new developments come as it emerged five Tory ministers warned Theresa May yesterday they would resign if she did not offer a free vote on a Plan B Brexit.
What does the MPs' plan try to do? The text of the Yvette Cooper bill has not been published but comments from Nick Boles suggest it is similar to his. The crucial section tries to force the Government to delay exit day from March 29 if there is no deal. Under the current timetable, Britain leaves the EU two years after it formally triggered talks by using Article 50 of the EU's treaty. The Boles draft said if there is no deal by March 5, the Government must seek a two year extension. The EU has said it will consider an extension if the UK needs more time to implement a deal - but two years for more talks is a very different idea. It could mean the Government is forced to cancel the Article 50 notification altogether to avoid breaking the new law. None of this will happen if the MPs cannot change Commons rules to get their draft laws onto the agenda for votes as by default they will never be debated.
Brexit: Liam Fox yet to seal no-deal trade agreements
The UK has yet to finalise agreements to replace existing free trade deals the EU has with 40 big economies if there is a no-deal Brexit. International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said he "hoped" they would but it depended on whether other countries were "willing to put the work in"
Comments
The French President lashed out at the politicians who "lied" to the British public and "manipulated" the referendum with "fake news"
In a scathing parting shot, Macron added: "Good luck to the representatives of the nation who has to implement a thing which doesn't exist and has to explain to the people: you have voted on a thing, we lied to you."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/emmanuel-macron-brexit-fake-news-13868099
He just doesn't want one.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46905660
The pundits are suggesting that a snap election is becoming more likely as a way out.
Theresa May, the remainer will obviously have to stand on a Brexit manifesto, to honour the referendum etc, etc.
What would Labour stand on. A huge majority of their members, and voters are in favour of remaining, as are a majority of their MPs.
They would have to end their so called constructive ambiguity.
A very difficult decision for a life long Eurosceptic leader.
Assuming the deadlock, continues, and no deal is ruled out, the only solutions would appear to be a Peoples Vote, either in the form of a General Election or a referendum.
I would prefer a referendum, as the result could be just implemented. I think you could have a choice of a deal, remaining, and even no deal, without no deal having any chance of winning, but would allow the radicals to have less cause for complaint, because it was on the ballot.
The point is that if remain won, we would stay in, and if the deal won, we would just implement the deal. There would be no need for any further discussions or negotiations. The news would be able to cover alternative topics.
Yet a General Election would put the same or a new Government back in the same boat, with negotiations for years to come, and perhaps the same deadlock.
The pundits are also suggesting that Labour supporting another referendum will split the party.
The PM relying on Labour support to get a deal through would split The Tory Party. When she is extremely unlikely to get any deal through relying on her own party plus The DUP.
It is an absolute mess, without an obvious credible solution.
She is not moving her position in any way, full stop.
Voters in every seat held by a Labour MP support the idea of a so-called 'people's vote' on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, according to a large-scale new poll released on Friday.
The YouGov survey, conducted as part of the People's Vote campaign, asked just under 26,000 people their thoughts.
With 'don't know' or 'no vote' answers excluded, it found that in all 259 Labour-held seats, voters from all parties would support giving the public the final say on the deal drawn up.
The highest degree of support was 74%, recorded in the constituencies of Bristol West, Manchester Withington and Islington North - the seat held by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
The lowest level of support still came out in overall favour at 53%, recorded in Ashfield.
The difference was even higher among Labour supporters, with at least two-thirds of those who voted for Mr Corbyn's party in 2017 backing the idea.
https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-02/voters-in-every-labour-held-constituency-support-a-peoples-vote-on-brexit/
Around 2.6 million voters have switched their support from leaving the EU to remaining, major new polling shows.
Around a million voters have switched their support in the other direction, meaning a net total of 1.6 million more voters now support remaining in the EU compared to 2016.
Campaigners say it adds pressure on the government to arrange a new Brexit referendum.
https://www.businessinsider.com/this-poll-shows-millions-of-brexit-voters-now-want-to-remain-in-the-eu-2018-9?r=UK
Senior Labour MP Yvette Cooper has become the latest MP to draft laws that would seize control of the Brexit process from the Government.
Ms Cooper's proposals are an evolved version of a plan produced by Tory Nick Boles earlier this week.
If it were to pass, the Bill would force the Government to delay exit day if there is no deal in place by March 5.
The new developments come as it emerged five Tory ministers warned Theresa May yesterday they would resign if she did not offer a free vote on a Plan B Brexit.
What does the MPs' plan try to do?
The text of the Yvette Cooper bill has not been published but comments from Nick Boles suggest it is similar to his.
The crucial section tries to force the Government to delay exit day from March 29 if there is no deal.
Under the current timetable, Britain leaves the EU two years after it formally triggered talks by using Article 50 of the EU's treaty.
The Boles draft said if there is no deal by March 5, the Government must seek a two year extension.
The EU has said it will consider an extension if the UK needs more time to implement a deal - but two years for more talks is a very different idea.
It could mean the Government is forced to cancel the Article 50 notification altogether to avoid breaking the new law.
None of this will happen if the MPs cannot change Commons rules to get their draft laws onto the agenda for votes as by default they will never be debated.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/new-plan-to-stop-no-deal-now-labour-mp-yvette-cooper-tables-draft-laws-to-let-mp-seize-control-of-brexit-as-may-faces-mass-resignations-if-she-tries-to-stop-them/ar-BBSpt6p?ocid=spartandhp
The UK has yet to finalise agreements to replace existing free trade deals the EU has with 40 big economies if there is a no-deal Brexit.
International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said he "hoped" they would but it depended on whether other countries were "willing to put the work in"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46917999