Corbynomics: A Dystopia

ukcarper

Moby wrote: »

Imo the mainstream of Labour want a 'soft' brexit. a large number of tories do as well but an even bigger number of tories want the pure unfettered brexit I describe above. I don't know many Labour MP's who want the cliff edge version....I reckon there are only about five!

I think you might be surprised also how many Labour voters will you lose if Labour agrees to accept 4 freedoms.

mrginge

Moby wrote: »

Not correct....Labour have a clear objective. It's just that you are not listening or prepared to consider it. Labour wants a jobs first brexit, a brexit that doesn't turn us into an offshore tax haven for the rich and protects employment conditions....

I’m quite prepared to listen.
The problem is I have absolutely no idea what generic drivel like ‘jobs first’ actually means.

Surely protecting uk employment conditions is best done by the uk govt? Are you actually now wanting to ‘take back control?’

[Deleted User]

Moby wrote: »

Imo the mainstream of Labour want a 'soft' brexit. a large number of tories do as well but an even bigger number of tories want the pure unfettered brexit I describe above. I don't know many Labour MP's who want the cliff edge version....I reckon there are only about five!

Hi Moby.. can you help me out here please? Maybe I missed it, but can you point me to a statement by the EU negotiators, or any leader of any EU member state, saying that the UK can remain in the single market or the customs union but not have freedom of movement, not be under the jurisdiction of the EU courts and be able to negotiate trade deals with non-EU countries?

I never realised that Labour's position (as I understand it to be, and it IS hard to keep track) was so easy to achieve.

WR

Moby

mrginge wrote: »

I’m quite prepared to listen.
The problem is I have absolutely no idea what generic drivel like ‘jobs first’ actually means.

Surely protecting uk employment conditions is best done by the uk govt? Are you actually now wanting to ‘take back control?’

It's not drivel. It means we will transfer the working time directive into domestic legislation. It means that the Govmt should be motivated by the principle that the the jobs we already have due to our relationship with the EU need to inform our negotiating position. It means doing whatever it takes to avoid a brexit without an agreement and the consequences of that. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/11/brexiteers-trade-brexit-molly-scott-cato-greens

Moby

Wild_Rover wrote: »

Hi Moby.. can you help me out here please? Maybe I missed it, but can you point me to a statement by the EU negotiators, or any leader of any EU member state, saying that the UK can remain in the single market or the customs union but not have freedom of movement, not be under the jurisdiction of the EU courts and be able to negotiate trade deals with non-EU countries?

I never realised that Labour's position (as I understand it to be, and it IS hard to keep track) was so easy to achieve.

WR

Ok I'll try and help you out. This is a negotiation and how you define 'freedom of movement' and how the jurisdiction of the EU Court applies is not fixed in stone. It is up to our parliament to define how free movement applies and when immigrants are entitled to benefits, how we define higher and lower skilled workers etc. Merkel opened up the possibility of the UK having restrictions and qualifications within the four freedoms, (goods, capital, people and services). Also I never said we would stay in the single market.....I said our aim should be to get a deal that keeps us as close as we can, (damage limitation).Now you answer me a question...... in what way can you guarantee that leaving the EU without a deal will be a good thing for the UK economy....and I don't mean aspiration but hard facts! What do we have that is already in place to prepare us for what is becoming a possible eventuality?

Sapphire

mrginge wrote: »

I’m quite prepared to listen.
The problem is I have absolutely no idea what generic drivel like ‘jobs first’ actually means.

Surely protecting uk employment conditions is best done by the uk govt? Are you actually now wanting to ‘take back control?’

It would be interesting to hear how labour intends to deal with the EU 'rules' against renationalisation – bearing in mind that renationalisation is something that the Corbhyn/Mcdonald mob and its union backers are particularly keen on, and it is their stated aim (at the moment).

Moreover, I'd also like to hear labour's stated, definitive policy on freedom of movement and the other 'freedoms' imposed by the unelected Brussels officials on every nation that is part of the EU 'project'.

[Deleted User]

Moby wrote: »

Ok I'll try and help you out. This is a negotiation and how you define 'freedom of movement' and how the jurisdiction of the EU Court applies is not fixed in stone. It is up to our parliament to define how free movement applies and when immigrants are entitled to benefits, how we define higher and lower skilled workers etc. Merkel opened up the possibility of the UK having restrictions and qualifications within the four freedoms, (goods, capital, people and services). Also I never said we would stay in the single market.....I said our aim should be to get a deal that keeps us as close as we can, (damage limitation).Now you answer me a question...... in what way can you guarantee that leaving the EU without a deal will be a good thing for the UK economy....and I don't mean aspiration but hard facts! What do we have that is already in place to prepare us for what is becoming a possible eventuality?

I don't know the answer to your question. I realise that it is unusual for a poster to say it, but there it is. It might have been a bit more straightforward if you had used it to answer my post too .

It might transpire that the EU will open itself up to self-destruction by giving concessions to the UK that would instantly be demanded by other states as well, but I doubt it.

It seems to me that Labour are demanding that the Government secure an outcome that not only would they themselves be unable to secure, bugt that the EU would be insane to allow. Still, that's the joy of being in opposition - Labour can demand what they like, knowing they won't have to try and deliver it themselves.

All IMO, of course. :cool:

WR

Sapphire

Sapphire wrote: »

It would be interesting to hear how labour intends to deal with the EU 'rules' against renationalisation – bearing in mind that renationalisation is something that the Corbhyn/Mcdonald mob and its union backers are particularly keen on, and it is their stated aim (at the moment).

Moreover, I'd also like to hear labour's stated, definitive policy on freedom of movement and the other 'freedoms' imposed by the unelected Brussels officials on every nation that is part of the EU 'project'.

Additionally, I would like to hear from Comrade Corbhyn how, precisely, he would intend to fund the things he has proposed at various times, like renationalisation (though that's 'illegal', according to the EU, and European nations like France now own parts of our industries), free student tuition, and other proposed freebies he intends to try to lure voters with. What is his stance on immigration from outside the EU, not just from EU countries? On defence? On the monarchy?

How much, precisely, would taxpayers, especially those in the middle bands, have to contribute for him to achieve his schemes? How would he prevent the wealth (which generates growth) from leaving Britain (it did to a degree in the Seventies) while putting his plans into effect? How would he encourage people to be motivated and want to work for a living and achieve a sense of purpose in their lives?

System

Sapphire wrote: »

Moreover, I'd also like to hear labour's stated, definitive policy on freedom of movement and the other 'freedoms' imposed by the unelected Brussels officials on every nation that is part of the EU 'project'.

Since when did opposition parties have or require stated, definitive or precise policies.

TrickyTree83

Moby wrote: »

Ok I'll try and help you out. This is a negotiation and how you define 'freedom of movement' and how the jurisdiction of the EU Court applies is not fixed in stone. It is up to our parliament to define how free movement applies and when immigrants are entitled to benefits, how we define higher and lower skilled workers etc. Merkel opened up the possibility of the UK having restrictions and qualifications within the four freedoms, (goods, capital, people and services). Also I never said we would stay in the single market.....I said our aim should be to get a deal that keeps us as close as we can, (damage limitation).Now you answer me a question...... in what way can you guarantee that leaving the EU without a deal will be a good thing for the UK economy....and I don't mean aspiration but hard facts! What do we have that is already in place to prepare us for what is becoming a possible eventuality?

Guarantee that remaining in the EU is a recipe for economic success. That indefinitely there will be no single currency for all EU members, that we will still be able to set our own interest rates, that we will remain autonomous to the degree we are currently under the EU?

You can't. So what's your point? Except to bring to everyone's attention that leaving is as risky as remaining just in different ways. You cannot use hard facts and data to show that leaving will be bad in the same way I can't use it to show that remaining would be bad. You're asking people to tell the future, if they could do that they likely wouldn't be wasting time explaining these things to you, I know I wouldn't be.