Emily Thornberry claims she would negotiate a deal, but then once the deal was made, would campaign against it in favor of Remain. This is the pretzel logic of Labour.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/9874598/labour-admit-its-brexit-policy-is-to-negotiate-new-deal-then-reject/

That was a devilishly good deadpan joke/putdown.

Emily Thornberry claims she would negotiate a deal, but then once the deal was made, would campaign against it in favor of Remain. This is the pretzel logic of Labour. — NOS4A2

It's pretty straightforward. She believes that the best option is to remain, the second best option is to leave with a deal, and that the worst option is to leave without a deal. She would negotiate a deal to avoid the worst option but would campaign for the best option.

It's pretty straightforward. She believes that the best option is to remain, the second best option is to leave with a deal, and that the worst option is to leave without a deal. She would negotiate a deal to avoid the worst option but would campaign for the best option.

The problem is remain is not an option.

Of course it is. Parliament can vote to revoke article 50.

On the issue of Brexit it isn’t, because people voted the exact opposite of remain. That issue has already been settled, though I could see undemocratic forces undoing it, and throwing democracy itself to the wind.

I don’t see how a deal is the only way to go, especially if that deal is no good. May’s deal, for instance, was deemed a bad deal. Rather, It would be shooting oneself in the foot to accept a bad deal. The no-deal needs to remain on the table as another option. — NOS4A2

You don't see it because you haven't thought it through.

The content of May's deal wasn't the problem. It was her trying to ram it through parliament without including mps in the discussions during the negotiation process that lead to it being rejected. If she had included representatives of Parliament in the preparations and negotiations the support would have been broad based and the resulting deal would've been pretty much the same. There's not really that many flavours to it, the divorce bill, the recognition of court decisions, recognition of licenses granted by local supervisors and obviously a trade deal.

Party politics wouldn't allow such a thing though because the Tories wanted the recognition as the party that got you Brexit and they chewed off more than they could handle. Welcome to the implosion of the Tories; the irrelevant party for the next generation.

“Safe to assume” is not good enough. It was once safe to assume the UK didn’t want to leave the EU. Boy, was that assumption wrong. — NOS4A2

The UK didn't want to leave. A statistically insignificant majority of those who voted advised Parliament they wanted to leave the EU. And yes, it is safe to assume that those who voted against Brexit in the referendum would consider it worse to have no agreements in place at all with the EU than at least have some of them remaining. That's safe to assume because it's simple logic not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Can’t deny that. But she did negotiate a Brexit deal, agreed to by the EU.

But perhaps worse than that deal is they’re giving up their one remaining bargaining chip: a no deal Brexit.

As has been pointed out a no deal Brexit ( no idea Brexit) is not and never was a bargaining chip. The EU have always asked us what we want, but we have failed to answer the question. Once the question has been answered the EU will come to a generous accommodation, which protects the four freedoms and doesn't cherry pick benefits enjoyed by members who subscribe to the four freedoms.

The talk about a no deal was always for a domestic audience, to somehow force people to grant what Theresa May was going to present. Or more to the point to appease the rabid leavers in her own party, who were gunning for a no deal right from the beginning. And now with Johnson it is the aim, to leave with a no deal, because if we don't the Conservative party is toast.

As has been pointed out a no deal Brexit ( no idea Brexit) is not and never was a bargaining chip. The EU have always asked us what we want, but we have failed to answer the question. Once the question has been answered the EU will come to a generous accommodation, which protects the four freedoms and doesn't cherry pick benefits enjoyed by members who subscribe to the four freedoms.

The talk about a no deal was always for a domestic audience, to somehow force people to grant what Theresa May was going to present. Or more to the point to appease the rabid leavers in her own party, who were gunning for a no deal right from the beginning. And now with Johnson it is the aim, to leave with a no deal, because if we don't the Conservative party is toast.

The only way to opt out of a bad deal is to walk away from it, “no deal”. It is an important bargaining chip.

The EU already knows what the UK wants, as proven by the referendum: they want out of the EU. The deal aspect has been tacked on after the fact, willy nilly, by someone who always wanted to remain in the EU in the first place.

A 'no-deal brexit' has never been a 'default position', not even for Johnson - he's been saying (although not many believe him) that he's only threatening it to get traction in negotiations. — Wayfarer

Thereby undermining his own strategy.

I read that Corbyn’s polling is dreadful. I must say I couldn’t vote for him, if I were British it would have to be Lib Dems but I can’t see them forming Government. — Wayfarer

The same Lib Dems who propped up a Tory government for five years?

The EU already knows what the UK wants, as proven by the referendum: they want out of the EU. The deal aspect has been tacked on after the fact, willy nilly, by someone who always wanted to remain in the EU in the first place. — NOS4A2

You're talking out of your ass. The deal aspect hasn't been slapped on willy nilly, it was never the intention of the UK government to leave in an unorganised fashion and the deal was negotiated by the tories who promised Brexit.

You seem to have no clue what leaving the EU involves after such an integration over decades. I'm just going to point out financial services. Just think about the financial services provided by UK financial entities across Europe. You leave without a deal you immediately cause those banks not to be able to offer any type of service in the EU27 and what's more they can't act in primary markets anymore thus closing of business with non-EU investors for European IPOs and (sovereign) debt issuance. LCH would no longer be accepted as a clearing organisation. Just leaving would devastate the UK financial industry.

You seem to have no clue what leaving the EU involves — Benkei

Well never mind the trolls, never mind the great unwashed, I have very little idea what leaving with no deal means myself, and I am comparatively educated and have taken some small trouble to inform myself.

But it's not great is it? Like, when we make all these new deals with other countries, they will want a quid pro quo same as the EU. The Sovereignty and independence will last s long as it takes to negotiate a trade deal with someone else. The whole independence thing is bullshit from the start. "It's our Amazon" says Belsonaro. As if the atmosphere respects borders. As if the whole thing is a diversionary tactic, and actually, we're all dead anyway.

You’re talking out your ass. The UK government, the EU, and each member state has a plan for if/when a no deal Brexit happens.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-deal_Brexit

Now Amber Rudd's gone. The Conservative party is falling apart.

Nice.

The same Lib Dems who propped up a Tory government for five years? — S

Yes, the same Lib Dems who opposed Labour's war in Iraq.

yes, that's called contingency planning. We've got plans for when natural disasters happen as well. That's not a reason to invite them to happen. Try again.

Perfectly timed for the Sunday Newspapers. :up:

yes, that's called contingency planning. We've got plans for when natural disasters happen as well. That's not a reason to invite them to happen. Try again.

The point is that a no-deal Brexit does not imply leaving in an unorganized fashion at all, despite your claims to the contrary.

Eerie.

The point is that a no-deal Brexit does not imply leaving in an unorganized fashion at all, despite your claims to the contrary. — NOS4A2

Having to stockpile foodstuffs, medicine and manufacturing components is to mitigate the consequences of an unorganised withdrawal, it doesn't make things organised at all.

Your interest in discussing these matters is just one where you vomit opinions. Have you even read the withdrawal agreement? Can you explain to me the issue about the Irish back stop, why the alternative arrangements will or won't work and what that means for the Good Friday agreements?

Nice.

Yes, I was hoping for this, Amber Rudd is a fatal blow.

If I wasn’t interested in discussing these matters I wouldn’t be discussing them. It seems you just want consensus.

If preparing for a no deal Brexit isn’t organization, I don’t know what is. But sure, if you wish to call that unorganized, I won’t hold it against you.

You can prepare for a hurricane too. Does that make the hurricane organized?

Now Amber Rudd's gone. The Conservative party is falling apart.

Nice. — Michael

You could call them... Rudderless

:clap:

Read: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/operation-chaos-whitehalls-secret-no-deal-brexit-plan-leaked-j6ntwvhll
+
https://intpolicydigest.org/2019/08/19/no-deal-chaos-the-brexit-cliff-face-and-operation-yellowhammer/

I’m not sure how that is in any way analogous. A hurricane is a natural disaster. Leaving the European Union isn’t.

The point is that contingency plans do not make disasters of any sort organized. They merely try to mitigate the chaos to some degree. The government's own report makes this clear. Just read it—or at least about it.

Theresa May's deal was actually a really good deal, it managed to dovetail the possibility of an independent trade policy with close alignment with the single market and customs union and with an end to free movement. Preparing the way for an almost seamless move into an implementation period. A serious document which had been hammered out in detailed and close negotiations for 18 months. If we were leaving I would have been happy with it.

There are two reasons why we have ended up in this pickle ( well apart from the failure to work cross party which I have already pointed out).
1, the impossibility of squaring the circle of the Irish border problem and squaring the circle of an independent trade policy, while retaining a close relationship with the EU. Something which has become more and more evident as time has gone by.
2, the rabid hard Brexit ambitions of the ERG, which was never going to accept any deal, while having a stranglehold on the government.

I'll let you into a secret, THE ENTIRE BREXIT PROJECT IS A TRAGIC FRACTURING AND PSYCHO DRAMA WITHIN THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY. Everything else is collateral damage. This has been developing and is well documented for over 40 years.