Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+6)?

[Nick_G]

Anyone see this?:

[URL='https://www.theguardian.com/politics/tom-watson']Tom Watson: UK on frontier of 'new cold war' that Russia is winning - Guardian[/URL]

Labour’s deputy leader has said Britain is on the frontier of a “new cold war” that Russia is winning and discussed a claim that Theresa May may have blocked an intelligence services investigation into the Russian dealings of Arron Banks, the businessman behind the Leave.EU campaign.

Tom Watson made the remarks at an Observer event at the Labour conference in Liverpool on Sunday where he accused the government of being wilfully blind to Russia’s attack on British democracy.

We urgently need a Mueller-style investigation into this, and Article 50 to be frozen until it is complete. Of course now we are descending into the CHAOS, I suspect that's about as likely as Donald Trump winning the Cosmopolitan World's Sexiest Man poll of 2018.

 

[Still]

Crowd fund a Judicial Review if the campaign was so rigged. You must accept though that racist voters (how many of the total leave vote?) will vote leave again.

You must accept that those who have realised they were misinformed/mislead will vote with this in mind.

My saviours are the good British gammon. The whole point of the second referendum would be to undermine democracy, the argument/debate would end there.

How is it possible to undermine democracy with democracy?

Overall, I feel sorry for Labour their leaders are uninspiring.

They aren't trying to inspire the gammon demographic, so hardly remarkable.
Their aim is probably more of a caution.

And the moon is made of cheese !

No, but your posts are mainly parmesan.

 

[Mullardman]

i assumed that the plp had designed the "6 tests" in order that it would be impossible for the tory 'government' to reach any kind of a deal that would both get cabinet support and pass those tests. cleverly. so as to appear not to stand in the way of 'thewillo'thepeople' but also to give them a backdoor out of any impasse that the tories would inevitably reach.

who knows? time will tell. they have either played a 'blinder' or they have vaccillated to the point of being ineffective in opposition. nowt left to do now but wait and see.

...but i still believe that jc would be happier out rather than in europe. which for me at least is disappointing.

Indeed. I refer the Gentleman to my earlier post #1723.

 

[rbrown]

[QUOTE="HairyHaggis, post: 3486959, member: 16214]

...but i still believe that jc would be happier out rather than in europe. which for me at least is disappointing.[/QUOTE]

Well he did vote remain, so I guess his position is in with reservations.

 

[gassor]

He has spelled his position out clearly.

So tell me, is he a remainer or a leaver?

 

[Mullardman]

Doesn't matter what he is. He has clearly stated that he would like an election, but that if he can't get an election he will look at whatever deal May achieves and vote it down if necessary. Also stated he'd go with the will of his party.

Very big contrast to May's seige mentality 'my way or no way'.

If we are honest both parties are 'hoist' by Brexit.. so the one most convincing will get the most electoral support out of it. Personally I'd take Labour 'warts and all' over the Tory crooks and thieves.

Interesting that the Tory contingent on here still have nothing positive to say about Tory policy or Govt. They can still only snipe at Labour.

The idea of a new centre party suddenly materialising is about as likely, short term, as an Alien Invasion.

 

[matthewr]

Drood you sound increasingly desperate. For a start Corbyn has ruled out a Norway-style Brexit himself and also said the free movement of workers is dead.

Labour's position is so very confusing for two reasons.

Firstly, their *official policy* on any Brexit deal is the "six tests" one of which says that a deal that doesn't retain all benefits of the single market and customs union is unacceptable and will be voted against in parliament. This means that the *hardest* Brexit they can possibly deliver is Norway/EEA. Which in turn means accepting freedom of movement.

Secondly, Labour talk about re-opening negotiations with EU with the implication being that they can get a SM and CU deal but some concessions on FoM. This was a fantasy when David Cameron tried it and when Thersa May tried it and will be when Corbyn tried it. See also the Irish backstop.

FoM and Irish backstop are problems that don't go away when you remove the Tories and the hard brexiteers. Nor are there any magic unicorn solutions that suddenly appear out of the ether -- the options on no deal, Canada style FTA, Norway style or remain. And whilst acknowledging that the current governments approach is the proximate problem, people have been ignoring or refusing to answer these questions for months. I've raised this here several times and never got an answer.

 

[Mullardman]

She was on the platform at the Labour Party conference. She is therefore a mouthpiece for the party. It wasn’t an off the cuff comment made in the pub. In fact, the applause from the crowd suggests she has their full support.

You do know what a fringe meeting is don't you?

 

[Mullardman]

Furthermore. Labour it has oft been said and was reinforced by Corbyn today..is a 'broad church'. Yet can reach democratic agreement on policy for all that. Contrast that with the 'biggest gob/bank balance/ most corporate backers' approach of the Tories, with their incessant manouvring and back stabbing.

I know which I prefer.

 

[wacko]

Matthew with 184 days left we look to well-informed, intelligent people like you for magic unicorn solutions. Or at least answers. We already have too many questions.

 

[sean99]

Labour's position is so very confusing for two reasons.

Firstly, their *official policy* on any Brexit deal is the "six tests" one of which says that a deal that doesn't retain all benefits of the single market and customs union is unacceptable and will be voted against in parliament. This means that the *hardest* Brexit they can possibly deliver is Norway/EEA. Which in turn means accepting freedom of movement.

Secondly, Labour talk about re-opening negotiations with EU with the implication being that they can get a SM and CU deal but some concessions on FoM. This was a fantasy when David Cameron tried it and when Thersa May tried it and will be when Corbyn tried it. See also the Irish backstop.

FoM and Irish backstop are problems that don't go away when you remove the Tories and the hard brexiteers. Nor are there any magic unicorn solutions that suddenly appear out of the ether -- the options on no deal, Canada style FTA, Norway style or remain. And whilst acknowledging that the current governments approach is the proximate problem, people have been ignoring or refusing to answer these questions for months. I've raised this here several times and never got an answer.

Exactly - my post #1890 says the same. Labour are playing the same deceitful games as the Tories, and hoping that the voters don't notice (because they're not in power). If Labour had decent leadership they would honestly lay out the clear options (no deal, Canada style FTA, Norway style or remain) and let their members decide. No deal should be ruled out due to the chaos it will cause. From where I'm sitting Norway has NO advantages over remain, so should be ruled out, and the Canada style FTA would require an article 50 extension of at least 1-2 years to negotiate, and would clearly offer reduced access to the single market, and throw up many thorny issues around the Irish border.

Either that or offer a second referendum, pray that the majority chooses remain and use democracy to back us out of this clusterf*ck.

Labour are obfuscating and running down the clock without offering ANY realistic solutions on Brexit.

 

[Marchbanks]

Oh, thats ok then we just leave the tories in to avoid them ever being out?

No, I think you are missing my point. The priority should be to stay in the EU so as to minimise the havoc the Tories can wreak when they (inevitably) return to power.

 

[Mullardman]

On the current trajectory, I'd say we are more likely to just have to live out the 19th and 20th Cs again.

 

[Cav]

And whilst acknowledging that the current governments approach is the proximate problem, people have been ignoring or refusing to answer these questions for months. I've raised this here several times and never got an answer.

Because no one knows. Do you?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Gassor, my 0.2% to 0.4% figure is the *annual* reduction in the GDP growth rate under different Brexit scenarios. It is based on the Treasury forecast you allude to which calculates the loss of GDP over a *15 year* period. I have simply converted that into an annual reduction in GDP growth because [...]
And you're right, the best case the Treasury considered was EFTA rather than Norway (which would be slightly better). Labour might not call their preferred position "Norway" but it looks to me like that's the trend and it's strongly implied by the "six tests".

It's worth reflecting on the annual drag George Osborne's ruinous austerity experiment inflicted on GDP growth in the UK - I'm almost certain it would work out at much more than -0.4% per year.

None of which makes Brexit good, of course. But it does mean that claims Brexit will automatically trigger a recession are simply false (if we believe the majority of forecasts).

from what I recall, the forecasts assume a pretty immediate trade deal with the USA. We know Trump is keen to do one, but we also know Trump is a rapacious opportunist, who relishes a chance to do his opponent down when he senses weakness. And, let’s face it, the negotiating team we have available to send doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, does it? All of which suggests to me that a) the trade deal with the USA might not be the salvation it is cracked up to be so b) projections based on it may benefit from closer scrutiny.

 

[Tony L]

And whilst acknowledging that the current governments approach is the proximate problem, people have been ignoring or refusing to answer these questions for months. I've raised this here several times and never got an answer.

The answer is to recind A50 and find a way to remain. Obviously! The Lib Dems, SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru are the only parties with a clue at this point IMO, though I’ve been out all day and haven’t seen Corbyn’s speech yet...

 

[gassor]

Labour's position is so very confusing for two reasons.

Firstly, their *official policy* on any Brexit deal is the "six tests" one of which says that a deal that doesn't retain all benefits of the single market and customs union is unacceptable and will be voted against in parliament. This means that the *hardest* Brexit they can possibly deliver is Norway/EEA. Which in turn means accepting freedom of movement.

Secondly, Labour talk about re-opening negotiations with EU with the implication being that they can get a SM and CU deal but some concessions on FoM. This was a fantasy when David Cameron tried it and when Thersa May tried it and will be when Corbyn tried it. See also the Irish backstop.

FoM and Irish backstop are problems that don't go away when you remove the Tories and the hard brexiteers. Nor are there any magic unicorn solutions that suddenly appear out of the ether -- the options on no deal, Canada style FTA, Norway style or remain. And whilst acknowledging that the current governments approach is the proximate problem, people have been ignoring or refusing to answer these questions for months. I've raised this here several times and never got an answer.

It is debatable if even the Norway model meets the six criteria, but it has been rejected by Corbyn and I imagine the Great British public would not go for it either. The EU will not allow any watering down of the SM, the SM or FoM arrangements so where do we go from here? I can't see anything other than a hard Brexit with a hard border in Ireland. And is there any indication that a Labour govt could do any better - not to my mind. Whatever crummy deal* emerges the Brexiteers will assure us that it isn't about economics anyway and spend the next 30 years complaining about the country falling apart.

* Maybe the deal will be deliberately fudged up that no-one really knows what it really means and we spend a few years picking it apart and by then the Brexit clamour has died down.

 

[matthewr]

It is debatable if even the Norway model meets the six criteria, but it has been rejected by Corbyn and I imagine the Great British public would not go for it either. The EU will not allow any watering down of the SM, the SM or FoM arrangements so where do we go from here? I can't see anything other than a hard Brexit with a hard border in Ireland. And is there any indication that a Labour govt could do any better - not to my mind. Whatever crummy deal* emerges the Brexiteers will assure us that it isn't about economics anyway and spend the next 30 years complaining about the country falling apart.

* Maybe the deal will be deliberately fudged up that no-one really knows what it really means and we spend a few years picking it apart and by then the Brexit clamour has died down.

Yes the same realities would hit a Corbyn government that are currently derailing the current lot.

But, the difference is that Labour could face these realities and say "Norway is the best deal we can make" and their parliamentary party and membership is not going to erupt into a massive civil war. And since this would be, by definition, happening after a GE the problem of losing seats in some traditional Labour constituencies is not an immediate problem. If we do leave the EU and sign a Norway like deal then most people, in the long run, won't care about the details and we will be back to this sort of thing only really mattering to the minority of crazies on the fringes of the Tory party. The other thing that might offer cover is if Labour ends up as the largest party in a coalition that includes the greens, lib dems etc.

So overall I can see it all happening like this and convince myself that this means Labour is the best bet for getting us out of this mess with minimal damage. But, you know, it would be nice to be able to rely on this and not have to read in between the lines and hope for the best.

 

[Ponty]

You do know what a fringe meeting is don't you?

Irrelevant, she was broadcast on national TV. Do you share her opinion?

 

[HarryB]

Irrelevant, she was broadcast on national TV. Do you share her opinion?

If she was 'broadcast on national TV' I didn't see it.

But that doesn't change the material fact. She was expressing an opinion AT A FRINGE MEETING. Her opinion may be shared by many Labour members. It may be shared by Mullardman. That's irrelevant. It is not Labour Party policy and did not come from the main conference.

What will it lead you to think if Mullardman (or me for that matter) agree with her.