Originally Posted by
KerrAvon
So you were wrong when you claimed, that Davis made an ‘exact same benefits’ promise before the referendum? Unfortunately, you are still wrong when you claim that he made a ‘pledge’ shortly after the referendum. There was no pledge and it was seven months after the referendum.
Of course, whether it was weeks or months after the referendum doesn’t really matter - either way, your claim that it was a promise or a pledge (what do you say is the difference?) that influenced our vote to leave the EU cannot be correct can it?
If you open a post with OK, to be precise, it would be helpful if what followed immediately thereafter was accurate.
I’m not that interested in what Starmer said when he announced the six tests; I’m interested in what he is saying now and how it is influencing the actions of the Labour Party. In his speech to the Labour Party conference in September, he said:
So, let me be very clear – right here, right now: If Theresa May brings back a deal that fails our tests – and that looks increasingly likely – Labour will vote against it.
So there you have it, as you have admitted, Labour is hiding the reality of the consequences of it tests and intent upon playing political games. In doing so, they are ignoring the interests of the country and risking a no deal Brexit by using tests that cannot be met short of either staying in the EU or having a deal that involves paying money to the EU, accepting the four freedoms, being subject to the European Court of Justice and above all abiding by EU rules that we will have no say in. That is something that they need to be held to account for.
For the privilege of the deal that it has and which you apparently want this country to emulate, Norway, is the 10th biggest contributor to the EU budget and allows EU trawlers to fish in its waters. I don’t see that as a good outcome. I think you can wish away any seats in fishing ports too – they’ll be going to UKIP.
You appear very confused about what the deal is that was announced last week. It is the withdrawal deal, which is why ‘there is very little about our relationship afterward’. It confirms the end of free movement and the ending of the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies – it isn’t about a continuing relationship save that it provides a ‘backstop’ of country wide membership of the CU until a trade deal is reached, (which, from experience, may take a some time – about ten years for Canada?). To state the obvious for you, nobody is going to know what the final trading arrangement with the EU will be until it has been negotiated.
I feel the same disquiet that many MPs do about the deal, which is that the backstop is not time limited and cannot be unilaterally ended by the UK (of course, in practice it can be, but that might cause some friction with our then former EU partners). That being said, I suspect it is the best that the EU is going to offer -they have already given more than I thought they would – and it is infinitely better than the no deal outcome that Labour is risking with its gaming. It is far less restrictive than the Norwegian model that you favour…
P.s. I don’t feel at all frustrated when people call me a Tory, just as I don’t when the right wingers call me a ‘liberal apologist’ etc. I express opinions that people don’t like and rather than debate, some people choose to label. It’s the way it is – I just like accuracy.