Has Brexit started the ball rolling?

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
I’m clearly closer to Benn than Blair, but I’ve dealt with the rest of your pro-nation-state rubbish before.

It’s clear that Benn was an anti EU,pro Nation State,Nationalist.Just like Shore and Heffer.It’s equally clear that,unlike me,that they just couldn’t bring themselves to realise that Socialism is ideologically Soviet Socialist in nature and therefore a lost cause for anyone who believes in the Nation State and at the very least that level of local democracy and preferably more.In addition to the Protectionist economics that we need and which only Nationalism can provide.

As I say, Benn was a muddled thinker on the subject. But your ideas of nationalism and “local democracy” are a great deal more muddled. Protectionism is not necessarily irreconcilable with internationalism, provided it’s purpose is to regulate a fair deal or provide stable economic management - I don’t disagree with Benn on these points.

While unsurprisingly you are clearly a pro EU Soviet Socialist just like Callaghan and Jenkins ‘allied’ with whatever Blair’s agenda happened to be as part of that.

I’m pro-EU to the extent I’ve indicated, and clearly differentiated myself from these others.

Not just that but seemingly also a lying Corbynite.Who also wants to corrupt democracy to suit yourself by selling the country out to your Soviet style comrades throughout Europe by pooling their vote with yours to create a gerry mandered ‘majority’ and then calling that ‘democracy’.

There is no corruption of democracy. Your system of vetoes and 100% thresholds on every single issue is not democracy at all.

While if that doesn’t work then you’re at least happy to have the back up of the EUSSR Federal government system which allows people like Juncker and the unelected Commissioner Politburo to overrule our own domestic National vote.

But I’ve made the case quite clearly on that, which is that the EU needs to be more democratic. I’ve even said I accept that it should be put to the country to leave (on a referendum with honest facts) if the EU will not become more democratic.

Also bearing in mind that Corbyn’s hijacking of the ‘Labour’ vote and displacing people like Hoey,instead of standing where he belongs with the SLP,is another typical Socialist style corruption of the democratic system to get into power by whatever means.As is Sturgeon calling herself a ‘Nationalist’ while actually standing for the EUSSR.

The fact is, Corbyn’s position in Labour is democratic, and his manifesto will be put to the people for democratic judgment. There has been no hijacking, but rather a release from the Blairite hijacking, and Labour can get back to doing something for the working class rather than selling us down the river.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
As I say, Benn was a muddled thinker on the subject. But your ideas of nationalism and “local democracy” are a great deal more muddled. Protectionism is not necessarily irreconcilable with internationalism, provided it’s purpose is to regulate a fair deal or provide stable economic management - I don’t disagree with Benn on these points.

I’m pro-EU to the extent I’ve indicated, and clearly differentiated myself from these others.

There is no corruption of democracy. Your system of vetoes and 100% thresholds on every single issue is not democracy at all.

But I’ve made the case quite clearly on that, which is that the EU needs to be more democratic. I’ve even said I accept that it should be put to the country to leave (on a referendum with honest facts) if the EU will not become more democratic.

The fact is, Corbyn’s position in Labour is democratic, and his manifesto will be put to the people for democratic judgment. There has been no hijacking, but rather a release from the Blairite hijacking, and Labour can get back to doing something for the working class rather than selling us down the river.

You said you are closer to Benn than Blair.Then you call him a muddled thinker.When his only muddled thinking was his naive idea that Socialism and Nationalism were compatible on a pick and mix basis.While you are clearly on the side of Jenkins regards the EU and therefore closer to Blair and even Heath than Benn.

You are pro EU,just like Callaghan and Jenkins simply based on the perception that you have more allies in Euroland for your obvious failed zb Socialist ideology than you have at home within your own national borders.With the result that the Germans and the Blairites and Thatcherites go laughing all the way to bank at our expense.Bearing in mind that ideology means putting foreign interests above those of our own.

No surprise you seem to have deliberately chosen to confuse the idea of VETO, with the National right of opt out and substitution over every decision the latter being what I actually said.Probably because you know that the idea of the right to agree to disagree and take a different course based on that totally goes against your plans for an EUSSR and with it foreign Soviet style rule anyway.So yet another typical Socialist lie.

Added to by the lie that you want to be a member of a so called more ‘democratic’ EU while at the same time campaigning for us to remain in it as it is and as it has been since we joined it.IE if that was correct you’d be campaigning for Leave ‘unless’ and ‘until’ the EU reforms along more ‘democratic’ lines.While you’ve made it clear that your idea of a ‘democratic’ EU just means the pooling of the UK and European Socialist vote and the dissolution of National borders,anyway.Together with the ongoing input of the EU Commission,to get what you want.That clearly being an anti Nation State Soviet style Federation ( EUSSR ).

When Benn clearly stated that he rightly wants the National vote to remain supreme over all else even if that means the Conservatives win.In which case only a Confederal Europe giving the national MEP groups the national sovereign right of opt out and substition could deliver that,other than maintaining the Nation State status quo.

Corbyn’s position isn’t democratic at all.He is clearly standing on a ‘Labour’ Party ticket when he should be standing on a Socialist Labour Party one.There is a massive difference.With people like Benn,Heffer,Shore,and now Hoey showing that Nationalism is actually more valid in meeting the definition of ‘Labour’ and the term ‘Left’.In all cases those voices being drowned out and the Party hijacked by corrupt lying Socialists like Callaghan and Jenkins and now Corbyn.Hijack,infiltration and fooling the electorate,so as to impose its anti nation state Bolshevik ideology,being the usual historic MO of zb Socialists.

[beetlejuice]

Labour sold us down the River in 2004 when blair openened up our jobs market to the EU .
And Corbyn will continue selling us down the river .

[rjan]

Beetlejuice:
Labour sold us down the River in 2004 when blair openened up our jobs market to the EU .
And Corbyn will continue selling us down the river .

Well you can’t have it both ways. Blair was for free movement, and Corbyn is against free movement because it’s being used by bosses to force down pay and conditions. They can’t both be selling you down the river.

[beetlejuice]

Rjan:

Beetlejuice:
Labour sold us down the River in 2004 when blair openened up our jobs market to the EU .
And Corbyn will continue selling us down the river .

Well you can’t have it both ways. Blair was for free movement, and Corbyn is against free movement because it’s being used by bosses to force down pay and conditions. They can’t both be selling you down the river.

Sadly i disagree .Why are you not writing novels or movie scripts .You do have a way with words .

[carryfast]

Rjan:
Well you can’t have it both ways. Blair was for free movement, and Corbyn is against free movement because it’s being used by bosses to force down pay and conditions. They can’t both be selling you down the river.

Corbyn is for the ‘single market’ which obviously ‘includes’ the ‘single labour market’ and by definition ‘free movement’ of labour.But you already knew that because like you and Blair Corbyn doesn’t believe in the idea of the Nation State or National Borders.You believe in an EU Federation effectively without national borders and with a Federal government as part of that.You know the Federation as we’re in and which remainers like you and May and Corbyn and Blair won’t allow us to secede from without a fight.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
Well you can’t have it both ways. Blair was for free movement, and Corbyn is against free movement because it’s being used by bosses to force down pay and conditions. They can’t both be selling you down the river.

Corbyn is for the ‘single market’ which obviously ‘includes’ the ‘single labour market’ and by definition ‘free movement’ of labour.But you already knew that because like you and Blair Corbyn doesn’t believe in the idea of the Nation State or National Borders.You believe in an EU Federation effectively without national borders and with a Federal government as part of that.You know the Federation as we’re in and which remainers like you and May and Corbyn and Blair won’t allow us to secede from without a fight.

Corbyn personally isn’t in favour of the single market - nor is John McDonnell. On the contrary, it is the Blairite MPs who are in favour of retaining the single market. And clearly, working class Brexiteer support of Corbyn is so lacklustre that he’s fighting an uphill battle against the Blairites on the issue.

Nevertheless, the only position Labour has declared so far is that they’re in favour of a negotiated customs union, and the Northern Ireland border question has determined that policy.

This is why I say that the absurdities of people’s views about Corbyn know no bounds - he’s been a Eurosceptic all his 30-odd year career, he’s been arguing for years about the problem of bosses using immigrants to force down wages, he’s proposing a council housebuilding programme, the list goes on.

And yet some working class people are up in arms because he isn’t an enthusiastic supporter of the Royal Family - a gaggle of unelected millionaires whom austerity doesn’t touch - or even more laughable minutiae like the colour of the suit he wears. Do you want a slick Blairite politician who’ll shaft you, or do you want a politician whose policies actually make sense?

EDIT: If you want to know which MPs support the single market, there’s a list here:
theguardian.com/politics/20 … emy-corbyn

Notice those who are missing: Corbyn, McDonnell, Skinner, Field, all the usual Eurosceptics in Labour.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
Corbyn is for the ‘single market’ which obviously ‘includes’ the ‘single labour market’ and by definition ‘free movement’ of labour.But you already knew that because like you and Blair Corbyn doesn’t believe in the idea of the Nation State or National Borders.You believe in an EU Federation effectively without national borders and with a Federal government as part of that.You know the Federation as we’re in and which remainers like you and May and Corbyn and Blair won’t allow us to secede from without a fight.

Corbyn personally isn’t in favour of the single market - nor is John McDonnell. On the contrary, it is the Blairite MPs who are in favour of retaining the single market. And clearly, working class Brexiteer support of Corbyn is so lacklustre that he’s fighting an uphill battle against the Blairites on the issue.

Nevertheless, the only position Labour has declared so far is that they’re in favour of a negotiated customs union, and the Northern Ireland border question has determined that policy.

This is why I say that the absurdities of people’s views about Corbyn know no bounds - he’s been a Eurosceptic all his 30-odd year career, he’s been arguing for years about the problem of bosses using immigrants to force down wages, he’s proposing a council housebuilding programme, the list goes on.

And yet some working class people are up in arms because he isn’t an enthusiastic supporter of the Royal Family - a gaggle of unelected millionaires whom austerity doesn’t touch - or even more laughable minutiae like the colour of the suit he wears. Do you want a slick Blairite politician who’ll shaft you, or do you want a politician whose policies actually make sense?

EDIT: If you want to know which MPs support the single market, there’s a list here:
theguardian.com/politics/20 … emy-corbyn

Notice those who are missing: Corbyn, McDonnell, Skinner, Field, all the usual Eurosceptics in Labour.

Let’s go along with Corbyn’s lies for the sake of argument.Corbyn says that he wants a pick and mix a la carte single market Tusk says no it’s only all of it or none of it on the table as he’s already made clear.Then what ?.Nor does it allow the situation of us being able to make our own trade deals such as exemption from EU type approval and silly tariff and quota barriers for US vehicle imports for one example.

politico.eu/article/jeremy-c … ationship/

Meanwhile it’s obvious that Socialists can’t do Nationalist as you’ve proved with your stated ‘support’ of Benn when you clearly support Jenkins and Callaghan’s position.IE we can take so called Socialist ‘Euro Scepticism’ with the same pinch of salt as your claims to be closer to Benn than Blair.While at the same time you’re clearly trying to make the case for remaining in the EU because of an ideological abhorrence of the Nation State and National borders.On that note this contains all the contradictions in your bs case that we need to know.IE yet again Labour is torn between the need for Nationalist solutions rightly being called for by the country’s working class v Socialist ideology which won’t allow those solutions.No surprise where you’d stand on that.

theguardian.com/politics/201 … ter-brexit

As for the Royal Family isn’t that the same Royal Family that’s directly descended from an invading foreign European Franco Norman dynasty committed to the same anti nation state ideals as you obviously are.Starting with the wiping out of the self determination of the Nations of the British Isles and ending so far with the obvious tacit support of Heath’s ongoing treachery in the form of handing over the country’s sovereignty to the EU and in which the EU Federal government holds more real power over the country than our so called head of state does.Bearing in mind that Heath ( and Callaghan and Jenkins ) would/should have been expected to have been interned on the orders of any Head of State worth the title,on the grounds of treason and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
…
EDIT: If you want to know which MPs support the single market, there’s a list here:
theguardian.com/politics/20 … emy-corbyn

Notice those who are missing: Corbyn, McDonnell, Skinner, Field, all the usual Eurosceptics in Labour.

Let’s go along with Corbyn’s lies for the sake of argument.Corbyn says that he wants a pick and mix a la carte single market Tusk says no it’s only all of it or none of it on the table as he’s already made clear.Then what ?.Nor does it allow the situation of us being able to make our own trade deals such as exemption from EU type approval and silly tariff and quota barriers for US vehicle imports for one example.

politico.eu/article/jeremy-c … ationship/

Corbyn also says this: “Britain will need a bespoke relationship of its own”. I don’t know why you insist he is a liar - there’s nothing in that article to suggest it. If Tusk says he will not negotiate on workers’ rights, nationalisation, and the ability of the state to invest in industry, then I presume that means we will leave the single market if support for doing so remains strong.

It also looks as though a customs union is inevitable because of the Northern Irish issue, so you can kiss goodbye to the freedom to strike free trade deals any way the issue goes and regardless of which party is in charge.

Which is no loss, because we already know that “trade deals” have turned out to be a fantasy land. What are US vehicle imports going to do for jobs here, except undermine domestic car factory jobs in Dagenham or Ellesmere Port?

And why is Trump going to strike any deal that exacerbates the US import deficit in general (i.e. that would be in our favour)? And what do British workers have to gain from tariff-free trade with the US, where the lowest-paid workers are paid even poorer than those in Britain and work longer hours?

Your own nationalist argument falls apart if you allow your domestic workers to be undercut by other countries through free-trade deals, and thereby forfeit your sovereign control over tariffs, capital controls, and so on, which are devices you use to protect domestic markets and industry. That’s how agriculture works in the EU, that external tariffs are set at a level that defend the internal food market against low-pay farmers outside the EU, and therefore defend the livelihoods of internal farmers and ensure that consumers are charged enough for food to pay for those livelihoods.

Meanwhile it’s obvious that Socialists can’t do Nationalist as you’ve proved with your stated ‘support’ of Benn when you clearly support Jenkins and Callaghan’s position.

So when I called Benn a muddled thinker and renounced Jenkins and Callaghan, you take this as an express statement of support for Benn and a secret support for Jenkins and Callaghan?

IE we can take so called Socialist ‘Euro Scepticism’ with the same pinch of salt as your claims to be closer to Benn than Blair.While at the same time you’re clearly trying to make the case for remaining in the EU because of an ideological abhorrence of the Nation State and National borders.On that note this contains all the contradictions in your bs case that we need to know.IE yet again Labour is torn between the need for Nationalist solutions rightly being called for by the country’s working class v Socialist ideology which won’t allow those solutions.No surprise where you’d stand on that.

theguardian.com/politics/201 … ter-brexit

Again, I don’t see how that establishes your case that Corbyn has told any lies or is in any way dishonest about his personal views. It refers to the party being split, which is not news - and what it doesn’t say but merely implies, is that Corbyn and McDonnell are on the Leave side.

It’s like I say, if there is a decisive swing to Labour amongst Brexiteers, contingent on there being a Brexit, then it is more likely that Corbyn’s own view (and those of the pro-Brexit MPs) will prevail in the Labour party.

If your complaint is that Corbyn is conspicuously failing to lie about how he’s going to fly around the world and strike free trade deals which will make Brits all very rich, then little wonder, because that account of Brexit is pure right-wing lies, and nobody on the left-wing is going to indulge your fantasies.

As for the Royal Family isn’t that the same Royal Family that’s directly descended from an invading foreign European Franco Norman dynasty committed to the same anti nation state ideals as you obviously are.Starting with the wiping out of the self determination of the Nations of the British Isles and ending so far with the obvious tacit support of Heath’s ongoing treachery in the form of handing over the country’s sovereignty to the EU and in which the EU Federal government holds more real power over the country than our so called head of state does.Bearing in mind that Heath ( and Callaghan and Jenkins ) would/should have been expected to have been interned on the orders of any Head of State worth the title,on the grounds of treason and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Oh for heaven’s sake, I can’t be bothered having to discuss how things went all went wrong after William the Conqueror.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
Corbyn also says this: “Britain will need a bespoke relationship of its own”. I don’t know why you insist he is a liar - there’s nothing in that article to suggest it. If Tusk says he will not negotiate on workers’ rights, nationalisation, and the ability of the state to invest in industry, then I presume that means we will leave the single market if support for doing so remains strong.

It also looks as though a customs union is inevitable because of the Northern Irish issue, so you can kiss goodbye to the freedom to strike free trade deals any way the issue goes and regardless of which party is in charge.

Which is no loss, because we already know that “trade deals” have turned out to be a fantasy land. What are US vehicle imports going to do for jobs here, except undermine domestic car factory jobs in Dagenham or Ellesmere Port?

And why is Trump going to strike any deal that exacerbates the US import deficit in general (i.e. that would be in our favour)? And what do British workers have to gain from tariff-free trade with the US, where the lowest-paid workers are paid even poorer than those in Britain and work longer hours?

Your own nationalist argument falls apart if you allow your domestic workers to be undercut by other countries through free-trade deals, and thereby forfeit your sovereign control over tariffs, capital controls, and so on, which are devices you use to protect domestic markets and industry. That’s how agriculture works in the EU, that external tariffs are set at a level that defend the internal food market against low-pay farmers outside the EU, and therefore defend the livelihoods of internal farmers and ensure that consumers are charged enough for food to pay for those livelihoods.

So when I called Benn a muddled thinker and renounced Jenkins and Callaghan, you take this as an express statement of support for Benn and a secret support for Jenkins and Callaghan?

Again, I don’t see how that establishes your case that Corbyn has told any lies or is in any way dishonest about his personal views. It refers to the party being split, which is not news - and what it doesn’t say but merely implies, is that Corbyn and McDonnell are on the Leave side.

It’s like I say, if there is a decisive swing to Labour amongst Brexiteers, contingent on there being a Brexit, then it is more likely that Corbyn’s own view (and those of the pro-Brexit MPs) will prevail in the Labour party.

If your complaint is that Corbyn is conspicuously failing to lie about how he’s going to fly around the world and strike free trade deals which will make Brits all very rich, then little wonder, because that account of Brexit is pure right-wing lies, and nobody on the left-wing is going to indulge your fantasies.

Oh for heaven’s sake, I can’t be bothered having to discuss how things went all went wrong after William the Conqueror.

Corbyn is a liar because he knows that the EU won’t accept any so called ‘bespoke’ deal which gives us access to the EU single market on a pick and mix basis and certainly not one which allows any control over free movement of Labour.You should know bearing in mind that’s also the stated case of the remainers of which you’re clearly one.That remain position in this case obviously being based on Socialist principles as you’ve made clear enough times before.So again any idea that Corbyn or his supporters would want to apply a Nationalist immigration policy can only be a total lie because it obviously contradicts their ( your ) Socialist anti Nation State ideology.

There’s also no reason as to why the Irish question would stop any withdrawal from the single market just as it didn’t stop us both being totally independent countries in 1972.

As for US vehicle imports.It seems strange as to why you’d choose to pitch US imports against UK made products.When the relevant comparison would be US imports replacing EU ones here not domestic,with the US reciprocating by accepting more UK products and less EU ones ( tariffs quotas placed on Mercs and BMW’s,to be replaced in the US market by Jaguars for example ).It’s clear that your problem is just that you’re ideologically and irrationally anti American to the point where you prefer German etc workers taking both Brit and US jobs.IE it’s clear that you’re anti nation state and pro EU certainly not pro Brit,so you can also spare us that hypocritical Socialist bs.

As a stated committed anti nation state,pro EU Federation,Socialist remainer,how can you possibly be honest in your supposed ‘support’ of the clearly Nationalist Benn and the bs renouncing of the clearly anti Nation State,pro EU,Socialist Jenkins and Callaghan.IE yet more blatant lies in that you can’t possibly reconcile that clear contradiction when you’ve made your ideological position clear in that regard.IE anti Nation State,pro EU and pro immigration and with it pro Brit jobs for EU workers.

How can the Labour Party be ‘split’ when Corbyn’s core support is based on anti Nation State,pro EU,Socialism,including the major Unions.IE just as in the case of Benn and Shore and now Hoey,Socialists can’t/won’t support anything even approaching Nationalist policy.Of which Brexit and the stopping of free movement of EU labour are two examples.As I said lying zb Socialists trying to hijack a Brexit ( Nationalist ) vote which they have no intention of honouring because they know that they are ideologically opposed to it.Which is why Corbyn and his Bolshevik rabble won’t stand where they belong in the SLP.

You were the one who tried to make a bs stereotypical link between Brexiteers and carte blanche support of the Royals.No surprise you then get upset when that didn’t go as planned.

[franglais]

Rjan:
It also looks as though a customs union is inevitable because of the Northern Irish issue, so you can kiss goodbye to the freedom to strike free trade deals any way the issue goes and regardless of which party is in charge.

Maybe the N.I. issue will go the other way?
A hard Brexit and a hard border.

Rjan:
If your complaint is that Corbyn is conspicuously failing to lie about how he’s going to fly around the world and strike free trade deals which will make Brits all very rich, then little wonder, because that account of Brexit is pure right-wing lies, and nobody on the left-wing is going to indulge your fantasies.

Well. Lets put it in a nutshell? No need to look at left or right. No need to over complicate it. Here we are members of the biggest and richest free trade zone outside of the USA. We are full members with free access and being important members we have a big influence on its rules.
And we are about to leave.
Why?
The EU is not perfect, but ALL the (realistic) alternatives are WORSE.

[rjan]

Franglais:

Rjan:
It also looks as though a customs union is inevitable because of the Northern Irish issue, so you can kiss goodbye to the freedom to strike free trade deals any way the issue goes and regardless of which party is in charge.

Maybe the N.I. issue will go the other way?
A hard Brexit and a hard border.

I simply don’t see how it can work on the chessboard of political issues it raises. NI is marginally a Remain constituency, but even the Leave vote of NI is predominantly committed to there being no border with the ROI, and the maintenance of a customs union with the EU.

There are too many political forces resistant to a hard border “on the island of Ireland”, because of the peace and settlement issues involved. The only other alternative would be a border in the Irish Sea, but aside from the more immediate issue that the DUP are currently able to control the question at Westminster, it raises the spectre of political instability for the UK as a whole (because NI would effectively be broken off from the UK and the unionist connection would dissipate over time, and Scotland is also a Remain constituency with a significant nationalist movement).

Rjan:
If your complaint is that Corbyn is conspicuously failing to lie about how he’s going to fly around the world and strike free trade deals which will make Brits all very rich, then little wonder, because that account of Brexit is pure right-wing lies, and nobody on the left-wing is going to indulge your fantasies.

Well. Lets put it in a nutshell? No need to look at left or right. No need to over complicate it. Here we are members of the biggest and richest free trade zone outside of the USA. We are full members with free access and being important members we have a big influence on its rules.
And we are about to leave.
Why?
The EU is not perfect, but ALL the (realistic) alternatives are WORSE.

Indeed. I can only make allowance to Corbyn’s position that, if people insist on leaving the single market, then his position involves considerably less divergence from the EU - basically, restricted to ending free movement, regaining more economic tools necessary to protect the working class, and regaining power of the state to consolidate industry, eliminate internal competition, and invest directly in production.

There is a real prospect that if such a Brexit works for Britain, it will also provoke reforms within the EU itself. And in terms of negotiations, whereas the EU can make a credible public case against the Tories’ position - because everyone in Europe can see that they’re intending to assault the economies of other EU nations (the Tories have admitted it, after all, that they intend to attack all sorts of minimum standards) - it cannot make a credible case against Corbyn’s, provided Corbyn will accept that any gains for British workers have to come from improvements in the British economy and from internal redistribution, not from attacks on other EU nations.

Personally, I’m coming round to the idea of a left-wing Brexit, particularly now that the right-wing Brexit is becoming discredited (and having real obstacles thrown in its way, like the NI border issue, which can’t simply be overcome with right-wing propaganda), and bearing in mind that there remains considerable support for “a Brexit” amongst the working class, and I know working class interests will be safe in Corbyn Labour’s hands.

[franglais]

Rjan:
I simply don’t see how it can work on the chessboard of political issues it raises. NI is marginally a Remain constituency, but even the Leave vote of NI is predominantly committed to there being no border with the ROI, and the maintenance of a customs union with the EU.

There are too many political forces resistant to a hard border “on the island of Ireland”, because of the peace and settlement issues involved. The only other alternative would be a border in the Irish Sea, but aside from the more immediate issue that the DUP are currently able to control the question at Westminster, it raises the spectre of political instability for the UK as a whole (because NI would effectively be broken off from the UK and the unionist connection would dissipate over time, and Scotland is also a Remain constituency with a significant nationalist movement).

Seems to me this a circle that cant be squared. There may be some sort of "fudge" sorted out somewhere with some clever use of language. Fudges dont stand the passage of time though, do they? Any cobbled together deal will inevitably fail sooner or later, just like the cobbled together coalition we have passing for a Government now.

[carryfast]

Franglais:

Rjan:
I simply don’t see how it can work on the chessboard of political issues it raises. NI is marginally a Remain constituency, but even the Leave vote of NI is predominantly committed to there being no border with the ROI, and the maintenance of a customs union with the EU.

There are too many political forces resistant to a hard border “on the island of Ireland”, because of the peace and settlement issues involved. The only other alternative would be a border in the Irish Sea, but aside from the more immediate issue that the DUP are currently able to control the question at Westminster, it raises the spectre of political instability for the UK as a whole (because NI would effectively be broken off from the UK and the unionist connection would dissipate over time, and Scotland is also a Remain constituency with a significant nationalist movement).

Seems to me this a circle that cant be squared. There may be some sort of "fudge" sorted out somewhere with some clever use of language. Fudges dont stand the passage of time though, do they? Any cobbled together deal will inevitably fail sooner or later, just like the cobbled together coalition we have passing for a Government now.

It’s clear that the remainers are using the non existent Irish issue as just another Trojan horse to derail Brexit.An Irish/EU border at the North Sea ports is no different to the border that already exists at any airport in the UK.IE domestic flight passengers/goods aren’t subject to the same border controls as international flight passengers/goods but they all land at the same airport.The controls being based on the Nationality/origin of the passengers/goods.In which case the status of ‘Irish’ Nationals,or goods originating in Ireland,can work just the same as it did before 1973.Everything else is subject to a hard border at the Irish sea ports just as in the case of Heathrow or Manchester or Glasgow airports.Nor would there would be,nor ever has been,any point in foreign non Irish origin goods or people entering UK going via Ireland anyway in that regard.

As for the Northern Ireland remain vote they’ve got the choice of going with the Irish republic in the EU or staying with us outside it.But that obviously isn’t their agenda.They want to tie themselves to us so as to help the remainers put a spanner in the works of the Brexit referendum vote.Just as May wants to use the Scottish question for the same purpose.IE the so called Scottish ‘Nationalists’ ( read Socialists ) wanting to maintain Federal EU rule over themselves and us.They couldn’t make it up.Just another bunch of Socialists masquerading as Nationalists when it suits them,to over turn a vote for EU secession.IE SNP = just another bunch of lying Socialists like Corbyn’s rabble.With remainer May then making a big thing about maintaining the UK union because she knows that is her ace card in being able to defeat Brexit.

In which case as I’ve said the Brexit vote faces the impossible task of having to go up against US domestic policy regarding its obvious abhorrence/fear of secession at home and the remainers in the government using the Irish and Scottish remain vote,on a seperate basis when it suits them,to maintain Federal EU rule over us all.IE lying undemocratic Soviets/Federalists doing what Soviets/Federalists do just as Heath and Jenkins would have wanted it.

[rjan]

Franglais:

Rjan:
I simply don’t see how it can work on the chessboard of political issues it raises. NI is marginally a Remain constituency, but even the Leave vote of NI is predominantly committed to there being no border with the ROI, and the maintenance of a customs union with the EU.

There are too many political forces resistant to a hard border “on the island of Ireland”, because of the peace and settlement issues involved. The only other alternative would be a border in the Irish Sea, but aside from the more immediate issue that the DUP are currently able to control the question at Westminster, it raises the spectre of political instability for the UK as a whole (because NI would effectively be broken off from the UK and the unionist connection would dissipate over time, and Scotland is also a Remain constituency with a significant nationalist movement).

Seems to me this a circle that cant be squared. There may be some sort of "fudge" sorted out somewhere with some clever use of language. Fudges dont stand the passage of time though, do they? Any cobbled together deal will inevitably fail sooner or later, just like the cobbled together coalition we have passing for a Government now.

I don’t really see that they will need to fudge the customs union. The right-wing free trade case is collapsing under the weight of it’s own contradictions. It’s united a significant constituency of workers and bosses against it, and rather than provoking internal divisions in the EU it has united all members in opposition to the UK.

The feedback from Fox’s jetsetting to developing countries has also been catastrophic for their political narrative. India demanded free movement of workers from India, for example, and told Fox to go away and come back when the Tories were willing to offer it: uk.businessinsider.com/britain-m … ox-2017-11

As the case of NI shows, Leavers themselves don’t seem to see remaining in a customs union as being a betrayal of Brexit - because there is obviously a very clear reason for doing so, it’s not simply political shenanigans, and even countries outside the EU like Turkey are in a customs union with the EU.

I think the truly red-hot issue of Brexit (for working class people, anyway) is over free movement of workers, and leaving the single market will solve that (assuming of course that its pillars are non-negotiable, and we must therefore leave). So long as Labour maintains it’s position on that and has an answer to people on wages and conditions, then I can’t see why there needs to be a fudge, because there is a clear and honest case to put to the people.

The problem with the Blairite Remain camp, which is why I’m becoming steadily alienated from Remain now that right-wing Brexit is receding, is that all of their critique of right-wing Brexit is perfectly correct, but they simply want to go back to business as usual and many of them are more hostile to Corbyn’s reforms (in or out the EU) than they are to Brexit itself.

I guess that’s why support for Brexit is not budging because the Blairites have no positive case to make other than to tell people to count the blessings they already have, and no credible view of change to articulate.

[franglais]

If we were to stay in a customs union, then agreed, no need for a fudge. But that isnt being spoken of is it? Or have I missed something? Could the current May Gov survive saying we will stay in a customs union? Wouldnt there then be potential for a vote of no confidence?

As if the current omnishambles weren`t enough, a General Election!

[carryfast]

Rjan:
I’m becoming steadily alienated from Remain now

Ironically it’s possibly more a case that the Socialists are seeing a Europe turning more towards Nationalism and are now getting cold feet.Along the lines of better to settle for a Socialist UK than them wanting to risk getting caught up in the far better chance than we had before of a Nationalist ( possibly/hopefully Confederal ) Europe.Even more ironically myself then preferring the idea of being part of a Confederal Europe run along Nationalist lines than a Corbyn led Socialist sham Brexit UK.Which will inevitably be a pro immigration Socialist alliance with what remains of the Soros version of Europe in the form of Morcron and Merkel and Juncker etc,v Nationalist Europe in the form of Orban.

IE we’re seeing the division lines being re drawn here as we speak to the point where remain and reform,allied with European Nationalists like Victor Orban,seems like the better option for true Nationalist Brexiteers,than a Corbyn Socialist style Brexit would be now for us.

While the remainers obviously now see it as a case of vice versa on the basis of a Socialist UK is better,to them,than a Nationalist Europe.While what is certain is that the ‘EU’,which the remainers wanted to ‘remain’ with,no longer exists from the point of this speech combined with the Italian election result.Those two obviously being an over night game changer for all sides and far more seismic,than our sham,deliberately weakened beyond use,Brexit ever was.With Orban sounding more like a real Nationalist leader and worthy president,of a Nationalist,Confederate States of Europe,than even Farage and Mogg combined would ever have been of Brexit Britain.

youtube.com/watch?v=GmGyDw6_ypo

youtube.com/watch?v=WcTRSMliBXk

[rjan]

Franglais:
If we were to stay in a customs union, then agreed, no need for a fudge. But that isnt being spoken of is it? Or have I missed something? Could the current May Gov survive saying we will stay in a customs union? Wouldnt there then be potential for a vote of no confidence?

As if the current omnishambles weren`t enough, a General Election!

Well the Labour party has come out for a customs union.

The Tories haven’t come out openly in favour of one, but their DUP partners are clear about their position on the matter (without whose support the Tories simply lack a majority), and the Tory moderates have also expressed an intention to vote with Labour on the matter.

The real threat for May is that if she doesn’t support a customs union, then she’s effectively going to lose a vote of confidence, and the Tories are probably going to have to go to the country again, but they’ll be in total disunity when they do so.

Some in Labour like Field have nay-sayed a customs union, but as with the Tories, I haven’t heard an alternative argument for how they actually address the Northern Ireland problem, so it remains an unsolved puzzle on that front.

I suspect the Tories will be waiting to see how this Russian scandal plays out, and they’ll go to the country if it provides a bounce in the polls - but so far, I don’t have a great sense that it’s going in their favour, because the media has taken a second thought and started to ask questions, and the affair has drawn attention to the Tories’ own dirty laundry (literally, their corrupt Russian money connections, and the fact that just a couple of weeks ago they voted down Labour who were trying to introduce measures to hit the Russians in their pockets where it hurts).

[franglais]

But if May says “Yes” to a customs union wont she face a revolt in her own party? Could she hold out against a confidence vote? And even if she kept her MPs on board, wouldnt the Tory Party become unelectable at the next election, and realizing that wouldn`t she therefore find a customs union unacceptable?
Joseph Heller territory here.

I bet Mrs May wishes she hadn`t been elected leader now!

[rjan]

Franglais:
But if May says “Yes” to a customs union won`t she face a revolt in her own party?

But she faces revolt also for not saying “Yes”!

Could she hold out against a confidence vote?

The Tories don’t seem to want her gone - she’s not personally reviled or incompetent, after all - and I seriously doubt the government will go to the wire with a vote which they will lose. The vote is being mooted precisely to compel the Tory party to adopt a Yes position on the customs union - or come to some other terms with her rebels.

The problem for her is that doing so spells the end for the narrative of right-wing Brexit - it forces her to come clean with the public. The Tories’ support amongst Brexiteers is predicated on them not coming clean, and if they do then the right-wing MPs will tear the party apart, the headbangers in the electorate will turn back to Ukip and split the Tory vote, and a Corbyn government may well be delivered.

And even if she kept her MPs on board, wouldnt the Tory Party become unelectable at the next election, and realizing that wouldnt she therefore find a customs union unacceptable?

I’m not sure how she can keep all her MPs on board. The DUP have a declared policy of supporting a customs union, and there are several Tory MPs (and many Tory voters, frankly) that simply will not be reconciled to the contrary position.

It’s simply a step too far for the business community (the captains of large and stable multinational industry, I mean, not the petite bourgeoisie who run exploitative boiler rooms and marginal private businesses) to be told they’re going to lose their European markets in manufactured goods for no sensible reason at all, never mind that they are already going to lose cheap immigrant labour (which many bosses can at least see is causing a real grievance, and for larger firms might even do them a favour by suppressing competition from startups using cheap labour against the large reputable businesses that already have settled pay structures and established pay and conditions that can’t easily be eroded).

Joseph Heller territory here.

I bet Mrs May wishes she hadn`t been elected leader now!

Indeed!

Except she was never elected - she was appointed to the post after Cameron resigned, the country declined to give her a majority, and she’s in office only because she slammed £1bn on the table to buy the DUP’s confidence votes!