Forum menu
Indeed. There’s a big difference between a ‘Remain option’ and ‘options for Remain voters’.
Even if there shouldn't be . . .
Whether there's a difference or not, the ambiguity is still there, which I what still concerns many of us I think...
the ambiguity is still there
And seems to have done its job as it has suckered in both dazh and TJ.
I have not been suckered. It's not me who cannot read simple words
Some of you so hate Corbyn that it blinds you.
I don't "hate" anybody. I struggling to believe you really can't tell the difference between what he said and what you want him to have said.
Do longtime allies and leftist stalwarts John McDonnell and Diane Abbott as well as “soft left” members such as Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry, pro-Corbyn Scottish and Welsh Labour leaderships, and the London mayoralty; key unions, such as Unison and the GMB; and Labour members, over half of whom didn’t vote for their own party in the European elections according to YouGov all hate Corbyn too, because they are also calling for a clear commitment to a Remain option in any ballot proposed by Corbyn.
reading words is not the same as understanding them.
I neither hate nor love Corbyn. But I can read, understand context and do notice when people and parties present woolly language in the hope that it will be interpreted as going further than stated without committing them to anything.
I have not been suckered. It’s not me who cannot read simple words
Some of you so hate Corbyn that it blinds you.
So the Labour party web-site is an attempt by right-wing media to discredit Corbyn? FFS listen to yourself, can you not read the simple words on their web-site?! Their position is STATED clear as day on their web-site yet all you're referring to is a quote (not directly to the media) that absolutely uses ambiguous language. You're so determined to believe JC is actually the second coming you're the one that's blind. I don't hate Corbyn at all, I'd vote Labour at the next general election if they unambiguously supported a second referendum with a remain option, they don't currently so I won't be voting Labour until that changes.
Some of you so hate Corbyn that it blinds you.
No we just don't trust politicians when they use ambiguous language where plain speaking should be. This phrase can easily be construed as weasel words prior to a bait and switch and their lack of clarification on the matter speaks volumes.
The trouble is that for remainers, Brexit is binary, the only suitable compromise is to revoke A50 or doom. The compromise being to enter into a process of trying to reform the EU.
^ that.
The FBPE/anti-Corbyn cult is out in force today I see. Have you all been coordinating on twitter or something? 😀
Brexit is binary
And that’s the problem, because if it is it means you’ve already lost because the decision on that was made 3 years ago. (Yeah I know, the poor little voters didn’t understand blah blah)
As I said along time ago, this will not be resolved from extreme binary positions. At some point compromise will be necessary. if compromise isn’t possible the no deal nutters are in a much stronger position to achieve their goals than remain.
'poor little voters'? Odd. ' there we are now, you've had your day, now get back in your box' seems to be more the order of the day. We're in a situation where the two candidates for pm are trying to say that their brexit is longer, thicker, and harder than the other guy's, and the choice we have now really had boiled down to a binary one, whether you like it or not. Either way if we leave the country is on it's arse for the foreseeable. At that point you may just as well let the architects of this have at it, and burn it all down. At least somone will be making some money.
I was (still am?) a believer in Corbyn-shaped labour, but I do agree that the "constructive ambiguity" has perhaps reached the end of its usefulness. IMO the country is now firmly split into 3 camps: "must have Brexit", "no Brexit ever", "bored of Brexit, don't care, can we make the country less shit please". And very few people going to be persuaded out of those camps.
However I still trust that Corbyn will do what he commits to; that's the reason for any ambiguity, he doesn't want to commit to a position and row back on it. And that means there isn't really any other option other than maybe the Greens (I have a very hard time trusting the Lib Dems given their track record)...
Meanwhile, on the first day of European parliament post-election, our anti- and pro-brexit MEPs have taken slightly different approaches.
As I said along time ago, this will not be resolved from extreme binary positions. At some point compromise will be necessary.
And as I said an equally long time ago, your concept of compromise is nonsensical. Yet here we still are. It's like divorcing parents arguing over child custody and deciding that the best compromise would be to carve the child in half and take half each.
(I have a very hard time trusting the Lib Dems given their track record)
Makes sense. I have a hard time trusting Germany because of the war.
As I said along time ago, this will not be resolved from extreme binary positions. At some point compromise will be necessary
But there's only really 4 options:
1). Brexit (no deal, parliament has already voted against this so would either need a General Election + majority government first or parliament to be ignored which would likely have some follow-on issues...)
2). Brexit (May's deal, another parliamentary vote?... would need to be a General Election + majority government first)
3). Brexit (new deal that in reality is probably a non-option at least within the next year or so)
4). Remain
So for a pro-Remainer what's the compromise position you meaninglessly allude to? 1, 2 or 3 both end up with Brexit, just differing levels of chaos immediately after followed by a huge unknown of what happens mid to long term.
The fact remains the 1st referendum was fundamentally flawed in how it was constructed and therefore should be voided. The 1st referendum should have been "Remain" or "Start Brexit and have another vote once a deal is agreed with the EU and the implications of Brexit better understood". There should always have been a 2nd referendum with a "Remain" or "Brexit with the deal (or no deal is one can't be agreed)" options.
Unfortunately we can't rewind time and get the Remainers in government to wake up to the fact people voting for some sort of Brexit was an actual possibility they needed to factor in when agreeing to the terms of the 1st referendum. So we're left sorting out the mess and the only way to do that without any hope of an agreed way to Brexit is via a second referendum, which also gives people who were lied to regarding the benefits of Brexit a chance to change their vote.
for a pro-Remainer what’s the compromise position you meaninglessly allude to?
There is actually a compromise to be had (I've said this before too). Analyse why people voted leave - which has already been done - and address those concerns. Ie, tackle the problem at its source. I do this daily at work, people come to me wanting something which is a solution that they've pulled out of their arse but on investigating what they're trying to do there's often a better way to resolve the issue they're facing.
Despite today's narrative, many people (both leave and remain) had no real idea how to vote and made their decision based on a single policy or idea. This was readily apparent from exit polls and interviews directly after the referendum.
Many people voted for tighter controls on immigration. We can do this, and make those people happy.
Many people voted for more money to the NHS. We can do this, and make those people happy.
Many people voted for a change - any change. This has arguably already occurred, the two-party politics race is as dead as a Norwegian Blue.
Many people voted out of a belief that they don't like the way the EU operates. We can propose to reform this - but only from within.
Many people voted because they believed the lies that the media have been peddling for years (bendy bananas and such codswallop). This is simply an education issue.
And so on and so on. You can give a lot of leave voters what they wanted without resorting leaving the EU. That's your compromise right there. There will always be the "brexit at all costs" gammons but there's no reaching those people, they'll never be happy as what happens. But many leave voters - I'd guess a very large majority even - are just normal people who don't fall into that category.
No we just don’t trust politicians when they use ambiguous language where plain speaking should be. This phrase can easily be construed as weasel words prior to a bait and switch and their lack of clarification on the matter speaks volumes.
It's very obvious what Corbyn is doing. He's between a rock and a hard place.
I was watching some programme years ago talking to I think a philosopher. The question was about politics, specifically why politicians always seem to lie. The chap gave an example. He said imagine that you are in a bar, and you get chatting to two beautiful women. You're getting along really well, then one of them asks 'which of us is more beautiful?' I think very few people would give a straight answer to that. The point is that it is perfectly possible to create an apparently simple question that answering either way would cause problems.
What we need is a second referendum with a options of Remain or a "real choice for the Brexiters".
Ooh, is that "if you hate Europe so much, why don't you **** off to Australia?" (-:
@Cougar - not sure if you're being serious or not... you can't possibly think it's as simple as that?
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.
Are we still going round in the same circles? - binners hilarious M-P pictures, discussion of Labour's complete lack of policy.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Brexit is gonna happen, it's going to be more or less shite for everyone, mostly the poor (as usual - with the special irony that it was the poor who voted for it), and despite some real negative impact on my life, I'm almost beyond caring.
They've also got form for gerrymandering the conference agenda so they avoid actually discussing anything that the leadership don't want to talk about
Don't mention the B word and lets get on with discussing the pressing issue of rural bus timetables
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.
Nope, just continue to be amazed by your naivety. Corbyn's careful wording around a 2nd referendum allows them to support a 2nd referendum but also campaign for a Brexit option on that referendum. There's also no clarification on how the Brexit options would even be defined - it seems to assume Labour win a GE and negotiate a new deal that parliament agrees with (despite them not having offered any solutions to things like the Irish boarder issue, and "technology" isn't it).
So as a Remainer why would I vote Labour at the GE when it seems likely Corbyn wants to carry on with Brexit, just on his terms?
I don't hate Corbyn and I understand that what he's doing (as a Brexiteer in opposition) is entirely sensible but I won't vote for a party that's not clearly pro-Remain (either abandoning article 50 with a mandate from a GE with it being in their manifesto or supporting a 2nd referendum and campaigning for Remain in that referendum
For clarity (again....):
“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.”
A vote for Labour is a vote for Brexit - it says so on the fing website...at least until.....IF....it changes....which I doubt it will since Corbyn has been a eurosceptic nearly all his life..
🙄
https://labour.org.uk/issues/labours-plan-brexit/
Meanwhile, BBC reporting take up of foreign language in schools dropping as parents tell their kids they won't need another language after Brexit.
WTF??
Trouble is that the tickets were $5 each. So everyone just got their stake back, less an admin fee!
You've both missed the salient point here - the stake and the prize are both is USD and they only lost 10% of the value. What do we reckon post Halloween? A pound being worth fifty cents?
Meanwhile, BBC reporting take up of foreign language in schools dropping as parents tell their kids they won’t need another language after Brexit.
To be replaced by the international language of shouting slowly in English
Nice to see that the Brexit party's stunt yesterday has now got the Twitter hashtag 'Backgammon' 😀
Nope, just continue to be amazed by your naivety.
As opposed to the naivety of thinking that voting libdem will suddenly stop brexit instead of enabling a tory/brexit party victory and a no deal brexit?
Corbyn’s careful wording around a 2nd referendum allows them to support a 2nd referendum but also campaign for a Brexit option on that referendum.
They've said they'll provide options for both leave and remain voters. They've never said how they will campaign. As I've said, I expect they'll go down the Wilson route of allowing labour MPs to campaign according to their consciences.
There’s also no clarification on how the Brexit options would even be defined
They've clearly said it will be up to parliament to decide the questions of a new referendum based on whatever new deal they can agree (or not). There's nothing ambiguous about this (yeah yeah, website etc - see above).
– it seems to assume Labour win a GE and negotiate a new deal that parliament agrees with
There's no assumption about it. They've been very clear that a labour govt would seek to renegotiate with the EU to agree a new deal that can then go to a referendum.
(despite them not having offered any solutions to things like the Irish boarder issue, and “technology” isn’t it).
You're getting confused. Labour have offered a solution to the border issue in the form of a permanent customs union deal with the EU. The technology stuff is ERG fantasies about a Canada deal.
That's not a solution though, is it? Not wanting to go back hundreds of pages to explain again why an agreement on tariffs is almost inconsequential as regards all Ireland operations, and the nationality of residents of Northern Ireland… but customs arrangements are just a small part of a much much larger puzzle for which no one has yet put forward a solution… how to keep all Ireland alignments in place, and also keep all UK alignments in place, yet allow the UK to Leave and deviate from the Single Market and abandon FoM within it.
However you try to colour it dazh.....
A Labour vote is STILL a vote FOR Brexit...
...and unicorns. Red unicorns, comrade. Many, many red unicorns
As opposed to the naivety of thinking that voting libdem will suddenly stop brexit instead of enabling a tory/brexit party victory and a no deal brexit?
When have I said I expect LibDems to win a GE and stop Brexit? It's highly likely they won't but at least that's what they've been clear they would do if given the chance. Labour's version of Brexit is not just undefined but also still ultimately Brexit, why - as a Remainer - would I vote for that? Just to stop the Tories version of Brexit (which is still also undefined).
They’ve said they’ll provide options for both leave and remain voters. They’ve never said how they will campaign. As I’ve said, I expect they’ll go down the Wilson route of allowing labour MPs to campaign according to their consciences.
Well I guess we'll have to wait and see, I very much doubt I'll be proved wrong and I very much doubt Corbyn will give Labour MPs in a majority Labour government a free vote or free reign to campaign to remain.
They’ve clearly said it will be up to parliament to decide the questions of a new referendum based on whatever new deal they can agree (or not). There’s nothing ambiguous about this (yeah yeah, website etc – see above).
Which is all wishy-washy BS, have you been living under a rock for the last few months or have you not realised parliament can't decide anything when it comes to Brexit. The only way a Brexit decision is getting made in parliament is after a GE with a strong majority government (or by BoJo managing to suspend parliament and forcing a no deal through). So it's just a meaningless statement
There’s no assumption about it. They’ve been very clear that a labour govt would seek to renegotiate with the EU to agree a new deal that can then go to a referendum.
So pro-Brexit then as per their web page? Glad we agree on something
You’re getting confused. Labour have offered a solution to the border issue in the form of a permanent customs union deal with the EU. The technology stuff is ERG fantasies about a Canada deal.
And how are they getting that customs deal without a backstop being in the withdrawal agreement? You think Labour saying "you can def trust us lot to sort something out so you don't need a backstop" will be enough for the EU to remove it from the withdrawal agreement? Or is it just a pro-Brexit Labour government would force a slightly altered version of May's deal (still with the backup in the withdrawal agreement) through parliament and call it a victory that's great for Britain? Jesus wept...
A Labour vote is STILL a vote FOR Brexit…
Not really. It isnt clear what precisely it is a vote for and anyone saying it is categorically one way or another is talking bollocks.
Unicorns everywhere.
It's a Kobayashi Maru scenario this shitfest.