Monday 12th June 2017

[refitman]

Morning all.

[SpinningHugo]

Morning Refitman. You posted yesterday that if we leave the EU we can't be in the single market. That isn't right. The logical relation is the other way about.

Oh, and you also said that Norway only had "access" to the single market. That isn't right either. Norway is an EEA member. It is in the single market. North Korea has (utterly meaningless) "access".

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Some great stuff on FTN over the weekend. Thanks All. And nice to read Tubby late-ish yesterday. Some great points well made.

There is a tremendous irony behind the Brexit chaos, that will I think make it easier to plan a way forward for the UK. It appears that the eastern expansion phase is essentially over. The great news is that the eastern European economies are thriving. The imperative for Poles to travel west to prosper is disappearing.

If this trend continues, it will be much easier for the other EU nations to countenance some kind of opt out on freedom of movement for the UK, while remaining in some sense “in” the single market. And now Macron is building a new consensus in France. It will be interesting to see how his narrative on the EU and the Euro develops. I’m not sure his EU vision matches, say Corbyn’s, very closely, but he too wants change and that presents an opportunity.

It’s nearly a year since we voted to Leave and we are no nearer leaving. The EU is changing shape before our eyes. People elsewhere are starting to talk of a new Treaty. If only we could have Starmer, Thornberry and Gardiner representing the UK in these discussions, the UK could IMO find itself part of productive debate about the future of the EU. I hope it comes soon.

[SpinningHugo]

Barry Gardiner now contradicting McDonnell, saying Labour open to staying in the single market (which is inconsistent with the manifesto). More fun and games.

[SpinningHugo]

It’s nearly a year since we voted to Leave and we are no nearer leaving. The EU is changing shape before our eyes. People elsewhere are starting to talk of a new Treaty. If only we could have Starmer, Thornberry and Gardiner representing the UK in these discussions, the UK could IMO find itself part of productive debate about the future of the EU. I hope it comes soon.

1. We triggered article 50 on 29 March 2017. We're leaving on 29 March 2019.

47 Labour MPs defied a three line whip and joined Ken Clarke and Caroline Lucas in opposing that

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... article-50" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. The idea that the rest of the EU has any interest at all in the UK's treaty proposals is utterly laughable.

[refitman]

Morning Refitman. You posted yesterday that if we leave the EU we can't be in the single market. That isn't right. The logical relation is the other way about.

Oh, and you also said that Norway only had "access" to the single market. That isn't right either. Norway is an EEA member. It is in the single market. North Korea has (utterly meaningless) "access".

I take it you didn't read the link where their government say "access"?

[SpinningHugo]

Morning Refitman. You posted yesterday that if we leave the EU we can't be in the single market. That isn't right. The logical relation is the other way about.

Oh, and you also said that Norway only had "access" to the single market. That isn't right either. Norway is an EEA member. It is in the single market. North Korea has (utterly meaningless) "access".

I take it you didn't read the link where their government say "access"?

You mean this one?

https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/s ... id2507626/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You misread it. Norway are members of the single market, which is clear from that page if you read it. You can't "take part" if you aren't a member.

[NonOxCol]

Morning.

I forgot about the shitfest over the pond this weekend. Needless to say, they're still beating us:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tinybgoat]

Barry Gardiner now contradicting McDonnell, saying Labour open to staying in the single market (which is inconsistent with the manifesto). More fun and games.

Was this radio 4? I think accusation was that Starmer had mentioned staying in single market, Gardiner was defending this, saying the position was that entering talks nothing should be discounted from the start, unlike the Government's​ stance whereby the possible outcomes are already limited.

[SpinningHugo]

Barry Gardiner now contradicting McDonnell, saying Labour open to staying in the single market (which is inconsistent with the manifesto). More fun and games.

Was this radio 4? I think accusation was that Starmer had mentioned staying in single market, Gardiner was defending this, saying the position was that entering talks nothing should be discounted from the start, unlike the Government's​ stance whereby the possible outcomes are already limited.

Labour's manifesto position rules out single market membership I think by committing to end freedom of movement (at p 28). So, I think McDonnell is right. People like McDonnell do tend to read the rules carefully.

[NonOxCol]

S&S personified:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And screw everyone feeling sympathy for her, or trying to rehabilitate Osborne.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

It’s nearly a year since we voted to Leave and we are no nearer leaving. The EU is changing shape before our eyes. People elsewhere are starting to talk of a new Treaty. If only we could have Starmer, Thornberry and Gardiner representing the UK in these discussions, the UK could IMO find itself part of productive debate about the future of the EU. I hope it comes soon.

1. We triggered article 50 on 29 March 2017. We're leaving on 29 March 2019.

47 Labour MPs defied a three line whip and joined Ken Clarke and Caroline Lucas in opposing that

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... article-50" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. The idea that the rest of the EU has any interest at all in the UK's treaty proposals is utterly laughable.

Well you thought it utterly laughable that Labour could ever prosper with Corbyn as leader or if they supported anything but hard Remain. You may still be right but surely the jury is out.

So, I'd appreciate it if you held back with your sneering arrogance and let me have some space to discuss my ideas with this Forum for a change. You probably don't want to listen but maybe someone else does.

Thank you.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

1. We triggered article 50 on 29 March 2017. We're leaving on 29 March 2019.

I bet we don't!

[adam]

For what little it's worth, whilst I would tend to agree that a Labour government's entire approach to leave negotiations would be more productive (in that it wouldn't be framed as a fight to the death between angelic us and diabolical them) I also agree with Hugo that we're moving dangerously towards eating our cake and having it territory if we think we're going to get deals that the EU consistently say are simply out of the question.

I think there are probably two big issues that will conflict with each other - the fact that Labour would actually be trying to negotiate as partners rather than dictating as enemies (and I think 'dictating as enemies' is a good description of what our government have been up to so far) is a real positive, but the fact that the EU will still look to protect their future, and that they have very little motivation indeed for our departure to be seen as a success for us, and that they have maintained this as a consistent position and there's no real reason to suspect it might change, is a real problem.

[Willow904]

Morning Refitman. You posted yesterday that if we leave the EU we can't be in the single market. That isn't right. The logical relation is the other way about.

Oh, and you also said that Norway only had "access" to the single market. That isn't right either. Norway is an EEA member. It is in the single market. North Korea has (utterly meaningless) "access".

I take it you didn't read the link where their government say "access"?

We're getting bogged down in semantics. Norway accept the four freedoms in return for many of the benefits of the single market. Reject the four freedoms (or any one of them) and you will most likely end up with far fewer benefits of the single market than Norway. Anyone wanting a Norway option would be talking in terms of stopping immigration being less of a priority than keeping the economic benefits of the single market, as Ed Miliband did initially, but was overruled by Corbyn's approach which was to say he wasn't wedded to the idea of freedom of movement, which is a tip of the hat in the opposite direction.

I think the Libdems did poorly because they talked about another referendum, rather than a Norway style "soft" Brexit. No one has been trying to sell the Norway option as their main priority, as far as I can tell, because no one wants to upset anti-immigrant voters. But those voters will be upset eventually, because whatever happens we will continue to have immigration, one way or another, so why throw away the benefits of the single market for something we can never really achieve?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

For what little it's worth, whilst I would tend to agree that a Labour government's entire approach to leave negotiations would be more productive (in that it wouldn't be framed as a fight to the death between angelic us and diabolical them) I also agree with Hugo that we're moving dangerously towards eating our cake and having it territory if we think we're going to get deals that the EU consistently say are simply out of the question.

I think there are probably two big issues that will conflict with each other - the fact that Labour would actually be trying to negotiate as partners rather than dictating as enemies (and I think 'dictating as enemies' is a good description of what our government have been up to so far) is a real positive, but the fact that the EU will still look to protect their future, and that they have very little motivation indeed for our departure to be seen as a success for us, and that they have maintained this as a consistent position and there's no real reason to suspect it might change, is a real problem.

Thanks for this Adam

My suggestion is that there could be an endpoint that has a second referendum

LEAVE defined as Hard Brexit

REMAIN in a reformed EU as articulated in the draft Treaty of ??????

Hugo will tell us this is absurd, because it doesn't suit his political posturing. But surely it is not. I agree the EU can't be seen to allow cake and eat it membership. But if an exhausted British people are presented with a Remain option that gives them much of what they wanted to start with, they will probably vote Remain.

This is essentially Cameron's strategy, but done properly. With grace and hard work.

[SpinningHugo]

It’s nearly a year since we voted to Leave and we are no nearer leaving. The EU is changing shape before our eyes. People elsewhere are starting to talk of a new Treaty. If only we could have Starmer, Thornberry and Gardiner representing the UK in these discussions, the UK could IMO find itself part of productive debate about the future of the EU. I hope it comes soon.

1. We triggered article 50 on 29 March 2017. We're leaving on 29 March 2019.

47 Labour MPs defied a three line whip and joined Ken Clarke and Caroline Lucas in opposing that

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/st ... article-50" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. The idea that the rest of the EU has any interest at all in the UK's treaty proposals is utterly laughable.

Well you thought it utterly laughable that Labour could ever prosper with Corbyn as leader or if they supported anything but hard Remain. You may still be right but surely the jury is out.

So, I'd appreciate it if you held back with your sneering arrogance and let me have some space to discuss my ideas with this Forum for a change. You probably don't want to listen but maybe someone else does.

Thank you.

1. I thought Labour's best electoral approach on Brexit was the one it took: a contradictory one. My objection was not that it would not be popular, I thought that it would be, but rather that it was opportunistic and wrong (and in the longterm self-defeating). I kept agreeing, if you noticed, with those who said it would be good in electoral terms. My problem was that it was wholly unprincipled.

2. I was flat wrong on Corbyn's electoral appeal. As however I said lots and lots of times, that wasn't my main objection to him as leader.

3. I don't really see how I am stopping you saying anything you like?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

1. I thought Labour's best electoral approach on Brexit was the one it took: a contradictory one. My objection was not that it would not be popular, I thought that it would be, but rather that it was opportunistic and wrong (and in the longterm self-defeating). I kept agreeing, if you noticed, with those who said it would be good in electoral terms. My problem was that it was wholly unprincipled.

2. I was flat wrong on Corbyn's electoral appeal. As however I said lots and lots of times, that wasn't my main objection to him as leader.

3. I don't really see how I am stopping you saying anything you like?

Perhaps not, but saying what I propose is "utterly laughable" isn't polite. Bye.

[SpinningHugo]

Morning Refitman. You posted yesterday that if we leave the EU we can't be in the single market. That isn't right. The logical relation is the other way about.

Oh, and you also said that Norway only had "access" to the single market. That isn't right either. Norway is an EEA member. It is in the single market. North Korea has (utterly meaningless) "access".

I take it you didn't read the link where their government say "access"?

We're getting bogged down in semantics. Norway accept the four freedoms in return for many of the benefits of the single market. Reject the four freedoms (or any one of them) and you will most likely end up with far fewer benefits of the single market than Norway. Anyone wanting a Norway option would be talking in terms of stopping immigration being less of a priority than keeping the economic benefits of the single market, as Ed Miliband did initially, but was overruled by Corbyn's approach which was to say he wasn't wedded to the idea of freedom of movement, which is a tip of the hat in the opposite direction.

I think the Libdems did poorly because they talked about another referendum, rather than a Norway style "soft" Brexit. No one has been trying to sell the Norway option as their main priority, as far as I can tell, because no one wants to upset anti-immigrant voters. But those voters will be upset eventually, because whatever happens we will continue to have immigration, one way or another, so why throw away the benefits of the single market for something we can never really achieve?

It would be electoral disaster for any party explicitly saying the truth (save the Greens, who either have one seat or none).

People understand the NHS, disability benefits, immigration, education etc etc. They don't understand the EU or how everything else turns on Brexit. The EU is a low salience issue. We just had a big proof of that where the Hard Brexit parties won 82% of the vote and all the Remain parties got squeezed. Immigration was neutralised for Labour by promising to end freedom of movement.

In electoral terms, Labour should continue with what it is doing. Commit to end freedom of movement, while making all kinds of impossible promises about how Tory Hard Brexit is avoidable without accepting it (which is just not true). The economy is going to tank, May is a busted flush, and the Tory's Corbyn bullet has been shown not to work.

The problems begin the moment Labour is in office.

[tinybgoat]

Barry Gardiner now contradicting McDonnell, saying Labour open to staying in the single market (which is inconsistent with the manifesto). More fun and games.

Was this radio 4? I think accusation was that Starmer had mentioned staying in single market, Gardiner was defending this, saying the position was that entering talks nothing should be discounted from the start, unlike the Government's​ stance whereby the possible outcomes are already limited.

Labour's manifesto position rules out single market membership I think by committing to end freedom of movement (at p 28). So, I think McDonnell is right. People like McDonnell do tend to read the rules carefully.

Yes, but until & unless we go through the negotiation process, we can't be sure that there's no possibility of an acceptable variation in either 'single market' access or in 'freedom of movement', regardless of what any politicians (UK or other) have said. Only by actually negotiating possible (and probably impossible) 'deals' can you get to a position where we can see more clearly what viable possibilities of brexit are.

[AFinch]

I would be interested in people's responses to these two links.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/ ... kis-review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S31VLG8Qi78

I voted remain, by the way.

[SpinningHugo]

Yes, but until & unless we go through the negotiation process, we can't be sure that there's no possibility of an acceptable variation in either 'single market' access or in 'freedom of movement', regardless of what any politicians (UK or other) have said. Only by actually negotiating possible (and probably impossible) 'deals' can you get to a position where we can see more clearly what viable possibilities of brexit are.

Every single member state and every single EU official has said what is obvious: the four freedoms are indivisible. Without freedom of movement it isn't a single market. It is like asking to have your cake and eating it too. Obviously contradictory.

I actually have more respect for McDonnell on this than Umunna. At least McDonnell is being honest: the single market isn't an option on Labour's proposals. Umunna is insulting our intelligence.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I would be interested in people's responses to these two links.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/ ... kis-review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S31VLG8Qi78

I voted remain, by the way.

My response is I wish I had time to read/watch them

Thanks for the post - maybe later....

[tinybgoat]

Yes, but until & unless we go through the negotiation process, we can't be sure that there's no possibility of an acceptable variation in either 'single market' access or in 'freedom of movement', regardless of what any politicians (UK or other) have said. Only by actually negotiating possible (and probably impossible) 'deals' can you get to a position where we can see more clearly what viable possibilities of brexit are.

Every single member state and every single EU official has said what is obvious: the four freedoms are indivisible. Without freedom of movement it isn't a single market. It is like asking to have your cake and eating it too. Obviously contradictory.

I actually have more respect for McDonnell on this than Umunna. At least McDonnell is being honest: the single market isn't an option on Labour's proposals. Umunna is insulting our intelligence.

We should still go through the process & test whether this is true & what the limits are. Possibly you might end up with a slightly repackaged 'freedom of movement's or even the same thing under a slightly different name, but at least you have a concrete outcome which parliament or the country can vote on, I'd personally like to at least see the cake(s) before even committing to having one, let alone eating it.

[SpinningHugo]

Yes, but until & unless we go through the negotiation process, we can't be sure that there's no possibility of an acceptable variation in either 'single market' access or in 'freedom of movement', regardless of what any politicians (UK or other) have said. Only by actually negotiating possible (and probably impossible) 'deals' can you get to a position where we can see more clearly what viable possibilities of brexit are.

Every single member state and every single EU official has said what is obvious: the four freedoms are indivisible. Without freedom of movement it isn't a single market. It is like asking to have your cake and eating it too. Obviously contradictory.

I actually have more respect for McDonnell on this than Umunna. At least McDonnell is being honest: the single market isn't an option on Labour's proposals. Umunna is insulting our intelligence.

We should still go through the process & test whether this is true & what the limits are. Possibly you might end up with a slightly repackaged 'freedom of movement's or even the same thing under a slightly different name, but at least you have a concrete outcome which parliament or the country can vote on, I'd personally like to at least see the cake(s) before even committing to having one, let alone eating it.

And it is not impossible that if the UK asked for major Treaty changes the other 27 member states would not just dismiss it.

Incredibly unlikely though, and so not sensible to base any plans upon it.

But, it is impossible to have a single market without freedom of movement. The latter is part of what makes it a single market. It isn't just about what others might agree to.

Labour MPs are beginning to sound like Brexiteers. Making all kinds of ridiculous claims about what the EU27 will agree to.

[adam]

On election night I mentioned IDS's result - it's worth saying that labour got much closer to him this time than they did even in 1997 or 2001...

IDS majority over labour

1997 - 5714
2001 - 5487
2005 - 10641
2010 - 12963
2015 - 8386
2017 - 2438

Labour and Con made up 93% of the vote this time so there is not a lot left to share around but if there is another election sooner rather than later it will be one for a hitlist.

[gilsey]

Brexit: don't tell me what I voted for
http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As to the assertion that remaining in the single market is not leaving the EU, this is a zombie argument used by liars. The single market as it stands now is a collaborative venture between the EU and Efta states - and Norway etc only adopt about one in five EU rules by way of a system of co-determination - laws which we will likely have to adopt even if we left the single market - but without any means of disputing council decisions. Not least since many of them are rooted in global conventions.

There is no economic gain or utility in terms of sovereignty from leaving the single market. The main objective and the the single most important one is that we end political union with the EU and an off the shelf treaty is the fastest and safest path to that outcome. The rest can be sorted out later and revisited by way of EEA review.

[gilsey]

Many thanks to refitman for the Norway link yesterday.
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/s ... id2507626/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since my main objection to leaving the EU is the administrative difficulty of both the process of leaving and the trade systems afterwards, I was struck by this bit at the end.

The EEA Agreement covers cooperation in a range of areas, including research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture.

The Agreement does not cover the EU common agriculture and fisheries policies, the customs union, the common foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs or the monetary union.

Specifically, I think taking on our own ag and fish policies will be hard enough.
I still can't believe that anyone in parliament is stupid enough to want to take it further than that. We're governed by idiots.

[HindleA]

Morning

@AFinch thanks for links


https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... since-2013" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UK household spending falls for first time since 2013

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/li ... iness-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

FWIW I" listen" to all sides/viewpoints on here,some more than others.

[HindleA]

Considers move to IDS's constituency,were more Tory than there at the moment(not really)

[NonOxCol]

Holy shit, this is how far gone the Brexiteers are now:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

Good grief.

[HindleA]

More pensioners forced to rent as housing crisis grows


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/more ... 03dbbbafe2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One in 12 private rental tenants is a pensioner, according to research that shows it is not just young people who are being priced out of the housing market.

Eight per cent of tenants are retired, compared with 5.2 per cent in 2007, the letting agency Countrywide has found. It says that about £1 in every £14 paid by tenants across Britain comes from a pensioner’s wallet.

The future does not look much better, with the number of those in retirement who never managed to buy their own home due to rise.

In a separate report, Steve Wilcox, head of the University of York’s centre for housing policy, found that up to a third of 60-year-olds will be renting by 2040. He said the trend would have serious implications for public spending on both housing benefit and social care.

Professor Wilcox, who wrote the report for the Chartered Institute of Housing, said it was not just young people that ministers needed to think about as they planned future housing projects. “Britain is facing a housing benefit ticking time bomb. There will soon be huge proportions of pensioners who never own their own home,” he said. “This will inevitably have an impact on housing benefit costs because many pensioners will not be able to afford the rent on their pensions.

[frightful_oik]

Actually it's not going to be Labour doing the negotiating. Let the Tories own this clusterfuck.

[adam]

Actually it's not going to be Labour doing the negotiating. Let the Tories own this clusterfuck.

This too, for now, although that could change. The DUP could decide en masse to abandon support as soon as it becomes clear that whatever happens about the Irish border and their future status isn't what they want and I think another election soon would be genuinely on the edge.

[RogerOThornhill]

Holy shit, this is how far gone the Brexiteers are now:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His posts have been getting more and more eccentric over the past few weeks.

[SpinningHugo]

Holy shit, this is how far gone the Brexiteers are now:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His posts have been getting more and more eccentric over the past few weeks.

My favourite was boosting the Queen to stop Jeremy Corbyn

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RogerOThornhill]

This is gong so well...

[StephenDolan]

My first laugh of the day.



Tim Harford @TimHarford

Wonder if this result will be more damaging for Labour than Tories. Losing but thinking you've won is not a good place from which to learn.
10:48 AM · Jun 12, 2017

[AnatolyKasparov]

For what little it's worth, whilst I would tend to agree that a Labour government's entire approach to leave negotiations would be more productive (in that it wouldn't be framed as a fight to the death between angelic us and diabolical them) I also agree with Hugo that we're moving dangerously towards eating our cake and having it territory if we think we're going to get deals that the EU consistently say are simply out of the question.

I think there are probably two big issues that will conflict with each other - the fact that Labour would actually be trying to negotiate as partners rather than dictating as enemies (and I think 'dictating as enemies' is a good description of what our government have been up to so far) is a real positive, but the fact that the EU will still look to protect their future, and that they have very little motivation indeed for our departure to be seen as a success for us, and that they have maintained this as a consistent position and there's no real reason to suspect it might change, is a real problem.

Yes, that's a pretty good and sober summary of things. Though of course, Labour would never have had the referendum in the first place!

[StephenDolan]

I wonder what Cohen thinks about this now?

[AnatolyKasparov]

My first laugh of the day.



Tim Harford @TimHarford

Wonder if this result will be more damaging for Labour than Tories. Losing but thinking you've won is not a good place from which to learn.
10:48 AM · Jun 12, 2017

I'm not aware of anybody in Labour, at any level, who "thinks they've won". The point is, THE TORIES DIDN'T WIN EITHER.

Which would be pretty significant in a normal "regular" GE, never mind an unnecessary one which was called for the explicit purpose of crushing the opposition.

[AngryAsWell]

Betting against Brexit: Why one strategist says the UK won’t leave the EU

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/betting- ... he-eu.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"But will Brexit even happen? One strategist is betting against it.

"Brexit is dead. Within six months, Theresa May will be out. She's as popular as the girl that brought a ham sandwich to a bat mitzvah," said Andrew Freris, CEO of Ecognosis Advisory. "We're not going to have a soft or a hard Brexit. We won't have a Brexit at all."

[NonOxCol]

This is gong so well...

Not saying that the DUP's views on certain social issues aren't horrific and *massively* out of time, of course. However, the relative weighting the media has given to the social and political implications really has been atrociously poor.

[NonOxCol]

Which, in the case of the BBC, is further evidence for the theory that the corporation is socially/culturally "left" and politically/economically "right".

[howsillyofme1]

Good morning

Again we have a certain poster completely dismissing arrogantly anyone else's opinion and it would be much condusive to the board's effectiveness if they could just accept that there are diffenrent views and that their interpretation of the semantics between 'access' and 'membership' are absolutely irrelevant to what will happen in the reality.

Other people of differing views manage perfectly well to dicuss this pretty well - Willow and I disagree - quite passionately sometimes - but neither of us claim some absolute wisdom or knowledge that the other doesn't have and I full respect their views, as they are logical

Of course Labour are trying to keep things ambiguous and appearing a little bit to have their cake and eat it at the moment - the negotations haven't started yet

the fact is that this approach allowed Labour to be in a position to influence - if they had followed some of the advice they would have ended up substantially reduced. In the end they did enough so people voted on other things - which the Tories were far weaker on, or were rearded by an anti-Tory vote

If Labour had fully supported full membership of the Single Market then they would have lost badly in the Northern marginals and Wales
If Labour had completely ruled out any link to the Single Market then they would not have done so well in the Remain areas

In the end they somehow managed, whether by luck or judgment to hold their own, and the party leadership deserve credit for that

The question is where to go next. The question is not based on the difference between a personal definition of 'access' and 'membership' but what it means in practice

Switzerland isn't really a member of the Single market but has a certain level of access based on bilaterals - the price for that is to have free movement etc. Other countries have more limited access that does not require that. Access can meet anything from a simple trade deal in one area to pretty much full membership.

I think the focus for Labour should be what things actually mean practically. What access do we get for certain controls on immigration? My personal view is that there will need to be very liberal immigration policy to get the type of Brexit we want - but in the end none of us know.

The EU response will be the 4 freedoms are indivisible but the actual definitions of the 4 freedoms are not quite as is sometimes presumed - the freedom is to work but not to reside indefinitely

I again personally believe Labour's focus is jobs rather than immigration and I think (or hope) that they can present this to the electorate in a way that gives us a very substantial access to the Single Market without contravening the freedom of movement rules. It could be that if the FoM rules were properly communicated then people may not be so concerned. If Labour can put in ways of preventing wage cutting and exploitation then that may be enough.

Labour may need to come back to say to the electorate.....we have a choice between accepting this FoM and this impact on the job/economy - make their decision and then vote on that way in parliament

The main point I have though is that the Tories have put themselves in a real cul de sac with their 'hardline' approach where Labour have given themselves some more room to manouevre

We also have to understand that the EU itself is evolving and the definitions may change - although that would be a hope rather than expectation

In th4 end this is so complicated because the British electorate want to have everything - the message to me now though is that there is not an overwhelming appretite for the Tory Brexit, and that a continued sensible constructive approach under Starmer could give us an opportunity to get ourselves out of this mess


The continued saying that it is always black or white, or the there is no difference between the two parties does not stand up to scrutiny and is, at best, dubious. The outcome may be black and white/take it or leave it depending on the EU approach but that is not known at the moment - and if it transpires to be the case then we have to adapt the approach. Assuming it is take it or leave it at the moment leads to taking premature decisions and trapping yourself into a corner

[AnatolyKasparov]

On election night I mentioned IDS's result - it's worth saying that labour got much closer to him this time than they did even in 1997 or 2001...

IDS majority over labour

1997 - 5714
2001 - 5487
2005 - 10641
2010 - 12963
2015 - 8386
2017 - 2438

Labour and Con made up 93% of the vote this time so there is not a lot left to share around but if there is another election sooner rather than later it will be one for a hitlist.

One seat where demographics are moving Labour's way pretty inexorably.

In neighbouring Walthamstow, btw, Stella Creasy was returned with over EIGHTY PER CENT of the vote. On similar boundaries the Tories won in 1987, and before the 2010 GE the LibDems believed it was a genuine target for them.

[RogerOThornhill]

Talking of boundaries, I read somewhere that the DUP weren't exactly in favour of the proposed boundary changes which is why they might not happen.