No - he said he would vote against Mrs May's deal - and that if she took the threat of no deal off the table, he would meet with her, which he duly did when she was forced to do so.

And if you believe that everything said in parliament is accurate, you're extremely naïve - that convention died a long time ago.

Mrs May will go to Brussels and get nothing meaningful - meanwhile, Labour has a perfectly workable plan which removes the need for a backstop, that the EU has already indicated it would support; and now, reports suggest that a group of senior Tories are saying the same thing. Quite how Mrs May would spin adopting Corbyn's position is difficult to imagine, but I'm sure the Daily Mail will help pitch it as a triumph or a victory or some other nonsense.

What workable plan do the "everybody out, up yours capitalism, go terrorists" party have?

I was thinking that myself, ive obviously missed something (no surprise there), the last plan I heard from Labour was that nothing was off the table. Oh they have said they want to take our biggest bargaining chip ":No Deal" off the table, which after 2 years is pretty poor, will google Labours position to see if they can find it.

I am traditionally a Labour voter and was made up when they didn't oppose triggering article 50, I even agreed when he said we should be in a customs union (not THE Customs Union) and at the time thought that Corbyn couldn't do right for doping wrong. But I now feel really let down.

It's quite a role reversal, isn't it?!

Must say I’m struggling to see how “no deal” is a bargaining chip for us.

Corbyn’s problem is that his party is almost as divided as the Tories. Both leaders are frightened of losing the support of hard line Brexiters in their own party and amongst the electorate and they don’t have sufficient support to jump one way or the other. It means the whole thing is paralysed.

Apparently there’s no majority for no deal in Parliament but MPs can’t agree what to coalesce around as a compromise. The ERG are clearly nudging the process along with this in mind as it makes “no deal” more likely.

I can see an extension being applied for since more people now seem to think that there isn’t even time before 29 March to bring in required legislation for no deal now.

The only way out of this for me is a three way referendum to decide which version of leave we go for. May’s Deal, No Deal or Norway/Switzerland.

I can see I'm debating with a finely honed political mind here... but nonetheless.

Labour's proposed deal with the EU is and always has been very clearly defined - they would seek to remain in the customs union and single market, because that safeguards jobs, the economy and rights and protections i.e consumer, employment, environment etc.

It removes the need for a backstop, doesn't pander to the xenophobic rush to end FoM, but still honours the result of the referendum; much like Mrs May's crappy deal, it doesn't give everyone everything they want, but since the events of the past 2 years have proven that there is no possible way of delivering a Brexit that does that, it is a plan that the EU can work with, and would probably command a majority in the HoC - and might have the added value of causing the odious JRM and Peter Bone to expire in their seats in a fit of apoplectic rage.

There you go - Brexit done; now we can move on to homelessness, NHS and social care funding crisis, the disaster that is UC, funding for schools, affordable housing etc etc.

It is a bit like threatening to stab yourself in the neck and reminding others that their clothes will be ruined by the arterial splatter, imo.



I read somewhere that the EU feels it dropped the ball on their deal with Switzerland. I can't remember why. Which is maybe why it isn't mentioned often.

We do now, finally, somehow need to make a choice. And tbh, I think it needs to be in parliament at this stage.

I'd vote for that every day and twice on Sunday. However, it is a BRINO and it'd be more than just JRM, my own MP Andrew Bridgen and Bone who'd be angered. We really are screwed every which way.

For me, May's deal with some carved-in-stone guarantees on Labour priorities and everybody (well, enough bodies) swallowing their reservations on the backstop (which does leave us in a weak position for the next stage, I accept) is the best escape route. Best still doesn't necessarily equate to likely or good though, unfortunately.

Yes, all those things the EU & their pesky rules are responsible for causing.....

As would I - and whilst lots of people wouldn't like it, I'd suggest that there would be no more of them than there are people who don't like the current offering; the only difference is that May is, on paper, in the box seat due to being in power (sort of) - hence Labour's longstanding plan that they would, if possible, go for a GE first.

Nonetheless, if she comes back with the same plan with some woolly assurances about the backstop, the HoC will reject it again; at which point, she'd be crazy not to go for a softer, Labour style deal, which will still technically be Brexit, but would a) protect us from the worst economic damage and b) would command a majority in the HoC. I couldn't care less who doesn't like it - just as the Brextremists wouldn't if they got their way.

The message now seems to be "just get on with it" - and the only sensible way to do that, is with a soft Brexit that most MP's can get behind - then it's up to them to justify to their constituents that they honoured the result, whilst protecting the UK from the economic damage of a hard Brexit or no deal.

It was said by both sides during the referendum debate that we will not be able to stay in THE customs union or the single market if we leave the EU. The EU has also confirmed we cannot cherry pick and stay in the customs union and single market without also having freedom of movement. I actually thought that Labour were now saying that we must be in A customs Union, which I agree with. That is why all these alternatives, Norway, Canada etc have been banded around.

If we stay in the customs union how can we have any imput from outside the EU

If THE customs unions and single market is the starting position - there is nothing to stop the final deal being A customs union and 'close alignment' to the SM; it still avoids the backstop, and is a better situation both for the EU migrants that facts have shown we need and benefit from, and UK citizens who live and work in the EU.

You're right that the sticking point is trade deals with other countries under that arrangement; the EU have been flexible in the cases of Turkey and some other countries, but I guess the argument would be about the UK having a "say" in trade deals - exactly what a "say" would mean in legal and political terms, would need to be hashed out as part of a negotiation.

If we get stuck in the backstop, do we get the three freedoms most of our electorate likes, while binning off the one most of it dislikes? Sounds like a good deal!

Fair enough, Liam Fox won't get to jet off to secure us all those amazing trade deals that the EU are unable to get because of reasons. And we'll be bound by rules set by the EU, while not having any representation and I guess we'll continue paying some money in.