Wrong, there is no benefit in the EU collapsing but I would like to see it revert back to just a free trade area. I would definitely like the EU to less dictatorial and to free certain nations from the desperate straightjacket of high unemployment and no growth. I am not anti German but a growing number in the Southern countries definitely are. It cannot be good for the organisation to have a marked increase in dissatisfaction. This is how Brexit started.
Text of letter sent by Labour MPs to Theresa May Dear Prime Minister, On Tuesday, you announced your intention to pull Britain out of the single market and to seek a free-trade agreement with the European Union instead. Other nations like Norway and Iceland are not in the EU yet opted to be part of the single market because of the huge benefits it brings. But before negotiations have even begun, you have discarded our membership of the largest and most sophisticated trading zone in the world. You start a negotiation by aiming for the best deal you can possibly get; not by throwing in the towel and waving the white flag as you have done. Even more worrying, you said Britain could leave the EU without any form of future trading arrangement being agreed. This is a threat that places Britain’s prosperity below matters of internal Tory party management. Managing expectations ahead of the start of talks may be smart internal party politics, but it could sail the UK economy on to the rocks. Leaving without a deal would immediately impose tariffs on exports from the UK to the EU, as we would move on to World Trade Organisation tariff schedules. These would include 10% on cars, 12% on many items of clothing, and 40% on lamb. British manufacturers and farmers would face being priced out of their most important market, which buys 44% of all our exports. Businesses large and small in our constituencies would suffer, jobs would be lost and prices in the shops would rise. You say that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain” as if you will bear no responsibility for such an outcome. You may try to scapegoat the EU or the civil service, but you are the prime minister. Those of your ministers who campaigned to leave promised that Britain would achieve a free-trade agreement post-Brexit, and you have signed up to their agenda. If the negotiation goes wrong and all we can get is a “bad deal” with the European Union, you and your cabinet will be responsible. Your threat to our European partners – to leave “the mainstream of European economic and social thinking” in order to “regain competitiveness” – is both diplomatic nonsense and a real danger to the living standards of working people. It is a nonsense because the United Kingdom would have much more to lose from a trade war than the European Union. They buy 44% of our exports, while we buy just 7% of theirs. In a negotiation, the smaller partner gets what it wants through subtlety and goodwill – not bluster and hollow threats. It is a danger to working people because we all know what Tory politicians mean by “regaining competitiveness”: tax cuts for the rich, paid for by slashing public services, and a bonfire of employment rights and environmental protections. Your words about a Britain that “protects and enhances” workers’ rights are just that – words. You have yet to guarantee all the employment rights delivered by our EU membership will be maintained. Members of your cabinet have already made clear your party’s desired direction of travel: Liam Fox has called the laws that protect our rights at work “intellectually unsustainable”, and Priti Patel said employment regulations should be halved. So, the approach to Brexit outlined in your speech is clear: it is one of self-harm, not statesmanship. Devastating our trade by leaving without a deal, and then making Britain the sweatshop of Europe, would be a disaster for our country. Working people, including millions who voted to leave the EU, would pay the price. Your government has a mandate to take us out of the EU, but you have no mandate to do this. Yours sincerely, Chuka Umunna, chair of Vote Leave Watch; Heidi Alexander; Rushanara Ali; Adrian Bailey; Luciana Berger; Ben Bradshaw; Neil Coyle; Stella Creasy; Geraint Davies; Julie Elliott; Lilian Greenwood; Harriet Harman; Liz Kendall; Peter Kyle; Chris Leslie; Seema Malhotra; Chris Matheson; Kerry McCarthy; Pat McFadden; Alison McGovern; Jess Phillips; Naz Shah; Gavin Shuker; Daniel Zeichner
This is a typical party political piece though - some truths some inaccuracies and a lot of waffle and presumption. The good thing I see in it is that it is Labour trying to oppose which is what we have all been asking for. It what I would want the Labour party to do and is a shame it is not an official Labour document presented by Jeremy Corbyn
Toby - what is a General Chat poster of the year? Is it how many posts or something voted on by those on that forum?
Which inaccuracies? Poor Corbyn can't put himself in charge of opposing leaving the EU, the right wing press would slaughter him and UKIP would hoover up the votes. The General Chat thing is just the silly part of this forum populated by strange scottish people and a few random posters. Would not recommend it, it's a strange place. I was voted Poster of the Year though back when it was more serious and debate-fuelled
If it was an official statement by Corbyn it would be re written by the media and generally distorted before it came over to the populace.
Yes - I have stayed away from non Watford debating areas as there be dragons. On here we are all nice, kind, polite respectful and have well thought out and argued views. Oh did I say all? Myself excluded of course. Corbyn cannot duck his duty because the press might oppose him. Anyway he does not have to oppose leaving the EU - that ship has sailed - this is about future relations and he needs to provide leadership and direction on where Labour stand. The letter is too long to go into in detail for now but it presents some areas which are debatable as fact. Do you think it is entirely accurate?
Are you saying Corbyn is impotent then due to the media. If correct that is appalling state of affairs? It would have been nice just to see his name on the signatory list to tell us if it is what he believes. Theresa May is criticised for not stating her position - it is a bit hypocritical if the leader of the opposition says he cannot.
I just re-read it and I honestly don't see which bits aren't accurate? I wouldn't bother venturing onto General Chat, most of the good posters have left, it's mostly scottish people arguing about their awful league and a few irish Celtic fans dragging every topic of conversation towards irish politics. I've had a look at a few other boards, and some of them are scary...The Swansea politics thread was like an EDL rally pre-referendum...
I don't think Corbyn is perfect, far from it, but he's now aware than anything he says will be distorted and fed to the tabloid-readers as fact. It's sad that Murdoch has managed to bully him out (and that vile **** Lynton Crosby), but I think he will have to step down. He's been tainted and the poorly-informed masses (that now consider themselves political heavyweights that no longer need the advice of 'experts' and 'the liberal elite') will never vote for him.
To an extent yes, but he has helped to place himself in a position of impotence. He has some great ideas, I find myself agreeing with most of what he says. But modern politics is not about ideas, it is about gaining power. Corbyn wanted to revolutionize the style of British politics - I would like to do the same, but how ? He has absolutely refused to cultivate a relationship to the media - I think he actually hates all journalists. But does he think that elections can be won through addressing thousands from a stage, or soapbox, as in the time of Keir Hardy ? I think he does believe that, and that is the problem. The style of British politics has become progressively more Americanized and he cannot keep pace with that. I would love to see a situation where there were no 'election campaigns' as we know them (they have become pure media events) - just give people the manifesto of each party 3 weeks before the election and say 'decide, based on that, and their record over the last 5 years'. But that isn't going to happen and Corbyn has to get his ideas over to the man on the Clapham Omnibus (why always Clapham ?).
You are too gentle (as opposed to yesterday ) - do not stop at the tabloids - the UK press is vile almost to the core. For a start I would not allow a rich foreigner to control my media if I were King. Your support for his ideas help me realise why I do not support him ) ). The main problem I have with him though is just his leadership. He is a natural born rebel like Foot before him - and maybe Tony Benn. All honourable men with some good ideas but they were rebels. He has always voted by principle and would find it hard to prevent his MPs doing the same - a political party that aspires to power has to have a real leader. Ed Miliband was not much of a leader - his brother was far better. Blair was a leader. Can you imagine though Theresa May fighting the 2015 election instead of Cameron - she too is not a natural leader. She always looks uncomfortable.
You are going to get me to go through the letter aren't you - I am sure people hate it when I do my line by line comments. I will if you want
Winston Churchill would have looked uncomfortable under today's spotlight. Theresa May did extremely well today on Andrew Marr except the missile question which she should have quoted national security so unable to comment.
Try to catch the Sunday Politics with Andrew Neill, excellent stuff on Trump, Brexit and the Labour Party's difficult stance on Brexit. It also highlighted the Trump regime's fairly hostile attitude towards the EU, with the Germans particularly in the political firing line. It should be a very interesting year to come.
TM actually recognised that the EU have declared that there are four indivisible factors - freedom of movement of goods, services, people and capital. Cameron tried to change that for people and was given short shrift. Unless the EU has been bluffing or changes its mind these four are central tenets of the EU since 1993 and hang together. If you respect the EU then you have to accept that we cannot be in the single market and not have free movement of people. TM cannot deliver brexit without some control on movement of people therefore she has no choice but to accept we cannot be in the single market. That is not throwing in the towel or raising the white flag - it is intelligent recognition of the EU's "red line". Norway and Iceland are members of the single market because they accept the four freedoms. It is clear that the UK cannot. In fact Norway and Iceland both have inferior deals to that of membership of the EU. They are subject to all the EU rules and pay per capita a similar amount to that paid by the UK yet do not sit on policy making boards and have no vote. If we wanted what they have we would not have voted to leave the EU. That is possible - but is not of TM's making. The UK voted to leave the EU - that brought consequences. As there is only a two year window to do a deal it was always possible that future trading arrangements would not have been finalised. It is not a threat, it has nothing to do with Tory party management. It is sheer hypocrisy for the opposition to demand TM shows her negotiating position (which she did not want to do) and then complain when she does. It is not smart internal politics it is a response to the Opposition.. I am not sure all these figures are correct. Even so whether or not we leave without a deal is to be determined during negotiation. If no deal is finalised there may be transition arrangements - that is part of the purpose of the 2 year negotiations. We import more from the EU than we export. If exports are priced out you must assume imports will be equally hit which implies that net we would reduce imports. That means there is a gap to be filled by UK farmers and manufacturers. It is not as simple as this but equally nor is the Labour letter. Farmers voted mostly to leave therefore must have considered the consequences. This is disingenuous. The Tory party and government campaigned to Remain. You cannot blame the Tory party for the leave vote. Had Corbyn conducted a half decent campaign the result could have gone the other way. During the campaign it was stated by the government that a leave vote would take us out of the single market - it should therefore not be a surprise. Who thinks that a bad deal for Britain is better than no deal anyway? It is up to the government to try to do the best dealpossible but it takes two to tango and if the EU are determined to give us a "bad deal" then it is worth pointing out to them that we are not over a barrel and have alternatives. TM is simply letting the EU that they cannot offer a poor deal and expect us to accept it. There are alternatives. When you play poker you do not reveal your hand. It is not a threat - it is voicing alternatives. The EU has to know we have alternatives - not our first choice but if the EU will not give a fair deal we are obliged to do a major rethink. The UK is not seeking a trade war. TM wants free trade - but not as part of a deal that involves unrestricted movement of people. All sides lose from a trade war - and the EU is fully aware of that. They sell more - even though thepercentage of trade is less they will suffer the greater overall hit. Cameron tried subtlety and goodwill - it got him nowhere. This is just politics These are brexiters - that is not government policy. This is Labour's interpretation. Another is that her speech was a realistic assessment of what the EU demand and what the UK would like together with a nod at consequences of bad faith in negotiating. the rest is party politics. OK - I have said what I think of Labour's letter - and remember I am a dtrong Remainer. Even now I would overturn the referendum result if it were down to me - by declaring it null and void due to being badly done, I wild have a General Election to try to oust the Tories and I would have a second referendum which gave us the chance to Remain. So I am not an apologist for TM or the government. I just think this letter rather poor.
I cannot envisage any scenario where the Tories would be ousted from power. If an election happened soon with the LP in complete disarray then the Tory majority would be vastly increased. The Lib Dems would pick up seats but not enough to effect the result. If an election happened in 2020 then it would depend on the success of Brexit but if Corbyn and/or the left wing still controlled the LP then they would suffer a large defeat. I would expect much of the UKIP support to revert back to the Tories. The upcoming boundary changes would further favour the Tories so cannot really see a change for some considerable time.
The only thing which is more or less certain is that a post Brexit Britain would move closer to the USA. Every time America farts you have a team of British journalists sniffing it trying to work out if it represents good news or bad news. Apparently the same people who were talking so loudly about 'sovereignty' are now jumping up and down with glee because - Trump likes us (dogs do this as well !). Are we now seeing the last chapter of Britain's transformation to 51st state of the USA ? I say 'last chapter' because the last 30 years have seen the 2 countries coming together in oh so many ways. You now have the same gulf between rich and poor, the same rampant consumerism, the same blaming of the poor for their poverty, the same worship of riches for their own sake (however it was achieved), the same love of 'celebrity', the same privatization of charity, the same crap TV., the same style at elections - even the police cars make the same noise.
