Wednesday 29th June 2016

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:37 am

StephenDolan wrote:The MPs are intelligent. They've heard Corbyn reference his mandate on many occasions. Why did they expect him to fall on their sword?

Because they are arrogant, and didnt do their homework - it seems to be a trait amongst our politicians.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:37 am

TobyLatimer wrote:What does Hodges know? Someone on his timeline suggesting Milne & Watson may be behind the (chicken) coup.

(((Dan Hodges)))Verified account
‏@DPJHodges
Incredibly, I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Jeremy Corbyn. He's been used

Let me answer that for you. Nothing. It's Dan Hodges.

Edit: apostrofly

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:38 am

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016 ... ainlyMacro+(mainly+macro" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Statement from members of Labour’s Economic Advisory Committee

" we all share the view that the EU referendum result is a major disaster for the UK, and we have felt unhappy that the Labour leadership has not campaigned more strongly to avoid this outcome"

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:40 am

PorFavor wrote:Pat Glass has resigned.

She was the one calling someone a racist during the campaign wasn't she?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:40 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Do you think the PLP would be okay with the current direction of travel of Labour if it wasn't him as leader? The criticism is pretty much based on he isn't a leader in the eyes of the public.
Some think that.

Some are viscerally opposed to Labour being anything but a vehicle for unreconstructed Blairism.

Starting to think the latter group have no future within the party, even if Corbyn goes soon.

The big tent broad church I hear referenced so much

Those interested in 'for the good of the party' should've found a leadership candidate willing to sacrifice themselves given the number who voted yesterday. And yet it's made David Miliband on Brown look surgical.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:40 am

Strategically speaking it was always going to be a good idea for Labour to change leader when the Tories did. Neil Kinnock is on record as regretting not stepping down when Thatcher did. It's easy with hindsight to see how a fresh face may have helped in 1992.

Of course Labour being in the midst of an existential battle over its fundamental purpose (whether to be a political movement or to be a political party) has eclipsed the question of simple strategy, but it remains the case that now is the time for a change, if there is to be one. This, I suspect, is why everyone who couldn't envisage being led into an election by Jeremy Corbyn feels compelled to act now.

I appreciate this is very mercenary, but this is how most parties are. Members are indicating they would prefer to be a movement to a party, but I'm not convinced it will work ( but I have no special knowledge and could well be wrong, it's just how it seems to me).

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:41 am

gilsey wrote:
Willow904 wrote: he didn't see the short referendum campaign as a vital time to be hands on in a way I find it hard to imagine of Ed, for instance, if he had been in charge.
The whole lot of them are just about to go off for 10 weeks aren't they? Or is it more?
Rather more vital time to be hands on, imo.

Just to correct this misconception. They don't all go on holiday for 10 weeks (apart from Cameron). It's parliament that's closed for 10 weeks.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:43 am

frightful_oik wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Pat Glass has resigned.
She was the one calling someone a racist during the campaign wasn't she?

Yes, she was.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:44 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Do you think the PLP would be okay with the current direction of travel of Labour if it wasn't him as leader? The criticism is pretty much based on he isn't a leader in the eyes of the public.
Some think that.

Some are viscerally opposed to Labour being anything but a vehicle for unreconstructed Blairism.

Starting to think the latter group have no future within the party, even if Corbyn goes soon.

It was 172 Blairites yesterday was it?

Corbyn seems to have done something Blair never could.

Made the PLP 80% Blairite.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:46 am

That is the opposite of what I said - you do know what the word "some" means don't you?

The fact remains, there has been a hard core of MPs refusing to accept the legitimacy of any elected leader since 2010.

(and, in a few cases, since 2007)

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:47 am

http://linkis.com/chionwurahmp.com/201/AEMha" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why I voted No in this week’s motion

Chi Onwurah MP

fedup59 · Post by **fedup59** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:49 am

Willow904 wrote:Strategically speaking it was always going to be a good idea for Labour to change leader when the Tories did. Neil Kinnock is on record as regretting not stepping down when Thatcher did. It's easy with hindsight to see how a fresh face may have helped in 1992.

Of course Labour being in the midst of an existential battle over its fundamental purpose (whether to be a political movement or to be a political party) has eclipsed the question of simple strategy, but it remains the case that now is the time for a change, if there is to be one. This, I suspect, is why everyone who couldn't envisage being led into an election by Jeremy Corbyn feels compelled to act now.

I appreciate this is very mercenary, but this is how most parties are. Members are indicating they would prefer to be a movement to a party, but I'm not convinced it will work ( but I have no special knowledge and could well be wrong, it's just how it seems to me).

I wonder though if it can be a political party without representing said political movement. If so, who/ what is it representing? We have an historically based party political representative system. Without party membership across the spectrum then what is the basis of political legitimacy for any party.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:52 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:That is the opposite of what I said - you do know what the word "some" means don't you?

The fact remains, there has been a hard core of MPs refusing to accept the legitimacy of any elected leader since 2010.

(and, in a few cases, since 2007)

And so is your position that the blame for the current state of the Labour party lies with this group of Blairites?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:53 am

They share the blame with others, yes. I don't see how this statement is even controversial.

JonnyT1234 · Post by **JonnyT1234** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:54 am

Some excellent letters from real people* in the Guardian today. Dr William McIlhagga's is closest to where I and others of us are with this. Conversely, Brian Bradley's could have been written by Hugo:

http://gu.com/p/4nx74?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Edit: * not politicians, that is.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:54 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Do you think the PLP would be okay with the current direction of travel of Labour if it wasn't him as leader? The criticism is pretty much based on he isn't a leader in the eyes of the public.
Some think that.

Some are viscerally opposed to Labour being anything but a vehicle for unreconstructed Blairism.

Starting to think the latter group have no future within the party, even if Corbyn goes soon.
It was 172 Blairites yesterday was it?

Corbyn seems to have done something Blair never could.

Made the PLP 80% Blairite.

Of course they are not all Blairites but who is it that started the ball rolling?

This was organised, and for something to be organised (no matter how incompetently) there has to be an organiser

Whio is this person and where lie their loyalties?

We all know Parliament is set up like a big club and all these intrigues are common to any of us who have been involved with a big group of people. Everyone takes sides and it is clear there is a disconnect between Corbyn and the PLP - but the motives are not always the same

I am getting a little tired of your posts - as usual they add nothing to the discussion

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:56 am

Word is that the plotters are fighting over a crown whillst the king still lives and his army is mobilised.

It has been the most farcically inept coup in history - a night of the blunted guava fruit!

And they think t hey can run a country?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:58 am

Must admit I am amazed they never had an agreed "unity candidate" from the off. Absolutely staggered.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 11:59 am

PMQs is coming up in a minute.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:00 pm

To say the least, the competence that has been shown throughout this 'rebellion' is a powerful argument for not letting anyone involved in it anywhere near the reins of power of a tennis club (of which the dynamics are curiously reminiscent) let alone government of a country.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:03 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Must admit I am amazed they never had an agreed "unity candidate" from the off. Absolutely staggered.

This exactly. Unless the chosen one bottled it? As soon as Benn made the phone call that should've been that.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:04 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:They share the blame with others, yes. I don't see how this statement is even controversial.

Well, how much blame? Primary? Peripheral? Is Corbyn less to blame, or more?

And how many of these irreconcilable Blairites are there? 50? 30? 3?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:06 pm

This it to inept, its a plan that has gone off half cocked and so far failed spectacularly and having read snippets of of the book about corbyn, that's really no surprise. I mean he has stood against all these people all his political career and faced them down, at 66 I can't see him capitulating now.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:07 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote: Some think that.

Some are viscerally opposed to Labour being anything but a vehicle for unreconstructed Blairism.

Starting to think the latter group have no future within the party, even if Corbyn goes soon.
It was 172 Blairites yesterday was it?

Corbyn seems to have done something Blair never could.

Made the PLP 80% Blairite.
Of course they are not all Blairites but who is it that started the ball rolling?

This was organised, and for something to be organised (no matter how incompetently) there has to be an organiser

Whio is this person and where lie their loyalties?

We all know Parliament is set up like a big club and all these intrigues are common to any of us who have been involved with a big group of people. Everyone takes sides and it is clear there is a disconnect between Corbyn and the PLP - but the motives are not always the same

I am getting a little tired of your posts - as usual they add nothing to the discussion

It was Margaret Hodge and Ann Coffey wasn't it? I don't think they did it in secret.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:09 pm

I think there is a danger of seeing all this through a Corbyn only prism

This goes back for years

Firstly there was the Brown Blair row in 1994 which divided the party into two camps - and according to all involved this went on until at least 2010. All said this was visceral

Then we had all the plotting against Brown from the Blair faction - with Miliband Major being always 'just ready' to launch a coup against an unelected PM (which is of course nonsense as the PM electorate are MP). What a shambles that was

Then in 2010 the anointment of Miliband Major was the start of the current problems. he was supposed to win but because of the pesky unions he was prevented. There followed then a coordinated undermining of the leader with the Blairite pet journalists being at the forefront. Miliband Major then threw his dummy out of the pram and went off to US but was still the favoured son overseas

And since 2015 we know what has happened

This is a culmination of frustration and hatred with things brought to a head by the soon to be published Chilcott report - remember that Blair and his acolytes know the direction of the comments and that it would give Corbyn the opportunity to bury their chances. He, despite many faults, is not scared to say what he things and on this subject he will be scathing...possibly also about those who voted for it.

So the referendum loss gave the opportunity to blame it all on Corbyn - the evidence for that is pretty flimsy (sorry Willow) and would not be really held up. The narrative is there and even people who were not involved now believe it to be true....the media have been very helpful to the plotters haven't they?

Unfortunately, they underestimated the pure bloody-mindedness of the man and he will take this to the end...and to the members. He is, of course, following rules put in place before he was even considered for election.

How this ends up will be down to the members but the truth of where this plot came from will be public knowledge at some point (perhaps Corbyn is just waiting to tell us) and that may change the views of some of the PLP.....

By the way, the person we forget in all this is Cameron - the true criminal. But he has smarmed his way out of it and I find it nauseating that supposedly Labour supporters (not on here of course) and elected officials turn their fire on their own leader rather than the true guilty party

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:11 pm

fedup59 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:Strategically speaking it was always going to be a good idea for Labour to change leader when the Tories did. Neil Kinnock is on record as regretting not stepping down when Thatcher did. It's easy with hindsight to see how a fresh face may have helped in 1992.

Of course Labour being in the midst of an existential battle over its fundamental purpose (whether to be a political movement or to be a political party) has eclipsed the question of simple strategy, but it remains the case that now is the time for a change, if there is to be one. This, I suspect, is why everyone who couldn't envisage being led into an election by Jeremy Corbyn feels compelled to act now.

I appreciate this is very mercenary, but this is how most parties are. Members are indicating they would prefer to be a movement to a party, but I'm not convinced it will work ( but I have no special knowledge and could well be wrong, it's just how it seems to me).
I wonder though if it can be a political party without representing said political movement. If so, who/ what is it representing? We have an historically based party political representative system. Without party membership across the spectrum then what is the basis of political legitimacy for any party.

I just think something has gone a bit askew when people have been joining/staying in Labour when they don't like and disagree with many/most of the parliamentary representatives of that party. Because Labour is a "movement". Except it's not, it's a political party. I'm not saying either the "movement" or the party is wrong, just that they have parted ways. The real problem is that neither seem to adequately represent the majority of voters who are needed to win elections. Work and social life has changed and neither the Labour "movement" or the political party have kept pace with that change as far as I can see. As I say, there's an existential struggle here between the two, but if the "movement" reject the kind of political strategy that is necessary to win elections or the party rejects the "movement" that forms the base of its connection to those that it seeks to represent, neither will win votes or elections. I see a lot of the general hatred and mistrust of the political classes being reflected in Labour's crisis and it disappoints me. Respect for our political representatives underpins our democracy. What I see in the rise of the "movement" to displace the party is an expression of this. And in it I fear the end of democracy. But I'm probably being overly bleak. Everything is very broken right now but it won't stay that way.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:11 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:They share the blame with others, yes. I don't see how this statement is even controversial.
Well, how much blame? Primary? Peripheral? Is Corbyn less to blame, or more?

And how many of these irreconcilable Blairites are there? 50? 30? 3?

Fiddling while Rome burns.

Who actually cares about Blairite, schmairite Westminster village nonsense?

We have an archaic political system with a sodding monarch, a house of lords and a commons elected by a (still loved by some) voting system that isn't good enough for Wales, Scotland or NI.

We need a new system where who your parents are matters much much less.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:14 pm

The silence on the benches is actually quite refreshingm it couuld be almost a civilised debate were it not for the long shadow of treason and plot.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:15 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:They share the blame with others, yes. I don't see how this statement is even controversial.
Well, how much blame? Primary? Peripheral? Is Corbyn less to blame, or more?

And how many of these irreconcilable Blairites are there? 50? 30? 3?
Fiddling while Rome burns.

Who actually cares about Blairite, schmairite Westminster village nonsense?

We have an archaic political system with a sodding monarch, a house o lords and a commons elected by a (still loved by some) voting system that isn't good enough for Wales, Scotland or NI.

We need a new system where who your parents are matters much much less.

it wasn't me who brought up the Blairites and sought to blame them. I think that is as irrelevant as you do, it is like being stuck in 2007.

What matters immediately for me is the referendum result, and ensuring that the Labour party is led by someone committed to the UK being as integrated with the rest of Europe as is now possible.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:15 pm

Oh dear...

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:16 pm

StephenDolan wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Must admit I am amazed they never had an agreed "unity candidate" from the off. Absolutely staggered.
This exactly. Unless the chosen one bottled it? As soon as Benn made the phone call that should've been that.

Until fairly recently Popes could be elected by acclamation

I wonder if the aim was for David Miliband to come marching back from overseas and be greeted as the prodigal son....firstly they would need to get rid of Corbyn but then could put him into a 'safe' seat prior to making him the sole candidate for the election.......

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:16 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:They share the blame with others, yes. I don't see how this statement is even controversial.
Well, how much blame? Primary? Peripheral? Is Corbyn less to blame, or more?

And how many of these irreconcilable Blairites are there? 50? 30? 3?
Oh, so now what has happened and who's to blame is of vital importance?

For me? No, I didn't bring it up.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:18 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:They share the blame with others, yes. I don't see how this statement is even controversial.
Well, how much blame? Primary? Peripheral? Is Corbyn less to blame, or more?

And how many of these irreconcilable Blairites are there? 50? 30? 3?

This is a fruitless argument with no discernible point, a distraction from what is obvious. Less a case of failing to see the wood for teh trees than of failing to see the trees due to an inordinate amount of interest in the bark.

If this is all you can do, give up and stop wasting everybody's time.

Roll on the Chilcott Report, and ensure Jeremy Corbyn is still leader for that. Something needs destroying.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:18 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Must admit I am amazed they never had an agreed "unity candidate" from the off. Absolutely staggered.
This exactly. Unless the chosen one bottled it? As soon as Benn made the phone call that should've been that.

Until fairly recently Popes could be elected by acclamation

I wonder if the aim was for David Miliband to come marching back from overseas and be greeted as the prodigal son....firstly they would need to get rid of Corbyn but then could put him into a 'safe' seat prior to making him the sole candidate for the election.......

My (poor / questionable / purely guesswork) hunch is Benn intended to resign and immediately put himself forward.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:19 pm

Cameron just told Corbyn to "Resign for the sake of the country"

: ScreenShot01450.jpg (29.21 KiB) Viewed 5515 times

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:20 pm

Cameron asks Corbyn to resign?

Hold the front page!!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:20 pm

Hairychap wrote:
yahyah wrote:Morning.

Apologies to hairychap@ for thinking you may have been one of a group of right wingers viewing last Friday - was feeling a bit low about everything yesterday.

But I'm glad you said hello, welcome and hope to see you again.
Thanks Yahyah but nothing to apologise for, it's perfectly understandable. I'll keep lurking about while leaving the occasional packet of biscuits.

(my emphasis)

Thank you!

Good-afternoon, everyone.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:21 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: Well, how much blame? Primary? Peripheral? Is Corbyn less to blame, or more?

And how many of these irreconcilable Blairites are there? 50? 30? 3?
Fiddling while Rome burns.

Who actually cares about Blairite, schmairite Westminster village nonsense?

We have an archaic political system with a sodding monarch, a house o lords and a commons elected by a (still loved by some) voting system that isn't good enough for Wales, Scotland or NI.

We need a new system where who your parents are matters much much less.

it wasn't me who brought up the Blairites and sought to blame them. I think that is as irrelevant as you do, it is like being stuck in 2007.

What matters immediately for me is the referendum result, and ensuring that the Labour party is led by someone committed to the UK being as integrated with the rest of Europe as is now possible.

But all these so-called Remain MPs are busy telling us that 'we need to listen' about immigration......suggesting no free movement and so no single market. Were they also pandering to this in their constituencies as well.......may expalin why so many voted Leave. Interesting to hear it come from MP who have no immigrantion but whose consituencies still voted Leave, blaming immigration

Corbyn was the only one who had a realistic view on this.

Austerity is primarily to blame for the current state of the country. Remain and reform (and that could mean immigration as well)

Just saying now 'I want to remain' is just as worthless as saying 'I want to leave' - the decision has been made.

I imagine Corbyn's deal would be a bloody sight better for the country than any made by Johnson and Gove!

In fact, from what I here from Yvette Cooper, much better than hers as well. She cannot stop herself triangulating can she

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:21 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear...

Utter lunacy to think that even a fraction of that can be accomplished, he might as well promise to teach a horse to talk. I myself would happily imprison him in the traditional dungeon to enable him to try.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:22 pm

: ScreenShot01449.jpg (104.95 KiB) Viewed 5511 times

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:22 pm

Cameron's acting in the only way that he knows how - lashing out.

"Not my fault"
"Somebody else did it"
"Not me"

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:25 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Cameron's acting in the only way that he knows how - lashing out.

"Not my fault"
"Somebody else did it"
"Not me"

Heir to Blair to the last.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:26 pm

Im not sure if I have mentioned it before, but there is definitely something of the Cromwell about Corbyn. He is, as the better Benn once said, a political signpost not a weathervane. There are a few signposts among the plotters to be fair, but they are pointing in the wrong direction for the time, the vast majority are weathervanes who will spin to save their necks after the leadership election is over.

The blairites will have to decide if, like the left in the 80s and 90s, that the movement is more important to them than their own brand of it, or if, like the SDP, they are going to split.

Its a big step, no constituency party, no union backing, money from big business who are much more likely to fund the tories so they will only get castoffs, widely despised already they would rapidly descend into irrelevanece.

2 of the 28 SDP splitters retained their seats in 83. Thatcher was always going to win that year after the Falklands, but the tories are not guarenteed to wiin after brexit, anything is possible.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:29 pm

None of that matters - Boris is going to get everything he wants because HE IS BRILLIANT!! And SO FUNNY!!!!!!!

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:30 pm

Cameron says Corbyn should resign. (Politics Live, Guardian)

I'm sure he hopes for the opposite - which is why he said it.

Maeght · Post by **Maeght** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:30 pm

TobyLatimer wrote:Cameron just told Corbyn to "Resign for the sake of the country"
ScreenShot01450.jpg

I didn't think it was possible to feel more contempt for Cameron but I was wrong. Who does he think he is?

Everything is now so surreal I can't cope.

The mystery Messiah didn't turn up and so we are left with Angela Eagle or Tom Watson. Yes, really.

And what I also can't fathom out is the script the resigners are using about Jeremy not having done enough for the Remain campaign. Does anybody actually listen or read what he said or wrote about it? I am a lifelong Europhile and I was very happy with what he said. The EU needs reform. Austerity across Europe hasn't worked, not even in Germany where the obsession with 'no deficit' has left the infrastructure in a complete mess'.

So did the resigners want Jeremy Corbyn to lie?

Every day I get more desperate.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:31 pm

RobertSnozers wrote: So, let me get this straight.

We're going to get full access to the single market (presumably without signing up to a lot of those reguations so despised by the Outers despite the fact that regulations are how the single market works)

We're not going to pay anything to get access to the single market

And we're going to have restrictions on free movement of people.

Did we invade Europe and drive tanks up to the EU Parliament and I failed to notice?

You can see why he wants to invoke Article 50 and start the negotiations after the Tory leadership contest.

"Oh, did I say that we'd get all of what we wanted? Crikey! Well, never mind eh? I'm still Prime Minister!"

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:36 pm

TobyLatimer wrote:
ScreenShot01449.jpg

If this were real, I would have expected to see Beryl taken away by the Police a long time ago, having staved the back of his head in.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:36 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
mbc1955 wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Oh dear...

Utter lunacy to think that even a fraction of that can be accomplished, he might as well promise to teach a horse to talk. I myself would happily imprison him in the traditional dungeon to enable him to try.
So, let me get this straight.

We're going to get full access to the single market (presumably without signing up to a lot of those reguations so despised by the Outers despite the fact that regulations are how the single market works)

We're not going to pay anything to get access to the single market

And we're going to have restrictions on free movement of people.

Did we invade Europe and drive tanks up to the EU Parliament and I failed to notice?

I think it was the Prof from Liverpool Uni who said a common mistake about the Single Market is that it is about tariffs

He said tariffs are important but they can be negotiated and set at whatever level is mutually beneficial. Cars could be set at 0% if we wanted, or 5% or 25%.....it all depends what is best.

The important thing is that anything made here can be sold to the EU without a regulatory input...that is the strength of the Single Market for Goods.

In this case I cannot see how we can be part of the Single Market without conforming to all the rules set out by the EU and so subject to the courts on that as well.

Post by **refitman** » Wed 29 Jun, 2016 12:39 pm

I didn't vote for Corbyn as leader, but once he was elected, I supported him. If there is a suitable challenge who is prepared to oppose the Tories (and that doesn't include abstaining against bills), they might get my vote. If it's someone as useless as Kendall, I might vote for Corbyn this time.

I needed to know who's standing though.