Monday 25th September 2017

[citizenJA]

@tinyclanger2
Please forgive my post last night regarding your political party membership. I was attempting levity while making a distinction between Labour and Tory Brexit. I failed.

I agree with you. Stopping UK-EU nationals having freedom of movement within the EU is destructive. I don't support Labour countenancing such a thing. I remain a Labour party member and work within the party for changes.

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prog ... gotiations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Programme for fourth round of UK-EU Article 50 negotiations

[PaulfromYorkshire]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prog ... gotiations


Programme for fourth round of UK-EU Article 50 negotiations

It's quite ironic that the times are given "Brussels time"

[SpinningHugo]

So, the widely reported "fake news" from our ever reliable MSM last night that Brexit wouldn't be debated at conference.

Its happening right now!

With a vote?

Don't be daft.

As McDonnell said, too divisive.

What's the point of the opposition having a vote on a policy that is being debated in the House? The debate on The Great Repeal has started. It will continue. There will be votes. Ones that could actually mean something.

Maybe Labour members favour freedom of movement?

Maybe they'd like a second referendum?

Who knows.

But, yes, I'm sure you're right. nothing to see here. No issues on Brexit that ay member could have a view on at this stage. May as well talk about something else.

(For the avoidance of doubt, the Tory conference will be much more embarrassing in its ducking of the issues.)

[SpinningHugo]

it is also worth noting that this is worse than under Blair. There was a motion, and a vote, on Iraq in 2003.

[PorFavor]

Faisal Islam (appearing on Sky TV's Conference coverage) opines that the mood amongst the membership at Conference seems to be that a second referendum is now becoming more likely.




(Yes - I know I said I'd be giving Sky a swerve, but I like to hear Faisal Islam's take on things.)

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Maybe Labour members favour freedom of movement?

Maybe they'd like a second referendum?

Who knows.

But, yes, I'm sure you're right. nothing to see here. No issues on Brexit that ay member could have a view on at this stage. May as well talk about something else.

(For the avoidance of doubt, the Tory conference will be much more embarrassing in its ducking of the issues.)

As Richard Corbett MEP points out, in the absence of a new vote this year, last year's stands.

Unless the final settlement proves to be acceptable then the option of retaining EU membership should be retained. The final settlement should therefore be subject to approval, through Parliament and potentially through a general election or a referendum.

What "acceptable" might mean has been fleshed out by Starmer.

1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?

2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?

3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?

5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?

6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

So that's where we are. That's what Corbyn talks about. It's quite reasonable IMHO.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

it is also worth noting that this is worse than under Blair. There was a motion, and a vote, on Iraq in 2003.

There was a motion and vote on Brexit in 2016.

You will agree SH that not much has changed in terms of Government policy since then!

[HindleA]

@Paul my brother often comes over to watch Arsenal or a test match and already has some kind of block when working out the 24 hr clock.He one missed a flight once thinking 18.00 was 8pm.He is clever clarification,just the capacity to work that out,seems to elude him.The varying time difference adds another complication for him.I did suggest having two watches,or something.

[SpinningHugo]

it is also worth noting that this is worse than under Blair. There was a motion, and a vote, on Iraq in 2003.

There was a motion and vote on Brexit in 2016.

You will agree SH that not much has changed in terms of Government policy since then!

Indeed there was. Let us remind ourselves of it

“[Conference] recognises that many of those who voted to leave the EU were expressing dissatisfaction with EU or national policy and were voting for change, but believes that unless the final settlement proves to be acceptable then the option of retaining EU membership should be retained,” the motion says.

“The final settlement should therefore be subject to approval, through Parliament and potentially through a general election or a referendum.”

What a firm commitment Corbyn and McDonnell have shown for that policy. Relentlessly arguing for it day after day.

And not just completely ignoring what the members said.

Well done them for putting their Lexiteer views to one side.

[Willow904]

Although if the EU withdrawal bill isn't successfully amended, there isn't going to be a meaningful parliamentary vote on the Tory exit deal and no parliamentary vote on whether or not we leave the single market, so if Labour wants to deliver on the conference motion last year (even though it was rejected as setting official policy, I believe?) they are going to have to come to some sort of Faustian pact with the Europhile Tory rebels.

[AnatolyKasparov]

it is also worth noting that this is worse than under Blair. There was a motion, and a vote, on Iraq in 2003.

Was there another one in 2004?

[SpinningHugo]

it is also worth noting that this is worse than under Blair. There was a motion, and a vote, on Iraq in 2003.

Was there another one in 2004?

Yes. Why?

[Tubby Isaacs]

1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?

2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?

3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?

5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?

6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

That's cake and eat it, I'm afraid.

[PorFavor]

1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?

2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?

3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?

5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?

6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

That's cake and eat it, I'm afraid.

Yes - but it doesn't say that we'd be leaving anyway if we don't get to both eat it and have it. It's not the "crashing out" option.

[HindleA]

Not getting that.Aims/questions.Why cast any aside,as considerations?

[Willow904]

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/u ... xit-policy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But Labour's National Executive Committee subsequently stated that the motion was passed due to an error in compositing and was not party policy.

This seems to suggest the motion passed last year has not been accepted as party policy.

Party policy appears to be single market and CU for transition of 2 to 4 years followed by.....something vague that can't be pinned down.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Which seems fairly sensible *right now*, tbh.

[Willow904]

I would add that proposing single market for a four year transition was probably considered brave in terms of risking upsetting hard Brexit Labour voters but sometimes I wonder whether Labour hasn't lost those voters anyway. Certainly the firming up of Labour's transition policy to a very clear "soft" position didn't appear to hit them in the polls.

[citizenJA]

1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

That's cake and eat it, I'm afraid.

Yes - but it doesn't say that we'd be leaving anyway if we don't get to both eat it and have it. It's not the "crashing out" option.

(cJA emphasis)

Exactly

Always keep in mind
Tory government chose the 2016 EU referendum and flounders helplessly with its result
not Labour
Tory government attempts dragooning the EU, Labour, Remain voters and their caterers into their creative disaster, pretending it's everybody's responsibility to sort Tory government out
Tory government claims the right to everyone's ideas and actions
Tory government demands only Tory government's story is allowed

[AnatolyKasparov]

Though that arguably shows the importance of making these shifts "when the time is right".

Just after the GE, the likes of Chuka tried to force things. This was both wrong and counter-productive for those doing it.

[citizenJA]

Which seems fairly sensible *right now*, tbh.

Agreed

[citizenJA]

AfD leader quits party hours after German election breakthrough
Frauke Petry ‘drops bomb’ on rightwing nationalist party members by announcing she will instead serve as independent MP

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... eakthrough" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Though that arguably shows the importance of making these shifts "when the time is right".

Just after the GE, the likes of Chuka tried to force things. This was both wrong and counter-productive for those doing it.

Well, 4 of them got booted out of the Shadow Cabinet, so that's fair comment!

But there's a clock ticking basically a year till negotiations are supposed to be done. I think some sort of Brexit Conference is going to be needed to get it worked out properly. Sooner rather than later.

[Tubby Isaacs]

1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?

2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?

3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?

5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?

6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

That's cake and eat it, I'm afraid.

Yes - but it doesn't say that we'd be leaving anyway if we don't get to both eat it and have it. It's not the "crashing out" option.

It is because you're not going to get 2 and 3. That's a test going to be failed, then what?

I appreciate there's keeping options open, which May isn't doing, but there's, to say the least, lots of work to do.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Though that arguably shows the importance of making these shifts "when the time is right".

Just after the GE, the likes of Chuka tried to force things. This was both wrong and counter-productive for those doing it.

Well, 4 of them got booted out of the Shadow Cabinet, so that's fair comment!

But there's a clock ticking basically a year till negotiations are supposed to be done. I think some sort of Brexit Conference is going to be needed to get it worked out properly. Sooner rather than later.

I think the key word above may be "supposed", the chances of the timetable slipping must be quite high even if officially denied.

But I wouldn't necessarily be against some sort of special conference.

[SpinningHugo]

Though that arguably shows the importance of making these shifts "when the time is right".

Just after the GE, the likes of Chuka tried to force things. This was both wrong and counter-productive for those doing it.

That really is silly.

Corbyn and McDonnell, and the rest of the politburo have no interest in a proEU shift. They're prepared to adopt a slightly more Remainy than the Tories position because it is electorally advantageous. But under them Labour will adopt the same approach as the Tories.

[citizenJA]

"For large dealers involving the big US banks, between 2,000 and 4,000 of their counterparties would need to be contacted to change the terms of contracts. The Bank warned “there are no precedents” for these types of changes to take place within the 18 months left before Brexit.

The Bank – which has seen each firms’ Brexit plans – said they also lack “robust contingency plans” to tackle changes to the way that they will be able to store consumer data in the UK after March 2019. “Many firms currently rely on data centres located in the United Kingdom to provide financial services across Europe,” the Bank said."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... banks-30bn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't see how Tory government are going to proceed with their Brexit
It's impossible

[PorFavor]

@Tubby Isaacs

Possibly over-optimistically, I'd like to think that we'd stay in the EU - having been seen to have exhausted all avenues of fulfilling "Brexit" and thus having demonstrated that carrying out the "will of the people" is a no-goer.

[HindleA]

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


Exposed: ‘secretive’ NHS cost-cutting plans include children’s care
Documents reveal £5m cuts in South Gloucestershire will include cancer diagnostics and treatment for children with complex needs

[SpinningHugo]

McDonnell's big PFI promise is the usual empty rubbish, for the gullible only.

[Willow904]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/09 ... art-12-675" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Decoding Labour's Brexit position part 12,675

Touches on what I was discussing with howsillyofme recently of how, regardless of what you call it, we would have to accept the four freedoms if we want to retain the benefits of the single market.

[SpinningHugo]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/09 ... art-12-675

Decoding Labour's Brexit position part 12,675

Touches on what I was discussing with howsillyofme recently of how, regardless of what you call it, we would have to accept the four freedoms if we want to retain the benefits of the single market.

Saying that we want to stay in a "reformed" single market seems to be the new holding position.

Complete nonsense of course.

[Willow904]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/09 ... art-12-675

Decoding Labour's Brexit position part 12,675

Touches on what I was discussing with howsillyofme recently of how, regardless of what you call it, we would have to accept the four freedoms if we want to retain the benefits of the single market.

Saying that we want to stay in a "reformed" single market seems to be the new holding position.

Complete nonsense of course.

Peripheral in economic terms, perhaps, but not nonsense and could work politically, though probably not because the rabid anti-EU hard Brexit press would skewer it.

[Willow904]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 1.html?amp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brexit: There is 'zero chance' leaving EU will make Britons better off, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman says

But he's only an expert in international trade patterns so what would he know.

[gilsey]

1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?

2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?

3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?

4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?

5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?

6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

That's cake and eat it, I'm afraid.

I've always thought that was the point of it?
These are all things that the govt has said, at one time or another, they'll deliver. Starmer's saying, go on then, let's see it.

[HindleA]

@RobertSnozers thankyou for information beyond rattle throwing out of a pram.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/09 ... art-12-675

Decoding Labour's Brexit position part 12,675

Touches on what I was discussing with howsillyofme recently of how, regardless of what you call it, we would have to accept the four freedoms if we want to retain the benefits of the single market.

No we wouldn't.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/09 ... art-12-675

Decoding Labour's Brexit position part 12,675

Touches on what I was discussing with howsillyofme recently of how, regardless of what you call it, we would have to accept the four freedoms if we want to retain the benefits of the single market.

Saying that we want to stay in a "reformed" single market seems to be the new holding position.

Complete nonsense of course.

No it isn't.

[gilsey]

No new PFIs - definitely not empty.

Taking over existing contracts 'if necessary' - lacking detail but definitely not empty.

I've defended PFI in the past, but no-one can deny that there are a lot of PFIs out there that are costing the public purse far too much for the return they provide, even to the extent of putting public bodies at risk. The experience of PFI is that some were bad value from the outset, some were reasonably good value until economic conditions changed but many are just too unpredictable. It seemed, like many things, an OK idea when everyone thought the economy was going to be stable for the forseeable future, but the crash put many into difficult territory and Osborne's attempts to erode the deficit through inflation made others unsustainable. Very far from reducing the risks that the public sector are exposed to, the experience of PFI shows that risks are increased. It is, in hindsight, a bad idea and shows that big capital programmes and the subsequent servicing of them should be contracted in the conventional manner.

Thanks RS.
Much like student loans, it's bringing the borrowing onto the balance sheet, which is generally the cheapest option, and far more honest and transparent.
It's been unacceptable politically for the best part of 30 years, about time we moved on imo.

[SpinningHugo]

McDonnell's big PFI promise is the usual empty rubbish, for the gullible only.

No new PFIs - definitely not empty.

Taking over existing contracts 'if necessary' - lacking detail but definitely not empty.

I've defended PFI in the past, but no-one can deny that there are a lot of PFIs out there that are costing the public purse far too much for the return they provide, even to the extent of putting public bodies at risk. The experience of PFI is that some were bad value from the outset, some were reasonably good value until economic conditions changed but many are just too unpredictable. It seemed, like many things, an OK idea when everyone thought the economy was going to be stable for the forseeable future, but the crash put many into difficult territory and Osborne's attempts to erode the deficit through inflation made others unsustainable. Very far from reducing the risks that the public sector are exposed to, the experience of PFI shows that risks are increased. It is, in hindsight, a bad idea and shows that big capital programmes and the subsequent servicing of them should be contracted in the conventional manner.

The problem is the old PFIs. The new ones aren't, and haven't been for ages.

They all have really nasty break clauses.

The UK could just terminate these contracts (ie break them) and not pay the break fees (or pay something less). PFI companies don't have tanks. McDonnell's spokesman (ie Milne) said this would be "set by Parliament".

Do that and you kill the UK's commercial credibility.

So, McDonnell was either lying, or promising something crazy.

So no, empty was too polite I agree.

[SpinningHugo]

Saying that we want to stay in a "reformed" single market seems to be the new holding position.

Complete nonsense of course.

No it isn't.[/quote]


It really is.

The prospect for the other 27 agreeing to a UK government proposal on this is precisely zero.

Corbyn, McDonnell, and Starmer all know that. It is complete nonsense.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Saying that we want to stay in a "reformed" single market seems to be the new holding position.

Complete nonsense of course.

No it isn't.

It really is.

The prospect for the other 27 agreeing to a UK government proposal on this is precisely zero.

Corbyn, McDonnell, and Starmer all know that. It is complete nonsense.[/quote]
And your evidence for that beyond clairvoyance is?

Btw did the actual Lab Conf agenda match your predicted one in any way at all?

[SpinningHugo]

Saying that we want to stay in a "reformed" single market seems to be the new holding position.

Complete nonsense of course.

No it isn't.

It really is.

The prospect for the other 27 agreeing to a UK government proposal on this is precisely zero.

Corbyn, McDonnell, and Starmer all know that. It is complete nonsense.

And your evidence for that beyond clairvoyance is?

Btw did the actual Lab Conf agenda match your predicted one in any way at all?[/quote]

It is the same kind of crazy claim Brexiteers make. Experience has taught us what we should have known already: it is claptrap.

The conference is living down to expectations, yes. Funny in a kind of black way, much as the Tory conference is.

Sadiq Khan is good though. One small ray of hope amongst all this 1980s gloom.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

It is the same kind of crazy claim Brexiteers make. Experience has taught us what we should have known already: it is claptrap.

The conference is living down to expectations, yes. Funny in a kind of black way, much as the Tory conference is.

Sadiq Khan is good though. One small ray of hope amongst all this 1980s gloom.

No he's not.

(Actually he is but I thought I'd play by your rules for a while)

And my second question about the conference agenda?

[HindleA]

Can we at least agree on what decade we are in and what Country.FFS

[PaulfromYorkshire]

McDonnell's big PFI promise is the usual empty rubbish, for the gullible only.

No new PFIs - definitely not empty.

Taking over existing contracts 'if necessary' - lacking detail but definitely not empty.

I've defended PFI in the past, but no-one can deny that there are a lot of PFIs out there that are costing the public purse far too much for the return they provide, even to the extent of putting public bodies at risk. The experience of PFI is that some were bad value from the outset, some were reasonably good value until economic conditions changed but many are just too unpredictable. It seemed, like many things, an OK idea when everyone thought the economy was going to be stable for the forseeable future, but the crash put many into difficult territory and Osborne's attempts to erode the deficit through inflation made others unsustainable. Very far from reducing the risks that the public sector are exposed to, the experience of PFI shows that risks are increased. It is, in hindsight, a bad idea and shows that big capital programmes and the subsequent servicing of them should be contracted in the conventional manner.

I don't understand the finer details of this but can see that if the companies got wind that PFI contracts might be terminated they might be quite happy to do a deal with the Government sooner rather than later.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Can we at least agree on what decade we are in and what Country.FFS

Unlikely on here mate

[SpinningHugo]

It is the same kind of crazy claim Brexiteers make. Experience has taught us what we should have known already: it is claptrap.

The conference is living down to expectations, yes. Funny in a kind of black way, much as the Tory conference is.

Sadiq Khan is good though. One small ray of hope amongst all this 1980s gloom.

No he's not.

(Actually he is but I thought I'd play by your rules for a while)

And my second question about the conference agenda?

It is grim.

Not as grim as next year's though. The Bennites will have control of everything by then. 1980 all over again, as Paul Mason says.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Great headline

John McDonnell Conference Speech Snap Verdict: Big Mac Fries New Labour’s Private Sector Love Affair Brown, Blair and even Prescott policy burned to a crisp.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/m ... df45f94a68" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?