Brexit delayed

[Digby]

No deal is the stupidest thing we can do to secure a better long term deal. The instant that happens we'll be left with the prospect of deals by sector one tranche at a time. And that allows the EU time to gear up to take a lot of our financial services away from us, something they presently cannot practically do, not even close, and if we agreed a sensible deal now that would hugely limit their capacity to reduce our market share over the next 10-20 years.

I'm more than willing to concede we shouldn't be so reliant on financial services, but it is a massive part of our economy for better or worse, and yet it's an area that seemingly is far less important than fish, and fish is about as important to the economy as to me finding a £5 note in the pocket of some jeans I've not worn for months, it'd buy a pint but it's essentially meaningless

If we're going to go no deal and proceed to get service stripped then we really need a plan to deliver a long term restructure of the economy, one that involves delivery of infrastructure from travel through to power on a grand scale, that massively alters our educational delivery and we simply don't have any of that in place, not even the merest hint it might happen at some point in the future. And in any event it'd have been a good idea to get this sorted before going ahead and smashing apart the financial services part of our economy. It's weird, it's stupid, and in advance I can't see why it even could work.

[Zhivago]

No deal is the stupidest thing we can do to secure a better long term deal. The instant that happens we'll be left with the prospect of deals by sector one tranche at a time. And that allows the EU time to gear up to take a lot of our financial services away from us, something they presently cannot practically do, not even close, and if we agreed a sensible deal now that would hugely limit their capacity to reduce our market share over the next 10-20 years.

I'm more than willing to concede we shouldn't be so reliant on financial services, but it is a massive part of our economy for better or worse, and yet it's an area that seemingly is far less important than fish, and fish is about as important to the economy as to me finding a £5 note in the pocket of some jeans I've not worn for months, it'd buy a pint but it's essentially meaningless

If we're going to go no deal and proceed to get service stripped then we really need a plan to deliver a long term restructure of the economy, one that involves delivery of infrastructure from travel through to power on a grand scale, that massively alters our educational delivery and we simply don't have any of that in place, not even the merest hint it might happen at some point in the future. And in any event it'd have been a good idea to get this sorted before going ahead and smashing apart the financial services part of our economy. It's weird, it's stupid, and in advance I can't see why it even could work.

Given that less than 15% is productive lending, and the rest goes towards speculation and asset inflation then I would argue that it's not in question whether it's for better or worse. I would be surprised if no deal would impact productive lending, so a reduction in harmful bank activity would probably be one of the only positive things of a no deal.

Don't mistake my post for a pro no deal post. We should not be naive though - Macron wants to make an example of us by fucking us over.

[Digby]

Only an idiot would structure our economy as it is. But you can't just flip a switch and change that, unless I suppose that switch is to wreak havoc on the economy, that you could probably do quickly. Sensible corrective action is going to take money, serious thought and lots of time and commitment though, and we've established none of that.

That being the case we do need a deal because it's going to take years if not a few decades to shift emphasis even if we decide to set about making a change in the balance of our economy, and right now we've not even started. Right now financial are what we have, and there's no point complaining about that in isolation, and frankly there's little point complaining about Macron having a focus on a domestic audience, it's not like we haven't heard plenty about no deal not being a problem, that we hold all the cards, Brexit means Brexit, get Brexit done, Macron is just joining in our game and if team Brexit want to take the piss with their nonsense they should at least have the gumption not to get upset when someone takes the piss back. Else they'd just look like cheap hypocritical wankers. And actually we've invited this position where Macron is playing to a domestic audience, and I'm not surprised at what Macron has said, even if it's not useful to us, if anything I'm surprised more people/countries haven't done similar.

[Galfon]

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

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

[Galfon]

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

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

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

[Stom]

[Galfon]

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

[Galfon]

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

Good to see ongoing co-operation with green energy.

[twitchy]

[Sandydragon]

If we had known then what we do now.

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

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

[Donny osmond]

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

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

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

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Puja]

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

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

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

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

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

Puja

[Donny osmond]

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

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

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

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

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

Puja

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

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Son of Mathonwy]

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

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

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

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

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

Puja

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

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

[Puja]

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

Puja

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

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

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

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Puja

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

[Puja]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Puja

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

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

Puja

[Digby]

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

[Sandydragon]

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

Puja

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

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Son of Mathonwy]

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

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Digby]

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

[Stom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Digby]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stom]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Son of Mathonwy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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