Labour conference: Delegates back call to defend EU free movement
Labour's annual conference has urged Jeremy Corbyn to include a commitment to the free movement of people in the party's next election manifesto. Labour's 2017 manifesto vowed to end free movement when the UK leaves the European Union. But delegates in Brighton have voted overwhelmingly to reject that - and to extend migrant rights in other areas.
Free movement between Australia & UK? Britain 'on brink of Aussie migration & trade deal' TRADE talks between Britain and Australia are due to open this week but immigration rules might have to be eased before any deal is struck.
Australians could be given free movement to the UK after Brexit
Australians could be given the right to live and work in the UK as part of a post-Brexit trade deal. UK International Trade Secretary Liz Truss said freedom of movement would form part of her talks about a deal. She insisted a deal with the country could be struck within a matter of months once Britain leaves the EU. The UK government has insisted that EU citizens will lose their right to free movement to the UK after Brexit.
Labour conference: Delegates back call to defend EU free movement
Labour's annual conference has urged Jeremy Corbyn to include a commitment to the free movement of people in the party's next election manifesto. Labour's 2017 manifesto vowed to end free movement when the UK leaves the European Union. But delegates in Brighton have voted overwhelmingly to reject that - and to extend migrant rights in other areas.
Free movement between Australia & UK? Britain 'on brink of Aussie migration & trade deal' TRADE talks between Britain and Australia are due to open this week but immigration rules might have to be eased before any deal is struck.
Australians could be given free movement to the UK after Brexit
Australians could be given the right to live and work in the UK as part of a post-Brexit trade deal. UK International Trade Secretary Liz Truss said freedom of movement would form part of her talks about a deal. She insisted a deal with the country could be struck within a matter of months once Britain leaves the EU. The UK government has insisted that EU citizens will lose their right to free movement to the UK after Brexit.
This was Corbyn's big opportunity to show the electorate just how good a leader he could be with an impassioned speech on the previous days court rulings.Boris was there for the taking as he was already on the back foot by the courts verdict,all he needed to do was to hammer home what the judges had started.Instead he let Boris off the hook with his weak deliverance of an instantly forgettable speech.Boris on the other hand came out fighting and reduced Corbyn to a bit part player at best,the tables had been turned,Boris relishing the encounter while Corbyn sitting like a naughty schoolboy being chastised.Yes,there were some things that could've been phrased better or not said at all.The overriding memory of yesterdays proceedings for me was Boris's passion and Corbyn's apathetic nature.On that showing Corbyn done nothing to show himself as a potential future leader,while it seems Boris's stock may have risen.
A good leader will inspire, and motivate their troops, and supporters. He just hasn't got it in him.
Johnson is desperate for a deal. Any deal. Or an election before Oct 31. Because without one of those things he is in deep doo-doo. Which is why he is harrumphing like the political lightweight he is.
Johnson is desperate for a deal. Any deal. Or an election before Oct 31. Because without one of those things he is in deep doo-doo. Which is why he is harrumphing like the political lightweight he is.
An agreement seems to getting further away due to his conduct.
It could hardly be said that his behaviour is endearing him to the opposition MPs that he will need on his side, to have any chance of getting the WA passed.
So even if he is really trying to get a deal...………………………..
The article seems to suggest that various organisations could deal with the difficulties that may arise rather than offer a solution. Any solution involving the WTO may not be straightforward.
Trump could cause world trade system to freeze up after vetoing appointment of judges, diplomats fear Seven-member World Trade Organization body makes rulings on arguments between countries
Donald Trump could cause the world’s trade dispute resolution system to freeze up after vetoing the appointment of judges to an appeals body, diplomats fear. The seven-member Appelate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which makes rulings on arguments between countries over trade, has already seen two judges leave, with a third going in December.
But the US President has blocked replacements, leaving just four judges to deal with a growing backlog of trade disputes. A minimum of three judges are needed to sign off on every appeals decision. Appointments to the Appellate Body are meant to be unanimously agreed by all 164 members, like all decisions at the WTO.
Several trade experts said the move seemed to fit Mr Trump’s ideology of favouring bilateral trade deals over the multi-lateral system embodied by the WTO.
“That example doesn’t make one optimistic,” he said. “We are in a true emergency where we should take into account that the end of the Appellate Body may come, either by design or by accident.”
“A process that could lead to a situation where the United States leaves the WTO in a huff is actually a situation where everyone loses, and the last thing we should be aiming for,” said Alice Tipping, a former New Zealand trade diplomat now at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.
Johnson is desperate for a deal. Any deal. Or an election before Oct 31. Because without one of those things he is in deep doo-doo. Which is why he is harrumphing like the political lightweight he is.
Major accuses PM of ‘destroying’ chances of agreement on Brexit
Sir John said Mr Johnson had only “lip service” to the Supreme Court ruling that the prorogation of Parliament had been unlawful and warned he could try to circumvent the law designed to prevent a no-deal break. He said he feared the Government could try to bypass the so-called Benn Act by an executive Order in Council, suspending it until after October 31 when the UK is set to leave the EU. “I should warn the Prime Minister that – if this route is taken – it will be in flagrant defiance of Parliament and utterly disrespectful to the Supreme Court,” he said. What next for Brexit? Follow key developments, expert analysis and multiple perspectives as the UK edges closer to leaving the EU “It would be a piece of political chicanery that no-one should ever forgive or forget.” Sir John said he increasingly feared the country was heading for a no-deal Brexit, and that any new deal with Brussels was likely to be “flimsy and partial”. He said the Prime Minister had “wilfully destroyed any hope of cross-party agreement” with his attack in the Commons of Wednesday.
The Lib Un-Dems party leader Jo Swinson who accuses others of using inappropriate language but is quite happy to back her party's slogan, 'Bollox To Brexit'. How very hypocritical of the Lib Un-Dems,yet another case of 'Do as I say not as I do', when it suits them.Hypocrites the lot of them.
The Lib Un-Dems party leader Jo Swinson who accuses others of using inappropriate language but is quite happy to back her party's slogan, 'Bollox To Brexit'. How very hypocritical of the Lib Un-Dems,yet another case of 'Do as I say not as I do', when it suits them.Hypocrites the lot of them.
One almost as bad as the other, I probably have to choose between Plaid, and the Greens.
Johnson is desperate for a deal. Any deal. Or an election before Oct 31. Because without one of those things he is in deep doo-doo. Which is why he is harrumphing like the political lightweight he is.
Why do you think that the Brexiteers aren't rioting over the Tories looking to give Australians freedom of movement, and the Labour Party voting to continue it with the EU, post Brexit?
Do you think that the general public, are prepared to threaten, but when it comes down to action, they seem more prepared to shout a bit, and then just get on with their lives?
I am amazed by the number of people that threaten to never vote again if we don't leave.
Like Parliament are going to suddenly wake up and compromise on a deal, just because a few people have threatened never to vote in future.
When I for one would be happy to see all Brexit Party, and UKIP voters, retiring from ticking ballot papers.
Sky have been out and about this week, interviewing people on street corners regarding Brexit.
I never fail to be disappointed by the inability of leave voters to produce a cogent argument for wanting to leave.
I am not sure if this is because I am biased, or that they don't have any.
Not to go back to the beginning, with a long argument, but calling for the referendum in the first place, was clearly a big mistake, as was the poorly thought out question that we were asked, in addition to the failure to stipulate the requirement for a super majority of say 60, or 65% in view of such a huge change.
So we are where we are.
Is it fair to blame politicians for the current mess?
The result of the referendum was almost 50/50.
So Parliament is as split as the country.
Theresa May gave away the Tory majority in the 2017 election.
The result of this election was a Hung Parliament.
No overall majority and almost another 50/50, between the Government and opposition parties.
The House of Commons have been able to agree on nothing except that no deal is not acceptable.
If the country had been allowed to vote on the various Brexit topics, instead of the House of Commons, I see no reason to have expected different results.
All leave voters seem to have resorted to advising Parliament to "just do it", like it may help in some way.
So it has taken us 3 years to discover that Parliament, and the country are equally divided on Brexit.
The majority of Tories are in favour of implementing the referendum result, despite the economic harm it will cause.
The opposition parties have a majority in favour of ignoring the result because of the economic damage and likely job losses.
Why should we then be surprised at the impasse when Parliament probably just reflects the views of the electorate;
I am struck that there seems to no end to the attempts by the Brexit fanatics to find an acceptable name for no deal. As if a better name might make it seem more acceptable.
If we go back to the days when no deal was better than a bad deal. It was just that, it was no deal, no bells, no whistles.
Then it became a managed no deal, as if there was such a thing, then a WTO Brexit, now a clean break Brexit.
The fact that during the referendum campaign no sort of no deal existed, and if we left with no deal at the end of October, we would be over there begging for a deal on 1st November.
Discussions would start with our side on their knees begging for a deal, but the priorities would be the payment of the money we owe them, and the Irish border, before we would be allowed to beg for any deal.
So we will subject this country to the havoc and chaos caused by a no deal Brexit, merely to delay the choice of whether we prefer a UK wide, or NI only backstop.
The biggest betrayal for me is the number of politicians that are currently claiming that no deal is what the electorate voted for. When this is clearly untrue.
Johnson is desperate for a deal. Any deal. Or an election before Oct 31. Because without one of those things he is in deep doo-doo. Which is why he is harrumphing like the political lightweight he is.
I think that you can easily argue that Boris will be toast if we don't leave at the end of October. This is completely his fault due to his "do or die", " come what may", "rather die in a ditch" strategy. It is strange that he has not spent more time in Brussels, if he is as keen to get a deal as he claims. His behaviour in Parliament is likely to have made getting a deal passed less likely. His strategy makes no sense to me. You would think that he would only prefer to get a deal because it is the best outcome for our country. This is backed up by the Yellowhammer documents. So if you were motivated by choosing the option that caused the least economic damage to the UK, why would you combine this aim with such a short deadline before implementing the measure that caused the most economic damage. Wouldn't he gain more credibility by apologising for the delay, and extending for a reasonable time to secure a reasonable deal. You either think a deal is in our interests, or you don't. You would think that actually compromising, rather than just talking about it, would make sense. It is madness to support a deal and then say if we don't have one by the end of October, you are quite prepared to inflict a disaster on your own country. He has painted himself into a corner, or planted his feet firmly on the absolute cliff edge, and there seems to be no way back. I think that if he refuses to seek an extension, it will end up back in court, and he will lose again. The intentions of Parliament were crystal clear, and the courts will back them. It is difficult to predict how the polls translate into seats in Parliament. In 2015 UKIP got almost 4 million votes, but only one seat. Whereas the Tories got just over 11 million votes, for 330 seats. Voters will be faced with some difficult choices. Many Tory remainers would prefer to execute their first born than elect Corbyn. Similarly many Labour voters would prefer to amputate two or three body parts, than help to re-elect Boris. This is the case whatever their views on Brexit. While both major parties continue to select MPs from both sides of the argument, it would seem to point to the impasse continuing. One thing is certain, EU members that have witnessed this debacle, are unlikely to be wishing to follow in our footsteps any time soon.
Comments
https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/brexit-influential-think-tank-proposes-irish-backstop-solution-150833872.html
Because without one of those things he is in deep doo-doo.
Which is why he is harrumphing like the political lightweight he is.
It could hardly be said that his behaviour is endearing him to the opposition MPs that he will need on his side, to have any chance of getting the WA passed.
So even if he is really trying to get a deal...………………………..
Any solution involving the WTO may not be straightforward.
Trump could cause world trade system to freeze up after vetoing appointment of judges, diplomats fear
Seven-member World Trade Organization body makes rulings on arguments between countries
Donald Trump could cause the world’s trade dispute resolution system to freeze up after vetoing the appointment of judges to an appeals body, diplomats fear.
The seven-member Appelate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which makes rulings on arguments between countries over trade, has already seen two judges leave, with a third going in December.
But the US President has blocked replacements, leaving just four judges to deal with a growing backlog of trade disputes. A minimum of three judges are needed to sign off on every appeals decision.
Appointments to the Appellate Body are meant to be unanimously agreed by all 164 members, like all decisions at the WTO.
Several trade experts said the move seemed to fit Mr Trump’s ideology of favouring bilateral trade deals over the multi-lateral system embodied by the WTO.
“That example doesn’t make one optimistic,” he said. “We are in a true emergency where we should take into account that the end of the Appellate Body may come, either by design or by accident.”
“A process that could lead to a situation where the United States leaves the WTO in a huff is actually a situation where everyone loses, and the last thing we should be aiming for,” said Alice Tipping, a former New Zealand trade diplomat now at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-world-trade-dispute-system-veto-judges-appointments-global-freeze-us-diplomats-warning-a8079876.html
.....oh yes, and cheaper prices in WETHERSPOONS (which has already happened)
How would any work in the fresh air and fields benefit you?
Sir John said Mr Johnson had only “lip service” to the Supreme Court ruling that the prorogation of Parliament had been unlawful and warned he could try to circumvent the law designed to prevent a no-deal break.
He said he feared the Government could try to bypass the so-called Benn Act by an executive Order in Council, suspending it until after October 31 when the UK is set to leave the EU.
“I should warn the Prime Minister that – if this route is taken – it will be in flagrant defiance of Parliament and utterly disrespectful to the Supreme Court,” he said.
What next for Brexit? Follow key developments, expert analysis and multiple perspectives as the UK edges closer to leaving the EU
“It would be a piece of political chicanery that no-one should ever forgive or forget.”
Sir John said he increasingly feared the country was heading for a no-deal Brexit, and that any new deal with Brussels was likely to be “flimsy and partial”.
He said the Prime Minister had “wilfully destroyed any hope of cross-party agreement” with his attack in the Commons of Wednesday.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/major-accuses-pm-of-destroying-chances-of-agreement-on-brexit/ar-AAHTD6I?ocid=spartandhp
Not that you really don't know why you voted to leave.
Or that you believed someone in a Wetherspoons about banana laws, that they made you think the EU control us, and duped into it.
You surely had a better reason for wanting to leave than the above nonsense?
Although civil disobedience is completely different from riots.
Civil disobedience is peaceful protest, riots aren't by any means peaceful.
Do you think that the general public, are prepared to threaten, but when it comes down to action, they seem more prepared to shout a bit, and then just get on with their lives?
I am amazed by the number of people that threaten to never vote again if we don't leave.
Like Parliament are going to suddenly wake up and compromise on a deal, just because a few people have threatened never to vote in future.
When I for one would be happy to see all Brexit Party, and UKIP voters, retiring from ticking ballot papers.
Sky have been out and about this week, interviewing people on street corners regarding Brexit.
I never fail to be disappointed by the inability of leave voters to produce a cogent argument for wanting to leave.
I am not sure if this is because I am biased, or that they don't have any.
So we are where we are.
Is it fair to blame politicians for the current mess?
The result of the referendum was almost 50/50.
So Parliament is as split as the country.
Theresa May gave away the Tory majority in the 2017 election.
The result of this election was a Hung Parliament.
No overall majority and almost another 50/50, between the Government and opposition parties.
The House of Commons have been able to agree on nothing except that no deal is not acceptable.
If the country had been allowed to vote on the various Brexit topics, instead of the House of Commons, I see no reason to have expected different results.
All leave voters seem to have resorted to advising Parliament to "just do it", like it may help in some way.
So it has taken us 3 years to discover that Parliament, and the country are equally divided on Brexit.
The majority of Tories are in favour of implementing the referendum result, despite the economic harm it will cause.
The opposition parties have a majority in favour of ignoring the result because of the economic damage and likely job losses.
Why should we then be surprised at the impasse when Parliament probably just reflects the views of the electorate;
I am struck that there seems to no end to the attempts by the Brexit fanatics to find an acceptable name for no deal. As if a better name might make it seem more acceptable.
If we go back to the days when no deal was better than a bad deal. It was just that, it was no deal, no bells, no whistles.
Then it became a managed no deal, as if there was such a thing, then a WTO Brexit, now a clean break Brexit.
The fact that during the referendum campaign no sort of no deal existed, and if we left with no deal at the end of October, we would be over there begging for a deal on 1st November.
Discussions would start with our side on their knees begging for a deal, but the priorities would be the payment of the money we owe them, and the Irish border, before we would be allowed to beg for any deal.
So we will subject this country to the havoc and chaos caused by a no deal Brexit, merely to delay the choice of whether we prefer a UK wide, or NI only backstop.
The biggest betrayal for me is the number of politicians that are currently claiming that no deal is what the electorate voted for. When this is clearly untrue.
This is completely his fault due to his "do or die", " come what may", "rather die in a ditch" strategy.
It is strange that he has not spent more time in Brussels, if he is as keen to get a deal as he claims.
His behaviour in Parliament is likely to have made getting a deal passed less likely.
His strategy makes no sense to me.
You would think that he would only prefer to get a deal because it is the best outcome for our country.
This is backed up by the Yellowhammer documents.
So if you were motivated by choosing the option that caused the least economic damage to the UK, why would you combine this aim with such a short deadline before implementing the measure that caused the most economic damage.
Wouldn't he gain more credibility by apologising for the delay, and extending for a reasonable time to secure a reasonable deal.
You either think a deal is in our interests, or you don't.
You would think that actually compromising, rather than just talking about it, would make sense.
It is madness to support a deal and then say if we don't have one by the end of October, you are quite prepared to inflict a disaster on your own country.
He has painted himself into a corner, or planted his feet firmly on the absolute cliff edge, and there seems to be no way back.
I think that if he refuses to seek an extension, it will end up back in court, and he will lose again.
The intentions of Parliament were crystal clear, and the courts will back them.
It is difficult to predict how the polls translate into seats in Parliament.
In 2015 UKIP got almost 4 million votes, but only one seat.
Whereas the Tories got just over 11 million votes, for 330 seats.
Voters will be faced with some difficult choices.
Many Tory remainers would prefer to execute their first born than elect Corbyn.
Similarly many Labour voters would prefer to amputate two or three body parts, than help to re-elect Boris.
This is the case whatever their views on Brexit.
While both major parties continue to select MPs from both sides of the argument, it would seem to point to the impasse continuing.
One thing is certain, EU members that have witnessed this debacle, are unlikely to be wishing to follow in our footsteps any time soon.