Should I vote Labour

Keir Starmer said 2 things that are not in line with May.

1. From day one we will guarantee the rights of all EU citizens living in the UK.

However that means he could only admit to doing all that's possible to protect the UK Citizens living throughout the European Union countries. He cannot guarantee the rights of UK Citizens throughout the EU will have Reciprocal Rights.

Theresa May tried to get Reciprocal Right months ago, it has always been a priority, outcome , she was again rebuffed by the EU . Things progressed to the EU saying it will a matter at the front of negotiations.

Without the guarantee / protection of Reciprocal Rights for UK Citizens living throughout the EU she has been said to have been using EU Citizens as bargaining chips, as indeed so have the EU if that is the criteria. She has been the 'only' politician to attempt to protect the UK Citizens living in the EU.

Whilst I understand the 'using EU Citizens as bargaining chips' emotion I don't understand why the UK Citizens living throughout the EU can be so easily disregarded by our politicians. The EU , not Theresa May, are the ones who hold the power to give Reciprocal Rights to ALL EU Citizens presently residing throughout the EU Nations,

2 'Clearly Labours position in the negotiation will be to safeguard British jobs, protect our rights and living standards'

They all want that but HOW can his 'position' achieve his muddled rhetoric?.

The EU has said the ' 4 pillars' are NONE NEGOTIABLE, NO CHERRY PICKING without Free Movement of People. You cannot be in the Single Market or Tariff Free without agreeing to FMOP.

Starmer contradicts himself by saying FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT HAS TO END / RULED OUT AS IT IS.

At least Theresa May has accepted that point. Starmer and anybody who believes in what he said are in some sort of denial. The only chance we have the EU will budge from it's position on the 4 pillars is if a 'strong' negotiation takes place and that cannot come from Starmer or Labour as they have just shown an incredible lack of understanding of the ' 4 pillars ' and the rhetoric from the EU so far.

I think that it is disingenuous to talk of the EU as an autonomous entity with regard to the granting of reciprocal rights to UK citizens living in the EU. The UK is an autonomous entity and to have guaranteed the rights of EU citizens in the UK would not have been a difficult or time consuming process but for the EU it would have meant getting the agreement of all, or most, of the EU27 before any possible guarantee could be given. Which, at the time when everything was up in the air because of the radical change which Brexit entailed, would have been a lengthy and difficult process.

I still feel that guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens in the UK would have given us a strong moral advantage in the Brexit negotiations over citizen's rights. Although I can recognise that the EU cannot give the UK such advantageous terms that leaving would appear to be advantageous to other other EU countries who might follow our example I cannot believe that the EU 27 comprises monsters who would deliberately disadvantage UK citizens just to make a point. I'm sure they have as much of an eye to the moral high ground as anyone else.

But of course, this view depends on whether one views the EU as a benign or a malignant organisation.

Maizie d

'the UK would not have been a difficult or time consuming process but for the EU it would have meant getting the agreement of all, or most, of the EU27 before any possible guarantee could be given. Which, at the time when everything was up in the air because of the radical change which Brexit entailed, would have been a lengthy and difficult process. '

It wasn't even a starter . May was rebuffed by Merkel, Tusk et al. They said " There will be NO negotiations before Article 50 triggered".

They were however still in a position to vote on Reciprocal Rights in both the EU Parliament and the EU Commission.

They could have voted for something like an 'INTERIM AGREEMENT' if as you say " I'm sure they have as much of an eye to the moral high ground as anyone else."

I am of the belief there will be a Reciprocal Rights agreement but I also believe that is the duty of our UK government to protect the rights of it's Citizens and so far I don't see any politician other than Theresa May doing so. Likewise the EU should be putting the rights of their Citizens ahead of negotiations.

Lib Dems don't even discuss negotiations, they are holding on to the fact Article 50 will be revoked.

Labour admit they can ' only try' to achieve Reciprocal Rights for our UK Citizens living in the other EU countries.

May was rebuffed because of the ridiculous and threatening stance she initially took. She has rowed back since and with each step the EU has softened its attitude. Something that Labour has cracked but May has yet to learn.

Of course any British government will seek to protect its citizens rights in the EU, to suggest otherwise is daft. Whether this government will seek to protect the rights of its citizens living in the UK is another issue and certainly a government not to be trusted given its past rhetoric.

whitewave

"May was rebuffed because of the ridiculous and threatening stance she initially took."

I do not agree, surprisingly.

May met with Merkel, Tusk et al asking for Reciprocal Rights for ALL EU citizens before she ever spoke of coming out of the Single Market. At the time she had hoped to negotiate over the Single Market but it was stated by Merkel , Tusk et al on behalf of the EU 'NO CHERRY PICKING, NO SINGLE MARKET WITHOUT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT'

The same spokespersons who said there would be NO NEGOTIATIONS before Article 50 managed to speak on behalf of 27 countries over so many aspects of what would happen it appeared . That said a lot too.

pogs if you read A50 that is exactly what the rules stipulate. So we can assume one of two things. Either May was unaware of what is contained within A50 or she was arrogant enough to assume it could be overlooked.

No! Don't vote Labour ( not if you value your country) as it is led by a weak useless former backbencher who should have stayed on the backbenches.
Can anybody seriously vote for somebody who will borrow and spend us into the ground, nationalise anything that moves, increase the powers of the unions and his friend Len McCluskey.Then there is the question of national security, when Corbyn doesn't even agree with his own party on Trident, and other matters.
Then there is the question of trusting this same weak man with all matters pertaining to Brexit, and we need someone who will not just roll over to all the demands of the EU.

Can you point out to me rose where in the 10 points published you can support your statements?

Corbyn just been on the news complaining May will not take part in a tv debate, seems refusing to take part in the Brexit tv debates was the right decision for Corbyn but wrong for May to refuse to take part in TV debate now, he is such a hypocrite

Roses, all parties are led by former backbenchers.

But is it not usual for leaders to have held cabinet or shadow cabinet posts which gives them knowledge and experience on how to lead a cabinet

Did you not think of that before you voted for him as leader, Annie?

No Jen, I voted for him because I thought he was honest and was a socialist , I didn't know he was a hypocrite, I also thought he would put the party first not himself and I din't know about Momrntum and his closeness to the communist party, I was so wrong , plus when I see him I think of my friend ,now dead , who was campaigning whilst being treated for cancer and he was betraying her, me, and many party members.

Where is your proof that he is dishonest?

He lied about no seat on the train so he had to sit on the floor,

POGS, WW, it seems to me that Labour and the Tories have pretty similar ideas but come at them from different sides. TM says immigration control is an absolute but subject to that she is looking for maximum access to the single market. KS says access to the single market is the priority but that we will need a degree of immigration control. My thinking is that this will all amount to the same thing in detailed negotiations where the people at the coal front have to discard the spin. The big question is whether the EU will give any ground on immigration. If they will, we might just get some sort of deal. But I'm not holding my breath.

Keir Starmer is also looking to remain in the Customs Union if at all possible, because outside it, it is going to cost the tax payer and business a good deal.

I wonder how many leave voters even knew the difference between membership of the EU and the Customs Union? Was it explained in the Daily Mail, Express or Sun??

Fitzy

The Conservatives and Labour do have/have had similar views as to what they hope for.

However , Labour / Starmer are making speeches that Theresa May would have made after the EU Referendum.

The difference is the Conservatives / Theresa May have accepted that you cannot stay in the Single Market / Customs Union unless you have absolute Free Movement of People. Labour / Starmer cannot accept that is the case.

The only hope of a good deal for both the EU and the UK would be for negotiations to focus on COMMERCE and some form of agreement can be reached that perhaps allows for Free Movement of Workers but not Free Movement of People. That will only have a cat in hells chance of fruition if the UK negotiations are strong enough!

Not one party, irrespective of the bias by some on GN, has said they do not accept we will always require workers from outside the UK whether it be from the EU or outside of the EU.

Only workers? Their families not allowed to come?

Best reason yet to vote Labour.

www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/26/labour-will-give-pay-rise-to-overworked-and-underpaid-nhs-staff

Saving the NHS for us all.

POGS the people at the sharp end know exactly what each other are getting at. All these speeches are just for the likes of us.

I cannot be the only one here who believes every promise in an election battle or an entire manifesto will come about, life happens

When brown was PM we had the foot and mouth epidemic, floods , the banking crisis , all this in three years , farmers wanted money, flooded areas needed money , with best will in the world no government can stitck to every promise , they do not have crystal balls to gaze into

Yea Annie - the best laid plans of mice and men....

pbs.twimg.com/media/C-W79wrXUAUYTWu.jpg