andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2019-01-17 11:03 am
danieldwilliam: (Default)

[personal profile] danieldwilliam 2019-01-17 02:43 pm (UTC)(link)

Mostly I agree with that but there is an option 1B. In order to rule out a No Deal Brexit there must either be 1) a Deal or 2) a revocation of Article 50. That Deal doesn't have to be the one that May negotiated, it doesn't have to be one that leaves the confidence and supply agreeement in place, it doesn't have to be one that leaves the Tory Party in existence.

If one is to ascribe some street smarts to Corbyn it might be that his hope is to force May in to a positon where she is stuck between No Brexit and a Deal that will pass the Commons - such as Norway and hopefully destroy the Tory Party in the process.

In order for that to happen he needs to not draw attention to his end game. Hence his silence on what would be the implicit policy of the Labour Party - Single Market or Remain.

Personally I do not ascribe that level of cunning or understanding to Corbyn. I think he is mostly bumbling around, blowing raspberries at the government and trying not to split his own voting base by actually doing anything. But that doesn't stop him lighting by accident on an outcome that I like.
drplokta: (Default)

[personal profile] drplokta 2019-01-17 04:26 pm (UTC)(link)
There’s one way to ensure that the UK definitely leaves, but doesn’t leave without a deal. But that way was voted down by 230 votes two days ago. There’s no other way to do it.