Is Jeremy Corbyn right to insist on ruling out no deal before engaging?

[lazylittlelucy]

I am not a fan of JC and think he has repeatedly fucked up on Brexit but I also think it is IMPERATIVE that we avoid no deal.
Is he right to dig his heels in on this issue or is it just another example of his intransigence?
I'm inclined to think he is right, but are there good reasons why it should not be ruled out?

No. He’s hoping that a No Deal Brexit will bring about the Glorious Revolution and anyone who eats quinoa will be the first against the wall and shot.

I think Corbyn wants a Glorious Revolution and if he gets into power he will set about organising it. Not sure what form it will take but a lot of people will be very nervous about their fate and I think a lot of people will leave the country.

*Lichtie

She can't take no deal off the table. I voted stay, but the majority voted leave. Its her job to ensure that happens, if the EU says no deal is the only deal then her hands are tied... *
Can't we collectively change our minds as more becomes known? If you put in an offer on a house but the survey shows rising damp you withdraw the offer. You don't stubbornly stick to your first decision despite the fact you will end up broke and all your neighbours will hate you and think you're pathetic.

Nonsense, you don't have a clue how Parliament works

Oh trust me I very much do.

She can’t take no-deal off the table, no-deal is the table. No-deal will happen on 29th March automatically if May and Corbyn don’t stop arsing around and sort their shit out.

If Corbyn wanted no-deal off the table that badly he could have voted for May’s deal. The other option is to petition to revoke Article 50. He’s not going to do that either.

I agree with Corbyn and think he’s taken a firm stance. No deal should not even be on the table to start with

What do you even mean by this? No deal is the default. If we don't agree a deal we leave without one, you know like not having a deal being the opposite of having one!

You either have a deal, no deal or revoke A50. He won't negotiate a deal, he wants no deal off the table, so all that's left is revocation of A50. Why won't he just say that? At least the Lib Dems and SNP are saying what they want, which is no Brexit.

To be fair, most MP's want no Brexit, they just don't want to say it because of all the guff about the will of the people. Nobody so far has said loudly enough that it was not the will off all British people, it was 48/52, therefore the deal has to be a compromise and tough shit to the hard brexiteers.

Going no deal has always been our strongest card.

Pretending that true is among UK's worst mistakes. There's no point in an EU that gives more concessions to non-members than to members. Yet still the Brexiters truly believe this can happen. Madness.

As for Corbyn... I'm not a fan of people who refuse to even talk. It's a pathway to No Influence.

No. He can’t tell May to remove her red lines while simultaneously applying his own. Worst Labour Leader Ever.

I think he’s wrong. As others have said I think we need that no deal threat to negotiate with the eu unfortunately. What he should be saying is ‘No talks unless you agree to an extension of article 50’ as cross party talks should have been offered by TM 2.5 years ago, not with 10 weeks left to go. However, I don’t think he’s bothered about Brexit, just about getting into no 10. As said above, he’s sat down for talks with far more morally questionable characters, with nothing off the table. I don’t believe either of TM or JC are putting national interests first, just party interests.

I take the point that ‘we’ve threatened no deal for two years and it’s got us nowhere’ though. I hadn’t thought of it like that.

Well it has, it's got us a negotiated deal, agreed by 27 other countries. The problem is that the brexiteers want a much harder Brexit, preferably no deal and the remain MP's want no Brexit. None of the 3 different things that MP's want are going to win a majority. Its an utter disaster and I have no clue how it will be resolved.

We do not have a deal.
There is no deal.
May has not got any kind of deal.

We have a withdrawal agreement with a backstop that comes into force if we can't negotiate a deal.

We have the prospect of 2+ years of continuing shambles which could still end in a no deal equivalent.

Philip Hammond has assured business leaders that No Deal will be stopped. Is he lying?

I think he's wrong - and also very wrong to insist (try to anyway) that other Labour members mustn't engage either. But Yvette and a few did - so did they have Sir's permission? Shame he did this really - I quite 'liked' him before.

No Deal will be stopped. Is he lying?

Technically no as there isn't a majority in the HoC for it.

It doesn’t matter if there isn’t a majority for No Deal as nothing needs to pass through parliament for it to happen. It will happen unless parliament gets its shit together and passes something else.

And time is ticking.

I’m not sure I believe his claim that ‘lots of front benchers will resign if I back a second referendum’ either.

And so what if they do. I thought they’d agreed at the Labour Party conference in October that they’d back a second referendum if they couldn’t get a general election? And he said earlier this week that the LP was democratic and he would carry out the wishes of the party members (the majority of which are in favour of a second referendum).

He is no more honest or less self-serving than bojo.

Yes, unfortunately there doesn’t need to be support in the HoC for no deal. It will happen by default if nothing else is agreed/art 50 not revoked or extended.

It doesn’t matter if there isn’t a majority for No Deal as nothing needs to pass through parliament for it to happen. It will happen unless parliament gets its shit together and passes something else.

Exactly Noble.

If we take no deal off the table and can't agree on a deal, what happens?

He doesn't like TM's deal, he doesn't want to leave with no deal, but he doesn't want to talk.

What happens depends on what MPs are most afraid of I suspect.

More and mote Labour MPs coming out saying his stance on refusing to meet is stupid.

Not that him, his cult followers or his inner circle will listen, however.

{ As others have said I think we need that no deal threat to negotiate with the eu unfortunately.}
We ARE the EU and it is not 'us against them'.
The WA is only part of a 'deal' which only sets out citizens rights, the exit bill and one other item. All the actual negotiation is yet to come.
The UK is leaving the club and is getting arsey because the EU are refusing to allow the UK to steal the furniture and drinks cabinet on the way out.
The idea that the UK will ever get a 'deal' that is better than all the other members is crazy and stupid to even try.
Politicians in the EU and around the world are thinking what the hell is the UK playing at (the polite version). Many countries, including in the EU itself would love some of the concessions that the UK has and yet we have a bunch if idiots that are refusing to talk, refusing to negotiate and are totally disrespectful of other heads of government.
At the end of the day the UK will have to negotiate properly with the EU, as the UK can't feed itself and the concept of buying it in from the USA or wherever would be cripplingly expensive, even assuming they even had the produce to sell, which they don't.
So yes of course Corbyn should be talking now, he should have been talking years ago.

Backstop was agreed to repeatedly since October 2017 onwards.
Now totally rejected.

We're going to be a nightmare nation for any other country to negotiate with; unless we roll over like doormats, I guess. Knowing UK is unreliable & can't keep our word (seriously considering walking away without paying for commitments = £39bn) means any trade partners will feel less obliged to play fair with us, too.

Mother of all Messes, indeed (The Economist)