Jeremy Corbyn has said he is "looking at all the options".

Which in Westminster-speak means he doesn't have the faintest idea where he stands on Brexit, so he's going to sit on the fence for now, then dismount from it when knows what the vox pop is. Jesus christ who are these idiots who claim to govern us.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47477869

But at least the Ministry of Defence is on the ball - it has just announced that of the 4,500 Islamic State fighters who were killed and 700 who were injured in all the sorties carried out in Syria and Iraq, only one civilian was killed - is that amaaaazing or what? And I wonder if he was an Iraqi or a Syrian? The MoD didn't mention that. Anyway here's the link and headline for those who are dumb enough to believe it . . .

"RAF killed '4,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria. The RAF killed or injured 4,315 enemy fighters in Iraq and Syria between September 2014 and January this year, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has said. The MoD said its data came from "the best available post-strike analysis" - video and photos taken from the air."

Well who can possibly argue with that? What better confirmation can there be than post-strike videos and photos taken from RAF bombers departing the scene of the carnage at 20,000 ft and 350mph. But how unlucky was that poor 'civilian': it must be the ultimate example of 'being in the wrong place at the wrong time'?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47477197

 

Jeremy Corbyn may claim to be looking at all the options, but his own personal list of "red lines" would seem to discount most of the "standard" options:

• His long-held commitment to Brexit and government ownership and subsidy of business would rule out Remain
• His opposition to the "four freedoms" would rule out a Norway or Norway Plus deal or anything else which would involve EEA membership
• His insistence that the UK can negotiate separate trade deals with countries which already have trade deals with the EU rules out customs union membership (however much he might huff and puff about it)
• His opposition to a no-deal would rule that out if he were in a position to make a decision

He's left with a "less than customs union" relationship which wouldn't be significantly different to Theresa May's in all the important factors.

He actually seems to have a narrower range of options than Theresa May.

 

They're both incompetent clowns, and an embarrassment to our country.

 

The list of things on which we are likely to agree is probably a short one. This is one of those things on that (probably) short list.

 

'probably' a short one? Indubitably a short one! But I like you!!



2mins 5secs in.

 

It looks to me like Brexit is dead.

Those who assemble in Parliament to collect their tax-funded salary, tax-funded fraudulent expenses, and other revenue streams have seen to that.

Should this be the case, it can mean only one thing: democracy in the UK has been knowingly assassinated.

The future ain't looking great, I have to say.

 

Parliament is stuck between two extremes, the NO Deal Brexit and the NO Brexit. The only way they can find a compromise is by a Norway type deal. That is what Corbyn has suggested Starmer having checked that the EU would find it acceptable. May won't allow a vote....and it is Cameron who is to blame playing with the electorate for Party competitions. Our democracy is already on a very very slim footing.

 

Well summerized!

 

I disagree, there are lots of possible compromises, not just a Norway-style EEA membership arrangement. The problem is that Parliament, who seem clear on a range of things they don't want, cannot agree on what they do want.

Please remember however, without committing to the "four freedoms" EEA membership will be off the table. So far Jeremy Corbyn has been clear that he doesn't want free movement of people.

Sadly I think all of this will result in a no-deal Brexit because that is the default outcome. If parliament continue to fail to agree on what they want, that's what we'll end up with .

 

Yawn..... this has already been over well dealt with in the Wester Europe forum.. It is not a Norway deal but a Norway type deal which has been talked through with the EU as to its acceptability. You just continue to be a broken record on things which have been spoken about time and again because for you the only answer is a No Brexit. I would bet even worse for you than a No Deal would be a successful one delivered by Corbyn's Labour.

 

I don't know why you keep repeating that because you know as well as I do that the scare-mongering and the ongoing PF about high unemployment and fiscal collapse will work like a charm. The political classes and the EU together will frustrate full Brexit and they don't care what the dire repercussions might be; all they need to do is sit it out and at the end of it they'll have exactly what they wanted, ie Brexit by any other name.

 

The four freedoms are a pre-requisite for EEA membership. Any kind of Norway like deal involves EEA membership.

 

Question... what is for you a "full Brexit" by definition Cerberus? Is it another word for "No Deal Brexit" with same meaning at least?

 

If the default outcome was "no-Brexit" then I'd be just as sure that we wouldn't be leaving the EU.

Even if the political classes are against a "full Brexit" (whatever that means), they are deeply divided about what their preferred alternative is, and no one option appears to be able to get the support of 50% of MPs.

• No-Brexit is opposed by both major parties and while there are so-called rebels in each party who would be willing to vote against the whip, unless one or both parties are willing to change their official policy (and manifesto commitment) then any attempt to cancel Brexit will be heavily defeated
• A Norway type arrangement (i.e. EEA membership) will be unacceptable to anyone who does not recognise the "four freedoms". Both Labour and the Conservatives have committed to "taking back control over our borders" so once again, unless one or both parties do a 180 degree turn on manifesto commitments, this is off the cards
• A customs union, is apparently what the Labour Party wants (but the version they appear to want is of the "unicorns and rainbows" type) but that will be opposed by the Conservative Party, DUP, some members of the Labour Party who are more enthusiastic Brexiteers and possibly even some Remainers who think that it's not a close enough relationship
• A "less than customs union" (i.e. a Theresa May deal-alike) has already been repeatedly rejected

No one positive course of action can gain the support of more than 50% of MPs. While they may be not be willing to vote to have a no-deal Brexit, they equally are not willing to vote for any of the alternatives.

 

Well observed!

None of the versions has any majority and that across all parties in your parliament. Regarding a regulation you are ... sorry ... completely incapacitated and the clock is ticking!

Since I've been following the whole thing since the referendum in 2016 in all sorts of information sources and media, I have to conclude from the facts and so seriously ask why you British have been wasting the time so much since the start of the exit negotiations ... instead of a reasonable divorce treaty which both sides - EU and UK - can accept?

No, I do not let myself go over the meaning or nonsense of Brexit itself ... that's over. But it is still amusing and amazing, I find so many dream thinking and wishful thinking, which actually exist seriously in the UK. For example, I keep hearing and reading from the "No Deal" faction that there are WTO rules that would then apply. Yes ... so far, but has one of these gentlemen seriously, and not just superficially concerned, what that means for you British everything and how it will then (probably) be in the future?

 

I have provided you with information of what he is doing which is not a Norway but a similar. I have provided you with information that Starmer has checked with the EU and that they have said that this is something new which they would be willing to discuss which looks promising. Revier has told you that contrary to your beliefs Corbyn does not have a problem with immigration. He does have a problem with immigration which is handled in a way which is not good for British workers but through Starmer they are working to find a way which will be acceptable both to the EU and to the UK. You deny this all the time. It is your word against, Reiver, Starmer, and the EU and the author of the original article I gave you on what Starmer is up to. You believe you know more about what Starmer is doing than he does. You believe you know more about what the EU finds acceptable than the EU does. You are denying reality and you are doing it again and again. I have never known anyone except a troll be such a broken record and ignore what has said and quotes given. I had not thought you were a troll.

 

Allowing people in who can vacancies which cannot be filled locally is not the same as free movement of people - it's the same rules Germany currently applies to non-EU workers.

You have not provided me with any kind of information regarding the EU's comments regarding Starmer's position. You did provide a piece in from the Daily Mail in which they were attempting to frighten their readership by portraying comments that Starmer made in an interview about allowing work visas for people filling jobs which could not be filled locally as being the thin end of the wedge that could lead to a Norway style deal - but nothing more.

Without the four freedoms there is no EEA membership which is the key component of any "Norway-like" deal. Starmer has said a lot about customs unions but that's a very long way short of anything Norway-like - more Turkey-like.

 

Well, the UK is a monarchy after all.
Perhaps it's time for the queen to step in.

 

Exactly that - no patriot wants his country to be governed by a bunch of foreigners, especially foreign bureaucrats - and especially the two current stooges . . . and especially Tusk! God how I hate him.

Next question?

 

Poor ol' Brenda doesn't even know what 'Brexit' means.

 

FFS it means self-government and full sovereignty, not rule by self-serving foreigners.

 

I see you understand why Scotland needs Independence It is already obvious that the UK is going to have far less freedom over how it governs itself if it goes out on a No Deal. We have seen how the US would like the British Public to have rights to information taken away in any deal and also that it would like to be able to give information they manage to get on British citizens to other countries. There is more but there is little question that the UK will become not just the poodle of the US, but one on hard lead all the time who will find it extremely difficult to escape. Talk of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire....and all this time there are people working to democratise the EU from within.

 

And here I am thinking that all the incompetent clowns are in Australia......

 

Yes, but it's difficult to know what that actually means beyond the soundbite. For example, entering any kind of international agreement involves some loss of sovereignty, or perhaps more accurately a sharing of sovereignty. By signing up to the Geneva Convention, the UK "lost" its sovereign right to torture prisoners of war. Now that may be a right that we're happy to give up but unless the UK refuses to enter any international agreements, or trade deals or any other multi party arrangement, to a lesser or greater extent we lose the right to do whatever we want, whenever we want to.

 

Maybe my theory about the entire western world becoming dysfunctional is wrong - maybe it's the entire
English-speaking world? There does seem to be a pattern.