Article 50 Discussion

[tobyjugg2]

1 minute ago, fletch70 said:

I was only suggesting hypotheticals and not what I thought would happen. I personally think we should have joined the euro and we should have joined Schengen but that was then not now. 
 

Maybe you can answer some of the questions I asked 

 

You haven't, you are avoiding them. Just like Corbyn.

Why pull some strange hypothetical out of the air?

- although that strange suggestion did take me quite by surprise.

 

Like I said - little difference between the far left and the far right - just a matter of degree.

 

 

but I have answered the questions eg read the links on the labourlist given and the other names listed there apart from the ones you choose to quote,

 

 

I make no claims to being an expert on the ins and out of what each has done, but just two (repeated) examples which were already linked:

eg

* Democratically elected Tom Watson who had been the repeated target of de selection before he jumped

* Sally Gimson, the pro-Remain activist from Camden - and re-elected

 

 

Now, why is Corbyn NOT quite clearly stating the Remain on our existing terms will be an option on any future referendum?

and when pressed always states 'A remain option'

 

 

 

 

[Jase1982]

29 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

Thats avoiding the issue and you know it - so do we

 

We can remain on our existing TERMS

... provided that isn't blocked as an option by Corbyn/Johnson.

 

Now stop doing a Corbyn and answer honestly.

Your question is as vague as my response, and my response was based on having no facts to go on.  We're on the same side here ...

 

I'm not sure what version of remain you think will be put to the people, but as stated I know for sure it won't be possible to remain on the same terms as if nothing has happened.  What I can say with all certainty is that Brexit is a step backwards and will hurt us financially, that part is easy.

[tobyjugg2]

11 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

I'm not sure what version of remain you think will be put to the people, but as stated I know for sure it won't be possible to remain on the same terms as if nothing has happened. 

 

Of course we can remain on the same terms if the article 50 notification is revoked

 

Why would we renegotiate if REMAIN won any confirmatory referendum ... where Remain was a real option

... or if the LibDems win

 

and revoke is the only option which leaves all options open for future choices.

 

If we Leave we would never get the same terms again, but remain is remain - or at least should be.

Edited November 8, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

Theres been some leaks on the content of the Johnson blocked  security report.

 

I wont link some of the more dubious ones, but

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/08/uk/uk-russia-inquiry-intelligence-security-committee-gbr-intl/

 

" Members of the cross-party Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) were told that Moscow built up a network of friendly British diplomats, lawyers, parliamentarians and other influencers from across the political spectrum. One witness described the development as "potentially the most significant threat to the UK's institutions and its ways of life," according to testimony seen by CNN. "

 

" report was submitted to Downing Street for approval on October 17, after a lengthy period of clearance with the security services. Sources have told CNN the report includes a heavily redacted annex. "

 

 

" Witnesses whose testimony CNN is familiar with told the committee that Russian agents were targeting research roles in the House of Commons, acquiring British citizenship to funnel cash to political parties and employing public relations firms to cleanse reputations. "

Edited November 12, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

key to Johnson ploy

 

" The failure to publish the ISC report means that the credibility the committee attached to the witnesses, and the conclusions it drew from their testimony, will not now be known until well after the election. Members of the ISC are appointed by the government and must go through a strict vetting process. Grieve told Parliament this week that after the last election, in 2017, it took six months to reconstitute the committee. "

 

So likely many months after a general election before the report will come out even in redacted form, if at all.

Edited November 12, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

I think the public have the right to see the report before they vote in the GE. There seems to be no reason not to publish it except that the Tories don't want the information to be common knowledge.

[tobyjugg2]

I don't think its just the visible contents of the reports that are the issue,

But what is redacted and why.

 

"Downing Street acted “beyond the conventions of its authority” by demanding that specific names be removed from a report into Russian influence on UK politics by the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), according to sources close to the committee.

The redactions are understood to have been ordered to protect London-based Russian oligarchs who are either leading donors to the Conservative Party or individuals regarded as friends of the prime minister, Boris Johnson."
 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/number-10-abused-its-power-demanding-cover-donors-and-friends-boris-report-russian-influence/

 

" One source said: “If it is simply politically inconvenient or embarrassing for Number 10 or the Conservative Party that individuals are named in a controversial report, that cannot be an official reason to issue an order that names be covered up. "

[tobyjugg2]

As its been cleared by the security services, its hard to believe that the report would be withheld if it only contained confirmation that the Russians interfered

- unless that interference was to the specific benefit of those currently in power and who are preventing its release

 

and I think NO ONE believes it would be withheld if it contained anything damning toward Labour or the liberal Democrats ..

[tobyjugg2]

Corbyn comes out with probably his best ever soundbite and I don't see it promoted as it should be.

 

"Personally, I’d rather give a break to a worker who wants to learn than give a tax break to the billionaire who wants for nothing."

 

 

Also Labour promises loadsamoney and staff to the NHS,

Don't doubt labours intent there (unlike anyone with a braincell does the Tories claims ) ... but how are they going to do it staffwise from a Corbyn Leave  perspective?

All those EU NHS staff (and UK ones emigrating) will take some convincing to return to a Country in the thrall of a Leaver.

 

Is he going to open up immigration to none EU medical staff?

Qualification/expertise vetting mechanisms?

 

 

 

[Jase1982]

I thought Labour's official policy on immigration was open borders?  Or at least that's what they said at their party conference.

[tobyjugg2]

I'm not sure that 'open borders' actually means anything jase, but I see the report.
Wasn't labours 2017 manifesto - when we leave the EU freedom of movement will end?

 

 

Nor do I personally agree with the broad meaning of 'open borders'

and I certainly don't agree with the red ones.

 

On its final day, Labour's conference approved a radical policy motion advocating:

• The extension of free movement
• The closure of all detention centres
• The granting of unconditional rights for family members to enter too
• Immediate access to all benefits
• And the awarding of equal voting rights to new entrants

 

 

So Corbyn wants out of the EU, but the world and all its relations cousins to come here with immediate access to all benefits and rights?

 

I had actually missed that lunacy. Although I see that the Tories are preparing to make hay with that,

 

Well all I can say is, Nope.

Looks like a Tory government, hard brexit and probably with the libdems as opposition is becoming inescapable.

... Thanks to Corbyn

 

I only despised Corbyn, Now I hate him.

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[Jase1982]

I imagine most of that has been dropped from the "official" manifesto... (Not out yet) .. I heard the other day they'd dropped the one about banning private schools.

 

From my own view, I'm for open borders to an extent because I think people will migrate regardless of whether you put a system in place.  Making it more difficult to come to other countries just increases the amount of time and money spent on chasing illegals from one imaginary line on a map to another.  What we should be doing is working with other countries globally to increase living standards in other countries so that there's a clearer level playing field, and then people won't have to move about to save their own lives.  People could then move freely wherever they want to if they have the work.  What we have currently is a lot of economic migration where people are leaving other countries because the cost of living is so low in their own country.  The EU has been working towards levelling the playing field, which is another reason I think leaving is silly.  Also, our economy does rely on immigration in certain sectors.  Making it harder for people to work and contribute in this country just screws us up long term.

[tobyjugg2]

3 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

People could then move freely wherever they want to if they have the work. 

 

Absolutely agree

 

 

3 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

What we have currently is a lot of economic migration where people are leaving other countries because the cost of living is so low in their own country. 

 

i think you mean low standard of living and wages. low cost of living means we should move there.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

The EU has been working towards levelling the playing field, which is another reason I think leaving is silly. 

 

Agreed

 

 

3 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

Also, our economy does rely on immigration in certain sectors.  Making it harder for people to work and contribute in this country just screws us up long term.

 

As does just letting anyone in whether they are a benefit or not, or even a liability or an actual danger.

 

 

 

All of which is moot as that is Labours suicide note.

and all I can now say is good riddance and a plague of curses on Corbyn and the idiots who suggested Corbyn be added to the list.

 

 

So Corbyn wont side remain because he wants to keep Brexiters on side - who's main issue, along with millions of Remainers, has been mostly false immigration issues

... and he's making those issues real ...

 

Utterly unelectable.

No wonder the libdems refuse to support him . I thought they were being somewhat unreasonable - not now.

 

 

Trying hard not to swear - a lot.

I might be beginning to understand what those fanatics who issued death threats to politicians were feeling

I'm perhaps beginning to get an inkling of how they might have felt justified even though I don't think they were.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jase1982]

17 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

i think you mean low standard of living and wages. low cost of living means we should move there.

 

As does just letting anyone in whether they are a benefit or not, or even a liability or an actual danger.

 

 

 

Yes that's what I meant.

 

Borders don't stop people that are a danger from existing though.  I think borders just create division and disharmony in the world.  Borders have been partly responsible for most wars that ever took place, so if there's a way of reducing obstacles to human evolution I'm all for it.  You can still have open borders but keep in place the rules surrounding welfare etc ... and lets not forget that it's a two way street... UK citizens claim in other countries.  The problem is that immigration has been used as a tool to make people thing that the bogeyman is just round the corner waiting to eat them up.  Again, throughout history, it's been used as a weapon to encourage people to go to war, or to persecute minorities.

 

[tobyjugg2]

7 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

and lets not forget that it's a two way street...

 

our existing set-up is - Corbyns open borders isn't now is it - its purely one way.

 

and borders also protect a society.

 

I consider myself a liberal person, and support  the support of other nations to improve their citizens lives,

but just saying to everyone - come and get whatever we have

is no incentive to work to build that society for the citizens or immigrants, and is just stealing from those that have built that society

 

 

 

Corbyn can f*** off.

 

Its also brought to memory that Corbyn didn't oppose those inflation busting MP pay increases when NHS staff were getting nowt did he?

 

He can treble f*** off

Edited November 13, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

A suggestion to all Unite members

 

resign and join another union.

[tobyjugg2]

and those libdems who stood down to let a remain labour MP have a free run

 

stand back up - Corbyn would have him deselected anyway if he said anything

[Jase1982]

19 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

our existing set-up is - Corbyns open borders isn't now is it - its purely one way.

 

and borders also protect a society.

 

I consider myself a liberal person, and support  the support of other nations to improve their citizens lives,

but just saying to everyone - come and get whatever we have

is no incentive to work to build that society for the citizens or immigrants, and is just stealing from those that have built that society

 

 

 

Corbyn can f*** off.

 

Its also brought to memory that Corbyn didn't oppose those inflation busting MP pay increases when NHS staff were getting nowt did he?

 

He can treble f*** off

 

And all your doing is responding to the subject in a negative way using aggressive language that gets us nowhere.  "the support of other nations to improve their citizens lives" - Stuff like this, as well as saying people can only come here if they are a "benefit" to society could be straight out of mein kampf.

 

Using words like "protect" suggest that whatever is on the other side of our made up line is something to be fearful of.

 

Also, saying anyone can come and take whatever we have is just another negative because you're suggesting people are coming into the country purely to steal.

[tobyjugg2]

35 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

And all your doing is responding to the subject in a negative way using aggressive language that gets us nowhere.  "the support of other nations to improve their citizens lives" - Stuff like this, as well as saying people can only come here if they are a "benefit" to society could be straight out of mein kampf.

 

Using words like "protect" suggest that whatever is on the other side of our made up line is something to be fearful of.

 

Also, saying anyone can come and take whatever we have is just another negative because you're suggesting people are coming into the country purely to steal.

 

 

They are all actually your interpretations,

and nothing more than incorrect assumptions and extreme misrepresentations (at best) of mine

(and thats being kind)

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by tobyjugg2
misinterpretations to misrepresentations

[tobyjugg2]

We ended up with years of Thatcherism last time Labour went off the rails Loony Left - and Foot was nowhere near as loony as Corbyn lunacy

 

Thanks God the Libdems are better positioned today.

 

Looooooonnnnggg Past time some of the major unions and sane MP's split.

They are almost certain to lose their seats and the country anyway, and union power will be trashed even further under the Johnson/ERG deregulation plans.

and Corbyn will still not resign ...

[tobyjugg2]

@Jase1982

 

I have been trying to get up to to speed, and struggling

 

"Unite general secretary Len McCluskeytold the Guardian that Labour had to win over the party’s traditional working-class supporters with by promising to end free movement of workers - migrant Labour from Europe - after Brexit."

 

Labour declares a completely stark raving mad open door to anyone and everyone

 

Immigration was and still is THE big issue driving Brexit (but Corbyn is of course a Brexiter)

 

Corbyn promises a new Scot ref, then doesn't then hums and hars.

 

 

So what actually is happening?

 

 

Corbyn declares he's in it for all voters - but seems to mean he wants to ostracise most voters (biggest issue driving Brexit) and bring in new voters who might vote for him in gratitude despite not knowing who he is and probably not caring, and hopes some of them might be nurses.

 

Cluckskey wants to end (EU) free movement or workers? So where is he on the open door policy

- (Theres apparently 40-60,000 none Turk ISIS looking for a new home ...)

 

 

I cant make any coherent sense of it whatsoever.

Bonkers.

 

correction:

Only sense I see is keeping everyone at each others throats to prevent them seeing the real problem

- Corbyn and his quite small cabal of left wing loons

‌

Edited November 13, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[fletch70]

It does seem there has been a lot of misinformation about Labour's immigration policy but it is most definitely not an open door one. Sadly many people will have been fooled by headlines in those rags such as the Express and DM

 

Here is a link from full facts that explains it better than I can

 

https://fullfact.org/immigration/labour-immigration-policy/

[tobyjugg2]

Thanks for that fletch but any detail is still sadly lacking other than the headlines you mention which do seem to be at least to be quoting some senior labour members intents - with NOTHING significant to contradict them.

First time I've looked at the Brexit rag headlines and NOT been able to quickly say and prove - thats complete crap.

 

 

Note it was jase's headline that generated my search, compounded by his support here which seemed to promote an entirely open border as a good thing and anyone who disagrees as a mein kampf subscriber..

 

 

So we are left with completely contradictory messages

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

Oh - and not just Brexit sites

 

https://labourlist.org/2019/09/labour-conference-approves-motion-to-extend-free-movement/

 

 

 

Labour will include in the manifesto pledges to:

• Oppose the current Tory immigration legislation and any curbing of rights.
• Campaign for free movement, equality and rights for migrants.
• Reject any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets.
• Close all detention centres.
• Ensure unconditional right to family reunion.
• Maintain and extend free movement rights.
• End “no recourse to public funds” policies.
• Scrap all Hostile Environment measures, use of landlords and public service providers as border guards, and restrictions on migrants’ NHS access.
• Actively challenge anti-immigrant narratives.
• Extend equal rights to vote to all UK residents

 

Mover: Camberwell and Peckham CLP
Seconder: Edinburgh Central CLP

Edited November 14, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[fletch70]

Well I do not agree with completely open borders but am totally opposed to the guilty until proven legitimate hostile environment of the Tories. I am also against the minimum income particularly if we leave the EU. How would we fill our low wage vacancies? 
 

Just for the record and probably no surprise I am also against the low regulation economy sometimes referred to as Singapore upon Thames. A living wage is an absolute must and I don’t mean the Tories fake living wage