If You Could Vote Again (Brexit)

[winseer]

Carryfast:

Winseer:
As a Loyalist Protestant married to a Catholic of Irish ancestory - I don’t recall ever being asked if I bloody well WANTED a “Good Friday Agreement” in the first place, that amounted to a surrender to the IRA and their demands. Tearing up that good friday agreement right now - would represent no better or worse than what Trump has just done with the Iranian treaty.
I’d applaud any politician with the balls to do such a think, just as in time - Trump’s move to take the tide out on this damnable EU/Liberal/Lefty/Islam pact - will one day go down in HIstory as a “great moment”. Yup, the more they push at us formerly moderate rights - the more to the Right we’ll retreat to! [/colo

The Irish question is a contradiction from the point of the Irish civil war in which so called Nationalists couldn’t get their heads around the idea that the right to self determination works both ways.To Sinn Fein’s naive support for Remain, based on the non existent,but what would be the correct,idea of a Confederal,as opposed to a Federal,Europe.Although to be fair until now I didn’t realise that they were actually standing for a Confederal Europe which would be a game changer regarding my own Leave vote too.Which explains what I’d wrongly thought was a contradiction in their position between Irish Nationalism v EU rule.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_Fein#EU

However without that possibility then surely their position can only be Leave.On that note I’d guess that the Northern Irish Remain vote is irrelevant and void being based on a misrepresentation as to what it was actually voting for.IE an EU that doesn’t and never will exist.So there we have it a large part of the NI Remain vote is based on a contradiction regarding what it was actually voting for.That being a Confederation of Sovereign Nation states not a Federation of subservient non sovereign states.

On that note the Leave side would do a lot better in honouring the Good Friday agreement.While also explaining to the Sinn Fein vote that without the possibility of a Confederal Europe its Remain position contradicts its own Party line and ideological position.IE Remain is mutually exclusive with Sinn’s Fein’s goals.While Leave in the form of hard Brexit certainly isn’t mutually exclusive with the ongoing good faith of the Good Friday agreement. We don’t need to defeat Sinn Fein politically. Once we’re out of the EU, and take NI with us - Sinn Fein goes back to being “nowhere” or back to being a terrorist outfit, which - let’s face it - is what most people are expecting of them by this point, anyways - hence the resistance to the hard border.

Unless that is Sinn Fein is actually just another Socialist rabble masquerading as Nationalists like the SNP.Which would explain the lie of a Party that says one thing in its mission statement.While standing for the exact opposite in the form of selling out Irish Nationalism to the EUSSR and who’s idea of a Confederal Europe actually means a Federal Socialist Europe.In which case what if any supposed ‘sovereign’ European state citizen doesn’t want to follow Sinn Fein’s bs climate change and pro immigration line.Or whose idea of Nationalism means the right of Israel to exist and defend itself,or the right of the Loyalist Community in NI to not have to be absorbed into Eire but wants to remain part of the UK.Or for that matter how does the idea of ‘a Minister for Europe’ fit the idea of National sovereignty ?.If it looks and sounds and flies like a lying Socialist duck then it’s a duck.

What a double standard that is… You can be any kind of “Nationalist” Party - EXCEPT “British”.!!! If you’re a political party to the Right of the Centerists (which no longer includes May right now) - Then you’re automatically “FAR” Right in the media. Even Putin, to the “Right of Communism” gets described as “Right Winger”, “Popularist” or “Nationalist” these days, all of which I would take as a compliment, compared to the limpdem-managed centerists over here. FFS How can “Popularist” ever be a dirty word■■? May is “Center of Left of Right” or “Left of Right of Center” at best.

[winseer]

Rjan:

Winseer:
We’ve already had quite enough “Transition Period” being forced to wait until March 2019. Because we keep on paying in the meantime, everyone else is going to drag their feet knowing that “Another day of nothing done=Another £50m into Brussels coffers”.

I still maintain that defaulting the payments (need the civil service on board to do this…) would result in the EU reacting quickly, in booting us all the way out practically overnight.

I don’t know why Brexiteers keep working themselves into a tizzy about the fact that the UK has not defaulted on its contribution to collective projects. The reality of default is simply that other states may default suddenly on their obligations, and the UK state won’t be trusted again for at least a generation. Bear in mind that for countries like Germany, they pay in even more on the net basis that Brexiteers refer to.

The public are NEVER going to vote for a majority Remainer party again. Theresa May had enough Remainers to lose her majority, and only Ex-UKIP voters plus students temporarily shifting their votes to Corbyn - pushed the Labour poll up last year.

Their performace in the council elections last week, whilst OK was hardly “Awesome”.

It wasn’t astounding, but it showed appreciable progress for Labour - and showed appreciable deterioration for the Tories (who were already in a very distant second place from 2014). Also, have you forgotten that nearly half of the country voted Remain? I say that simply to remind you not to get carried away. There are many, like me, who support Corbyn’s Brexit strategy, but are vehemently opposed to a right-wing Brexit and wouldn’t for a second stand for a party espousing yours or Carryfast’s views on the subject.

Council Elections, with their notorious low turnout, and general voter apathy - tend to see sharp swings in favour of the opposition parties. That’s exactly what we saw. Tories losing votes, UKIP wiped out, and a surge for both the Libdems and Labour, albeit nothing really fancy, considering the turnout was as low as it was. It’s a surge on a HIGH turnout that should and would have caused concern for the ruling party, had it had happened.

Normally in council elections, turnout is low (as it was last week as well) and the effect of the protest vote is thus more pronounced.

But that’s even worse, because low turnouts favour both older and more conservative voters, so if Labour is doing well under a low turnout, that is even more catastrophic for the Tories.

Labour, should have done a lot better - and the Libdems should have done a lot more poorly.

It’s easy to argue that naturally Tory areas like Kensington and Chelsea ought to have fallen to Labour, if voters in that constituency had any conscience, but the fact that it hasn’t isn’t an indictment of Labour - it’s simply a reflection of the class division, where even a council that has caused citizens to be roasted to death, retains support because those who died were not representative of the class of most people in that area. It shows that the rich are indeed waging a class war.
Have you ever considered that Grenfell Tower might have been a mere conspiracy to take away Labour’s wafer-thin majority there?

Also, the LibDems are still more or less at their nadir - still garnering some of the lowest results for their party in a generation.
The Libdems, in percentage terms - gained a lot more council seats than Labour. Mind you, you’re correct of course. Even if the Libdems increased their poll by 100% at this point, we’re talking about 12 seats going to 24 if that were reflected in the next general election. I had a tenner on @ 66-1 that the Libdems could recover to 29+ seats last year, which went down of course. (My tenner on Labour winning 250-299 seats @ 40-1 didn’t though!)

this weeks one being “out of control violent crime” and “You can’t arrest anyone of colour, because it’s against their yuman rights” ■■■■■■■■.

So, you don’t think the spike in crime is anything to do with the fact that the Tories have cut police numbers dramatically since 2010?
If we are only now going to start hammering the Tories for “dropping the ball as the party of law & order” - then those making that argument - need to support some change of leadership in the actual Tory party, rather than voting for Diane Abbot to become our next head of police, secret, and other security services in this country. Perish the thought!
It doesn’t help that she thinks she can employ ten thousand bobbies for less than a third of a million quid either, of course… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rneBbKrVE7A
Even if she manages to get her mits on the actual amount of cash really required - will it go on proper policing, which would include a segment towards overtime? - OR - would it just be some box ticking whitewash where not even Grammar enforcement and Sting find themselves with any additional ‘police presence’? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lru4dJ4J6g

Are the EU going to insist on the UK sending troops to defend Iran from Israeli/American aggression?

I would look at it the other way, the EU will be free from being lumbered with US/Israeli aggression. Remember, the 1973 oil crisis that Carryfast harps on about, was at its root due to UK support for Israel. It was attributed to Wilson in the 60s that the UK was kept out of the Vietnam war, which became an American-led quagmire just as Afghanistan and Iraq have.

The EU as a political entity is a demon. I don’t give a toss about “What about so-and-so leader somewhere else where it doesn’t affect me and mine”, so spare me the speeches slagging off Trump, Netenyahu, Orbin, Putin, et al who’ve only got in common that they are of the Right, and that friendship with such leaders would be good for the UK, rather than Bad for it.
If our government wants to make enemies - then let’s start with Saudi Arabia, since they fund that damnable so-called “Religion” and run it like a business, with their holy sites, etc.

If it’s wrong for Saddam Hussein to gas a village full of people, and we respond by killing a million plus innocents in that same country - then how about a Regime Change war vs anywhere that has Militant Islam running it? Left Wing version like Turkey/Iran or Right Wing like Saudi Arabia - I care not.

Islam is our enemy - not “Right Wing Leaders” of nuclear powers!

I disagree. It is “right wing leaders” that have created the very problem with Islamic fundamentalism - often by supporting it militarily, as the US did with Osama Bin Laden.

I agree that we shouldn’t be supporting Saudi Arabia, if that’s what your arguing here.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Winseer:
You and Carryfast by far have some of the most wild and confused views about what “left” and “right” are in the political context.

No it’s you that’s following the same worn out old rhetoric that only Socialism has the god given right to call itself ‘left’ and to represent the interests of the working class.When it’s equally clear that the logical conclusion of that means a Soviet style regime ( in this case EUSSR ) that abhorr’s the idea of the nation state and which will happily compromise our own national interest to further that aim.While at the same time conveniently standing for the idea of secession and false nationalism when it suits it just to gain power.

So there we have it Sinn Fein means an Islamic,or at least foreign demographic majority Ireland which they see as being best suited to the interests of Socialism,run on Soviet Socialist lines and who’s idea of secession and Irish sovereignty just means preferring to be ruled by people like Macron,Merkel and Juncker because they rightly didn’t like being ruled by Heath or Thatcher.Oh wait the same Heath and Thatcher that supported the same EU membership for us all.Just like Starmer and you and them and even more laughably Fianna Gael being a bunch of globalist muppets who supposedly stand for the Irish Nationalist cause that Collins died for.They couldn’t make it up.It’s clear who represents the ‘left’ here and it certainly ain’t stinking lying exploitative Socialism in the form of Corbyn’s ‘Labour’,Sturgeon’s SNP and Sinn Fein nor their just as stinking Globalist allies in the form of people like Starmer,Macron,Juncker and May.

[winseer]

Rjan:

Winseer:
Whilst the Remainers like to bang on about the £350m on the side of the bus being a “lie”, we also got told that Farage’s “Breaking Point” poster was “wrong” (Was it?) and Cameron, would respect and implement what he decided…

If I remember correctly, Farage himself disowned the £350m a week claim. There is one thing I will say about Farage is that he could perhaps frequently be accused of misrepresentation by omission, and he certainly associates with crooks and liars, but when put on the spot he is usually frank - he does appear to have that integrity (and of course as a one-man show he is only ever accountable for himself). Everyone really needed to disavow the £350m really, as it was only ever an estimate, and was “pre-rebate” being knocked off it, which is worth pointing out still left a 9-figure sum net deficit in what we pay the EU over what they pay back to us. Let’s agree on that.

By the start of business Monday 27th June, we should across that weekend - stopped the payments to Brussels, and honoured any payments owed for goods in transit, whilst at the same time expecting a reciprocal arrangement from Brussels. I.e. they stopped the rebates, and honoured payments for their goods in transit to us.

THIS would have been a smooth “Transitionary” arrangement to “keep on paying for the GOODS AND SERVICES ONLY” rather than “Paying the club membership monies” as it were.

The problem with that idea is that half the British working class would also have been laid off over the weekend, and the entire Brexit agenda would have sunk to the bottom of the sea immediately as soon as a large number of people lost even a single day’s pay. Even Hitler’s Enabling Act took a couple of months to implement. You really should get out of the habit of thinking that this was a realistic idea - it’s not how a multi-trillion pound economy such as ours can be run, and the more you talk nonsense to yourself the more unreasonable and remote the real world seems.
I’m completely baffled as to why ‘half the British working class would be laid off’… You’re going to have to elaborate on this one. The way I understand it, at very most, the only ones being laid off would be those civil servants who point-blank refuse to start pulling the strings and levels that prevent the money going to Brussels. Anyone involved with “Goods in Transit” is NOT going to be affected, for reasons I’ve already explained.

This notion that “We must pay, and continue to pay” is the sort of deal we would have expected from Hitler, had he successfully invaded in 1940.

The reality is, it took both world superpowers running at full steam, a variety of resistance movements in almost every European nation, plus the British economy on an total war footing that left almost everything utterly worn out by the end of the war and lumbered it with 60 years of war debts, just to bring Hitler to his knees. You’re living in the clouds when you imagine that if Britain defaulted on its (modest and freely-entered-into) obligations for just the next couple of years, that it would be their problem rather than ours. I would agree that It indeeed took a gargantulan political effort to even get so much as Lend Lease out of America, with them not coming into the war for an indecently prolonged period whilst Britain stood alone, looking like losing. If only such “gargantulan efforts” politically could be made to get Brexit done, rather than support the losing side of Remain.

This notion that Hitler was “Right” rather than “Hard Left” has been pushed way into the background, as is the simple fact that the Jews were NOT the ■■■■’s “Main Victims”.

One of Hitler’s main victims was the “hard left”, and whilst the Jews weren’t his only victims, it is still fair to say that as a group they were one of the main victims - and perhaps unlike socialists who were direct targets of the ■■■■ regime, Jews as a religious group were purely scapegoats (and the main figures in the ■■■■ regime put it on record that this was the case). Even in respect of the stereotype of Jews as international financiers (which was not true even then), the reality is that wealthy Jews were untouched (having had the means and the forewarning to flee or bribe their way out), and it was mainly working class Jews that suffered who could not be considered responsible for anything whatsoever. I’ve never considered “Communism” at least proper Communism to be the “Hard Left”. If it were, then the Left in this country, Far, Center, or Tory Lites even - would all be applauding Putin right now for doing more to actually “Make Russia Soviet Again” if I were to doff my Devil’s Advocate Wig for a moment, rather than slagging the poor Ex KGB guy off, and blame him for everything, including Salisbury…

There’s no “Right Wing Hostility” in "Not wanting to pay higher taxes so Joe Lazy Barsteward can get more benefits/faster track access to NHS treatment/free prescriptions/free council tax/free accommodation, and even the ability to go on holiday at the drop of a hat, because one doesn’t have to worry about being told “No” when you submit a holiday form.

If you’re against laziness, then you are primarily against shareholders collecting dividends in exchange for idleness, or idle beneficiaries who inherit wealth and family trusts, and you are also primarily for a policy of full employment, both of which are left-wing policies, not right-wing ones. You probably don’t hear about these wealthy idlers however, because you probably don’t reside in the same areas and social circles as they do, and you don’t read the sorts of papers that constantly make an example of them. I’m not sure where your coming from there… It sounds like you are against “Unearned Income” which would have to include “Interest on Savings”, something it is the very wealthy and elderly savers who voted Brexit - are suffering over, with the prevailing low interest rates for as long as they have been. Shares paying Dividends though? - I just cannot see that as an Evil. What I WOULD like to see “Reformed” are to make it compulsory for ALL shares to pay a dividend, no matter how small - plus “One Shareholding equals One Vote” replacing the current 1 institution with a million shares gets to outvote 9,000 small investors with 100 shares apiece. THAT is a total travesty of Justice, let alone Democracy!

You and Carryfast by far have some of the most wild and confused views about what “left” and “right” are in the political context.

[rjan]

Winseer:
What a double standard that is… You can be any kind of “Nationalist” Party - EXCEPT “British”.!!! If you’re a political party to the Right of the Centerists (which no longer includes May right now) - Then you’re automatically “FAR” Right in the media. Even Putin, to the “Right of Communism” gets described as “Right Winger”, “Popularist” or “Nationalist” these days, all of which I would take as a compliment, compared to the limpdem-managed centerists over here. FFS How can “Popularist” ever be a dirty word■■?

It’s not the name but the content of the policy. The reason the BNP was loathed was because it was a hotbed for gangsters, racists, and white supremacists.

[rjan]

Winseer:
If we are only now going to start hammering the Tories for “dropping the ball as the party of law & order” - then those making that argument - need to support some change of leadership in the actual Tory party, rather than voting for Diane Abbot to become our next head of police, secret, and other security services in this country. Perish the thought!

The fact is that the Tories haven’t “dropped the ball on law and order”. They have quite intentionally cut police numbers dramatically - because cutting public services to provide tax cuts to the wealthy is the name of their game.

There are a lot of Tory policies that I would criticise but also see as par for the course they play - like the Windrush scandal, shocking but hardly surprising - but the attacks on the police even raised my eyebrows.

I disagree. It is “right wing leaders” that have created the very problem with Islamic fundamentalism - often by supporting it militarily, as the US did with Osama Bin Laden.

I agree that we shouldn’t be supporting Saudi Arabia, if that’s what your arguing here.

The reality is that we should be supporting, or at least tolerating, progressive regimes in the Middle East, and avoid supporting regressive regimes and forces (like Bin Laden) even when it would be in our short-term interests to do so, because in the long-term the entire place is the product of Western policy, not of malign religious ideologies. In the long-term, it could well be a benefit to have Russia moving back into the Middle East, because like with Syria it will act as a brake on Western excesses and further destruction of states, thereby maintaining rule of law and functioning economies and civil societies.

[rjan]

Winseer:
I’m completely baffled as to why ‘half the British working class would be laid off’… You’re going to have to elaborate on this one. The way I understand it, at very most, the only ones being laid off would be those civil servants who point-blank refuse to start pulling the strings and levels that prevent the money going to Brussels. Anyone involved with “Goods in Transit” is NOT going to be affected, for reasons I’ve already explained.

Because of the amount of disruption you’d cause - not just from the necessary effects of any policies you pursue, but from the consequences of retaliatory actions, and from the perception of Britain being seen as a loose cannon (not just in the eyes of foreign nations, but of British bosses literally asking “Am I going to have a European market to sell to tomorrow, if I pay out wages for production today?”).

Even if the state stepped in to control the economy, maintain order, and guarantee profits (like it did with the banking crash), the costs borne would quickly exceed the membership fee saved (and remember you’ve won a referendum by a wafer-thin margin based on promising money savings, not of promising to spend a lot of money and cause a lot of economic upset simply to make a symbolic point with no other payoff).

It’s like I say, I don’t even know why we’re having this argument. Not even the most extreme, hard-right Brexiteers suggested flatly reneging on our existing commitments the day after the referendum (which are easily affordable, even if you see them as illegitimate and should never have been agreed to in the past) - at best, those commitments were to be treated as a bargaining chip (for example, Boris arguing that the EU could “go whistle” for our contributions, if they did not agree to a trade deal).

The reality is, it took both world superpowers running at full steam, a variety of resistance movements in almost every European nation, plus the British economy on an total war footing that left almost everything utterly worn out by the end of the war and lumbered it with 60 years of war debts, just to bring Hitler to his knees. You’re living in the clouds when you imagine that if Britain defaulted on its (modest and freely-entered-into) obligations for just the next couple of years, that it would be their problem rather than ours. I would agree that It indeeed took a gargantulan political effort to even get so much as Lend Lease out of America, with them not coming into the war for an indecently prolonged period whilst Britain stood alone, looking like losing. If only such “gargantulan efforts” politically could be made to get Brexit done, rather than support the losing side of Remain.

Indeed, and the simple fact is that Britain would have folded against the Nazis had it not been for worldwide support. But how concerned do you think the world is going to be to support an irrational political convulsion by a tiny minority of Brexiteers over EU membership fees? There would be no point going crying to the US, because it has political and military interests in the EU project and strong alliances with the other member states, so if it was forced to take sides on this particular issue it would take the side of the EU.

If you’re against laziness, then you are primarily against shareholders collecting dividends in exchange for idleness, or idle beneficiaries who inherit wealth and family trusts, and you are also primarily for a policy of full employment, both of which are left-wing policies, not right-wing ones. You probably don’t hear about these wealthy idlers however, because you probably don’t reside in the same areas and social circles as they do, and you don’t read the sorts of papers that constantly make an example of them. I’m not sure where your coming from there… It sounds like you are against “Unearned Income” which would have to include “Interest on Savings”, something it is the very wealthy and elderly savers who voted Brexit - are suffering over, with the prevailing low interest rates for as long as they have been. Shares paying Dividends though? - I just cannot see that as an Evil. What I WOULD like to see “Reformed” are to make it compulsory for ALL shares to pay a dividend, no matter how small - plus “One Shareholding equals One Vote” replacing the current 1 institution with a million shares gets to outvote 9,000 small investors with 100 shares apiece. THAT is a total travesty of Justice, let alone Democracy!

I don’t want to go off on a tangent about pensions (obviously I support the principle of workers’ pensions), but on shareholding, if you want democracy then you agree with collective ownership and control.

Even if shareholders had one vote per shareholding, the reality is that the rich would just buy up all the shares - and would outbid poor people for those shares.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
Because of the amount of disruption you’d cause - not just from the necessary effects of any policies you pursue, but from the consequences of retaliatory actions, and from the perception of Britain being seen as a loose cannon (not just in the eyes of foreign nations, but of British bosses literally asking “Am I going to have a European market to sell to tomorrow, if I pay out wages for production today?”).

Even if the state stepped in to control the economy, maintain order, and guarantee profits (like it did with the banking crash), the costs borne would quickly exceed the membership fee saved (and remember you’ve won a referendum by a wafer-thin margin based on promising money savings, not of promising to spend a lot of money and cause a lot of economic upset simply to make a symbolic point with no other payoff).

It’s like I say, I don’t even know why we’re having this argument. Not even the most extreme, hard-right Brexiteers suggested flatly reneging on our existing commitments the day after the referendum (which are easily affordable, even if you see them as illegitimate and should never have been agreed to in the past) - at best, those commitments were to be treated as a bargaining chip (for example, Boris arguing that the EU could “go whistle” for our contributions, if they did not agree to a trade deal).

The reality is, it took both world superpowers running at full steam, a variety of resistance movements in almost every European nation, plus the British economy on an total war footing that left almost everything utterly worn out by the end of the war and lumbered it with 60 years of war debts, just to bring Hitler to his knees. You’re living in the clouds when you imagine that if Britain defaulted on its (modest and freely-entered-into) obligations for just the next couple of years, that it would be their problem rather than ours. I would agree that It indeeed took a gargantulan political effort to even get so much as Lend Lease out of America, with them not coming into the war for an indecently prolonged period whilst Britain stood alone, looking like losing. If only such “gargantulan efforts” politically could be made to get Brexit done, rather than support the losing side of Remain.

Indeed, and the simple fact is that Britain would have folded against the Nazis had it not been for worldwide support. But how concerned do you think the world is going to be to support an irrational political convulsion by a tiny minority of Brexiteers over EU membership fees? There would be no point going crying to the US, because it has political and military interests in the EU project and strong alliances with the other member states, so if it was forced to take sides on this particular issue it would take the side of the EU.

I don’t want to go off on a tangent about pensions (obviously I support the principle of workers’ pensions), but on shareholding, if you want democracy then you agree with collective ownership and control.

Even if shareholders had one vote per shareholding, the reality is that the rich would just buy up all the shares - and would outbid poor people for those shares.

As expected it’s clear that you’ve got absolutely no sense of loyalty to your own country because you don’t even actually believe that it has the right to exist as such.To the point where you obviously take the side of the EU in ‘retaliating’ against us for the crime of secession.This is all going to get messy sooner or later with this type of division being an ideological one not an economic one at all and you know it.Having already shown that you’ve got no intention whatsoever of admitting defeat concerning what was a clear majority vote to leave the stinking EU Federation ( EUSSR in all but name ).The definition of Leave meaning no more cash for the privilege of Brit jobs for EU workers and an end to free movement.Among other issues related to the full return of sovereignty and don’t pretend that you don’t recognise the definition of national sovereignty over EU rule in whatever form in that regard.

As for the US yes it’s no surprise that secession in Europe presents a conflict of interest with the US’s own ideology and Federal government regime.In which if push comes to shove there’s no way that it will support secession here because of the implications at home when states like Texas say why not us too.Also bearing in mind that its corrupt dealings with China shows that it no longer has any fear or qualms about selling the West out to Socialism if they see a few bob in it.

But don’t expect the secessionist side to swallow your Soviet Federalist zb without the argument turning very nasty sooner or later just as throughout history.Your rabble obviously kicking off such a fight in predictably not being prepared to accept a clear democratic mandate for secession and supporting the undemocratic imposition of foreign Federal rule on the country with your loyalties being with the EU and not your own country in that regard.

[rjan]

On another subject (or rather, back to the subject of Brexit), times are a-changin’ in the Labour party:

theguardian.com/politics/20 … -tells-mps

Norway-style option after Brexit can’t be considered, Corbyn tells MPs
…
Other Labour MPs also cautioned against any option which would mean retaining free movement. Sources said MPs warned colleagues that consideration of an EEA option would leave Labour vulnerable not just with leave voters, but the large percentage of remain voters who also wanted changes to free movement.

independent.co.uk/news/uk/p … 51726.html

“Lots of Labour people were getting up saying no, we’re not backtracking on the referendum. That’s not happened before at the PLP,” he [John Mann] added.

“It was quite a significant moment in my view. In a sense that strengthens Jeremy Corbyn’s hand on his current position. But it kills dead all this stuff from the House of Lords that’s additional – it’s clearly not going to have Labour’s support.”

Basically, the Blairite PLP have finally seen sense, come to heel, and are accepting a Corbyn-led Brexit.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
On another subject (or rather, back to the subject of Brexit), times are a-changin’ in the Labour party:

theguardian.com/politics/20 … -tells-mps

Norway-style option after Brexit can’t be considered, Corbyn tells MPs
…
Other Labour MPs also cautioned against any option which would mean retaining free movement. Sources said MPs warned colleagues that consideration of an EEA option would leave Labour vulnerable not just with leave voters, but the large percentage of remain voters who also wanted changes to free movement.

independent.co.uk/news/uk/p … 51726.html

“Lots of Labour people were getting up saying no, we’re not backtracking on the referendum. That’s not happened before at the PLP,” he [John Mann] added.

“It was quite a significant moment in my view. In a sense that strengthens Jeremy Corbyn’s hand on his current position. But it kills dead all this stuff from the House of Lords that’s additional – it’s clearly not going to have Labour’s support.”

Basically, the Blairite PLP have finally seen sense, come to heel, and are accepting a Corbyn-led Brexit.

What it really means is that in true Socialist style he’s saying one thing to fool the Leave Labour vote and will do the opposite in the form of remain.While its clear from your own arguments that you’re all about remain in all but name and if the EU says jump you’ll say how high because you’re not prepared to compromise your Socialist principles on what can only be the Nationalist agenda of Secession.Make no mistake if Labour was for Brexit in anything like the meaning of the word it would be Hoey in the job of shadow Brexit minister not remainer Starmer.While EU appeasers like the Unite leadership would obviously also be confirming their agreement to change from Remain to Leave by at least calling for the removal of Starmer to be replaced by Hoey.

Your desperate unbelievable claims of Remainers pretending to now be Leavers,when secession goes against everything that Socialists stand for,are laughable.As we’ve seen by your appeasement if not tacit support of the ongoing handing over of our National Sovereignty and interests to the thieving,corrupt, foreign aid scam and foreign rule that is the reality of our subservient EU Federal status.Socialist liars as usual doing what Socialists do best in the form of if democracy can’t be rigged just lie and infiltrate.

uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita … KKBN1E409I

theguardian.com/politics/201 … ir-starmer

Also bearing in mind that the issue of sovereignty goes a lot further than just free movement.Such as stopping the situation of us paying a fortune for the privilege of importing German goods and non EU immigration policy being imposed on us by Merkel and EU courts’ juristiction here for example and kicking the EU out of UK fishing areas.Hopefully the lying Labour Socialist rabble is now going to get hit by an exodus of voters to UKIP who’ll see through Corbyn’s blatant lies.

[winseer]

Rjan:
On another subject (or rather, back to the subject of Brexit), times are a-changin’ in the Labour party:

theguardian.com/politics/20 … -tells-mps

Norway-style option after Brexit can’t be considered, Corbyn tells MPs
…
Other Labour MPs also cautioned against any option which would mean retaining free movement. Sources said MPs warned colleagues that consideration of an EEA option would leave Labour vulnerable not just with leave voters, but the large percentage of remain voters who also wanted changes to free movement.

independent.co.uk/news/uk/p … 51726.html

“Lots of Labour people were getting up saying no, we’re not backtracking on the referendum. That’s not happened before at the PLP,” he [John Mann] added.

“It was quite a significant moment in my view. In a sense that strengthens Jeremy Corbyn’s hand on his current position. But it kills dead all this stuff from the House of Lords that’s additional – it’s clearly not going to have Labour’s support.”

Basically, the Blairite PLP have finally seen sense, come to heel, and are accepting a Corbyn-led Brexit.

I didn’t think there was such a think as a “Corbyn led Brexit”, despite him being this supposed Eurosceptic during the Blair era of government.
If Corbyn wants to truly bolt-on some Brexiteer credentials to get some actual support from those Brextieers that are outside of Labour like myself - then he’s going to have to come up with the PLAN that Theresa May clearly has not done. That means getting rid of his Remainer Shadow Cabinet for starters, especially “Sir” Keir Starmer, who should be booted upstairs just in time for the “Other place” to be abolished - by any 2nd referendum we might eventually get bullied into!

Let’s see if I can come up with a “Left Brexit” plan of my own:

(1) Stop paying the Brussels money, and stop paying the overseas aid budget forthwith. That’s an income of around £30bn per year, money being made available instantly, as it’s money we’re no longer paying, rather than money we have to re-coup from somewhere involving an actual money transfer from some overseas place. We’ll probably forfeit the £9bn on deposit at the ECB, and we’ll of course forfeit the £20bn-ish we’ve paid since voting Leave as well, as Possession is 9/10ths of the law, as I always remind everyone…

(2) Allocate that money to those things that would expect to be cut off by the EU via the Rebate system. Farmers, R&D, Institutions, Benefits Budget, NHS, etc. There’s no need to hurry putting back the EU subsidies into “political interference” factions in this country of course. Anyone who wants to drop out, can do so - but they at least won’t be getting any more UK money to act against the UK! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmQnEyiGdGQ Let the rather Hard-Faced, Black, Up-and-coming “Secretary” get you a drink. There are more ways than one to “Pull the rug” on those who “don’t want any part of it” though. A deal is only a good deal - if you enforce one in your own interests first, and for that you need an Iron Fist.

(3) Trump is showing right now, that a “shoot from the hip” approach CAN and DOES work. Those objecting? - Well, no one obliged anyone to burn American flags, and become cannon fodder for trigger-happy Israeli forces - so from Trump’s point of view, he’s winning right now, as the “not wrong people” are those suffering. That’s what, in the end, we need to do in the UK with regards to the EU. Treat the EU as a poltical enemy that no longer represents it’s people, be they Remainers in Britain, or everyone on the mainland continent. Does anyone REALLY think that EU member nations will take part in any hostilities, be they economic or military - vs Great Britain, once we get a leader over here that acts more like Trump, rather than less so?
In short, once the money flow is cut off, all the EU can do is attempt to punish us by “cutting off their own noses to spite their faces”. We have not left any single market or customs union - until the EU now pulls the plug on it. The ball is very much back in the EU’s court then!

(4) The EU would offer any incoming perceived socliaist government “all the borrowing it requires” - which would be a very tempting shortcut for Corbyn indeed, especially if the banks start bullying him the moment he might win power. “We won’t co-operate, sorry there’s no money, - so you’ll have to resign Mr JC”. The ECB step in as white knights “Mr Corbyn, we’ll offer you an unlimited credit facility at the prevailing interest rate - providing you scrap Brexit on the spot!”

THIS is why we need a clear Brexit plan from Corbyn, backed up by actual promises and commitements. There’s too much wriggle-room otherwise for both shifty Labour front benchers, and the EU alike -to whip the rug out from under ALL of us, remainers included.

If we ever found ourselves back fully in the EU - the Remainer cheers will be short lived, I reckon…

Our contributions would be increased, to “pay for the costs of trying to leave”.
Our contributions would be increased, because the EU is just damned good at wasting more money on it’s Byzantine practices every year…
Our military will be roped sooner or later into a war in East Ukraine that’ll put Russia on the spot to either retalite, leading to WWIII, or let the EU steal the rest of the former Warsaw Pact nations away from it, forever. Putin can be expected to be in power these next 5 years. We cannot say the same of the weak and limp goverments that pervade around Europe in the meantime though.

If the EU decides to send troops into Iran to protect the “Nuclear Deal”, then British Soldiers face the prospect of being sued at home for Blair’s War, or getting shot at (officially this time) by Americans in the war they clearly seem to want in the region, as well.

In short, the EU will treat a UK “back in again” in a similar manner to the way ■■■■ Germany treated Occupied France during WWII.
Only this time around - we won’t have America on our sides, but both America and Russia as our enemies!

It’s all very nice for Remainers to rejoice at switching our enemies about like this, “Because we won’t fight, we’re paficifsts don’tcha know” - but that old ■■■■■■■■ doesn’t cut any ice in the wider scheme of things. We’ll be annexed, and become some superpower’s “Airstrip One” where “Resistance is Futile” forever and ever. That’s too high a price for following the wrong agenda right through the gates of hell itself over - surely?

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
… Basically, the Blairite PLP have finally seen sense, come to heel, and are accepting a Corbyn-led Brexit.

What it really means is that in true Socialist style he’s saying one thing to fool the Leave Labour vote and will do the opposite in the form of remain.

Just to be clear, what you mean by “remaining” is that Corbyn is not going to lauch a “nationalist” assault on the EU, and is instead going to try to preserve such beneficial aspects of the relationship as can be preserved?

And how can he fool the Labour Leave vote? If you vote Labour, you support it’s socialist principles, you’re not a sabre-ratting little Hitler. If you are the latter, then you support Tory Leave.

While its clear from your own arguments that you’re all about remain in all but name and if the EU says jump you’ll say how high because you’re not prepared to compromise your Socialist principles on what can only be the Nationalist agenda of Secession.Make no mistake if Labour was for Brexit in anything like the meaning of the word it would be Hoey in the job of shadow Brexit minister not remainer Starmer.While EU appeasers like the Unite leadership would obviously also be confirming their agreement to change from Remain to Leave by at least calling for the removal of Starmer to be replaced by Hoey.

The Unite leadership want to see a continued customs union, and a continued relationship, precisely because so many of their members’ jobs depend currently on the European market. If the right-wing loons come up with a credible plan for this huge new market that is not just going to replace the European market but actually out-do it, perhaps the unions will change their opinion, but whilst the Tories are empty-handed on trade deals, most workers are content to continue trading with Europe.

Your desperate unbelievable claims of Remainers pretending to now be Leavers,when secession goes against everything that Socialists stand for,are laughable.As we’ve seen by your appeasement if not tacit support of the ongoing handing over of our National Sovereignty and interests to the thieving,corrupt, foreign aid scam and foreign rule that is the reality of our subservient EU Federal status.Socialist liars as usual doing what Socialists do best in the form of if democracy can’t be rigged just lie and infiltrate.

The reality is, unless you have some realistic plan for a neo-colonial empire, where we gain trading partners but we alone tell them what to do, then you’re just living in the clouds. Any trade deal with a foreign country, is going to involve mutual rules and standards being set, and both sides having to comply with them - if not, then no deals will be done. Which is why India told Liam Fox to go and whistle, because they said you either accept free movement with India, or no deal. It’s the same with the US - they’ll either tell Britain that we have to comply with US standards, including for example privatising healthcare, or no deal.

Also bearing in mind that the issue of sovereignty goes a lot further than just free movement.Such as stopping the situation of us paying a fortune for the privilege of importing German goods and non EU immigration policy being imposed on us by Merkel and EU courts’ juristiction here for example and kicking the EU out of UK fishing areas.Hopefully the lying Labour Socialist rabble is now going to get hit by an exodus of voters to UKIP who’ll see through Corbyn’s blatant lies.

There is no “non-EU immigration policy imposed by Merkel”. We are not even part of the Shengen area. We take in 300k non-EU immigrants a year out of our own national political choice - partly to keep wages low and avoid training and upskilling already-settled workers.

The refugee and asylum figure is 20k a year - and that too is not so much because we are forced to take them, but because we keep choosing to participate (along with other nations) in the disruption and military destruction of Middle Eastern and North African regimes. And because, as left-wing thinkers in Germany have pointed out (since Germany is taking in huge numbers of refugees), it acts as a dose of cheap labour (and many refugees are skilled workers, like engineers), so centre-right governments rub their hands in glee.

As for Labour, there are no lies. Labour is being clear that it’s demands against the EU are twofold, firstly the right of the state to nationalise public services and invest money in key industries (especially manufacturing, which you constantly harp on about the Germans out-doing us), and secondly an end to free movement which is being exploited by bosses. As far as I’m concerned, that is a good agenda for Labour.

And what’s more, it pushes all the pressure points of the EU, because in Germany too, there is a growing movement back towards proper public ownership of utilities, and there is hostility to how free movement is being abused (since the German people are bearing the costs of free movement above all).

Labour now has a credible plan for Brexit and appears to be uniting around it, whereas the Tories have no plan (because, contrary to what you might like to believe, those like Rees-Mogg aren’t “nationalist secessionists” either, they simply look forward to another dose of Thatcherism and attacks on workers).

[rjan]

Winseer:
I didn’t think there was such a think as a “Corbyn led Brexit”, despite him being this supposed Eurosceptic during the Blair era of government.

I don’t know why people (i.e. you and Carryfast) call him a “supposed” Eurosceptic. His own Blairite opponents in Labour consider him a Eurosceptic, the Tories themselves have never tried to paint him as a Europhile, he has a 35-year track record in Parliament as a Eurosceptic, and is supported (and always has been good political friends with) those like Dennis Skinner who have almost a 50-year Eurosceptic track record.

If Corbyn wants to truly bolt-on some Brexiteer credentials to get some actual support from those Brextieers that are outside of Labour like myself - then he’s going to have to come up with the PLAN that Theresa May clearly has not done. That means getting rid of his Remainer Shadow Cabinet for starters, especially “Sir” Keir Starmer, who should be booted upstairs just in time for the “Other place” to be abolished - by any 2nd referendum we might eventually get bullied into!

There is unlikely to be a change of faces. And Corbyn is not trying to attract Tory Brexiteers - he’s trying to retain Labour Leavers, and quite rightly so. Indeed, Corbyn is pretty much getting everything his own way - the challenge has been to persuade the Blairite MPs and the hand-wringing liberals that his Euroscepticism is justified (and to be honest, I have become more Eurosceptic since the referendum, partly because of developments and revelations since).

THIS is why we need a clear Brexit plan from Corbyn, backed up by actual promises and commitements. There’s too much wriggle-room otherwise for both shifty Labour front benchers, and the EU alike -to whip the rug out from under ALL of us, remainers included.

Indeed, but the fact that the current management of Labour are ideological Eurosceptics in the Bennite tradition and are not careerists, and the fact that their agenda is already highly focussed on two specific issues (taking back democratic control of the economy, and an end to free movement), means that there is unlikely to be a great deal of wriggle-room.

Also, if the attitudes you and Carryfast are representative of a significant number of people, then if Corbyn does get into a fight with the EU over these issues, he’s likely to gain support at home by fighting them, rather than losing support. And left-wingers like me are likely to support the showdown (so too are workers, unions, and left-wing politicians in other EU nations), because they are crucial ideological issues for the left across Europe.

Negotating a new relationship with Europe (or forcing the EU to concede to reform), together with a domestic left-wing agenda, is the new centre-ground of politics that Corbyn now occupies.

And like I’ve said to Carryfast, it is avoiding the divisiveness of the Tories’ nationalist agenda. The EU bureaucracy has recently admitted that the ghost of Corbyn future is the ghost they fear the most, because the other members (France and Germany in particular) know that the buttons Corbyn is going to press are the issues on which they are already extremely weak at home.

Whereas the other EU members have found it easy to unite against the Tories because the Tories’ agenda is extremely unpopular with those in other EU nations, exemplified by their threatened attacks on citizens’ rights and threats to undercut on taxes and workers rights (it’s a quirk of British politics that workers here are still relatively right-wing and have been since the 70s, which is why the Tories have even had the chance to threaten these things).

In short, the EU will treat a UK “back in again” in a similar manner to the way ■■■■ Germany treated Occupied France during WWII.
Only this time around - we won’t have America on our sides, but both America and Russia as our enemies!

I think you’re mistaking the “EU” for foreign relations between nations. Military action is something negotiated between nations which the consent of each, not something that is a requirement of EU membership.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
We’ll be annexed, and become some superpower’s “Airstrip One” where “Resistance is Futile” forever and ever. That’s too high a price for following the wrong agenda right through the gates of hell itself over - surely?

Join the dots the road to Soviet Socialist hell.The ‘‘global governance system’’.

euobserver.com/eu-china/139643

i.ytimg.com/vi/IYg_kkTf9V0/maxresdefault.jpg

Also wouldn’t trust ‘Trump’ ( or whoever is masquerading as Trump ),or Putin,or even Orban in that regard.The issue of muppets pretending to be Nationalists while actually all following the same Socialist/Globalist ‘‘global governance system’’ agenda is a common theme from Sinn Fein to Trump to Putin and Orban.

Make no mistake this is a massive conspiracy with the end game being Chinese run Global Government with openly stated aims and which is taking the ■■■■ out of an uneducated naive electorate to the point of getting away with even painting Soviet Socialist/Globalist as Nationalist to get it.

theatlantic.com/magazine/arc … na/550886/

edition.cnn.com/2018/03/26/asia … index.html

miniszterelnok.hu/prime-mini … e-premier/

[winseer]

Whilst Corbyn has clearly made considerable effort to rally the votes of the incoming voting generation of already half-brainwashed University populations, he’s yet to appeal to those of us who want to actually see these “Eurosceptic” credentials.

Perhaps if Corbyn became an advocate of an even harder version of Labour Leave than the Right-wing version, he might find himself poaching the very votes of the Right he’ll need one day, if he’s ever to get past the 40% poll that still didn’t win it for him (for very similar reasons to Le Pen polling around the same, and not winning in France last year…)

There’s the Brexit Ball. It’s about ten feet in front of an empty goal, as the goalie hasn’t even turned up today.

…All anyone has to do is kick it in the net, and not miss from ten feet out. How ‘hard’ is that?

For all we know, last year’s election poll was not actually about an apparent shift of 3.5m ex-UKIP voters straight to Labour (which doesn’t make much sense, if you think about it…) but might have instead, represented 3.5m UKIP voters “not voting at all”, or “Voting for minor candidates” - whilst plenty of Tory voters went to the Libdems, whilst Libdem voters went to Corbyn.

The result is the same though. Labour - surge. Libdems - Treading water, if we can call gaining a measly 3 seats that, followed by Tim Nice-but-Farron resigning, having seen his majority crushed.

If it were not for the votes of migrating Tory protest voters - who’s to say that the Libdems would have even held on to the 9 seats they had going into that election?

As for the “Fire in the air” UKIP voters… Those 3.5m votes apparently disappearing in the 2017 election - might find themselves resurging the other minor parties, such as “Local Issue” independents in particular. We once saw Cameron “throw the kitchen sink” at making sure Farage could and would not win South Thanet.
So here’s a scenario set-up:

A few seats here and there, up and down the country with reasonable but not huge majorities for the incumbent… Let’s say seats like Uxbridge or Lonsdale that have high-profile incumbents, holding onto a 4-figure, but more importantly “sharply declining” majority…

Are those seats really going to either stay the same or flip to another mainstream party?

…Or can a concentrated effort be made there, by an independent candidate, hopefully with other indy candidates stepping side, thus not to split the vote?

This is nothing new. Martin Bell managed to unseat Neil Hamilton in 1997 in, of all Constituencies - Tatton, later to be won and held by none other than George Osbourne!

If a apparent “safe seat” can be turfed out in this manner, then I would predict that by the time of the next election - “Tactical Voting” might fall to the public as their last-ditch attempt (seeing as merely ‘Voting Leave’ has been ignored so far…) to push back at the political mainstream - in the form of well-coordinated voting for those by-then refined indy candidates, that might then go on to form perhaps the third largest group in the house of commons, albiet “not officially” a party as of yet?

The next election might well be very up-close and personal for the public, who all at once - decide to do everything they can to oust EVERY mainstream party seat warmer in the house of commons. Just think of the potential: A large group of “loose, non-affiliated” indy MPs who can either support or block the mainstream party that happens to be running the by-then common “minority government”… A predict a LOT more things being done for local issues, and to garn the favour of those indy MPs - and a LOT of old-hat “them and us” poltiics - being swept away, as “Obsolete” by that point.

I have a dream…

More later.

[rjan]

Winseer:
Whilst Corbyn has clearly made considerable effort to rally the votes of the incoming voting generation of already half-brainwashed University populations, he’s yet to appeal to those of us who want to actually see these “Eurosceptic” credentials.

Perhaps if Corbyn became an advocate of an even harder version of Labour Leave than the Right-wing version, he might find himself poaching the very votes of the Right he’ll need one day, if he’s ever to get past the 40% poll that still didn’t win it for him (for very similar reasons to Le Pen polling around the same, and not winning in France last year…)

There’s the Brexit Ball. It’s about ten feet in front of an empty goal, as the goalie hasn’t even turned up today.

…All anyone has to do is kick it in the net, and not miss from ten feet out. How ‘hard’ is that?

But the vision of Brexit that you and Carryfast seem to describe, you’re never going to see. You’re never going to have Corbyn posing for a photo-op where he bears his arse at the edge of the white cliffs of Dover and puts two fingers up to the continent.

Nor can he outdo the false rhetoric of the Tory right. Boris said the EU could go and whistle for it’s contributions, then promptly agreed to pay them at the outset of negotiations. Then he made a big deal about blue passports, heralding it as a victory, until the EU pointed out that we could have had them all along and that one of the minor members of the EU (I forget which) does already have blue passports - and then the Tories gave the production contract to a French firm. These sorts of processes wouldn’t be allowed to happen on the left, because the effects would be foreseen and are considered embarrassing and dishonest.

Most people on the socialist left, we may be wrong or we may be right, but we generally have some respect for the intellect and capability of the working class (even if, as the relative success of the Tories show, it is not always immediately justified) and try to engage honestly with people.

[carryfast]

Rjan:

Carryfast:
What it really means is that in true Socialist style he’s saying one thing to fool the Leave Labour vote and will do the opposite in the form of remain.

Just to be clear, what you mean by “remaining” is that Corbyn is not going to lauch a “nationalist” assault on the EU, and is instead going to try to preserve such beneficial aspects of the relationship as can be preserved?

And how can he fool the Labour Leave vote? If you vote Labour, you support it’s socialist principles, you’re not a sabre-ratting little Hitler. If you are the latter, then you support Tory Leave.

While its clear from your own arguments that you’re all about remain in all but name and if the EU says jump you’ll say how high because you’re not prepared to compromise your Socialist principles on what can only be the Nationalist agenda of Secession.Make no mistake if Labour was for Brexit in anything like the meaning of the word it would be Hoey in the job of shadow Brexit minister not remainer Starmer.While EU appeasers like the Unite leadership would obviously also be confirming their agreement to change from Remain to Leave by at least calling for the removal of Starmer to be replaced by Hoey.

The Unite leadership want to see a continued customs union, and a continued relationship, precisely because so many of their members’ jobs depend currently on the European market. If the right-wing loons come up with a credible plan for this huge new market that is not just going to replace the European market but actually out-do it, perhaps the unions will change their opinion, but whilst the Tories are empty-handed on trade deals, most workers are content to continue trading with Europe.

Your desperate unbelievable claims of Remainers pretending to now be Leavers,when secession goes against everything that Socialists stand for,are laughable.As we’ve seen by your appeasement if not tacit support of the ongoing handing over of our National Sovereignty and interests to the thieving,corrupt, foreign aid scam and foreign rule that is the reality of our subservient EU Federal status.Socialist liars as usual doing what Socialists do best in the form of if democracy can’t be rigged just lie and infiltrate.

The reality is, unless you have some realistic plan for a neo-colonial empire, where we gain trading partners but we alone tell them what to do, then you’re just living in the clouds. Any trade deal with a foreign country, is going to involve mutual rules and standards being set, and both sides having to comply with them - if not, then no deals will be done. Which is why India told Liam Fox to go and whistle, because they said you either accept free movement with India, or no deal. It’s the same with the US - they’ll either tell Britain that we have to comply with US standards, including for example privatising healthcare, or no deal.

We’ve already established the fact that Hitler was no Nationalist while Michael Collins certainly was.Hitler was just another Socalist scammer masquerading as a Nationalist to impose his version of a pan European EUSSR dictatorship.Just like the SNP and Sinn Fein.

Yes we know if you support Labour that means accepting its Socialist ideology which by your own admission means that it certainly won’t ‘Leave’ the EU in any meaningful way whatsoever.Which by definition totally contradicts Corbyn’s bs idea of a so called Labour ‘Brexit’.When the liar knows that his Party is tied to the EU by its own stinking ideology.In which case by your own logic how can Corbyn possibly deliver any type of Brexit at all when you’ve already stated that you’re not prepared to go against EU rulings which by implication go with Unite’s Remain agenda.The rule of free movement obviously being part of those rules.As for non EU trade deals exactly what sovereignty does Japan have to give up in order to export stuff to any other country including India.Or for that matter New Zealand or Australia or Canada ?.IE why would India want to apply double standards in that regard to the UK and why would/should we want to accept such blackmail regardless ?.Bearing in mind that India has nothing to offer us other than tea and needs UK technical know how more than we need its tea imports.

While it’s clear that our economy obviously needs a massive shift in emphasis away from exports to replacing imports with domestic products anyway.With any ideas of compromising our National Sovereignty,for the privilege of being a excessive net importer with an unsustainable trade deficit to match,being an insult to injury in that regard…

It’s clear that Corbyn’s whole agenda is based on deliberate sabotage,infiltration and subterfuge,as part of Starmer’s ( and obviously Unite’s ) remain plot to defeat the Leave referendum vote and fooling the Labour part of that vote with the ridiculous idea that Labour will deliver Brexit,being part of it.When Labour is clearly all about selling out this country and its working class to the advantage of foreign powers as part of its ideological plans of being an enthusiastic part of the EUSSR’s and ultimately China’s Communist World Governance agenda.As I said this is inevitably going to turn nasty in the form of a Nationalist v Socialist collision sooner or later.

The Socialists showing their true colours in not only not being willing to accept a democratic decision but then also trying to lie and scam their way into power to over turn that decision by trying to paint a clear Remain position as a so called Leave one.When Starmer’s position as shadow Brexit minister instead of Hoey and UNITE’s clear remain stance,let alone your own clear contradictory obviously Remain position while laughably pretending to be for Leave,says it all.IE just how stupid do you think that the Labour Leave vote really is in it believing such total bs.

[winseer]

Rjan:

Winseer:
Whilst Corbyn has clearly made considerable effort to rally the votes of the incoming voting generation of already half-brainwashed University populations, he’s yet to appeal to those of us who want to actually see these “Eurosceptic” credentials.

Perhaps if Corbyn became an advocate of an even harder version of Labour Leave than the Right-wing version, he might find himself poaching the very votes of the Right he’ll need one day, if he’s ever to get past the 40% poll that still didn’t win it for him (for very similar reasons to Le Pen polling around the same, and not winning in France last year…)

There’s the Brexit Ball. It’s about ten feet in front of an empty goal, as the goalie hasn’t even turned up today.

…All anyone has to do is kick it in the net, and not miss from ten feet out. How ‘hard’ is that?

But the vision of Brexit that you and Carryfast seem to describe, you’re never going to see. You’re never going to have Corbyn posing for a photo-op where he bears his arse at the edge of the white cliffs of Dover and puts two fingers up to the continent.

Nor can he outdo the false rhetoric of the Tory right. Boris said the EU could go and whistle for it’s contributions, then promptly agreed to pay them at the outset of negotiations. Then he made a big deal about blue passports, heralding it as a victory, until the EU pointed out that we could have had them all along and that one of the minor members of the EU (I forget which) does already have blue passports - and then the Tories gave the production contract to a French firm. These sorts of processes wouldn’t be allowed to happen on the left, because the effects would be foreseen and are considered embarrassing and dishonest.

Most people on the socialist left, we may be wrong or we may be right, but we generally have some respect for the intellect and capability of the working class (even if, as the relative success of the Tories show, it is not always immediately justified) and try to engage honestly with people.

Are you saying that there’s no such thing as a “Left” Brexit, or a “Right” brexit, since in fact the only politicians able to actually deliver Brexit - are the very ones who are 100% against it, and won’t be moved otherwise… The “Hard Centers”. Enter: The Liberal Extremist. Determined to ignore Democratic votes, and yet hanging onto “Democrat” as part of their party name.

Blue passports, and all that other guff - are just white noise. So is “Immigration”. Even if we voted solidly for Brexit, it’s going to take many years to change the culture whereby we actually kick out the criminal immigrants and keep the hard working taxpaying ones - simply because no politician in history has yet to divide up the two!

Brexit is all about the money. If we’d already stopped paying the EU, then that would have been a 100% Hard Brexit for me. Done. Satisfied.
If the EU want to close down borders, boycott trade, kick Ex Pats off the continent, etc etc. - then that would be entirely up to them to actually suggest, let alone achieve.
If they did nothing at all - then guess what? - During the interim period following our payments to Brussels ceasing - we’re effectively remaining for free - which is the only form of “remaining by the back door” that Brexiteers were EVER going to accept. Now remainers are left hoping that Brexiteers all snuff it before they do, which is no way for already divided and broken Britain to carry on - is it?

[winseer]

Carryfast:

Rjan:

Carryfast:
What it really means is that in true Socialist style he’s saying one thing to fool the Leave Labour vote and will do the opposite in the form of remain.

Just to be clear, what you mean by “remaining” is that Corbyn is not going to lauch a “nationalist” assault on the EU, and is instead going to try to preserve such beneficial aspects of the relationship as can be preserved?

And how can he fool the Labour Leave vote? If you vote Labour, you support it’s socialist principles, you’re not a sabre-ratting little Hitler. If you are the latter, then you support Tory Leave.

While its clear from your own arguments that you’re all about remain in all but name and if the EU says jump you’ll say how high because you’re not prepared to compromise your Socialist principles on what can only be the Nationalist agenda of Secession.Make no mistake if Labour was for Brexit in anything like the meaning of the word it would be Hoey in the job of shadow Brexit minister not remainer Starmer.While EU appeasers like the Unite leadership would obviously also be confirming their agreement to change from Remain to Leave by at least calling for the removal of Starmer to be replaced by Hoey.

The Unite leadership want to see a continued customs union, and a continued relationship, precisely because so many of their members’ jobs depend currently on the European market. If the right-wing loons come up with a credible plan for this huge new market that is not just going to replace the European market but actually out-do it, perhaps the unions will change their opinion, but whilst the Tories are empty-handed on trade deals, most workers are content to continue trading with Europe.

Your desperate unbelievable claims of Remainers pretending to now be Leavers,when secession goes against everything that Socialists stand for,are laughable.As we’ve seen by your appeasement if not tacit support of the ongoing handing over of our National Sovereignty and interests to the thieving,corrupt, foreign aid scam and foreign rule that is the reality of our subservient EU Federal status.Socialist liars as usual doing what Socialists do best in the form of if democracy can’t be rigged just lie and infiltrate.

The reality is, unless you have some realistic plan for a neo-colonial empire, where we gain trading partners but we alone tell them what to do, then you’re just living in the clouds. Any trade deal with a foreign country, is going to involve mutual rules and standards being set, and both sides having to comply with them - if not, then no deals will be done. Which is why India told Liam Fox to go and whistle, because they said you either accept free movement with India, or no deal. It’s the same with the US - they’ll either tell Britain that we have to comply with US standards, including for example privatising healthcare, or no deal.

We’ve already established the fact that Hitler was no Nationalist while Michael Collins certainly was.Hitler was just another Socalist scammer masquerading as a Nationalist to impose his version of a pan European EUSSR dictatorship.Just like the SNP and Sinn Fein.

Yes we know if you support Labour that means accepting its Socialist ideology which by your own admission means that it certainly won’t ‘Leave’ the EU in any meaningful way whatsoever.Which by definition totally contradicts Corbyn’s bs idea of a so called Labour ‘Brexit’.When the liar knows that his Party is tied to the EU by its own stinking ideology.In which case by your own logic how can Corbyn possibly deliver any type of Brexit at all when you’ve already stated that you’re not prepared to go against EU rulings which by implication go with Unite’s Remain agenda.The rule of free movement obviously being part of those rules.As for non EU trade deals exactly what sovereignty does Japan have to give up in order to export stuff to any other country including India.Or for that matter New Zealand or Australia or Canada ?.IE why would India want to apply double standards in that regard to the UK and why would/should we want to accept such blackmail regardless ?.Bearing in mind that India has nothing to offer us other than tea and needs UK technical know how more than we need its tea imports.

While it’s clear that our economy obviously needs a massive shift in emphasis away from exports to replacing imports with domestic products anyway.With any ideas of compromising our National Sovereignty,for the privilege of being a excessive net importer with an unsustainable trade deficit to match,being an insult to injury in that regard…

It’s clear that Corbyn’s whole agenda is based on deliberate sabotage,infiltration and subterfuge,as part of Starmer’s ( and obviously Unite’s ) remain plot to defeat the Leave referendum vote and fooling the Labour part of that vote with the ridiculous idea that Labour will deliver Brexit,being part of it.When Labour is clearly all about selling out this country and its working class to the advantage of foreign powers as part of its ideological plans of being an enthusiastic part of the EUSSR’s and ultimately China’s Communist World Governance agenda.As I said this is inevitably going to turn nasty in the form of a Nationalist v Socialist collision sooner or later.

The Socialists showing their true colours in not only not being willing to accept a democratic decision but then also trying to lie and scam their way into power to over turn that decision by trying to paint a clear Remain position as a so called Leave one.When Starmer’s position as shadow Brexit minister instead of Hoey and UNITE’s clear remain stance,let alone your own clear contradictory obviously Remain position while laughably pretending to be for Leave,says it all.IE just how stupid do you think that the Labour Leave vote really is in it believing such total bs.

Politics has been all about hatred, fear, and lies - since the founding of Civilization’s first cities, alas.

When one country is conquered by another, the “hearts and minds” settlement completes the process of “winning the peace”.
Here, we have two countries that got beaten in two world wars, didn’t have to pay back it’s lend lease, got re-built at the cost of the allies, and then proceeded to try and become the tail that wagged the dog in the years that followed. Germany should have kept up it’s industrial developement like Japan does - but without the aggressive foreign policy that gives an unfair advantage to a country not permitted it’s own meaningful military any more. Now we have a European version of the Soviet Union rather than a resurgant British Empire or ■■■■ “Fourth” Reich - being built all over Western Europe.
We’ve made our bed alright, - but everyone else has now crapped in it, and we’re still intent on lying down amongst the squishyness?

I’m still amazed why so many otherwise senisble people think that being a vassal state to another state with an agenda that’s not evenly distributed - is, or was ever a good idea for futureworld social politics? We do NOT gain from being in the EU. It’s an illusion. However, this illusion was what led to socialists actually believing in this country that the EU is some spiffingly good system, the best in all history, and still a a work in progress. It’s not. The ordinary middle to higher working classes are the victims, their trades disenfranchised, their lifestyles downgraded, their skill sets of being able to actually “get things done” - no longer required.

We, as a population - are now meant to “Join In” this big socialist experiment - or at least submit to it. Well F–k that. I’m not telling my family to “conform to someone I’ll never meet” or “pay taxes to squander on those that want to harm me” or “speak carefully, lest ye offend the powers that be whom ye’ll never know”.

If it were not for the dead giveaway of “political correcness” - we might have all fallen for it, but then Labour made the daft choice of getting a Liberal Elite pretending to be a Socialist as Prime Minster for a decade.

I don’t think this country is going to make a similar mistake again, and have Theresa May as this former Right Winger, now apparently taking none other than Tony Blair’s advice on “leading from the center”, which makes TM the worst Mock Liberal Democrat of all.

Corbyn cannot win power, without performing like Blair, and getting enough support from the Right to get elected. That he might go back on it all later - could just be accepted as “what we expect from our politicians”. Trouble is, our first past the post voting system - makes it darn impossible to alter the lie of the political land in our lifetime. I would say over the last 4 centuries, our political landscape has truly been turned upside down - what? - Twice? Once when the Whigs were sent into the history books, and again when Fledgling Labour got burned down to a rump in 1931, with Prime Minister Henderson losing his seat as sitting PM… Labour didn’t have the answers then, and it still doesn’t now. They are too concerned about turfing out the Tories, rather than actually aiding the country they hope will one day elect them.

[rjan]

Carryfast:
We’ve already established the fact that Hitler was no Nationalist while Michael Collins certainly was.Hitler was just another Socalist scammer masquerading as a Nationalist to impose his version of a pan European EUSSR dictatorship.Just like the SNP and Sinn Fein.

We’ve also established that your meaning of “nationalism” is closer to that of the Japanese in the pre-Meiji period - a period of stagnant social and economic development. Nationalism (in the context of capitalism, anyway) always leads to imperialism because of the need to secure natural resources, and to a lesser extent because of the need to secure and maintain export markets (since there are always gains to be made by being an exporter, and it may be an absolute necessity to be an exporter if you are also an importer of raw materials).

Yes we know if you support Labour that means accepting its Socialist ideology which by your own admission means that it certainly won’t ‘Leave’ the EU in any meaningful way whatsoever.

But no sort of Leave ever will be “meaningful” for you, because no foreseeable Leave will involve Britain telling the rest of the world what to do - nor will it involve Britain ceasing to trade and becoming purely self-sufficient, because Britain doesn’t even have the natural resources for that (and never has since the Industrial Revolution).

For most people, taking back control of the economy and class relations (including limiting immigration where it is exploited by the bosses to drive down pay and conditions in occupations that are already low-paid), will be a reasonable sort of Brexit.

Which by definition totally contradicts Corbyn’s bs idea of a so called Labour ‘Brexit’.When the liar knows that his Party is tied to the EU by its own stinking ideology.In which case by your own logic how can Corbyn possibly deliver any type of Brexit at all when you’ve already stated that you’re not prepared to go against EU rulings which by implication go with Unite’s Remain agenda.The rule of free movement obviously being part of those rules.

It appears free movement is a condition of membership by now, but it remains to be seen whether all 27 EU members will go all-in and cease all trade with Britain (and abandon their factories and investments on the way out, and lay off substantial numbers of their own workers who work in export sectors), simply to reinforce the principle of free movement. The other members don’t have the political support at home for free movement to justify these sorts of all-out assaults.

Even the Eastern European states, quite rightly keen to protect their citizens who have moved away against a Tory assault, are not actually that fond of free movement, because it means all their skilled and educated workers being poached by the wealthier Western members: express.co.uk/news/politics … ing-Poland

So too in France and Germany: thetimes.co.uk/article/fran … -3v6v3vnqf
express.co.uk/news/politics … al-dumping

This is why I say that Corbyn is actually on much stronger ground with his demands, because he’s not assaulting citizens (including those who have already committed to a move to a foreign country), he’s assaulting the continuation of a system that everybody is against - except the centre-right national governments of members.

The same is true of state ownership and control of infrastructure and utllities. This is not just popular in this country but in many other EU nations.

Even for the Tories remember, they are not against free movement - which is why they continue to bring in hundreds of thousands of non-EU workers (on top of the hundreds of thousands from mostly Eastern Europe). Because if they stop bringing in non-EU workers, then the price of toilet cleaners in London is going to shoot through the roof, and there’ll also be a shortage of doctors and nurses because they’ve abolished all the training schemes and assistance for settled workers who want to enter those occupations and won’t be able to replace the settled workers they’re currently forcing out of those medical occupations due to pay cuts and and appalling and stressful working conditions.

As for non EU trade deals exactly what sovereignty does Japan have to give up in order to export stuff to any other country including India.

They have to either come to an agreement with India, or give up the right to export into India. The fact is, international trade deals involve a loss of national sovereignty - things that would be the domain of national governments, become the domain of international negotiation. It’s the same with the EU. We can already have a simple customs union with the EU - Turkey does. But then our banks and financial services cannot operate in the EU, because a customs union does not cover services - and moneylending is the real jewel in the crown for the Tories.

We can have, as you’ve said before, US car standards instead of EU car standards - but then our car production lines cannot export to Europe, because the products do not meet their standards.

Or for that matter New Zealand or Australia or Canada ?.IE why would India want to apply double standards in that regard to the UK and why would/should we want to accept such blackmail regardless ?.

Because India already has a full plate of trade deals - it already has its markets, including with much larger countries and blocs. There’s nothing extra that the UK are offering compared to the status quo. You don’t have to accept blackmail - we approached them, and India has been quite clear so far, they are happy with no deal whatsoever!

Bearing in mind that India has nothing to offer us other than tea and needs UK technical know how more than we need its tea imports.

And it’s precisely because of “know-how”, and the value of it, that India wants to send workers here. But besides that, remember that India has a huge manufacturing base. Their economy overall is the size of ours! And the British bosses need cheap Indian manufacturing labour, far more than the Indians need overpriced British managers.

That’s why the Tories are on a hiding to nothing, because they are going around the world with the begging bowl, collecting for rich British capitalists who already have a privileged position in the world.

While it’s clear that our economy obviously needs a massive shift in emphasis away from exports to replacing imports with domestic products anyway.With any ideas of compromising our National Sovereignty,for the privilege of being a excessive net importer with an unsustainable trade deficit to match,being an insult to injury in that regard…

But if you’re shifting back to domestic production, then countries like India will lose out, because they have huge export markets serving the Western world, based on Western capitalists being able to undercut Western workers’ wages, so British bosses have sent all their money and machinery to India, and then export the products back in (making larger profits in the process).