Despite the right-leaning part of the press talking up their every move - the Mail telling readers “The 'Three Brexiteers' look to be getting on swimmingly after Cabinet meeting” is typical - the troika of David Davis, Liam Fox and Boris Johnson is discovering that its campaign to disengage Britain from the EU is developing not necessarily to its advantage.
The future of your country is in their hands. Seriously
After Davis declared that it was “very improbable” that Britain would remain a member of the Single Market, he was almost immediately slapped down by Theresa May, who insisted “the Brexit Secretary had been 'setting out his view' rather than describing government policy”. She would be “ambitious” in seeking “the best deal possible” for Britain. Davis would have had good reason to resign. He did not.
That demonstrates the weakness of the “Three Brexiteers”: were any or all of Davis, Fox and Johnson to resign, nobody would defend them, far less be sad to see them go, save their pals in the press, and even there the enthusiasm is beginning to wane. It’s going to wane rather more after the second member of the triumvirate, Liam Fox, had a moment of delusion that put Davis’ experience very much in the shade.
The BBC, probably briefed by Fox or someone in close proximity to him, told “The UK is to begin preliminary talks with Australia about the outline of a future free trade deal between them … Officials will meet twice a year to discuss the parameters of what both sides said they hoped would be an ‘ambitious and comprehensive’ deal … Australia has been earmarked by the UK as its first post-Brexit trade partner … International Trade Secretary Liam Fox and his counterpart Steven Ciobo said they shared a ‘strong political commitment’ to trade liberalisation”. And then came the fall.
Along came the deeply subversive Guardian to inject a little of that inconvenient real world analysis: “No free trade deal until Brexit settled, says Australian minister … Steven Ciobo introduces more cautious tone after Canberra previously promoted idea of a bilateral deal when UK leaves EU”. So there isn’t going to be a quick deal.
It gets worse. Ciobo has also reminded Britain of its place in the queue: “He confirmed that Australia would conclude its trade deal with the EU before concluding one with the UK. ‘That’s a consequence of the fact that discussions with the European Union are more advanced than they are with the UK,’ he said”. Compare that to Daniel Hannan’s dishonest claim that “Australia has been talking about trade with the EU for years and getting nowhere”. Those on the Europhobic right sharing in the same delusion.
Fox is talking up deals that are no more than what IT professionals call Vapourware. Johnson is dogged by questions about his past tendency to speak impolitely of those with whom he is now going to have to negotiate. And Davis’ claim that “within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, and therefore before anything material has changed, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU” has been shown to be the stuff of fantasy. “The Three Brexiteers” are a laughing stock.
If only Parliament had a united, focused and credible opposition. Just a thought.
19 comments:
Compo, Clegg, and Foggy.
Oh Saint Theresa, I pray to Thee to make Tim, a sad and sorry unBeleaver, one with the Holy Trinity of Boris, Liam and David and to make the scales fall from his eyes so that he can see unto the golden uplands of Brexit.
Cheers
Neil
@ Arnold
Can't be Clegg, he's not a Gove fan apparently. I suspect they all be a clone of Foggy ie they are blundering into unforseen territory.
According to David Allen Green there will also be a hiatus caused by the timing of the next election, from his Twitter feed:
"Just love the paradox that any attempt to bring Brexit forward from 2020 will involve budget negotiations that could delay it beyond 2020."
176 retweets 160 likes
Ah yes. A united, credible, focussed opposition.
When you think how just such a thing would pi** all over these time-wasting dreamers, you do want to just cry - or move to a more rational part of the world.
Why the complaints?
Democracy has spoken. They were elected.
Everyone knows this is a wonderful country with the best form of government ever conceived.
It must be so, because the three subjects keep telling us so.
Rule Britannia.
"If only Parliament had a united, focused and credible opposition. Just a thought."
And a fine thought it is too.
The New Labour motley crew have a lot to answer for. Not that they will: They have their own axe to grind - and it has nothing to do with unity or honouring and maintaining the party's founding principles. But everything to do with their own disgusting and dishonest petty "careers."
Utterly dishonourable the lot of them. They even voted against the original proposal to hold an inquiry into the Iraq war.
So if it's unity you're after......get shut of less than two hundred New Labour MPs. After all, it's them who try to disregard the democratic wishes of the party members they're supposed to represent. It's them who supported the illegal invasions and mass murders which reduced many areas of the Middle East to rubble. It's them who supported slow privatisation of the NHS. It's them who "lost" Scotland. It's them who are tories in all but name.
Just another thought.
Are we still blaming New Labour for all of the Labour parties problems? We don't think that the guy currently polling 60 points behind May might have something to do with it? That maybe holding a press conference involving half of UB40 isn't the best way to get the non-voting members of the public engaged in politics?
I know where this is going, but...
"After all, it's them who try to disregard the democratic wishes of the party members they're supposed to represent."
MPs aren't there to represent members of the Labour Party. They are there to represent the views of their constituents, of which some (but not all) will have voted Labour at the last general election, and the vast, vast, VAST majority of which will not be members of the Labour Party.
Labour have 230 MPs. I'd be fascinated to hear how getting rid of 200 of them helps the party.
"I'd be fascinated to hear how getting rid of 200 of them helps the party."
Certainly.
As you're about to find out, the overwhelming majority of party members will reject the New Labour candidate Owen Smith. (That's the one who was employed as a drugs company lobbyist - in case you don't know who is who).
That being the case, getting rid of the New Labour gang will mean they can be replaced by candidates more representative of the party' members wishes. Which, in case you missed that too, is one of the bedrocks of democracy.
You're welcome.
(PS Knowing the kind of "tactics" employed by your type, it's no surprise you selectively avoid all mention of the New Labour horrors that brought the party to the last two election results. But then again, like McTernan, it's not your purpose to do anything other than to try to sabotage the present leadership. Which is why, if you're a party member, you'll be no loss if you leave. And if you're NOT a party member - who cares? It will be rebuilt without your "help" either way. Likely it will take years after the damage caused by New Labour anyway.)
The three ageist brexiteers.
Corbyn has lost the confidence of every living former labour leader, nearly all meps, mps, city mayors, regional leaders and most cllrs. Some are New Labour, most aren't. I agree with virtually all his policies, but he's a hopeless leader, poor public speaker and completely unelectable. He has the worst personal ratings since records began and is toxic to white working class voters. He is on record as supporting giving the Falklands to Argentina, Northern Ireland to the Republic, leaving nato, not limiting immigration, not shooting rampaging terrorists. Try selling that on a council estate!
Are you seriously arguing that getting rid of 80% of democratically elected Labour MPs (and elected in the last year no less) and then replacing them with people chosen by the party members is any sort of way to run a political party? Do you really think that MPs should put the will of Party Members over their own constituents?
And I didn't mention anything about the New Labour "horrors" that apparently cost them the last two elections, because I don't believe that. Most evidence shows Labour had trouble because the public stopped trusting them with economic matters, amoungst other things. If it was disgust at New Labour in general, why'd they elect them 3 times in a row?
Corbyn is 60 points behind May. He is polling badly amoungst people who didn't vote in the last election, so he's not going to bring anyone new in. And his apparent refusal to condemn Brexit has alienated a large number of people who'd quite like to stay in the EU thank you very much. I'm not sure how much more he can do before everyone agrees that this isn't working. But then I suspect you're the same guy who argued that the minimum wage and the Good Friday Agreement have made no difference to anyone's lives, so I really am not expecting any sort of coherent argument.
(still, if we're playing this game...)
"New Labour candidate Owen Smith. (That's the one who was employed as a drugs company lobbyist - in case you don't know who is who)."
Sorry, my mistake. I get him mixed up with the one who takes money from regimes that torture journalists and hang gay men.
"... I get him mixed up with the one who takes money from regimes that torture journalists and hang gay men."
Yes, that will be the same New Labour who sold weapons of mass destruction to Saudi Arabia. That is the same Saudi Arabia who use them to massacre Houthis in Yemen.
Yes, the same New Labour who engaged directly in mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents in the Middle East and created the current refugee disaster running into millions.
Yes, the same New Labour who continued privatisation of the NHS and decimation of social housing.
Yes, the same New Labour who said they "Abolished boom and bust." A mere six months before almost everybody went, er, bust.
Yes, the same New Labour who ignored the thieves and robbers of Canary Wharf.
Yes, the same New Labour who failed to repeal tory neo-fascist anti-union legislation.
Yes, the same New Labour who intensified the PFI scams.
Yes, the same New Labour who failed to reverse growing social inequalities.
Yes, the same New Labour who failed to reverse impoverishment of whole regions of the country.
Then again, they only had thirteen years to take action. By then the electorate had finally twigged New Labour was actually a massive con trick perpetrated by spivs, liars and mass murderers. And took action accordingly.
Your kind of "reasoning" is the kind that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, that eliminates any concept of right and wrong in favour of what works in a rigged system, all of it to eventually continue the same disgusting corruption.
But I don't expect you will understand that.
Which is why, since you are a modular right wing internet troll, you will get no more responses from me. But do carry on - people like you guarantee the crunch will come sooner rather than later.
Basically, what Will said. You can be the kindest, most honourable politician there is, but if you can't lead you have no business being a leader.
Ironically, not being that keen on the EU is probably the policy that would most endear Corbyn to council estate voters. Unfortunately everything else is too toxic for it to have an effect.
@ LiamKav
"Some are born great leaders, some achieve great leadership, and some have leadership thrust upon 'em"
We appear to have lost the first two in the UK and the third doesn't make up for it.
@Rob
It's not that Corbyn didn't want to be leader (although if that were true, he probably shouldn't have run). As you say, you can have it thrust upon you and turn out to be great. But that hasn't happened in this case. Over the past year, it's gone from "well, this could shake up politics in an interesting way" to "oh god please make it stop!"
@Anon
You make a sneery comment about how Smith used to work as a drugs company lobyist, a point which is completely irrelevent. I point out that Corbyn also has negative points in his past. And somehow that turns in to "here is a list of the bad things the Labour party has ever done"?
So, once again:
If you think the public turned against Labour because of the war, or because of the increasing wage gap, or because social mobility had stalled, then they wouldn't have voted in the Tory party. But they did. And they did so because it was believed that Labour couldn't be trusted with the economy.
Jeremy Corbyn is currently doing appallingly in the polls. He is disliked compared to May by every age bracket over 25. The argument that "he's getting new people interested in politics" doesn't work, as he is polling badly amoungst those who didn't vote last year. He is not connecting with working-class voters, and the middle-classes are getting increasingly put off by his handing the EU debate over to the right-wing of the Tory party.
There were several problems with Blair and Brown's government. However, a Tory government is much, much worse than that. And Corbyn is incapable of standing up to them. That is what is so bad about him, and I haven't seen any actual arguments to counter that.
@LiamKav said..
Jeremy Corbyn is currently doing appallingly in the polls. He is disliked compared to May by every age bracket over 25. The argument that "he's getting new people interested in politics" doesn't work, as he is polling badly amoungst those who didn't vote last year. He is not connecting with working-class voters, and the middle-classes are getting increasingly put off by his handing the EU debate over to the right-wing of the Tory party.
Why is that?
It might be because the voting majority are people who sit in their living rooms and rely on MSM type news.
What do they see? lots of negative stories on Corbyn who has been targeted and slagged off from day one. They really went out on a limb to destroy him.But it's OK. Guido likes him but can't seem to work his magic...Maybe his magic wand is broke???
Again @LiamKav said.......There were several problems with Blair and Brown's government. However, a Tory government is much, much worse than that. And Corbyn is incapable of standing up to them. That is what is so bad about him, and I haven't seen any actual arguments to counter that.
Why does he need to stand up to them? It's the puppeteers that are getting in the way.
The Tories, as with any government or party should be left to their own devices to govern without bribes and brown envelopes or blackmail.
YOU with your money , or YOU with your newspapers or even YOU with your business or YOU with your MBE or other badges.
"It might be because the voting majority are people who sit in their living rooms and rely on MSM type news."
I've heard this argument lots, that the "MSM" are unfair to Corbyn. Unfortunately the answer is "tough shit". That's the media we've got. It's the media we are going to have for the next few years, as the Tories certainly aren't going to change it. A Labour leader has to figure out how to either use the media or beat it, and Corbyn is doing neither.
I'm not quite sure on your second point. Corbyn can't stand up to May because there are people giving bribes in the way?
Anybody who trusts or believes word of mainstream media and its front men is a complete and utter idiot.
Which is why we have the kind of gerrymandered far right shit society we presently endure.
And why we have a government wanted by less than 75% of registered voters.
If people won't engage they deserve everything they get. Or, in this case, don't get.
But everything will be OK if we get a strong leader. Or something.
Post a Comment