No he didn't, he resigned. He was undermined by May and Robbins so the deal wasn't his.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I think you do actually know that.
Printable View
No he didn't, he resigned. He was undermined by May and Robbins so the deal wasn't his.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I think you do actually know that.
I think he does as well, but here's the Raab resignation letter to May.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
Dear Prime Minister,
It has been an honour to serve in your government as Justice Minister, Housing Minister and Brexit Secretary.
I regret to say that, following the Cabinet meeting yesterday on the Brexit deal. I must resign. I understand why you have chosen to pursue the deal with the EU on the terms proposed, and I respect the different views held in good faith by all of our colleagues.
For my part, I cannot support the proposed deal for two reasons. First I believe that the regulatory regime proposed for Northern Ireland presents a very real threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom.
Second, I cannot support an indefinite backstop arrangement, where the EU holds a veto over our ability to exit. The terms of the backstop amount to a hybrid of the EU Customs Union and Single Market obligations. No democratic nation has ever signed up to be bound by such an extensive regime, imposed externally without any democratic control over the laws to be applied, nor the ability to decide to exit the arrangement. That arrangement is now also taken as the starting point for negotiating the Future Economic Partnership. If we accept that, it will severely prejudice the second phase of negotiations against the UK.
Above all, I cannot reconcile the terms of the proposed deal with the promises we made to the country in our manifesto at the last election. This is, at its heart, a matter of public trust.
I appreciate that you disagree with my judgment on these issues. I have weighed very carefully the alternative courses of action which the government could take, on which I have previously advised. Ultimately, you deserve a Brexit Secretary who can make the case for the deal you are pursuing with conviction. I am only sorry, in good conscience, that I cannot.
My respect for you and the fortitude you have shown in difficult times, remains undimmed.
So if Raab had been happy with it, he wouldn't have felt compelled to resign so that he could then vote against the deal he was in charge of negotiating.
I suggest that Corbyn is in a similar position. If he's happy with a renegotiated deal, he'll ask people to support it.
Actually you are wrong Noel.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
If Raab had been happy with the deal he would have voted for it.
If Labour negotiate a deal, they are saying they will STILL recommend Remain. It's bonkers.
The two things are quite different.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
The deal that was agreed by the Government with the EU was not negotiated by Raab. He was supplanted by May and Robbins, who agreed to things that Raab couldn't. Hence Raab resigned.
The Labour position appears to be that they will negotiate and agree a deal with the EU. They will then hold a referendum on the agreement they have reached with the EU but then campaign against it. You don't think that's bizarre?
Raab's position would only be the same as that of Labour if last year he had not resigned but signed off on the agreement with the EU and then subsequently campaigned against it. But that's not what happened.
I've been following wit interest and while I am not taking any sides here and remain in a position of uncertainty and confusion:Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever
This sounds like Labour wants a particular outcome (i.e. to remain in the EU) but are hedging their bets so that in the event that a referendum still means leaving the EU that at least they have a deal they can live with.
Gosh, that's a tumbling sentence, hope I made myself clear :)
Also, if the deal is made in advance, at least this time the referendum would be on an actual thing instead of vague nebulosity and an overabundance of BS!
I've watched quite a bit here.
Even on Politics Live now with Andrew Neil we have a Labour MP and Jo Swinson LibDem leader and it's clear they are playing politics.
The Labour MP indicated she would NOW support the Withdrawal Agreement if it was brought back for the 4th time having voted against it three times "for the right reasons".
Rather strange as her party policy is currently to renegotiate it - something at the same time they say is not possible n:confused:
Swinson - I will not support a GE until we have this Act in place.
Neil - so on Monday will you support a GE when you have this in place?
Jo Swinson - no as we cannot be sure of the Election date.
Neil - so if you can get a lock of 15th October on a GE you will support a GE.
Swinson - No
There's a reason of course.
Since Johnson won the leadership the polls have changed. There is every chance that he would still be PM after an Oct 15th General Election and with a majority and/or with some Brexit Party MPs.
Labour want to try and damage him - and if they can cause an extension, they believe it will harm Johnson and they may be right.
What they fail to see is how it will also hit them, especially away from London and the metropolitan boroughs.
They'll (Labour back-bench and remainer types, SNP. LibDem) try and hang on until after conference season, but I suspect Corbyn might bite.
I think it's more a rather confused attempt to reconcile the different Brexit positions in their party. Most of the Labour party MP's and members want to Remain. But a minority like Corbyn would prefer to Leave. They are also mindful that they have a lot of constituencies where a majority voted to Leave. Constructive ambiguity worked rather well for Labour in 2017 but it will be difficult to repeat the trick this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by DangerMouse
Okies, I see, thank you!
I don't have anything else to add to this at this time and will continue to follow - keep up the discussions - it's good :)