Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
So you were wrong when you claimed, that Davis made an ‘exact same benefits’ promise before the referendum? Unfortunately, you are still wrong when you claim that he made a ‘pledge’ shortly after the referendum. There was no pledge and it was seven months after the referendum.

Of course, whether it was weeks or months after the referendum doesn’t really matter - either way, your claim that it was a promise or a pledge (what do you say is the difference?) that influenced our vote to leave the EU cannot be correct can it?

If you open a post with OK, to be precise, it would be helpful if what followed immediately thereafter was accurate.

I’m not that interested in what Starmer said when he announced the six tests; I’m interested in what he is saying now and how it is influencing the actions of the Labour Party. In his speech to the Labour Party conference in September, he said:

So, let me be very clear – right here, right now: If Theresa May brings back a deal that fails our tests – and that looks increasingly likely – Labour will vote against it.

So there you have it, as you have admitted, Labour is hiding the reality of the consequences of it tests and intent upon playing political games. In doing so, they are ignoring the interests of the country and risking a no deal Brexit by using tests that cannot be met short of either staying in the EU or having a deal that involves paying money to the EU, accepting the four freedoms, being subject to the European Court of Justice and above all abiding by EU rules that we will have no say in. That is something that they need to be held to account for.

For the privilege of the deal that it has and which you apparently want this country to emulate, Norway, is the 10th biggest contributor to the EU budget and allows EU trawlers to fish in its waters. I don’t see that as a good outcome. I think you can wish away any seats in fishing ports too – they’ll be going to UKIP.

You appear very confused about what the deal is that was announced last week. It is the withdrawal deal, which is why ‘there is very little about our relationship afterward’. It confirms the end of free movement and the ending of the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies – it isn’t about a continuing relationship save that it provides a ‘backstop’ of country wide membership of the CU until a trade deal is reached, (which, from experience, may take a some time – about ten years for Canada?). To state the obvious for you, nobody is going to know what the final trading arrangement with the EU will be until it has been negotiated.

I feel the same disquiet that many MPs do about the deal, which is that the backstop is not time limited and cannot be unilaterally ended by the UK (of course, in practice it can be, but that might cause some friction with our then former EU partners). That being said, I suspect it is the best that the EU is going to offer -they have already given more than I thought they would – and it is infinitely better than the no deal outcome that Labour is risking with its gaming. It is far less restrictive than the Norwegian model that you favour…

P.s. I don’t feel at all frustrated when people call me a Tory, just as I don’t when the right wingers call me a ‘liberal apologist’ etc. I express opinions that people don’t like and rather than debate, some people choose to label. It’s the way it is – I just like accuracy.
Lol.

I can always tell when you're on the backfoot when you fall back into semantics and precise dates, ignoring the essence of arguments. Very much the lawyer. Good for you.

I know you'll keep going on about it to cloak the huge cracks in your arguments that matter. so let me concede: Yes, I accept that Davis made that comment after the referendum. And I accept that it was a pledge, or aim, rather than a promise.

But why no comment on the 10 other promises/pledges/aims made by your party (for they are your party so cut the crap lad - you're just trying to claim an air of sophistication in your arguments that you are above party politics but it just doesn't wash. I've asked you many times to clarify the actual differences between your views and the Conservatives, and you know, as well as everyone on here that you can't do that as we will all see through it. So just stop it, for the love of God!

I'm generally a polite poster, but it is why I respect you less than any other poster on here. Including IBS. At least his **** is easy to see through.

So let's cut through what you seem to be saying:

1) You appear to be saying that the May deal is the best that we can get from the EU. So, are you saying that you are willing from this point to support waving that deal through? You are not willing to pursue any further detail in what the future trade deal with the EU might look like? Don't you feel that we have a right to see more detail? Do you buy stuff in the real world with such vague description of what you're buying?

2. So let's say that, following the withdrawal agreement, that May agrees that in order to secure free movement and complete break from the ECJ, that we fall back on trade tariffs that are in line with WTO and/or result in border friction that are likely to have a substantial impact on our economy. Can you confirm that you are happy with that and the likely consequences that this would have? You seem to be saying that you are giving your agreement for her to agree to whatever she wants in future? Is that what you are saying? If not, what are you saying?

3. You say that the future deal is far less restrictive than the Norwegian model that I favour? Please tell me, specifically, in what way is it far less restrictive? On what basis in the agreement published last week, can you say that? What detail do you have that backs this up?


P.s. I note that you didn't answer the first 2 of the 3 questions I asked you in the post you responded to. I know why, you know why. Wink, wink.