BREXIT Crunch time (part 38) WTF is going to happen next?

[Dogsauce]

May could be being smart, attempting to create fractures in Labour, then once it’s kicked off call a GE whilst the party is still in chaos. Other cabinet members could be in on the deal, and acting outraged now is just play acting which will quickly resolve to unity when the time comes.

But on previous evidence she’s not that bright.

 

[teqniq]

This is incredibly stupid imo, and has apparently been their policy for quite some time.

Labour confirms it wants to end freedom of movement - LabourList

 

[philosophical]

A friend of mine sent me this another friend had written, part of a longer piece, but I found it interesting in the way it attempts to interrogate the idea that in 2017 both major parties stood on the exact same ticket in their manifestos regarding brexit:

'I know the major Political parties in the General Election of 2017 did stand on manifesto to effect our EU departure. Did you read the manifesto? I did. Could the nature of departure have been more different?

I also looked up the results. The Conservatives collectively campaigned on leaving the Single Market, Customs Union & referenced a No Deal Brexit securing 42.45% of the electoral vote. To which you can add UKIP 1.84%. A total of 44.3% of votes.

The Labour Party Manifesto specifically ruled out the Government White Paper advising they would seek a closer liaison with the EU via a Customs Union and rejected any prospect of a No deal securing 40% of votes

Lib-Dems, SNP & Greens argued a remain agenda seeking another referendum securing 12.04% of votes. The DUP, Sinn Fein & Plaid Cmyru 1.93% all quoted frictionless trade with the EU.

Does not that mean 54% of the electorate voted against leaving the EU without a deal?

Did not the votes cast in Parliament on Friday 286 - 344 reflect a 45% - 55% split entirely in line with the legally binding 2017 election result and the mandate provided to the respective parties?'

 

[andysays]

A friend of mine sent me this another friend had written, part of a longer piece, but I found it interesting in the way it attempts to interrogate the idea that in 2017 both major parties stood on the exact same ticket in their manifestos regarding brexit:
...

Who is supposed to be suggesting that?

 

[rutabowa]

I confess I am not totally sure what "freedom of movement" means

 

[danny la rouge]

I confess I am not totally sure what "freedom of movement" means

Loose fitting clothes.

 

[Winot]

This is incredibly stupid imo, and has apparently been their policy for quite some time.

Labour confirms it wants to end freedom of movement - LabourList

It was in their 2017 GE manifesto wasn’t it?

 

[teqniq]

Yes it says in the article.

 

[danny la rouge]

I confess I am not totally sure what "freedom of movement" means

Urban v's the Commentariat

 

[andysays]

Chuka speaks!

Independent MP Chuka Umunna says the bill contains a "glaring omission". He wonders why none of the amendments selected for debate contain proposals for another referendum, or people's vote.

"The European Council has been absolutely clear that the UK will not necessarily be granted an extension for a general purpose but we will need to specify what it is we wish to have an extension for," he says. "To be sure of getting the extension to stop no-deal... you not only request an extension but it is for the purposes of something that will lead to us being granted the extension we require."

 

[rutabowa]

If there was real freedom of movement everyone would be living by the seaside or somewhere.... or hackney

 

[cupid_stunt]

I live by the seaside, seemed like a good move, but seagulls.

 

[philosophical]

Who is supposed to be suggesting that?

I believe I have often heard it said, or alluded to, that both parties would be betraying manifesto promises with regard to brexit, and that it is in kind of the same way.

 

[rutabowa]

I live by the seaside, seemed like a good move, but seagulls.

And I live in hackney, I recognise my privilege

 

[SpookyFrank]

I live by the seaside, seemed like a good move, but seagulls.

The tourists are worse than the seagulls.

 

[alsoknownas]

I moved from Hackney to the seaside. Haven't regretted it so far.

 

[Balbi]

Chuka speaks!

I hope he's started to get the sensation of the sand under his feet being sucked away, he's liable to provide a satisfying Portillo moment at the next election.

 

[danny la rouge]

I hope he's started to get the sensation of the sand under his feet being sucked away, he's liable to provide a satisfying Portillo moment at the next election.

I’d be surprised if any of his group keep their seats.

 

[Kaka Tim]

i cant see either corbyn or may wanting to actually agree to a deal - it would cause huge ructions in both parties. May is just trying to spread the blame and make it look like she's "reaching out". Corbyn cant really refuse to take part. Its a charade.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

on the BBC news feed

Second largest government defeat in modern times

The government was defeated on amendment 22 by 180 votes.

This makes it the second biggest defeat in modern times.

The biggest ever defeat was the first meaningful vote on the prime minister's deal.

all going fine, then...

 

[gosub]

Fuck off.

Sorry, when it comes to D. Abbott I am very of the Dead Ringers Brillo school of thought. Gender and ethithinccity pay no part. Peter is as principalled as ever.

 

[Cid]

on the BBC news feed



all going fine, then...

Ouch...

Telegraph's Mikhailova is reporting a 'senior labour source' as... well, as this:

1. New: Labour source told me the option of a confirmatory vote was raised 'multiple times' in the Corbyn-May meeting.
   
   1 reply5 retweets19 likes
   
2. New: Senior Labour source telling me today's talks did not go as well as initially thought: 'May offered nothing today. Unless tomorrow's talks change the narrative it seems to be a waste of time.'
   
   22 replies66 retweets79 likes

 

[Santino]

Sorry, when it comes to D. Abbott I am very of the Dead Ringers Brillo school of thought. Gender and ethithinccity pay no part. Peter is as principalled as ever.

Fuck off. How often do you criticise the basic numeracy of white Tory men?

 

[Puddy_Tat]

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Loose fitting clothes.

It’s true, I seen an advert for loose fitting clothes with that title earlier on today!

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Fuck off. How often do you criticise the basic numeracy of white Tory men?

Probably all the time? I’ve not seen him particularly laying into black people more than anyone else.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

I say that now with trepidation having not read the entire thread.... eeehhhh

 

[Santino]

Probably all the time? I’ve not seen him particularly laying into black people more than anyone else.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might want to criticise Diane Abbot, but the attacks on her numeracy are clearly motivated by misogyny and racism.

 

[gosub]

Fuck off. How often do you criticise the basic numeracy of white Tory men?

Well there was that election night I got pissed at the count and harranged the local MP who'd sold all the married quarters in the country and then publically admitted he didn't realise rent would now be on the balance sheet


(I was quite drunk at the time)

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

There are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might want to criticise Diane Abbot, but the attacks on her numeracy are clearly motivated by misogyny and racism.

I’m gonna have to scroll back but as a stand alone sentence I’m inclined to disagree.


ETA: in context now, I dunno I’m sitting on the fence. Was that really the intent? I think more clumsiness in a convo about attacks from the right.