Forum menu
Sure it is.
We've been blinded by the shouty gammons into thinking that they're representative of leave voters as a whole. I rather suspect that this isn't the case and they are a minority.
In any case, even if I'm wrong that's still surely the closest thing to a compromise. DazH is papping on about a binary viewpoint being problematic, and he's arguably correct, but the fact remains that brexit IS a binary argument by its very definition. How many tick boxes did you see on the ballot paper?
There is no form of brexit, at all, which is any sort of compromise. A compromise is something that whilst perhaps not ideal will please the majority of people; the "compromise brexit" is the very opposite of that, it's something that will please precisely no-one. This is why May's plan got thrown out of parliament three times - no-one on either side of the argument sees it as an improvement on where we are currently.
The Third Option isn't BINO, it's reform.
As long as you have folk like dazh and TJ who can be blinded by a few extra words, BINO will be fine.It just needs a clever form of obfuscation.
@Cougar But you'd end up having to have a referendum about each of those areas you've raised (we've already learnt with Brexit that MPs don't necessarily vote according to the majority opinion and without a referendum how do you determine the majority opinion anyway). There's a reason democratic countries don't have true or popular democracies, they're just unworkable
I'm not sure what alternate universe we've now slid into where parliament is unable to make a decision without a public vote, but that does then rather beg the question of why we need a parliament at all when we can just resort to mob rule.
None of the things I mentioned require a referendum. Revoking A50 doesn't require a referendum, even.
without a referendum how do you determine the majority opinion
This is a Page 2 argument, that's not how a representative democracy works. It is parliament's duty to act in the best interests of the country, not to give electorate what it (thinks it) wants. A majority opinion or not is an irrelevance. We're discussing a potential compromise here, but there doesn't have to be a compromise at all.
Makes sense. I have a hard time trusting Germany because of the war.
That's not as good a burn as you're hoping. The coalition only ended 4 years ago, but you're trying to compare it to something which is in the living memory of very few people. And the current LibDem candidates for party leadership stated (yesterday, in their Sky News interview) that they don't regret the coalition and would do it again. So perhaps a bit more relevant than you think?
If there was a compromise position - some form of Norway style BrINO - then that could just get through parliament, but it's never been offered. Theresa spent all that time on a deal that wasn't a compromise for the UK it was a compromise for two halves of her own party. then she asked granddad to compromise which she thought would be 'vote for my thing without any compromise on my part'.
If there ever was a compromise then I didn't see it and no one is proposing it now.
The coalition only ended 4 years ago, but you’re trying to compare it to something which is in the living memory of very few people.
Point is, "yeah but tuition fees" is a tired argument. I can think of any number of reasons not to trust any of the major political parties based on their actions over the last decade or two. Are you totally fine with the Iraq war, all is forgiven for Team Red?
If we're dwelling on the past than we cannot move forward. That's all I was trying to say.
That’s not as good a burn as you’re hoping. The coalition only ended 4 years ago, but you’re trying to compare it to something which is in the living memory of very few people. And the current LibDem candidates for party leadership stated (yesterday, in their Sky News interview) that they don’t regret the coalition and would do it again. So perhaps a bit more relevant than you think?
Well not really. The question of exactly WHY the Lib Dems did what they did, and wether or not it was the right thing to do is important, however so many people seem happy to just go 'oh, they can't be trusted' as if they just changed their minds for the sake of it. I think they had very good reasons for doing what they did and I'm not sure they were bad reasons. Of course, politicians do lie and backtrack all the time but apparently this is BAU and doesn't get mentioned EXCEPT when it's the Lib Dems for some reason. It's irrational.
It offends me when the referees rig the game so it cannot be won.
Tuition fees weren't great but I'm concerned about "enabling Tory austerity" when I think about the Lib Dems. Of all the policies (except maybe Brexit!) of the past decade, that's had one of the biggest impact on people's lives, including the death of > 100,000 people. An open statement from the two LD candidates that they would do that again is really depressing, and I think you'd struggle to come up with a justifiable reason for going along with it.
Agree the Iraq War was A Bad Thing too, and I wouldn't vote for a neoilberal Labour party either.
I’m concerned about “enabling Tory austerity” when I think about the Lib Dems.
Did they "enable" it, or just fail to prevent it?
You may be right. I don't know much about politics pre-2016, but I know that they were a small fish in a big pond and had to pick their battles.
An open statement from the two LD candidates that they would do that again is really depressing
What did they actually say they'd do again? Join another coalition or support an austerity policy? I'd be far more concerned about the latter than the former, I expect most smaller parties would at least consider joining a coalition government if the alternative was not getting a sniff of being in charge.
Newsthump on the ball as ever.
What did they actually say they’d do again?
VInce Cable, Ed Davey and Jo Swinson, along with others have repeatedly defended the policy of austerity that they had an integral part in. It was the primary flagship policy of the coalition government which they signed up to in full knowledge even though it was directly against many of their election pledges. All their warm words before that election and touchy feely 'popular' policies were abandoned at the first whiff of power. They will do the same again, because that's what politicians who have no idealogical base or driving philosophy do. Chukka the Changer joined them FFS, that's about all you need to know.
Cougar
Subscriber
Did they “enable” it, or just fail to prevent it?
They were part of the government that did it. They didn't enable it, they did it. HTH. They like to claim credit for things they "prevented" but they are responsible for everything that happened while they were in government. Not all of which was bad, of course.
If your house is on fire you don't care who puts out the flames.
Fight today's battles not those of the past.
Right now ,anyone who fights brexit is on my side.
Or with regard the Farage company’s protest how about “Some arses from the Brexit party”?
People forget that during the 2010 election campaign, and immediately afterwards, Labour policy was also to tighten the purse strings. "But that was a different Labour"… is a valid claim… but either parties can move on, or they can not, you can't have it both ways.
I'd hope that any party I vote for intends to form a government, or at least effect government policy, given a chance. I voted Labour at the last election… if they've been in a position to form a government with the SNP and LibDems, but instead choose to stick with "principled opposition", I'd consider my vote wasted. Coalition and compromise may well by the only way to be in government, for any party, after the next election. Slamming the party you did vote for because they compromised with a party you do not vote for, could get old fast.
Today's battles are about stopping Brexit. Tomorrow's battles are all about either coping with the aftermath of leaving the EU, or the aftermath of not leaving the EU. Either way, how today's politicians intend dealing with the problems in front of us now will inform my vote.
Right now, anyone who fights Brexit is on my side
Pretty much my take on it. This is really really ****ing important. It will dictate the political landscape in this country for decades. And I’d personally prefer it if we weren’t used as a far right experiment in turning the country into a sweatshop tax haven, thanks.
You’d sort of hope that the Labour Party, of all people, wouldn’t want that either. But apparently they’re a bit busy to be doing any actual oppositioning at the moment. They might get around to it in September, apparently, if they manage to sort this Chris Williamson business out by then...
Today’s battles are about stopping Brexit.
For a minority of the electorate it is. Leavers still want to leave, remainers want to remain, everyone else doesn't give a shit and wants to be able to get a doctor's appointment and have their kids in better schools. Austerity and all the things that result from it are still the things that impact people's everyday lives, not international trade and regulatory frameworks.
And I’d personally prefer it if we weren’t used as a far right experiment in turning the country into a sweatshop tax haven, thanks.
2017 election results in your constituency: lab 25,683, Con 21,308, LibDem 912. You have a simple choice between a party which wants a no deal, or one which has committed to holding a second referendum on any deal. If ever there was a constituency where voting libdem will split the labour vote and ensure the tories win this is it.
Quoting the last election result is ridiculous. Did you somehow miss the E.U. and local election results?
If a week is a long time in politics, then 2 years in Brexit Britain is an entire ice age. The party that is presently leading in the polls didn’t exist 6 months ago and the two ‘main parties are (deservedly) nowhere
One things for sure. The election results from any upcoming general election will bear precious little resemblance to the general election before.
We’re living in a different country now. The 2 party system is over. All bets are off
But if you’ve illustrated something, it’s exactly the same lazy, arrogant complacency at the top of the Labour Party who just nonchalantly assume that their former voters will return
We won’t. That ship has already sailed. And it’s never coming back. Certainly not with that gang of Brexiteer clowns at the helm
everyone else doesn’t give a shit and wants to be able to get a doctor’s appointment and have their kids in better schools. Austerity and all the things that result from it are still the things that impact people’s everyday lives, not international trade and regulatory frameworks.
But these things are intrinsically connected to our relationships with our closest neighbours and cheapest trading partners AKA the EU .. That's the travesty of it all.
A hard brexit will see super mega austerity for anyone who can't afford not to rely on public services such as health, education and social services.
We've now got boris talking about tax brakes for the so called elite, when there's a massive black hole in council budgets, reduced police funding and god knows what else...
The turkey's really did vote for Christmas.
dazh....
“one which has committed to holding a second referendum on any deal”
Any deal? Really? Does that include an option on remaining? Not according to their website.
From the Labour website:
“
-
Labour respects the result of the referendum, and Britain is leaving the EU.
But we will not support any Tory deal that would do lasting damage to jobs, rights and living standards.”
Labour are pro-Brexit - end of story.
https://labour.org.uk/issues/labours-plan-brexit/
There's only one party committed to stopping brexit. That's the Liberal Democrats.
The Labour Party (as above) are still playing games to keep voters on board in a hope to snatch power from the Conservatives... That's all corbyn is about. Nothing more.
Party before people. It's a dereliction of duty. Labour with corbyn at the helm are no better than the Conservatives in this respect.
One is the left cheek of the arse, one is the right cheek of the arse.
It's still the same old arse.
There’s a certain irony to the Corbynites, who’ve spent their entire lives endlessly whining about Blair being too right wing, sitting back and defending their messiah who is happily facilitating a far right coup
Brexit will enable a far right government to dismantle the welfare state, privatise the NHS, slash all public services, tear up workers rights and environmental controls and turn us into a sweatshop /tax haven playground for dodgy oligarchs and money launderers
To paraphrase Peter Mandleson (booooooo!) the present Labour Leadership seem intensely relaxed about that.
And it’s the very people who Labour are meant to represent who are going to pay the price for it all and be hit hardest
Yeah this is only going to get more bonkers
The Tories have completely left reality & Labour are hiding under the duvet somewhere
is a valid claim… but either parties can move on, or they can not, you can’t have it both ways.
You might have a point here if it hadnt already been mentioned that the potential leaders for the Lib Dems are keen members of the 2010 set. Whereas the current Labour leadership arent representative of the 2010 set.
Davey is hardcore orange book (as in actually helping write it) and Swinson is also from that camp.
So given the ideological underpinning of that movement they really shouldnt be treated as innocent victims to the tories ideological austerity excuse to cut back the state since they share the same general principles.
We really need a GE to stop the clock with the EU on this domestic insanity.
Then we'll have a really hung parliament, maybe with a 3 or 4 party government.
Then we still have the problem of nothing being able to get through Parliament..
In the words of willie nelson, it's all going to pot...
Maybe there are still some last vestiges of hope in spite of the current rhetoric of which potential leader can nip back to Brussels, renegotiate the non-negotiable and leave on lovely free trade agreements on 31st...
Ideological purity is all, comrades. We won’t discuss the ****ing enormous elephant in the room, but focus on the relative voting records of the junior partners in a coalition government that already seems a lifetime ago. And given what’s come since, I’m sure will seem like a benevolent old uncle by the time Boris has finished with the far right agenda that Jezza is helping nod through
Otters nose?
the current Labour leadership arent representative of the 2010 set.
Yeah, they do a really good line in not being representative.
Ideological purity is all
Indeed.. Let's see how far ideological purity gets us when we are trying to negociate trade deals without the protection of (and missed opportunities to shape) the biggest union on the planet that we've just given the middle finger to.
Indeed..
Are we talking about labour here? You know the party that everyone has been slagging off for the past 50 pages for not being ideological enough. I'm confused.
You're being tedious now.
Apologies. You're right though, it is tedious being the one in the middle when everyone else is baying for blood from the extremes (or one of them, as we have here). I'm curious though at what point the worm turned and it became normal to to take a rigid binary position on something and extreme to want a middle option compromise.
Outline your compromise for us please @Dazh. Is it the same anti Single Market, anti Customs Union, anti EEA, anti FoM "compromise" that the Labour leadership have been pushing for? Or one of the Soft Brexit options proposed by Labour MPs who have been sidelined for daring to speak out against the Hard Brexit dream supported by their leader? Plenty of MPs, from lots of parties, proposed compromises over the last few years… the SNP even managed to flesh out a few in great detail, only to be totally ignored. Corbyn colluded in helping the bulk of the Conservative Party in killing of all Soft Brexit options. So now we are where we are… it's Hard Brexit with a transition period, no deal Brexit, or no Brexit. More any more MPs understand this, hence the late dropping of a Soft Brexit positions by so many who are now calling for a referendum with a Remain option instead. Many don't want a referendum… they sought a compromise, but they have had to move on… they can see the very real choices in front of us all now do not include a sensible compromise. It didn't have to be this way… and the public didn't choose for it to be this way… many (most?) would have settled for a compromise… but our political leaders killed compromise stone dead slowly but surely over three years.
I think that compromise died because there was no compromise that can satisfy enough people.
This really is like being at a video store with four or more people.
It's been said all along, Brexit promised "all things to all people" and it physically just can't happen.
In the end, I guess only a very small group of people will actually get what they wanted and were promised. For everyone else it will either be the exact opposite of what they wanted or, at best, a percentage of what they wanted.
It's like watching Bruce Almighty send out that Reply to All "your wish is granted" email where everyone wins the lottery, but they only get $4.50 each - because EVERYONE WON THE LOTTERY!
but they only get $4.50 each – because EVERYONE WON THE LOTTERY!
I think if EVERYONE was $4.50 better off after Brexit that would be the best result that could ever happen.
I’m curious though at what point the worm turned and it became normal to to take a rigid binary position on something and extreme to want a middle option compromise
OK so there's Brexit or Remain, you can't half-Brexit or half-Remain, where's the compromise to be had? Sure you can Brexit with a deal or no deal but it's still Brexit. The only real compromise is a second referendum after October 31st with a line drawn in the sand then about what type of Brexit it would be (either an agreed deal with the EU and parliament or no deal). Labour's web-site doesn't mention anything about them supporting or calling for a 2nd referendum (whether they were in power or not). A 10 year old could write up an unequivocal position statement supporting a 2nd referendum, they haven't and I believe that's for a reason, hence they won't be getting my vote (assuming a BoJo government collapses and we get a GE).
If that happened and the result was still the majority voting for Brexit I'd be pissed off but I'd accept it (there's your compromise from a Remainer), as it stands we're going down a rabbit hole based on a slight majority of people voting years ago when many of them were misled about what Brexit would mean and what conditions we were likely to exit the EU with. Now, with everyone much better informed, holding a referendum on the issue makes more sense (although there will always be people blindly believing whatever they're told, despite the facts, as long as it fits in with their existing beliefs or prejudices).
Trouble is that the tickets were $5 each. So everyone just got their stake back, less an admin fee!
I guess only a very small group of people will actually get what they wanted and were promised.
Nobody is going to get what they were promised. No Deal wasn't on the cards during the referendum. "Easiest trade deal in history" ring any bells?
If that happened and the result was still the majority voting for Brexit I’d be pissed off but I’d accept it (there’s your compromise from a Remainer)
Same for me. I would hope that at least a million or so people have seen what a mess it is and how it is not quite what they thought but I fear Leave would still win as they play the game better.
Labour’s web-site doesn’t mention anything about them supporting or calling for a 2nd referendum (whether they were in power or not). A 10 year old could write up an unequivocal position statement supporting a 2nd referendum
So you're throwing your dummy out the pram because it's not on the website? Appropriate that you mention 10 year olds though because the remain reaction to labour's position is about at that level.
Let me try to explain. It's not on the website because that has official labour policy as it exists after it was democratically agreed at the last conference. It will be updated when they officially adopt a new policy either at the next conference or an extraordinary one whichever comes first. Corbyn and many others have said they will support a change to this policy to offer a referendum on any deal on brexit. When that is officially adopted I'm sure they will update the website.
And before everyone howls that it will be too late by then, have a think about the other complaint that Corbyn and his 'cabal' are dictating policy on brexit. You can't have it both ways. If you want the membership to set policy, then you have to allow the processes which enable that to play out.
Ed Davey, one of the two Lib Dem leadership candidates, was just on Radio 4 being interviewed. They asked him about Brexit policy and he gave a clear, concise, succinct account of their policy, which is unequivical support for a second referendum where they will campaign to remain.
As opposed to the endless tortured "we might, erm, sort of... erm... possibly.... maybe...... if... if ... if... if ... if... if ... if... if ... if... if ... if... if ... if... if ... if... if ... if... if..." from the Labour party.
Hmmmmmmm... as a remainer, which should I vote for? It's a dilemma.....
If you want the membership to set policy, then you have to allow the processes which enable that to play out.
If you want the membership to set policy, then you have to allow the processes which enable that to play out.
Well, before the European Elections, the deputy leader, MEPs, and members of the shadow cabinet, called for a special conference and/or ballot of the membership ASAP to change policy to include "a Labour government would hold a referendum with a Remain option"… but some people blocked that process from playing out. They didn't want the membership setting policy in this area beyond supporting last year's composite motion fudge… even when an election was looming where policy in this area was obviously going to be pretty central to how people would be voting.