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

[millmoormagic]

NI backstops or border issues. Could anyone see a return to the IRA regrouping and finding it she easy to smuggle arms over a non existent border? They haven't exactly gone away as proven by the bombing the other day.

It's not really about whether they could, lets face it they managed it quite well when there was a hard border, and a bomb was detonated recently accredited to a rogue IRA unit, this is about trade between two differing economic areas.

[ragingpup]

Have you read this rp?


https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/450

Just read it but not seen the BBC video so not sure to what extent the protest is valid. Clearly many people in the current climate would argue that even presenting the argument against immigration as part of a balanced debate is promoting the argument for immigration. If his central argument is that the video highlights that there is a rise in people supporting far right organisations, I don't see how that can be denied. But without watching the video, its impossible for me or anyone to see if Lord Green has a point.

Not sure why you post this in response to my post. I have often stated that I am one of the two thirds of people that would like to see immigration controls to the extent that people arriving in the UK have proven skills to contribute to a skills gap. My comments were just highlighting that many people in the UK feel unhappy with their society for various economic and cultural reasons. I part agree with Grist above (not something I do lightly!) that if immigration in high numbers to certain parts of a country is allowed to happen without serious consideration and action on integrating the immigrants into their communities (which causes the 'dumping ground' resentment response and communities living separately, fueling resentment etc). But the heart of what I was saying is that when you accept that in the vast majority of cases, EU nationals will continue to be required to do many jobs which can't be filled by our indigenous workforce then the reality will hit home with the more immigration focused Leave voters that very few immigrants here are the no skills 'spongers' that are frequently portrayed. I think many think that even a No Deal Brexit will have a significant impact in the numbers of migrants arriving, simply as the vast majority have arrived with skills we need to fill jobs we need filled. Some employers take the piss and undercut but these are few and we will not notice the difference afterwards. But we have to also add that the new deals that we seek will involve new immigration quotas to balance out any unskilled and exploiting migrants we may successfully manage to stop.

In short, the unhappiness and resentment people hold about their society, waiting lists, poor wages, working conditions will simply not perceptively change. The same old problems will be there. I'd like us to blow out the Brexit smokescreen and focus on the underlying problems that causes the anger in the first place.

So, in short, I'm all for a form of Brexit with reasonable immigration focus that doesn't leave us short of essential workers, but recognise it won't solve diddly of the problems people have cited as reasons for voting for Brexit.

(just anticipating the response that folk might think that the vote to leave was about more than immigration. True, we will detach from the ECJ but as has been mentioned on here before, the ECJ doesn't in actuality make a difference to our own laws anyway. Again, not the slightest difference will be noticed. I personally just want to get a deal over with (and let's face it, it will have to be via a form of customs union relationship agreement across the parties) so we can start dealing with issues that actually might make a difference to our lives....

[ragingpup]

I think he has met her to ask her to take no deal away which is incredibly dumb.

I think that will be part of the conversation, but the main part is what common ground we can settle on to get a deal agreed which will involve a compromise between May's deal and Labour's '6 tests', most likely a focus on forming a customs union agreement that does away with the need for the backstop. I am not happy with many aspects of May's deal and intended direction for the future agreement but if we can get it over the line, I will accept the basis with customs agreements to solve trade border conflict and the backstop. That way there is no need for no deal. We get to leave the EU. Freedom of Movement will end, although there will have to be negotiated parameters that you and the hard Brexiteer wing of the Tories would have to swallow. We all have to compromise somewhere. I'm sure that was the meat of their discussion.

[KerrAvon]

The option were 3 moderates at the time, and the feeling amongst many supporters was that a) moderates kept losing heavily in general elections and b) the public were mightily peed off with moderates and the centre ground. If you keep losing elections with moderate candidates, why make the same mistake again? Don't you think Labour performed better in the 2017 election with a much stronger and popular manifesto?

Would personally be happy to see a leadership change as long as we don't revert to centre right as I think the last 40 years have shown where that leads, and clearly people want change. Unfortunately, in my opinion, they have been led to think that Brexit will be the change that they are looking for. I think, when immigration from the rest of the world, increased by free trade agreement visas from other countries we deal with starts spiking. But that's another story

I think your memory may be playing tricks.

New Labour should have been trounced in 2010 – after 13 years of government and with the 2008 crash hanging over the economy it should have been a walkover for the Tories. Instead they were left needing to go into coalition with the Lib Dems.

In 2015 with New Labour under Miliband, the Tories managed a working majority of just 12.

Fast forward to 2017 for the result under Corbyn and consider the circumstances of the election: Seven years of austerity, the Tories running what must be one of the most ill-conceived and badly judged election campaigns in British Political history and with Labour springing the tuition fee bribe to the middle classes. Labour should have romped home. Instead, they lost, which suggests that their ‘much stronger and popular manifesto’ wasn’t actually very popular.

If you are happy with Labour ‘performing better’ instead of actually winning anything then I am sure that many Tories up and down the country will share your happiness.

If you want to see examples of Labour losing heavily, go back to the 80s to see Foot running on a radical left wing ticket (and Foot was streets ahead of Corbyn as a politician).

On Brexit, Corbyn has been rendered ineffective by trying to lead two parties at once. He has to be a Leaver for the purposes of the Northern Labour Party and a Remainer for the purposes of London Labour Party. His refusal to speak to May after the defeat of her deal was forced upon him by that; he picked on the only thing that might go some to appeasing both parties – that no deal should be ruled out – and then used that as a pretext to refuse to talk, for fear that he might have to say what he was for rather than what he was against. To be fair, in the absence of a willingness to upset one of his parties, it was the only course he could adopt, but it just made him look silly to all but dyed-in-the- wool Labour supporters - hence the ribbing that upset Abbott on Question Time.

[millmoormagic]

I think your memory may be playing tricks.

New Labour should have been trounced in 2010 – after 13 years of government and with the 2008 crash hanging over the economy it should have been a walkover for the Tories. Instead they were left needing to go into coalition with the Lib Dems.

In 2015 with New Labour under Miliband, the Tories managed a working majority of just 12.

Fast forward to 2017 for the result under Corbyn and consider the circumstances of the election: Seven years of austerity, the Tories running what must be one of the most ill-conceived and badly judged election campaigns in British Political history and with Labour springing the tuition fee bribe to the middle classes. Labour should have romped home. Instead, they lost, which suggests that their ‘much stronger and popular manifesto’ wasn’t actually very popular.

If you are happy with Labour ‘performing better’ instead of actually winning anything then I am sure that many Tories up and down the country will share your happiness.

If you want to see examples of Labour losing heavily, go back to the 80s to see Foot running on a radical left wing ticket (and Foot was streets ahead of Corbyn as a politician).

On Brexit, Corbyn has been rendered ineffective by trying to lead two parties at once. He has to be a Leaver for the purposes of the Northern Labour Party and a Remainer for the purposes of London Labour Party. His refusal to speak to May after the defeat of her deal was forced upon him by that; he picked on the only thing that might go some to appeasing both parties – that no deal should be ruled out – and then used that as a pretext to refuse to talk, for fear that he might have to say what he was for rather than what he was against. To be fair, in the absence of a willingness to upset one of his parties, it was the only course he could adopt, but it just made him look silly to all but dyed-in-the- wool Labour supporters - hence the ribbing that upset Abbott on Question Time.

Indeed, there's two factions in the Labour party without a doubt, but only one of them folowing the party policy at present.....tell me, how mant factions are there in your tory party?? the party that brexit effectively belongs to?? you can continue the media narrative trying to drag the Labour party into this debacle, but by and large, despite the party having two factions, it has more or less stuck to its policy throughout, giving the six tests and not budging.....for a supposedly bright bloke, you don't half swallow some shyte.

[KerrAvon]

Indeed, there's two factions in the Labour party without a doubt, but only one of them folowing the party policy at present.....tell me, how mant factions are there in your tory party?? the party that brexit effectively belongs to?? you can continue the media narrative trying to drag the Labour party into this debacle, but by and large, despite the party having two factions, it has more or less stuck to its policy throughout, giving the six tests and not budging.....for a supposedly bright bloke, you don't half swallow some shyte.

The Tories are heavily factionalised on Europe and always have been. I'm surprised that you have to ask.

As for Brexit belonging to the Tories - how so? Didn't Labour support the Referendum Bill (parliament voted 544 to 53 if that helps)? Indeed, isn't it the case that Corbyn defied the Labour whip to support a failed attempt to get a referendum in 2011? And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Labour vote to trigger Article 50? In addition, didn't Labour indicate that they would respect the outcome of the referendum in their 2017 manifesto?

If I'm wrong on any of the above points, I'm sure that you will tell me, but it seems to me that they make Labour a part of Brexit. Trying to rewrite history and to side step away from it and hoping that nobody will notice probably won’t work. And they aren't being much of an opposition if they try to stay out of what is probably the most significant economic and political change that has happened to the UK has taken in years are they?

[ragingpup]

And they aren't being much of an opposition if they try to stay out of what is probably the most significant economic and political change that has happened to the UK has taken in years are they?

Corbyn has argued, and is continuing to argue personally to May that the way to build consensus in parliament and solve the deadlock over the backstop is to forge a Customs Union agreement. You may not agree with or like that, but that is his argument, made long and made hard in opposition to May's direction.

Now please respond and be clear (you do have a tendency to duck out of questions that you find difficult) What other argument would you like him to put over?

[millmoormagic]

The Tories are heavily factionalised on Europe and always have been. I'm surprised that you have to ask.

As for Brexit belonging to the Tories - how so? Didn't Labour support the Referendum Bill (parliament voted 544 to 53 if that helps)? Indeed, isn't it the case that Corbyn defied the Labour whip to support a failed attempt to get a referendum in 2011? And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Labour vote to trigger Article 50? In addition, didn't Labour indicate that they would respect the outcome of the referendum in their 2017 manifesto?

If I'm wrong on any of the above points, I'm sure that you will tell me, but it seems to me that they make Labour a part of Brexit. Trying to rewrite history and to side step away from it and hoping that nobody will notice probably won’t work. And they aren't being much of an opposition if they try to stay out of what is probably the most significant economic and political change that has happened to the UK has taken in years are they?

Indeed, as an opposition of course they've had their input, why would that never be the case, really? my point is, and you know it, that it was your party that called it, it was, and is, the far right of your party that is hell bent on screwing this country over for a hard brexit, your party has dithered and been shafting us all since, and there's only one party that's standing up to them, for the good of the whole country. The tory party is actively and knowingly screwing the country to save itself from implosion, this is plain to see, and you're party to that.

[ragingpup]

I think your memory may be playing tricks.

New Labour should have been trounced in 2010 – after 13 years of government and with the 2008 crash hanging over the economy it should have been a walkover for the Tories. Instead they were left needing to go into coalition with the Lib Dems.

In 2015 with New Labour under Miliband, the Tories managed a working majority of just 12.

Fast forward to 2017 for the result under Corbyn and consider the circumstances of the election: Seven years of austerity, the Tories running what must be one of the most ill-conceived and badly judged election campaigns in British Political history and with Labour springing the tuition fee bribe to the middle classes. Labour should have romped home. Instead, they lost, which suggests that their ‘much stronger and popular manifesto’ wasn’t actually very popular.

If you are happy with Labour ‘performing better’ instead of actually winning anything then I am sure that many Tories up and down the country will share your happiness.

If you want to see examples of Labour losing heavily, go back to the 80s to see Foot running on a radical left wing ticket (and Foot was streets ahead of Corbyn as a politician).

On Brexit, Corbyn has been rendered ineffective by trying to lead two parties at once. He has to be a Leaver for the purposes of the Northern Labour Party and a Remainer for the purposes of London Labour Party. His refusal to speak to May after the defeat of her deal was forced upon him by that; he picked on the only thing that might go some to appeasing both parties – that no deal should be ruled out – and then used that as a pretext to refuse to talk, for fear that he might have to say what he was for rather than what he was against. To be fair, in the absence of a willingness to upset one of his parties, it was the only course he could adopt, but it just made him look silly to all but dyed-in-the- wool Labour supporters - hence the ribbing that upset Abbott on Question Time.

So, hand on heart, do you think that Labour would have had a better chance of winning the 15 and 17 elections with any of the other 3 alternatives at that time? Cooper, Burnham and the Other One?

Do you think Owen Thingy might have done better?

And finally, what would you like a Labour Party to stand for, as distinct to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats? You obviously feel very passionately about the current Great Leader and seem to indicate that you might support a Labour government if the conditions were right. But what conditions might they be? What would a Labour Government that you would like to see actually look like? What would they stand for?

[KerrAvon]

Indeed, as an opposition of course they've had their input, why would that never be the case, really? my point is, and you know it, that it was your party that called it, it was, and is, the far right of your party that is hell bent on screwing this country over for a hard brexit, your party has dithered and been shafting us all since, and there's only one party that's standing up to them, for the good of the whole country. The tory party is actively and knowingly screwing the country to save itself from implosion, this is plain to see, and you're party to that.

Putting aside that I am not and never have been a Tory, you are just plain wrong to say that the Tories called Brexit. If I'm wrong about that, you need to explain which of my points set out above are wrong. Labour including Corbyn voted for the referendum and voted to trigger Article 50. It’s as simple as that.

Labour might have had more of an input if it hadn’t advanced its unrealistic and self-contradictory six tests and Corbyn had actually agreed to speak to May a fortnight ago instead of try to hide and wasted a day of Parliamentary time on his doomed no confidence motion.