Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Really HH I appreciate you are of a socialist leaning but a Labour government under Corbyn will result in a hard Brexit and economic carnage. 

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Really HH I appreciate you are of a socialist leaning but a Labour government under Corbyn will result in a hard Brexit and economic carnage. 

There isn't much of an argument there. And the evidence of the past 24 hours points  strongly in the opposite direction. Which begs the question, how do you respond to the following refutation?

No it won't.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

As much as I might welcome a positive intervention from Labour Jeremy Corbyn’s hypocrisy and sheer opportunism on this should never be forgotten.  A hardened Brexiteer he now after a transition through reluctant remainer then reluctant leaver now favours remaining in the Customs Union or equivalent thereof.   

 

Isn't Corbyn's appeal to the youff supposed to be based on the notion that he, unlike other politicians, sticks to his principles.....erm not on this occasion.

thebigfredc posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

As much as I might welcome a positive intervention from Labour Jeremy Corbyn’s hypocrisy and sheer opportunism on this should never be forgotten.  A hardened Brexiteer he now after a transition through reluctant remainer then reluctant leaver now favours remaining in the Customs Union or equivalent thereof.   

 

Isn't Corbyn's appeal to the youff supposed to be based on the notion that he, unlike other politicians, sticks to his principles.....erm not on this occasion.

The youth supported Corbyn in the last election DESPITE the fact he’s pro brexit. He’s going to get a hell of a lot more youth votes now he’s brexit sceptic.

So, you think Corbyn should stick to his principles, have you never heard of the term pragmatist or realist. The problem with the hard line Tory brexiteers, is they stand by their principles, but their principles where relevant in the 19 century, not the 21 century.

The sooner we get a labour government in power, the sooner we’ll get this Brexit mess sorted.

thebigfredc posted:

Isn't Corbyn's appeal to the youff supposed to be based on the notion that he, unlike other politicians, sticks to his principles.....erm not on this occasion.

I think you’ll find he is sticking to his principles - principles of fairness to all in society - what he isn’t doing is sticking to a dogmatic, ideology / doctrine when the evidence is that sticking to that ideology is damaging the principles he stands by. 

Dave***t posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Really HH I appreciate you are of a socialist leaning but a Labour government under Corbyn will result in a hard Brexit and economic carnage. 

There isn't much of an argument there. And the evidence of the past 24 hours points  strongly in the opposite direction. Which begs the question, how do you respond to the following refutation?

No it won't.

On Brexit I think the evidence is very clear in that until immediately before Referendum Jeremy Corbyn had opposed UK membership of the EU throughout his political career.  He stood against Marstrict, the Single EU act and voted to leave in 1975.  His current position is merely to bring out about a vote of no confidence and thereby a general election. 

With regard to economic competence I’m afraid that none of the parties are really demonstrating any semblance of fiscal responsibility but Labour’s track record speaks  for itself.  Even during relatively prosperous times up to 2006 and before the banking crisis  they were rattling up a deficit.  The primary role of Government is to keep the Country financially and physically secure.   On the former Labour are just straight irresponsible - they should never be entrusted in government again.  

Well fellow Labour MP Frank Field is not impressed by Agent Cob's big EU speech. He likened it to being back in the Blair era when it is all PR hype and nothing of substance.

thebigfredc posted

 

Isn't Corbyn's appeal to the youff supposed to be based on the notion that he, unlike other politicians, sticks to his principles.....erm not on this occasion.

Ah but he does stick to his main principles. His personal view on Britain’s membership of the EU is just that. It can hardly be termed a ‘principle’. Luckily, he is pragmatic enough to understand that his party and his support base (with the exception of Frank Field and a few others) view Europe differently and need to be taken into account.

However, I won’t be surprised if more than a few of his younger disciples are disappointed that he isn’t an exotic Russian spy after all. That will be a bit of a blow to his street cred.

thebigfredc posted:

Well fellow Labour MP Frank Field is not impressed by Agent Cob's big EU speech. He likened it to being back in the Blair era when it is all PR hype and nothing of substance.

Its a cynical change of direction probably more about disrupting tory brexit negotiations if truth be told.   Speaking as a remain voter I admit its not what I wanted;  but the people have voted,  including a lot of labour supporters,  to leave.  Problem is we can't be half in half out,  as Barnier & Tusk have said,  we can't cherry pick.    Customs union means EU rules & EU rules means we can't trade freely.    

fatcat posted:

 

The sooner we get a labour government in power, the sooner we’ll get this Brexit mess sorted.

Yes, just hope the garbage men don't go on strike,

and they can fit the whole Brexit refuse baggage on the non-recyclables truck  

Debs

fatcat posted:

thebigfredc posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

As much as I might welcome a positive intervention from Labour Jeremy Corbyn’s hypocrisy and sheer opportunism on this should never be forgotten.  A hardened Brexiteer he now after a transition through reluctant remainer then reluctant leaver now favours remaining in the Customs Union or equivalent thereof.   

 

Isn't Corbyn's appeal to the youff supposed to be based on the notion that he, unlike other politicians, sticks to his principles.....erm not on this occasion.

The youth supported Corbyn in the last election DESPITE the fact he’s pro brexit. He’s going to get a hell of a lot more youth votes now he’s brexit sceptic.

So, you think Corbyn should stick to his principles, have you never heard of the term pragmatist or realist. The problem with the hard line Tory brexiteers, is they stand by their principles, but their principles where relevant in the 19 century, not the 21 century.

The sooner we get a labour government in power, the sooner we’ll get this Brexit mess sorted.

Corby is certainly very Prague-matic  

Hmack posted:

However, I won’t be surprised if more than a few of his younger disciples are disappointed that he isn’t an exotic Russian spy after all. That will be a bit of a blow to his street cred.

That rather presumes he had street cred to start with!

naim_nymph posted:

fatcat posted:

thebigfredc posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

As much as I might welcome a positive intervention from Labour Jeremy Corbyn’s hypocrisy and sheer opportunism on this should never be forgotten.  A hardened Brexiteer he now after a transition through reluctant remainer then reluctant leaver now favours remaining in the Customs Union or equivalent thereof.   

 

Isn't Corbyn's appeal to the youff supposed to be based on the notion that he, unlike other politicians, sticks to his principles.....erm not on this occasion.

The youth supported Corbyn in the last election DESPITE the fact he’s pro brexit. He’s going to get a hell of a lot more youth votes now he’s brexit sceptic.

So, you think Corbyn should stick to his principles, have you never heard of the term pragmatist or realist. The problem with the hard line Tory brexiteers, is they stand by their principles, but their principles where relevant in the 19 century, not the 21 century.

The sooner we get a labour government in power, the sooner we’ll get this Brexit mess sorted.

Corby is certainly very Prague-matic  

Yep, us Brexiteers are not going to change our spots in the least. However, with Corbyn you are right, you won’t get the 19th century or the 21st century, but I guarantee you will get the  1970s and Corbyn will ensure the complete Socialist destruction of the UK.

Clive B posted:

Hmack posted:

However, I won’t be surprised if more than a few of his younger disciples are disappointed that he isn’t an exotic Russian spy after all. That will be a bit of a blow to his street cred.

That rather presumes he had street cred to start with!

Oh, but he certainly does! Just ask any youngster. And even more by comparison with Theresa May or Jacob Rees-Mogg for goodness sake! And I’m not really a Corbin supporter.

If Corbyn did get into No.10 and pursued a very socialist policy agenda, there are still check & balances in the system to prevent anything too extreme e.g. the moderate Labour MPs and the HoL, rather like the checks & balances that will prevent the hard-Brexiteers in the Tory party getting their way.  In any event, I think the Brexit deal negotiated by a Corbyn-led government would be a very soft Brexit indeed, and that would surely suit many of the decision makers on the EU side who I suspect would be pre-disposed to show more flexibility to a UK government that wanted to preserve as much a possible of EU membership.     

Who’s to say Labour brexit voters aren’t in favour of a very soft brexit. The bottom line is, most people voted leave to stop immigration, I doubt customs unions entered their minds.

There’s talk of large numbers of immigrants being allowed to work on farms, in the city and in the NHS after brexit. (and the list will probably grow). What are the people who voted leave going to think of that. That’s not what they voted for.

A Lot voted to stop the creeping loss of sovereignty, whether or not  also concerned about immigration, and to get back the promised huge daily fake sum to put into the NHS. They also may support the idea of customs union if it aids trade and helps maintain peace in the island of Ireland.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

With regard to economic competence I’m afraid that none of the parties are really demonstrating any semblance of fiscal responsibility but Labour’s track record speaks  for itself.  Even during relatively prosperous times up to 2006 and before the banking crisis  they were rattling up a deficit.  The primary role of Government is to keep the Country financially and physically secure.   On the former Labour are just straight irresponsible - they should never be entrusted in government again.  

That's just plain wrong, I'm afraid.  The last time the economy was in surplus was 3 years into the last Labour govt.  

There was a deficit in the years following that (not that that actually matters nearly as much as people who choose to believe in ridiculous household budget analogies think it does).

But that deficit fell for 3 consecutive years just before the GFC, and at no point in the lead up to the GFC did it get as high as a percentage of GDP as the situation when Labour took power in 1997 (again, not that that matters as much as people are wont to think).

The above facts will almost certainly make difference to anyone's opinion, however.  As far as I can tell, the kind of belief you express is typically more akin to religious faith than it is to evidence-sensitive empiricism.

As for Labour's policy announcement today, the mathematics should be clear.  The referendum result was very close, so a couple of percent swing would reverse it.  The referendum question didn't include anything about CU/SM membership, and at the time some prominent leave campaigners explicitly said that we would be in one or both after brexit.  Therefore those who voted leave, but who wanted anything other than a hard brexit or WHO crash out, should broadly agree with Labour's declared stance all things being equal.  Of the two main parties, that means that Labour's policy should have the widest appeal, since the Tories' current policies amount to a very hard brexit with a significant risk of WHO crash out - which is NOT what a majority of the public voted for (they simply couldn't have, it wasn't the question on the ballot paper).

If all things are not equal, it is just testament to the degree of confusion over the specifics and to people on all sides' prejudices.

For my part, I see the announcement as a good thing, because although it probably means that we will leave the EU, it makes it more likely that we will do so as a sane country, rather than one ruled by 62 loonies.

fatcat posted:

Who’s to say Labour brexit voters aren’t in favour of a very soft brexit. The bottom line is, most people voted leave to stop immigration, I doubt customs unions entered their minds.

There’s talk of large numbers of immigrants being allowed to work on farms, in the city and in the NHS after brexit. (and the list will probably grow). What are the people who voted leave going to think of that. That’s not what they voted for.

 

Very true Fatcat. There has been way too much presumptuous talk about whether Brexiteers voted for a hard or soft Brexit, or whether it was just immigration or whatever. Believe me, most Brexiteers want a complete divorce from the EU. As with the other 170 or so sovereign nations in the world, am sure we will eventually find a way forward.

As it stands, Corbyn's mischievous declarations today are just muddying the waters even further. There is no one in the House of Commons who will actually admit to conspiring to destabilise Brexit as an end in itself, except for mad eyed Soubry perhaps, and the greater the obfuscation the worse the Brexit is liable to be due to all the ferrets in Westminster squabbling amongst themselves, never mind the machinations from the EU. 

Fascinating.

 

The above facts will almost certainly make difference to anyone's opinion, however.  As far as I can tell, the kind of belief you express is typically more akin to religious faith than it is to evidence-sensitive empiricism.

 

As for Labour's policy announcement today, the mathematics should be clear.  The referendum result was very close, so a couple of percent swing would reverse it.  The referendum question didn't include anything about CU/SM membership, and at the time some prominent leave campaigners explicitly said that we would be in one or both after brexit.  Therefore those who voted leave, but who wanted anything other than a hard brexit or WHO crash out, should broadly agree with Labour's declared stance all things being equal.  Of the two main parties, that means that Labour's policy should have the widest appeal, since the Tories' current policies amount to a very hard brexit with a significant risk of WHO crash out - which is NOT what a majority of the public voted for (they simply couldbn't have, it wasn't the question on the ballot paper).

If all things are not equal, it is just testament to the degree of confusion over the specifics and to people on all sides' prejudices.

For my part, I see the announcement as a good thing, because although it probably means that we will leave the EU, it makes it more likely that we will do so as a sane country, rather than one ruled by 62 loonies.

62 loonies? There are more than 62 loonies in the Labour Party, aren't there?

Resurrection posted:

There is no one in the House of Commons who will actually admit to conspiring to destabilise Brexit as an end in itself, except for mad eyed Soubry perhaps,

 

Hard though you may find it to believe, some of us not on the swivel-eyed extreme right nutter end of the spectrum actually see Soubry as an oasis of sense in a desert of Fox/Mogg/Gove etc shaped madness-addled insaneonauts (to use  lovely phrase from Bleak Expectations).

Similarly, I believe that many within Labour see Frank Field as being in a minority of about 2 within the movement.  He just crops up because the media get a better story if he's there to shout and foster impressions of division.

Dave***t posted:

For my part, I see the announcement as a good thing, because although it probably means that we will leave the EU, it makes it more likely that we will do so as a sane country, rather than one ruled by 62 loonies.

I very agree with that.  

Dave***t posted:

Resurrection posted:

There is no one in the House of Commons who will actually admit to conspiring to destabilise Brexit as an end in itself, except for mad eyed Soubry perhaps,

 

Hard though you may find it to believe, some of us not on the swivel-eyed extreme right nutter end of the spectrum actually see Soubry as an oasis of sense in a desert of Fox/Mogg/Gove etc shaped madness-addled insaneonauts (to use  lovely phrase from Bleak Expectations).

Similarly, I believe that many within Labour see Frank Field as being in a minority of about 2 within the movement.  He just crops up because the media get a better story if he's there to shout and foster impressions of division.

Agree with that, too. Soubry seems to me to be speaking from the heart about what she genuinely believes in in the best interests of the UK.   

One can’t help but feel that if JC had adopted this at least partly stance in early-mid 2015 it would have been - potentially - helpful.  

The Strat (Fender) posted:

One can’t help but feel that if JC had adopted this at least partly stance in early-mid 2015 it would have been - potentially - helpful.  

I can't help but agree with you Strat (at least adopting the stance prior to triggering of Article 50 in 2016) ... while what JC said yesterday would make (IMO) for great policy and could lead to a result which walks the fine line between leaving the EU as "promised" by the campaigners on both sides of the referendum - yes I know it was legally an advisory referendum but promises were made the result would be carried out - and keeping close relationship with the EU which is required for continued business and prosperity; the big problem is that JC is in no position to implement the policy he set out.

For JC to take control of the Brexit negotiations: Corbyn first has to make May’s position untenable by raining defeat after defeat on her in parliament, then cause her own party’s MPs to turn so completely on her (and against their own self interests - for Corbyn to win many of the Tory MPs have to loose; ironically many of those with smaller majorities are those who are pro-Europe though) that they vote against her / The Tory party in a vote of no confidence.  He finally has to convince the British people to vote for them in a general election.