Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CBI give a thumbs up to Corbyn and Brussels said to be loo

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited February 26 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The CBI give a thumbs up to Corbyn and Brussels said to be looking “kindly” at speech

CBI

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,197
    Corbyn looked prime ministerial today. Stronger and more stable than May.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645
    edited February 26
    Jonathan said:

    Corbyn looked prime ministerial today. Stronger and more stable than May.

    Seconded.

    CBI praising the Marxist...LOL!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    edited February 26
    Perhaps but the CBI is unlikely to vote for him and most Remainers are voting Labour anyway.

    The key will be how it goes down with working class Labour Leave voters, given staying in the Customs Union does not require free movement Corbyn should be OK
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,822
    edited February 26
    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    FPT:-

    I think zero votes are going to be moved by Labour's Customs Union shift. For all the delusions of some of the Brexit commentariat, Leave voters in the country were not voting for lots of trade deals - the reasons were immigration, more money for public services, and a generic protest vote. Customs Union membership doesn't preclude any of those. Just because it goes against the pet projects of a handful of Tory politicians, that doesn't mean it's "betraying the will of the people".

    That said, I'm also sceptical whether (m)any Remain voters are going to switch their votes to Labour just on the basis of this. A great many of them don't have Brexit as their top priority, and even fewer actually understand the intricacies of the various aspects of the EU - on all the doors I knocked on during the election, only one person ever even used the terms "Single Market" or "Customs Union" (the terms "soft Brexit" and "hard Brexit" did come up a little more often, to be fair, but still not much at all).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,848
    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Corbyn looked prime ministerial today. Stronger and more stable than May.

    Seconded.

    CBI praising the Marxist...LOL!
    There was a time when the same was said about Brown...

    Corbyn would be far more damaging as PM. And yet he might be....
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,547
    And who gave Corbyn an in?

    That would be the hard Brexit faction of the Tories, who have been dragging May away from the centre of public opinion since Brexit night itself.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    edited February 26
    Get ready for a rocket launch:

    Or not. That was me being an idiot ...
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,815
    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645
    edited February 26
    alex. said:

    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...

    I have only just started looking at the detail but I think Jezza was talking about joint EU/UK deals as opposed to independent UK ones.
  • TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    How much does the CBI receive from the EU
  • "Comrades, this is your Leader. It is an honour to speak to you today, and I am honoured to be sailing with you on the maiden voyage of our Party's most recent achievement. Once more, we play our dangerous game, a game of chess against our old adversary — The Conservative Party. For a hundred years, your fathers before you and your older brothers played this game and played it well. But today the game is different. We have the advantage. It reminds me of the heady days of 1945 and Clement Attlee, when the world trembled at the sound of our Nationalisations! Well, they will tremble again — at the sound of our Glorious February 2018 BREXIT SPEECH. The order is: engage the Corbyn Drive!

    "Comrades, our own Parliamentary Party don't know our full potential. They will do everything possible to test us; but they will only test their own embarrassment. We will leave our MPs behind, we will pass through the Conservative patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest constituency, and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates! Then, and when we are finished, the only sound they will hear is our laughter, while we sail to Coventry, where the sun is warm, and so is the... Comradeship!

    "A great day, Comrades! We sail into history!"
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,114
    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,488
    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Quite so. I genuinely don't understand how anyone who regards 52% of the voting public as xenophobe morons can remain in the country. They should feck off to bongo bongo land, where the odds are they will find that the local mainstream political right makes Britain First look like the Anne Frank fan club.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,773
    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    I don't think you and Gove get what Harris is saying. When people choose something that goes against their interest, you should understand why they made the wrong choice and be sympathetic to them.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,490
    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Corbyn looked prime ministerial today. Stronger and more stable than May.

    Seconded.

    CBI praising the Marxist...LOL!
    From the time of Sir Terence Beckett, the CBI and the Conservative Party have not really seen eye to eye.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,114
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    How much does the CBI receive from the EU
    I suspect they receive 10 or 100 times whatever they get from the EU from their members - i.e. British businesses.

    That means they will - above all else - support whatever is closest to the status quo, but it does not mean they are in the pockets of Brussels.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    Jonathan said:

    Corbyn looked prime ministerial today. Stronger and more stable than May.

    Seconded.

    CBI praising the Marxist...LOL!
    From the time of Sir Terence Beckett, the CBI and the Conservative Party have not really seen eye to eye.
    Who will rid me of this turbulent chief?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,773
    edited February 26
    Jonathan said:

    Corbyn looked prime ministerial today. Stronger and more stable than May.

    Strangely, I agree. Corbyn's argument was more coherent than anything that May has come up with (let's hope she doesn't double down on Ambitious Managed Divergence this week). The several holes in his argument are largely shared with the Government (Brexit dividends). He seems to have a better grasp than May of the dynamics of international agreements. He also knows what a supply chain is
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,197
    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    It was this quote that really resonated with Gove.

    "This is not to dispute that Brexit is a bad idea, or that the people who have taken charge of the process are inept beyond words."
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,905
    Evening all :)

    It's a funny old world, as someone once said. The day the CBI supports Jeremy Corbyn is the one where several sharks appear to have been jumped.

    Of course, the predictable response comes from the usual suspects who seem unable to accept the tectonic plates and the political certainties they have preached have and are being undermined.

    It's all politics and politics is a rough trade as someone else once said and if the name of the game in Opposition is to make life difficult for the Government.

    As I explained this morning, we are crystallising around two visions of Britain post-EU membership - the Corbyn/CBI version sees a close economic relationship defined through the CU which would allow Corbyn to protect and expand workers' rights and protections and throw a bone of sorts on immigration (detail to be confirmed). We would follow the EU on trade with the rest of the world and many might wonder what was the point of leaving the EU - yes, we would be gone politically but economically it would cast a long shadow.

    The other version is "Global Britain" which seems full of romanticised nautical imagery all about buccaneering and piracy (both highly illegal and unpleasant in their time) in which Britain, free of the EU shackles, builds bespoke economic relationships with all nations across the world and is able to draw in the investment and skills that the EU cannot match.

    I'm not convinced by either. For all the rhetoric, as for many others, the Devil will be in the details.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,490
    rcs1000 said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    How much does the CBI receive from the EU
    I suspect they receive 10 or 100 times whatever they get from the EU from their members - i.e. British businesses.

    That means they will - above all else - support whatever is closest to the status quo, but it does not mean they are in the pockets of Brussels.
    Back in the day, when Labour represented the Unions, and the Conservatives represented the upper middle classes, it was clear who the CBI should support.

    Now that huge numbers of poorer voters support the Conservatives, and loads of well-heeled lefties support Labour, it's not so clear cut.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584
    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    I wonder if Gove read this bit?...

    This is not to dispute that Brexit is a bad idea, or that the people who have taken charge of the process are inept beyond words.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,211
    FPT but relevant to this one, I believe:

    I believe that the next GE will see Mr Corbyn become PM, so I've reconciled myself to that.

    I voted Leave because
    (a) I don't believe 'More Europe' is the answer to every problem;
    (b) I don't believe that the UK population will be submissive to ever-increasing rule-by-unelected-bureaucrat;
    (c) I'm afraid that at some future time (maybe 50 years off) the whole thing will end in war.

    I hope I'm wrong and certainly wish the EU well.

    As long as we actually do undock from the EU so that we are not part & parcel of their political project, that's fine by me. Divergence can happen in its own time & its own way.

    IIRC Mr Cameron said he'd achieved that concession, but it wasn't in a Treaty and we've been gulled before like that.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584
    Foxy said:

    alex. said:

    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...

    I have only just started looking at the detail but I think Jezza was talking about joint EU/UK deals as opposed to independent UK ones.
    Even that would be a concession from the EU, would it not? Laura K pressed Corbyn quite strongly on this point and Corbyn reverted to saying these are just aspirations, we don't need a Plan B etc. etc.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    I would have thought Theresa May and most Tories would sign up to the Corbyn concept of the UK belonging to a customs union BUT at the same time being able to have the say on making trade deals elsewhere. The problem is that the EU doesnt allow any other country this.

    Does this mean that the EU will agree to the UK belonging to a customs union AND being free to negotiate trade deals elsewhere. Is that what "looking kindly" means?

    The ball is in the EU court. Lets hear from the EU soon -this week?
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,466
    AnneJGP said:

    FPT but relevant to this one, I believe:

    I believe that the next GE will see Mr Corbyn become PM, so I've reconciled myself to that.

    I voted Leave because
    (a) I don't believe 'More Europe' is the answer to every problem;
    (b) I don't believe that the UK population will be submissive to ever-increasing rule-by-unelected-bureaucrat;
    (c) I'm afraid that at some future time (maybe 50 years off) the whole thing will end in war.

    I hope I'm wrong and certainly wish the EU well.

    As long as we actually do undock from the EU so that we are not part & parcel of their political project, that's fine by me. Divergence can happen in its own time & its own way.

    IIRC Mr Cameron said he'd achieved that concession, but it wasn't in a Treaty and we've been gulled before like that.

    Evening Anne.

    Broadly agree with your position. I was more worried about future disbenefits than some halcyon land of milk and honey.

    You're correct that Cameron did get an opt-out of ever-closer-union and a promise that it would be in the next treaty, honest injun.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    FF43 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Corbyn looked prime ministerial today. Stronger and more stable than May.

    Strangely, I agree. Corbyn's argument was more coherent than anything that May has come up with (let's hope she doesn't double down on Ambitious Managed Divergence this week). The several holes in his argument are largely shared with the Government (Brexit dividends). He seems to have a better grasp than May of the dynamics of international agreements. He also knows what a supply chain is
    He read and rambled his way through his speech.

    But doesnt he know that the EU doesnt allow countries to do what he is asking? You cant be in a customs union and have freedom to negotiate trade deals elsewhere which is what he says he wants.

    Is he dumb?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,905
    stevef said:

    I would have thought Theresa May and most Tories would sign up to the Corbyn concept of the UK belonging to a customs union BUT at the same time being able to have the say on making trade deals elsewhere. The problem is that the EU doesnt allow any other country this.

    Does this mean that the EU will agree to the UK belonging to a customs union AND being free to negotiate trade deals elsewhere. Is that what "looking kindly" means?

    The ball is in the EU court. Lets hear from the EU soon -this week?

    Yes, this is the key point. IF the UK goes into a customs union with the EU we will not be able to make any advantageous trade deals with non-EU countries but will in effect have the same terms as the EU (because we will be in the CU with them).

    The anti-CU argument asserts the UK can get better deals on its own (presumably that's the message May, Davis, Johnson and Fox will be re-iterating ad nauseam in the next few weeks). The problem is no one knows that - yes, I'm sure we will get nice deals with Canada, Australia and New Zealand but what about China, India and the other developing countries ?

    Why should they be nice to us in deference to the much larger market that is the EU ?

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    alex. said:

    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...

    I have only just started looking at the detail but I think Jezza was talking about joint EU/UK deals as opposed to independent UK ones.
    Even that would be a concession from the EU, would it not? Laura K pressed Corbyn quite strongly on this point and Corbyn reverted to saying these are just aspirations, we don't need a Plan B etc. etc.
    It may well not be to the EU taste, but I understood it to be Jezzas suggestion.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    alex. said:

    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...

    I have only just started looking at the detail but I think Jezza was talking about joint EU/UK deals as opposed to independent UK ones.
    Even that would be a concession from the EU, would it not? Laura K pressed Corbyn quite strongly on this point and Corbyn reverted to saying these are just aspirations, we don't need a Plan B etc. etc.
    It may well not be to the EU taste, but I understood it to be Jezzas suggestion.
    So what we now need to hear is what the EU think of the suggestion. I have to say, I don't think this was the smartest move by Labour.
  • tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    alex. said:

    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...

    I have only just started looking at the detail but I think Jezza was talking about joint EU/UK deals as opposed to independent UK ones.
    Even that would be a concession from the EU, would it not? Laura K pressed Corbyn quite strongly on this point and Corbyn reverted to saying these are just aspirations, we don't need a Plan B etc. etc.
    That is Corbyn set response to a difficult question - it is not sustainable
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,675
    edited February 26
    Corbyn's supporters seem to think he has played a blinder but it is not what the voters are saying on the vox pops I have seen - general attitude is they want completely out of the EU
  • Presumably UK would not be able to veto any deal if in a CU so if, say, a deal with US involving health services or crap milk imports was agreed we would have to lump it?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,197

    Corbyn's supporters seem to think he has played a blinder but it is not what tge voters afe saying on the vox pops I have seen - general attitude is they want completely out of the EU

    Bubble.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,822
    So the Government should counter the proposed amendment in the Trade bill something along the lines as follows:

    "that the Government will have a negotiating objective with the EU to retain the ability to conduct independent trade negotiations with third countries. To the extent that membership of a Customs Union does not preclude that, it will also be a negotiating objective to come to a new Customs Union arrangement with the EU to avoid tariffs between the EU and the UK"

    How could Labour oppose that, since it is effectively their policy?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,488
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 1,038
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    alex. said:

    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...

    I have only just started looking at the detail but I think Jezza was talking about joint EU/UK deals as opposed to independent UK ones.
    Even that would be a concession from the EU, would it not? Laura K pressed Corbyn quite strongly on this point and Corbyn reverted to saying these are just aspirations, we don't need a Plan B etc. etc.
    The prospect of trade deals being negotiated jointly by the European Commission and UK Governments strains credulity just a tad. And it's risible that such a position could be advanced as both a start and end point for negotiations on the grounds that the EU is bound to agree to that in the end so that no Plan B need even be conceived.

    That doesn't matter though as this is a position worked out to influence the course of UK politics and nothing else.
  • Presumably UK would not be able to veto any deal if in a CU so if, say, a deal with US involving health services or crap milk imports was agreed we would have to lump it?

    Yes - the idea the UK will have an input in EU trade deals while being a non member is a fantasy
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645
    edited February 26
    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    alex. said:

    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...

    I have only just started looking at the detail but I think Jezza was talking about joint EU/UK deals as opposed to independent UK ones.
    Even that would be a concession from the EU, would it not? Laura K pressed Corbyn quite strongly on this point and Corbyn reverted to saying these are just aspirations, we don't need a Plan B etc. etc.
    It may well not be to the EU taste, but I understood it to be Jezzas suggestion.
    So what we now need to hear is what the EU think of the suggestion. I have to say, I don't think this was the smartest move by Labour.
    Bloomberg sources seem to think it would get a positive hearing.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-02-26/eu-might-look-kindly-on-labour-s-customs-union-brexit-plan?__twitter_impression=true
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,280
    fpt
    Ishmael_Z said:

    oh good, so you'll be happy to answer the question, then. Who ever said "it is nothing to do with foreigners"?

    Every Leave proponent during the referendum campaign.


  • Jonathan said:

    Corbyn's supporters seem to think he has played a blinder but it is not what tge voters afe saying on the vox pops I have seen - general attitude is they want completely out of the EU

    Bubble.
    They were on Sky and BBC main news channels
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,907
    HYUFD said:

    Perhaps but the CBI is unlikely to vote for him and most Remainers are voting Labour anyway.

    The key will be how it goes down with working class Labour Leave voters, given staying in the Customs Union does not require free movement Corbyn should be OK

    I don't think it is quite as logical as that. Nobody actually knows whether staying in the customs union is going to be beneficial or not. I sure as heck don't. But the mood music is of Corbyn proposing a policy that sounds good and which positions Labour in vaguely pro-Europe vaguely pro-business position. Basically it aims to neutralise a lot of the negatives that some people still have about him. It might well not resonate with working class Labour Leave voters at all. But I can see how it might. My working class pensioner parents were won around to him basically when he started wearing a suit.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,197

    Jonathan said:

    Corbyn's supporters seem to think he has played a blinder but it is not what tge voters afe saying on the vox pops I have seen - general attitude is they want completely out of the EU

    Bubble.
    They were on Sky and BBC main news channels
    Double bubble
  • Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    alex. said:

    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...

    I have only just started looking at the detail but I think Jezza was talking about joint EU/UK deals as opposed to independent UK ones.
    Even that would be a concession from the EU, would it not? Laura K pressed Corbyn quite strongly on this point and Corbyn reverted to saying these are just aspirations, we don't need a Plan B etc. etc.
    It may well not be to the EU taste, but I understood it to be Jezzas suggestion.
    So what we now need to hear is what the EU think of the suggestion. I have to say, I don't think this was the smartest move by Labour.
    Bloomberg sources seem to think it would get a positive hearing.
    I am sure the EU would be delighted to have the UK in the same position as Turkey.

    Just to reiterate, Turkey is in the wonderful position of having to give tariff free access to all those countries that have FTAs with the EU but is not allowed the same tariff free access in return.

    The deal is horrendously one sided and does not serve them well at all. They had said that if TTIP was passed they would be forced to leave the CU.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,907

    Presumably UK would not be able to veto any deal if in a CU so if, say, a deal with US involving health services or crap milk imports was agreed we would have to lump it?

    Yes - the idea the UK will have an input in EU trade deals while being a non member is a fantasy
    Good point. The sooner we get back in the better.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,822
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    alex. said:

    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...

    I have only just started looking at the detail but I think Jezza was talking about joint EU/UK deals as opposed to independent UK ones.
    Even that would be a concession from the EU, would it not? Laura K pressed Corbyn quite strongly on this point and Corbyn reverted to saying these are just aspirations, we don't need a Plan B etc. etc.
    It may well not be to the EU taste, but I understood it to be Jezzas suggestion.
    So what we now need to hear is what the EU think of the suggestion. I have to say, I don't think this was the smartest move by Labour.
    Bloomberg sources seem to think it would get a positive hearing.
    It suits the EU to sound positive towards proposals that undermine the hard brexiteers in the UK and, indeed, the UK government currently negotiating with them. As long as they are just making "positive noises" rather than actually agreeing anything they probably think that any concessions will towards "soft" rather than "hard" brexit. ie. when presented with the actual inevitable choice between Customs Union and negotiating independent trade deals, the latter will be ditched.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584
    edited February 26
    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    alex. said:

    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...

    I have only just started looking at the detail but I think Jezza was talking about joint EU/UK deals as opposed to independent UK ones.
    Even that would be a concession from the EU, would it not? Laura K pressed Corbyn quite strongly on this point and Corbyn reverted to saying these are just aspirations, we don't need a Plan B etc. etc.
    It may well not be to the EU taste, but I understood it to be Jezzas suggestion.
    So what we now need to hear is what the EU think of the suggestion. I have to say, I don't think this was the smartest move by Labour.
    Bloomberg sources seem to think it would get a positive hearing.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-02-26/eu-might-look-kindly-on-labour-s-customs-union-brexit-plan?__twitter_impression=true
    LOL at this:

    If Labour’s idea were to become the U.K.’s position, it would likely be received positively in Brussels and across the bloc because it would be seen as beneficial to EU businesses, according to two people familiar with the EU’s Brexit negotiations.

    But they don't need our custom etc. etc.

    BTW, if Jezza does help us to have our cake and eat it in this regard, then fantastic.
  • Presumably UK would not be able to veto any deal if in a CU so if, say, a deal with US involving health services or crap milk imports was agreed we would have to lump it?

    Yes - the idea the UK will have an input in EU trade deals while being a non member is a fantasy
    Good point. The sooner we get back in the better.
    To be honest the idea we join a Norway style arrangement would be stupid as we may as well stay in. However I see no prospect of that after today as Corbyn has affirmed we are leaving the EU and has again ruled out a second referendum. Both main parties agree on this
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,645

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    alex. said:

    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...

    I have only just started looking at the detail but I think Jezza was talking about joint EU/UK deals as opposed to independent UK ones.
    Even that would be a concession from the EU, would it not? Laura K pressed Corbyn quite strongly on this point and Corbyn reverted to saying these are just aspirations, we don't need a Plan B etc. etc.
    It may well not be to the EU taste, but I understood it to be Jezzas suggestion.
    So what we now need to hear is what the EU think of the suggestion. I have to say, I don't think this was the smartest move by Labour.
    Bloomberg sources seem to think it would get a positive hearing.
    I am sure the EU would be delighted to have the UK in the same position as Turkey.

    Just to reiterate, Turkey is in the wonderful position of having to give tariff free access to all those countries that have FTAs with the EU but is not allowed the same tariff free access in return.

    The deal is horrendously one sided and does not serve them well at all. They had said that if TTIP was passed they would be forced to leave the CU.
    Until we get PM Jezza signing on the dotted line it is just politrix.

    Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    Certainly the biggest political and cultural divide at the moment is between the Leave and Corbyn Labour voting DEs and the Remain and Tory voting ABs
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,511
    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 2,114
    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    Agree. And they are equally entitled to vote for an end to public sector pay freeze, outsourcing, and more money for the NHS without a chorus of Marxist at them.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875

    Jonathan said:

    Corbyn's supporters seem to think he has played a blinder but it is not what tge voters afe saying on the vox pops I have seen - general attitude is they want completely out of the EU

    Bubble.
    They were on Sky and BBC main news channels
    If this can be painted as Corbz being naive as to how negotiations work, and betraying his Leaver voters at the same time by failing to aspire to more than a permanent fudge, the Tories will get a poll uptick.

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    dixiedean said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    Agree. And they are equally entitled to vote for an end to public sector pay freeze, outsourcing, and more money for the NHS without a chorus of Marxist at them.
    LOL. Touche.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    alex. said:

    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...

    I have only just started looking at the detail but I think Jezza was talking about joint EU/UK deals as opposed to independent UK ones.
    Even that would be a concession from the EU, would it not? Laura K pressed Corbyn quite strongly on this point and Corbyn reverted to saying these are just aspirations, we don't need a Plan B etc. etc.
    It may well not be to the EU taste, but I understood it to be Jezzas suggestion.
    So what we now need to hear is what the EU think of the suggestion. I have to say, I don't think this was the smartest move by Labour.
    Bloomberg sources seem to think it would get a positive hearing.
    I am sure the EU would be delighted to have the UK in the same position as Turkey.

    Just to reiterate, Turkey is in the wonderful position of having to give tariff free access to all those countries that have FTAs with the EU but is not allowed the same tariff free access in return.

    The deal is horrendously one sided and does not serve them well at all. They had said that if TTIP was passed they would be forced to leave the CU.
    Until we get PM Jezza signing on the dotted line it is just politrix.

    Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
    You see, I think you are wrong here. Corbyn had been doing a very good job of saying things like "I want a Brexit that's good for jobs", for instance. What he's done today is put forward a proposal of what he would actually do. I'm struggling to see the political advantage of this move.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    Foxy said:



    Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.

    I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,439
    I know Economics is a tricky subject, and I know people disagree. However it's simply not so tricky that you might imagine Corbyn to be wiser (on Economics) than a lemon.

    The CBI therefore are a shambles. I've no idea how they managed to get there, but get there they did.

  • Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    In my opinion virtually no one and immigration, as long as it is controlled for our economic needs, is not an issue for me at all
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,511
    Omnium said:

    I know Economics is a tricky subject, and I know people disagree. However it's simply not so tricky that you might imagine Corbyn to be wiser (on Economics) than a lemon.

    The CBI therefore are a shambles. I've no idea how they managed to get there, but get there they did.

    I think you missed the 'in your (not so humble) opinion' bit out there, just saying :smile:
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    By reducing undercutting of their wages and pressure on the services and housing they need
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    Because they believe (wrongly in my opinion) that immigrants are taking jobs. They also believe they are taking housing and putting a strain on vital services. They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.

    It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society.

  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    tlg86 said:

    Foxy said:

    alex. said:

    Isn't THE reason the Govt have ruled out a Customs Union the lack of ability to do independent trade deals based on what the EU are saying? And Labour's position is being part of a Customs Union whilst being able to conduct independent trade deals? So if Brussels really are looking "kindly" at the proposal, then it should be easy enough for the Govt to adopt it as their policy...

    I have only just started looking at the detail but I think Jezza was talking about joint EU/UK deals as opposed to independent UK ones.
    Even that would be a concession from the EU, would it not? Laura K pressed Corbyn quite strongly on this point and Corbyn reverted to saying these are just aspirations, we don't need a Plan B etc. etc.
    It may well not be to the EU taste, but I understood it to be Jezzas suggestion.
    So what we now need to hear is what the EU think of the suggestion. I have to say, I don't think this was the smartest move by Labour.
    Bloomberg sources seem to think it would get a positive hearing.
    I am sure the EU would be delighted to have the UK in the same position as Turkey.

    Just to reiterate, Turkey is in the wonderful position of having to give tariff free access to all those countries that have FTAs with the EU but is not allowed the same tariff free access in return.

    The deal is horrendously one sided and does not serve them well at all. They had said that if TTIP was passed they would be forced to leave the CU.
    Until we get PM Jezza signing on the dotted line it is just politrix.

    Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.
    I agree it is just politics at the moment. But there are some on here (like Mr TSE) who actually seem to believe Corbyn's plan is a good one. They are deluded.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,773
    edited February 26
    On the EU involving the UK in future third party trade deals.

    It's often said that being in a Customs Union prevents the UK having its own trade deals. That's not strictly the case. The UK will have its own trade deals, and needs to have them, whether it is in a customs union or not. The problem for Britain is that having given the third party the access it wants through the EU customs union, the third party has no incentive to reciprocate.and to open its markets to the UK. This incidentally isn't a problem limited to being in a customs union. It applies also to any trade deal rolled over from an EU agreement.

    The UK can deal with this reluctance of the third party to open its markets in two ways.

    It can offer third parties preferential arrangements that go beyond tariff rates. For example on access to services.

    It can ask the EU to include the UK in their negotiations with third parties, so the UK gets the same access as the EU. The EU doesn't owe the UK any favours and doesn't derive any direct benefit from doing so, so it will ask what it gets from the arrangement. It could derive ak significant indirect benefit. The addition of the UK market to the EU one makes for a more compelling offer to the third party, allowing it to drive a harder bargain. Keeping the UK closely aligned with the EU way of doing things would be a prize for the EU. It's possible the UK would offer more explicit quids pro quo. The UK would with this cooperation not only be able to get access to third party markets while in a customs union. It would get better access than it could on its own. Corbyn may be onto something here.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 2,439

    Omnium said:

    I know Economics is a tricky subject, and I know people disagree. However it's simply not so tricky that you might imagine Corbyn to be wiser (on Economics) than a lemon.

    The CBI therefore are a shambles. I've no idea how they managed to get there, but get there they did.

    I think you missed the 'in your (not so humble) opinion' bit out there, just saying :smile:
    Happy to stand corrected. Please do treat what I wrote in that light, and anything I may in future write should also be treated similarly. Whether that applies here is perhaps dangerously recursive.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,135
    edited February 26
    O/T

    Minus 8 tonight in Rome.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3169070
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,211

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    People don't need to "accurately judge" it - they just need to believe it.
  • I remember yes minister where jim and sir humphrey heard the pm was smiling upon a plan to close the DAA..... became smiling AT the plan ....ie laughable by the episode end....

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875
    edited February 26

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    Honestly?

    Mr Restricted Supply of workers drives higher wages and Mrs Less competition for scarce public services would like to meet you, to understand how anyone couldn't understand that unrestricted EU immigration can make life worse for many groups.

    I thought we'd moved on from this, anyway, Mr Gardenwalker wrote a very good post ceding the 'immigration is always wonderful for everyone' position a couple of weeks ago.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    Because they believe (wrongly in my opinion) that immigrants are taking jobs. They also believe they are taking housing and putting a strain on vital services. They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.

    It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society.

    Just as the ideal coalition for the upper middle class was a Tory LD one, the ideal coalition for the low skilled working class would be a Labour UKIP one
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,329

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,547
    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:



    Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.

    I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
    I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.

    I even include immigration in that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    edited February 26

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:



    Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.

    I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
    I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.

    I even include immigration in that.
    Cutting EU immigration is the one Brexit principle that is non negotiable for most Leave voters beyond of course actually leaving the EU
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,280
    edited February 26

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    Because they believe (wrongly in my opinion) that immigrants are taking jobs. They also believe they are taking housing and putting a strain on vital services. They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.

    It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society.

    From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,822

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:



    Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.

    I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
    I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.

    I even include immigration in that.
    On the other hand to the random leaver in the street proposing that we remain in a Customs Union with the EU doesn't sound much like we're leaving. It's still a union.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,280
    Pulpstar said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    I understand all the economic arguments ( And voted remain). Fundamentally though I like dark skies and open countryside. More people makes that harder to attain..
    You are having a fucking laugh aren't you? Which exact bit of open countryside is polluted by immigrants? Which exactly?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their famat them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    Because they believe (wrongly in my opinion) that immigrants are taking jobs. They also believe they are taking housing and putting a strain on vital services. They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.

    It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society.

    From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.
    And in a sentence you have encapsulated why the Remain side lost the referendum!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,511
    Mortimer said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    Honestly?

    Mr Restricted Supply of workers drives higher wages and Mrs Less competition for scarce public services would like to meet you, to understand how anyone couldn't understand that unrestricted EU immigration can make life worse for many groups.

    I thought we'd moved on from this, anyway, Mr Gardenwalker wrote a very good post ceding the 'immigration is wonderful' position a couple of weeks ago.
    If you pursue that logic whilst ignoring the value added to the economy, taxation and public services by immigrants, you are arguing for a de-populated UK.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,841
    alex. said:

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:



    Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.

    I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
    I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.

    I even include immigration in that.
    On the other hand to the random leaver in the street proposing that we remain in a Customs Union with the EU doesn't sound much like we're leaving. It's still a union.
    Again, I have to ask, how many Leave voters do you think were motivated by the thought of trade deals with China and the USA et al?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 4,536
    A reminder to everyone on here who attaches far too much importance to news stories.

    We were told the public didn't care about the Corbyn "Czech spy story" - well guess what - only 3% of people are even aware of the story - irrespective of what they think of it.

    The detail of what Corbyn said today won't matter in the slightest. All that could matter is if there is a perception that he is moving in a way that people like / dislike.

    https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK?original_referer=http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/03/04/the-latest-batch-of-ashcroft-marginals-polling-finds/&tw_i=573192912663650304&tw_p=tweetembed
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,511
    AnneJGP said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    People don't need to "accurately judge" it - they just need to believe it.

    Yes, that's a valid point. It was the "accurately judge" that caught my eye.

    There's trouble brewing though - either immigration won't come down as promised post-brexit or if it does come down it isn't going to improve the lot of anyone.
  • Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity

    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    Max gave a good anecdote relating to this on Saturday:

    ' Indeed, a remainer friend of mine has just lived through this. She's had Nigerian neighbours for the last two years, they've sold and an "investor" bought the house who has rented it out as a HMO to five Romanians. A few days ago she said "I get why people voted leave" and was asking for advice on how to have the landlord sanctioned and the people evicted. Her reasons - they are loud, they play music late into the night, they shout at each other all the time, they leave rubbish out on the front lawn, they are constantly drunk and they "leer" at her when she leaves the house if they are on the front lawn.

    She used to wear "living next to Africans" as a badge of non-racist/leaver honour. '

    Now think what might be the effect when its not five Romanians moving into the house next door but five thousand East European Roma moving into a town like Rotherham.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,412
    stodge said:

    stevef said:

    I would have thought Theresa May and most Tories would sign up to the Corbyn concept of the UK belonging to a customs union BUT at the same time being able to have the say on making trade deals elsewhere. The problem is that the EU doesnt allow any other country this.

    Does this mean that the EU will agree to the UK belonging to a customs union AND being free to negotiate trade deals elsewhere. Is that what "looking kindly" means?

    The ball is in the EU court. Lets hear from the EU soon -this week?

    Yes, this is the key point. IF the UK goes into a customs union with the EU we will not be able to make any advantageous trade deals with non-EU countries but will in effect have the same terms as the EU (because we will be in the CU with them).

    The anti-CU argument asserts the UK can get better deals on its own (presumably that's the message May, Davis, Johnson and Fox will be re-iterating ad nauseam in the next few weeks). The problem is no one knows that - yes, I'm sure we will get nice deals with Canada, Australia and New Zealand but what about China, India and the other developing countries ?

    Why should they be nice to us in deference to the much larger market that is the EU ?

    The real problem is - and utter this sotto voce - that the rest of the world is not particularly free trade.

    The Americans aren't particularly (at least certainly not under Trump). Look at how they are attempting to "renegotiate" NAFTA, and how they've decided their existing FTA with South Korea doesn't work. And even when they do deign to enter into FTAs, the requirements for US dominated ISDS to police them make them pretty unattractive,

    The Chinese aren't that keen either: their deal with Switzerland is extremely one-sided, for example. They also demand control of dispute resolution mechanisms. And India is a classic example of government being captured by producer interests.

    The countries that generally are (quite) pro-Free Trade are mid-sized countries. So, South Korea, Canada, Switzerland, and Australia to name a few. The issue here is that the EU already has deals with three of those four, so our deals there will largely only replicate what we already have.

    I really don't understand why Dr Fox has ruled out membership of EFTA. (Not EFTA/EEA, just simple EFTA.) It comes with a host of deals with Canada, etc. It does not preclude us making our own arrangements. It could even begin to generate a European counterweight to the EU.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,280
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call forsterity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their famat them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    Because they believe (wrongly in my opinion) that immigrants are taking jobs. They also believe they are taking housing and putting a strain on vital services. They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there, there would be more jobs, more services and more houses available to them.

    It may be wrong but it is a powerful argument for people at the bottom of society.

    From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.
    And in a sentence you have encapsulated why the Remain side lost the referendum!
    Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."

    Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,511
    AndyJS said:

    O/T

    Minus 8 tonight in Rome.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/3169070


    I hope it improves markedely within the next month - going on a Med cruise at the end of March. Brrr!
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,875

    Mortimer said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    Honestly?

    Mr Restricted Supply of workers drives higher wages and Mrs Less competition for scarce public services would like to meet you, to understand how anyone couldn't understand that unrestricted EU immigration can make life worse for many groups.

    I thought we'd moved on from this, anyway, Mr Gardenwalker wrote a very good post ceding the 'immigration is wonderful' position a couple of weeks ago.
    If you pursue that logic whilst ignoring the value added to the economy, taxation and public services by immigrants, you are arguing for a de-populated UK.
    Immigration undoubtedly helps my comfortable middle class lifestyle, but then I don't have an awful lot of job competition, own a business, and eat out a lot. However, were I less lucky in life, I suspect I'd be very frustrated by unrestricted EU immigration.
  • TOPPING said:


    From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.

    It must strange be so arrogant as to genuinely believe you are so vastly superior to the majority of the population who only exist to serve as disposable labour for you.

  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,907

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:



    Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.

    I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
    I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.

    I even include immigration in that.
    You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,280

    TOPPING said:


    From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.

    It must strange be so arrogant as to genuinely believe you are so vastly superior to the majority of the population who only exist to serve as disposable labour for you.

    Blimey - all I do is quote your own words back at you and you go off on one.

    "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,907

    AnneJGP said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    People don't need to "accurately judge" it - they just need to believe it.

    Yes, that's a valid point. It was the "accurately judge" that caught my eye.

    There's trouble brewing though - either immigration won't come down as promised post-brexit or if it does come down it isn't going to improve the lot of anyone.
    Or even that it does come down, but as the immigrants spread around the country more widely they become more noticeable.
  • TOPPING said:


    Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."

    Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.

    Nope. I believe the idea is simplistic. You believe simplistic ideas as well - like the economy is the most important thing in people's lives or that GDP growth is good even when it means GDP per capita is lower.

    These are simplistic (and wrong) ideas but I would not call you a simpleton. There are far too many other terms I could use for you.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,280
    edited February 26

    Danny565 said:

    Foxy said:



    Though only a tiny percent are interested in Fox's ficticious trade deals.

    I'm still waiting for any kind of polling evidence that trade deals were a significant motivator for Leave voters. Two different PB Brexiteers have promised it to me now, but still no sign of it.
    I’m unconvinced the mass of Brexit opinion is troubled by *any* detail of our post-Brexit status, so long as they think we are Leaving.

    I even include immigration in that.
    You may well be right - but you are the first person I have heard saying that. I remember seeing John Redwood getting completely humiliated in an interview where he was clearly not at all well informed about some details, finally resorting to "I just want to leave." I wondered at the time if it was as simple as that.
    It's just as simple as that.

    People are fed up, unhappy, not being paid enough, insecure, scared. They know that whoever they vote for at a GE, the government gets in (and they have the t-shirt to prove it), so given one chance to hit back at The Man, they took it. And who can blame them.

    The tragi-comic element is seeing people who believe themselves to cut a more intellectual dash floundering when pushed as to why they voted Leave. What hurts almost more than anything is to have David Davis (David Davis!) tell them that they got it wrong and that we were sovereign all along, just that it didn't feel like it.

    As you can see from this evening, even arch PB Leavers think Leavers are a bunch of simpletons.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 11,019
    edited February 26
    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    stevef said:

    I would have thought Theresa May and most Tories would sign up to the Corbyn concept of the UK belonging to a customs union BUT at the same time being able to have the say on making trade deals elsewhere. The problem is that the EU doesnt allow any other country this.

    Does this mean that the EU will agree to the UK belonging to a customs union AND being free to negotiate trade deals elsewhere. Is that what "looking kindly" means?

    The ball is in the EU court. Lets hear from the EU soon -this week?

    Yes, this is the key point. IF the UK goes into a customs union with the EU we will not be able to make any advantageous trade deals with non-EU countries but will in effect have the same terms as the EU (because we will be in the CU with them).

    The anti-CU argument asserts the UK can get better deals on its own (presumably that's the message May, Davis, Johnson and Fox will be re-iterating ad nauseam in the next few weeks). The problem is no one knows that - yes, I'm sure we will get nice deals with Canada, Australia and New Zealand but what about China, India and the other developing countries ?

    Why should they be nice to us in deference to the much larger market that is the EU ?

    The real problem is - and utter this sotto voce - that the rest of the world is not particularly free trade.

    The Americans aren't particularly (at least certainly not under Trump). Look at how they are attempting to "renegotiate" NAFTA, and how they've decided their existing FTA with South Korea doesn't work. And even when they do deign to enter into FTAs, the requirements for US dominated ISDS to police them make them pretty unattractive,

    The Chinese aren't that keen either: their deal with Switzerland is extremely one-sided, for example. They also demand control of dispute resolution mechanisms. And India is a classic example of government being captured by producer interests.

    The countries that generally are (quite) pro-Free Trade are mid-sized countries. So, South Korea, Canada, Switzerland, and Australia to name a few. The issue here is that the EU already has deals with three of those four, so our deals there will largely only replicate what we already have.

    I really don't understand why Dr Fox has ruled out membership of EFTA. (Not EFTA/EEA, just simple EFTA.) It comes with a host of deals with Canada, etc. It does not preclude us making our own arrangements. It could even begin to generate a European counterweight to the EU.
    Aren't many countries which are pro free trade those with big surpluses in some areas (raw materials and food for example) and a lack of internal output in other areas (manufacturing for example) ?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,517

    Corbyn's supporters seem to think he has played a blinder but it is not what the voters are saying on the vox pops I have seen - general attitude is they want completely out of the EU

  • TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:


    From the horse's mouth: most Leavers (as per @HYUFD's endless polls quoting immigration as the key concern) are simpletons.

    It must strange be so arrogant as to genuinely believe you are so vastly superior to the majority of the population who only exist to serve as disposable labour for you.

    Blimey - all I do is quote your own words back at you and you go off on one.

    "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."
    Nope you misquoted. A very common tactic from you when you cannot argue any other way.

    Saying an idea is simplistic is not the same as saying people are simpletons. It is only arrogant elitists like you who believe they are the same.

    As I said you have some simplistic ideas as well. You display them daily on here.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,280
    edited February 26

    TOPPING said:


    Not me, guv - Richard PB Leaver Of Note Tyndall: "They believe the rather simplistic idea that if the immigrants were not there..."

    Even Leavers think Leavers are simpletons.

    Nope. I believe the idea is simplistic. You believe simplistic ideas as well - like the economy is the most important thing in people's lives or that GDP growth is good even when it means GDP per capita is lower.

    These are simplistic (and wrong) ideas but I would not call you a simpleton. There are far too many other terms I could use for you.
    Nah - not even close.

    You said that the Leavers believed a simplistic idea. Ergo they are simpletons.

    What I believe about the economy and GDP (pause for chuckle at your adoption of the hard left's dismissal of GDP as being any kind of relevant measure) you would take 10,000 years to understand.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,488

    Ishmael_Z said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    TGOHF said:

    The CBI ? Lol.


    Gove -and Harris get it. He doesn’t miss a few on here...

    Strikes me that article is more a call for the policies of Corbyn than those of Michael Gove. It criticises the deindustrialisation of the 80's and of austerity. It also states that for many life was more secure 40 years ago.
    It does not seem a cri de coeur for a radical environmental policy or free trade deals with Korea.
    For many working class Leave voters they voted for Brexit to cut immigration and then for Corbyn to try and revive heavy industry and end austerity
    Indeed many did. Although reviving heavy industry may be a stretch, decent secure longer term employment for the low skilled was important. That ties in with immigration of course.
    Yes, Brexit followed by a Corbyn premiership that sees less low skilled immigration undercutting their wages and ends austerity and cuts to the public sector and is pro Union may well be in the interests of the working class, particularly the low skilled working class.

    Whether it is in the interests of the economy as a whole is another matter
    And, you know, there is no such thing as the economy as a whole. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

    Why should the low-skilled working class care about the economy as a whole, rather than themselves and their families? Nobody claims that trickle down is much of a thing any more, and if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish, they are entitled to vote accordingly without a chorus of pram-detoyers screeching "xenophobe" at them.
    "...if they accurately judge that restricting immigration might make their lives marginally less rubbish..."

    This is the bit that genuinely baffles me. How would restricting immigration make anyone's life less rubbish? It's a genuine question.
    Because market forces exist. The more people applying for a job, the lower you can pitch the wages. The more applicants for social housing, the less to go round. I am baffled at your bafflement; perhaps you are overly focused on questions of race and country of origin? Immigrants are just people; immigration just happens to be the only aspect of population growth which is controllable.
This discussion has been closed.