Guest Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Strokes said: That would be brilliant, we need both parties to move away from the boring position asap. Tories go hard and labour super soft. Then call a GE, Soft brexit is the worst of both worlds. In or out for me. Soft credit is out. Hard Brexit is stupidity. Presumably if it's a hung parliament and only labour can form a coalition you'll be okay with soft Brexit? Edited 28 January 2018 by Guest
Strokes Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 1 minute ago, toddybad said: Soft credit is out. Hard Brexit is stupidity. Hard anything is the future, nobody want a soft watered down version of anything. Get out, Stay out.
Guest Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Strokes said: Hard anything is the future, nobody want a soft watered down version of anything. Get out, Stay out. I can't see any way that politics isn't going to stay hugely divided for a long time to come. The only two outcomes that may temper it in time is either a hard Brexit that works and Britain becomes more affluent (as you know, I believe this more than unlikely) or a second referendum where remain wins by a huge majority. Anything else and lots of people on both sides won't be happy. Edited 28 January 2018 by Guest
Rogstanley Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 2 minutes ago, Strokes said: Hard anything is the future, nobody want a soft watered down version of anything. Ridiculous statement. Think about that next time you're about to have a car crash or next time your business hits some rocky times. Actually all signs suggest the majority would rather avoid a hard crash brexit, that's why Owl-faced Tessie had to spend billions of tax payer money to save her job last year. 1
Alf Bentley Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 1 hour ago, Buce said: Looks like there could be a major policy shift on its way from Labour regarding Brexit: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/27/jeremy-corbyn-pressure-change-of-direction-on-brexit Corbyn's interview with Marr this morning was interesting. He was generally more "Soft Brexit" in his comments, stressing that a Labour govt would not undermine EU regulations on trade, employment, environment etc. He also didn't rule out making payments to the EU and essentially echoed Hammond's comments about the importance of maintaining a close trading relationship with the EU. On the Customs Union, he was non-committal (fair enough if a policy shift is about to be debated). He mentioned the need for the UK to be able to do its own trade deals, which would currently be impossible within the Customs Union. Of course, there might be a chance of either negotiating an amendment to this, or establishing a separate, but very similar Customs Union that would allow for such global trade deals....maybe that will be the new stance? Whether the EU would be open to the former, I've no idea, but if not then a parallel Customs Union might be negotiable. After all, it is in EU interests, too, to keep obstacles to EU-UK trade to a minimum. Also, their main concern is to ensure that the UK doesn't seek to undercut the EU on trade by deregulating and accepting lower social standards, employment standards, environment standards, consumer protection etc. Unlike the Tories, Labour has no interest in such deregulation, so is hypothetically in a better position to negotiate a parallel or amended Customs Union. The UK remaining in the Customs Union - or a Customs Union - could also resolve the Irish border issue (close to insoluble for the Hard Brexiteers, IMHO). Corbyn also seemed to unequivocally rule out a second referendum, preferring a meaningful vote in parliament on the negotiated deal. His line on immigration was interesting, too. While continuing to oppose "free" movement, he agreed that there should be "easy" movement of immigrants, subject to domestic measures to stop agencies bringing in whole teams of EU workers to undermine employment conditions for British workers. I have to say that I'm pretty happy with all of that. The problem is that Labour is not in power, so it all depends on what happens with the Tories - whether they implode in civil war, suffer important parliamentary rebellions either by Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit factions or compromise on a Soft Brexit (the least likely scenario, I imagine).
Guest MattP Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 Will watch Marr later, did they question Corbyn on Iran?
Alf Bentley Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 1 minute ago, MattP said: Will watch Marr later, did they question Corbyn on Iran? Yes. Said he'd always raised human rights in meetings with Iranian officials. He was also asked about the transgender issue, you'll be pleased to hear.
Guest MattP Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said: Yes. Said he'd always raised human rights in meetings with Iranian officials. He was also asked about the transgender issue, you'll be pleased to hear. Did they question him properly about the money he took from Iranian press TV? If so fair play to Marr. He needed to up his game after last week, it was appalling when they asked McDonnell if he wanted to hear the McVey comments and he just said no.
Alf Bentley Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, MattP said: Did they question him properly about the money he took from Iranian press TV? If so fair play to Marr. He needed to up his game after last week, it was appalling when they asked McDonnell if he wanted to hear the McVey comments and he just said no. Marr did ask about past media earnings. He said it was a long time ago, that he raised human rights and quit when Iran took action against the Iranian Green Party, as I recall. I see The Spectator is already pointing out that he received some payment in 2012, though, so I'm sure you won't be happy. I'm a bit more sympathetic to him than you are, obviously, but I thought he came across well. He sometimes gets flustered by difficult questions, but seemed relaxed and confident this time. Edited 28 January 2018 by Alf Bentley
Buce Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 38 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: Corbyn's interview with Marr this morning was interesting. He was generally more "Soft Brexit" in his comments, stressing that a Labour govt would not undermine EU regulations on trade, employment, environment etc. He also didn't rule out making payments to the EU and essentially echoed Hammond's comments about the importance of maintaining a close trading relationship with the EU. On the Customs Union, he was non-committal (fair enough if a policy shift is about to be debated). He mentioned the need for the UK to be able to do its own trade deals, which would currently be impossible within the Customs Union. Of course, there might be a chance of either negotiating an amendment to this, or establishing a separate, but very similar Customs Union that would allow for such global trade deals....maybe that will be the new stance? Whether the EU would be open to the former, I've no idea, but if not then a parallel Customs Union might be negotiable. After all, it is in EU interests, too, to keep obstacles to EU-UK trade to a minimum. Also, their main concern is to ensure that the UK doesn't seek to undercut the EU on trade by deregulating and accepting lower social standards, employment standards, environment standards, consumer protection etc. Unlike the Tories, Labour has no interest in such deregulation, so is hypothetically in a better position to negotiate a parallel or amended Customs Union. The UK remaining in the Customs Union - or a Customs Union - could also resolve the Irish border issue (close to insoluble for the Hard Brexiteers, IMHO). Corbyn also seemed to unequivocally rule out a second referendum, preferring a meaningful vote in parliament on the negotiated deal. His line on immigration was interesting, too. While continuing to oppose "free" movement, he agreed that there should be "easy" movement of immigrants, subject to domestic measures to stop agencies bringing in whole teams of EU workers to undermine employment conditions for British workers. I have to say that I'm pretty happy with all of that. The problem is that Labour is not in power, so it all depends on what happens with the Tories - whether they implode in civil war, suffer important parliamentary rebellions either by Hard Brexit or Soft Brexit factions or compromise on a Soft Brexit (the least likely scenario, I imagine). https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/27/theresa-may-conservatives-warning-revolt
Strokes Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 55 minutes ago, toddybad said: I can't see any way that politics isn't going to stay hugely divided for a long time to come. The only two outcomes that may temper it in time is either a hard Brexit that works and Britain becomes more affluent (as you know, I believe this more than unlikely) or a second referendum where remain wins by a huge majority. Anything else and lots of people on both sides won't be happy. Both options I would prefer to this halfway house.
Alf Bentley Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Buce said: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/27/theresa-may-conservatives-warning-revolt I struggle to see how the Tories can avoid some sort of civil war over Brexit alone, never mind all the other stuff (pressure on public services / living standards, personal manoeuvring, residual resentment over election etc.). Put simply: - Their Hard Brexit wing wants an arm's-length relationship with the EU: outside single market/customs union, no EU regulations or ECJ jurisdiction, hard line on immigration, freedom to do global trade deals, freedom to deregulate big-time, very limited payments to EU - Their Soft Brexit wing wants a close trading, economic and political relationship, with very limited tariff and non-tariff barriers. For both wings of the Tory party, these are absolute red lines, surely? - The EU will surely make the UK choose between those 2 options: Hard Brexit "control/freedom" or Soft Brexit close relationship, including large payments to EU, strong EU jurisdiction, limited deregulation etc. How could that NOT produce a major schism in the Tory party? The only suggestion I've heard is if someone like "Govey" (is he a footballer now?) persuades the Hard Brexiteers to accept a Soft Brexit deal in the short-term, so as to avoid the risk of us ending up staying in the EU, so that they can then spend the coming years trying to change the deal to make it "Harder". It's a surely a given that May won't be leader for the next election, whenever that is. If they dump her before March 2019, would they call another election or just proceed with negotiations under a new PM? If they dump May this year, suppose they could elect a leader who appealed to the public and who could win an election (though calling one would be a massive risk). Alternatively, they could end up having TWO poisonous civil wars - one over the leadership election and then another when the terms of the Brexit deal are known. Edited 28 January 2018 by Alf Bentley 1
Guest Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 30 minutes ago, Strokes said: Both options I would prefer to this halfway house. But why? If we were able to reduce migration and strike our own deals with the world, even if we kept ecj involvement and still contributed financially, why would you be less happy than being in as they are two of your stated hopes?
Guest MattP Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said: Marr did ask about past media earnings. He said it was a long time ago, that he raised human rights and quit when Iran took action against the Iranian Green Party, as I recall. I see The Spectator is already pointing out that he received some payment in 2012, though, so I'm sure you won't be happy. I'm a bit more sympathetic to him than you are, obviously, but I thought he came across well. He sometimes gets flustered by difficult questions, but seemed relaxed and confident this time. I'll let you know what I think after. Yes I've already seen a few people on Facebook already calling him a liar over his reasoning why he stopped taking money from Iran - does seem bizarre he was prepared to overlook all sorts of human rights abuse but then stop when the Greens get attacked
Alf Bentley Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 31 minutes ago, MattP said: I'll let you know what I think after. Yes I've already seen a few people on Facebook already calling him a liar over his reasoning why he stopped taking money from Iran - does seem bizarre he was prepared to overlook all sorts of human rights abuse but then stop when the Greens get attacked He claims that he was raising human rights issues, but doing so privately, not publicly. Admittedly, that begs the question why he could not also have raised attacks on the Greens privately and continued his role in the Iranian media.... Sadly for you and your ultra-Brexiteer mates, 99.9% of voters will pay as little attention to Corbyn's changing attitudes to Iran as they would to me if I were to point out that Boris called for Turkey to join an expanded EU. Oh, go on then! Just one last time, if you insist.... 2
Guest MattP Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: He claims that he was raising human rights issues, but doing so privately, not publicly. Admittedly, that begs the question why he could not also have raised attacks on the Greens privately and continued his role in the Iranian media.... Sadly for you and your ultra-Brexiteer mates, 99.9% of voters will pay as little attention to Corbyn's changing attitudes to Iran as they would to me if I were to point out that Boris called for Turkey to join an expanded EU. Oh, go on then! Just one last time, if you insist.... Fully agree, I've long given up on anything Corbyn has done being an effective way to turn people against him, he could be caught shooting the pro-democracy demonstrators and they would blame the media for telling us, I was just interested to see how he would spin his way out of it. If he has openly admitted he now has changing attitudes though fair play to him, takes a big man to do that. As I say though, I want him to stay anyway at the minute, with him there Labour won't put up as big a challenge for a soft Brexit as their supporters hope, despite what the Guardian thinks, Jeremy has better anti-EU credentials than Farage. What is an "ultra-Brexiteer" BTW? Edited 28 January 2018 by MattP
Alf Bentley Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 4 minutes ago, MattP said: As I say though, I want Corbyn to stay anyway at the minute, with him there Labour won't put up as big a challenge for a soft Brexit as their supporters hope, despite what the Guardian thinks, Jeremy has better anti-EU credentials than Farage. What is an "ultra-Brexiteer" BTW? 3 hours ago, Strokes said: Hard anything is the future, nobody want a soft watered down version of anything. Get out, Stay out. Not sure Corbyn would be as averse to Soft Brexit as you believe. He'd be happy to sign up to most existing EU regulations and would probably want more. I presume his issues with the EU relate more to it restricting the potential for a left-wing govt at national level - limiting deficit/debt as a % of GDP, restricting nationalisation & govt support for national industry etc. If we leave the EU, I presume the restrictions on deficit/debt won't apply as we'd be outside EMU. A hypothetical Corbyn govt might face problems negotiating over nationalisation and competition law/public subsidies, but that might not be an insuperable obstacle. Many other EU nations still have nationalised industries and find ways of providing public subsidies for key national industries. An "ultra-Brexiteer" is (in my mind) a Hard Brexiteer who cares passionately, almost to the point of insanity about Hard Brexit. Better stop talking about hardness now or @Strokes might get over-excited.
Rogstanley Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 If any Tories remain in doubt as to why they took a beating last year, the fact that you're focussing on Corbyn making appearances on Iranian television when there are record numbers of homeless people on UK streets is a good place to start. 1
Guest MattP Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said: Not sure Corbyn would be as averse to Soft Brexit as you believe. He'd be happy to sign up to most existing EU regulations and would probably want more. I presume his issues with the EU relate more to it restricting the potential for a left-wing govt at national level - limiting deficit/debt as a % of GDP, restricting nationalisation & govt support for national industry etc. If we leave the EU, I presume the restrictions on deficit/debt won't apply as we'd be outside EMU. A hypothetical Corbyn govt might face problems negotiating over nationalisation and competition law/public subsidies, but that might not be an insuperable obstacle. Many other EU nations still have nationalised industries and find ways of providing public subsidies for key national industries. An "ultra-Brexiteer" is (in my mind) a Hard Brexiteer who cares passionately, almost to the point of insanity about Hard Brexit. Better stop talking about hardness now or @Strokes might get over-excited. You've pretty much explained it there, if he wants to seriously carry out his economic policy he'll need to be out. It would surely look absolutely comical if Labour took a position on remaining in the customs union just a few months after issuing a three line whip on it's MP's to vote for leaving it. This is supposed to be a potential government. I am finding these definitions a bit bizarre, it's become like a competition, first people were hard Brexiteers, then it became "extreme" Brexiteers, now "Ultra" Brexiteers, Peston said last week "radical" Brexiteers, dread to think what it will be by March next year.
Guest MattP Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said: If any Tories remain in doubt as to why they took a beating last year, the fact that you're focussing on Corbyn making appearances on Iranian television when there are record numbers of homeless people on UK streets is a good place to start. Took a beating? They got their biggest vote share for decades Labour just also exceeded expectations.
Alf Bentley Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 46 minutes ago, MattP said: You've pretty much explained it there, if he wants to seriously carry out his economic policy he'll need to be out. It would surely look absolutely comical if Labour took a position on remaining in the customs union just a few months after issuing a three line whip on it's MP's to vote for leaving it. This is supposed to be a potential government. I am finding these definitions a bit bizarre, it's become like a competition, first people were hard Brexiteers, then it became "extreme" Brexiteers, now "Ultra" Brexiteers, Peston said last week "radical" Brexiteers, dread to think what it will be by March next year. To pursue his stated economic policy, it would be helpful to be out of the EU in some ways. I presume that's why he did the bare minimum to support his party's Remain policy during the referendum campaign. Though I imagine he'd be happy with either continued EU membership, with reforms to allow left-wing governments more leeway, or Brexit, provided that didn't involve major loss of rights through deregulation or major economic damage/loss of trade. So, I'm sure he'd be happy enough to leave the EU - but also happy with a close UK/EU relationship, UK regulations equivalent to (or greater than) EU regulations and lots of terms that Hard Brexiteers would never accept. If Labour were in power, there might be obstacles to Corbyn negotiating a Soft Brexit deal - but I don't see that as inevitable. In fact, I think Corbyn would gladly do such a deal. Customs Union: On Marr, he didn't say he'd like the UK to remain in THE Customs Union. He implied that he'd like the UK to be in A Customs Union with the EU, provided it allowed the freedom to do global trade deals. So, a policy shift but not as outrageous as you're suggesting. As for looking comical as a potential government, how does that compare to the actual government saying that we were in a strong negotiating position because of German car exporters/Italian Prosecco producers, then capitulating to every last EU demand? How does it compare to Boris saying the EU could "whistle for" its financial demands and May then grovelling on her hands and knees, offering the EU £45bn or whatever just to get onto the Phase II negotiations? Again, though, all that will have little impact whenever the next election happens. Only a tiny minority of political obsessives, like you and me, pay much attention to the minutiae of policy changes. What will matter is the final deal, its impact and how long it all takes. Many voters are already wondering why it's taking so long. A lot of Leave voters, in particular, will be expecting a quick exit with complete freedom from the EU AND a great new EU/UK trade deal at little cost, plus better living standards and job opportunities, better public services, low immigration, no problems in Ireland and generous trade deals for the UK all around the world ASAP...... Some of that might happen under Hard Brexit, but good luck with most of it! "Ultra-Brexiteer" was my phrase; not heard anyone else use it. I explained what I meant by it. There are Brexiteers who support Leave for various reasons. There are Hard Brexiteers who want an arm's-length relationship with the EU - and there is a small minority who are passionate/obsessive about every last detail of "taking back control". You're getting paranoid if you're seeking to paint the term as part of some liberal-leftist conspiracy. I was just pointing out that, even on the Leave side, very few people share your level of interest for the details of Brexit politics. The same applies on the Remain side, of course - lots of people will have voted Remain but not paid much attention since, lots of others will be convinced Remainers but won't pay much attention to the detailed issues - and then you have your mirror image: "Ultra-Remainers" like me, sad Europhile gits who obsess about every last detail (though I was initially undecided during the referendum campaign, as you know).
Carl the Llama Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said: Yes. Said he'd always raised human rights in meetings with Iranian officials. He was also asked about the transgender issue, you'll be pleased to hear. ...and? Would he date one? 1
Alf Bentley Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 2 hours ago, MattP said: It would surely look absolutely comical if Labour took a position on remaining in the customs union just a few months after issuing a three line whip on it's MP's to vote for leaving it. This is supposed to be a potential government. Just seen this from Larry Elliott, suggesting that the Tories might now be considering staying in A (not THE) Customs Union. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/28/a-brexit-deal-looms-hammond-and-mays-darkest-hour-is-up No idea whether it is true, of course, but Elliott is a senior, credible journalist - Guardian Economics Editor - and was pro-Brexit at the referendum. Off out now.
Alf Bentley Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: ...and? Would he date one? Marr didn't ask him, funny enough. No updates about Muslims, Pakistanis or Australians, either, though we do already know that he would marry a Chilean and a Mexican and would date Diane Abbott.
Guest Posted 28 January 2018 Posted 28 January 2018 3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said: Just seen this from Larry Elliott, suggesting that the Tories might now be considering staying in A (not THE) Customs Union. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/28/a-brexit-deal-looms-hammond-and-mays-darkest-hour-is-up No idea whether it is true, of course, but Elliott is a senior, credible journalist - Guardian Economics Editor - and was pro-Brexit at the referendum. Off out now. There's been no doubt at all that TM is trying to manoeuvre her party into the smallest possible change from the current arrangements since her first meeting with juncker was leaked many, many moons ago. She's trying to put off the fight with the Brexiters until it's too late and they'll be bounced into a deal they won't like. You only have to look at stage 1 to see those happened. Whether she gets away with it who knows?
Recommended Posts