ronmcd wrote:There it is. Again.

https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/stat ... 7427258368

This is the shadow trade secretary. You know, Barry Gardiner. By definition, this is a Hard Brexit position.

Brexit means leaving the single market and the customs union. Here’s why
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw

Byron wrote:

ronmcd wrote:There it is. Again.

https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/stat ... 7427258368

This is the shadow trade secretary. You know, Barry Gardiner. By definition, this is a Hard Brexit position.

Brexit means leaving the single market and the customs union. Here’s why
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw

He's presumably positioning Labour for the next general, but hasn't learned the tap-dance: since the ex-Kippers are a minority of the Labour vote, he's gotta pay more attention to the Remainers, who make up the bulk of Labour voters even in all those Leave seats. Take 'em for granted, and there's no guarantee they'll stick around.

Tracer Tong wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

However, the political price to be paid for such access is correspondingly high, and runs directly counter to the leavers’ four objectives. In the EEA, Britain would be obliged to keep the four freedoms, including the free movement of people, so no regaining control of our borders; align its regulatory regime with the EU’s – so no regaining sovereignty (in fact we would no longer have a seat at the table so there would actually be a reduction of sovereignty); follow ECJ rulings; and still pay into the EU budget.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw

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? I note Brexiteers are very keen on trade deals.

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.

So Labour not only opposes single market and customs union - it's against even an *agreement* with the customs union

It means Labour's position on Brexit is now the same as Liam Fox's.

It means Philip Hammond's Brexit stance is milder than that of the official opposition.

Owen Jones has now deleted this tweet. The hard left are becoming more hard right than the hard right.

Matt_B wrote:So, basically what he's saying is that he's Jacob Rees-Mogg minus the tweed suit and some elocution lessons?

ronmcd wrote:

Matt_B wrote:So, basically what he's saying is that he's Jacob Rees-Mogg minus the tweed suit and some elocution lessons?

I read that as electrocution.

ronmcd wrote:

So Labour not only opposes single market and customs union - it's against even an *agreement* with the customs union

https://twitter.com/Freedland/status/889547481733844992

It means Labour's position on Brexit is now the same as Liam Fox's.

It means Philip Hammond's Brexit stance is milder than that of the official opposition.

ronmcd wrote:Fuck you, labour.

Tracer Tong wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

However, the political price to be paid for such access is correspondingly high, and runs directly counter to the leavers’ four objectives. In the EEA, Britain would be obliged to keep the four freedoms, including the free movement of people, so no regaining control of our borders; align its regulatory regime with the EU’s – so no regaining sovereignty (in fact we would no longer have a seat at the table so there would actually be a reduction of sovereignty); follow ECJ rulings; and still pay into the EU budget.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw

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? I note Brexiteers are very keen on trade deals.

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.

Byron wrote:Plenty factors counted against the Lib Dems. Reality of Brexit hasn't bitten, people have other priorities, no-one's forgotten the Con-Dems, and Labour played to both sides, promising to achieve the benefits of the EEA. Add in Timmy and they had a battle royale.

Labour openly supporting hard Brexit, against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of their members, and in the face of tangible hardship caused by the whole fiasco, very different proposition.

GrahamH wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

However, the political price to be paid for such access is correspondingly high, and runs directly counter to the leavers’ four objectives. In the EEA, Britain would be obliged to keep the four freedoms, including the free movement of people, so no regaining control of our borders; align its regulatory regime with the EU’s – so no regaining sovereignty (in fact we would no longer have a seat at the table so there would actually be a reduction of sovereignty); follow ECJ rulings; and still pay into the EU budget.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw

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? I note Brexiteers are very keen on trade deals.

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'.

Tracer Tong wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

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? I note Brexiteers are very keen on trade deals.

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?

Jeremy Corbyn facing growing backlash over Brexit stance

Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, contradicted the Labour leader, claiming there is no need to leave the single market on leaving the European Union

Jeremy Corbyn is facing a growing backlash from his colleagues after he explicitly said Labour in government would not seek to retain membership of the single market after Brexit.

Contradicting the Labour leader, Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, however, claimed there is no need to leave the single market on leaving the European Union and that access could be maintained through a Norway-style model.

Mr Jones told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “If we’re not in the single market, we would be having a debate about how to access it, not how to leave it.

“There is no need to leave the single market, even as we leave the EU,” he added, in comments that were echoed by Labour MPs on social media, once again highlighting the torturous position the party is in over Brexit.

The comments came after Mr Corbyn told BBC’s Andrew Marr Show that Britain would have to leave membership of the single market because it was “inextricably linked” to membership of the bloc. While the party’s manifesto for the general election pledged to focus on “retaining the benefits” of the single market and customs union, it was not explicit on whether Britain would actually remain inside the institutions.

More...

Gardiner wrote:“So the EU could do a deal with another country – let's say America – which we would be bound by in the UK, we would have to accept the liberalisation of our markets, we would have to accept their goods coming into our markets on the terms agreed by Europe which could be prejudicial to us but we would not have the same access into America's markets, we would be bound to try and negotiate it. But why would America give us that access when it's got all the liberalisation of our market that it wants?
“It's a disaster.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 57741.html