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

[gm_gm]

Given your *rhetoric about economics and politicians, your avatar being your favourite, can you please explain this;

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...on-the-economy

You want more money for local jobs, the nhs, police, fire service and social services but vote for a council who have spent over £2m defending themselves in court against their despicable behaviour for CSE ....you hypocrite

[millmoormagic]

You want more money for local jobs, the nhs, police, fire service and social services but vote for a council who have spent over £2m defending themselves in court against their despicable behaviour for CSE ....you hypocrite

Oooh, touched a nerve then, for what it's worth, there's only one hypocrite, sorry two on here, confirmed, you who won't answer questions that prove your 'economic expertise' is let's say sketchy to say the least, and Kerr who rattles on about Labour policy while he watches his, and your party make our country burn....you should be ashamed.

Another 'for what it's worth' in the last two council elections i haven't voted Labour.....and to link me with the CSE is, again disgraceful, you're a joker fella, put into a corner by a pit pony driver and you lose the plot....go to bed and do some economic homework...

[ragingpup]

Lol. In what way is your proposed ‘alignment’ going to work? Can you expand upon what you mean by that?

I do appreciate that you are trying to stay aligned to Labour’s six bullet points, but they don’t make sense. By definition, there can be only one Single Market and you can be either in or out of it. If you are in it - whether you are politically brave enough to admit it or prefer to pretend otherwise by calling it ‘alignment’ instead – you have to accept the regulation that underpins it, but if you’ve left the EU, you get no say in those rules. And if you are subject to those regulations, you have to accept the mechanism by which they are enforced – i.e. the ECJ. And there is no opinion there, it has to be how Single Markets work, because if you a country allows unfettered access to its markets, it has to have measures in place that protect those markets from the competitive advantage that a lesser regulated country might have.

The EU also insists upon acceptance of the four freedoms to allow access to the Single Market. To make an exception for the UK would have countries in and out of the EU clamouring for the same.

I’m aware that Labour has been talking to the EU. I’m also aware that they have been completely silent upon what has been said to them. In recent weeks, I have listened to interviews with Starmer and the dreadful Rebecca Long-Bailey in which both were expressly asked whether anyone within the EU had told them that they could have a Single Market relationship without freedom of movement. Both dodged the question. Even when it was pointed out to Long-Bailey that she hadn’t answered the question, she just repeated the answer to a question that she hadn’t been asked. Now they are politicians and so it is necessary to listen to what they don’t say just as much as what they do say. If anyone at the EU had even hinted at the possibility of a SM arrangement with no FOM, they would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

So in summary, I admire the ambition of your dreaming, but your dreams are fantasy and a bit pointless.

I’ve not tried to sell the May deal to anyone. I’ve pointed out more than once that what we think as individuals is irrelevant.

As for a May Deal v No Deal Brexit referendum, I’m unsure how you think that would come about. It would need a Parliamentary majority to enact the necessary legislation. You can be sure that the many remainers in Parliament would seek to block it at every turn. In addition, there would be no incentive for No Dealers to support the legislation – they might lose such a referendum, whereas they know that they will get a no deal if they can block any other solution until 29th March. In other words, you could well get the same Rees-Mogg-Corbyn alliance seeking to block it as is blocking the May deal.

Did you expect the EU to make the concessions they did to ace negotiator May?

(Less than a week ago you were raving about what a great deal she had negotiated. If I was as obsessive as yourself I'd even go as far as tracking the post down, but I can't be arsed. But it's on this thread...)


Re: May deal v No Deal - yep, many in the commons would block that idea. On what grounds do you personally object to it? You have to bear in mind that you spent the last 2 weeks supporting May's deal (yes you did, read through the posts you mad old delusionist!) paying no heed whatsoever to the fact that it hadn't the slightest chance of getting through the commons! So if you can take a flight of ridiculous fancy, why can't anyone else?!

[KerrAvon]

Given your *rhetoric about economics and politicians, your avatar being your favourite, can you please explain this;

https://www.channel4.com/news/factch...on-the-economy

You aren’t still flogging that one are you?

Take a look at the dates on the data that is being used; the only period of Labour government that is being considered are the Blair/Brown years of 1997 to 2010. In other words the Labour governments that are now generally denounced by Labour supporters as being ‘not real Labour’ ‘neoliberal’ or an extension of Thatcherism. It also means that one of the non-Labour periods of Tory government that is considered is post 2010 when the coalition and the Tories were then dealing with the aftermath of the 2008 crash.

To be fair to the people who prepared the article, there are no other significant periods of Labour government to work with, but I do wonder what the figures would show if they used the period 1964 to 1979, when there were 11 years of Labour government and 4 Conservative. We all remember how that ended – the IMF bailout, rising unemployment, double figure inflation rates as governments repeatedly gave in to inflationary wage demands and the industrial relations of the mayhem of the winter of discontent.

[KerrAvon]

Once again, you're posting bull, the labour party policy hasn't changed from that point to this, i know that you like to split things and mention "labour mps say this and think that", that is totally besides the point, the labour party policy is still exactly what it always has been......democratically decided by conference, go figure...

Forgive me my earlier post was unclear, as I was rushing to get to my evening meal.

The relevant dates are:

June 2016 – Referendum
June 2017 – General Election – Labour runs on a manifesto that says ‘Labour accepts the referendum result’.
September 2018 – The Labour Party conference votes on a motion that is put together in crisis talks involving Starmer and others in which they commit to keeping all options including a further referendum on the table.
Post conference – Members of the shadow cabinet talk repeatedly about wanting General Election (which they won’t get and know they won’t get – hence the lack of a no confidence motion) failing which they want a further referendum.
October 2018 – you call Adventus a liar for telling the truth about the Labour position and then harked back to the 2017 manifesto.

Now Labour may well have voted to move away from their 2017 manifesto promise but the problem is that anyone who relied upon it when they voted for Labour last year isn’t going to be getting the chance to vote in that election again are they? People should be entitled to believe what a manifesto says if democracy is going to work. Sadly it appears that couldn’t rely on Labour’s.

[ragingpup]

You aren’t still flogging that one are you?

Take a look at the dates on the data that is being used; the only period of Labour government that is being considered are the Blair/Brown years of 1997 to 2010. In other words the Labour governments that are now generally denounced by Labour supporters as being ‘not real Labour’ ‘neoliberal’ or an extension of Thatcherism. It also means that one of the non-Labour periods of Tory government that is considered is post 2010 when the coalition and the Tories were then dealing with the aftermath of the 2008 crash.

To be fair to the people who prepared the article, there are no other significant periods of Labour government to work with, but I do wonder what the figures would show if they used the period 1964 to 1979, when there were 11 years of Labour government and 4 Conservative. We all remember how that ended – the IMF bailout, rising unemployment, double figure inflation rates as governments repeatedly gave in to inflationary wage demands and the industrial relations of the mayhem of the winter of discontent.

I covered that one a few months ago Kerr backed with government data. It showed that since 1956, there is nothing between the parties in terms of economic performance. And that included ALL economic indicators. You squeled about that still only being X years of Labour government but that was the last 70 years. Do I have to save this data and post it everytime you post the same old Conservative lies on behalf of your party.

I say it again. Economic performance. Government data. Since 1956. Between the 2 parties. On any indicators. NO DIFFERENCE

[KerrAvon]

Did you expect the EU to make the concessions they did to ace negotiator May?

(Less than a week ago you were raving about what a great deal she had negotiated. If I was as obsessive as yourself I'd even go as far as tracking the post down, but I can't be arsed. But it's on this thread...)


Re: May deal v No Deal - yep, many in the commons would block that idea. On what grounds do you personally object to it? You have to bear in mind that you spent the last 2 weeks supporting May's deal (yes you did, read through the posts you mad old delusionist!) paying no heed whatsoever to the fact that it hadn't the slightest chance of getting through the commons! So if you can take a flight of ridiculous fancy, why can't anyone else?!

I haven't raved about anything, but was surprised when the EU gave ground on a whole UK CU arrangement. There is a world of difference between that and the EU tearing up Maastricht and Lisbon which you believe will happen if Labour could only ask, however...

I think the May deal represents a decent compromise between the need to respect the referendum result and the desire to minimise the economic harm that will flow from that, but I didn't think it would get through Parliament and repeatedly said as much. What I don’t understand is how you would think that those two beliefs are inconsistent.

I don’t personally object to May deal v No Deal which is why I haven’t said that I am. Again, I’m puzzled why you would think that me saying that something would not get through Parliament means that I am personally opposed to it... I’m not an MP if that’s what you are thinking.

If I’ve given the impression that I think you should stop fantasising about deals that are not on the table and won’t be then please accept my assurance that is not the case. I’m happy for you to fantasise away or speculate about how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin if that’s what you want to do.

What do you mean by alignment?

[KerrAvon]

I covered that one a few months ago Kerr backed with government data. It showed that since 1956, there is nothing between the parties in terms of economic performance. And that included ALL economic indicators. You squeled about that still only being X years of Labour government but that was the last 70 years. Do I have to save this data and post it everytime you post the same old Conservative lies on behalf of your party.

I say it again. Economic performance. Government data. Since 1956. Between the 2 parties. On any indicators. NO DIFFERENCE

Well I'll say my bit again too.

Post 1956 you are talking about the 11 years of Labour government in the period 1964 to 1979 to which I have referred to above (3 of which were under the supervision of the IMF who made Callaghan slash the budget deficit that his government was running) and the 13 years of non-Labour Labour government 1997 to 2010. With such limited data and with the overlay of world economic conditions, I would argue that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DRAW THE CONCLUSION YOU ARE TRYING TO DRAW (I don't understand why you capitalising but thought I'd give it a go – it didn’t do anything for me). I do recall the seventies, however and am happy to draw conclusions from that.

[millmoormagic]

Forgive me my earlier post was unclear, as I was rushing to get to my evening meal.

The relevant dates are:

June 2016 – Referendum
June 2017 – General Election – Labour runs on a manifesto that says ‘Labour accepts the referendum result’.
September 2018 – The Labour Party conference votes on a motion that is put together in crisis talks involving Starmer and others in which they commit to keeping all options including a further referendum on the table.
Post conference – Members of the shadow cabinet talk repeatedly about wanting General Election (which they won’t get and know they won’t get – hence the lack of a no confidence motion) failing which they want a further referendum.
October 2018 – you call Adventus a liar for telling the truth about the Labour position and then harked back to the 2017 manifesto.

Now Labour may well have voted to move away from their 2017 manifesto promise but the problem is that anyone who relied upon it when they voted for Labour last year isn’t going to be getting the chance to vote in that election again are they? People should be entitled to believe what a manifesto says if democracy is going to work. Sadly it appears that couldn’t rely on Labour’s.

Ala forest Gump....

Now, in the words of your Prime Minister, regarding Labour party policy, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.....NOTHING HAS CHANGED...no amount of your spin can change that, i can see straight through you, full of bull that probably fools most people, fooled me for a bit, granted...

I've only ever called anyone a liar once, you Kerr, you're the liar and you know it.

[millmoormagic]

You aren’t still flogging that one are you?

Take a look at the dates on the data that is being used; the only period of Labour government that is being considered are the Blair/Brown years of 1997 to 2010. In other words the Labour governments that are now generally denounced by Labour supporters as being ‘not real Labour’ ‘neoliberal’ or an extension of Thatcherism. It also means that one of the non-Labour periods of Tory government that is considered is post 2010 when the coalition and the Tories were then dealing with the aftermath of the 2008 crash.

To be fair to the people who prepared the article, there are no other significant periods of Labour government to work with, but I do wonder what the figures would show if they used the period 1964 to 1979, when there were 11 years of Labour government and 4 Conservative. We all remember how that ended – the IMF bailout, rising unemployment, double figure inflation rates as governments repeatedly gave in to inflationary wage demands and the industrial relations of the mayhem of the winter of discontent.

Facts are facts, are you saying the years from 1997-2010 didn't have a labour gov't Mr Lawyer?????

You see, your spin cannot change facts, it might sway weak minded folk, but facts never change, in a court of law i'd be laughing my ballacks off at you right now.....