Labour betray their leave voters..

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:07 pm

dsr wrote:There will be no increase in the physical difficulty of getting food in. There may be an increase in the paperwork. So if push comes to shove, what would the government do - let the food in, or let the people starve? I know you like to pretend to believe they will let the people starve, but they won't.

As I said, DSR, you're focusing on trade again, which is but a small part of the No Deal scenario.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:08 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:p.s. not sure why Baccus is saying we were promised Norway. We were promised "taking back control". That isn't Norway. A few zealots like Hannan like Norway but they are on the fringes. The TBC slogan was the key one, the one that appealed to people, because people feel they currently have no control, and no power to influence.

Hi Crosspool, here is that fringe campaigner Nigel Farage (among others) repeatedly extolling the virtues of the Norway option. Of course, it's well documented that he had absolutely no influence on the Leave campaign. None whatsoever.

https://youtu.be/0xGt3QmRSZY

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:11 pm

Bacchus wrote:Hi Crosspool, here is that fringe campaigner Nigel Farage (among others) repeatedly extolling the virtues of the Norway option. Of course, it's well documented that he had absolutely no influence on the Leave campaign. None whatsoever.

https://youtu.be/0xGt3QmRSZY

But i've heard remainers say that Norway is worse than leaving as you hove to follow all the rules without having a say.

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:13 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:So what you're saying then is that there will be a deal.
No deal means a complete severing of ties with the EU.

The withdrawal agreement, and future trade agreement are 2 separate things, the EU doesn't like parts of Chequers which is the future trade arrangements.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:14 pm

I doubt that. For people who want to be free of the EU at all costs I'm sure it's a halfway house that makes no sense. For remainers it's less than ideal, not a patch on remaining, but infinitely preferable to leaving with no deal whatsoever.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:33 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're a fan of soundbites Ringo, so here's one. Measure twice, cut once.

I'm a fan of democracy.

We measured twice.

1975

2016.

We cut on March 29 2019.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:35 pm

claretandy wrote:The withdrawal agreement, and future trade agreement are 2 separate things, the EU doesn't like parts of Chequers which is the future trade arrangements.

So why are the government publishing approx 80 papers that assess the impact of "no deal" in all sorts of areas that aren't related to future trade?
They must be even more incompetent than we both think.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:16 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:I'm a fan of democracy.

We measured twice.

1975

2016.

We cut on March 29 2019.

Ah, so now you're implying that in 1975 we did agree to join the EU as it is now? Can't have it both ways, Ringo. Did we agree to join what we're now leaving, or didn't we?

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:08 pm

Bacchus wrote:My interpretation? It was the entire basis Brexit was sold on. Please feel free to share the campaign material pushing the virtues of a no deal Brexit. I'm sure some people were hoping for a complete severing of ties with the EU. It's impossible to claim a mandate for that because that was not the message being put out by the leave campaign. We aren't talking about a slight variance here - it's a whole different world to the one that was promised.
.

You are pretending the whole referendum was about the nuances of how we deal with the EU, it wasn't. All the things were mentioned by the leave campaign were just ideas of things that could possibly happen, except once again some remainers decide to take something one person said, literally and then claim that as the whole leave campaign.

At the end of the day it boiled down to 2 scenarios :

1. Leave the EU with some kind of negotiated deal.
2. Not agree a deal and leave on WTO terms.

Everyone, who took notice of the referendum understood this.

SmudgetheClaret · Post by **SmudgetheClaret** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:15 pm

Are Mc Donnell and Starmer playing Rock Paper Scissors on what their peoples vote (2nd ref) questions will be ? I thought the Tories looked split but Labour are all over the place...

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:40 pm

burnleymik wrote:You are pretending the whole referendum was about the nuances of how we deal with the EU, it wasn't. All the things were mentioned by the leave campaign were just ideas of things that could possibly happen, except once again some remainers decide to take something one person said, literally and then claim that as the whole leave campaign.

At the end of the day it boiled down to 2 scenarios :

1. Leave the EU with some kind of negotiated deal.
2. Not agree a deal and leave on WTO terms.

Everyone, who took notice of the referendum understood this.

We were told that a deal with the EU would be the “easiest one in history”

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:46 pm

AndrewJB wrote:We were told that a deal with the EU would be the “easiest one in history”

Exactly my point. Quoting one person and claiming it for the whole campaign.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:48 pm

AndrewJB wrote:We were told that a deal with the EU would be the “easiest one in history”

Why does it matter to us how easy the deal is? I know there is a minor impact on confidence. The politicians have 2 years, if they sweat a little, or sweat a lot, why does that matter?

Let’s just have patience and decide in March 2019 (or March 2021 after transition) if the deal is good.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:49 pm

burnleymik wrote:You are pretending the whole referendum was about the nuances of how we deal with the EU, it wasn't. All the things were mentioned by the leave campaign were just ideas of things that could possibly happen, except once again some remainers decide to take something one person said, literally and then claim that as the whole leave campaign.

At the end of the day it boiled down to 2 scenarios :

1. Leave the EU with some kind of negotiated deal.
2. Not agree a deal and leave on WTO terms.

Everyone, who took notice of the referendum understood this.

And all of the key players enthusiastically proclaimed that a wonderful new deal with the EU would be a piece of p1ss. They need us more than we need them, remember? 5 minutes work. Keep all the good bits, lose all the bad bits. Claiming otherwise is Olympic standard revisionism.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:52 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Why does it matter to us how easy the deal is? I know there is a minor impact on confidence. The politicians have 2 years, if they sweat a little, or sweat a lot, why does that matter?

Let’s just have patience and decide in March 2019 (or March 2021 after transition) if the deal is good.

Because the entire premise was that it was virtually a done deal already. 'No deal' was so unrealistic as to be a risk not even worth considering. Only that's conclusively proven not to be the case. That's why it's relevant, and that's why referring it back to the people is the only way to legitimise the Brexit we're undoubtedly heading towards.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:55 pm

burnleymik wrote:Exactly my point. Quoting one person and claiming it for the whole campaign.

That one person is responsible for our foreign trade policy. He's quite a key player in all this (supposedly anyway - in reality he's a clueless pillock.) Its hardly hanging on the word of Barry from the pub.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:01 pm

Bacchus wrote:And all of the key players enthusiastically proclaimed that a wonderful new deal with the EU would be a piece of p1ss .

Please quote all these "key players".

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:04 pm

Bacchus wrote:That one person is responsible for our foreign trade policy. He's quite a key player in all this (supposedly anyway - in reality he's a clueless pillock.) Its hardly hanging on the word of Barry from the pub.

Clearly he wasn't because he was undermined totally by the PM and her Civil Servants.

Remember how many different people told us what Voting to Leave the EU meant (SM, CU etc), including Cameron, Osbourne, Clegg etc etc, yet remainers us tell us we didn't know what we were voting for. You can't have it all ways.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:13 pm

burnleymik wrote:Clearly he wasn't because he was undermined totally by the PM and her Civil Servants.

Remember how many different people told us what Voting to Leave the EU meant (SM, CU etc), including Cameron, Osbourne, Clegg etc etc, yet remainers us tell us we didn't know what we were voting for. You can't have it all ways.

That was Project Fear though, wasn't it? Thought we weren't allowed to believe a word of what they said? You're now telling me that we should have listened to Remain campaigners over Leave campaigners to understand what leaving meant? No wonder people were confused.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:22 pm

Bacchus wrote:That was Project Fear though, wasn't it? Thought we weren't allowed to believe a word of what they said? You're now telling me that we should have listened to Remain campaigners over Leave campaigners to understand what leaving meant? No wonder people were confused.

It's only you who seems to be confused.

It's quite clear and always has been. The only people trying to muddy the waters are the ones who still refuse to accept the democratic vote.

Jakubclaret · Post by **Jakubclaret** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:05 pm

Bacchus wrote:That was Project Fear though, wasn't it? Thought we weren't allowed to believe a word of what they said? You're now telling me that we should have listened to Remain campaigners over Leave campaigners to understand what leaving meant? No wonder people were confused.

In fairness remain can only validly criticise when the final terms have been ratified & not until, I don’t think you’d find 1 leave voter who’d admit so far that things have run smooth, patience is required, lots of leavers had remain won would be waiting before criticising its important to remember we haven’t left yet. By all means criticise then if it’s a bum deal, I don’t think it will be.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:28 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:As I said, DSR, you're focusing on trade again, which is but a small part of the No Deal scenario.

Huh? I was focusing on your talk of stockpiling and shortages. If those hypothetical shortages aren't going to be caused by trade conditions, what do you think they will be caused by?

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:55 pm

I'm

what Labour's Brexit stance is,it seems to me they are hoping the Government collapses,which could well occur,however if Labour where to attain power i'm not sure what they would do differently.

Labour's six tests are

1.Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2.Does it deliver the "exact same benefits" as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3.Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4.Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5.Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6.Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

The first test sounds difficult to achieve without some form of regulatory alignment,which many leavers don't want.
The second test is impossible unless the UK remains members of both,we can't cherry pick the EU have made this clear.
The third test is deliberately vague,not dissimilar to the Governments proposals TBF.
The fourth test again will require the UK to incorporate many existing EU laws into UK legislation,
The fifth test requires the EU to cooperate in any intelligence gathering or criminal investigations,the UK is apparently not retaining the EAW,so there would have to be a replacement system to ensure the Costa Del Crime doesn't arise again.
The sixth test is again worded vaguely,for example any deal is unlikely to meet the approval of the Scottish Parliament,but Labour have been very vocal that they do not want a 2nd Indy Ref,North of the border.

The two major issues not covered by these tests are airspace and fisheries.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45640548

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:31 am

burnleymik wrote:Clearly he wasn't because he was undermined totally by the PM and her Civil Servants.

Remember how many different people told us what Voting to Leave the EU meant (SM, CU etc), including Cameron, Osbourne, Clegg etc etc, yet remainers us tell us we didn't know what we were voting for. You can't have it all ways.

Ah, the 'stab in the back' excuse. "We would have achieved this, but for the fact we've been undermined by: (insert the traitor(s) of the moment here)"

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:37 am

dsr wrote:Huh? I was focusing on your talk of stockpiling and shortages. If those hypothetical shortages aren't going to be caused by trade conditions, what do you think they will be caused by?

Good effort, but.... I didn't say that those 2 things weren't related to potential trade issues. I said that they were among the govt. preparations for No deal, which does not inspire confidence.
However, (in any case), the issue with medicines isn't specifically related to trade, and as I said, there are many other aspects of our EU membership that we should be concerned about - more serious than trade, if we walk away with no deal.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:39 am

AndrewJB wrote:Ah, the 'stab in the back' excuse."

Excuse or fact?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:12 am

burnleymik wrote:Excuse or fact?

Excuse. The real problem has been May's "red lines" and they were clearly drawn up to placate the Brexit faction.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:18 am

nil_desperandum wrote:Good effort, but.... I didn't say that those 2 things weren't related to potential trade issues. I said that they were among the govt. preparations for No deal, which does not inspire confidence.
However, (in any case), the issue with medicines isn't specifically related to trade, and as I said, there are many other aspects of our EU membership that we should be concerned about - more serious than trade, if we walk away with no deal.

What are they related to then? Brexit obviously will make negligible difference to production of medicine or food, so if you're suggesting that we will be short of them and it won't be because of trade barriers - then what will it be because of?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:21 am

aggi wrote:Excuse. The real problem has been May's "red lines" and they were clearly drawn up to placate the Brexit faction.

"clearly drawn up to placate the Brexit faction."

That's only to be expected in a democracy.

Leave won......

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:24 am

Radicalized Remoaners -

EU red lines - admirably defending it's fundamental principles.

UK red lines - pandering to xenophobic, swivel eyed, racist little Englanders.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:36 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:"clearly drawn up to placate the Brexit faction."

That's only to be expected in a democracy.

Leave won......

Which is fine. But then trying to blame the ineffective negotiations on remain even though the brexit criteria is causing the issues is a bit grasping at straws.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:37 am

dsr wrote:What are they related to then? Brexit obviously will make negligible difference to production of medicine or food, so if you're suggesting that we will be short of them and it won't be because of trade barriers - then what will it be because of?

I think you need to do some reading up our agreements with the EU over co-operation over science and medicine, but you're still deflecting from my main point which is that there are far more problems than those caused by trade.
The govt. is in process of publishing over 80 papers that assess the impact of leaving with no deal. The majority are not related to trade, and reverting to WTO terms does not solve them. That was my original point if you look back.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:40 am

I'm working for a retired couple. Both obsessive clarets!

Both life long Labour voters. The gentleman was a paid up member for decades, His father was the treasurer for the local party for donkeys years. The ladie has roots in South Wales ( she's stopping down there when we play Cardiff Saturday )

They've both said, if there's a 2nd referendum they will NOT vote again.

They've both said that "I'll never vote for Labour again they're no longer for the working man"

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:41 am

aggi wrote:Which is fine. But then trying to blame the ineffective negotiations on remain even though the brexit criteria is causing the issues is a bit grasping at straws.

See my 2nd post.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:42 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:They've both said that "I'll never vote for Labour again they're no longer for the working man"

Wasn't that said about Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell as well, especially after the WMD fiasco?

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:43 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Radicalized Remoaners -

EU red lines - admirably defending it's fundamental principles.

UK red lines - pandering to xenophobic, swivel eyed, racist little Englanders.

The only person saying that is you, which is a bit of change of view from you.

The issue with the red lines is we painted ourselves into a negotiating corner very early on. So many of the "solutions" that were being proposed were incompatible with them but we still tried to present them as things that may happen whilst the EU knew full well that we wouldn't be able to agree them as they fell foul of the very public announcement on the red lines.

I saw a nice illustration of how the red lines were incompatible with many of the "solutions" that had been proposed pre and post the vote:

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:49 am

aggi wrote:Excuse. The real problem has been May's "red lines" and they were clearly drawn up to placate the Brexit faction.

Why should you need to placate the side that won? That doesn't make much sense...

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:52 am

Spijed wrote:Wasn't that said about Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell as well, especially after the WMD fiasco?

Yes it was said, you're correct.

But not by this couple. So it shows, at least for my customers, how considerable the disconnect between them and their , now former , party, has become.

They wont be on their own.

Seeing a Labour MP having to have a police escort into its party conference through fear of violence from far left thugs. Won't win many right minded votes.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:52 am

Why do so many remainers claim all the problems we have with EU immigration is because of our governments austerity and how terrible it is, whilst at the same time supporting the EU that has forced austerity upon it's members, including Greece, Portugal and Ireland?

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:53 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:
Seeing a Labour MP having to have a police escort into its party conference through fear of violence from far left thugs. Won't win many right minded votes.

Saw that and it was pretty shocking.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:54 am

aggi wrote:The only person saying that is you, which is a bit of change of view from you.

The issue with the red lines is we painted ourselves into a negotiating corner very early on. So many of the "solutions" that were being proposed were incompatible with them but we still tried to present them as things that may happen whilst the EU knew full well that we wouldn't be able to agree them as they fell foul of the very public announcement on the red lines.

I saw a nice illustration of how the red lines were incompatible with many of the "solutions" that had been proposed pre and post the vote:

Smashing aggi.

The UK will be sticking to ,its 17.4 million people deep, red line

We're leaving the European Union.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:06 am

burnleymik wrote:Saw that and it was pretty shocking.

And now theyre calling for a general strike to bring down our democratically elected government.

Number 10 has just edged a few more feet away from, the Venuzela loving, comrade Corbyn.....

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:09 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Smashing aggi.

The UK will be sticking to ,its 17.4 million people deep, red line

We're leaving the European Union.

A well thought out response as always. No thoughts on how announcing our red lines early was poor negotiating strategy and is part of what has led us into this current mess (I assume that not even you think that the negotiations are going well).

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:14 am

"Comrades, we must topple this cruel and callous Tory government as soon as we can.

“And if we can’t get a general election we should organise with our brothers and sisters in the trade union [movement] to bring an end to this government with a general strike.”

There's nothing like democracy.

And that's NOTHING LIKE DEMOCRACY

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:15 am

aggi wrote:A well thought out response as always. No thoughts on how announcing our red lines early was poor negotiating strategy and is part of what has led us into this current mess (I assume that not even you think that the negotiations are going well).

One man's "well thought out response as always" is another man's fact.....

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:22 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:"Comrades, we must topple this cruel and callous Tory government as soon as we can.

“And if we can’t get a general election we should organise with our brothers and sisters in the trade union [movement] to bring an end to this government with a general strike.”

There's nothing like democracy.

And that's NOTHING LIKE DEMOCRACY

Do they not realise that outside their bubble very few working people would go out on strike to take down a democratically elected government? Frightening how insulated some of them really are.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:29 am

burnleymik wrote:Do they not realise that outside their bubble very few working people would go out on strike to take down a democratically elected government? Frightening how insulated some of them really are.

Not as insulated as the radicalised Remoaners that stalk the wastelands of the political threads of this message board. Like hooded, grim reapers, peddling prophecies of impending economic Armageddon!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:33 am

They wouldn't go on strike outside of the public sector for the simple reason being that they would be risking their jobs and security.

They wouldn't give two ***** about the democratic elected government to be honest, they'd be thinking about their jobs.

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:35 am

....but aren't Labour all about the workers? Why would they want people to risk their jobs?

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:53 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:They wouldn't go on strike outside of the public sector for the simple reason being that they would be risking their jobs and security.

They wouldn't give two ***** about the democratic elected government to be honest, they'd be thinking about their jobs.

Talking of radicalised Remoaners.......

Here's one that "has the unfortunate habit of being right most of the time"!