Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[lifted*fox]

mans arguments got more holes than Emmental 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

mans arguments got more holes than Emmental 

Who's arguing?

 

As I have said about 15 times already I have posted an opinion of my interpretation, you disagree. In the grand scheme of things no one really cares either way.

 

There are some important questions that have been raised which have been ignored which I would love to hear peoples opinions on right of wrong of course.

 

 

Edited 26 February 2018 by Foxin_mad

[lifted*fox]

your posts are mostly just rambling and incoherent. 

 

there isn't much in there worth arguing with tbh. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

28 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I suppose its possible a clearer line can be painted.

 

But then there is the issue of we cant be too apparent in our intentions as we are negotiating with the EU and are scared of undermining our position, apparently...

 

Also, May already tried to get a mandate with her snap election and that didnt work.

 

Now that we're in it I suppose its possible to have the two main parties agree on a position and have the public vote for it.

But then we really are reducing our democratic discussion to a two party state and i'm not sure thats desirable, although i suppose we are effectively there anyway

 

Cant quite see that working out and if we voted on it and it was split down the middle again it wouldnt make the whole thing any less contentious

 

 

I hope there is some way of getting one we need one.

 

I think we need to be clear on what we want one way or another.

 

I think an election maybe wise obviously Brexit is on the agenda but there are other issues up for discussion. Obviously if Labour win with a crushing majority I say they have a mandate to do Brexit there way and also implement their other 'social reforms'.

 

I feel we just need to have some clarity. I am sick of the dilly dallying.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, lifted*fox said:

your posts are mostly just rambling and incoherent. 

 

there isn't much in there worth arguing with tbh. 

You seem to be missing the point. I have not asked you to argue! you are the rampant angry one who seems intent on having an argument!

 

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

 

I think you posts are complete tripe also. Whenever you get asked a question you don't like you disappear. Seems a problem for the left.

[Guest MattP]

Just one thing as well.....

 

Don't for one minute believe Corbyn or McDonnell genuinely want to stay in any sort of Customs Union, they have consistently voted against this sort of thing for decades. 

 

They've just realised they need to force an election very quickly as they are struggling now to stabilise their own positions as they can't poll a decent lead, they need to try and cause a division, see the government defeated and hopefully get a no confidence vote out of it. It also enables them a bit more leeway with the moderates. I'm again impressed with the realpolitik from those at the top.

[lifted*fox]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

Whenever you get asked a question you don't like you disappear. Seems a problem for the left.

 

I barely post in here and I don't recall anyone asking me any questions that I've ducked of recent.

 

That does seem to be a common reply in here recently though - on both sides.

 

Mind you, most of the questions asked are pathetic so it doesn't surprise me that people don't bother taking the time to answer.

 

Don't make out your some kind of reasonable partaker of discussion though - you're not. 

[Rogstanley]

21 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Goodness me changing the subject are we?

 

Been over this one. I have interpreted it in a certain way that is my prerogative. If feel that others may be driven to act by its divisive tone, that's my opinion I accept you and others see that as wrong but don't really care.  Please go back and read previous posts. Going to make any worthwhile contribution to the current matters in hand?

 

That is my view only. I am not a newspaper, a media outlet or a minister or member of the press team for our esteemed opposition. I think me having a view point and you rightfully being able to disagree to it is a little different to a supposed government in waiting diverting away important questions regarding its policies? Yes/No?

I think limits apply to how much “interpretation” it’s reasonable to apply to a quote and you’ve gone beyond that, round the block and past it again.

 

There’s really no point in attempting to have a discussion with somebody who will simply make things up to suit their argument.

 

As for “the matter at hand”, what is it again? Having skim read the last few page all I can see is you and MattP trying to invent some point out of a trivial comment made at an interview that nobody who actually works for a living like me will have seen.

Edited 26 February 2018 by Rogstanley

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, lifted*fox said:

 

I barely post in here and I don't recall anyone asking me any questions that I've ducked of recent.

 

That does seem to be a common reply in here recently though - on both sides.

 

Mind you, most of the questions asked are pathetic so it doesn't surprise me that people don't bother taking the time to answer.

 

Don't make out your some kind of reasonable partaker of discussion though - you're not. 

Please look back a few pages.

 

You have already used a pathetic excuse why you wont answer though. Just because you don't like a question doesn't mean you should not answer it. Again it seems a particular problem for the left.

 

I am a very reasonable partaker in discussion thank you. I never call people names, I admit if I have made an error and will always listen to peoples viewpoints. If you don't read the thread how do you even know anyway?

 

Anyway lets leave it there its a pretty pointless discussion. As like most things we will never agree.

[Alf Bentley]

46 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

'A' customs union but not 'The' customs union. Will EU even allow that? Quite honestly what is the point? does he really think we are all that thick?

 

So basically Labour want to negotiate a customs union similar to the customs union but not the customs union, they also do not want to restrict freedom of movement? Why not just stay in the customs union? or single market or just the EU?

 

Corbyn says he respects the referendum result. I hope the North of England remembers his respect for their wishes. The only reason he wants out of the EU is His renationalisation plans would fall foul to EU state aid laws. Deary me! Talk about not acting in the interests of the country!

 

I think after Mays speech later in the week we should hold an election in June. Labour floppy brexit, Tories proper brexit. Let the people put this to bed.

 

 

I'd prefer it if we could stay in the EU, or at least stay in the Single Market, but Labour's new policy is perfectly logical, as described here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/26/jeremy-corbyn-customs-union-idea-just-might-fly-brexit

 

- Stay in the EU? Not an option unless there's a sea change in public mood, which hasn't happened yet. Would ignore referendum result and potentially cause civil strife and discredit British democratic politics.

- Hold another referendum? See above - unless it reaches the stage where we're offered a disastrously bad deal and the public mood shifts decisively to Remain. Another election is more likely, if anything.

 

- Stay in Single Market? The EU has made it clear this would require freedom of movement, which could be a big vote-loser for Labour in the North/Midlands. Corbyn also clearly wants greater freedom to offer state aid to UK industry (difficult, though not impossible, under competition law within Single Market), to undertake nationalisations etc. Labour would clearly stay very close to most EU Single Market regulations, whereas sooner or later the Tories will want widespread deregulation. Corbyn hopes that this will be enough for the EU to agree a deal, although the EU might deem his ideas on state aid/nationalisation to be a different form of "cherry-picking". That's not his problem, though, unless/until he ends up in Downing St.

 

- Stay in THE (EU) Customs Union? Very difficult to negotiate that without being either in the EU or the Single Market. Only EU nations and a few islands are in it currently.

- Copy the EU-Turkey Customs Union? Probably a bad policy for UK as Turkey's deal excludes services (80% of UK economy), agriculture and the ability to do your own trade deals.

 

- Negotiate A Customs Union? He obviously hopes to negotiate a new EU-UK Customs Union to include services and to involve the joint agreement of external trade deals by the EU and post-Brexit UK. Is that a realistic expectation? Maybe or maybe not. Again, the EU might reject it as cherry-picking, particularly the bit about joint decisions over external trade deals. But, if the UK commits to staying close to most Single Market regulations apart from freedom of movement and state aid, and commits to applying the same customs tariffs, non-tariff barriers and external trade deals, there could be some big benefits for the EU: much less disruption of trade with an important trading partner, no hard border in N. Ireland, no European Singapore off their coast undercutting and undermining them through massive deregulation of employment, environment & social standards (their main fear).

 

Of course, Labour also has its eye on domestic politics and internal party politics. Most Labour members & MPs and 70%+ of Labour voters want the party to either Remain in the EU or have a very close relationship.

 

Plus, this gives them a real chance of bringing down the govt. A parliamentary amendment is pending from Tory Remainers and Labour moderates calling for a Customs Union in defiance of govt policy. The Govt will surely have to risk making that a confidence vote (or risk having a hole blown in its Brexit policy) and if they lose a confidence vote, we probably would be looking at an election in the next few months. If the Govt defeat that amendment, there will be other opportunities for alliances between Labour and Tory Remainers over coming months, particularly if, as likely, the EU reject the new Tory policy of "managed divergence" (a.k.a. Simultaneous Consumption & Non-Consumption of Cake).

 

Strategically, I reckon it might suit Labour better if the Tories have a bit longer in power (just a few months) so that it becomes clearer to the public what an absolute divided shambles they are and what a disastrously bad deal they're likely to negotiate with the EU. The big poker game is getting ever closer to its conclusion and the stakes are getting ever higher. Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen! 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

20 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

I think limits apply to how much “interpretation” it’s reasonable to apply to a quote and you’ve gone beyond that, round the block and past it again.

 

There’s really no point in attempting to have a discussion with somebody who will simply make things up to suit their argument.

 

As for “the matter at hand”, what is it again? Having skim read the last few page all I can see is you and MattP trying to invent some point out of a trivial comment made at an interview that nobody who actually works for a living like me will have seen.

I think that is rather down to the individual don't you? I put my point out there, you disagree that is absolutely fine. You think I am a Tory twat scumbag shit that is also absolutely fine.

 

Now a few pages back a challenged the 'you can have a discussion with people who make shit up to suit their argument query' as everyone does it. You claimed that there has been I quote 'subsequent inability of the establishment to demonstrate they give even the slightest ****.' I wanted you to substantiate this with some evidence. I have heard the government have rehomed families and they have given them a fair amount of money? Please tell me what is wrong with this and what you would have done differently here?

 

I then challenged liftedfox on his claims that Grenfell was 'clearly foul play' I would like to see the substantiated evidence for this. Of course it is possible that this may just be his opinion which is fine. We live in a country with a rule of law and I mostly trust our justice system.

 

He then claimed my view on a Labour government is sensationalist rubbish despite a number of good articles. I again challenged his claim about 'foul play' at Grenfell is this not also sensationalist rubbish?

 

I asked if Labour had previously praised the regime in Venezuela and I asked if they had been able to denounce the atrocities there? I seem not to have had much feedback on this.

 

Then we move to the new Brexit Strategy, In 'a' customs union but not 'the' customs union. I would like to know peoples thoughts on this?

1) Will the EU allow it?

2) What is the point of leaving the single market and or EU if we have 'a' customs union, free movement and can not negotiate our own trade deals?

3) What is Corbyns motive as a lifelong Eurosceptic?

4) Should an election be called after Mays Speech later in the week now we have to different positions?

5) Are the positions that different?

 

I asked about in you eyes the trivial matter of whether a government in waiting should be able to divert away from answering important questions surrounding its policies to present an activist? Worrying in my view.

[Rogstanley]

12 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I think that is rather down to the individual don't you? I put my point out there, you disagree that is absolutely fine. You think I am a Tory twat scumbag shit that is also absolutely fine.

 

Now a few pages back a challenged the 'you can have a discussion with people who make shit up to suit their argument query' as everyone does it. You claimed that there has been I quote 'subsequent inability of the establishment to demonstrate they give even the slightest ****.' I wanted you to substantiate this with some evidence. I have heard the government have rehomed families and they have given them a fair amount of money? Please tell me what is wrong with this and what you would have done differently here?

 

I then challenged liftedfox on his claims that Grenfell was 'clearly foul play' I would like to see the substantiated evidence for this. Of course it is possible that this may just be his opinion which is fine. We live in a country with a rule of law and I mostly trust our justice system.

 

He then claimed my view on a Labour government is sensationalist rubbish despite a number of good articles. I again challenged his claim about 'foul play' at Grenfell is this not also sensationalist rubbish?

 

I asked if Labour had previously praised the regime in Venezuela and I asked if they had been able to denounce the atrocities there? I seem not to have had much feedback on this.

 

Then we move to the new Brexit Strategy, In 'a' customs union but not 'the' customs union. I would like to know peoples thoughts on this?

1) Will the EU allow it?

2) What is the point of leaving the single market and or EU if we have 'a' customs union, free movement and can not negotiate our own trade deals?

3) What is Corbyns motive as a lifelong Eurosceptic?

4) Should an election be called after Mays Speech later in the week now we have to different positions?

5) Are the positions that different?

 

I asked about in you eyes the trivial matter of whether a government in waiting should be able to divert away from answering important questions surrounding its policies to present an activist? Worrying in my view.

1) no idea

2) assuming a commitment to leave the EU then it’s obviously a damage limitation strategy 

3) to represent the views of the electorate 

4) I think having elections every five minutes is generally a bad idea (it taking a number of years to make meaningful change), but while May is in power I think an election is always a good idea

5) dunno let’s see what May says, strongly suspect the coconut brexit is on the cards either way

 

The interview thing - don’t care. If you don’t like the policy don’t vote for it.

 

BTW there’s really no need to call me a Venezuelan scumbag.

Edited 26 February 2018 by Rogstanley

[Guest Foxin_mad]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I'd prefer it if we could stay in the EU, or at least stay in the Single Market, but Labour's new policy is perfectly logical, as described here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/26/jeremy-corbyn-customs-union-idea-just-might-fly-brexit

 

- Stay in the EU? Not an option unless there's a sea change in public mood, which hasn't happened yet. Would ignore referendum result and potentially cause civil strife and discredit British democratic politics.

- Hold another referendum? See above - unless it reaches the stage where we're offered a disastrously bad deal and the public mood shifts decisively to Remain. Another election is more likely, if anything.

 

- Stay in Single Market? The EU has made it clear this would require freedom of movement, which could be a big vote-loser for Labour in the North/Midlands. Corbyn also clearly wants greater freedom to offer state aid to UK industry (difficult, though not impossible, under competition law within Single Market), to undertake nationalisations etc. Labour would clearly stay very close to most EU Single Market regulations, whereas sooner or later the Tories will want widespread deregulation. Corbyn hopes that this will be enough for the EU to agree a deal, although the EU might deem his ideas on state aid/nationalisation to be a different form of "cherry-picking". That's not his problem, though, unless/until he ends up in Downing St.

 

- Stay in THE (EU) Customs Union? Very difficult to negotiate that without being either in the EU or the Single Market. Only EU nations and a few islands are in it currently.

- Copy the EU-Turkey Customs Union? Probably a bad policy for UK as Turkey's deal excludes services (80% of UK economy), agriculture and the ability to do your own trade deals.

 

- Negotiate A Customs Union? He obviously hopes to negotiate a new EU-UK Customs Union to include services and to involve the joint agreement of external trade deals by the EU and post-Brexit UK. Is that a realistic expectation? Maybe or maybe not. Again, the EU might reject it as cherry-picking, particularly the bit about joint decisions over external trade deals. But, if the UK commits to staying close to most Single Market regulations apart from freedom of movement and state aid, and commits to applying the same customs tariffs, non-tariff barriers and external trade deals, there could be some big benefits for the EU: much less disruption of trade with an important trading partner, no hard border in N. Ireland, no European Singapore off their coast undercutting and undermining them through massive deregulation of employment, environment & social standards (their main fear).

 

Of course, Labour also has its eye on domestic politics and internal party politics. Most Labour members & MPs and 70%+ of Labour voters want the party to either Remain in the EU or have a very close relationship.

 

Plus, this gives them a real chance of bringing down the govt. A parliamentary amendment is pending from Tory Remainers and Labour moderates calling for a Customs Union in defiance of govt policy. The Govt will surely have to risk making that a confidence vote (or risk having a hole blown in its Brexit policy) and if they lose a confidence vote, we probably would be looking at an election in the next few months. If the Govt defeat that amendment, there will be other opportunities for alliances between Labour and Tory Remainers over coming months, particularly if, as likely, the EU reject the new Tory policy of "managed divergence" (a.k.a. Simultaneous Consumption & Non-Consumption of Cake).

 

Strategically, I reckon it might suit Labour better if the Tories have a bit longer in power (just a few months) so that it becomes clearer to the public what an absolute divided shambles they are and what a disastrously bad deal they're likely to negotiate with the EU. The big poker game is getting ever closer to its conclusion and the stakes are getting ever higher. Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen! 

Good overview.

 

I sort of feel that it sounds very much like 'having our cake and eating it though'. Is this not just a Labour cake?

 

To be honest my feeling is we really need to be clear cut one way or another, I am not certain any half way deals will work out well.

 

 

As far as I have seen they have refused to rule out freedom of movement so if that is something that is accepted surely it makes the point of being outside the single market rather less.

 

I think Corbyn doesn't want to be in the EU for political reasons. Personally I would rather the Lib Dem route but they don't even seem close to getting anywhere near enough votes. Maybe a Lib Dem/Labour coalition might force another referendum?

 

I feel coming out in a half arsed way will actually be more damaging long term than full on brexit.

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

I think the journalists wanted to ask that, but instead we got activists asking questions like "please by our Prime Minister".

 

They will clearly need to give us a bit more depth on this, Barry Gardiner is already digging a hole trying to get himself out of his comments, we need to get it from Keir Starmer, he's supposed to be the brains behind this.

 

Feel for whoever they shove on to be humiliated by Andrew Neil on Wednesday when he goes at them.

 

Didn't you see Starmer on Andrew Marr yesterday? He was saying pretty much the same as Corbyn today, and it is Gardiner who's having to backtrack. The Corbyn leadership has clearly decided to compromise their position over a Customs Union, maybe partly because of the realpolitik of internal politics (it's the least that most members, MPs and even Labour voters will accept), partly of the other realpolitik of creating a real opportunity of bringing down the govt - maybe partly also because they can see this new policy leading to a deal with the EU that could suit them: continuing close relationship with the EU, no deregulation, no Irish hard border, no tariff/non-tariff barriers, maybe offset ending freedom of movement by making a substantial donation to EU funds.... I've no idea whether they have a realistic chance of getting the EU to accept some of that, mind! 

 

It would be better if he didn't avoid hard questions (as so many politicians do these days), but I can understand why. You can pretty much guarantee that the first 3 questions would be: What secrets did you give to the Russkies? Do you still support the Chavez revolution in Venezuela? and Why did you "support the IRA"?.....before moving on to questions as to why Labour has changed its policy, why Kinnock & co want him to change it further & why there are such divisions in his party (albeit that the Tory divisions are even greater).   

 

As for Andrew Neil interviews, I hope they send Starmer along rather than Corbyn or McDonnell, unless the latter are exceptionally well-prepared. Did you see Neil's annihilation of that Tory minister over the Corbyn spy smear? It was a case study for the demolition interview - absolutely brutal. If Corbyn goes along and is under-prepared, the same could easily happen to him.

[lifted*fox]

14 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I then challenged liftedfox on his claims that Grenfell was 'clearly foul play' I would like to see the substantiated evidence for this. Of course it is possible that this may just be his opinion which is fine. We live in a country with a rule of law and I mostly trust our justice system.

 

He then claimed my view on a Labour government is sensationalist rubbish despite a number of good articles. I again challenged his claim about 'foul play' at Grenfell is this not also sensationalist rubbish?

 

I asked if Labour had previously praised the regime in Venezuela and I asked if they had been able to denounce the atrocities there? I seem not to have had much feedback on this.

 

considering something ridiculous like 90% (i'm not looking back for the figure) of our tower blocks in the UK were covered in a known flammable material which is cheaper than it's non-flammable counter-part would suggest that somewhere down the line, someone has done something to allow that to happen. it's clearly not coincidence. I stated foul-play - I didn't point my finger at the conservative government but they are now responsible for finding and holding whoever allowed it to account - I see no further discussion in our media as to whether this is being pursued - no doubt Stormzy isn't seeing anything about it either - so surely it's his prerogative on the big stage to ask the question, if he wants?

 

your posts regarding Venezuela are sensationalist rubbish - no matter how you try to angle it. The post you put up showing Corbyn - when he gave that speech in 2013 do you genuinely think that he was under the impression that the country would collapse in the way that it has done? He's an advocate for a a type of socialism, yes but I'm sure he's not an advocate of the way that government has panned out and using that kind of video to suggest that he's going to put the UK into the same situation as Venezuela is just ridiculous hyperbole. there are so many different factors that have fed into the destruction and downfall of Venezuela - to suggest that having a more socialist government in the UK would end up the same is - as I've said, sensationalist rubbish. 

Edited 26 February 2018 by lifted*fox

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

Didn't you see Starmer on Andrew Marr yesterday? He was saying pretty much the same as Corbyn today, and it is Gardiner who's having to backtrack. The Corbyn leadership has clearly decided to compromise their position over a Customs Union, maybe partly because of the realpolitik of internal politics (it's the least that most members, MPs and even Labour voters will accept), partly of the other realpolitik of creating a real opportunity of bringing down the govt - maybe partly also because they can see this new policy leading to a deal with the EU that could suit them: continuing close relationship with the EU, no deregulation, no Irish hard border, no tariff/non-tariff barriers, maybe offset ending freedom of movement by making a substantial donation to EU funds.... I've no idea whether they have a realistic chance of getting the EU to accept some of that, mind! 

 

It would be better if he didn't avoid hard questions (as so many politicians do these days), but I can understand why. You can pretty much guarantee that the first 3 questions would be: What secrets did you give to the Russkies? Do you still support the Chavez revolution in Venezuela? and Why did you "support the IRA"?.....before moving on to questions as to why Labour has changed its policy, why Kinnock & co want him to change it further & why there are such divisions in his party (albeit that the Tory divisions are even greater). 

 

As for Andrew Neil interviews, I hope they send Starmer along rather than Corbyn or McDonnell, unless the latter are exceptionally well-prepared. Did you see Neil's annihilation of that Tory minister over the Corbyn spy smear? It was a case study for the demolition interview - absolutely brutal. If Corbyn goes along and is under-prepared, the same could easily happen to him.

I haven't caught up with the weekend political shows yet, I will do tonight. 

 

Everytime Baker goes on he gets destroyed - he had been dropped in the shit by Ben Bradley but it was still no excuse whatsoever. He should just have disassociated himself from those comments, make it clear Corbyn has questions to answer and then try and squeeze in the stasi files reference and the East Germany trip - I think Liz Truss would have done a better job.

 

Hopefully we'll see some serious detail from both sides over the next few days about what they want and we can try and come to a decision about how realistic they are.

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

I sort of feel that it sounds very much like 'having our cake and eating it though'. Is this not just a Labour cake?

 

To be honest my feeling is we really need to be clear cut one way or another, I am not certain any half way deals will work out well.

 

 

As far as I have seen they have refused to rule out freedom of movement so if that is something that is accepted surely it makes the point of being outside the single market rather less.

 

I think Corbyn doesn't want to be in the EU for political reasons. Personally I would rather the Lib Dem route but they don't even seem close to getting anywhere near enough votes. Maybe a Lib Dem/Labour coalition might force another referendum?

 

I feel coming out in a half arsed way will actually be more damaging long term than full on brexit.

 

 

You could well be right with your "Labour cake" comment. Maybe slightly more chance of the EU accepting something close to Corbyn's proposal than the Tory policy....but maybe not.

 

Unless there's a real change in the public mood (a large swing in support towards either Remain or Leave), then I reckon we'll probably end up with a half-way deal. Might be wrong - particularly if the govt falls, as everything will depend then on what happens in another election.

 

Last interview I saw (McDonnell 2-3 weeks back?), I got the impression that Labour WAS ruling out freedom of movement. That's partly why Corbyn isn't arguing to stay in the Single Market, I think. As I understood it, the policy was to end freedom of movement but accept high levels of immigration where certain sectors needed it, but introduce domestic legislation to stop employers just using agents to recruit foreign teams of workers en masse and offering them low pay/conditions etc.

 

I voted Remain and haven't changed my mind (like most haven't, on either side). But I reckon the Lib Dem policy of a second referendum would be far too divisive - unless there was a really good new reason for it: e.g. if the polls showed a massive swing to Remain or if we negotiated a final deal that was causing public outrage and was widely perceived as rubbish.

[Guest MattP]

13 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

When he gave that speech in 2013 do you genuinely think that he was under the impression that the country would collapse in the way that it has done? He's an advocate for a a type of socialism, yes but I'm sure he's not an advocate of the way that government has panned out.

To be honest you've pointed out the problem there. His judgement is awful, there is reason why barely any other politicians were prepared to praise that regime, they know that sort of socialism only ends one way.

 

I'm sure when it goes tits up here it won't be how he thought it would pan out either. 

 

For me in politics, outcome is far more important than intent.

Edited 26 February 2018 by MattP

[Guest Foxin_mad]

14 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

considering something ridiculous like 90% (i'm not looking back for the figure) or our tower blocks in the UK were covered in a known flammable material which is cheaper than it's non-flammable counter-part would suggest that somewhere down the line, someone has done something to allow that to happen. it's clearly not coincidence. I stated foul-play - I didn't point my finger at the conservative government but they are now responsible for finding and holding whoever allowed it to account - I see no further discussion in our media as to whether this is being pursued - no doubt Stormzy isn't seeing anything about it either - so surely it's his prerogative on the big stage to ask the question, if he wants?

 

your posts regarding Venezuela are sensationalist rubbish - no matter how you try to angle it. The post you put up showing Corbyn - when he gave that speech in 2013 do you genuinely think that he was under the impression that the country would collapse in the way that it has done? He's an advocate for a a type of socialism, yes but I'm sure he's not an advocate of the way that government has panned out and using that kind of video to suggest that he's going to put the UK into the same situation as Venezuela is just ridiculous hyperbole. there are so many different factors that have fed into the destruction and downfall of Venezuela - to suggest that having a more socialist government in the UK would end up the same is - as I've said, sensationalist rubbish. 

Good stuff.

 

I do not know the figures either. Yes there have been failings, perhaps a mistake was made, perhaps regulations need to change. I suppose if a material is building control approved and it is cheaper it makes sense for people to use it, I would probably use a cheaper product if it supposedly did the same thing and passed the relevant tests. Until the inquiry is complete we wont really know but I think at present the best thing to do is to let the investigations that need to be carried out be carried out and make our judgements from there it may take time to get the required evidence together, better to get it right slowly than mess it up and kill more people in my view, anything else is I feel jumping the gun a little but of course you are perfectly entitled to feel either way.

 

In your view they are which is fine. I feel they are valid Corbyn supported a regime based on a principle that I feel is flawed and principle that has often shown itself to be flawed. Of course there are differences our economies are vastly different, Venezuela was massively oil rich, where as we are a indebted service economy. My feeling is that if an oil rich country can not make socialism work a indebted country that relies (wrongly) on a services sector (financial) that Corbyn has openly shown his distaste for I struggle to see how it could end in anything but a massive disaster. When things start to go wrong they can escalate quickly and the characters and ruling factors within the Labour party show some very concerning attributes. Again that's just my view you can call it sensationalist. I suppose only time will tell.

 

 

Edited 26 February 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

I haven't caught up with the weekend political shows yet, I will do tonight. 

 

Everytime Baker goes on he gets destroyed - he had been dropped in the shit by Ben Bradley but it was still no excuse whatsoever. He should just have disassociated himself from those comments, make it clear Corbyn has questions to answer and then try and squeeze in the stasi files reference and the East Germany trip - I think Liz Truss would have done a better job.

 

Hopefully we'll see some serious detail from both sides over the next few days about what they want and we can try and come to a decision about how realistic they are.

 

Starmer on Marr is worth watching. He was pretty clear in his answers.

 

To be fair to Baker (the Tory minister put up to face Neil), he didn't perform badly on a personal level. It wasn't him who was destroyed, it was what the defence & security ministers and, particularly Bradley had said that got ripped apart.

 

It'll be interesting to see, too, whether any of the top EU politicians say anything about Labour's new policy. Protocol/diplomacy would probably prevent them saying much, but we might get the odd hint.

[lifted*fox]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

Good stuff.

 

Likewise. Maybe we can get on after all. 

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You could well be right with your "Labour cake" comment. Maybe slightly more chance of the EU accepting something close to Corbyn's proposal than the Tory policy....but maybe not.

 

Unless there's a real change in the public mood (a large swing in support towards either Remain or Leave), then I reckon we'll probably end up with a half-way deal. Might be wrong - particularly if the govt falls, as everything will depend then on what happens in another election.

 

Last interview I saw (McDonnell 2-3 weeks back?), I got the impression that Labour WAS ruling out freedom of movement. That's partly why Corbyn isn't arguing to stay in the Single Market, I think. As I understood it, the policy was to end freedom of movement but accept high levels of immigration where certain sectors needed it, but introduce domestic legislation to stop employers just using agents to recruit foreign teams of workers en masse and offering them low pay/conditions etc.

 

I voted Remain and haven't changed my mind (like most haven't, on either side). But I reckon the Lib Dem policy of a second referendum would be far too divisive - unless there was a really good new reason for it: e.g. if the polls showed a massive swing to Remain or if we negotiated a final deal that was causing public outrage and was widely perceived as rubbish.

I also voted remain. At first I thought saying in the single market was best but reading up on it now, it feels to be honest that it would be pretty pointless coming out of the EU to stay in the single market or a customs union because we are part of something and probably still have to make contributions to something we have no say over which is silly as well as not being able to make our own deals. My conclusion better of to stay in.

 

I thought somewhere that Stammer was quoted saying he would rule out freedom of movement quite recently but can remember where.

 

If we are actually going to come out then I feel now we should probably just go for it and take the hit.

 

I cant help thinking that any of the other options aren't really giving what the electorate supposedly voted for anyway so maybe in future we need a clarification vote. We will have to see how it pans out.

[Donut]

6 hours ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

But do you know the TACs (Total Allowable Catches) for each EU nation?

 

I was under the impression that Britain had been given a bad deal on this. That is, we had the same right to catch fish as other EU nations. So Luxembourg and Czech Republic, for example, have the right to fish as much as we can. I admit though I might have been a victim of Brexit propaganda on this issue though.

 

If this is just about fishing quotas then it’s a non-argument as quotas are put in place only to allow fish to grow back to sustainable numbers – rather than to become exist. Surely no-one can argue that we should be allowed to fish without limits??

 

If however, Britain has been badly treated in regard to our Total Allowable Catch, then that’s another story.

 

Which is it?

 

Id fallen victim to a posting limit so hadnt replied. But id struggle to give a concise answer to your question, as i feel it would take someone heavily involved in the fishing industry to decipher all the numbers from the reports.

 

What is apparent from the reports is, the numbers in the policy are complex. Total available catches and who catches what vary massively by the species of fish being caught, and the sector of the ocean being fished in. It also brings into question what would be classed as "our" waters. In Buce's good example i firstly quoted, the UK were initially fishing around Iceland, where it was deemed that within 200 miles of the coast was Icelandic water we couldnt fish in. We then joined the Common Fisheries Policy to share fish stocks with other fishing nations. So how that applies to our waters, it would need an expert to put this into lay mans terms.

 

To give a couple of examples:

 

In the linked report, the UK catches a higher percentage of the total available catch of Herring in zones 4, 7D and 2A, these zones being the North Sea and English Channel, than Germany France and Belgium combined, but Denmark catch the biggest percentage of Herring in these zones.

 

Move into zones 7E and 7F which are the Western English Channel and Bristol Channel, UK has well over half the total available catch of Herring.

 

If its cod, several ocean zones are very heavily fished by the UK. 6B for example which is Rockall, North West Scotland, Northern Ireland and the West Of Scotland, the UK has well over half the total available catch of cod.

 

This is just two species. The numbers wouldnt suggest we are disadvantaged to me, but I would definitely take on board other justifiable opinions. I would have to be honest though, it wouldnt be THAT high up in my list of priorities in for and against remaining/leaving, and as the quote from Buce's article also suggests, leaving the common fisheries policy might not have any benefit whatsoever, and that we might not really make any ammendments to the terms we fish under.

 

Also, as i mentionned in an earlier post, fishing is quite clearly a key industry to Scotland, which was a country that had a near 2/3 remain vote in the referrendum. So quite how that computes with losses of control and EU law making, you would imagine fishing is an important issue for Scotland, yet the results of the referrendum dont suggest the people of Scotland feel there is a problem.

 

But someone using details about the common fisheries policy to justify taking back control and a brexit vote, when its obvious that they are completely ignorant of any numbers, facts or how the policy even operates cannot add anything to a sensible discussion and they dont.

 

Its also important to note that whilst understanding the premise of the policy, i wouldnt have been able to talk nitty gritty numbers in detail before looking at them. But i was never advocating the policy being a problem, or wanting to be OUTSIDE of the policy, so i wasnt claiming to have knowledge i didnt have, and i was happy with the arrangements we have now.

 

https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs_en

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I also voted remain. At first I thought saying in the single market was best but reading up on it now, it feels to be honest that it would be pretty pointless coming out of the EU to stay in the single market or a customs union because we are part of something and probably still have to make contributions to something we have no say over which is silly as well as not being able to make our own deals. My conclusion better of to stay in.

 

I thought somewhere that Stammer was quoted saying he would rule out freedom of movement quite recently but can remember where.

 

If we are actually going to come out then I feel now we should probably just go for it and take the hit.

 

I cant help thinking that any of the other options aren't really giving what the electorate supposedly voted for anyway so maybe in future we need a clarification vote. We will have to see how it pans out.

 

No point going over all the old arguments again, but I still think: Remain (& reform EU from within) > Single Market > A Customs Union > The Customs Union > Hard Brexit with Transition > Cliff-Edge.

But Remain isn't an option just now and might never be and Single Market almost certainly means freedom of movement & other restrictions that would be problematic for Labour vis-a-vis core vote and Corbyn policies.

 

If we could get something like Corbyn is now angling for, I'd be pretty happy with that....but how realistic that is, I'm dubious. Not his problem, though, unless he wins power.

 

I don't think Starmer was asked about freedom of movement yesterday, but I'm pretty sure other Labour leaders (McDonnell?) have ruled it out, while not ruling out significant but controlled immigration with action against abusive employers.

 

The problem with "taking the hit" is how big the hit is going to be..... We're all guessing to a large extent, but I'd expect it to have a major impact for the rest of my life and half my daughter's......that's quite a big hit to take unless you're very confident that you're able to create a much brighter future long-term.

 

Of course, our trade will increasingly focus on non-EU countries with higher growth (especially Asia), but that will happen in or out of the EU. I just think we'll be in a worse position to benefit from such trade growth if we're negotiating as an isolated medium-sized nation desperate for deals than as part of the world's largest trading bloc. The only way that I can see UK businesses benefiting big-time under that scenario would be if we engage in massive deregulation, cutting corporate tax, social standards, employment conditions, environmental regulations etc. That way, UK-based business could benefit by undercutting EU business in global markets and by shafting the people of this country for decades ahead. Not a scenario that I find enticing! Of course, I know Brexit supporters will say that we can triumph in global trade without damaging UK living standards, but I disagree. I just see us losing some of our quality of life by losing a portion of our EU trade and our close relationships with the continent - and losing out on a global level, too, unless we sacrifice our people to benefit British and global corporations. 

[SMX11]

41 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Starmer on Marr is worth watching. He was pretty clear in his answers.

 

To be fair to Baker (the Tory minister put up to face Neil), he didn't perform badly on a personal level. It wasn't him who was destroyed, it was what the defence & security ministers and, particularly Bradley had said that got ripped apart.

 

It'll be interesting to see, too, whether any of the top EU politicians say anything about Labour's new policy. Protocol/diplomacy would probably prevent them saying much, but we might get the odd hint.

Agreed, Baker himself did fine personally describing the policies of Corbyn being the issue irrespective of the alleged 'traitorous' acts. He was understandably trying not to bash a follow colleague.

 

I don't understand the Labour position at all and frankly it just smacks as an attempt to force a general election.