How confident are you in a good deal for the UK?

I’m sure he just introduced that to use as a bargaining chip. I’ve been thinking that for a while but now I’m convinced. Either that or it was introduced so that there was no way the EU would accept it therefore it would have to be no deal (which is what Johnson’s sister said his friends stood to make a lot of money from). Either way it’s playing Russian roulette with the future of this country. And Peter Bone said Boris would ‘use his charm’ on Ursula von der Leyen. As if she’d fall for that.

Urmstongran

It’s insurance. We hope not to need it but in the case of no deal the U.K. has to look after its own interests. (N.I.)

Basically we’re able to say to the EU (if no deal) we’re not putting up a north/south border. Over to you if you want to do it and pay for it.

Bill Cash’s finest hour Boris said, spotting this in the WA.

It’s not about a border in Ireland, that won’t happen but commercial goods going south will go through customs, legitimate businesses in ROI will only sell legal goods. It’s easy for Customs and Excise and Trading standards to to check what shops are selling and penalties are high. Likewise untaxed Alcohol moving into NI will get checked too, there will be smuggling of course and personal imports but that’s a small price for peace

The EU will certainly stick to the letter of the Withdrawl Agreement, or there will be no deal, because if they give way France and probably others will reject the changes. If it’s going to be No Deal and no Fisheries deal expect the pain to hurt for a long time.

Yes No Deal / No Fish for the French fishermen that will certainly hurt them for a long time.

The vast majority of the population, including the majority in parliament do not want a no deal.

There are however enough of the headbanger brigade in the Tory parliament to vote down any deal that Johnson succeeds in negotiating. Johnson will not get a deal through without labour’s support.

I am mindful therefore to support Starmer’s plan to whip Labour into voting for a deal, even though it might be the lousiest deal possible.

At the moment my opinion is that it would be better than the chaos a no deal would bring. It’s going to be bad enough anyway.

Difficult though.

On the other hand, when the paucity of the deal becomes painfully apparent, does Labour want to be hidebound in criticising it in future years.

Glad I don’t have to make the decision, but my inclination at present is to try to mitigate against the harm it will do to the poor and destitute as far as possible and if voting for the crappy deal helps then so be it.

Labour should abstain. They should have absolutely nothing to do with this tory created catastrof*ck. Else they will be forever tainted by association.

OTH, they really shouldn't have kept 'quite' so quiet on the topic this year...

As I understand it, the Parliamentary vote has no effect whatever on whether or not the 'deal' goes ahead. So abstaining alters nothing.

“On the other hand, when the paucity of the deal becomes painfully apparent, does Labour want to be hidebound in criticising it in future years.”

We cannot predict what trading terms will be in 3 or 4 yrs time, if we do start on WTO terms, trade negotiations will continue and there could be many changes by the next election. If it goes badly we could find a Labour Government elected and back trading on EEA rules, - ( not full EU member).

And Peter Bone said Boris would ‘use his charm’ on Ursula von der Leyen. As if she’d fall for that.

She's had 2 long phone calls worth of his 'charm' already and is clearly unimpressed. I doubt if meeting the fat slob in person will bowl her over...?

Whitewave, are you seriously telling us that you know what the vast majority of tbe population want regarding the outcome of these talks?!! Have you got a crystal ball? If not I don't quite see how you can make such a sweeping assumption! biba, every country in the world breaks international law, the French certainly do. the proposed clause MAY only be needed in the event of no deal bearing in mind M.Barnier's hinted threat to NI which we clearly have to protect. if there is a deal it won't be needed anyway (obviously). The EU have certainly got Switzerland where they want them fear?!) (along with most member countrys. what awful people they are!

MaizieD

Labour should abstain. They should have absolutely nothing to do with this tory created catastrof*ck. Else they will be forever tainted by association.

OTH, they really shouldn't have kept 'quite' so quiet on the topic this year...

Yes I think you are right, but I so worry for those who will be badly affected by a no deal.

All will be affected of course and there will be less disposable income as a result of higher prices for essentials, but for the poor it will be the difference between poverty and destitution in many cases.

Jaberwok

Whitewave, are you seriously telling us that you know what the vast majority of tbe population want regarding the outcome of these talks?!! Have you got a crystal ball? If not I don't quite see how you can make such a sweeping assumption! biba, every country in the world breaks international law, the French certainly do. the proposed clause MAY only be needed in the event of no deal bearing in mind M.Barnier's hinted threat to NI which we clearly have to protect. if there is a deal it won't be needed anyway (obviously). The EU have certainly got Switzerland where they want them fear?!) (along with most member countrys. what awful people they are!

Don’t be silly

David0205

“On the other hand, when the paucity of the deal becomes painfully apparent, does Labour want to be hidebound in criticising it in future years.”

We cannot predict what trading terms will be in 3 or 4 yrs time, if we do start on WTO terms, trade negotiations will continue and there could be many changes by the next election. If it goes badly we could find a Labour Government elected and back trading on EEA rules, - ( not full EU member).

I was talking about the deal Johnson will possibly make now.

If there is a no deal, of course they will have to negotiate something in the months ahead, but in my opinion no deal shows a catastrophic failure in the governments political skills.

Yes I think you are right, but I so worry for those who will be badly affected by a no deal.

See my post 9.56. I don't think the parliamentary vote has any effect (and we know it'll pass, anyway because of the majority).

So why be associated with it at all?

I hope Labour and the other parties abstain. It’s the only sensible thing to do. Unless there’s a miracle and the deal is better than what we have lost ?

Well what about the headbangers. There are at least 80 of them who will make life very difficult if Johnson comes back with a deal. They have absolutely no intention to compromise whatsoever - never have had. So without Labour the vote will be lost and the poor will be hammered.

Now does Labour put politics aside in order to try to mitigate harm to the poor and hope that the deal can be changed later down the line, or does it act as a traditional opposition and oppose what we all know to be a complete disaster of a deal?

Good questions whitewave, perhaps opposing is the way to go. I must stop turning away from discussion - I’m finding it like lockdown groundhog day

Even in March 2019, as Mrs May was negotiating in earnest, Cummings wrote in his Blog that any permanent committment she makes could be dispensed with at a later stage, including any domestic Law tying us to those commitments.

Tbh I am on the fence with this. Finding it very difficult.

Of course if it’s no deal it will thrill the headbangers and the decision will have been made for the majority of the population who never voted for a no deal regardless of how they originally voted.

^ So without Labour the vote will be lost and the poor will be hammered.^

I'll try to find the lawyer on twitter who explained that vote in parliament has no effect on whether or not a deal goes ahead (that's assuming that we even get a deal)

The poor are going to be badly affected deal, or no deal.

I'd be delighted to see Johnson hammered. A party split of that magnitude could hardly be ignored.

biba70

Even in March 2019, as Mrs May was negotiating in earnest, Cummings wrote in his Blog that any permanent committment she makes could be dispensed with at a later stage, including any domestic Law tying us to those commitments.

There is a clause to that effect in the Internal Market bill. It gives the Executive the power to completely bypass Parliament.

This is my source, WwMk2

jonworth.eu/why-if-there-is-a-brexit-deal-labour-mps-should-abstain/

I apologise; I was working from his original blog which has been modified. The conclusion on the legal requirements are somewhat different. However, abstention looks to be the answer.

Interesting that the writer does the maths for various scenarios and concludes:

If Labour were to abstain, the rebellion in the Tory Party would need to be 139 MP (38% of the Parliamentary Party) to end up with a defeat. With an estimated strength of the ERG rebels of being around 50 MPs, the government is still nowhere near a defeat. Were Labour to vote against a Deal, the size of the rebellion would need to be only 40 Tory MPs.
His conclusion:

So by abstaining the vote will still go Johnson’s way but Labour is free to criticise as a proper opposition should do and there may be some mitigation for the poor.

Sounds like a plan.

You’ll have to excuse me being a bit slow today but in bed feeling grotty. Nothing much but back and hip playing up and mouth full of ulcers. Feeling sorry for myself???

It doesn’t matter what Labour do they can’t influence anything, it’s highly unlikely that the Tories will get 40+ rebel, although you can never say never. Johnson will be replaced fairly soon whatever the outcome he has been a millstone far too long already