[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[dribbles]

Well, 60% of the field is owned by Total. So... nothing to grant that isn't already granted. But hey, make up another fantasy in your head, it's not like you don't have enough already.

No, Total had a licence to survey not extract.

[Floopa]

LAB are gearing up for a GE.

[Demolitia]

Labour: Don't rule out Remain option in Brexit vote says Starmer



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45631792

Slight movement it seems.

That sounds indecisive and lukewarm at best.

- - - Updated - - -

No, Total had a licence to survey not extract.

Depends on the license.
An offshore innovate license covers all phases:
Phase A is a period for carrying out geotechnical studies and geophysical data reprocessing;
Phase B is a period for undertaking seismic surveys and acquiring other geophysical data; and
Phase C is for drilling.
If Total is part of this you can be pretty sure they went for this and not just surveying.

[Kallisto]

That sounds indecisive and lukewarm at best.

- - - Updated - - -


Depends on the license.
An offshore innovate license covers all phases:
Phase A is a period for carrying out geotechnical studies and geophysical data reprocessing;
Phase B is a period for undertaking seismic surveys and acquiring other geophysical data; and
Phase C is for drilling.
If Total is part of this you can be pretty sure they went for this and not just surveying.

True. That's why the march is needed. Continuing to push labour since the Tories won't and Lib Dems can not without being in coalition with labour.

- - - Updated - - -

Our Communist party in Greece has had a couple of leaders say that they are not ever interested in governing (which imo should immediately disqualify them as a party; if they are only there for protesting, they can do that outside parliament too). I think the far left realizes their solutions would be destructive because the global community would react badly and all countries depend on FDI to some extent so even if they are workable they are better not practiced.

- - - Updated - - -



They are not. I mean the message the UK government projects is that it will not erect any NBTs towards EU goods, likely because they know they cannot replace them and adding NBTs in addition to the inevitable tariffs would make it impossible for them to process imports in any semblance of timeliness.
In short they are sacrificing their new trading position because they simply don't have the competencies in place to exploit it.

Does the KKE even exist anymore? I heard the split years back with the younger joining Syriza with just a few oldies hoping for a revival.

[Nigel Tufnel]

LAB are gearing up for a GE.

Care to tell me what their position is on Brexit? I'm a little confused.

[Kallisto]

Care to tell me what their position is on Brexit? I'm a little confused.

Let the Tories hand themselves I think is the only thing the party can agree on. Plus remaining in the single market.

- - - Updated - - -

What? No, Syriza has nothing to do with the KKE which still gets elected every election with nearly the same percentage. Syriza itself was original Synaspismos which was (and still is) an alliance of smaller parties from the left. There are a large number of far left parties that have split off the KKE but none of them are electable and they have been around for longer than I have (Trotskists, Marxists, Leninists that I know off, most don't have a representative where I vote).

Eh must have misunderstood what my cousin told me then.

[Pann]

Care to tell me what their position is on Brexit? I'm a little confused.

Isn't like most of their policies in so much as what the government is doing is crap and they would do it differently but they won't actually tell you one way or the other what they would do?

[Nigel Tufnel]

Isn't like most of their policies in so much as what the government is doing is crap and they would do it differently but they won't actually tell you one way or the other what they would do?

Constructive ambiguity, I think it's called.

The basic point is that Labour, in a similar manner to the Tories, is deeply divided.

Deeply divided is splitting an infinitive but divided deeply sounds a bit like a Working Title romcom.

[Slant]

Isn't like most of their policies in so much as what the government is doing is crap and they would do it differently but they won't actually tell you one way or the other what they would do?

I mean, the tactic works... all you have to do is for people to get sick of the Government, turn around and vote you instead. And then you get some 6-10 years of pretty much free reign and fucking things up until the same thing happens vice versa. And since there's no alternative to this charade, it can go on forever without actually accomplishing anything useful. It's quite marvelous, really. If you think about it.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Care to tell me what their position is on Brexit? I'm a little confused.

I think their official position is "the Tories made this problem to sort out their own internal issues and made a giant mess of it. Now they can't decide what they want between themselves, and anything they do decide doesn't survive contact with the EU or ERG. So let's leave them to it, and wait to pick up the pieces once they make a complete pigs ear of the whole thing".

I'd certainly be happier for them to pick a position and stick to it, but you can see why tactically they've decided to step back and leave the Tories to it. They've decided to kill a chicken by aiming a gun at their own foot. No point deciding how you're going to kill that chicken until they've finished.

[Demolitia]

I mean, the tactic works... all you have to do is for people to get sick of the Government, turn around and vote you instead. And then you get some 6-10 years of pretty much free reign and fucking things up until the same thing happens vice versa. And since there's no alternative to this charade, it can go on forever without actually accomplishing anything useful. It's quite marvelous, really. If you think about it.

How do we solve this? What's the solution to ensure career politicians focus on policy and not so much politics/tactics-to-ensure-they-get-reelected? Or the solution to get rid of career politicians? crowd source policy making? I'm only half joking here. We will have to find an alternative to this charade at some point.

[Pann]

I think their official position is "the Tories made this problem to sort out their own internal issues and made a giant mess of it...

How does that work? Were Labour MPs not part of 544 votes to pass the EU Referendum Act or something?

[Dhrizzle]

Care to tell me what their position is on Brexit? I'm a little confused.

Corbyn was reluctantly against Brexit for pragmatic reasons, meaning he would have liked the UK out of the EU if it didn't mean we would all be worse off. He's personally against the idea of a second referendum but put the idea to a vote at the Labour Party conference where members overwhelmingly supported keeping a second referendum on the table in the event of MPs being deadlocked over the EU deal.

[Slant]

How do we solve this? What's the solution to ensure career politicians focus on policy and not so much politics/tactics-to-ensure-they-get-reelected? Or the solution to get rid of career politicians? crowd source policy making? I'm only half joking here. We will have to find an alternative to this charade at some point.

Don't ask me, I don't know British politics half as good as the British here. And they haven't found a solution. I doubt I'm qualified to make any sensible suggestions. But I do know that I would prefer to get rid of FPTP first thing. And get away from this focus on two parties only. The smaller parties influence actual politics in pluralistic Parliaments. And even if you only have 12% of the vote, you can enter a coalition and shape the next term with the ruling party. Perhaps think about having more secret ballots so MPs can actually vote what they believe in rather than having whips keep them in line.

[Huehuecoyotl]

How does that work? Were Labour MPs not part of 544 votes to pass the EU Referendum Act or something?

Once again, the referendum came about because of Tory divisions. Maybe Labour wanted to cut the legs out from under UKIP as well, but primarily it was the Tories trying to clean house. Labour would have seen that as an opportunity to keep Tory divisions at the top of the political agenda, and maybe saw the referendum as a chance to force a split in the Tory party.

It's a flaw in our politics, I will admit, but the FPTP system means that causing damage to your single viable opponents improves your own chance of gaining power immensely. They would have been fools not to allow the process to continue with the Tories taking ownership of the whole thing.

[Pann]

Once again, the referendum came about because of Tory divisions. Maybe Labour wanted to cut the legs out from under UKIP as well, but primarily it was the Tories trying to clean house. Labour would have seen that as an opportunity to keep Tory divisions at the top of the political agenda, and maybe saw the referendum as a chance to force a split in the Tory party.

It's a flaw in our politics, I will admit, but the FPTP system means that causing damage to your single viable opponents improves your own chance of gaining power immensely. They would have been fools not to allow the process to continue with the Tories taking ownership of the whole thing.

Did it? The referendum would not have be able to go ahead without Parliament passing the EU Referendum Act 2015 and whilst Labour would not have able to stop it if all Tories had voted in favour they did not even try to do so and by and large supported the act. To place the blame for referendum solely at the feet of the Tories when Labour were themselves in favour of it is somewhat misleading.

Ah, so there we have it. Party before country.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Did it? The referendum would not have be able to go ahead without Parliament passing the EU Referendum Act 2015 and whilst Labour would not have able to stop it if all Tories had voted in favour they did not even try to do so and by and large supported the act. To place the blame for referendum solely at the feet of the Tories when Labour were themselves in favour of it is somewhat misleading.

Ah, so there we have it. Party before country.

It's not misleading at all, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest that it is. This was a Tory problem, and the referendum was a Tory solution to that Tory problem. Sure you can argue that it isn't a good thing that a political party takes advantage of the flaws of the opposition at the potential expense of the country, but that is 100% down to our FPTP system that effectively makes it a two party state. The blame for the referendum sits entirely with the Tories. They started it, they own it. The worst charge you can level against Labour is that they got out of the way and let the Tories get themselves in the mess they now find themselves.

And in case there is any doubt, if the Tories hadn't pushed for this, do you believe there was even the slightest chance of Labour suggesting a referendum on whether we should leave the EU? No, of course there wasn't. There wasn't even a suspicion of it. They didn't suggest it, want it or support the concept of leaving. It all comes back to the Tories, and trying to spread blame at this point feels desperate from where I'm sitting.

[Pann]

It's not misleading at all, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest that it is. This was a Tory problem, and the referendum was a Tory solution to that Tory problem. Sure you can argue that it isn't a good thing that a political party takes advantage of the flaws of the opposition at the potential expense of the country, but that is 100% down to our FPTP system that effectively makes it a two party state. The blame for the referendum sits entirely with the Tories. They started it, they own it. The worst charge you can level against Labour is that they got out of the way and let the Tories get themselves in the mess they now find themselves.

And in case there is any doubt, if the Tories hadn't pushed for this, do you believe there was even the slightest chance of Labour suggesting a referendum on whether we should leave the EU? No, of course there wasn't. There wasn't even a suspicion of it. They didn't suggest it, want it or support the concept of leaving. It all comes back to the Tories, and trying to spread blame at this point feels desperate from where I'm sitting.

Yes it is. If it is/was just a Tory problem then why was Nick Clegg suggesting an EU referendum in 2008? Why did Labour support the Referendum Bill in 2015 if it was a Tory problem? And why won't Labour come out against it now?

No matter how much you try to spin it, Labour did not get out of the way. They helped the Referendum Act pass. They supported it.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in trying to pin all the blame on the Tories for putting their own self interests before the interests of the country whilst excusing and even cheering on Labour for doing exactly the same?

[Huehuecoyotl]

Yes it is. If it is/was just a Tory problem then why was Nick Clegg suggesting an EU referendum in 2008? Why did Labour support the Referendum Bill in 2015 if it was a Tory problem? And why won't Labour come out against it now?

No matter how much you try to spin it, Labour did not get out of the way. They helped the Referendum Act pass. They supported it.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in trying to pin all the blame on the Tories for putting their own self interests before the interests of the country whilst excusing and even cheering on Labour for doing exactly the same?

The Tories decided to do something that could damage the country to solve an issue in their own party. Labour didn't stop them, even assuming they could have. Suggesting that those two things are equivalent is absurd. Which is why I suggested that you were being disingenuous. I don't believe that you can't see the false equivalence, so you must have other reasons for pushing this line.

[Pann]

The Tories decided to do something that could damage the country to solve an issue in their own party. Labour didn't stop them, even assuming they could have. Suggesting that those two things are equivalent is absurd. Which is why I suggested that you were being disingenuous. I don't believe that you can't see the false equivalence, so you must have other reasons for pushing this line.

The picture you're trying paint is not a true reflection of reality. It's an abstract.

No matter how many times you claim otherwise Brexit is not a left or right issue, Tory or Labour. It never has been. If it was just a Tory problem then with just a slim 12 seat majority they would never have had a chance of passing the referendum act through parliament.

It would have been in Labour's interests to frustrate and block the bill whilst watching the Tories tear themselves apart over Europe, as they did in the 90s. But they didn't. They didn't even register an objection. They, like the majority of MPs, supported the bill wholeheartedly.

They supported the bill because the same divisions over Europe existed within the Labour party. They supported it because they were under just as big a threat as the Cons from losing votes to UKIP.

They supported it because it was in their interests to do so.

Just as it is now in their interests (which they once again put before those of country) to snipe from the sidelines and attempt to throw spanner after spanner into the works, regardless of whether this hinders the UK or not, whilst trying to pin all the blame on the Tories.