Corbyn 22 Now But It Won't Be For Long

[Paul Calf]

Oh I've only just realised that that name is actually descriptive, thought it was just a classic 'wacky' CaB name.

When u find out what the avatar is, U'll shit brix.

[greenman]

The BBC pushing hard to try and shift "Norway plus" from basically the Labour position to an inventive new idea Amber Rudd just came up with.

[Paul Calf]

Although Norway has, unsurprisingly, already rejected it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

But Stephen Kinnock, one of the Labour advocates for Norway-plus

Urrrggh

[TrenterPercenter]

Although Norway has, unsurprisingly, already rejected it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan

This is irrelevant.  It's stuff like this I give up on, "regardless of how inaccurate or plain wrong a something is, I'll regurgitate it because it's on my side".


Norway option is shit, that is why it should be criticised not because Norwary has any say in it...... And yes I know what it says in the article "would have to give permission" but it is clearly bollocks.

[biggytitbo]

Carole continues to push her usual conspiracy theories closer to Corbyn -

[Paul Calf]

This is irrelevant.  It's stuff like this I give up on, "regardless of how inaccurate or plain wrong a something is, I'll regurgitate it because it's on my side".


Norway option is shit, that is why it should be criticised not because Norwary has any say in it...... And yes I know what it says in the article "would have to give permission" but it is clearly bollocks.

Well, the problem is that no-one really knows what the '+' means. Regardless, it's unsurprising that Norway would reject an offer that by definition is better than the one they have.

[Replies From View]

Carole continues to push her usual conspiracy theories closer to Corbyn -

Does anybody reply to her saying "It's not true, Carole"?

[Sebastian Cobb]

'collectivise this' *points at crotch*.

[Replies From View]

'collectivise this' *points at crotch*.

'Too big to collectivise, I'm afraid.'

[Sebastian Cobb]

Well don't I feel a wally, wherever I was, I was clearly not on the last page when I wrote that.

[Fabian Thomsett]

Carole continues to push her usual conspiracy theories closer to Corbyn -

Yeah, Cadwalladr seems to have become ever more unhinged with this Russian stuff over the last few months.

[Replies From View]

Yeah, Cadwalladr seems to have become ever more unhinged with this Russian stuff over the last few months.

Well she is a Swedish crime drama.

[manticore]

Norway option is shit, that is why it should be criticised not because Norwary has any say in it...... And yes I know what it says in the article "would have to give permission" but it is clearly bollocks.

Trenter, I - seriously - need your help on this, if you wouldn't mind explaining briefly or at length why the Norway option is shit, especially a time-limited one. People on here have made their arguments but I'm still not convinced that it isn't the least worst option.

[biggytitbo]

Yeah, Cadwalladr seems to have become ever more unhinged with this Russian stuff over the last few months.

TBH, I'm not even sure I can work out what Caroles conspiracy theory is here, but whatever she needs to up her medication -

[manticore]

I've twittered to Cadwalladr about all this in no uncertain terms. It remains to be seen whether it will have the desired effect. Paranoia is generally pretty refractory, especially when once it's become socially contagious. I wonder if she's in too deep and will go the way of Mensch or Shayler?

[Zetetic]

Trenter, I - seriously - need your help on this, if you wouldn't mind explaining briefly or at length why the Norway option is shit, especially a time-limited one. People on here have made their arguments but I'm still not convinced that it isn't the least worst option.

1. "We're staying in the EU for a bit a longer, but without any representation." Sell that to the Great British Public and their parliamentarians.
2. No one in EFTA wants us to be in EFTA.
3. The EU wants to safeguard the GFA for the foreseeable future. This means that any 'time-limited' deal (like the current Withdrawal Agreement') needs a backstop if we don't manage to negotiate a future relationship by the time that the deal runs out.

'Norway' is attractive in so far as it avoids a lot of the practical problems of leaving the EU (by not leaving the EU, broadly). It's not clear how it solves any of the problems involved of getting the relevant people to agree to it.

[Zetetic]

I'm still interested in whether we're 'legally' allowed to unilaterally withdraw from the GFA. Any thoughts from anyone?

I do wonder if this implies anything about the 'legality' of the UK Government explicitly offering 'No Deal' as an option either to the public or to parliament. Doing so seems to indicate a wilful determination to violate either the GFA or the WTO treaty.

(Ireland and the EU would seem to be in a different situation - they still might choose to effectively violate the WTO treaty, but it's clear that they've been forced into that position in order to avoid breaching another international agreement.)

[solidified gruel merchant]

Not sure whether to stick this in here or the eu thread.
Maybe I'll do both?

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/12/07/the-eu-plans-to-permanently-sabotage-a-jeremy-corbyn-led-government/

Why are the canary producing articles like this?

[Zetetic]

It's a copy-paste of a Times article. Sickeningly it appears that some copyright-violating cunt has reposted the text from the original Times story here:
https://markdownshare.com/view/71dc3293-49bd-4882-8164-b09e9905c5c3

Taken at face-value, it highlights the risks to a future Labour government of trying to negotiate access to the CU and SM as a third country (rather than as an EU member, with the existing "level-playing-field" mechanisms) and that this isn't just about the dread hand of EU bureaucrats but the instincts of the governments of the member states.

Wonder why these unnamed senior EU officials are undertaking an intervention that seems mostly to be about convincing the rest of us that "The idea that Conservatives would legislate a race to the bottom is a myth and no one really believes it, even if some Tories have helped create it."

(I must say that this senior Brussels source has a very good grasp of politico-conversational British English.)

[Paul Calf]

Not sure whether to stick this in here or the eu thread.
Maybe I'll do both?

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/12/07/the-eu-plans-to-permanently-sabotage-a-jeremy-corbyn-led-government/

Why are the canary producing articles like this?

A senior EU source involved in the withdrawal negotiations told the Times...As the Times's senior source said...

It's a second-hand report about something an unnamed source apparently said to The Times. We can do better than this, surely?

Please don't cross-post this copy-and-paste crap.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

This is irrelevant- his question:

Why are the canary producing articles like this?

Is relevant

[Zetetic]

Go on then. Obvious options to someone as ignorant as me:

- Milne, McCluskey or someone influenced by them trying to soften Corbyn-supporters up for a harder Brexit?

- Or more optimistically, that they're trying to harden resolve for arguing the point about state-aid rules? (Or at least rejecting May's deal.)

- The Canary likes page-views as much as the next media outlet and it will have taken Mr Wright about 40 seconds on Friday to regurgitate this particular piece of analysis that ticks a bunch of the necessary bait-boxes for its readership?

[biggytitbo]

Surely the more interesting question is why are the times producing articles like this? Why are they concerned about the EU restricting a Corbyn government?

[Absorb the anus burn]

Go on then. Obvious options to someone as ignorant as me:

- The Canary likes page-views as much as the next media outlet and it will have taken Mr Wright about 40 seconds on Friday to regurgitate this particular piece of analysis that ticks a bunch of the necessary bait-boxes for its readership?

TBH, I thought this.... Clickbait, surely?

[Paul Calf]

Surely the more interesting question is why are the times producing articles like this? Why are they concerned about the EU restricting a Corbyn government?

They're not. They're concern trolling: pretending to care about pluralism and a left-wing balance to advance propaganda in the service of bringing forth a right-wing power grab.

Surprised you missed that one, bigs.

[biggytitbo]

I didn't miss it, the possibility occurred to me. But the times is a pro EU paper that campaigned for remain isn't it? And also anti Corbyn, so there might be something more subtle at work there.

[Replies From View]

I didn't miss it, the possibility occurred to me. But the times is a pro EU paper that campaigned for remain isn't it? And also anti Corbyn, so there might be something more subtle at work there.

It's not that subtle is it?  They are trying to get their way by manipulating people.

[DistressedArea]

Edit: Oops wrong thread.

I dunno, that Corbyn eh?

[biggytitbo]

I've twittered to Cadwalladr about all this in no uncertain terms. It remains to be seen whether it will have the desired effect. Paranoia is generally pretty refractory, especially when once it's become socially contagious. I wonder if she's in too deep and will go the way of Mensch or Shayler?

Considering what we now know about the integrity institute and its government funded smearing of Corbyn, I'm wondering if Carole is working with them? They're both pushing the same nonsense about him.