Labour’s u-turn on supporting the Brexit Referendum result.

[TheaSaurass]

Can anyone believe a policy this party campaigns on for votes at a general election?

Media supporters may call it a ‘shift’, but it’s a honking great u-turn, as weeks ago Corbyn on a Sunday political programme was asked to clarify Labour’s actual position (as attracted Leave and Remain votes at the last election) and he stated that Labour's position was that the UK WAS leaving the Single Market, otherwise we wouldn't be leaving.

And while the man currently setting Labour policy Keir Starmer says the time for “constructive ambiguity” is over this totally undermines the government’s position ahead of EU negotiations resuming next week.

Instead of getting on with Brexit, Labour will only support a transitional period from 2021 to 2023 (leaving open the option to stay in for good), so while May did not get the election result she wanted, who can say she wasn’t right not to trust a parliamentary Labour Party pretending they supported Brexit, to get government legislation through parliament.

Clearly they NOW feel there are more votes for leaving the question if we leave the EU, open.

“Labour makes dramatic shift on Brexit and single market”

”Labour is to announce a dramatic policy shift by backing continued membership of the EU single market beyond March 2019, when Britain leaves the EU, establishing a clear dividing line with the Tories on Brexit for the first time.”

”In a move that positions it decisively as the party of “soft Brexit”, Labour will support full participation in the single market and customs union during a lengthy “transitional period” that it believes could last between two and four years after the day of departure, it is to announce on Sunday.”

”This will mean that under a Labour government the UK would continue to abide by the EU’s free movement rules, accept the jurisdiction of the European court of justice on trade and economic issues, and pay into the EU budget for a period of years after Brexit, in the hope of lessening the shock of leaving to the UK economy. In a further move that will delight many pro-EU Labour backers, Jeremy Corbyn’s party will also leave open the option of the UK remaining a member of the customs union and single market for good, beyond the end of the transitional period.”

”The decision to stay inside the single market and abide by all EU rules during the transitional period, and possibly beyond, was agreed after a week of intense discussion at the top of the party. It was signed off by the leadership and key members of the shadow cabinet on Thursday, according to Starmer’s office.”

"Not that it really matters carolinesbeanies, and flattered as I am by that reference, it's not my real fake name.

My mistake, CarolinesBeanies thought you were calling me 'Yoko', but
I assume you're much to young to understand why I would have thought that..

I agree that Brexit is viewed as a political poisoned challice Cat, hence my respect to a lesser degree for TM on this, when all the big boys are running round pathetically in their not so big boy pants, but thats in a vastly majority remain parliament. Clearly I disagree with your perceived long term outcome of Brexit, and Labour would do better to listen to the likes of Dennis Skinner, rather than repeat the same mistakes they did in 2014 by voting him off the national executive. (Labour went on to lose 26 seats in the 2015 GE) If you believe Dennis Skinner voted leave to ensure more in his homelands were unemployed and worse off, you are hugely mistaken.

Do you really think its an outrageous request to ask what the 'bill' is for Cat?

In sales speak, youre asking the buyer to be the seller too. We have to 'buy' our exit. That has been made clear to us. Do you not even think its a slightly odd approach to then ask the buyer to decide the price?
IMO, the reality is indeed, that the EU themselves havent a clue. Legal opinion is split as to whether theres even a bill to be paid, and if so, on what. Add to that the 'punitive' element that they need to impose (that theyve been highly public about) to deter other members from leaving, how exactly would you propose we name the 'punitive' price for cancelling our club membership? No one but no one walks into a room as buyer and seller.

If the EU wish to put a price on single market access, they have to name it. If they want to charge a club membership cancellation fee, they have to name it.

Indeed, all these perceived experts in Brussels, the big boy negotiation teams, and not one of them can produce a figure?

As it stands, in the absence of any 'bill', Id be expecting to pay 0. Expecting anyone to debate on a forum what the bill should be, when the party demanding the payment cant produce one, is a tad fruitless.

In short, we're standing here waiting, with cash in our hands, and no one in Europe can tell us what they want us to pay?

So you did know that your chart had nothing whatsoever to do with what woman posted and you were indeed introducing the new Arron Banks pressure pint.

OK, for what it's worth, I think AB is trying to get 'the people' all riled up about the cost of 'the bill' in order to get the government worried about getting 'the bill' down, ie. not paying to enter the Single Market.

As we all know, there is a distinct lack of clarity as to whether the UK is going to ask to remain a member of the Single Market. AB and his friends seem to want a very Hard Brexit, and they want it soon. Hence the desire to apply pressure, now.

Personally, I think it's way too soon to get 'the people' riled about costs.

There's a reason we 'don't know what we're paying for'. And it's not wholly down to the EU.

As we all know, DD is stalling on proposing anything.

No matter how hard you try to put the cart before the horse (and your obsession with Aaron Banks) youre still missing the crux of the issue. If the cost to stay in the single market is 0, even your beloved Aaron Banks will support it. If the cost is 40% tariff on all goods, the entire nation will them them to sling their hook. Thats all there is to it.

Its irrelevant how Labour want to play party politics. Its irrelevant that they offer a single market policy to the voters. Its typical however, that they offer it without any cost implications, for the simple reason that at the moment, they can. Slap a 40% tariff on there and this cunning Labour plot suddenly turns into ridiculous economic suicide ....again.

So what do you think Labours intention is? Obtain a mandate to remain in the single market at any cost? Thats the reason so many of us support no deal. Not some obsessive aversion, or anti everything, but an utter awareness that until the EU name their price, theres no way Id walk in a room saying, yes weve got to have it, now please shaft me over a barrel.

The message from the elctorate is starting to get through. Divorce bill yes. Over 10bn and you best have a damn good reason for charging me.

'Your beloved Arron Banks'

Nothing to do with us!! We're on opposite sides of the debate. He's yours!

I disagree Yoko. The sycophantic obsession with Aaron Banks and neo fascists is all with remainers.

Aaron Banks wrote 'The Bad Boys of Brexit'!!! This issue has nothing to do with Remainers, please don't gaslight us! It's got everything to do with how Leave.EU chose to represent the issues to people who found it difficult to understand them. He's almost as much to blame as Farage.

It's certainly the role of the Opposition to oppose... but not to reverse a clear manifesto commitment out of pure opportunism. And I'm so glad somebody actually bothered to look and found the Conservative manifesto on their website as expected - too many of you will believe the most shameless propaganda so long as it is critical of the Tories.

We cannot implement the Brexit a majority of voters asked for and stay in the single market or customs union. 'Transition' is code for 'never leaving' and is not just unnecessary but unacceptable. We need to keep the hard end date of March 2019 to focus the EU's hive mind on the important matter at hand, sorting out our post-Brexit trading relationships with EU members. I doubt they will manage it, not when you remember the Walloons on their own almost derailed the (still not implemented) Canada-EU deal.

The EU is still fixated on their demand for making us pay a huge and entirely unlawful exit bribe, and their determination to interfere in the Irish border problem, which is none of their business, so it seems trade doesn't really interest them. Oh well, WTO it is. Fine with me.

And my guess is the EU shills on here outnumber all the other shills by about 5 to 1. And feel free to accuse, but you can take my word for it I'm a private citizen writing in a private capacity and not paid by anyone.

Interesting that brexiters appear to be disowning Banks. I wonder why that is?

wholly you're clearly not a shill. There is a certain house style to the shills on here, as well as a propensity for starting goady Brexit/anti-opposition threads.

wholly the Irish border problem has become an EU issue due to Brexit, it is entirely the fault and responsibility of those pushing to leave the EU that this is now an issue.

Wholly Father Your post is interesting. It sounds so authoritative. You say "We" with such certainty - as though you speak for a "We" that is cohesive and authoritative. "We" are going to do this, that, the other; "we" voted for "Brexit".

Actually

you have no authority whatsoever. There is no way at all I am going to believe you are a part of the government cabinet that has actual authority over what is going to happen with regard to Brexit. So you can promise nothing.

I'm picking up on this because the vacuous promises, delivered with no authority, were such a feature of the Leave campaign. Just in case there is one, single credulous person left reading, I think it is worth pointing out that statements about "we are going to do this, that, the other", when delivered by a Leave-espouser, in an authoritative tone, mean nothing.

Similarly "We voted for Brexit" is similarly incohesive. Analysis of voting has revealed (and continues to demonstrate) that the Leave vote was, and the Leave cohort remains, incredibly divided on the issue of what the desired outcome of their vote was, ie. what they were voting for.

Wholly I'm banging on about your authoritative use of "We" because you really have no legitimacy for it, you know.

Analysis of Leave voters after the referendum suggests that some 50% voted Leave, assuming it meant staying in the Single Market.

And (some) people involved in Leave campaigns also insist leaving the single market wasn't in the campaign.

There really is no "we".

And I agree with Yoko wrt the Irish border.

By the way WTO terms may be fine with you but I think it may play out very badly with the majority of the UK population.

"We" voted for more money for the NHS. Within 24 hours we were told we could forget that.

The UK's desire to leave the EU is exactly the cause of Irish border problems. Staying in the EEA/EFTA would get round that. Ireland uniting would also get round that. Or the preferred option of the extreme Leavers - getting Ireland to leave the EU would make the problem go away too.

Can anyone show which EU countries, or business, that want to go to WTO trade terms?

Currently the only reason that would happen is for POLITICAL, not COMMERCIAL reasons, as crusty old farts like Barnier and Juncker are not getting their way, that the UK coughs up Euro 60bil to Euro 100bil without knowing what the UK will get on Trade and borders etc

Why do so many in the UK side with the old geezers to the detriment to the UK.

EU businesses to do not want WTO trade, and they will have a say.

What was the comment today, how can you name a price when you don't know what your paying for.
This now seems to be the theme the negotiations are going, show us legally what we are paying for.
I bet the EU are hoping mad that instead of making us just pour more money into the EU we are asking for clarification of what we need to pay, how much and when.

They thought they could bully us, but it's not going to happen, and they are forecast to see their share of World Trade full over the next 10 years, so do you really think losing your 4th biggest trade partner is clever or stupid.
Who would want to lose that much trade, and do you really think business in the EU are not trying to twist arms.

In my experience (of working for a large European company) businesses and business people who do business within the EU want to remain in the single market. A FTA would very much be second best, and WTO potentially disastrous.

I think there is still (rightly or wrongly) a sense among business people that if forced to choose between WTO terms and remaining, the UK will step back from the brink. I suspect that this explains why many businesses have (so far) been rather reluctant to take concrete steps to address the problems that will be created by brexit, although companies are now starting to make decisions.

mummy2017 the aim of this stage of the negotiations is to establish what liabilities can reasonably/ legally be attributed to the UK upon leaving. Once the framework has been negotiated, then a sum can be calculated.

Misti, they gave us that list of what Liabilities were.
What they have not said is how it is to be interpreted.
Do we pay via how much we pay into the budget.
As 1/28 of the total.
By landmass?
Or on how many people live in the country as a percentage of total EU citizens.
They need to tell us how much of the debt belongs to us in detail.
As the EU produce the accounts not us.

You are confused.

The EU wrote a position paper. This is the starting point for negotiation, not the end point.

The UK has just put forward their 'position papers' and that JC Juncker immediately dismissed them as 'unsatisfactory' as he and Barnier will, until they get everything THEY want - which they can't as totally unreasonable to the UK's interests, and they know it, hence will only talk trade at the end od their schedule.

”The Brexit Files: A Rundown of the U.K.’s Position Papers”

P.S. AGAIN with the UK has to back down, and EU businesses selling far more to us won't have a say - are you for real, or even British, no matter where you live????

The EU is all about putting out 'rubbish' UK negotiating KNOWING there is a small army of people here, including MPs, that will PROJECT that propaganda at every opportunity.

The more, and longer we pay Brussels to spread our cash around the EU, the less we will have to spend here.

This is funny.

"the aim of this stage of the negotiations is to establish what liabilities can reasonably/ legally be attributed to the UK"

AKA, Dear UK, We havent a clue so could you tell us? Love EU. (PS We pay Neil Kinnock 90,000 a year in his EU pension as well as Mandelson, Blair etc etc can they be on your team please?
As well as securing their pensions, they did swear an oath of loyalty to us by the way, that if youve forgotten, does specifically superseded any oath of loyalty to the British people. Just saying. Love EU)

The EU's view on the financial settlement is here:

ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/position-paper-essential-principles-financial-settlement_en

Published in June. You've had nearly three months to read it.

You can read it all you like Misti, theres no legal basis for it whatsoever.

If there was a defined legal basis for calculating the financial settlement, there would be no need for negotiation.