O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

[WanChaiMiller]

Do you think the deal will go ahead anyway or do you think politicians will stop it? Back to my point about politicians.....

What was your vision when you voted Shark?

[WanChaiMiller]

Who's said that?

Obviously it will suffer in the transitionary period.

Short term pain for the long term gain of not being part of a Federal Europe.

Gove, Johnson, Leadsom, Raab, Duncan Smith, Fox, etc. See my previous post. No hint of suffering in the transitionary period. Just a straight assertion we'd leave with a 'free trade agreement'.

[KerrAvon]

Interesting link to poverty and Brexit, maybe Kerr could actually read and accept the policies of his party are actually creating this...

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/...23884&LangID=E

Nothing to do with there being 'no money left' as per the note left by Labour's Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, when that party left office in 2010?

I don't think anyone could claim that the country is where we would all like it to be, but putting Labour into power to pursue it's current job and wealth destroying policies is hardly a sensible solution.

And repeat…

[KerrAvon]

Dunno why Kerr wont admit to being a tory unless he is secretly too ashamed to admit it...I would feel very ashamed of myself if i came out with the stuff he puts on here which shows a complete disregard for people who are much worse off than than himself...

I’ve already explained several times, Roly and it’s very simple, but I’ll say it again for you. I don’t admit to being a Tory, because I am not. I have never been a member of any political party and have never voted Tory in a GE despite having voted in every one since 1983.

As for me putting the ‘stuff on here which shows a complete disregard for people who are much worse off than himself’, I think you may be in danger of having another: ‘I didn’t characterise May' moment. Can you give an example? I’ve posted many time about the misery of the Venezuelan people living under the Socialist regime that Corbyn can’t bring himself to criticise. Should he be ashamed, do you think?

As an aside, have you ever thought about becoming a racist? You show real skill at blind prejudice against people who aren’t a member of your tribe. I think you’d make a much better job of racism than you do being an ‘anti-fascist’ or however you would characterise yourself.

[KerrAvon]

Are you confusing him with Kempo?

He hasn’t for a few months, but I’m sure it will come again. I see that I am IBS further down the thread...

[KerrAvon]

Struggling with the answer Kerr?

Ill give you a clue. He played a leading part in our negotiations with the EU.


Follow up question: A key function of the opposition party is to hold the Government to account for promises it makes to the electorate. Do you agree or disagree?

I’m struggling in the sense that I don’t know and have neither the time nor the inclination to look it up or play games with you. Besides, you clearly think you know and are very excited about it, so why would I deny you the big reveal?

I think the primary function of an opposition is to seek to influence the government to adopt policies that are for the benefit of the country at large (although the reality of politics means that every party is likely to seek to advance the lot of the people who vote for them to one degree or another).

[KerrAvon]

From what I can make out, the recurring feature of Labour's Outlook on Brexit is to protect jobs by negotiating a customs union arrangement very similar to the existing one as a priority. Of course this won't come without some concessions, probably on retaining free movement although of course, as the opposition, they are careful in not revealing that when they don't have too. But it's not rocket science to work it out. I think Labour are aware that despite the wishes of the hard brexiteers, free movement from the EU brings us a net gain and are putting jobs and the economy first.

I think that a labour Brexit would be more along the lines of the Norway agreement.

Would it split the country? Yes, of course. But we would be out of the EU, which is what we voted for. What deal wouldn't split the country in this impossible charade? But in answer to your question, I think the basic labour position is clear and oft repeated. Jobs and Customs Union = very soft Brexit.

This has to be one of your funniest posts ever (even better than the one where you tried to explain the ‘change’ that Corbyn had in mind for our free press). How can you say that the Labour position is very clear and oft repeated when, five lines above, you admit that the party is actively deceiving the electorate by hiding the reality of their ‘six conditions'?

Let’s take a look at the six conditions that Labour has adopted (irrespective of who first said them):

1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the single market and customs union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

1, 5 and 6 are entirely laudable and I don’t think anyone in the debate would argue against them, albeit it is difficult to see how any agreement could guarantee point 6.

Condition 2 makes no sense at all, as the only way to deliver the ‘exact same benefits’ is to remain in the single market and customs unions. Doing that means contributing to the EU budget, accepting EU regulations that we cannot influence and accepting the four freedoms. As you accept Labour is seeking to conceal, the four freedoms includes freedom of movement.

It would also involve free movement of capital, which will cause any Labour government with McDonnell in the treasury a headache as capital flees this country to avoid Labour’s economic policies.

Condition 3 is linked to 2 for the reasons set out above. The EU will not allow Single Market access without freedom of movement. Ask the Swiss; in 2014 they voted to end freedom of movement from the EU in a referendum. The EU responded by saying that an implementation of the referendum would result in the country being denied access to the Single Market. In light of that, the Swiss government has not put the referendum outcome into effect.

Continued freedom of movement might be fine with the socially liberal Labour movement in London and Student Unions, but I don’t think it is going to go down too well with the Northern Labour supporters who made such a contribution to the Leave vote. No matter how much the party chooses not to talk about it, I think the electorate might notice, but that’s not an issue for me to be concerned about.

Condition 4 can only be achieved by giving a supranational court control over UK employment law. In other words, the continued jurisdiction of the ECJ to enforce regulations that the UK will have no say on (and, presumably, British judges would no longer be permitted to sit in that body). Do you think that acceptable? I don’t and I don’t think the electorate will, so best keep quiet on that too.

In truth, when you boil it down, a deal with 2, 3 and 4 incorporated into it is tantamount to membership with no say in the rules we would have to comply with, so what are you saying is the point of leaving under Labour’s terms?

P.s. Corbyn has expressly ruled out the Norway model in a rare comment upon the debate.

[KerrAvon]

Agree with that. But Norway is allowed a customs agreement but only on grounds that it accepts key concessions. I think that labor would go for this type of agreement with key concessions on free movement and even some ecj, as their priority, as they keep saying, and in response to your question, is to protect jobs. That is what Labour would aim for from what they keep repeatedly saying. Just not sure people are really listening?

We know that Norway achieved Single Market and Customs Unions access by accepting freedom of movement, contributing to the EU budget and allowing access to Norwegian fisheries. They also have to accept EU regulations whilst having no say in their creation. It used to be called ‘membership by fax’ ,as that is how regulations were delivered to the Norwegian government. One would hope they have moved onto email by now, but maybe not.

This bloke says it better than me:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/1...nce-to-the-eu/

I think you better keep the electorate in the dark about that option too!

[millmoormagic]

Nothing to do with there being 'no money left' as per the note left by Labour's Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, when that party left office in 2010?

I don't think anyone could claim that the country is where we would all like it to be, but putting Labour into power to pursue it's current job and wealth destroying policies is hardly a sensible solution.

And repeat…

Just about as pathetic a response that i'd expected, so, despite the mountain of evidence regarding what your gov't's policies are doing to the British people, purposely, you still blame the last labour gov't, 8-9 years after it was in power, pathetic.

Can't ever remember such a damning UN report into poverty in the UK when labour was in gov't....keep the blinkers on jack.....

[KerrAvon]

No, I don't blame the outgoing Labour government. I merely point out the reality that the country has faced since the 2008 crash, which was epitomised by the no money left note. You ignore that reality by effectively asserting that all the woes of the country arose entirely independently of the position that the country found itself in.