Monday 24th July 2017

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 5:35 am

Morning

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/healthandsocialc ... valuation/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Policy process for implementing individual budgets highlights some of the tensions in public policy evaluation

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 6:28 am

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

IMF cuts 2017 growth forecasts for UK and US

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 6:31 am

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... land-visit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 6:32 am

Ho ho ho.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 7:10 am

Good morning

There is only one area of the economy that matters to the 'middle classes' and that is house prices. As long as mortgages are linked to the lower base of interest rates there is no real control on this market and one day it will surely all go tits up - it just depends who is holding the parcel at that particular time

There are signs things are stabilising when compared to a few years but prices (seem) to be continuing to rise at above wage inflation

House price increases are one of the great financial giveaways of recent years, especially for those in the South East - work and pay a mortgage then sell up and retire to the plebeian north on the proceeds with no mention of tax on the hundreds of thousands of unearned income.....and nobody seems to be subject to inheritance tax anymore so a nice big windfall for the kids....or the lucky ones

House prices and the wealth they have given people for free is one of the great economic mistakes of the last 20 years and there will be a double whammy - many of those who have benefited will keep their money whilst those who didn't will have to pay for the inevitable correction. The one big area of the 2008 crisis that is still to unwind.....will probably all explode under Labour's watch and the right will be there to blame others for their own folly

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 7:30 am

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... CMP=twt_gu

IMF cuts 2017 growth forecasts for UK and US

Maurice Obstfeld, the IMF’s economic counsellor, pointed to a marked change in early 2017. He said the UK’s growth forecast had been lowered based on its “tepid performance” so far this year, adding: “The ultimate impact of Brexit on the United Kingdom remains unclear.”

Liam Fox crosses out Dear BBC on his letter of complaint about being too negative and replaces it with Dear IMF...

Morning all.

Hospital appointment this morning to find out what's wrong with my other half - none too good right now.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 7:43 am

Sorry to hear that.The very best.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 8:51 am

(Amused myself at being part of the 1%-receivers of direct payments in 2003,I am easilly amused)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 8:55 am

Good morfternoon.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 8:58 am

@RogerOThornhill

I hope things go well for you both today.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 9:11 am

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... cold-facts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whole-body cryotherapy: what are the cold hard facts?

-160 C Would bring tears to the eyes.

You would have thought they would retreat and refuse to come out again.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 9:14 am

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... cumhuriyet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My father and press freedom are on trial in Turkey – don’t look away, Europe

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 9:15 am

I see Owen Jones is arguing why "as a Remainer" he has to accept Hard Brexit (ie leave the single market).

I don't really believe him

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... urosceptic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still, I am sure we need to stop all those Poles coming over here "wholesale" and "destroying" our jobs.

"Wholesale".

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 9:16 am

Best to you and yours RoT.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 9:39 am

SpinningHugo wrote:I see Owen Jones is arguing why "as a Remainer" he has to accept Hard Brexit (ie leave the single market).

I don't really believe him

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... urosceptic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still, I am sure we need to stop all those Poles coming over here "wholesale" and "destroying" our jobs.

"Wholesale".

where are those quotes about the Polish from? Are they in his article?

And yes the internal market was a Thatcherite construct and so its implementation without a social aspect is a problem....

It has become a necessary evil because of how our economy has developed since the 90s and how the EU now organises itself....perhaps it was always the way to be as a natural consequence of the collapse of Bretton Woods and the post war settlement

I do not necessarily welcome it as it wxists now though...

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 9:40 am

"To adopt the Norwegian situation would be to become a vassal state"

Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade secretary

Labour clearly repudiating the second of Starmer's six tests (inevitable in some way as they were dishonest as contradictory).

The Tories are, of course, just as bad in favouring Hard Brexit, but there we are.

If I lived in Mary Creagh's constitutency I could vote for her. But between the 'end freedom of movement' Stephen Kinnock view, and the Corbyn Lexiter leadership, there is precious little sensible space.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 9:42 am

https://www.theguardian.com/social-care ... ng-funding" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The NHS and social care must stop bickering over funding
Niall Dickson

"The collapsing social care provider market. "

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 9:47 am

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... uest-finds" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 9:50 am

SpinningHugo wrote:"To adopt the Norwegian situation would be to become a vassal state"

Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade secretary

Labour clearly repudiating the second of Starmer's six tests (inevitable in some way as they were dishonest as contradictory).

The Tories are, of course, just as bad in favouring Hard Brexit, but there we are.

If I lived in Mary Creagh's constitutency I could vote for her. But between the 'end freedom of movement' Stephen Kinnock view, and the Corbyn Lexiter leadership, there is precious little sensible space.

Well the Norwegians arent far off saying that themselves, and the Swiss

The reason is they are allowed to participate in the SM without any say over the rules they are subject too

So yes he has a point. It doesnt necessarily mean we wouldnt accept that

There are options to avoid this

Accept it

Complete seaparation from the SM

An agreement that goes beyond Norways

Remain in the EU

Do you think non-EU partipants in the SM have any real say in how it operates?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 9:55 am

SpinningHugo wrote:I see Owen Jones is arguing why "as a Remainer" he has to accept Hard Brexit (ie leave the single market).

I don't really believe him

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... urosceptic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still, I am sure we need to stop all those Poles coming over here "wholesale" and "destroying" our jobs.

"Wholesale".

I didn't get to the end of Owen Jones' "why we must support leave" piece. Does he actually support leaving the single market? Or is it all about how a poorly drafted and implemented referendum trumps all other democracy and negates our democratic right to oppose? Because I'm not an MP. I didn't promise to implement the result of the referendum. Many people, like Jeremy Corbyn, refused to accept the decision to join the Common Market and campaigned tirelessly against it. So why should I be denied the same right? It's one thing to support leaving and giving positive reasons for it, rather another to tell people they have to support it just because other people voted for it. Other people voted to keep FPTP, do I have to support that too? Or can I continue to support efforts to introduce PR? I get that by voting for the referendum MPs put themselves in an impossible situation, but I have little sympathy. They didn't have to support David Cameron's flawed referendum. They are stuffing up our country and I'm not going to stop being angry about it just because a majority voted for it. A majority voted to keep the party that introduced the bedroom tax in power too. I'm not about to support that either. I see no good reasons for the bedroom tax and I see no good reasons to leave the EU. At the very least I want to stay in the single market. Owen Jones needs to come up with something better than "there is no alternative" to change minds. Telling people he agrees leaving the EU is a bad idea but people are being unreasonable by opposing it is a little bit desperate IMO.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 10:02 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:"To adopt the Norwegian situation would be to become a vassal state"

Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade secretary

Labour clearly repudiating the second of Starmer's six tests (inevitable in some way as they were dishonest as contradictory).

The Tories are, of course, just as bad in favouring Hard Brexit, but there we are.

If I lived in Mary Creagh's constitutency I could vote for her. But between the 'end freedom of movement' Stephen Kinnock view, and the Corbyn Lexiter leadership, there is precious little sensible space.
Well the Norwegians arent far off saying that themselves, and the Swiss

The reason is they are allowed to participate in the SM without any say over the rules they are subject too

So yes he has a point. It doesnt necessarily mean we wouldnt accept that

There are options to avoid this

Accept it

Complete seaparation from the SM

An agreement that goes beyond Norways

Remain in the EU

Do you think non-EU partipants in the SM have any real say in how it operates?

I don't think anyone is saying a Norway type option is ideal, but the moment we voted to leave the EU it became the least worst option open to us. We've already rejected the best option (stay in the EU) so the next step is to try to build a consensus for the next best thing. Telling people the Norway option is shit isn't going to persuade them to support it, is it?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 10:05 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:"To adopt the Norwegian situation would be to become a vassal state"

Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade secretary

Labour clearly repudiating the second of Starmer's six tests (inevitable in some way as they were dishonest as contradictory).

The Tories are, of course, just as bad in favouring Hard Brexit, but there we are.

If I lived in Mary Creagh's constitutency I could vote for her. But between the 'end freedom of movement' Stephen Kinnock view, and the Corbyn Lexiter leadership, there is precious little sensible space.
Well the Norwegians arent far off saying that themselves, and the Swiss

The reason is they are allowed to participate in the SM without any say over the rules they are subject too

So yes he has a point. It doesnt necessarily mean we wouldnt accept that

There are options to avoid this

Accept it

Complete seaparation from the SM

An agreement that goes beyond Norways

Remain in the EU

Do you think non-EU partipants in the SM have any real say in how it operates?

No, it is a bad option compared to staying in the EU.

Just better than Hard Brexit. We've made ourselves poorer than last year, and are going to be much poorer still. Billions that could have been used more productively.

I don't agree with Corbyn. I don't want us out of the single market, and I think it is a lie to say that we can only stay in the single market within the EU. I am glad I didn't vote Labour, as I think its leadership is and have always been Lexiters.

Brexit, like it or not, is the issue of our era, and Labour is on the wrong side. It isn't triangulating, or waiting to pivot. It is led by people who want us out of the single market, which will make all of us, but especially the poorest, worse off.

[Is "participation" your new term for what everyone else who uses English calls "membership"? Perhaps we can forestall this endless terminological debate if everyone else puts at the bottom of every post referring to membership a definition of "membership of the EEA or a bespoke deal identical to it" or some such?

If not, please do take it as given that I've read, over and over again, that you don't accept the concept of there being anything other than "access" or "participation" and that this can mean a number of things.]

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 10:23 am

Fuck this for a game of soldiers,as the bishop said to the actress,allegedly.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 10:37 am

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... itics-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But Corbyn and Gardiner have failed to persuade the Welsh first minister, Carwyn Jones. Jones is arguably the powerful Labour figure holding executive office in the UK and, on the Today programme this morning, he said Britain could, and should, effectively stay in the single market after Brexit. He told the programme:

"If we were not in the single market, we would be having a debate about how to access it, not how to leave it. There is no need to leave the single market, even as we leave the EU."

He said he did not accept the argument, put by the UK government, and Corbyn, that Brexit had to mean leaving the single market. And he explicitly made the case for copying Norway.

"I went to Norway in January, they are not members of the EU, but they have almost full access to the single market. You don’t have to leave the EU and leave one of the world’s biggest markets at the same time. That’s an interpretation that’s been put on the result by the current UK government and that makes no sense at all."

Carwyn Jones articulates my thoughts pretty much exactly and in opposition to the much harder Brexit proposed by the government.

This is not, as Owen Jones contends, about accepting the referendum result. It's about what kind of Brexit, if Brexit we must have, we are fighting for. I've been hoping to see someone put the case for the Norway option and I'm glad to see Carwyn Jones step up on this.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 10:46 am

Barry Gardiner also saying we have to leave the Customs Union

https://labourlist.org/2017/07/barry-ga ... -disaster/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 10:54 am

Owen Jones causing quite a fuss, again. Jolyon Maugham's response includes this, which I think is a good summation.

the Referendum result is that we should have Brexit unless public opinion decisively turns. We must listen. If the electorate comes to think that what it wanted from Brexit it will not get from Brexit it must be heard.

This is the only control on the dishonest conduct of a Referendum that our politics can offer. In a General Election you kick out a Government that breaks its Manifesto promises. But if the sanctity of a Referendum result survives both the lies told to deliver it and a public coming to understand it had been misled we have no functioning democracy at all.

https://waitingfortax.com/2017/07/24/a- ... wen-jones/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:00 am

The only good answer to the above was never to have a referendum in the first place. And we know who, overwhelmingly, is to blame for that.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:00 am

SpinningHugo wrote:Barry Gardiner also saying we have to leave the Customs Union

https://labourlist.org/2017/07/barry-ga ... -disaster/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If we were seeking to remain in the single market (by which I mean accepting the four freedoms in return for the main benefits

) then there is a debate to be had over whether it is better to be in the Customs Union or not, but outside the single market......? Is there any point?

Does anyone still think Corbyn and co are pushing for a "soft Brexit" here? Because attacking the soft Brexit option seems a funny way of convincing people to back it. What Gardiner said was pretty unambiguous to my mind:

"If you do what Norway does, what happens is the very reasons that most people who voted leave, voted to leave - namely to regain sovereignty, to regain control of our borders, not to pay money into the European budget - all are not achieved ...

To adopt the Norwegian situation would be to become a vassal state, because you actually end up paying money into the EU budget but you have less control over the regulations than you do now with a seat round the table".

Doesn't sound like a prelude to a "pivot" to me. Indeed, lots of reminders here to leave voters why they wanted out of the EU in the first place to keep the Brexit fires burning. If others interpret this differently, I'd be fascinated to understand their reasoning.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:08 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The only good answer to the above was never to have a referendum in the first place. And we know who, overwhelmingly, is to blame for that.

How is that an answer about what should be done now?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:11 am

"There are no good options" is the short answer to that one?

Maybe the least bad outcome ultimately may be for us for leave, for it to be a disaster, and for us to shamefacedly set about rejoining in some form before too long.

At least a few widespread national illusions may finally be shed that way.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:11 am

Willow904 wrote:What Gardiner said was pretty unambiguous to my mind:

"If you do what Norway does, what happens is the very reasons that most people who voted leave, voted to leave - namely to regain sovereignty, to regain control of our borders, not to pay money into the European budget - all are not achieved ...

To adopt the Norwegian situation would be to become a vassal state, because you actually end up paying money into the EU budget but you have less control over the regulations than you do now with a seat round the table".

People are eventually going to realise that if we want to sell anything at all in the EU, whatever we're selling will have to comply with EU regulations, whether we're in the EEA with Norway or not.
Gardiner needs to think it through a bit further.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:14 am

Hugo,

I think it was you who were so picky about the wording and your constant 'North Korea has access' nonsense....I am glad you realise what shit that was....

I find the Remainer approach to the SM somewhat reminiscent of the Leave view of the EU......lots of simplifications and assumptions that I find are difficult to agree with

Gardiner is making the perfectly valid point that non-EU participants (and I think that is the best word myself so will use it thank you) in the SM are at a disadvantage to the EU members and that has to be understood. If I look at many comments on this it seems that the SM is becoming a fixation rather than how it would work post-Brexit and that there is just a binary choice when it is more complex than that

The EEA agreement does not cover security, agriculture and fisheries, the Custom's Union and other aspects so and we have no precedent for a non-EU member being in the SM and the CU....this would necessitate a bespoke agreement

If we go down this path we would be in an even worse place than Norway is, in that we will be even more integrated, and paying a bigger price without any say on the rules....unless we could negotiate that. The indications from the EU that we could not do this and we will, in my view, just be kicking a can down the road if we do not get this out in the open now....how long before that arrangement becomes problematic? Especially in a declining economic environment

The problem is with some of the arguments is that the desire is to have the UK essentially in the EU without any influence...is this a sustainable approach over the medium term?

Gardiner is right to point this out and also the fact that the people who voted would see us, in your view of the solution, still practically inside the EU with no freedom to do anything more than we can now, without having done anything to try and persuade them that it is really with their interest to do so

The macroeconomic arguments didn't work for austerity so why should they work for this - crying about the SM and financial passporting (which is currently not covered by the EEA by the way) does not seem the way to appeal to people and change their minds. The most likely affected sector, with a massive influence on our economy is also the most despised we have due to the behaviour of the banks and bankers since the 80s.....not the best example to use

What you could hope for is a financial crash or house price crash clearly blamed on Brexit but that will probably not happen and I wouldn't wish that anyway

The Labour Party demonstrated that their approach was okay for the election just passed - when your approach would have likely led to a much poorer performance - I will stick with them rather than you form the moment

And all I can say is Hugo's and Tubby's approach to this, in particular, are turning me off their argument - if I, as a Remianer, am saying that then what are those who you really need to persuade going to think?

If we want to have a successful economy based on a mutually useful agreement with the EU then the Remainers need to rethink how they communicate this

discordantharmony · Post by **discordantharmony** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:15 am

SpinningHugo wrote:I see Owen Jones is arguing why "as a Remainer" he has to accept Hard Brexit (ie leave the single market).

I don't really believe him

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... urosceptic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still, I am sure we need to stop all those Poles coming over here "wholesale" and "destroying" our jobs.

"Wholesale".

Good Morning.

I hope I'm not being a nuisance here but why are we commenting on an article that was published 2 years ago?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:19 am

gilsey wrote:Owen Jones causing quite a fuss, again. Jolyon Maugham's response includes this, which I think is a good summation.
the Referendum result is that we should have Brexit unless public opinion decisively turns. We must listen. If the electorate comes to think that what it wanted from Brexit it will not get from Brexit it must be heard.

This is the only control on the dishonest conduct of a Referendum that our politics can offer. In a General Election you kick out a Government that breaks its Manifesto promises. But if the sanctity of a Referendum result survives both the lies told to deliver it and a public coming to understand it had been misled we have no functioning democracy at all.
https://waitingfortax.com/2017/07/24/a- ... wen-jones/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And so we should have a second referendum then?

I am not sure what the point he is making - I cannot disagree with his opinion of the referendum but all parties voted for it (apart from the SNP) without much of a whimper and a lot of the political classes supported it to 'lance the boil'.......

Don't see that having a rant at a journalist changes much about it

I don't see much appetite for a second referendum and will the outcome be any different? I can't see anyone proposing one - would be a political death wish at the moment

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:19 am

discordantharmony wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:I see Owen Jones is arguing why "as a Remainer" he has to accept Hard Brexit (ie leave the single market).

I don't really believe him

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... urosceptic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still, I am sure we need to stop all those Poles coming over here "wholesale" and "destroying" our jobs.

"Wholesale".
Good Morning.

I hope I'm not being a nuisance here but why are we commenting on an article that was published 2 years ago?

Because Owen has written how "as a Remainer" we now have to accept the referendum result. He cites lots of columns where he says he argues for Remain, but really he doesn't, he isn't arguing about the EU at all in any of them but about other things.

That column shows he isn't really a Remainer (ie someone who believes in the EU) at all.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:24 am

Not many posts about the EU and why we should stay in, rather all about the Single Market which is a component of it but not the whole

The Single Market was promoted by the Thatcher Government, as well as the big expansion as well if you remember. It is not something that makes me emotionally want to stay in the EU although I am fully aware of its economic importance

I am not sure making the SM the focus of everything is going to work if I am honest - even en Clarke didn't support Ummuna's daft amendment

discordantharmony · Post by **discordantharmony** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:24 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
discordantharmony wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:I see Owen Jones is arguing why "as a Remainer" he has to accept Hard Brexit (ie leave the single market).

I don't really believe him

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... urosceptic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still, I am sure we need to stop all those Poles coming over here "wholesale" and "destroying" our jobs.

"Wholesale".
Good Morning.

I hope I'm not being a nuisance here but why are we commenting on an article that was published 2 years ago?
Because Owen has written how "as a Remainer" we now have to accept the referendum result. He cites lots of columns where he says he argues for Remain, but really he doesn't, he isn't arguing about the EU at all in any of them but about other things.

That column shows he isn't really a Remainer (ie someone who believes in the EU) at all.

My apologies........

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:26 am

My apologies........

Don't apologise....you are right to ask the question.

Hugo wrtes as though his opinion is factual and the only one it counts - my experience, is normally that it is the contraire so just carry on asking away...

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:29 am

HSOM

North Korea has access to the single market, as does every other state in the world.

"The EEA agreement does not cover security, agriculture and fisheries."

Quite so. Because these do not form part of the single market.

"The Labour Party demonstrated that their approach was okay for the election just passed - when your approach would have likely led to a much poorer performance - I will stick with them rather than you form the moment"

As I've said, over and over, the electoral sweet spot for Labour is to be ever so fractionally less Brexit'y than the Tories (although Gardiner today and Corbyn yesterday are favouring a Harder Brexit than the official government position.) My point is not one about that was not one about electoral success, but what is right.

There once was a plausible story that Corbyn was a closet Remainer, that Labour was being deliberately ambiguous, or triangulating, before pivoting for Remain (or at least for single market membership) when the disaster of "Tory Hard Brexit" became apparent.

The alternative analysis, of Corbyn-sceptics like me, was that Corbyn, McDonnell, Milne, Fisher, Lansman, Murray etc have been anti the EU all their lives. They're Lexiters, who see Brexit as a glorious opportunity. Far from wanting to stop Tory Hard Brexit, they favoured it.

It is now clear which analysis was right.

And now the "my party right or wrong" brigade are singing Ukip's tunes "we've had the referendum, there is no alternative. We've got to stop importing Poles 'wholesale' who 'destroy' our jobs."

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:41 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The only good answer to the above was never to have a referendum in the first place. And we know who, overwhelmingly, is to blame for that.

We can't hold Cameron to account, though. He ran away. So those left holding the baby end up getting the flak instead. Its just how these things work.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:44 am

discordantharmony wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:I see Owen Jones is arguing why "as a Remainer" he has to accept Hard Brexit (ie leave the single market).

I don't really believe him

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... urosceptic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still, I am sure we need to stop all those Poles coming over here "wholesale" and "destroying" our jobs.

"Wholesale".
Good Morning.

I hope I'm not being a nuisance here but why are we commenting on an article that was published 2 years ago?

I "think" this is the article most, on twitter anyway, are commenting on

"Why I’m a Remainer who accepts the EU referendum result"

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

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:48 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:"There are no good options" is the short answer to that one?

Maybe the least bad outcome ultimately may be for us for leave, for it to be a disaster, and for us to shamefacedly set about rejoining in some form before too long.

At least a few widespread national illusions may finally be shed that way.

If you believe in helping the poorest, doing that, which is guaranteed to make us all poorer but especially the poorest, is far, far too high a price to pay.

You'd be better off facing up to the fact that the party you support is arguing for, and supporting, a disastrous option (or at least its leaders are). And withdraw your support, however hard that is at a personal/commitment level.

Looking at other boards, it is clear to me that Labour supporters are in a state of denial, preferring to talk about anything other than the biggest issue there is. The election campaign was also like that. It was as if it were still 2015.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:52 am

where does that quote about the Poles come from...you have used it twice now, once in a comment of Jones's article for which i find no evidence he said it

Also the Single Market should constitute everything traded in the EU i believe, it is just that they are excluded from the EEA deal, as is the CU which is also seen to be intrinsic by the EU

If agriculture is not in the SM then why do we keep talking about food security in relation to it?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 11:57 am

I dont think anyone is 'in denial' it is just that we have to think how we get the best out of an appalling situation

I am not sure what your solution is as all you post are rants against Labour but from what I see it is all based around arrogantly telling everybody that you know best and any other view makes you a 'Hard Brexiter'

i work in change management and I can tell you that your approach is about the worst to take but you eill be an expert on that and tell me I am wrong too I am sure

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 12:07 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:where does that quote about the Poles come from...you have used it twice now, once in a comment of Jones's article for which i find no evidence he said it

Also the Single Market should constitute everything traded in the EU i believe, it is just that they are excluded from the EEA deal, as is the CU which is also seen to be intrinsic by the EU

If agriculture is not in the SM then why do we keep talking about food security in relation to it?

It's the impact on supply chains and the possible impact of immigration curbs (harder to get workers for seasonal work if we no longer offer the rights people enjoy under free movement).

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 12:10 pm

Liam Fox 'open' to importing US chlorinated chicken

http://news.sky.com/story/liam-fox-open ... n-10959270" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 12:11 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:where does that quote about the Poles come from...you have used it twice now, once in a comment of Jones's article for which i find no evidence he said it

"the wholesale importation of underpaid workers from central Europe in order to destroy conditions."

- J Corbyn on Marr yesterday.

"wholesale importation" ,"destroy". We can all imagine what the reaction would have been if a Tory had said anything as disgusting and untrue as that,

He was, of course, rather good on immigration at one point. Now he isn't.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 12:13 pm

Willow904 wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:where does that quote about the Poles come from...you have used it twice now, once in a comment of Jones's article for which i find no evidence he said it

Also the Single Market should constitute everything traded in the EU i believe, it is just that they are excluded from the EEA deal, as is the CU which is also seen to be intrinsic by the EU

If agriculture is not in the SM then why do we keep talking about food security in relation to it?
It's the impact on supply chains and the possible impact of immigration curbs (harder to get workers for seasonal work if we no longer offer the rights people enjoy under free movement).

i am not sure that is how it is being presented at all.....it is also about importing of food. Jay Rayner touched on this the other day

Just to be clear the point I am trying to make is that this idea of a SM that is clear and simple is underestimating the difficulties we will have in convincing both the EU and the electorate about joining it

At the moment it seems that the aim is to have full CU and SM just as the current EU membership gives. This may be possible outside EU but will be cery difficult to sell.

the arguments I see on here, especially from Hugo are doomed to failure I think

but Hugos priority is to attack Corbyn and Labour I think

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 12:16 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:where does that quote about the Poles come from...you have used it twice now, once in a comment of Jones's article for which i find no evidence he said it

"the wholesale importation of underpaid workers from central Europe in order to destroy conditions."

- J Corbyn on Marr yesterday.

"wholesale importation" ,"destroy". We can all imagine what the reaction would have been if a Tory had said anything as disgusting and untrue as that,

He was, of course, rather good on immigration at one point. Now he isn't.

so you selectively quoted him then....poor show

he is clearly talking about gangmasters which is an acknowledged problem

as said yesterday he shouldnt mix up this issue with free movement

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Mon 24 Jul, 2017 12:17 pm

Globalisation and Brexit: areas that voted to Leave were most affected by the Chinese import shock

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/11/2 ... ort-shock/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Our conclusion

Globalisation, and in particular the Chinese import shock, was a key driver of the vote for Brexit. While free trade has generated significant welfare gains for advanced economies such as the UK, the distribution of these gains has been highly unequal. This has left some social groups and, importantly, some geographic areas, much worse off. Our results suggest that redistribution policies that spread the benefits of globalisation across society are crucial to ensure that globalisation itself is sustainable in the long run.