Yeah see to me, that's the exact kind of thing that makes me distrust Corbyn. It's a nothing statement filled with feel good words with nothing concrete. No withdrawal can fulfill all those criteria. But neither will Remaining. Both sides can apply the same test and just fill it with all sorts of implicit value judgments as to what is "fair" or what is a "right." One side is saying that there is a way to withdraw from the EU and free yourselves from all legal obligations while still obtaining all of the benefits. The other is saying perhaps there is a way to stay in the EU and obtain all the legal benefits while somehow freeing yourself of any of the obligations. Not gonna happen. To me, there's a very detailed and very specific agreement already in place where they've thought of just about everything. It has some good points, but also some bad points because life isn't perfect. My view of Remain is I want someone to acknowledge the pluses and minuses and affirmatively state that, on the balance yes, I will take this deal as it presently stands. This being politics, anyone who tries to present the honest truth will get roasted. So I understand the necessity of over promising and flowery nothing statements. But IMO, there are people on the left who are more willing to stick their necks out and say "Yes, I want to remain in the current arrangement. It's not perfect, but I like it" rather than "Leaving won't fulfill this fantasy list of benefits." And those people are not getting their voices properly heard because Labour does not want to risk losing left wing leavers, and because Corbyn himself is rather wishy-washy about staying in. To me, if Labour wins the majority under this platform, the same thing will happen to them that happened to May and then Johnson. They won't be able to deliver on what they promised because their promises were so vague that it meant different things to different people who voted for them. I will grant you though, that that could well be better than the alternative of Leaving under a Farage or Johnson.
The 6 tests are there to so that leaving would have pretty much the same benefits as Remaining, so ipso facto Remaining will fulfil the tests.
Trump has attacked Corbyn on Farage's LBC show. Totally against the convention that foreign governments don't interfere in other country's elections. Could backfire. Arguably this sort of thing might invalidate any result in people's minds at least.
So if remaining meets all those tests and is so great, then why has Corbyn been a Euroskeptic for so many years? It's test that a withdrawal agreement must meet, without any requirements for remaining. They want remainers to read it and interpret as if the present agreement guarantees all those things. At the same time, those who are open to leaving can read it and interpret it as Corbyn is open to leaving if the right agreement can be reached. It's like me saying "I will endorse a withdrawal agreement that guarantees an end to global warming and world peace forever." Am I for leaving or remaining? It's rather noncommittal.
Interesting piece in the news about Taxes.............. By Reality Check teamBBC News 2 hours ago Share this with Facebook Share this with Messenger Share this with Twitter Share this with Email Share Related Topics Reality Check please log in to view this image Image copyrightEPA Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has told a rally in Battersea the Conservatives have "slashed taxes for the richest". It's not obvious which taxes he's referring to and Labour has not yet given more details - but let's look at a few possibilities. There are clearly some taxes that have been cut by Conservative chancellors. George Osborne got rid of the 50p rate of income tax, in 2012, making the top rate 45p in the pound for those earning above £150,000 a year. He also increased the value of a home people could leave to their children without having to pay inheritance tax. And later, the level at which people started paying the higher rate of income tax was raised to £50,000. But looking at these individual tax changes does not give an overall picture of whether taxes have been slashed. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes figures for the total amount of people's incomes that goes on direct taxes (such as income tax and council tax) and indirect taxes (such as VAT and tax on petrol). The ONS reports these figures for the richest 10% of individuals, ranked by their household incomes. Percentage of income spent on taxes by the richest 10% Households ranked by disposable income Source: ONS If you do that, there has not been a great deal of change since 2010. The proportion increased slightly until 2015 and has decreased somewhat since then, so it's now very close to where it started. The Institute for Fiscal Studies answers this question by measuring the impact of tax measures taken, using slightly different assumptions and excluding changes to the economy and the population. If you look at figure 3.1 in its 2015 election briefing, it tells you measures taken by the coalition government cost the richest 10% about 2.5% of their income. But the IFS analysis of tax changes since 2015 suggests the richest 10% have now benefited by exactly the same proportion. Neither the ONS nor the IFS take account of the impact of other taxes such as inheritance tax or corporation tax. The Treasury also does not take them into account when it conducts such analysis at the time of budgets. Clearly, the changes to inheritance tax have been better for richer people - but continuous attempts to close tax loopholes have been worse for the rich. The Conservatives have also cut corporation tax - but there is not a consensus about the impact such cuts have on individuals. Nor is there reliable analysis looking at richness measured by wealth (how much you own) as opposed to income (how much you earn). The analysis we have suggests the 10% with the highest incomes did somewhat worse under the coalition and have fared somewhat better since then. But it would be hard to describe those changes as taxes for the richest being slashed. What claims do you want BBC Reality Check to investigate? Get in touch
Corbyn is a Eurosceptic, yes, but the rest of your logic is completely flawed. The point is that Labour are opposed to the Johnson WA because it doesn’t meet the 6 tests. Why on earth would Labour want people to think it does? I’ve criticised Corbyn vehemently for not being clear about his stance on Brexit, but while I would like to see a much more pro-Remain position, I get why he’s saying what he is. And there’s no doubt that the Labour Party are now firmly pro-Remain, and they have dragged Jeremy a long way towards the Party line.
It would be bloody stupid for Corbyn to come out and say we want to cancel Brexit. That's the Lib Dem stance and I don't think it will be particularly successful. By saying he's aiming to get Brexit done within 6 months he will get the votes of people who voted to leave in the referendum and who loathe Boris Johnson. It won't be enough for him to get a majority but it may stop the Tories from getting one. I think only the Tories have a chance of getting a majority if I'm honest. The Lid Dems will take too many seats away from Labour for Labour to get a majority and there is more chance of Saints winning the PL then the Lib Dems getting a majority.
Thère is really only Sheffield Hallam and Leeds North West that are LD/ Labour Marginals. The next closest requires a swing of more than 11%. Almost all the rest with the exceptions o f a few LD/SNP marginals, which they obviously won't get, are Tory. So it's crucial that Labour supporters lend their votes in the host of LD/Tory marginals that can really scupper Pfeffel.
Boris Johnson keeps saying "Let us get Brexit done" but he never could read his script for what he really means is " Let us get done by Brexit".
My constituency (I`m ashamed to relate) is held by 4000 votes by (alleged) House of Commons man-groper tory Ross Thompson - the tory investigation has yet to conclude, I should add. The same individual has had to repay expenses claimed for his staying in an Edinburgh hotel with a friend. Anyway, I don`t want this freeloading dodger representing me - this is a marginal seat, and I`ll vote SNP (who won previously) tactically and morally to avoid him getting in again.
Anyone heard from Boris today https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/localnews/2638909-Rye/0#pinnedpost_5dbadf72cd75fa066f746323
Hornsey and Wood Green is a Labour seat which the LibDems will certainly target (Lynne Featherstone held it from 2010-15). I’m sure there are others. There is absolutely no chance of an electoral pact between Labour and the LibDems, not even a tacit one. They doesn’t stop electors from voting tactically though.
I understand your concern as the constituency has been LD comparatively recently. However it would require a swing of nearly 25% for a Labour to los it. As for Aberdeen South, good as gone for The Tories. My prediction north of the border is that six weeks from now there will no blue in the whole of Scotland. I just hope I can get political asylum there after independence.
He's saying that remaining is unlikely to fit all six, depending on one's perspective: 1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU? Well, yeah. 2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union? Absolutely. 3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities? A great many people clearly believe that the answer to this is no: that the free movement of people does not constitute fair management nor is it in the interests of the economy and communities. 4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom? Clearly some feel that it does not. The "Polish plumber" nonsense of yore was specifically about this: the belief that foreign workers would not just take jobs, but exert downward pressure on wages more generally. 5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime? Again, many do not believe that EU membership is good for national security or cross-border crime. 6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK? Despite evidence to the contrary, there's a strong and persistent belief that the EU only benefits some parts of the UK. Ideal deals do not exist in politics in general, and international relations in particular. The EU isn't worth keeping because it does all things for all people; it's worth keeping because, in the aggregate, it does more things for more people than any alternative.
I agree in the main, but just because “many people believe” something doesn’t make it true. That, in a nutshell, has always been the problem with the EU, that people believe complete nonsense if they see it in print. The practice of making up lies about the EU originated in the early 2000’s with a young journalist working at the Daily Telegraph. He went on to make a career in lying generally, his name was Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.
I totally agree. But as ISIRTP said, they're value judgments, and even some Remainers would disagree that the EU ticks all of those boxes reliably.
