Corbyn can help stop No Deal ....... but what then?

The only person who can answer your question jura2 is Jeremy Corbyn, anything else is just more of the same endless speculation.

agreed- but do you believe a special Deal as described would be available to JC , before or after an election? Fact is- it is a gamble which we truly cannot afford or contemplate.

Does anyone believe that?

Why on earth would the EU afford JC a special deal that they wouldn't to Mrs May or to Boris Johnson?!! They might if he agreed to every demand they make, but what then would be the point of leaving?!! Staying in the customs union, staying in the single market? We might as well just stay, as BRINO would be pointless!

I have absolutely no faith in a Corbyn led government, whether it is a majority, coalition or a so called “government of unity”.

He has sat on the fence since the referendum, denying that he called for Article 50 the minute the results were made public when it is on record!!

GG13- yes I get that is how you feel. But the question is not about a JC led Government, but about whether a different deal, as described- could or would be available to JC - but was not for May or Johnson. I know threads do diverge- but there are many on the subject, so it would be great if on this one we could stick to above. THANKS:

No in my speculative opinion he will not get “a better deal”.

Thanks- I agree btw.

If Corbyn was going back to the drawing board to negotiate from scratch, there are other possible options. An arrangement similar to the Norway model based on EEA (European Economic Area) membership, would be a possibility. Other variations based on retaining membership of a bespoke Customs Union, with perhaps some aspects of Single Market membership are also possibilities, they would make trading with the EU much as it is now.

Hardline Brexiteers would say that it would tie us to closely to the EU and we wouldn’t have the freedom to make trade deals with outside countries. So these compromise deals would not be acceptable to many Brexit voters.
Freedom of movement would have to accepted, which is of course a very divisive issue.
We would also still have to continue to pay billions to the EU.

These half-in-half-out arrangements might be better for the economy and for jobs which I believe is what Labour would prefer. “A Jobs first Brexit” is, or was their aim.

Whether this is achievable given the current rancorous nature of the Brexit debate, I don’t know.

I believe such an option would have been available earlier on- but it has gone far beyond now.

I agree jura that the thinking seems to be much more hardline now. But it is possible that a new Government, could reset all Theresa May’s red lines and start negotiating again. I would think the EU would be open to it. But it would take years! Many Brexit voters would be outraged.
And really those Customs Union type arrangements would not be as good as the deal we already have.
Corbyn might be unrealistic as now the rhetoric seems to be damaging cliff edge (we can cope!!!) or just Revoke A50.

It seems to me that this is just another ploy to stop Brexit, deal or no deal. The E.U. were never going to give a deal that was of benefit to the U.K. until we walked away as we should have done in March. At least by threatening to accept a W.T.O. exit, Johnson has caused the E.U. (Merkel) to reflect on the consequences. Meanwhile does the Labour Party really think that another 6/12/24 months of uncertainty would really be better for British industry than a W.T.O exit, or is Corbyn blinded by the hope of becoming Prime Minister?

I was listening to a radio programme earlier in which one of the contributors was an ex-MEP. He said in his opinion UK were placed at a huge disadvantage because the negotiators basically went in and said "we have to leave what do you want us to do". He said Barnier, for whom he had a great deal of respect, ran rings around the "negotiators" and they should all have been sacked.

That was the “ex MEPs” opinion the reality was that the E.U. are not going to agree to anything that gives the U.K. any advantage. If they did (or do) that there would be a queue of others saying we want a special deal too, so that’s not going to happen.
There are at present so many options that it’s impossible to predict any outcome. Today Farage has committed to fighting every seat on a leave ticket, which will split the leave vote and could easily result in a remain government.

How could on earth could any voter, however guillible, and even if they had spent a lifetime reading their news from the Express, Daily Mail, Sun or Torygraph, have ever possibly believed that the EU would quite happily give us, if we left, a better deal than the remaining 27 countries?

Indeed- clear from the start.

Varian, you are joking of course, there are a good many MPs let alone voters, who did think just that and said so during the Referendum campaign.

Well, many of us i am sure can only hope that any attempt by MPs outside of the government to take control of the House of Commons order paper is successful. However, i feel that declaring elegance to such a course of action, and then wording an actual motion which will "keep all on board" may prove far more difficult.

From what little i have seen and heard of the news today, the object of the above MPs will be that the above motion will have the intent of ensuring that the government cannot allow Britain to leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement.

I am happy to be corrected in the above, but if i am correct, surely that still leaves the government much room to manoeuvre. By example, Boris Johnson could request the EU for an extension of Article Fifty if necessary, and then just place Theresa May's withdrawal agreement once again in front of Parliament knowing all too well that Bill will not carry a majority in Parliament.

I know the opening poster (jura2) will hate me for stating the following, but i still believe that a vote of no confidence followed by a General Election would be the easier way to proceed and have the best chance of keeping as many MPs who are against Britain crashing out of the European Union with no deal on board.

However, at this point in time we at least have some unity of action in preventing a no-deal exit, and for that, I and I am sure many others are extremely thankful.

And long may that last (hopefully)

Hate you, Grandad- of course not. We disagree on this point, and we discuss it politely and sensibly. That is OK. Respect and no hate from me.

I was just joking jura, i am sure you are incapable of hating anyone. ?

I asked a question on the other Corbyn thread which no-one answered so can I ask it again?

I am wondering what happens if the "temporary" government fails to get an extension to Article 50. Will they still hold a general election or will they remain in "temporary" control

Of course the EU doesn't want us to leave with a good deal otherwise the other 27 countries will want the same. Although, if it's such a wonderful club, I don't understand why the EU would fear them leaving.

However, the EU are more than happy to have free trading arrangements with countries like Israel, S Korea and Mexico etc. They pay no fees, do not have to submit to free movement or the European courts. As they say, with friends like this, who needs enemies. The only true Brexit is leaving with no Deal, then you start trade negotiations as an independent country just as the aforementioned countries did and look what they got!

Beckett- no answers to your question probably because no-one knows. Scary times

I don’t think that the PM will allow that to happen, he will row back on the Oct 31 deadline to stay in power and live to fight another day.
If he loses a vote of no confidence he has 2 weeks to find a compromise or set a date for GE.