mrjonno wrote:Blaming foreigners/immigrants for poor working conditions is aiming at the gutters.
National Socialism in action, nationalism + 'socialism' is fascism no difference between Labour and the Tories

GrahamH wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Of course not, but that's not Gardiner's argument. As it goes, I don't see much to disagree with in what he says.

Of course its not Gardiner's argument. The point is that what he argues for is not deliverable. The 52% cannot be possibly satisfied. Those wishing for the moon won't get it. . The things Gardiner says must be delivered are mutually incompatible. It is therefore an absurd position to take. He should be looking at what compromises can be made to get 'the best deal'.

What's not deliverable? What's incompatible?

A list of requirements were given for what constitutes an acceptable Brexit. I asked if a trade deal is possible that meets all those requirements. You answered 'of course not'.

GrahamH wrote:
The great hope of optimistic Brexiteers is that the UK will open up trade deals with the rest of the world that more than makes up for what is lost in the EU, but no such trade deals will be acceptable to Leave voters if they conflict with those requirements for Brexit (If Gardiners I right about those principles). Otherwise we merely trade ECJ for other international courts, have to comply with some other regulations, pay contributions to other institutions, accept immigration deals from other nations and so on. The Brexit ideals are not achievable. What Gardiner says must be done cannot be done as general principles. We can only move the deckchairs around a bit. There has been a lot of opposition to TTIP, but we may have to accept TTIP in place of EEA in the hope that opening up our markets and subjecting ourselves to US laws and regulations on trade will at least bring in some money. BUt that isa Brexit that conflicts with the supposed requirement of Brexit, unless you consider it has nothing to do with principle and is only about the EU.

Tracer Tong wrote:
Again, I don't think you're characterising Gardiner's position fairly.

Tracer Tong wrote:I didn't answer that question, but rather "IS it possible to have a trade deal that gives up no sovereignty, is not subject to anything but UK law and courts, has no implications for immigration and costs nothing?". Trivially, the answer is negative.

GrahamH wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
Again, I don't think you're characterising Gardiner's position fairly.

What do you think his position is, and what are the implications of that position as it related to what the UK might be able to do to meet the requirements of the 52%?

GrahamH wrote:
The, trivially, Gardiner can't possibly have what he says is required to meet the requirements of the 52%. They want trade deals, but will cede no sovereignty, want trade deals but will accept no law but British law, want trade deals but accept no concessions on immigration. As you say, these are impossible. Thus Gardiner is calling for the impossible or Gardiner is calling for ruin.

Tracer Tong wrote:
But that's not how he characterises what they want. He says they want:

to have control over our borders, to have sovereignty over our laws, not to submit to the European court of justice (ECJ), and not to pay money into the European budget.

The idea is therefore that whatever relationship Britain has with the EU in the future, these criteria must be met.

GrahamH wrote:

mrjonno wrote:Blaming foreigners/immigrants for poor working conditions is aiming at the gutters.
National Socialism in action, nationalism + 'socialism' is fascism no difference between Labour and the Tories

I agree, but who, other than UKIP, is 'Blaming foreigners/immigrants for poor working conditions'?

GrahamH wrote:I'll ask again, is it possible to have trade deals that meet all of Gardiner's criteria? If not his criteria can't be met and he is talking nonsense.

mrjonno wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

mrjonno wrote:Blaming foreigners/immigrants for poor working conditions is aiming at the gutters.
National Socialism in action, nationalism + 'socialism' is fascism no difference between Labour and the Tories

I agree, but who, other than UKIP, is 'Blaming foreigners/immigrants for poor working conditions'?

Mr Corbyn of course, anyone believes that shit is a Tory/UKIP/Nationalist

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/07/jeremy-corbyn-wholesale-eu-immigration-has-destroyed-conditions-british

Corbyn said he would prevent agencies from advertising jobs in central Europe - asking them to "advertise in the locality first". This idea draws on the "Preston model" adopted by that local authority, of trying to prioritise local suppliers for public sector contracts. The rules of the EU prevent this approach, seeing it as discrimination. 
In the future, foreign workers would "come here on the basis of the jobs available and their skill sets to go with it. What we wouldn't allow is this practice by agencies, who are quite disgraceful they way they do it - recruit a workforce, low paid - and bring them here in order to dismiss an existing workforce in the construction industry, then pay them low wages. It's appalling. And the only people who benefit are the companies."

GrahamH wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:
But that's not how he characterises what they want. He says they want:

to have control over our borders, to have sovereignty over our laws, not to submit to the European court of justice (ECJ), and not to pay money into the European budget.

The idea is therefore that whatever relationship Britain has with the EU in the future, these criteria must be met.

So you think it is not a matter of principle, just of dislike for the EU specifically? Because I think you just agreed that we can't have trade deals without sharing some sovereignty, accepting some international jurisdiction, easing immigration controls and probably paying some money toward the administration of such arrangements. I'll ask again, is it possible to have trade deals that meet all of Gardiner's criteria? If not his criteria can't be met and he is talking nonsense.

I don't know to what extent that may occur or whether the low pay point is fair. If that is happening on a large scale as described I would have some sympathy for doing something about it, but it does sound dubious and 'ukippy'.
In general employers and agencies have to advertise jobs where they can recruit workers but not just where the cheapest workers are to be found.

GrahamH wrote:Granted the situation could be very different after Brexit, but isn't that too late? What is the stance after a bad Brexit has bitten?

The alternative spin is Labour supporting the democratic process rather than being an elite subverting the will of the people. Where is the evidence that opposing Brexit is a big vote winner, rather than an electoral non-starter?

Byron wrote:Given that some no-name minister was pushed into the Guardian to argue the case, I suspect even Corbyn (or his advisors) know this.

Jeremy Corbyn is wrong. You don't have to be in the EU to be part of the single market. Via @FactCheck.

ronmcd wrote:

Jeremy Corbyn is wrong. You don't have to be in the EU to be part of the single market. Via @FactCheck.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status ... 2349990912

ronmcd wrote:

Byron wrote:Given that some no-name minister was pushed into the Guardian to argue the case, I suspect even Corbyn (or his advisors) know this.

Benny Gairden, a no-name minister? How dare you.