advertisement


Let the Brexit begin

clivem2 said:
Did they? I recall the official position of both parties as Remain. JC and TM were both either quiet or non-committal.
Click to expand...

What happened yesterday in Parliament re: the single market and customs union vote made it quite clear where JC and the majority of the Labour Party stand on the issue.
JC was always a Euro Sceptic TM was only a remainer becouse she thought It would advance her career, and was probably a Brexiter all along.
 
clivem2 said:
Did they? I recall the official position of both parties as Remain. JC and TM were both either quiet or non-committal.
Click to expand...
At the election just three weeks ago.

So this Parliament is manifesto bound on both sides of the House to pursue leaving, rendering Sue's thoughts null.

Paul
 
mhv said:
Agreed, but why did Chuka insist on putting amendment at this time. That, to me, is the biggest mistake. Let the Tories own Brexit, **** up & then see where the pieces lie. It's a long game this Brexit lark...

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/when-capturing-middle-ground-works-or.html
Click to expand...

Because the right thing to do is to put national interest before politics and try to prevent us leaving the Single Market.

It would be better for most of us that things are not in lying in pieces at the end of this.
 
JC wants to be left of the EU. An influential part of the Tory Party wants to be right of the EU. Nobody cares about the long or short-term future.
If someone from the EU competes with you or takes your job that is personal and you voted for Brexit. If the economy grows and jobs due to membership of the largest, richest trade bloc that is impersonal and not readily apparent : A reason Referendums don't work.
 
wacko said:
JC wants to be left of the EU. An influential part of the Tory Party wants to be right of the EU.
Click to expand...

That's about the size of it I suspect, e.g. Corbyn knows he can't truly protect the NHS from privatisation or nationalise certain infrastructure whilst in the EU, just as the Tories know they can't slash human/workers rights and benefits to make the ultra-low tax small state they so crave.
 
Paul R said:
At the election just three weeks ago.

So this Parliament is manifesto bound on both sides of the House to pursue leaving, rendering Sue's thoughts null.

Paul
Click to expand...
It looks like more of a grey area. Lab and Con were not proposing Brexit at the election, they were saying they would implement the will of the people. What happens if by the time the negotiations are completed, parliament votes down the agreement and the nation is thought to have changed its mind. I believe whatever was written into manifestos would not hold water.
 
Tony L said:
That's about the size of it I suspect, e.g. Corbyn knows he can't truly protect the NHS from privatisation or nationalise certain infrastructure whilst in the EU, just as the Tories know they can't slash human/workers rights and benefits to make the ultra-low tax small state they so crave.
Click to expand...

The EU has no say in either and never did. Labour would have remained in the EU but cannot deny, as a Socialist Party, the referendum.

Anyway, Article 50 has been invoked so we are out whoever the Government is.
 
clivem2 said:
It looks like more of a grey area. Lab and Con were not proposing Brexit at the election, they were saying they would implement the will of the people. What happens if by the time the negotiations are completed, parliament votes down the agreement and the nation is thought to have changed its mind. I believe whatever was written into manifestos would not hold water.
Click to expand...
There would have to be a general election. It seems unlikely a change of government would be possible.

Brexit is beyond 'proposition'. It's in process. If Labour had stood on a platform of backing away from Brexit and done as well as they did then there would be purpose to these fantasies.

Paul
 
Tony L said:
That's about the size of it I suspect, e.g. Corbyn knows he can't truly protect the NHS from privatisation or nationalise certain infrastructure whilst in the EU, just as the Tories know they can't slash human/workers rights and benefits to make the ultra-low tax small state they so crave.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that, Tony? Are there EU plans to change the status quo?
 
PsB said:
What makes you say that, Tony? Are there EU plans to change the status quo?
Click to expand...

I am not knowledgeable, but I thought one major argument used by those involved in the stealth-privatisation of the NHS, the sell-off of the Royal Mail etc was that open competition within the EU block was a requirement. I certainly remember that argument being widely used with the RM (I'm a shareholder out of sheer anger of it being privatised, basically I grabbed my 'part' rather than let the bloody Tories have it!).
 
Most of the main healthcare facilities in the main European countries are government and/or mutual sponsored "not for profit" operations.

That seems at odds with the Conservative plans which seemingly have more in common with US healthcare systems IME.

IMHO Profit cannot be a driver in any civilized societies healthcare provision.
 
I've just been having this exact "discussion" with my dear daughter, so I'm trying to educate myself on the subject. My vague understanding at this stage is that a public operator can't refuse market access to competitors, but there is no prohibition of nationalized operators or nationalization. So a private energy supplier must be able to get fair access to the grid, or a private rail operator access to the rail network, and a public health system can't prevent private clinics setting up, but none of this prevents public sector operators, nationalization, or re-nationalization.
 
Nationalised industries are common in Europe and there is no open competition requirement. In fact France and Germany are major shareholders in UK train companies and use their UK dividends to subsidise their nationalised train operations.
 
PsB said:
I've just been having this exact "discussion" with my dear daughter, so I'm trying to educate myself on the subject. My vague understanding at this stage is that a public operator can't refuse market access to competitors, but there is no prohibition of nationalized operators or nationalization. So a private energy supplier must be able to get fair access to the grid, or a private rail operator access to the rail network, and a public health system can't prevent private clinics setting up, but none of this prevents public sector operators, nationalization, or re-nationalization.
Click to expand...

That is how I understand it. Public utilities have to be nominally open to private competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top