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

[great_fire]

Your not aware that a rental property is just bricks and mortar then and clearly forget a property requires the means to sit in a living room , cook a meal , wash your clothes , watch a tv and have a months rent In the bank just in case you fall ill .

Real life seems to escape you fire .

I think you may be surprised.

[KerrAvon]

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

I have more faith in Raging than you, Exile. He said that Davis made an ‘exact same benefits' promise during the referendum campaign and got quite excited about it, so I’m sure he will come up with the goods given a little time.

I’m guessing from your final sentence that you spent a couple of hours trying to find a post from me where I blamed Brown et al for the 2008 crisis and couldn’t?

[KerrAvon]

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.

Where’s the link to Davis making the promise of exact same benefits during the referendum campaign, Raging? Exile is starting to lose faith in you.

You’ve already made it clear that the 'six tests' are Labour playing games rather than acting responsibly and I have taken that on board. How is that about ‘protecting the economy’ (a rather strange concept given that the Shadow Chancellor says that he wants to ‘overthrow capitalism', favouring, one assumes, the system that has brought such joy to the people of Venezuela)?

There is an exit agreement on the table that preserves the benefits of the CU until a new relationship can be negotiated so why aren’t Labour supporting it? What do you find unnacceptable about it? If this goes no deal, it will be down to Labour game playing to a significant degree. Nice one. Why does Rees-Mogg and Johnson need support from within the Tories, when Labour are batting for them?

And how exactly you think Labour can force a GE? Do you think the DUP are going to vote alongside Diane Abbott (Ireland “is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.) and John McDonnell (It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table.)? I don’t.

P.s. which Labour goverment are you talking about?

[KerrAvon]

"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"

Hells' bells Roly I think you need to revisit your view of the legal trade [like your terminology though]

You may be right about the legal profession, Exile. According to Raging, Keir Starmer QC is deliberately concealing Labour’s intentions to seek a deal that would allow continued free movement. And in other Labour lawyer news, Shami Chakrabarti was given the job of carrying out an investigation of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party in 2016 and, after giving it a largely clean bill of health was nominated for a peerage by Corbyn and made Shadow Attorney General. Blimey, who would have seen that coming?

I can only assume that Roly is horrified by the lack of fairness exhibited by Starmer and Chakrabati - continually criticising the Tories whilst talking up Labour.

[KerrAvon]

The thng is that Corbyn is much closer to real Labour values than any of the Blairite luvvies ever where....and the tripe that Kerr continues to peddle is exactly that, Corbyn's policies are common sense.

It's the fact that Corbyn is much closer to real Labour values that may be the issue:

Increasing corporate taxes - giving companies an incentive to move out of the country taking jobs and tax revenues with them, or, if they remain, to take steps to reduce their tax liabilities

Partially nationalising every large public company - giving companies an incentive to move out of the country taking jobs and tax revenues with them and causing untold damage to the value of pension funds.

Slipping the leash off the unions to allow them to set worker on worker in the pursuit of politically motivated, futile and economically damaging strikes that sign the death warrant for the industries in which they take place.

You have a funny idea of common sense.

[KerrAvon]

Economics......

Care to explain the links i provided.

I’d say that the Fact Check page that you link to covers only one period of Labour government – 1997 to 2010, which BigLadonOS says was a period when we were governed by ‘a Tory run Labour Party under Blair’. I recently heard Diane Abbott stressing that the Labour Party was ‘under new management’. She was right about that, if little else.

As for the poverty described in the UN report, are you sure that it 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? The reality of the UK economy?

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.

etc.

[Exiletyke]

I have more faith in Raging than you, Exile. He said that Davis made an ‘exact same benefits' promise during the referendum campaign and got quite excited about it, so I’m sure he will come up with the goods given a little time.

I’m guessing from your final sentence that you spent a couple of hours trying to find a post from me where I blamed Brown et al for the 2008 crisis and couldn’t?

Good morning KA, how am I ?

I’m guessing from your final sentence that you spent a couple of hours trying to find a post from me where I blamed Brown et al for the 2008 crisis and couldn’t?[/QUOTE]

Well you'd be wrong

[ragingpup]

Where’s the link to Davis making the promise of exact same benefits during the referendum campaign, Raging? Exile is starting to lose faith in you.

You’ve already made it clear that the 'six tests' are Labour playing games rather than acting responsibly and I have taken that on board. How is that about ‘protecting the economy’ (a rather strange concept given that the Shadow Chancellor says that he wants to ‘overthrow capitalism', favouring, one assumes, the system that has brought such joy to the people of Venezuela)?

There is an exit agreement on the table that preserves the benefits of the CU until a new relationship can be negotiated so why aren’t Labour supporting it? What do you find unnacceptable about it? If this goes no deal, it will be down to Labour game playing to a significant degree. Nice one. Why does Rees-Mogg and Johnson need support from within the Tories, when Labour are batting for them?

And how exactly you think Labour can force a GE? Do you think the DUP are going to vote alongside Diane Abbott (Ireland “is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.) and John McDonnell (It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table.)? I don’t.

P.s. which Labour goverment are you talking about?

OK, to be precise just on Davis' - he pledged to achieve the exact same benefits shortly after the referendum. And this pledge was taken, along with the list of other pledges, promises, call it what you will by the Government into their negotiations.

1. Don't you think that we should hold them accountable for this list of promises and pledges that influenced our vote to leave the EU?

Starmer, upon releasing the 6 tests quoted carefully that “Failure to meet the tests I have set out today will of course affect how Labour votes in the house of commons.”

Note the use of the words "will of course affect how labour votes in the commons". As at the same time, Labour were identifying as their priority the protection of jobs and the economy saying that their negotiating focus would be as much preservation of the CU as possible (which of course will involve major country splitting concessions - what deal wouldn't, as we see clearly now).

2. As you have stated opposition to Brexit, I assume for economical reasons, exactly why do you think that it is so wrong to set out basic expectations, based on the promises of the winning party in the referendum, that will "affect" how you vote in the commons in response to the deal achieved? I could understand it if a) the Labour party were saying that they would automatically reject a deal if all 6 demands were not met and 2) as you say, a Labour enforced No Deal was a direct consequence. In response to a) I would say that that Labour would not reject out of hand, but they would weigh up the deal against the 6 tests with a strong focus on the CU and b) I don't think a Commons rejection would lead to a No Deal automatically, as that does not have a mandate. The EU knows this and would allow time for a complete rethink, be that a Government collapse or another referendum. The EU want us to remain, don't you agree?

Do I think the current deal is acceptable?

I don't on the grounds that whilst we may be tied into a CU during the withdrawal period, there is very little about our relationship afterwards, except that the Government is confident of an end to free movement and that we can make trade deals with other countries. But at what expense in our trade deal with the EU? Until I know exactly what that will be, I won't support the deal. I assume that's the Labour position too.

3. What's your position? Are you happy with May's deal? Why/not? Where would you like to see us go from here? (It would be lovely to see you actually stick your neck out and give your political stance for a change. All you seem to do is criticise others? Aren't you very confident in your own political position. I note your failure to answer my questions yesterday - yet you seem quite frustrated when people keep calling you a Tory! You never come up with any position that isn't in perfect alignment with Tory policy, what are we supposed to think?!).

Happy Sunday

[Exiletyke]

3. What's your position? Are you happy with May's deal? Why/not? Where would you like to see us go from here? (It would be lovely to see you actually stick your neck out and give your political stance for a change. All you seem to do is criticise others? Aren't you very confident in your own political position.


It's the same reason he never starts a thread

[millmoormagic]

It's the fact that Corbyn is much closer to real Labour values that may be the issue:

Increasing corporate taxes - giving companies an incentive to move out of the country taking jobs and tax revenues with them, or, if they remain, to take steps to reduce their tax liabilities

Partially nationalising every large public company - giving companies an incentive to move out of the country taking jobs and tax revenues with them and causing untold damage to the value of pension funds.

Slipping the leash off the unions to allow them to set worker on worker in the pursuit of politically motivated, futile and economically damaging strikes that sign the death warrant for the industries in which they take place.

You have a funny idea of common sense.

Corporate taxes, tell me again why companies arent streaming out of Europe right now, given that their corporation taxes are much higher than our own....

Partially nationalising companies large PUBLIC companies, you said it yourself, PUBLIC, things like energy and water should not be run for dividend....all the evidence points to poor service in privately run utilities and rail.....

Slipping the leash off unions? moreso ensuring that companies actually treat their workforce in the proper manner, maybe you're enjoying the country's fall back to victorian values, bring back the chimney sweeping boys eh...

Yep, common sense, you're immune from it fella, no empathy, no thought for your fellow human being, you're bang on a tory.