Craig_J
Mido
He's now officially a figurehead in a single issue party.
I think their slogan should be 'You can't be mean to Israel' - Narrowly beating 'Don't be mean to Israel' and 'Come on you Israel'.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
He's now officially a figurehead in a single issue party.
I think their slogan should be 'You can't be mean to Israel' - Narrowly beating 'Don't be mean to Israel' and 'Come on you Israel'.
ShipOfTheseus
Clint Dempsey
Today’s political news will mainly be about Labour’s attempt to come up with a less Tory friendly (and therefore unlikely to succeed, while still halting TIG defections) replacement for the Kyle-Wilson amendment. A sort of Kyle-Wilson Peters, if you will.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Theresa May is facing the threat of a revolt by Remain-supporting ministers as she chairs a crucial cabinet meeting on her Brexit negotiations.
Three say they will resign unless the PM agrees to take no-deal off the table, and there are suggestions that more are prepared to follow suit.
The BBC's Nick Watt says the feeling is Mrs May will "lean into" their demands and Brexiteers have been told to expect a "very difficult message".
No 10 would not comment on the reports.
The government position is set to be thrashed out at cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning, where Brexit is the only item on the agenda.
After that, the prime minister will make a statement to the Commons, updating the whole House on her negotiations.
She has just returned from a summit in Egypt where she held a number of meetings with EU leaders and continued to press for more concessions to placate critics of her deal, in particular on the Irish border backstop.
Cabinet Office Minister David Lidington said that calls to avoid a no-deal Brexit by delaying the deadline for leaving the EU did not resolve the issues.
"It ends up simply deferring the need to face up to taking decisions. It's not an actual course of action in its own right," he told the BBC.
News of the growing unrest within the cabinet came after Labour announced a significant shift in its policy - a decision to back another referendum if its own alternative Brexit plan is rejected.
What are the ministers demanding?
Mrs May's Brexit deal was comprehensively rejected by MPs on 15 January and she has said they'll get a second chance to vote on it - possibly with some changes - by 12 March.
But writing in the Daily Mail, ministers Richard Harrington, Claire Perry and Margot James said Mrs May must promise now that she will rule out the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without a deal if her agreement is rejected again, and instead seek a way to delay.
If she does give such a commitment, they write, it "would be greeted with relief by the vast majority of MPs, businesses and their employees", adding that the UK risked being "swept over the precipice" in the event of no-deal.
If she does not give in, they said, it would be in the "national interest" for them to resign and instead back a move to force a delay upon her.
That move comes in the form of an amendment - a legislative tool - being put before the Commons by Labour's Yvette Cooper and Conservative Oliver Letwin on Wednesday.
If passed, it would give MPs the power to demand a delay to Brexit if a deal cannot be agreed by 13 March.
Three other senior cabinet ministers, Greg Clark, Amber Rudd and David Gauke, have already signalled they could also be prepared to vote for the Cooper-Letwin option if there is no breakthrough in the next few days.
Mrs May has long resisted any suggestion that the UK's departure from the EU could be postponed beyond 29 March.
But one of the ministers who is threatening to resign told BBC Newsnight they were now hearing "good mood music from Downing Street" about the possibility of a shift in the prime minister's position.
How has Labour's position changed?
Labour has said it will support the Cooper-Letwin amendment, making its chances of success far higher.
But leader Jeremy Corbyn also wants to use Wednesday to put his own plan for Brexit - which includes a "comprehensive customs union" with the EU and "close alignment" with the single market - before the Commons.
He told his MPs on Monday night that if - as expected - that plan is rejected, the party will formally throw its weight behind another public vote.
Mr Corbyn said: "One way or another, we will do everything in our power to prevent no deal and oppose a damaging Tory Brexit based on Theresa May's overwhelmingly rejected deal."
Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said that if Labour's Brexit proposals did not get through Parliament "we, the Labour Party will either put down ourselves, or support an amendment, in favour of a public vote".
That vote, he added, "ought to be on the option, on the one hand, of a credible leave deal and. on the other hand, remain".
The precise wording of the question on the ballot paper would have to be decided by Parliament, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
And any vote "ought to be on a deal or proposition that has the confidence of Parliament".
But the Labour Party had "agreed that if the prime minister's deal gets through" it should be subject to a public vote, said Sir Keir.
He said he would vote remain if there was another referendum.
Shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry said in the event that such a referendum does take place, she and Mr Corbyn would campaign to stay in.
At their conference last autumn, Labour members backed a policy of keeping all options on the table, including holding another referendum, if it could not force a general election.
But Labour MP John Mann said the party had also made an "unambiguous" manifesto pledge to honour the result of the 2016 referendum.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme that backing another public vote would be "catastrophic to Labour in the Midlands and the north".
Three say they will resign unless the PM agrees to take no-deal off the table, and there are suggestions that more are prepared to follow suit.
The BBC's Nick Watt says the feeling is Mrs May will "lean into" their demands and Brexiteers have been told to expect a "very difficult message".
No 10 would not comment on the reports.
The government position is set to be thrashed out at cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning, where Brexit is the only item on the agenda.
After that, the prime minister will make a statement to the Commons, updating the whole House on her negotiations.
She has just returned from a summit in Egypt where she held a number of meetings with EU leaders and continued to press for more concessions to placate critics of her deal, in particular on the Irish border backstop.
Cabinet Office Minister David Lidington said that calls to avoid a no-deal Brexit by delaying the deadline for leaving the EU did not resolve the issues.
"It ends up simply deferring the need to face up to taking decisions. It's not an actual course of action in its own right," he told the BBC.
News of the growing unrest within the cabinet came after Labour announced a significant shift in its policy - a decision to back another referendum if its own alternative Brexit plan is rejected.
What are the ministers demanding?
Mrs May's Brexit deal was comprehensively rejected by MPs on 15 January and she has said they'll get a second chance to vote on it - possibly with some changes - by 12 March.
But writing in the Daily Mail, ministers Richard Harrington, Claire Perry and Margot James said Mrs May must promise now that she will rule out the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without a deal if her agreement is rejected again, and instead seek a way to delay.
If she does give such a commitment, they write, it "would be greeted with relief by the vast majority of MPs, businesses and their employees", adding that the UK risked being "swept over the precipice" in the event of no-deal.
If she does not give in, they said, it would be in the "national interest" for them to resign and instead back a move to force a delay upon her.
That move comes in the form of an amendment - a legislative tool - being put before the Commons by Labour's Yvette Cooper and Conservative Oliver Letwin on Wednesday.
If passed, it would give MPs the power to demand a delay to Brexit if a deal cannot be agreed by 13 March.
Three other senior cabinet ministers, Greg Clark, Amber Rudd and David Gauke, have already signalled they could also be prepared to vote for the Cooper-Letwin option if there is no breakthrough in the next few days.
Mrs May has long resisted any suggestion that the UK's departure from the EU could be postponed beyond 29 March.
But one of the ministers who is threatening to resign told BBC Newsnight they were now hearing "good mood music from Downing Street" about the possibility of a shift in the prime minister's position.
How has Labour's position changed?
Labour has said it will support the Cooper-Letwin amendment, making its chances of success far higher.
But leader Jeremy Corbyn also wants to use Wednesday to put his own plan for Brexit - which includes a "comprehensive customs union" with the EU and "close alignment" with the single market - before the Commons.
He told his MPs on Monday night that if - as expected - that plan is rejected, the party will formally throw its weight behind another public vote.
Mr Corbyn said: "One way or another, we will do everything in our power to prevent no deal and oppose a damaging Tory Brexit based on Theresa May's overwhelmingly rejected deal."
Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said that if Labour's Brexit proposals did not get through Parliament "we, the Labour Party will either put down ourselves, or support an amendment, in favour of a public vote".
That vote, he added, "ought to be on the option, on the one hand, of a credible leave deal and. on the other hand, remain".
The precise wording of the question on the ballot paper would have to be decided by Parliament, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
And any vote "ought to be on a deal or proposition that has the confidence of Parliament".
But the Labour Party had "agreed that if the prime minister's deal gets through" it should be subject to a public vote, said Sir Keir.
He said he would vote remain if there was another referendum.
Shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry said in the event that such a referendum does take place, she and Mr Corbyn would campaign to stay in.
At their conference last autumn, Labour members backed a policy of keeping all options on the table, including holding another referendum, if it could not force a general election.
But Labour MP John Mann said the party had also made an "unambiguous" manifesto pledge to honour the result of the 2016 referendum.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme that backing another public vote would be "catastrophic to Labour in the Midlands and the north".
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Not exactly?
Brexit: What does Labour's announcement on a second vote mean?
Laura Kuenssberg
Campaigners and MPs who have been pushing hard for another go at the EU referendum might be popping corks tonight, you may think.
It's certainly significant in Labour circles, and satisfying to those who have been cajoling, urging, demanding that the leadership pay more attention to the many members of the party who want another referendum and make a concrete promise.
If you are one of those people who'd love a chance to stop Brexit via another referendum, beware. Your celebratory drink tonight might go flat rather fast.
Because, while this move counts politically, of course, the move does not mean that there will be another referendum.
Labour, since its conference, has had the option on the table to push for another vote if other things don't happen.
Their position was to campaign for a referendum if they couldn't force a general election - that didn't happen.
Their position now is that if they can't get Labour's version of Brexit through the Commons next week, they'll move to a promise of another say for all of us at a future date.
That will ease the irritation of many Labour MPs who have for a long time, hoped that Jeremy Corbyn would be a bit more enthusiastic about having another go.
For those like Keir Starmer who have tried to push him in that direction, this is in a way a victory.
But hold on, it really doesn't mean it's about to happen.
The Labour leadership has moved to this position believing that, as things stand, a plan to hold another referendum would not get the votes it needs in Parliament.
Right now, they reckon it's a promise they can make, but will probably never have to keep.
But if, as this political moment implies, there is a total meltdown, the prime minister's deal falls and chaos beckons, the move tonight keeps Labour's options firmly open, and has a better shout at keeping anxious Labour Europhiles happy.
In such volatile times it is, of course, not impossible that a majority for another vote could emerge.
But there is already some angst over the move.
It is not entirely clear what this theoretical referendum would decide.
Expect therefore lots of tricky questions, over the question itself.
And it's awkward for the many Labour MPs, including some in the shadow cabinet, who believe that holding another vote would be a mistake.
Nothing for any of our political parties is easy when it comes to Brexit.
The opposition, just like the government, is trying to keep a lot of different balls in the air.
I'd applaud that comment but for the fact that it commits the cardinal sin of mentioning football in Random.
ricky2tricky4city
Les Medley
The path Brexit has taken is akin to Hampton Court maze
The basic 'cake and eat it' deal was continue to trade freely and have control back of our borders in respect of EU citizens. Obviously not attractive to the EU, as if they agreed other countries may take that route as well.
But as a member, and if we are struggling with issues of immigration (I'm not saying we are), could the EU say ''stick with us, have a 3/5 year concession on immigration, collect the data, research the issues, and implement a solution that works going forward"'
A 'club' helping a member.
It's such a mess, and we're massively on the wrong end of it. (Well it feels like that)
The basic 'cake and eat it' deal was continue to trade freely and have control back of our borders in respect of EU citizens. Obviously not attractive to the EU, as if they agreed other countries may take that route as well.
But as a member, and if we are struggling with issues of immigration (I'm not saying we are), could the EU say ''stick with us, have a 3/5 year concession on immigration, collect the data, research the issues, and implement a solution that works going forward"'
A 'club' helping a member.
It's such a mess, and we're massively on the wrong end of it. (Well it feels like that)
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
The path Brexit has taken is akin to Hampton Court maze
The basic 'cake and eat it' deal was continue to trade freely and have control back of our borders in respect of EU citizens. Obviously not attractive to the EU, as if they agreed other countries may take that route as well.
But as a member, and if we are struggling with issues of immigration (I'm not saying we are), could the EU say ''stick with us, have a 3/5 year concession on immigration, collect the data, research the issues, and implement a solution that works going forward"'
A 'club' helping a member.
It's such a mess, and we're massively on the wrong end of it. (Well it feels like that)
No one else came back to you. Your stuck with me
I like your thinking. Here's the thing...most EU nations are having similar issues. More around refugees and illegal immigrants. People getting on rafts landing in Italy. Countries like Hungry that are not used to immigrants, facing new nationalities freely moving into their land for the first time. The rich parts of Germany - Bavaria for example threatening to erect its own border posts to control immigrats. Scandinavian, normally progressive compasionate nations, pushing back against immigrants with the growth of UKIP-like parties.
To be honest most EU nations have had a ‘worse’ ride than the UK taking in swarms of non-EU migrants, most of whom can’t get across the English channel. The UK opted out of taking a fair share of these refuges I think, with Germany taking in far more – hundreds of thousands – I don’t know the exact numbers but it put the final nail in Angela Merkels political coffin taking in these poor people fleeing war. You wouldn’t read it in the Sun/Telegraph/Express or previously Daily Mail (all anti-EU papers) but the EU did cut us some slack and we didn’t take in a fair share of refugees that entered into the EU from Syria etc.
I don’t think the EU could say – have an immigration holiday Britain - even though they would love to keep us in the club. If they did everyone would want one right? What is possible and far more constructive than Brisket is working with all these disaffected nations to implement some clarifications around free movement. Hungry I believe asks resident non-Hungarians to register at local police stations, and check in intermittently – perfectly legal to do so in the EU. I think we do it for non-EU people but not those from the EU. There are also untested EU laws that say if a person is not working within x weeks of entering a host nation, they can be sent back! I feel like I should repeat that. This is in EU law! In short there are things we could do within the EU, especially working with other disaffected nations.
As for refugees coming into the EU, the EU has been able to effectively pay off Turkey to take some of these people, and it has sought to do something similar with North African countries.
What I find interesting, is that non-EU migration into the UK is massive 250,000 people last year. While EU migrants dropped to 70,000. Do Brexit supporters welcome these people, predominantly from Asia, over French, Poles, Swedes etc?
Last edited:
Parklaner81
Steve Hodge
Didn't Cameron try to get something along those lines pre-referendum, armed with the threat of a leave vote and get laughed out of the room?
monkeybarry
Tom Huddlestone
Yup.
What it needs is a collection of member states to all take the same view and if the EU don't like it, just do it anyway (like most already do - only the UK are the rule followers)
Grays_1890
Barry Daines
monkeybarry
Tom Huddlestone
That's fantastic.
But what is your point?
Oil is a natural resource that exists within the UK (unless Brexit prompts Scottish independence).
The issues Brexit is creating are around areas of industry that can be moved.....you can't move the planet.
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
Another elite Brexit backer. Could wrap a UK government around his finger potentially. I think he's alreday getting subsidies from us - UK government/tax payers. Acid test would be whether he would like to manufacture his 4x4 cars he plans to make in Hull still. While people in the UK pick up the pieces of Brexit, after backing Brexit himself, he is moving to Monaco (less tax to pay obviously). Good one Sir Jim!
Grays_1890
Barry Daines
What about the manufacturing plant he is investing in? Thats not a natural resource?
He moved their HQ to Switzerland but moved back in 2016 so its clearly an industry or organisation that can be moved around if needed. 4000 people employed over several locations in the UK.
Its a good thing regardless where he personally lives, I will take that for him investing in UK sectors and creating jobs.
Grays_1890
Barry Daines
So what? Like other countries don't? Is it not positive either way that investment is being made?
The UK is still a huge player despite Brexit, are we still not number one in Europe for foreign direct investment? We were last year?
monkeybarry
Tom Huddlestone
Yeah, it's almost like Brexit and Toryism will be good for business tax rates but bad for anyone living in the UK.
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
Absolutly! But to somehome conflate his investment with Brexit is odd. Is your point that despite Brexit he is investing? Has it come to that, that any investment made now needs to be celebrated as 'despite Brexit' there is investment? It's a pretty damning indictment of Brexit if so; that we have to flag up any investment as being 'despite Brexit'. You're effectively saying that the conditions for investment in the UK are worse now than they were!
Last edited:
Grays_1890
Barry Daines
Well yeh because when people leave it is because of Brexit, so on the flip those investing are doign so despite Brexit.
On the basis that you think so, I am agreeing...........
SpurMeUp
Gary Stevens
Yes. The scam is that we were told people would invest because of Brexit. While the opposite seems to be the general trend.
Grays_1890
Barry Daines
Well in fairness you made that original assumption that I meant it was despite Brexit when I was mearly saying "Darn Brexit", my reply their after was tongue in cheek.
So because of Brexit we are getting a huge investment - Yay for Brexit.
Unless you have info that would suggest otherwise?
monkeybarry
Tom Huddlestone
I made the same assumption; quite a logical one.
I'm intrigued to know what you meant if our assumptions were wrong.