1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

If his tests are not met, Labour will not back the deal in the commons.

http://labourlist.org/2017/03/keir-star ... arliament/

Byron wrote:Yes, I'm aware of the yawnsome six tests, having already posted them. They're not a commitment to staying in the EEA, even if, in reality, that's the only way they'll be met. They could just as easily lead to the UK crashing out the EU without a deal.

GrahamH wrote:

Byron wrote:Yes, I'm aware of the yawnsome six tests, having already posted them. They're not a commitment to staying in the EEA, even if, in reality, that's the only way they'll be met. They could just as easily lead to the UK crashing out the EU without a deal.

What is the relevance to staying in the EEA except for the those benefits? If those benefits can be secured without EEA membership why oppose that?

Scot Dutchy wrote:You cant get EEA benefits outside the EEA. That is May's fantasy Brexit. But the EEA is not the answer. You get the single market but at a price and you have to accept any rules that the EU makes and accept the four principles. What is the whole purpose of Brexit? Not a half baked cake.

ronmcd wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Byron wrote:Yes, I'm aware of the yawnsome six tests, having already posted them. They're not a commitment to staying in the EEA, even if, in reality, that's the only way they'll be met. They could just as easily lead to the UK crashing out the EU without a deal.

What is the relevance to staying in the EEA except for the those benefits? If those benefits can be secured without EEA membership why oppose that?

Is Byron not saying the only way to get those benefits IS to be in EEA?

It's a little like the idea post June 2016 from the brexiteers that we would have the same benefits of EU membership without the bad bits.

ronmcd wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:You cant get EEA benefits outside the EEA. That is May's fantasy Brexit. But the EEA is not the answer. You get the single market but at a price and you have to accept any rules that the EU makes and accept the four principles. What is the whole purpose of Brexit? Not a half baked cake.

We're in the shit, and no mistake.

ronmcd wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Byron wrote:Yes, I'm aware of the yawnsome six tests, having already posted them. They're not a commitment to staying in the EEA, even if, in reality, that's the only way they'll be met. They could just as easily lead to the UK crashing out the EU without a deal.

What is the relevance to staying in the EEA except for the those benefits? If those benefits can be secured without EEA membership why oppose that?

Is Byron not saying the only way to get those benefits IS to be in EEA?

It's a little like the idea post June 2016 from the brexiteers that we would have the same benefits of EU membership without the bad bits.

chairman bill wrote:But those were the things the Tories said they'd deliver. So Labour is saying, deliver that or we'll vote down any other deal you offer. Opposing Article 50 would have been pointless, given the Tory majority, and the fact that Labour accepted the referendum result, on what basis would they oppose it anyway?

GrahamH wrote:What is the relevance to staying in the EEA except for the those benefits? If those benefits can be secured without EEA membership why oppose that?
And surely any opposition to Tory Brexit "could just as easily lead to the UK crashing out the EU without a deal". Insisting on EEA membership when May has already ruled that out being a prime example.

What do you want Labour to do that will suck up all those militant remainer votes, lose no Leaver votes and guarantee prosperity without risk? Maybe they could jump into an alternate universe.

Byron wrote:
Never mind "militant" Remain voters: Labour clearly advocating the EEA would build consensus among moderates and many Europhiles, as the SNP did with its own EEA options. Labour's current policy pleases no side: hardcore Brexiters will go with the Tories; and Remainers of all stripes, alienated by Labour, will be tempted by the Lib Dems. Unless you're devoted to Lexit, there's no point to it.

Byron wrote:It's eerily similar to a slice of SLab seppuku. I'd assumed that English Labour would be spared by their facing Timmay!, not Salmond or Sturgeon, but at this rate, who knows.

As for Labour's assumptions about its electorate, John Curtice noted that even in Brexit heartlands, among Labour voters, Remain enjoyed a clear majority. Corbyn's mistaken majorities in Labour seats with majorities of Labour voters, although "mistaken" may be unfair, since this devotee of Bennism doesn't need much persuading to junk the EU so Labour can intervene in the economy as it pleases.

If that economy's removed from the single market, it'll need divine intervention to save it.