blandy

Should I stay or should I go now - U.K. in/out of the EU (contd.)

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, peterms said:

In terms of the Labour Party, it would be hard to find two MPs whose views are so opposed as Corbyn and Hoey.

Pretty similar on EU membership

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, peterms said:

Possibly not the best example.   Tesco sold horse labelled as beef.  Even this week we have seen further food fraud, selling tainted meat from Poland this time.

This is an argument for raising standards and improving enforcement, btw.

If the argument that he is making is "this is why a tariff of 3% or 5% really doesn't make any difference", it's an excellent example. Your example amplifies rather than diminishes his point.

The fact that there are huge flaws in a system as (supposedly) watertight as the Single Market is precisely the reason this is going to be an absolute minefield in juggling all the country's future arrangements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

If the argument that he is making is "this is why a tariff of 3% or 5% really doesn't make any difference", it's an excellent example. Your example amplifies rather than diminishes his point.

The fact that there are huge flaws in a system as (supposedly) watertight as the Single Market is precisely the reason this is going to be an absolute minefield in juggling all the country's future arrangements.

I agree with that.  My point is more about being cautious about praising the current arrangements too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bickster said:

Pretty similar on EU membership

No.  Except possibly on the conclusion, on balance, are we better off in, or out.  On that particular issue, their values and trains of  thought will have been pretty different.

And moving on from that to the practical question "what am I prepared to support on tnis?", different again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, peterms said:

I agree with that.  My point is more about being cautious about praising the current arrangements too much.

I don't think he was either praising nor criticising. Simply stating what the current arrangements are, and how they differ to a bog standard FTA, as described by whoever he was correcting.

And while flawed as you rightly say, they are still more stringent and regulated than they are pretty much anywhere else on the planet, whether or not those regulations are occasionally breached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bickster said:

I don’t need to divine his opinions, go research them yourself. Someone posted a video earlier in the week of him speaking to the Irish before their second referendum. His opinions are quite easy to understand

 . . . and I say again, it does not matter one tiny jot what he said at a meeting in Ireland a decade ago. Brexit is happening now, in government and in Parliament. If it happens, how it happens, when it happens and what it looks like when it does - these are being decided now, and what your secret recording says is of frankly absolutely no consequence when compared to votes in Parliament. 

And, once again, none of this explains why - since this is the context you brought it up - Jeremy Corbyn would be protecting Kate Hoey's Labour Party membership when she constantly votes against his whips. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Brexit is happening now, in government and in Parliament. If it happens, how it happens, when it happens and what it looks like when it does - these are being decided now, and what your secret recording says is of frankly absolutely no consequence when compared to votes in Parliament. 

And so, if you'll humour me for a moment - what's the point of their position? What's the win for the country from it?

I appreciate that you're not a spokesman for the Labour party, but I'm struggling to see what the benefit is in what they say they want.

We're told that they couldn't possibly advocate scrapping the whole idea because of all those Labour voters who voted to leave and how they can't win an election with Mansfield / Stoke / Boston et cetera. So when they are doorstepping in those places in 2022, which bit of their position as laid out in that letter from Corbyn to May are they pointing at and saying "this is why we think leaving was a good idea, and how your life is now going to be better because of it".

Edited by ml1dch
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, peterms said:

Possibly not the best example.   Tesco sold horse labelled as beef.  Even this week we have seen further food fraud, selling tainted meat from Poland this time.

This is an argument for raising standards and improving enforcement, btw.

Agreed.

I have been thinking about the UK media's complaints about "EU red tape" -- something tells me it raises standards in Latvia and Romania (no offence to these countries) far more than it does in the UK or France. Nobody really makes the argument that the majority of EU regulations come from the the likes of the UK dictating to poorer countries which minimum standards they'll accept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest proposition:

 “Vote May’s deal through but it won’t be enacted into law until after a second referendum pitching May’s deal against Remain”.

It could make for an interesting result. Not much in it for the hard Brexitiers though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LondonLax said:

The latest proposition:

 “Vote May’s deal through but it won’t be enacted into law until after a second referendum pitching May’s deal against Remain”.

It could make for an interesting result. Not much in it for the hard Brexitiers though. 

We're presumably in that phase of people saying "we should compromise by doing what I want".

So all that Malthouse nonsense was basically Mogg and his nutters magically discovering that the way to break the impasse was just to do all the things that said they wanted.

And this will no doubt be backed by Soubrey et al, who have now magically discovered that the way to break the impasse is to just do the thing that they want.

Next up, Corbyn - "we should compromise by having a General Election"

Sturgeon - "we should compromise by announcing Scottish independence".

Farage - "we should compromise by mortar-bombing Strasbourg and having show trials for Tusk and Juncker"

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Not much in it for the hard Brexitiers though.

From a democracy point of view, that's bad

From a personal point of view, f*** 'em

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, snowychap said:

Worth 10 minutes of your time to read through the thread beginning with the tweet above.

One may not come to the same conclusions as the writer of the thread but it does contain some important nuggets especially in relation to the sources of predictions which form the basis of claims made by the likes of DFDS Fox.

Good thread. I never knew South America had a formal customs union, nevermind that Argentina had inserted clauses about the Falklands into it. Smart move by them, in fairness. Northern Irish Border, Part Deux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/02/2019 at 22:02, peterms said:

I agree with that.  My point is more about being cautious about praising the current arrangements too much.

Re this Tesco selling horse labelled as beef and further food fraud, selling tainted meat from Poland etc. - it's not the EU that polices and checks whether people, traders etc. break the law, it's national standards bodies etc. isn't it? The EU made a law (and no doubt the UK stand alone would do the same) prohibiting the mis-labelling and fraud. Lax inspection, budget cuts and such like are the reason it (perhaps) took longer than ideal to catch people at it. Though they were caught and action was taken. That's not a problem with current EU arrangements in this area at all, as far as my reading goes.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the Tories’ 48-year-old new youth spokesman is more than a joke

'Life, so the old cliche goes, begins at 40. The Tory leadership appears to have taken it literally, having appointed 48-year-old Mid Worcestershire MP Nigel Huddleston as their new vice-chair for youth in a minor reshuffle of junior government jobs this afternoon.

Huddleston replaces actual millennial Tom Pursglove, a longstanding Brexit ultra who was appointed last summer at 29 before resigning to vote against the withdrawal agreement last month. Pursglove himself replaced Ben Bradley, 28, who quit in protest at Theresa May’s Chequers proposals for a soft Brexit.

There is obvious and low-hanging comedy value in Huddleston’s appointment. He is almost twice the maximum age for the youth wing he is now responsible for, which is more reliable as a source of embarrassment for the Tories than it is campaigning firepower. As metaphors for the success of its attempts to build support among young voters go, it is hard to beat. That the government cannot even find a millennial MP to take this gig attests to the abject division of its 2015 and 2017 intakes on Brexit and says much about their chances in the country.

Just as important than Huddleston’s age is his CV. He has not been plucked from the backbenches but promoted from another junior position: parliamentary private secretary to Jeremy Wright, the culture secretary. The same is true of today’s other moves: Bim Afolami, one of the stars of the 2017 intake, has been promoted from PPS at the Department for Transport to PPS to Penny Mordaunt, while Leo Docherty moves from the Ministry of Housing to replace Huddleston.

Shuffling MPs who are already on the government payroll does nothing to grow the number of votes Theresa May can depend on as a matter of course. That nobody who voted against her Brexit deal has been brought back into the tent reflects the fact that not even government patronage – and in the case of Huddleston’s new job, a £10,000 salary – can convince opponents of the withdrawal agreement to abandon their objections. The only inducements it can offer have already been thoroughly devalued by resignations. If she is to win back her party before the next meaningful vote, Theresa May will need to offer the sort of substantive change to the deal that is as good as impossible to offer.'

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/02/why-tories-48-year-old-new-youth-spokesman-more-joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

48, from Lincoln, I think he went to Oxford and then UCLA, MP for droitwich

I'm going to throw it out there....he doesn't represent many of us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, villa4europe said:

48, from Lincoln, I think he went to Oxford and then UCLA, MP for droitwich

I'm going to throw it out there....he doesn't represent many of us...

No indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites