Should the UK remain a member of the EU

[Barrington Womble]

1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

Is Grandmaster Gammon against all odds going to torpedo Brexit? 

 

 

I imagine he’s just said the 1st words that have cone into his head and not understood any of them 

[Anubis]

May agreeing to a head to head debate over Brexit in an effort to sell herself to the people directly. She’s even had Gibraltar’s Chief Minister, Fabian Picardy, bigging her Brexit deal up on 5 Live this morning.

 

I hope she gets eviscerated.

[Pidge]

At this point it's basically filibustering.  It's all about running down the clock because the less time we have, the more chance she has of not being kicked out of the office she was never capable of fulfilling. 

[No2]

7 minutes ago, Pidge said:

At this point it's basically filibustering.  It's all about running down the clock because the less time we have, the more chance she has of not being kicked out of the office she was never capable of fulfilling. 

That works both ways. Johnson and Corbyn and most of the others are happy to let the clock tick by because this is a ticking time bomb no one wants to handle. Only Rees Mogg is genuine about acting now and that's only because a no deal will benefit him and his cronies massively. 

[Pidge]

I still see it as essentially the same thing, a systemic denial of responsibility.  Fuck them all.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

On 11/25/2018 at 3:02 PM, Strontium Dog said:

 

The biggest red line is ending freedom of movement, which Labour shares, so don't be pretending Labour could do any better.

Labour's "red line" on freedom of movement is "does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?"

 

That's perfectly achievable under current EU rules. It does not mean an end to freedom of movement. 

[Denny Crane]

Saw this on twitter.

 

James Melville

 

@JamesMelville

 

Spookily prophetic words from Alan B’Stard. Here he is in the late 1980’s giving a froth at mouth speech that is straight out of the ERG hard Brexiter playbook

 

 

[Strontium]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Labour's "red line" on freedom of movement is "does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?"

 

That's perfectly achievable under current EU rules. It does not mean an end to freedom of movement. 

 

Well, yes, it's exactly what it means. This is what Labour's manifesto said:

 

“Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union. Britain’s immigration system will change.”

 

Pretty unambiguous.

 

I'm not really interested in the minor cosmetic differences between the Tories' hard Brexit and Labour's hard Brexit. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Good to see Brexit hasn't changed the tradition of the Daily Mail making shit up about the EU. 

 

https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/eu-data-protection-rules-do-not-ban-christmas-wish-lists-in-bavaria-or-elsewhere/

[AngryOfTuebrook]

15 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

Well, yes, it's exactly what it means. This is what Labour's manifesto said:

 

“Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union. Britain’s immigration system will change.”

 

Pretty unambiguous.

 

I'm not really interested in the minor cosmetic differences between the Tories' hard Brexit and Labour's hard Brexit. 

There's no such thing as "Labour’s hard Brexit". In fact, there's no such thing as "Labour’s Brexit " of any sort, unless Labour get into government before the Tories fuck us over.  In the event of a General Election, Labour will produce a new manifesto; like most Labour members, I'd be disappointed and surprised if that wording survived.

 

In the meantime, you can either focus on a line from last year's manifesto (and pretend that it is a "red line"), or you can focus on the six tests, which Starmer, Corbyn, et al, keep repeating, week in week out.

[Strontium]

14 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

There's no such thing as "Labour’s hard Brexit". In fact, there's no such thing as "Labour’s Brexit " of any sort, unless Labour get into government before the Tories fuck us over.  In the event of a General Election, Labour will produce a new manifesto; like most Labour members, I'd be disappointed and surprised if that wording survived.

 

In the meantime, you can either focus on a line from last year's manifesto (and pretend that it is a "red line"), or you can focus on the six tests, which Starmer, Corbyn, et al, keep repeating, week in week out.

 

A hard Brexit is any Brexit in which we exit the single market, something which both the Conservatives and Labour are committed to.

 

I'm already well aware that there's only one party in the country which is honour bound to fulfil all of its manifesto commitments. Nevertheless, I can't second guess what may be in a hypothetical future Labour manifesto, only take them at their word on the one on which they ran last year.

[Section_31]

Peston RECKONS that.......Jeremy Corbyn WILL call for a people's vote, but only after - and I must reiterate this point Tom - after the May deal is almost INEVITABLY voted down.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

37 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

A hard Brexit is any Brexit in which we exit the single market, something which both the Conservatives and Labour are committed to.

 

I'm already well aware that there's only one party in the country which is honour bound to fulfil all of its manifesto commitments. Nevertheless, I can't second guess what may be in a hypothetical future Labour manifesto, only take them at their word on the one on which they ran last year.

It would make more sense to take them at their word on their consistent line on Brexit - including "the exact same benefits" of membership of Single Market and Customs Union?

 

Or are you worried that that doesn't reflect badly enough on Labour to suit your partisan agenda?

 

 

[Strontium]

4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It would make more sense to take them at their word on their consistent line on Brexit - including "the exact same benefits" of membership of Single Market and Customs Union?

 

Or are you worried that that doesn't reflect badly enough on Labour to suit your partisan agenda?

 

Partisan agenda? No, just the ability to recognise bullshit when I smell it.

 

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have the exact same benefits of the SM and CU without actually being in the SM and CU.

 

Not least because those benefits include the opportunity to move freely among the nations of the EU, something which Labour are committed to ending.

 

The only thing consistent about Labour's line on Brexit is how mealy-mouthed and cynical it has been.

 

It's funny that I'm being called partisan on this issue when I stand squarely behind ALL politicians, be they Lib Dem, Labour, Tory, SNP or whoever, who are fighting to keep us from a damaging hard Brexit. That's the opposite of partisanship.

[Denny Crane]

A reminder about the leader of the Lib Dems comments on FoM only last Jan 2017. This was prior to him becoming Lib Dem leader. He defo seems a champion of FoM.

 

The former Liberal Democrat minister Vince Cable has broken ranks with his party to argue that it is politically necessary to limit immigration from the EU as part of the UK’s Brexit deal.

While stressing he was still firmly against leaving the EU, Cable argued that one of the few potential benefits would be “the opportunity for a more rational immigration policy” – including a limit on entrants from the EU.

 

“There is no great argument of liberal principle for free EU movement; the economics is debatable; and the politics is conclusively hostile,” Cable wrote in the New Statesman. “The argument for free movement has become tactical: it is part of a package that also contains the wider economic benefits of the single market,” he argued

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/05/eu-free-movement-vince-cable-brexit-immigration-controls

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

34 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

Partisan agenda? No, just the ability to recognise bullshit when I smell it.

 

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have the exact same benefits of the SM and CU without actually being in the SM and CU.

 

Not least because those benefits include the opportunity to move freely among the nations of the EU, something which Labour are committed to ending.

 

The only thing consistent about Labour's line on Brexit is how mealy-mouthed and cynical it has been.

 

It's funny that I'm being called partisan on this issue when I stand squarely behind ALL politicians, be they Lib Dem, Labour, Tory, SNP or whoever, who are fighting to keep us from a damaging hard Brexit. That's the opposite of partisanship.

Again with "Labour are committed to ending" free movement, despite the fact that Labour’s consisten line on Brexit implicitly rules that out.

[cloggypop]

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

Peston RECKONS that.......Jeremy Corbyn WILL call for a people's vote, but only after - and I must reiterate this point Tom - after the May deal is almost INEVITABLY voted down.

It will be like Scanners on RAWK when he does. 

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Again with "Labour are committed to ending" free movement, despite the fact that Labour’s consisten line on Brexit implicitly rules that out.

 

Labour's consistent line on Brexit has been to end free movement. That's what it says in their manifesto.

 

I'm not claiming they'll end immigration altogether ffs. But it will be managed migration.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

12 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

Labour's consistent line on Brexit has been to end free movement. That's what it says in their manifesto.

 

I'm not claiming they'll end immigration altogether ffs. But it will be managed migration.

It will be some sort of deal acceptable to the EU and falling within the very broad scope of the relevant one of the six tests (but NOT constrained by last year's manifesto; why the fuck would it be?)

 

My best guess is that it would be free movement, but with tighter restrictions, e.g. on the amount of time for which EU jobseekers are able to claim benefits. 

[Strontium]

12 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

It will be some sort of deal acceptable to the EU and falling within the very broad scope of the relevant one of the six tests (but NOT constrained by last year's manifesto; why the fuck would it be?)

 

My best guess is that it would be free movement, but with tighter restrictions, e.g. on the amount of time for which EU jobseekers are able to claim benefits. 

 

But we ALREADY have a situation where jobseekers from the EU cannot claim unemployment benefit for the first three months that they are here, and can only claim unemployment benefit for three months after that, and if they still don't have a job after six months, they can be kicked out of the country. They cannot claim housing benefit AT ALL.

 

So what tighter restrictions did you have in mind?

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Surely free movement with tighter restrictions isn't free movement any more.

 

There's no way to get exactly the same benefits as being in the single market and customs union from the outside. That's the point of them. It's an absurdity to even suggest it.

[ZonkoVille77]

Nails it. 

 

 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

Spot on, but thoroughly depressing nevertheless. The British public were offered the choice between the status quo and a fantasy that could never exist; they chose the latter.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

But we ALREADY have a situation where jobseekers from the EU cannot claim unemployment benefit for the first three months that they are here, and can only claim unemployment benefit for three months after that, and if they still don't have a job after six months, they can be kicked out of the country. They cannot claim housing benefit AT ALL.

 

So what tighter restrictions did you have in mind?

I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere that EU citizens in the UK have fewer restrictions placed on them than are actually allowed under EU regulations  (for example, less exacting conditions to qualify for benefits).

 

I think there's scope for Labour  (or whoever) to tell the Brexiteers that they've wrung some concessions from negotiations with the EU, when what they're delivering is what we could have had all along. Call it the Blue Passports Gambit.

 

In any case, the plan remains to crash May's Brexit; push for a General Election; reopen negotiations with the EU  (with an extension, on the basis that Starmer is an adult, unlike the time-wasters the Tories have sent to Brussels); then consider a referendum on the basis of the best terms Labour can negotiate, with the other option being to remain.

 

No deal or any Brexit proposals that don't give the UK the same access to the Single Market or don't include a Customs Union are not an option. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

23 minutes ago, ZonkoVille77 said:

Nails it. 

 

 

The depressing thing is that not a word of that is new. As he says himself, the choice between a "pointless Brexit" and an economically catastrophic Brexit was always going to be the only outcome.

 

Meanwhile, racism has been mainstreamed in our politics and violent racists are growing in confidence on our streets. 

 

Still, Cameron's on a yacht somewhere and Osborne is editing one of the country's most widely read papers, so I think that makes it all worthwhile.  Doesn’t it?