politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn speech has made TMay’s Brexit challenge even harder
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn speech has made TMay’s Brexit challenge even harder
The big black cloud that hangs over Mrs May and her team is the possibility that LAB MPs will be whipped to support an amendment backed by one of her Tory Rebels on Brexit.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Getting ourwitted by Jeremy Corbyn should be a sackable offence.
He inadvertently made the best case for staying in the single market.
Phil Shiner, owner of the now defunct Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), attempted to dodge a £7million bill by gifting his house, two guitars, artwork and a pile of cash.
But the Government’s Insolvency Service said last night it had managed to recover nearly £500,000 and is now selling the former solicitor’s home.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5433925/Lawyer-hounded-British-soldiers-false-murder-claims.html
A bad Brexit begets Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Soubry, Grieve et al are acting like true patriots.
Those people who voted against TMay in 2017, in an attempt to stop Brexit, have made it more likely we will have a harder Brexit.
In all seriousness, his city bashing the other week was worse, when he somehow was saying crushing the city was good for "genuine" business....I am intrigued to know where I will be able to go to get funding for any genuine future business ideas in CorbynLand.
The most embarrassing thing their PM does is Bhangra dancing.
It also solves the Irish Border question.
If we don't end up leaving the customs union, Tories could send a lot of blame in Liam Fox's direction - his portfolio is all about turning the abstract opportunities into bankable and sellable benefits and I can't think of a single example to date?
In practice, next to nobody emigrates on political grounds.
Unfortunately the policies of Jeremy Corbyn and his Chancellor are designed to tax people like me and my parents until the pips squeak.
I also own property which is generally unoccupied most nights, something else Corbyn and his team would like to seize.
Her "We are leaving the Customs Union" position may temporarily protect her own head. But its a disaster for business, industry and the city - and she seems utterly oblivious to why. To see the likes of the CBI and IoD lining up with Labour against the Tories on a Business and Economics issue is mind blowing - they may hate Corbyn and everything else he stands for, but if he will stop the economy crashing off the cliff then they will stand with him.
A Tory leader who puts her own survival ahead of all that. And the cretins in the Tory party still think she is fit to lead?
The finest university in the known universe offers SPS.
This is reality.
But Corbyn doesn't like landlords either.
Osborne was extremely effective at killing the two eds much more modest and centrist ideas revolving around putting the thumb on the scale a bit.
So I think there are three possible scenarios, maybe four:
1) The government might just scrape through the vote with only a few Con rebels and/or with help from a handful of Labour Brexiteers, In that case, I suppose things carry on much as before, except that Corbyn would be seeking to use the vote to try to enhance support for Labour amongst those opposed to Brexit or wanting the softest possible Brexit.
1a) A possible variant of the first scenario would be some kind of government fudge whereby they either pretend that the amendment is compatible with their existing policies, or seek to amend it slightly to make it so. Although that might seem a bit far-fetched, Corbyn's speech showed that the new Labour Brexit-policy-of-the-day is so vague that without too much reference to Alice in Wonderland, the government could try to redefine terms and carry on as before. The Institute of Directors has suggested a partial customs union which might be a way out of the mess.
2) The amendment passes, but the government limps on, having taken it seriously. The issue then would be that the negotiating position would be completely shot to pieces; even more than she is now, the PM would be stuck between the hardline no-surrender Brexiteers, and a Commons majority who had just voted for an impossible combination of staying in 'a' customs union but not being subject to EU rules. The big problem is that the EU shows no sign whatsoever of wanting to play ball on Labour's variant of the Boris cake-and-eat-it idea. So what happens when they tell us to get stuffed?
3) The amendment passes, chaos ensues, Corbyn ends up in No 10 either before or after an election. (I think we can rule out the possibility of the Conservatives remaining in government after an election called in such circumstances). Lord only knows what happens then to the Brexit negotiations in such circumstances, that would be Labour's problem. Good luck to them, they'd certainly need it; most probably they'd be more split than the Tories are on what to do next, given the large number of Labour MPs who want to cancel Brexit altogether or dilute it to BINO.
May seems to be doubling down, though.
So Corbyn is, exactly as predicted, maintaining a pro-Brexit stance while offering a concession to desperate Remainers. Enough indeed to get the CBI and IoD on board.
Note too that all the attack lines used by the Tories are already invalidated because Brexit policy itself is so incoherent.
Corbyn doesn’t need to do anything else this news cycle - he’s already won! Chapeau.
1) Leave with no deal onto WTO Terms
2) Accept the deal and Leave
3) Reject the deal and Remain
Conducted under the alternative vote system,
This might be the only way to heal the nation.
A couple of the more fervent Brexiteers have a dawning realisation that the Brexit we are going to end up with is a bit shit.
Brexit where we lose most of our trade is a bit shit.
Brexit where Corbyn becomes PM is a bit shit.
Brexit where we have less control is a bit shit.
As some of us have been saying, since before the vote, there is NO version of Brexit that is not a bit shit.
Once the true believers realise that, then the real fun starts
Jezza is right to be considering a land value tax.
All because Mrs May and her cronies wanted to sack Hammond after the election they hid away during the campaign lest he has a good campaign and becomes unsackable.
Even if one really does believe leaving the Customs Union is a bad idea, it can't hold a candle to the damage Corbyn would do.
Voting them down for not offering something that will be rejected by the EU - well that needs a new adjective.
If there is a second referendum it will either be (a) deal or crash out - if held by May/Boris/JRM; or (b) deal or remain - if held by Labour and perhaps a couple of soft Tories.
Edit: in hindsight I feel by pointing this out I have fallen into your trap... trolls, eh?
Mr. Eagles, when? [I backed a second referendum at 6.5 but I think it was pre-March 2019].
Also, a three option referendum is a very bad idea. The winner could have just 34%, and is likely to have a minority of the vote. Plus, your mooted options would split the Leave vote and unite the Remain vote. There'd be cries of foul play and gerrymandering. If Remain got 40% and the other options 30% each, then it'd be 60% for Leave under varying terms and we'd end up staying in.
WRT Phil Shiner, this is what the Law Society's Gazette were saying about him, three years ago.
" A century ago American journalist Finley Peter Dunne declared that it is the business of a newspaper to ‘comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable’.
Elements of the press have turned that maxim on its head in striving to make a hate figure of human rights lawyer Phil Shiner, who has led attempts to prosecute British soldiers for alleged war crimes in Iraq. Shiner and his staff have been subject to death threats and intimidation for seeking to hold the state and its military to account.
Of course, this is not really news. Gazette readers will know that Shiner has been a target for media-manufactured vilification for years. In recent weeks the phenomenon has merely (though not ‘merely’) reached a new pitch of malign hysteria.
Shiner is not an assimilable character and doesn’t want to be. He has crossed many powerful people. And as a bete noire of establishment newspapers, he might have come straight from central casting.
But as we contemplate secret courts, the curtailment of judicial review and the erosion of the right to representation by independent counsel, a thought occurs. It is that we need more lawyers like Shiner, not fewer, who are willing to put themselves in the line of fire as a bulwark against the overweaning power of the state."
LOL!
My parents bought their house in 1981 for around 15k, our neighbours bought their houses for around the same prices.
The houses around here are worth around 500k to 1.2 million, so because of no fault of their own they are sitting on huge asset rises.
A land value tax will be linked to property prices, so tell me what they should do.
He's a liability.
That's why I said it should be conducted under AV to avoid that very problem.
I'll give you 8/1.
Good afternoon, everyone.
That's what Jezza and Billy Bragg have er... well...
The first Brexit referendum vote was to leave. So the second Brexit referendum should only be about which type of leave ie WTO or the negotiated terms.
However, logically you’d hope for a two question referendum.
Something like:
Should we accept the Deal?
If not, should we Remain, or Leave?
It would be very democratic.
To be tied, constrained and cuffed (and maybe blindfolded too) in a way that prevents the expression and pursuance of your individual needs, interests and requirements is not a positive.
The EU will inevitably become either a slower reacting body to the faster global changes (because there are so many disparate views to align into agreement) or it may become quicker to react (by denying the individual constituent parts influence or democratic input).
Those two options carry one common feature. It is one which is negative to some of the membership of the organisation.
1) The Government has negotiated an exit deal to leave the European Union on March 29th 2019. Should the UK accept this deal or reject this deal?
Accept [X]
Reject [X]
2) If a majority do not accept the exit deal to leave the European Union, should the UK leave without any deal on March 29th 2019 or seek to remain in the EU?
Leave with no deal [X]
Seek to remain [X]
(Apart from the recent Brexit referendum which many Labour MPs believe means they should only 0.52 Leave the EU and 0.48 Remain.
"it's difficult to leave " is one of the most cowardly and weak outlooks on Brexit that pervades many commentators.
The campaign would be very confusing. You'd get people who say "Reject, Remain" and "Reject, WTO" on the same stump - and then not - and those who say "Accept" having to undermine their own position by picking a position on the second question.
Jeremy Corbyn makes Unite's Andrew Murray a part-time consultant
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/26/jeremy-corbyn-makes-unites-andrew-murray-part-time-consultant
Highlights of his career include,
Mr Murray was a member of the British Communist party for 40 years before he quit to join Labour under Mr Corbyn's left-wing leadership.
He has defended the Russian tyrant Stalin, suggesting his regime was better than living in the West.
And he has written an article expressing 'solidarity' with North Korea - which is ruled under the tyrant Kim Jong Un.
We should welcome the fact that the Conservative Party is not the creature of large corporations, not criticise them for it.
It seems perfectly reasonable that some proportion of that wealth should be reclaimed for the public who created it.
Speaking for myself - a transition phase seems perfectly reasonable. I also quite liked some version of the Miliband idea of allowing people to defer the tax until they sell their property, at least in the interim.
None of this is intended as an attack on your parents - who I'm sure are very wise and knowledgeable people to have raised someone with such excellent views on AV.
This paragraph quote Churchill sums up:
"I hope you will understand that, when I speak of the land monopolist, I am dealing more with the process than with the individual land owner who, in most cases, is a worthy person utterly unconscious of the character of the methods by which he is enriched. I have no wish to hold any class up to public disapprobation. I do not think that the man who makes money by unearned increment in land is morally worse than anyone else who gathers his profit where he finds it in this hard world under the law and according to common usage. It is not the individual I attack; it is the system. It is not the man who is bad; it is the law which is bad. It is not the man who is blameworthy for doing what the law allows and what other men do; it is the State which would be blameworthy if it were not to endeavour to reform the law and correct the practice."
They then suggest where I should stick the sweet chariot.