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

[millmoormagic]

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.

Uncomfortable for you isn't it, your lawyer speak doesn't wash, when you can't, or won't answer a specific question you go into condescending mode.....by the way, if i have a chip on my shoulder, yours is a great big king edward......

[animallittle3]

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

I'll buy thi a pint in the Dove before our championship fixture next season gkotw , fingers crossed .

:-) :-) :-)

[Nardendee]

I think the Brexit campaign was fortold 42 years ago by the great Billy Ocean when he sang the immortal words “ Leave really hurts without EU and it’s breaking my heart but what can I do” He also made reference to the leave campaign when he sang “Go and get stuffed” - at least I thought that’s what he said but my hearing isn’t so good.

[millmoormagic]

I think the Brexit campaign was fortold 42 years ago by the great Billy Ocean when he sang the immortal words “ Leave really hurts without EU and it’s breaking my heart but what can I do” He also made reference to the leave campaign when he sang “Go and get stuffed” - at least I thought that’s what he said but my hearing isn’t so good.

Haha, European Queen?

[BigLadonOS]

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

Perhaps reality isn't your strong suit?

I'm a Labour voter and have been for many years but I have to say that one of the big reasons the country now finds itself in difficulty is down to the Tory run Labour Party under Blair.

The Labour Gov at that time had 14 years to change things and they sold us down the river with **** you all attitude.

Changes need to be made but who will change it?

[KerrAvon]

I'm a Labour voter and have been for many years but I have to say that one of the big reasons the country now finds itself in difficulty is down to the Tory run Labour Party under Blair.

The Labour Gov at that time had 14 years to change things and they sold us down the river with **** you all attitude.

Changes need to be made but who will change it?

I don't think so. They let spending slip a little after 2005, but were generally financially responsible. As I have said elsewhere, Brown deserves massive credit for his response to the crash, but he won't get it because his face doesn't fit with the current Labour Party (unless they are trying to claim credit for something labour achieved between 1997 and 2010, at which point they 'forget' that he 'wasn't really Labour') and because he wasn't very good in front of a camera.

As for the 'New' Labour governments being run by the Tories. Ok. What does it say about the electoral prospects of the current Labour set up when it took the party to be run in that fashion for it to achieve it's longest period in power?

[DaveyJohn]

There's only one solution for all this mess. Yorkshire Independence

[Exiletyke]

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.

You are quick to point out that Davis quote was not during the referendum but weeks later Picky but nonetheless correct
But you insist [can only assume for political reasons] in miss quoting the letter from the departing labour minister as saying "no money left" when the word "left" did not appear
The difference is small but significant & delibersate & you know it in that very biased mind of yours
You will now wish to point out your very balanced unbiased approach with your praise of Gordon Brown & I don't blame the de[parting Labour gov't for the financial woes of the country
My my Kerr do you think no-one remembers your incessant & regular blame posts on this subject over many a year
& no I will not put up any links as I think you & most on here will recall without any help from me

[rolymiller]

Dunno about you lot but I would have thought that one of the requisites of working in the legal trade is that you have to have a fair mind and believe in fairness as part of your practice. Plainly, Kerr's continual mindless criticism of Labour policy and fawning non criticism of tory policy doesn't suggest that he has the necessary attributes to be a good lawyer.

So what can we surmise from all this? Either he is piss poor at his job and is not really suited to it or he isn't a lawyer at all. I'll let you lot decide. I already have...

[ragingpup]

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.

This article summarises the pledges made by ministers in May's pro=Leave government:

- Delivering the same benefits on trade as currently enjoyed by single market membership.
- Having new trade deals ready to be signed on the day of departure from the EU.
- Investing savings from Brexit in public services, including £350m a week for the NHS.
- No changes to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
- Full protection of rights currently guaranteed by membership of the EU, including on employment and the environment.
- A security deal that “maintains and enhances” such cooperation with the EU.
- The integrity of the UK protected.
- A strengthening of science and research partnerships with the EU.
- Full exit, including ratification of a new deal, in 2019.
- A dramatic reduction in net migration while “keeping the UK open to the talent and skills that UK business need”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ent-to-account


Labour's six tests does nothing more or less than summarise these with the intention of holding the government to account for their promises. That's why they created them. The aim of this is to pressure the Government to achieve a Brexit deal that ultimately protects jobs and the economy, which it would if their stated pledges (the Tories made them) were achieved. If they achieved it, Labour say they would support them.

The aim is to pressure the Government to do what they pledged to do. To hold them accountable for it.

If they don't achieve it, then the aim is to force a General Election and now possibly another vote. Either way, it is holding the government to account for the pledges it has made which we can agree will have a negative impact on the economy and jobs if the pledges were not achieved.

This puts huge pressure on the government to arrive at a deal as close as possible to the one if pledged to achieve. I agree that the whole package is unrealistic- but if the government came back with a soft Brexit deal that achieved a good amount of these pledges, especially one that prioritised the CU and single market (which is what I've mentioned that Labour are repeatedly prioritising), then I think that ultimately, Labour would vote for the deal, even if as is always going to happen, there will be compromises on some of the tests.

It is about pressuring the Government against a hard Brexit, ultimately protecting the economy.

We'll see what happens - I do not believe that the Labour government would force us into a No Deal situation if a form of CU was preserved. They may bring the government down with the vote, and force the general election - but does that = a no deal? Would the EU extend the deadlines for that, to allow an even more favourable softer Brexit than they have already got from the Tories? Probably.