Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Clearly, what a lot of people hadn't banked on, is now that the Tory party are ... pushing for the hardest brexit possible...

This is b*llocks. The government's stated position is to negotiate the best access to the single market that they can get, given that free movement of people and ECJ supremacy is not going to happen post-Brexit. The end result might be "the hardest Brexit possible" but that's no what is being pushed for.

And if you don't believe the above then why would the Tories be pushing for the hardest Brexit possible? If that is the desired endgame then they just tell the EU to f*** off after triggering Article 50. There's no pushing required to achieve that!

I think they have chosen the hardest realistic option for Brexit at every opportunity presented to them thus far, given the practicalities and confines of being a party that straddles both sides of the debate. For every realistic option presented so far, the option chosen has been towards a harder Brexit.

I am quite resigned to the fact that there the UK will be out on their own in the WTO, and that's about it.

wallace_and_gromit

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think they have chosen the hardest realistic option for Brexit at every opportunity presented to them thus far, given the practicalities and confines of being a party that straddles both sides of the debate. For every realistic option presented so far, the option chosen has been towards a harder Brexit.

This is very different to your one-liner above and closer to my perception of the reality. My perception is that the UK's only 2 red lines are FoM and the ECJ and without these it's hard to see any solution that realistically satisfies the "smell test" of leaving the EU. Most variants without UK control of FoM and court supremacy are essentially maintaining the obligations and benefits of EU membership, but with no voting power, in exchange for a potentially slightly reduced contribution, which doesn't really sound like leaving the EU in any meaningful fashion.

rick_chasey

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think they have chosen the hardest realistic option for Brexit at every opportunity presented to them thus far, given the practicalities and confines of being a party that straddles both sides of the debate. For every realistic option presented so far, the option chosen has been towards a harder Brexit.

This is very different to your one-liner above and closer to my perception of the reality. My perception is that the UK's only 2 red lines are FoM and the ECJ and without these it's hard to see any solution that realistically satisfies the "smell test" of leaving the EU. Most variants without UK control of FoM and court supremacy are essentially maintaining the obligations and benefits of EU membership, but with no voting power, in exchange for a potentially slightly reduced contribution, which doesn't really sound like leaving the EU in any meaningful fashion.

Right, but that was an option, and not taken. There "red lines" are options the Tory party have chosen to take. Many in their party did not campaign to leave on those "red lines", let alone those who wanted to stay, so they were politically genuine options, especially if you look at the makeup of the brexit vote - 52-48.

Ergo, it's a UKIP Brexit. UKIP are quite happy with what the Tories are doing, if that isn't evidence enough. How can that be described as anything apart from the hardest Brexit?

Stevo_666

Gentlemen, interesting as the debate is, this thread is for leftiebollox; the other thread is for Eurobollox

wallace_and_gromit

Rick Chasey wrote:

How can that be described as anything apart from the hardest Brexit?

Notwithstanding Stevo's comment, it can easily be described as something other than the hardest Brexit simply because there is a broad spectrum of Brexit flavours that are harder than what the government is aiming for. AFAIK, the government could simply repatriate all EU nationals, refuse to cooperate on security matters, not negotiate any trade terms, reclaim our fishing waters by force etc. but these are not options being pursued. Ergo the description "hardest possible Brexit" is just overblown hype.

They're obviously not aiming for a "soft" Brexit (a.k.a. not really leaving the EU in any meaningful sense) but there's a sliding scale of hardness, with the government aiming for something on the firm side of things.

RallyBiker

Anyways, I still think Corbyn's great!

secretsam

RallyBiker wrote:

Anyways, I still think Corbyn's great!

I am a socially aware, left of centre middle class professional. Well educated, pretty smart. I actually agree with Corbyn on some key issues.

I think he's an incompetent, unsuited to leadership and promoted beyond his ability, who is surrounded by cronies who are only interested in their own narrow world view.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Gentlemen, interesting as the debate is, this thread is for leftiebollox; the other thread is for Eurobollox

The mind boggles at the practicalities of repatriating 3 million people - As it is Stalinesque I think you can keep these loons.

surrey_commuter

SecretSam wrote:

RallyBiker wrote:

Anyways, I still think Corbyn's great!

I am a socially aware, left of centre middle class professional. Well educated, pretty smart. I actually agree with Corbyn on some key issues.

I think he's an incompetent, unsuited to leadership and promoted beyond his ability, who is surrounded by cronies who are only interested in their own narrow world view.

I am right of centre and I agree with him on a number of issues.... abolishing the monarchy, scrapping Trident and aircraft carriers, giving Falklands and N. Ireland back.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Gentlemen, interesting as the debate is, this thread is for leftiebollox; the other thread is for Eurobollox

difficult one, we are discussing why labour is in deep trouble in these 2 by-elections and why voters who would normally support them are voting tory/ukip or staying at home and the reasons seem to be eu/brexit, hence the crosstalk.

anyhow the people have spoken and they clearly want to talk eurobollox on here, their will must be respected.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Gentlemen, interesting as the debate is, this thread is for leftiebollox; the other thread is for Eurobollox

difficult one, we are discussing why labour is in deep trouble in these 2 by-elections and why voters who would normally support them are voting tory/ukip or staying at home and the reasons seem to be eu/brexit, hence the crosstalk.

anyhow the people have spoken and they clearly want to talk eurobollox on here, their will must be respected.

How exciting - is this what they meant by taking back control?

bompington

Surrey Commuter wrote:

giving Falklands and N. Ireland back.

O/T maybe, but I'm wondering exactly who you'd give them back to given that nobody else has ever actually owned them

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Gentlemen, interesting as the debate is, this thread is for leftiebollox; the other thread is for Eurobollox

difficult one, we are discussing why labour is in deep trouble in these 2 by-elections and why voters who would normally support them are voting tory/ukip or staying at home and the reasons seem to be eu/brexit, hence the crosstalk.

anyhow the people have spoken and they clearly want to talk eurobollox on here, their will must be respected.

Fair enough, I respect democratic decisions unlike some people

Although Ricks claim that the govt is pursuing the hardest possible BREXIT is complete Eurobollox

Stevo_666

bompington wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

giving Falklands and N. Ireland back.

O/T maybe, but I'm wondering exactly who you'd give them back to given that nobody else has ever actually owned them

IIRC we claimed the Falklands before Argentina existed as a country.

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Gentlemen, interesting as the debate is, this thread is for leftiebollox; the other thread is for Eurobollox

The mind boggles at the practicalities of repatriating 3 million people - As it is Stalinesque I think you can keep these loons.

Not sure about that, but I'm expatriating myself to France tomorrow morning to prop up an ailing semi socialist economy and squash a few snowflakes

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

giving Falklands and N. Ireland back.

O/T maybe, but I'm wondering exactly who you'd give them back to given that nobody else has ever actually owned them

IIRC we claimed the Falklands before Argentina existed as a country.

That would start a whole debate on when Argentina became a sovereign state. W&G is your expert on sovereignty so I will let him debate it.

RallyBiker

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Gentlemen, interesting as the debate is, this thread is for leftiebollox; the other thread is for Eurobollox

The mind boggles at the practicalities of repatriating 3 million people - As it is Stalinesque I think you can keep these loons.

Not sure about that, but I'm expatriating myself to France tomorrow morning to prop up an ailing semi socialist economy and squash a few snowflakes

Hope it's not grass! Stay safe!

Stevo_666

RallyBiker wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Gentlemen, interesting as the debate is, this thread is for leftiebollox; the other thread is for Eurobollox

The mind boggles at the practicalities of repatriating 3 million people - As it is Stalinesque I think you can keep these loons.

Not sure about that, but I'm expatriating myself to France tomorrow morning to prop up an ailing semi socialist economy and squash a few snowflakes

Hope it's not grass! Stay safe!

They've got nearly a metre snow cover at the bottom and two at the top. Should just about be enough, assuming I can dig myself out of the hotel 8)

ballysmate

More good news
If Jezza falls on his sword or gets stabbed in the back, whichever metaphor applies, there is no vote winner waiting in the wings to take over.

http://www.labour.org.uk/people/filter/c/shadow-cabinet

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

More good news
If Jezza falls on his sword or gets stabbed in the back, whichever metaphor applies, there is no vote winner waiting in the wings to take over.

http://www.labour.org.uk/people/filter/c/shadow-cabinet

Given the membership base and the rules for choosing the party leader, they would just elect another vote losing leftietwat

RallyBiker

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

More good news
If Jezza falls on his sword or gets stabbed in the back, whichever metaphor applies, there is no vote winner waiting in the wings to take over.

http://www.labour.org.uk/people/filter/c/shadow-cabinet

Given the membership base and the rules for choosing the party leader, they would just elect another vote losing leftietwat

Diane Abbott should do the business admirably. VOTE ABBOTT!

RallyBiker

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 0224122779

mamba80

"Number 10 declined to comment on the compensation payments, whether they were necessary, whether they would be reviewed or why Mrs May had agreed with them, or tried to stop them.

A spokesman also refused to say why Mrs May as Home Secretary had allowed al-Harith to travel back to Syria in 2014.

Mrs May’s deputy official spokesman said to each question: “It is an intelligence matter."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02 ... uantanamo/


http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/ ... 0224122779


which story above is true and which is a load of b0ll0x, yep easy one, no home secretary let alone a Tory one or gov would give compensation and stop monitoring of suspected terrorist suspects....... Blair may have got these guys released (with support of the Tories) but they were being monitored.

there is certainly a lack of Intelligence being shown here and accountability :roll:

ballysmate

RallyBiker wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

More good news
If Jezza falls on his sword or gets stabbed in the back, whichever metaphor applies, there is no vote winner waiting in the wings to take over.

http://www.labour.org.uk/people/filter/c/shadow-cabinet

Given the membership base and the rules for choosing the party leader, they would just elect another vote losing leftietwat

Diane Abbott should do the business admirably. VOTE ABBOTT!

How's about that dopey Chakrabarti woman, after all she is bought and paid for?

Frank the tank

Ballysmate wrote:

RallyBiker wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

More good news
If Jezza falls on his sword or gets stabbed in the back, whichever metaphor applies, there is no vote winner waiting in the wings to take over.

http://www.labour.org.uk/people/filter/c/shadow-cabinet

Given the membership base and the rules for choosing the party leader, they would just elect another vote losing leftietwat

Diane Abbott should do the business admirably. VOTE ABBOTT!

How's about that dopey Chakrabarti woman, after all she is bought and paid for?

Love you three.

Just thought I'd post that in case you thought I had died.

ballysmate

Frank the tank wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

RallyBiker wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

More good news
If Jezza falls on his sword or gets stabbed in the back, whichever metaphor applies, there is no vote winner waiting in the wings to take over.

http://www.labour.org.uk/people/filter/c/shadow-cabinet

Given the membership base and the rules for choosing the party leader, they would just elect another vote losing leftietwat

Diane Abbott should do the business admirably. VOTE ABBOTT!

How's about that dopey Chakrabarti woman, after all she is bought and paid for?

Love you three.

Just thought I'd post that in case you thought I had died.

Howdo Frank, mate.
Glad to see you are keeping the faith.

tangled_metal

Ballysmate wrote:

RallyBiker wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

More good news
If Jezza falls on his sword or gets stabbed in the back, whichever metaphor applies, there is no vote winner waiting in the wings to take over.

http://www.labour.org.uk/people/filter/c/shadow-cabinet

Given the membership base and the rules for choosing the party leader, they would just elect another vote losing leftietwat

Diane Abbott should do the business admirably. VOTE ABBOTT!

How's about that dopey Chakrabarti woman, after all she is bought and paid for?

Used to almost respect her when only a human rights campaigner as head of that Human rights ngo. After her involvement with JC"s Labour especially her report on anti-semitism. She's an apologist for Labour. Someone who had respect and status in human rights activism only to throw it away to try and whitewash Labour. Just my opinion, no doubt there really wasn't antisemitism in Labour it's just a right wing media conspiracy

rick_chasey

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/2 ... 8194770303

Got a view on this IR35 tax change Stevo?

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/27/contractors_begin_mass_exodus_ahead_of_ir35/?mt=1488194770303

Got a view on this IR35 tax change Stevo?

Shock horror - raising taxes causes resources to move out of a particular sector...is the penny beginning to drop Rick?

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/27/contractors_begin_mass_exodus_ahead_of_ir35/?mt=1488194770303

Got a view on this IR35 tax change Stevo?

Shock horror - raising taxes causes resources to move out of a particular sector...is the penny beginning to drop Rick?

Is it really raising taxes? You'll know better than me, but in my limited understanding this is just putting contractors and agency staff under the same PAYE system as directly employed staff. I know the two systems aren't identical, but are they that different? Figures of 30% worse off are being thrown around.

I can see that by only applying the changes to the public sector, there is an incentive to move to the unaffected private sector, which does seem like an own goal.