Skip to main content

Jeremy Corbyn’s ready to keep Britain’s open borders after Brexit, admits Labour election chief

JEREMY Corbyn could keep Britain’s open borders after Brexit, his election chief sensationally admitted.

Labour’s campaign boss Andrew Gwynne refused to rule out keeping free movement with other EU countries as part of the Labour manifesto.

Jeremy Corbyn could keep Britain’s open borders after Brexit, his election chief Andrew Gwynne admitted
Press Association
Andrew Gwynne refused to commit to Labour’s 2017 promise on freedom of movement while on The Andrew Marr Show

It comes after far-left activists at Labour conference voted overwhelmingly in September to “maintain and extend” free movement if they gain power.

But the comments will enrage many voters in Labour’s heartlands who backed Brexit to regain control of Britain’s borders.

And they were blasted by Home Secretary Priti Patel, who warned Mr Corbyn would fail to control immigration numbers.

Mr Gwynne was quizzed on telly on how Labour’s border policy would be different to freedom of movement.

He told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: “Well, of course these would be bespoke reciprocal arrangements that will allow, for example, British students to access the European education system.”

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

Asked if Labour would keep its 2017 promise on freedom of movement, Mr Gwynne refused to commit to it.

He said: “Well, I will be able to answer that more clearly this time next week.

“I have not seen a draft of the manifesto. We go through a democratic process.

“It is next Saturday where the whole Labour Party family come together.”

Labour will finalise their election immigration policy at a crunch meeting – known as a Clause V meeting – next Saturday.

And it comes just days after Mr Corbyn said he wants to make sure EU nationals “do remain here, can come here, will stay here” if he becomes PM.

Ms Patel blasted: “For the second time in a week, Corbyn’s Labour have confirmed they want to see uncontrolled and unlimited immigration, whatever the results of the two chaotic referendums they want next year.”

Home Secretary Priti Patel says Jeremy Corbyn would fail to control immigration
Reuters


 

Comments

Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

Politicians are wrong about what the public want

So the, out of touch political elite are trying to say that the public would be happy to cough up an extra £2000 a year, per household to prop up the NHS? 
Advertisers website Wrong! While many British families struggle to make ends meet, the political elite thinks that people will be glad to fund a failing business that is being run into the ground because of their failed policies on how the NHS is managed?

No. This just shows that we have monkeys running our country! Many people on Facebook have shared the above post on various pages; a large number of those people don't even do politics. If our political elite were more than just yes men weighed down by the chains of political correctness, they would see that the people of Britain have had enough. 
Ever increasing taxation to try and fix their mistakes? 
Continuiosly using the NHS as a stick to beat the opposition or a classic party political paper dragon! (Paper Dragon): a politician or political party whocampaign to fox the proble…

PETITION - Keep Swinson OUT of the Lords

Keep Jo Swinson from being given a Peerage.
Sign the petition and share this everywhere

If Jo Swinson is given honors, it will be a scandal and ANOTHER Nail in the coffin for the House of Lords. Sign the petition

CLICK HERE TO SIGN

Has the Supreme Court handed Boris Johnson a Brexit escape route?

The Supreme Court’s judgment is the latest constitutional perversion after the Benn act. But ironically it may assist the Government in achieving its objective of Britain leaving the EU by 31 October, without having to seek an extension to the Article 50 process.
In paragraph 34, the Supreme Court states that its ‘proper function’ under our constitution is to give effect to the separation of powers (which justifies court intervention in relation to prorogation). Then, in what appears to be an innocuous sentence in paragraph 55, it says that it is to be “remember[ed] always that the actual task of governing is for the executive and not for Parliament or the courts.”
Yet the Benn Act manifestly contradicts this principle. It dictates how the Government must conduct negotiations with a foreign body, the EU, to the extent of obliging the Prime Minister to write specifically worded letters and accept whatever extension it offers when certain conditions are not met. In the situation when t…