Monday, 11 February 2019

Corbyn and May must do a deal

They really must, Corbyn who I very much doubt understands the letter he signed to the Prime Minster, has actually come quite a long way towards a deal. Of the 5 points he rises, May already agrees on around 3 of them and the only real sticking point is on membership of the customs union and single market.


Of course, by staying in those we are not really leaving the EU, but are in spirit - but as we all now know, the UK did that a long time ago - the last couple of years are the messy, legalistic end of the divorce, not the flame out of romance in the relationship.


However, there are top reasons for a May-Corbyn deal. After all, the Maybot's plans is over, her utterly disastrous negotiation strategy has moved the UK close to a very economic challenging hard Brexit. For this, she needs to go. Corbyn too has been useless as of course he is too thick to understand anything complex and would rather be on a march singing a song about world hunger or bee population decline.


But a May-Corbyn deal to avoid hard Brexit would of course be toxic for both. May for betraying her already ungrateful party and Corbyn because his loony cult followers never tire of saying no deal must ever be done with evil Tories - let alone a deal which sees their precious remain dream end.


So would a deal have a very good upside, the end of the useless leadership of both May and Corbyn and also a sub-optimal EU exit - but one will limited short-term economic downside and an Exit at least? 



10 comments:

david morris said...

I stopped reading after "hard Brexit"

andrew said...

Two thoughts
(a)
Boris Johnson and John McDonnell plotting together in a dark, smoke filled room.
... think of the offspring that would come from that
..shudders..

(b)
dirty deals done dirt cheap (ACDC)

Sackerson said...

Get out of the house before the roof falls in:

https://theylaughedatnoah.blogspot.com/2019/02/supercrash-euro-is-organized-madness.html

DJK said...

The upside will be the collapse of the Tory party (think Canada's Progressive Conservatives, in 1993), aided by an outflanking manoeuvre from Fatage's Brexit party.

Devil's Kitchen said...

I could not disagree more. No Deal is now the only viable option: yes, it will hurt economically but Brexit was never about economics.

If we are to escape the clutches of the EU’s version of the vampire squid—and we must—getting the hell out, properly, is the imperative.

DK

BlokeInBrum said...

Corbin wants out (for all the wrong reasons), but the party supporters dont.
May doesnt appear to want out, and neither do the vast majority of those in her party.

Do you honestly think that a coalition of the hopeless with the deceitful is going to bring about a genuine Brexit?

Until the process is led by people who genuinely want Brexit and the best for British citizens, we are going we are going to be continually led down the garden path by politicians (i almost said people!).

On this issue there is no compromise to be had - we are either in or out.
And the voters said OUT!

jim said...

I doubt Corbyn cares what sort of Leave we do, just so long as he is not blamed for the screw-up. Mrs May's deal is marginally 'better' from the screw-up angle so Corbyn might play along so long as he does not admit it.

What is missing from this whole mess is any image of what sort of country we want to be say 5 years after we leave. Any prat can 'Leave' but what do you do when you have left?

Some sort of 1950s poverty but without the hope of better times. Most of us working as gardeners and housemaids for a global elite. Our do-nothing-useful approach looks set to take us down that route. A country of museums and unhappy rustics. But Jacob would be happy.

Or do we expect to be a New Singapore. All sparkling stainless steel and glass with well paid workers who know how to behave. We have a long way to go to reach anything like this. Public housing (nice and not-so-nice), shiny railways, wall to wall concrete and tarmac. Useful and bracing actin will be required and I am not sure the population signed up for the full implications. The not-so-well-paid workers and non workers may not think so much of this, but they won't matter.

BlokeInBrum said...

At the end of the day, there is a whole world out there to trade with.
Either we are competitive and have something to trade, or we aren't.
Shackling ourselves to the rotting carcass of the EU isn't going to change that.
I'm currently in Ireland and they have a whole host of social issues here.
Average rents in the Dublin area are now over €1600 and increasing rapidly, around 5-8% annually.
They have an ongoing nursing strike and catastrophic cost overuns on a new Children's hospital for which no one wants to take responsibility.
To think Ireland is the land of milk and honey is mistaken. There are plenty of structural problems here.
I knew when I voted to leave that there was a substantial potential that we would end up less well off in the shirt to mid term. But not everything is purely about economics.

"For what profits a man if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul”

AndrewZ said...

I voted leave and I agree that it’s not about economics. But there are two objections to the argument that the economic risks are worth bearing in order the regain the greatest possible degree of independence.

Firstly, we don’t know just how big the economic impact will be. If it is sufficiently serious then a panicking government may go cap in hand to Brussels to beg for any deal that the EU is minded to offer, and we will end up with something worse than the status quo. Do we really need to make it an “all or nothing” gamble?

Secondly, economic pain means job losses and bankruptcies. Some people would fall into long-term unemployment. Some would lose their homes. Some entrepreneurs who’ve invested years of their lives into building up a successful business would see it all destroyed. What right do any of us have to insist that these life-changing consequences should be imposed on people who don’t support “No Deal” and therefore haven’t consented to the risks?

BlokeInBrum said...

What right do any of us have to insist that these life-changing consequences should be imposed on people who don’t support “No Deal” and therefore haven’t consented to the risks?

When was I offered a choice about accepting large numbers of Kuffar hating Muslims with Rapey predilections?
Must have missed that one out along with the tick box for "rubbing the rights nose in diversity"

I've said before, the whole point of democracy is that when you lose, you concede. That way the winners don't have to pillage your village and kill every male over the age of 12 to make their point.
If the left throw a strop and refuse to accept majority rule except when it suits them, then we will end up reverting to the age old 'might is right' and Britons will revert to a point pre Magna Carta.