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

[ragingpup]

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.

Condition 2, "Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the single market and customs union?" makes no sense at all you say? Why then do you think that David Davies, campaigning for the Leave vote, said it then? Why not turn your razor sharp logic at him and the politicians who made the promises on which the 6 tests are based?

According to Quora and common consensus "The Opposition's main role is to question the government of the day and hold them accountable to the public" and Labour were clear with the 6 tests that these were the promises made by Conservative politicians in the Leave campaign and they are designed to hold them accountable for delivering what they promised.

Of course, this was always undeliverable, and it is becoming increasingly clear has based on fantasy these promises were. But Davies and others made these promises, and I think its fair that Labour remind the public of these promises and hold the government to account for them.

But does that mean that the 6 tests are actual Labour policy on Brexit? Do they really believe that, if the Government dissolved and Starmer took the lead in negotiations, would they believe that the 6 tests are achievable? No I don't. There is a difference between holding the Government to account for the promises they make, and setting out your own negotiating position and what you are willing to compromise in negotiations. And what I'm saying, based on what Starmer has repeatedly said is that if he was leading negotiations, his first priority is to protect jobs and the economy. And yes, of course, this would come at the price of making some serious concessions, most likely in the form of accepting EU free movement and chunks of EU ECJ. To what extent would be down to what could be negotiated.

I can only imagine that this would be a very soft Brexit, and would be somewhere along the lines of a Norway model, despite what Corbyn says.

Do I think free movement and EU control over our law making would be acceptable? All I can say is that they are not as big a priority for me personally as risking substantial job losses and a crashed economy. I don't personally have a lot of trust in our own government's handling of employment law, especially if Mogg et al get their mits on it. It would come down to what we could negotiate, but I'm pretty sure that Labour's preference is for a very soft Brexit, to protect jobs and the economy as priority. They keep saying this over and over again.

Of course, what I would accept would be very different to what huge parts of the public would accept, especially Northern Labour supporters (the few that remain that haven't gone UKIP or Tory) - and that is what I'm saying the problem is. I don't think any deal is going to appeal to the majority of the public. Neither is a No Deal. What deal do you think is acceptable to you? And do you think that there is a chance that this would be acceptable to the majority of the public? You see?

But the question I was responding to was about what Labour's priority would be if they were negotiating and I think they repeat this often. But I don't think this should be confused with the 6 tests, which is I think about accountability for promises made by the Conservative politicians. Very different things.

[flourbasher]

Our politicians are bad but at least we can vote them out, unlike the functionaries who run the EU and make most of our laws at present.

This .
Plus some other minor criteria for wanting to leave.
How anyone would want to allow the Brussels gravy train to continue unchecked and without scrutiny is baffling.
Where would we be in say 40 years......probably ruled by a French / German coalition.
Hitler tried to do it by force and Merkel has done it by stealth

[millmoormagic]

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.

Lawyer speak basically that shows that you do blame the labour gov't, why mention the letter otherwise...The only person ignoring reality here is yourself, in your lawyer bubble, the woes of the country are plain to those that want to see, you've totally ignored the facts from the UN report, please tell me your thoughts on that, given it's your gov't that has created much of the poverty through it's deliberate policies.....

The fact is jack that you don't care, you couldn't give two shytes whether millions of Brits are struggling to even feed themselves, and their families, despite working as many hours as they can.....

[gkotw]

No the people aren't qualified fire , we had a vote to a YES or NO question how does that cover the complexities of the process ?

You know as well as I do that it doesn't .

The situation today is due to a huge number of events , the fall of the Berlin wall , the desire to create a super state , previous referendums by other nations ignored by the EU , the creation of the EU , we are an island nation who don't really see ourselves as European , the flood of migrants from Eastern Europe , the benefit to business to keep wages low , landlords offering second rate properties to migrants and still collect top dollar , NHS under funded , the surplus to the economy , good school places at a premium , eurosceptics in the tory party , Cameron can't get any concessions , austerity , the collapse of the banks , change of governments , poverty , race to the bottom jobs , UKIP , Nigel Farage , Polish Plumbers , Romanian holiday benefit claimants , £350 million to the NHS , that poster of migrants , taking back control , the treatment of Greece , Angela Merkel , working time directive , the European Court Of Human Rights , throwing good fish back in to the sea , 45 regulations on a 13 amp plug .

I could go on , but does the above suggest the vote was a simple YES or NO ??

MMM is right it was a two thirds gig whether you liked it or not .

52% v 48% and we are divided in every which way possible , no shyte sherlock , Dennis Skinner and Rees Mogg are leave buddies !!!

Fuq me , no wonder it's gone tyts up .

As an ex union rep the no win situation was the person who sacked himself , management had all the cards and a few crumbs were your best friend and the only thig your member could hope for .

Pretty much the EU s position in all of this , they held the cards , we sacked ourselves .

I dont believe it, I agree with every word animal has posted there.

[ragingpup]

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.

Ok, I'll try again Kerr. I keep trying as you keep denying you're a tory but seem to endorse centre right Tory policy so completely, you can understand the scepticism. But I'll try once again to give you the opportunity to clarify what you do stand for.

1. What exactly, apart from your personal dislike of your local Tory MP, do you not like about Tory policy that stops them from winning your vote?

2. What key policy changes would you like a Government to bring in to improve society and the economy further from where we are now?

3. What policy initiatives have previous parties shown in historical elections that have secured your vote?


Genuinely interested. As I've said before, I do believe you when you say that you haven't voted Conservative but I can understand why some are cynical when you so appear to so passionately endorse only conservative policies. I suspect you're a sneaky Blairite?!

[KerrAvon]

Condition 2, "Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the single market and customs union?" makes no sense at all you say? Why then do you think that David Davies, campaigning for the Leave vote, said it then? Why not turn your razor sharp logic at him and the politicians who made the promises on which the 6 tests are based?

According to Quora and common consensus "The Opposition's main role is to question the government of the day and hold them accountable to the public" and Labour were clear with the 6 tests that these were the promises made by Conservative politicians in the Leave campaign and they are designed to hold them accountable for delivering what they promised.

Of course, this was always undeliverable, and it is becoming increasingly clear has based on fantasy these promises were. But Davies and others made these promises, and I think its fair that Labour remind the public of these promises and hold the government to account for them.

But does that mean that the 6 tests are actual Labour policy on Brexit? Do they really believe that, if the Government dissolved and Starmer took the lead in negotiations, would they believe that the 6 tests are achievable? No I don't. There is a difference between holding the Government to account for the promises they make, and setting out your own negotiating position and what you are willing to compromise in negotiations. And what I'm saying, based on what Starmer has repeatedly said is that if he was leading negotiations, his first priority is to protect jobs and the economy. And yes, of course, this would come at the price of making some serious concessions, most likely in the form of accepting EU free movement and chunks of EU ECJ. To what extent would be down to what could be negotiated.

I can only imagine that this would be a very soft Brexit, and would be somewhere along the lines of a Norway model, despite what Corbyn says.

Do I think free movement and EU control over our law making would be acceptable? All I can say is that they are not as big a priority for me personally as risking substantial job losses and a crashed economy. I don't personally have a lot of trust in our own government's handling of employment law, especially if Mogg et al get their mits on it. It would come down to what we could negotiate, but I'm pretty sure that Labour's preference is for a very soft Brexit, to protect jobs and the economy as priority. They keep saying this over and over again.

Of course, what I would accept would be very different to what huge parts of the public would accept, especially Northern Labour supporters (the few that remain that haven't gone UKIP or Tory) - and that is what I'm saying the problem is. I don't think any deal is going to appeal to the majority of the public. Neither is a No Deal. What deal do you think is acceptable to you? And do you think that there is a chance that this would be acceptable to the majority of the public? You see?

But the question I was responding to was about what Labour's priority would be if they were negotiating and I think they repeat this often. But I don't think this should be confused with the 6 tests, which is I think about accountability for promises made by the Conservative politicians. Very different things.

Ok raging. Can you put up a link to Davis making an 'exact same benefits' promise during the Referendum campaign? I think you are going to struggle, but I’m open to persuasion.

If you want to know what he said after the Referendum, you need to look at Hansard for 24th January 2017 - 7 months after the Referendum:

What we have come up with—I hope to persuade her that this is a very worthwhile aim—is the idea of a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have, but also enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade to go and form trade deals with the rest of the world, which is the real upside of leaving the European Union.,

So, no promise there, but, instead, details of the deal that he was going to try to secure with the EU.

Why did Davies say it? Probably because, as I explained many posts above this one, the Leave side of the debate had little understanding of the level of the European commitment to the integrity of the EU and failed to note that the EU were not out to do favours for the UK. It was hopelessly optimistic of him to say it and terminally stupid of Labour to adopt it.

Or have they adopted it? Your position seems to be that Labour attach no weight to the 'tests' and are, instead simply doing politics with them - using them to reject any possible deal that could actually be achieved and playing a game that may well end up in a no deal outcome.

Well done Labour. And then you try to say that this country would be safe being run by people who would act in such a stupid and reckless fashion. I’d like to say that your position is funny, but it really isn’t.

So if the six tests are just a political stunt, what is the Labour position? Roly and animal have been predicting a General Election, so you ought to have at least some idea what your party is offering as a policy.

[KerrAvon]

Lawyer speak basically that shows that you do blame the labour gov't, why mention the letter otherwise...The only person ignoring reality here is yourself, in your lawyer bubble, the woes of the country are plain to those that want to see, you've totally ignored the facts from the UN report, please tell me your thoughts on that, given it's your gov't that has created much of the poverty through it's deliberate policies.....

The fact is jack that you don't care, you couldn't give two shytes whether millions of Brits are struggling to even feed themselves, and their families, despite working as many hours as they can.....

The letter demonstrates the reality of the state of the country in 2010.

Perhaps reality isn't your strong suit?

[animallittle3]

UN report in to the coalition and Tory governments austerity programme , extremely damming to say the least .



https://www.theguardian.com/society/...tizens-un-says

[millmoormagic]

The letter demonstrates the reality of the state of the country in 2010.

Perhaps reality isn't your strong suit?

Perhaps reality, in the form of the UN report, doesn't suit you and your argument, so you continue to ignore it, plainly...you see, when you get into a corner you shut off, and ignore whatever and whoever, you've done the exact same thing many times, that's your strong suit Kerr, an evasive condescending lawyer, never willing to accept that a mere ex miner might have the temerity to actually call you out.....

[KerrAvon]

Perhaps reality, in the form of the UN report, doesn't suit you and your argument, so you continue to ignore it, plainly...you see, when you get into a corner you shut off, and ignore whatever and whoever, you've done the exact same thing many times, that's your strong suit Kerr, an evasive condescending lawyer, never willing to accept that a mere ex miner might have the temerity to actually call you out.....

So the contents of the UN report has 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…

As for the ex-miner thing, take the chip of your shoulder. You could be a professor, a toilet cleaner, a brain surgeon, a tree surgeon or a Prime Minister and it would make no difference; if I don't agree with what you post I will let you know. I'm not apologising for that.