Mild Rover wrote:I'd vote for that every day and twice on Sunday. However, it is a BRINO and it'd be more than just JRM, my own MP Andrew Bridgen and Bone who'd be angered. We really are screwed every which way.
For me, May's deal with some carved-in-stone guarantees on Labour priorities and everybody (well, enough bodies) swallowing their reservations on the backstop (which does leave us in a weak position for the next stage, I accept) is the best escape route. Best still doesn't necessarily equate to likely or good though, unfortunately.
As would I - and whilst lots of people wouldn't like it, I'd suggest that there would be no more of them than there are people who don't like the current offering; the only difference is that May is, on paper, in the box seat due to being in power (sort of) - hence Labour's longstanding plan that they would, if possible, go for a GE first.
Nonetheless, if she comes back with the same plan with some woolly assurances about the backstop, the HoC will reject it again; at which point, she'd be crazy not to go for a softer, Labour style deal, which will still technically be Brexit, but would a) protect us from the worst economic damage and b) would command a majority in the HoC. I couldn't care less who doesn't like it - just as the Brextremists wouldn't if they got their way.
The message now seems to be "just get on with it" - and the only sensible way to do that, is with a soft Brexit that most MP's can get behind - then it's up to them to justify to their constituents that they honoured the result, whilst protecting the UK from the economic damage of a hard Brexit or no deal.
Joined: May 30 2009 Posts: 455 Location: Warrington
bren2k wrote:I can see I'm debating with a finely honed political mind here... but nonetheless.
Labour's proposed deal with the EU is and always has been very clearly defined - they would seek to remain in the customs union and single market, because that safeguards jobs, the economy and rights and protections i.e consumer, employment, environment etc.
It removes the need for a backstop, doesn't pander to the xenophobic rush to end FoM, but still honours the result of the referendum; much like Mrs May's crappy deal, it doesn't give everyone everything they want, but since the events of the past 2 years have proven that there is no possible way of delivering a Brexit that does that, it is a plan that the EU can work with, and would probably command a majority in the HoC - and might have the added value of causing the odious JRM and Peter Bone to expire in their seats in a fit of apoplectic rage.
There you go - Brexit done; now we can move on to homelessness, NHS and social care funding crisis, the disaster that is UC, funding for schools, affordable housing etc etc.
It was said by both sides during the referendum debate that we will not be able to stay in THE customs union or the single market if we leave the EU. The EU has also confirmed we cannot cherry pick and stay in the customs union and single market without also having freedom of movement. I actually thought that Labour were now saying that we must be in A customs Union, which I agree with. That is why all these alternatives, Norway, Canada etc have been banded around.
If we stay in the customs union how can we have any imput from outside the EU
POSTL wrote:It was said by both sides during the referendum debate that we will not be able to stay in THE customs union or the single market if we leave the EU. The EU has also confirmed we cannot cherry pick and stay in the customs union and single market without also having freedom of movement. I actually thought that Labour were now saying that we must be in A customs Union, which I agree with. That is why all these alternatives, Norway, Canada etc have been banded around.
If we stay in the customs union how can we have any imput from outside the EU
If THE customs unions and single market is the starting position - there is nothing to stop the final deal being A customs union and 'close alignment' to the SM; it still avoids the backstop, and is a better situation both for the EU migrants that facts have shown we need and benefit from, and UK citizens who live and work in the EU.
You're right that the sticking point is trade deals with other countries under that arrangement; the EU have been flexible in the cases of Turkey and some other countries, but I guess the argument would be about the UK having a "say" in trade deals - exactly what a "say" would mean in legal and political terms, would need to be hashed out as part of a negotiation.
Joined: May 30 2009 Posts: 455 Location: Warrington
bren2k wrote:If THE customs unions and single market is the starting position - there is nothing to stop the final deal being A customs union and 'close alignment' to the SM; it still avoids the backstop, and is a better situation both for the EU migrants that facts have shown we need and benefit from, and UK citizens who live and work in the EU.
You're right that the sticking point is trade deals with other countries under that arrangement; the EU have been flexible in the cases of Turkey and some other countries, but I guess the argument would be about the UK having a "say" in trade deals - exactly what a "say" would mean in legal and political terms, would need to be hashed out as part of a negotiation.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12664 Location: Leicestershire.
If we get stuck in the backstop, do we get the three freedoms most of our electorate likes, while binning off the one most of it dislikes? Sounds like a good deal!
Fair enough, Liam Fox won't get to jet off to secure us all those amazing trade deals that the EU are unable to get because of reasons. And we'll be bound by rules set by the EU, while not having any representation and I guess we'll continue paying some money in.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Joined: May 30 2009 Posts: 455 Location: Warrington
bren2k wrote:If THE customs unions and single market is the starting position - there is nothing to stop the final deal being A customs union and 'close alignment' to the SM; it still avoids the backstop, and is a better situation both for the EU migrants that facts have shown we need and benefit from, and UK citizens who live and work in the EU.
You're right that the sticking point is trade deals with other countries under that arrangement; the EU have been flexible in the cases of Turkey and some other countries, but I guess the argument would be about the UK having a "say" in trade deals - exactly what a "say" would mean in legal and political terms, would need to be hashed out as part of a negotiation.
I would agree that if possible it would be a good starting position and to then see how close wee can come to that, but most of the voters must have known that the customs union was a non starter when they voted. But we would need to be involved in the discussions once we leave
I also agree with you that many of the EU migrants have contributed to the economy and their rights should be protected and that is as you say is a fact. However, there are many more coming into the country thinking that the streets are paved with gold just like we did or still do about London , I know I said it in an earlier post but we need to end Freedom of movement imo anybody who comes to this country should be coming to work. Going back to a point you mentioned in a previous post re getting back to financing schools, health service, housing etc, If we invite people to come, work and live in this country we should also fund the infrastructure. I disagree with the Tory policy that we should try and get immigration down to the 10s of thousands, if we need £100,000 then that's what it is.
POSTL wrote:I would agree that if possible it would be a good starting position and to then see how close wee can come to that, but most of the voters must have known that the customs union was a non starter when they voted. But we would need to be involved in the discussions once we leave
I also agree with you that many of the EU migrants have contributed to the economy and their rights should be protected and that is as you say is a fact. However, there are many more coming into the country thinking that the streets are paved with gold just like we did or still do about London , I know I said it in an earlier post but we need to end Freedom of movement imo anybody who comes to this country should be coming to work. Going back to a point you mentioned in a previous post re getting back to financing schools, health service, housing etc, If we invite people to come, work and live in this country we should also fund the infrastructure. I disagree with the Tory policy that we should try and get immigration down to the 10s of thousands, if we need £100,000 then that's what it is.
We don't need hundreds of thousands of migrants, there are too many foreign nationals in jobs whilst there are brits in the dole queue or stuck in the benefits system. There shouldn't be a single foreign national receiving Universal Credit etc. IMHO.
MGarbutt1986 wrote:We don't need hundreds of thousands of migrants, there are too many foreign nationals in jobs whilst there are brits in the dole queue or stuck in the benefits system. There shouldn't be a single foreign national receiving Universal Credit etc. IMHO.
Are you advocating instant deportation for any foreign national who loses their job and what if he/she is married to an English person or, they have English kids ? You haven't thought this one through have you ?
Joined: May 30 2009 Posts: 455 Location: Warrington
MGarbutt1986 wrote:We don't need hundreds of thousands of migrants, there are too many foreign nationals in jobs whilst there are brits in the dole queue or stuck in the benefits system. There shouldn't be a single foreign national receiving Universal Credit etc. IMHO.
I agree that vacancies should be offered to UK citizens first, which would also benefit the UK, I also assume that anybody working in this country for example hospitality, farming etc should be at least on the set minimum wage, or am I just nieve
I know that it has been said that we are struggling to recruit for example Nurses, Doctors etc. The number I put on in my post was just arbitrary number, my point was that don't put a figure on immigration if we need them we need them.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
, I know I said it in an earlier post but we need to end Freedom of movement imo anybody who comes to this country should be coming to work. Going back to a point you mentioned in a previous post re getting back to financing schools, health service, housing etc, If we invite people to come, work and live in this country we should also fund the infrastructure. I disagree with the Tory policy that we should try and get immigration down to the 10s of thousands, if we need £100,000 then that's what it is.
