Article 50 Discussion

[honeybee13]

Fwiw, I don't think Jase and fletch are the same person.

 

HB

[tobyjugg2]

13 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

are you aware I'm not fletch, or have you been on the vino early celebrating new years... you seem to get fletch and myself conflated with eachother quite a bit...

 

 

I did refer 'you two' so that a poor avoidance tactic you (two) are using

I ask these questions of both but refer to the one I quote.

 

13 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

so open door seems ok to me. 

 

Thanks for a looooong overdue straightish answer (from 13th Nov)

 

 

so now,

How do you prioritise nurses over nutters and job seekers over jihadists with an open door policy?

 

Fletch was was also asking about those people we need - after miss interpreting my stance, and mis-interpreting the impact of the Corbinite policy he was trying to promote.

Edited December 31, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

and just in case ANYONE thinks I am anti-immigrant, I think I have probably put up the most detailed justification for the benefits of migrant and immigrant workers of ANYONE in the Brexit threads.

 

[honeybee13]

Perhaps you could remind us please, TJ, it's a very long thread.

[tobyjugg2]

Its bad enough searching back 10 pages, let alone hundreds in multiple Brexit threads HB

but i might give it a go.

Rather pointless I think though

[honeybee13]

Fair enough, but it makes it a bit hard to quote yourself.

 

HB

[tobyjugg2]

34 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

are you aware I'm not fletch, or have you been on the vino early celebrating new years... you seem to get fletch and myself conflated with eachother quite a bit...

 

 

and I quoted YOUR post from the start of me asking YOU

Fletch joined in supporting YOUR avoidance of answering

[honeybee13]

TJ, please let's not get into a discussion of sockpuppets. A far as I know, Jason and fletch aren't the same person.

 

This is pointless, let's keep on topic please.

[tobyjugg2]

6 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

TJ, please let's not get into a discussion of sockpuppets. A far as I know, Jason and fletch aren't the same person.

 

This is pointless, let's keep on topic please.

 

I'm not accusing them of being the same person, just largely the same beliefs with the same questions to answer.

 

The post above yours should be read literally.

 

and the referred quote I refreshed

... actually doesnt link properly its

• #3278

Posted 47 minutes ago

 

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[Maharg1]

6 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

and I quoted YOUR post from the start of me asking YOU

Fletch joined in supporting YOUR avoidance of answering

Your favourite uncle Jeremy avoided answering every question he was ever asked

[tobyjugg2]

 

43 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

so now,

How do you prioritise nurses over nutters and job seekers over jihadists with an open door policy?

 

Fletch was was also asking about those people we need - after miss interpreting my stance, and mis-interpreting the impact of the Corbinite policy he was trying to promote.

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[Maharg1]

Prioritise - that's an easy one A Points Based System

 

This will be a system where it is workers' skills that matter, not which country they come from. It will be a single system that welcomes talent, hard work, and the skills we need as a country.

 

[tobyjugg2]

7 minutes ago, Maharg1 said:

Prioritise - that's an easy one A Points Based System

 

This will be a system where it is workers' skills that matter, not which country they come from. It will be a single system that welcomes talent, hard work, and the skills we need as a country.

 

 

I do absolutely agree with that, and when we were part of the EU - even that was UN-necessary

 

but we are asking about the labour policy which given the strength of feeling of the referendum was quite likely the final nail in Corbyn Labours chances, despite that policy actually being detrimental to the needs of the nation and other Labour policies in a number of ways - including prioritising getting the skills and labour (migratory or otherwise) we need to rebuild our services after a decade of Tory cuts

... and it will undoubtedly remain a solid nail in the coffin of Labours chances unless its revised.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[Maharg1]

Labour has five glorious and uninterupted years to get their act together.  They can no longer challenge the government even

as a parliamentry party and I can't think of one of them I would promote to leader.

[fletch70]

TJ

 

Did you actually read the manifesto as listed in the Guardian, probably not. 
 

It offered £10 minimum wage 

It was vague on immigration because they had plans for staying in the single market but nowhere did it mention universal free movement. They did vow to remove the minimum income that prohibits nurses etc from non eu countries coming here. 

We absolutely rely on immigration for many services and trades, funny thing is it is always polish builder/plumber stories we here not African or Asian. It is sad we live in such a racist country where people are openly hostile to non uk born people ( unless they happen to be their GP or nurse) . That is a bit like it was with LGBT people back in the day. 
 

I also do not see a mention of immediate benefits , mind that is hardly a life of luxury is it- subsistence. They did promise to do away with food banks but that’s different. 
 

Final point- I do not think I misinterpreted what you said although you might not have said what you intended. I am probably guilty of not fleshing out my thoughts and evidence but would you read a 4000 word essay?

[tobyjugg2]

 

The expected boundary changes could well put the Tory majority above 100,

and Corbyn candidates and advisor's could well reduce the Labour count in by-elections and local elections.

 

 

and yes, I read the summary manifesto, which does not change the parties intended policies as quite clearly stated

.. despite corbyn quite likely not doing whatever he doen't like - like supporting remain - but unlike supporting radicals.

 

 

You might call the immigration issue racist, and for some it undoubtedly is,

but far less than you seem to be inferring IMO and experience fletch, depends on the area you live and the people around you I suppose,

and regarding immediate benefits - look again. I'm not posting the quotes again for you to chose to see something else.

 

 

and neither you nor jase have answered that crucial question of how Labours stated immigration policies, open door or otherwise, allows the prioritisation of those people YOU quoted, and I think we all agree we desperately need?

- Let alone how it prevents undesirables - and yes there are undesirables here and elsewhere. and we may (CVrightly) be stuck with our own undesirables, but that doesn't mean we should be stuck with everyone elses.

 

Jase seems to think that the undesirables are people too so should be welcomed

- I may agree they are people but don't believe they should be welcomed any more than I would welcome a WASP or any other arsehole into my home and life

 

- let alone my more extreme (but very relevent) example case of 50-60,000 displaced non-turkish ISIS.

 

 

 

Tip of the iceberg of Corbyn issues though.

 

Edited December 31, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[Maharg1]

I doubt Corbyn was a true remoaner, he wanted to nationalise the railways, that is something the EU which requires governments to open up train services to the markets, wouldn't allow.

Edited December 31, 2019 by Maharg1

[honeybee13]

I think I said recently that French railways, SNCF, is owned by the French government, as an example.

[Maharg1]

2 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

I think I said recently that French railways, SNCF, is owned by the French government, as an example.

Exactly, one rule for them and one for us - roll on Jan 31st

[honeybee13]

Do you know there is another rule for the UK, Maharg? I'm not sure.

[tobyjugg2]

@HB

I didnt bother answering that troll post as we already addressed it in detail.

 

Corbyn presumably wants to nationalise in a way which would weapon-ise the national industries to undermine private industry in a tax payer supported way.

About the only thing I can think of which would generate a response from a complaint to the ECJ as detailed not much earlier in the thread.

and no, I cant be bothered to link it, but it includes a linked example of the extremes necessary -  which probably no-one read.

Edited December 31, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

I guess the ECJ won't apply to us soon.

[fletch70]

Does anyone have a detailed plan of how to manage migration? Is it a points system or should it be an invitation system ( the employer gets the visa for you) 

 

I understand the taking railways back into public ownership would be done by not renewing the franchise and therefore the state getting profits not shareholders. 
 

From Jan 31st we will be in transition, still in the single market etc 

[Maharg1]

10 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

I think I said recently that French railways, SNCF, is owned by the French government, as an example.

Most EU railways are part owned or subsidised heavily by their governments, but in 2023 the Forth rail package comes into force which will force those governments to replace some of the routes with private ones.

[tobyjugg2]

LOL just had a lost part typed reply to an earlier post pop up in this response - which 'vanished' while I was typing it

 

The EU courts will apply to

1 minute ago, fletch70 said:

Does anyone have a detailed plan of how to manage migration? Is it a points system or should it be an invitation system ( the employer gets the visa for you) 

 

 

 

why 'or'?