FlyTheNest

frog222 wrote:They're all still on page 2 ?

Rees-Mogg said he believed a “Canada-plus” deal, a free trade pact along the lines of the EU’s 2016 agreement with Canada but with deeper ties given Britain’s already closer trading links, could command a majority in parliament.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... 9W?rpc=401&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“If the prime minister came to the House of Commons with a Canada-plus style Brexit, people like me would say, ‘Yes, that’s all right,’ and people who are strongly pro-European would say, ‘Yes, that’s better than leaving on World Trade Organisation terms,’” Rees-Mogg said. “So although that wouldn’t be what people might choose, it could command a majority.”

tinyclanger2 wrote:

Rees-Mogg said he believed a “Canada-plus” deal, a free trade pact along the lines of the EU’s 2016 agreement with Canada but with deeper ties given Britain’s already closer trading links, could command a majority in parliament.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... 9W?rpc=401&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“If the prime minister came to the House of Commons with a Canada-plus style Brexit, people like me would say, ‘Yes, that’s all right,’ and people who are strongly pro-European would say, ‘Yes, that’s better than leaving on World Trade Organisation terms,’” Rees-Mogg said. “So although that wouldn’t be what people might choose, it could command a majority.”

Sorry I misunderstood. I thought this was all about giving "the people" what they asked for.

adam wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:

Rees-Mogg said he believed a “Canada-plus” deal, a free trade pact along the lines of the EU’s 2016 agreement with Canada but with deeper ties given Britain’s already closer trading links, could command a majority in parliament.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... 9W?rpc=401&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“If the prime minister came to the House of Commons with a Canada-plus style Brexit, people like me would say, ‘Yes, that’s all right,’ and people who are strongly pro-European would say, ‘Yes, that’s better than leaving on World Trade Organisation terms,’” Rees-Mogg said. “So although that wouldn’t be what people might choose, it could command a majority.”

Sorry I misunderstood. I thought this was all about giving "the people" what they asked for.

Depends what 'deeper ties' means. No siphoning off any of the free movements. No involvement in agencies without ECJ. No services as part of a free trade deal. No change, really. Just a different flavour of catastrophe.

Sorry - edited to add - but with deeper ties given Britain’s already closer trading links which exist as a result of EU membership and come with responsibilities and obligations that will be ongoing and that we have ruled out.

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ing-scheme
Yorkshire council leaders threaten to pull out of asylum seeker housing scheme
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/ex ... -1-9307805" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

adam wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:

Rees-Mogg said he believed a “Canada-plus” deal, a free trade pact along the lines of the EU’s 2016 agreement with Canada but with deeper ties given Britain’s already closer trading links, could command a majority in parliament.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-brita ... 9W?rpc=401&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“If the prime minister came to the House of Commons with a Canada-plus style Brexit, people like me would say, ‘Yes, that’s all right,’ and people who are strongly pro-European would say, ‘Yes, that’s better than leaving on World Trade Organisation terms,’” Rees-Mogg said. “So although that wouldn’t be what people might choose, it could command a majority.”

Sorry I misunderstood. I thought this was all about giving "the people" what they asked for.

Depends what 'deeper ties' means. No siphoning off any of the free movements. No involvement in agencies without ECJ. No services as part of a free trade deal. No change, really. Just a different flavour of catastrophe.
Sorry - edited to add - but with deeper ties given Britain’s already closer trading links which exist as a result of EU membership and come with responsibilities and obligations that will be ongoing and that we have ruled out.

Ford said that it is prepared to “take whatever action is needed” to keep its European business profitable, something likely to be seen as a warning that it could scale back UK operations.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 98131.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinyclanger2 wrote:

Ford said that it is prepared to “take whatever action is needed” to keep its European business profitable, something likely to be seen as a warning that it could scale back UK operations.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 98131.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is this that Brexit bonanza we've been hearing about?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, indeed. One of the biggest fibs in this saga has been "everybody else (apart from Labour) has accepted IHRA in full!!"

Its simply not true.

Adopting the international definition will ensure that culprits will not be able to get away with being anti-Semitic because the term is ill-defined, or because different organisations or bodies have different interpretations of it. Britain will be one of the first countries to adopt the definition, agreed by the IHRA, an intergovernmental body made up of 31 member countries, in May this year.

It states:

"Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gove ... i-semitism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The ECB has rejected attempts by banks to establish brass plate operations, telling banks they must move significant operations to the EU to sell their services inside political bloc.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -city-boss" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA wrote:https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... a-44412275

just a week he was bored and decided to venture out to buy a newspaper - only to be surrounded by a gaggle of men wanting his autograph.
Unfortunately, they had mistaken him for US actor Morgan Freeman. Not wanting to let them down, he signed Mr Freeman's name and fled."

tinyclanger2 wrote:brexit the (2 minute) movie

PorFavor wrote:

tinyclanger2 wrote:

Ford said that it is prepared to “take whatever action is needed” to keep its European business profitable, something likely to be seen as a warning that it could scale back UK operations.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 98131.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is this that Brexit bonanza we've been hearing about?

I think we've now reached the tipping point - the point at which it's safe for Labour to state it's vision for the UK. Out of the EU? Or within an EU with an aim to work to change it (my own preference) to address some of the issues that many "outers" (a goodly number of whom have now changed, or are changing, their minds) had\have? I think that the EU would be open to constructive change. They know which way the wind is blowing, politically.

I wish I had faith in Jeremy Corbyn to do the necessary - but to be fair to him, he's never given me any cause to have any on the EU issue.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Busy this weekend, isn't it?

Not that I'm complaining

tinyclanger2 wrote:

Ford said that it is prepared to “take whatever action is needed” to keep its European business profitable, something likely to be seen as a warning that it could scale back UK operations.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 98131.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is this that Brexit bonanza we've been hearing about?

To me the anti-Corbynistas look much like those on the left in US general elections who didn’t vote, or voted for a third party, because they thought both candidates were equally bad. They focus so much on why the Democratic candidate is not ideal, they fail to see that they are much closer to their own position that the Republican. Corbyn may well do some things as PM that you do not like, but he will not stoke immigrant antagonism which fuels racism of all kinds. He will not talk about looking up at the closed blinds of their next-door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits. He will not be content to see foodbank use explode after people get sanctioned because, for example, they have a heart attack. If you are content for those things to continue to happen, then creating a new party is a good way of ensuring they do.

PorFavor wrote: I think we've now reached the tipping point - the point at which it's safe for Labour to state it's vision for the UK. Out of the EU? Or within an EU with an aim to work to change it (my own preference) to address some of the issues that many "outers" (a goodly number of whom have now changed, or are changing, their minds) had\have? I think that the EU would be open to constructive change. They know which way the wind is blowing, politically.

frog222 wrote:Noting there has been no support for my post of 5.34 PM .

gilsey wrote:Wren-Lewis.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/0 ... -idea.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Conclusion:

To me the anti-Corbynistas look much like those on the left in US general elections who didn’t vote, or voted for a third party, because they thought both candidates were equally bad. They focus so much on why the Democratic candidate is not ideal, they fail to see that they are much closer to their own position that the Republican. Corbyn may well do some things as PM that you do not like, but he will not stoke immigrant antagonism which fuels racism of all kinds. He will not talk about looking up at the closed blinds of their next-door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits. He will not be content to see foodbank use explode after people get sanctioned because, for example, they have a heart attack. If you are content for those things to continue to happen, then creating a new party is a good way of ensuring they do.

Sadly I think there are probably a few anti-Corbyn types who are content for those things to continue to happen.

frog222 wrote:Noting there has been no support for my post of 5.34 PM .

AFinch wrote:

frog222 wrote:Noting there has been no support for my post of 5.34 PM .

Would you please explain what it meant? (FTN has the time as 6.34pm).

HindleA wrote:Evening from China,New York,Paris,the planet Zog, smoking shelter at an industrial estate in semi Derbyshire