Support NeoGAF

[Theonik]

I'd like to believe this, unfortunately I'm largely more convinced the Tories are quite happy to permanently cripple the country for their own gains.

They are and need to be held to account for that. This amendment is achieving the exact opposite.

 

[sammex]

There is no reversing Brexit or persuading Brexiteers. Any attempt only entrenches them further. Same with any bad news, it's further proof of liberal bias, spin, agendas, etc. Even we do leave, and reality sets in, there won't be any ownership of the consequences, only bitter recrimination towards the EU for "making an example" out of us.

 

[Theonik]

There is no reversing Brexit or persuading Brexiteers. Any attempt only entrenches them further. Same with any bad news, it's further proof of liberal bias, spin, agendas, etc. Even we do leave, and reality sets in, there won't be any ownership of the consequences, only bitter recrimination towards the EU for "making an example" out of us.

Then one embraces the inevitability of one's predicament. One could. Or one could seek one's to take action one feels right. Or one country of look towards the future. Nothing is gained by such thinking. Such is to be master of one's destiny.

 

[Burai]

They also didn't like statistics about our trade with the EU and countries we already have free trade with through the EU.

"The EU is our biggest trade partner"
"It shouldn't be!"

It shouldn't be!

It's fucking hilarious. The EU is the single largest trading bloc outside of the US and it's literally on our doorstep. And idiots like Redwood have convinced these people there's a better way.

It's like living next door to an Aldi and thinking you can get a better deal by driving to a Premier store 200 miles away. PJ's Fine Food & Wines can save us from the tyranny of Aldi!

 

[Xun]

Question Time last night was incredibly frustrating to watch.

I'm surprised many in the audience didn't simply shout "kick all the brown people out!" instead of booing like they did.

 

[Biggzy]

It's fucking hilarious. The EU is the single largest trading bloc outside of the US and it's literally on our doorstep. And idiots like Redwood have convinced these people there's a better way.

It's like living next door to an Aldi and thinking you can get a better deal by driving to a Premier store 200 miles away. PJ's Fine Food & Wines can save us from the tyranny of Aldi!

It gets worse when you consider that Britain is giving up all influence on the rules and regulations of that trading bloc as well.

 

[Principate]

It gets worse when you consider that Britain is giving up all influence on the rules and regulations of that trading bloc as well.

Direct democracy don't you just love it.

 

[JonathanEx]

God the amount of moronic arseholes on question time always surprises and infuriates me.

Worst of all was the outrageous attacks on the canary. They do a fine job covering stories and actually representing the people. The funniest part was kerry Ann pointing out how undiverse mainstream media is only for nick farrari and a bunch of other middle aged white men start shouting her down.

And the msm wonder why less and less people give a fuck what they think.

While I do agree that there is a place for more blog style left wing outlets, that there's large audiences not represented by mainstream publications, and that Nick Ferrari is a tool, I really struggle with The Canary itself in terms of accuracy.

Whether it's the Portland Communications stuff, claiming the US Election was rigged because an outlet used test numbers in a rehearsal of coverage, going against all Samaritans guidelines on covering suicide and being proud of it, ToryDirtyMoney claims... Oh and deciding that Charlie Brooker isn't allowed to make jokes about Corbyn for some reason, that was weird.

Alternative media is a great thing. But the Canary too often deals in alternative facts and refuses to correct themselves.

 

[Burai]

It gets worse when you consider that Britain is giving up all influence on the rules and regulations of that trading bloc as well.

So to take the analogy to it's logical conclusion, we also currently work as the assistant manager at that particular Aldi and get a staff discount.

 

[Sarcastic Poster]

There's no reversing Brexit now. It's an utterly pointless endeavor. There is a strong left-wing argument for Brexit as well. Not all Leave voters are xenophobes (although a decent chunk were).

 

[GrizzleBoy]

So to take the analogy to it's logical conclusion, we also currently work as the assistant manager at that particular Aldi and get a staff discount.

Yeah but, if we leave Aldi and start a supermarket in our back garden, we can trade just as strong with all the companies that buy/sell with Aldi!

Our back garden super market will be JUST as successful and prestigious as Aldi.

Well have DOZENS of companies coming to our back garden supermarket to set up extremely lucrative trade deals!

We just have to hope and pray that Aldi doesn't start an "anti back garden supermarket" campaign, cause we can't veto anything anymore....

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Question Time last night was incredibly frustrating to watch.

I'm surprised many in the audience didn't simply shout "kick all the brown people out!" instead of booing like they did.

Wait until the trade deals with India includes a relaxed visa policy and possibly even free movement (although I doubt this would happen, just a very relaxed visa policy with barely any restrictions), then you'll see start to people be much more open about their views.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Yeah but, if we leave Aldi and start a supermarket in our back garden, we can trade just as strong with all the companies that buy/sell with Aldi!

Our back garden super market will be JUST as successful and prestigious as Aldi.

Well have DOZENS of companies coming to our back garden supermarket to set up extremely lucrative trade deals!

We just have to hope and pray that Aldi doesn't start an "anti back garden supermarket" campaign, cause we can't veto anything anymore....

Plus I buy at least 2 avocados from Aldi every week, the avocado farmers are going to ensure that Aldi does whatever I demand.

 

[SuperEpicMan]

I voted to remain and hate that we are leaving the EU, but at this point I have just accepted it (at least for the time being). I would honestly just hate prolonging this period of economic uncertainty, which is already showing an impact on the industry I am in (web development), and at this stage I feel the more pressing issues surround what sort of country we want to live in post brexit.

To sum up my feelings, I view brexit like this; the UK is a plane which will inevitably crash, but the manner in which it crashes and the response afterwards is dictated by pilots. Now if in the coming months brexit continually becomes a shit show to the point of public opinion moving away from it, then great, but at this stage it just feels like a futile debate, akin to debating on whether the plane needs to crash.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

The defeatism about Brexit in this thread is pathetic. I want Brexit to be a shitshow, I want the Tories to own it. But I'm not going to just be quiet while it happens, stick up for what you believe in for fuck's sake.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

I voted to remain and hate that we are leaving the EU, but at this point I have just accepted it (at least for the time being). I would honestly just hate prolonging this period of economic uncertainty, which is already showing an impact on the industry I am in (web development), and at this stage I feel the more pressing issues surround what sort of country we want to live in post brexit.

To sum up my feelings, I view brexit like this; the UK is a plane which will inevitably crash, but the manner in which it crashes and the response afterwards is dictated by pilots. Now if in the coming months brexit continually becomes a shit show to the point of public opinion moving away from it, then great, but at this stage it just feels like a futile debate, akin to debating on whether the plane needs to crash.

Your pilots are Theresa May, David Davis and Boris Johnson.

 

[*Splinter]

.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Apparently, Chuka's amendment has backfired. I've heard from Crab's super secret internal sources that even a lot of the Labour MPs who voted for it are furious with him. Zeichner felt he had to vote for it because of the marginality of his constituency and how strongly pro-Remain it was, but felt he had a strong ability to offer in the Shadow Cabinet and deeply resented having to make the choice, and is now absolutely fuming.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Indeed. It's not about not opposing Brexit, or its more ludicrous excesses, but about being smarter about it.

Edit:

Apparently, Chuka's amendment has backfired. I've heard from Crab's super secret internal sources that even a lot of the Labour MPs who voted for it are furious with him. Zeichner felt he had to vote for it because of the marginality of his constituency and how strongly pro-Remain it was, but felt he had a strong ability to offer in the Shadow Cabinet and deeply resented having to make the choice, and is now absolutely fuming.

MPs in heavily pro-remain constituencies (e.g. Andy Slaughter in Hammersmith) basically had a gun held to their head. I'm not sure I'd be very pleased with having to make the choice between my job or my seat (and therefore my job).

 

[SuperEpicMan]

Your pilots are Theresa May, David Davis and Boris Johnson.

For now.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Indeed. It's not about not opposing Brexit, or its more ludicrous excesses, but about being smarter about it.

What does this look like, though, in practicality?

 

[*Splinter]

Apparently, Chuka's amendment has backfired. I've heard from Crab's super secret internal sources that even a lot of the Labour MPs who voted for it are furious with him. Zeichner felt he had to vote for it because of the marginality of his constituency and how strongly pro-Remain it was, but felt he had a strong ability to offer in the Shadow Cabinet and deeply resented having to make the choice, and is now absolutely fuming.

Is this why they were "forced" to abstain? To try and protect them from making this decision?

I was trying to work out why exactly the whip was used yesterday and that was all I could come up with. Not sure of it actually helped or not though, certainly raised the stakes for anyone who felt they had to vote.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Is this why they were "forced" to abstain? To try and protect them from making this decision?

I was trying to work out why exactly the whip was used yesterday and that was all I could come up with.

But if they weren't whipped they wouldn't have been fired and this would have been less of a story surely.

Does it need to be a secret that some Labour MPs favour the single market and some don't?

 

[Mr. Sam]

What does this look like, though, in practicality?

I'm not going to go into great detail on that, largely because I don't have the time, bit even more largely because I don't know. Fostering party division on a vote that you have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning is definitely what it doesn't look like.

 

[Acorn]

Is this why they were "forced" to abstain? To try and protect them from making this decision?

I was trying to work out why exactly the whip was used yesterday and that was all I could come up with. Not sure of it actually helped or not though, certainly raised the stakes for anyone who felt they had to vote.

Any vote that is designed to make the leadership look dumb or force their hand is likely to end up being whipped against.

 

[*Splinter]

But if they weren't whipped they wouldn't have been fired and this would have been less of a story surely.

Does it need to be a secret that some Labour MPs favour the single market and some don't?

Yeah I feel like I'm missing something there. I can understand giving MPs an "excuse" to not vote but at the same time it makes things even harder for those who still feel obliged to vote based on their constituencies.

I'm not sure why (or if) the whip was necessary.

Any vote that is designed to make the leadership look dumb or force their hand is likely to end up being whipped against.

If it's as simple as this I don't feel that's a great reason.

 

[SuperEpicMan]

The defeatism about Brexit in this thread is pathetic. I want Brexit to be a shitshow, I want the Tories to own it. But I'm not going to just be quiet while it happens, stick up for what you believe in for fuck's sake.

I don't see it as being defeatist, but rather realistic and forward looking. The reality is unless public opinion moves away from brexit, then going against it is just hindering your chances of getting elected, helping the tories get in again. Whilst brexit is certainly a shitty situation, I would rather a government who at least tries to make it work for most people, rather than one which will just make further cuts etc.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Does it need to be a secret that some Labour MPs favour the single market and some don't?

Kind of, yes. Parties are national now, you can't really run constituency-by-constituency messages any more.

The more Labour MPs voted for this, the more Labour is associated with pro-Remain sentiment, the worse they'll do electorally.

 

[Goodlife]

Apparently, Chuka's amendment has backfired. I've heard from Crab's super secret internal sources that even a lot of the Labour MPs who voted for it are furious with him. Zeichner felt he had to vote for it because of the marginality of his constituency and how strongly pro-Remain it was, but felt he had a strong ability to offer in the Shadow Cabinet and deeply resented having to make the choice, and is now absolutely fuming.

On BBC news this morning they bought up the government concession on abortions and Labour sacking 4 front benchers, as a symbol of the governments weakness and Labours authoritativeness. I was shocked

 

[Acorn]

But if they weren't whipped they wouldn't have been fired and this would have been less of a story surely.

Does it need to be a secret that some Labour MPs favour the single market and some don't?

Unity through disagreement is what a party that wants to be in govt needs to show the country. Deliberately exploiting those splits in a no hope amendment just makes them look unelectable.

 

[CyclopsRock]

On BBC news this morning they bought up the government concession on abortions and Labour sacking 4 front benchers, as a symbol of the governments weakness and Labours authoritativeness. I was shocked

It does seem odd. It's hardly a "concession" by the government, given that they're entirely pro-choice anyway. It's only the DUP that aren't, and they voted for it anyway.

 

[Theonik]

Is this why they were "forced" to abstain? To try and protect them from making this decision?

I was trying to work out why exactly the whip was used yesterday and that was all I could come up with. Not sure of it actually helped or not though, certainly raised the stakes for anyone who felt they had to vote.

For people in heavy remain constituencies sadly even that was not enough just look at the ones in this thread. People have had what, 5 failed attempts to end brexit via the back door now? And every time it happens we only get closer to it.

Apparently, Chuka's amendment has backfired. I've heard from Crab's super secret internal sources that even a lot of the Labour MPs who voted for it are furious with him. Zeichner felt he had to vote for it because of the marginality of his constituency and how strongly pro-Remain it was, but felt he had a strong ability to offer in the Shadow Cabinet and deeply resented having to make the choice, and is now absolutely fuming.

Sadly the damage is already done.

But if they weren't whipped they wouldn't have been fired and this would have been less of a story surely.

Does it need to be a secret that some Labour MPs favour the single market and some don't?

But the downside to this is that then the MPs would have to solely accept the blame. The whip was cover and an attempt to show Labour's unity over their Brexit position.
These MPs showed the opposite. Not whipping the vote would have meant that Labour would look even weaker. If you look at how the media have taken it it's not as bad as it could have been.
I'm still mad though. There was no need for this.

 

[Bleepey]

That's Chukas entire career. He's been on a tear of fuck ups ever since he first got the 'heir to Blair' label.

Remember his leadership campaign that lasted all of 48 hours? He's the political equivalent of the fucking idiot in a pub saying he could knock out the boxer on tv. Then shitting it when someone stands on a balloon.

i chuckled at this

 

[The Friendly Monster]

I don't see it as being defeatist, but rather realistic and forward looking. The reality is unless public opinion moves away from brexit, then going against it is just hindering your chances of getting elected, helping the tories get in again. Whilst brexit is certainly a shitty situation, I would rather a government who at least tries to make it work for most people, rather than one which will just make further cuts etc.

I don't see it as forward looking at all, if the Labour party don't provide an alternative and realistic message on Brexit now, then you are admitting defeat (probably for a long time as I imagine the next few years will bake things in. I know that the wishy washy message worked in the general election, but as the opposition now, it's not good enough.

Kind of, yes. Parties are national now, you can't really run constituency-by-constituency messages any more.

The more Labour MPs voted for this, the more Labour is associated with pro-Remain sentiment, the worse they'll do electorally.

The election already happened. If both the main parties are set on a hard Brexit, that's what's going to happen unless the Tories back down to the EU.

Single market membership is not remaining.

But the downside to this is that then the MPs would have to solely accept the blame. The whip was cover and an attempt to show Labour's unity over their Brexit position.
These MPs showed the opposite. Not whipping the vote would have meant that Labour would look even weaker.

But the Labour party don't have a Brexit position any different to the Tories. That is a problem.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The defeatism about Brexit in this thread is pathetic. I want Brexit to be a shitshow, I want the Tories to own it. But I'm not going to just be quiet while it happens, stick up for what you believe in for fuck's sake.

I think you're conflating two different things though. It's one thing to make arguments in favour or against something, it's another to suggest a certain outcome should be applied. As another example, in the immediate aftermath of an election you can make all the arguments you want about how the losers would make a better government because of all the things they'd do differently, but it's a different thing to argue that in spite of the result they should actually be the government. You can continue to argue for the benefits of staying in the EU whilst "accepting" that we're leaving because that's, like, what people voted for.

 

[Mr. Sam]

There's a majority, both within Parliament and within Labour MPs, that saw the referendum as a vote against freedom of movement. They - probably rightly - see opposing that as electoral suicide. Corbyn's a well-established Eurosceptic but, on this at least, he's not really swimming against the tide.

Something I'd be interested to know, and could probably easily be found out if I... cared, is if Corbyn - or rather I Can't Believe It's Not Jeremy Corbyn - would have enough MP nominations now to get on the ballot in the event of a leadership election even without the McDondell amendment.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

I think you're conflating two different things though. It's one thing to make arguments in favour or against something, it's another to suggest a certain outcome should be applied. As another example, in the immediate aftermath of an election you can make all the arguments you want about how the losers would make a better government because of all the things they'd do differently, but it's a different thing to argue that in spite of the result they should actually be the government. You can continue to argue for the benefits of staying in the EU whilst "accepting" that we're leaving because that's, like, what people voted for.

I'm not even talking about remaining in the EU, I'm talking about remaining in the single market.

 

[Goodlife]

The election already happened.

An election happened, it wouldn't be too much of a shock if another one happened soon

 

[Acorn]

There's a majority, both within Parliament and within Labour MPs, that saw the referendum as a vote against freedom of movement. They - probably rightly - see opposing that as electoral suicide. Corbyn's a well-established Eurosceptic but, on this at least, he's not really swimming against the tide.

Something I'd be interested to know, and could probably easily be found out if I... cared, is if Corbyn - or rather I Can't Believe It's Not Jeremy Corbyn - would have enough MP nominations now to get on the ballot in the event of a leadership election even without the McDondell amendment.

No and thats why the McDonnell amendment was proposed. The plp are just keeping their powder dry at the moment.

Aside from dumbass Chuka.

 

[*Splinter]

I don't see it as forward looking at all, if the Labour party don't provide an alternative and realistic message on Brexit now, then you are admitting defeat (probably for a long time as I imagine the next few years will bake things in. I know that the wishy washy message worked in the general election, but as the opposition now, it's not good enough.

Why though? I honestly don't see what is gained by Labour locking in to a position that is either unrealistic or unpopular (or both!)

Aiming to get "the best we can get without FoM" appeals to as many people as possible and is vague enough to allow the real details to be worked out in negotiation (which is the only way it can really happen) without hamstringing Labour's (hypothetical) negotiation team with manifesto pledges.

I might be being hypocritical in this, I don't know if I gave Theresa May the same benefit of the doubt when she was talking about "keeping her cards close to her chest". The difference being I trust Labour to aim for the least damaging Brexit possible, while the Tories seem to blindly follow The Will Of The People™ in a desperate bid to cling to power.

 

[Mr. Sam]

No and thats why the McDonnell amendment was proposed. The plp are just keeping their powder dry at the moment.

My point is it was proposed prior to the general election, Labour gaining thirty seats, an uptick in pro-Corbyn sentiment, and a Corbyn government looking feasible. The maths has changed, I'm just not sure by how much.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Why though? I honestly don't see what is gained by Labour locking in to a position that is either unrealistic or unpopular (or both!)

Aiming to get "the best we can get without FoM" appeals to as many people as possible and is vague enough to allow the real details to be worked out in negotiation (which is the only way it can really happen) without hamstringing Labour's (hypothetical) negotiation team with manifesto pledges.

Sorry but it's not good enough. I want FoM, I want MPs to be talking up the benefits of FoM.

If you think there is some amazing "deal" waiting for the UK from the EU you are living in a fantasy land with David Davis and Boris Johnson and you deserve to be criticized. Why would a Labour negotiating team get anything more than a Conservative one? If anything their hand is weaker.

 

[*Splinter]

Sorry but it's not good enough. I want FoM, I want MPs to be talking up the benefits of FoM.

If you think there is some amazing "deal" waiting for the UK from the EU you are living in a fantasy land with David Davis and Boris Johnson and you deserve to be criticized.

So vote Lib Dem.


No I don't think an amazing deal exists.


Why is Labour's hand weaker (or at all different) to the Tories'?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The election already happened. If both the main parties are set on a hard Brexit, that's what's going to happen unless the Tories back down to the EU.

I mean, if your 'hard Brexit' definition is: leaving the single market, then we're essentially guaranteed hard Brexit. No party that wants to form government is going to offer a deal that reneges on exiting freedom of movement.

Single market membership is not remaining.

To all intents and purposes, it is if single market membership requires remaining in freedom of movement (which it probably does).

But the Labour party don't have a Brexit position any different to the Tories. That is a problem.

This isn't true. For example, the Conservatives want to quit the Customs Union. Labour doesn't. That in itself would have significant economic ramifications, just a single example.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

So vote Lib Dem.

No I don't think an amazing deal exists.

Why is Labour's hand weaker (or different) to the Tories'?

I may do in the future. Their policy of a second referendum was a truly shitty idea though.

Labour's hand is weaker than the Tories because the negotations are entirely on the EU's terms. If the EU see Labour as less likely to accept the hardest of Brexits than the Tories they can get more out of them.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Sorry but it's not good enough. I want FoM, I want MPs to be talking up the benefits of FoM.

If you think there is some amazing "deal" waiting for the UK from the EU you are living in a fantasy land with David Davis and Boris Johnson and you deserve to be criticized. Why would a Labour negotiating team get anything more than a Conservative one? If anything their hand is weaker.

I refer to myself:

There's a majority, both within Parliament and within Labour MPs, that saw the referendum as a vote against freedom of movement. They - probably rightly - see opposing that as electoral suicide. Corbyn's a well-established Eurosceptic but, on this at least, he's not really swimming against the tide.

You'd be hard pushed to find anyone on NeoGAF who thinks any deal outside the EU is better than the one we had inside it, but that's not the feeling of the public at large, particularly when it comes to freedom of movement.

 

[Acorn]

My point is it was proposed prior to the general election, Labour gaining thirty seats, an uptick in pro-Corbyn sentiment, and a Corbyn government looking feasible. The maths has changed, I'm just not sure by how much.

Ah, sorry I misunderstood.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Something I'd be interested to know, and could probably easily be found out if I... cared, is if Corbyn - or rather I Can't Believe It's Not Jeremy Corbyn - would have enough MP nominations now to get on the ballot in the event of a leadership election even without the McDondell amendment.

He does, yes. Almost all the newly elected Labour MPs are Corbynites. Not completely, but three-quarters plus from the top of my head.

 

[Funky Papa]

So when are we sending your lot to the Community Gulag?

 

[KingSnake]

For now.

I'm curious how do you (not just you personally) see this playing. Tories have the government and will do the Brexit negotiations. And their negotiating position was once supported and once not contested officially by Labour.

What's the end game here? Brexit being done by Tories on their terms and Labour pretending they could have gotten a better fantasy deal despite them almost fully supporting the government on the main direction?

So when are we sending your lot to the Community Gulag?

Some people seem convinced that there is another election pending despite the votes in the Parliament.