Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Corbyn Breaks Down Boris Johnson's 'Terrible' Brexit Deal" video.

the deals under May were not good, Labour was not obstructing. And the governing party had the majority (with an obscure Irish coalition partner, the DUP) so the vote of Labour was not needed / or should not have been needed. That's the point of a coalition, to have the majority in parliament. Problem: among the Tories some did not want to leave while others were more extreme and wanted "hard" Brexit (crashing out). Then the DUP broke away over the Irish border questions. So May was caught between 2 extremes. Now she could have made an arrangement with Labour and say right from the beginning: O.K. I did not vote Leave either, but we have to deliver, lets do this together. That would of course have been a deal with worker's rights, Labour would have had a say and May would have given the opposition some credibility. So she didn't do that (only shortly before she had to step down she tried, but they did not see eye to eye). And giving worker's rights is a hard one, and Labour might have extracted other concessions. But that way she would have gotten a part of her own party and a part of Labour to vote, enough for a majority. The U.K. did not have their own laws regarding worker's rights (and the death penalty is also on the books, although not used, they don't have / use it in EU member states. So automatically EU laws applied in that regard, resp. they U.K. had to adapt their laws (so you can clearly see the tryanny the EU imposed on the UK citizens by forcing worker's rights on them). And frankly any tolerable deal (not doing too much harm) would be Brexit-in-name-only / soft brexit. Accepting all the rules, paying, but no say anymore. There a little pockets of independence so Norway does it (fisheries) or Switzerland.
1
@andrewbellahcene2267 Thanks for the laugh
1
Labour (LaboUr - it is a U.K. party after all) did not negotiate at all, the sitting government did. It was the job of the government to deal with the situation, and they had the majority of MPs in the parliament, that is the reason for having a coalition - or they have the majority of seats. The party with the best result is usually invited to try and form a government, and minority governments have it hard to get anything done. So May had to find a coalition partner or the queen might not have confirmed her government. Then Labour with the next best result would have been invited to try and form a coalition with a majority that can get things done. The snap election of 2017 had not given May MORE MPs as she had hoped, but less. so that did not solve her problem of dissenting MPs but made it worse. Labour did not poll well because of constant backstabbing against the leader. So May thought with a snap election she could exploit that weakness of Labour and win a higher majority. They agreed to have a snap election and had that 8 or 10 weeks later. Labour did much better than expected so Instead she lost seats and needed the DUP MPs (Norther Irland) to just have a majority (more fragile than before). Only that the Tories were also completely split on the issue (before and after the snap election of 2017). and the Irish party had demands regarding the Irish border. The opposition is under no legal or even moral obligation to help the government do their thing, (it is their job to hold the government to account.) Especially not if the gov. tries to push through what would be harmful for the citizens. If May had wanted to get a deal with a part of the Tory MPs and a part or all of Labour MPs she could have had that - but then she would have needed to INVITE Labour into the process and to include them in the formulation of the goals, minimum negotiation result, etc. the negotiations were lead by May - she and her tream travelled to Brussels etc. So no representation of Labour there - that is normal whether she wanted the help of Labour or not. She was the PM of U.K. after all.
1