My biggest problem with Labour is they are just as unclear on what kind of Brexit they want & how to acheuve it.
Fing shambles.
Give the janitor the keys!
He does not want hard brexit
He wants to leave the EEA and has campaigned to do so since long before it was fashionable. So if we want to convert that into needlessly wooly terms that's a deffo a very hard Brexit.
It's pretty much beyond dispute that the Tories have a largely Remain leadership with a strong Leave presence on their back benches whereas the Labour Party have a largely leave leadership and a strong remain presence on their back benches.
I agree i think he has always been a leaver but towed the party line for unity and campaigned [ weakly] for remain.
not convinced, hes spent his entire life voting as he feels he should, If he really wanted to Leave he'd have campaigned for it
If he really wanted to Leave he'd have campaigned for it
Nope. Alan Johnson lead the Labour "remain" campaign which involved interation with the Labour leadership throughtout the campaign and he's on record as saying Corbyn and McDonnall were Leavers going through the Remain motions. Which is consistent with what they've been saying over their entire careers.
Alan Johnson discusses it in some detail in the documentary the BBC did on Corbyn a year or so back. It's sure to be on iPlayer still.
Party leaders don't have the luxury of folling their conscience on every issue. Having said that Corbyn's played a blinder on the EU, He's got exactly what he wants. He's had 3 line whips supporting Leaving with the excuse that it's what the public have voted for. All the time he can claim to be supporting remaining. When the dust settles on his career I think he'll consider getting the UK out of the EU was the biggest contribution he made with some justification.
I don't think there's any ambiguity.
Nor do I think it's about what they 'want'.
It's that they recognise that the number 1 reason for brexit was controls on immigration and that the EU have been clear that you can't have [i]membership[/i] of the common market without freedom of movement.
They do want access to it though.
I don't think there's any ambiguity.
Nor do I think it's about what they 'want'.
It's that they recognise that the number 1 reason for brexit was controls on immigration and that the EU have been clear that you can't have membership of the common market without freedom of movement.
They do want access to it though.
Interesting perspective and has the real ring of truth to it.
It would certainly explain why the vast majority of Politicians openly say leaving is a bad idea, yet they mostly still vote for it in spite of the obvious opportunities/pretexts they have available to get out of it. (Narrowness of the result, hung parliament etc.) I've always wondered if they knew something we don't and maybe that's it.
It would certainly explain why the vast majority of Politicians openly say leaving is a bad idea, yet they mostly still vote for it
No. That is explained by the fact they feel compelled to respect the referendum result despite not agreeing with it personally.
not convinced, hes spent his entire life voting as he feels he should, If he really wanted to Leave he'd have campaigned for it
Yes, but until recently he was a backbencher. Now he represents the views of the Labour party, which is why he's not proposing unilateral nuclear disarmament or abolition of the monarchy.
not convinced, hes spent his entire life voting as he feels he should, If he really wanted to Leave he'd have campaigned for it
Yes, but until recently he was a backbencher. Now he represents the views of the Labour party, which is why he's not proposing unilateral nuclear disarmament or abolition of the monarchy.
Yet
No. That is explained by the fact they feel compelled to respect the referendum result despite not agreeing with it personally.
2pc spread? That's not a result at all, it's lost in the noise. A 1pc swing would reverse it.
There was ample excuse to do nothing. Now there's a hung parliament there's another excuse. Corbyn and May could simply both state that they both agree Brexit needs to be halted until there's a new administration with a proper majority.
The fact none of this has happened makes me suspect one of threee things:
-There's something they know that we don't.
-They think Brexit won't be too bad.
-They think there will be a better excuse not to leave in the future.
If the UK voted to nuke Holland the MPs wouldn't vote for it "because democracy".
No. That is explained by the fact they feel compelled to respect the referendum result despite not agreeing with it personally.
nah politicians respect only power
what they are is scared of the grey vote, and they are mostly brexies
Yes, but until recently he was a backbencher. Now he represents the views of the Labour party, which is why he's not proposing unilateral nuclear disarmament or abolition of the monarchy.
he's learnt to keep quiet and bide his time and hope no-one notices what he really wants - then he can't be accussed of a U-turn later.
There was ample excuse to do nothing
Except both sides would lose to UKIP if they did.
Welcome to democracy.
He's taken, however reluctantly, the party line for Remain and Trident,
Yeah but in private he's still saying he'd scrap Trident as soon as he can. The guy is shady as ****.
Can we expect the tories stressing how much he is a leaver to discredit him with the new found your vote?
I love him for kicking Enola in the slats but hate him for being a leaver.
Why exactly does he want to leave?
I can't see they are the same reasons as the Sunderland knuckle draggers or the dacre appeasers.
How you can assume he wants hard or soft based on this is lost on em coudl you explain your reasons?
because he has just sacked people for supporting a soft brexit - why would he do that if he actually wanted a soft brexit ?
Why would Chuka have to go out on a limb to propose the amendment, surely JC would be proposing the amendment if he himself wanted a soft-brexit.
How much more obvious does it have to be?
The guy is shady as ****.
and that is also obvious as well...
Except both sides would lose to UKIP if they did.
Maybe that's the thing they know that we don't then.
Why exactly does he want to leave?
Google: youtube "tony benn" europe
Corbyn's an old fashioned Bennite. Objects to the EU on the basis that it's undemocratic and a Neo-liberal rich Nation's club. Which is probably all true. It's just most people think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
I suspect part of his objection also stems from "If you want to tax the most mobilie entities in an economy - business and the rich - you'd better make sure you can legally stop them leaving.". Plus I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that some some of the nationalizations in the Labour manifesto were illegal under EU rules so leaving the EEA is essential to fullfil his manifesto commitments.
Yeah but in private he's still saying he'd scrap Trident as soon as he can. The guy is shady as ****.
I expect he would, if it was solely up to him. However, he has acknowledged his responsibilities as leader and is acting accordingly.
dragon - Member
He's taken, however reluctantly, the party line for Remain and Trident,
Yeah but in private he's still saying he'd scrap Trident as soon as he can.
Weird take on it. Re trident he's quite open that he'd scrap it, but that it's an argument he needs to win within the Labour party.
The fact people don't get the concept behind that speaks volumes about our democracy.
I expect she would, if it was solely up to her. However, she has acknowledged her responsibilities as leader and is acting accordingly.
Works both ways.
I expect he would, if it was solely up to him. However, he has acknowledged his responsibilities as leader and is acting accordingly.
ha
ha
ha
i think Corbyn will continue to say he wants the same basic brexit agreement as the tories whilst hinting at slightly softer edges.
Brexit is too divisive an issue for him to take the opposite stance it would give the tories some area in which they can attack him and weaken his position. Adopting the same basic position nullifies the tories and leaves him free to emphasise the differences in the parties approach to public services and austerity. Which after 7 years of stagnation are areas the public are happy to buy into.
because he has just sacked people for supporting a soft brexit
No, he sacked his cabinet for going against policy. Seems to have been a necessary option. One of them resigned before the vote.
However, he has acknowledged his responsibilities as leader and is acting accordingly.
LOL, an irregular verb, there.
"The leader I like acknowledges his responsibilities as leader acts accordingly"
"The leader I don't like is unprinicpled"
going against policy
Much like Mr Corbyn's earlier work!
Brexit is too divisive an issue for him to take the opposite stance it would give the tories some area in which they can attack him and weaken his position. Adopting the same basic position nullifies the tories
If they're going to adopt the same position then why not make it 'Halting the leave process for this parliament'.
The Tory leadership would bite his hand off to kick the Brexit headache into the long grass.
The reason he's supporting leaving the EEA is because he wants to leave the EEA.
Much like Mr Corbyn's earlier work!
He wasn't a shadow minister, was he? So not like it at all.
Except for the going against policy bit....
Yes, but going against policy when you're a backbencher is not the same as doing it when you're a shadow minister.
Is it?
But that's perfectly normal for backbenchers. Many MPs refuse front bench positions because of this.Except for the going against policy bit....
As a frontbencher, you follow the whip, or resign.
LOL, an irregular verb, there."The leader I like acknowledges his responsibilities as leader acts accordingly"
"The leader I don't like is unprinicpled"
My concerns about him as a leader included his (in)ability to set aside his personal views and act for the party. I'm pleased that he has proven me wrong.
because he has just sacked people for supporting a soft brexit
No, he sacked his cabinet for going against policy. Seems to have been a necessary option.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Every now and then in a Leader's career the thing he has to do is also the thing he wants to do.
In this case I think he was compelled to sack the Front Bench rebels, but I suspect he wanted to as well.
No, he sacked his cabinet for going against policy
the policy that he so enthusiastically appears to want to follow - a hard brexit. The rest of the party aren't forcing him to support hard brexit at all, most of them would want a soft brexit.
He could easily have a soft brexit as party policy - and if he had pushed it as policy then he would probably be in number 10 now - but he didn't as that is not what he wants.
It is so obvious I can't believe anybody is argueing against it.
It is so obvious I can't believe anybody is argueing against it.
I'm also amazed it's up for debate.
1) He's been arguing for it all his career.
2) His policy objectives require leaving the EEA.
3) The people in his party who work with him say he wants to leave the EEA.
4) His chosen policy for the party is hard brexit in the face of opposition from his back benchers.
5) His faction of the party is Eurosceptic.
6) He was positively beaming on the day the result was announced and immediately called for the triggering of Article 50 in spite of a 50/50 split in the vote.
Where's the evidence he's a remainer?
Have you got a source for this. It's the first time I've heard this2) His policy objectives require leaving the EEA.
So we can rewind to before the election and I can think he's a waste of space.
For me the only thing that matters is staying in europe.
Some of the other stuff he says is good.
He's a **** but just a lot less of a **** than the tories.
Would it have been ethical for all pro EU MPs to have defected to the libs?
Where's the evidence he's a remainer?
He voted Remain.
Next!
He voted Remain
Did you see his ballot paper?
I'm so confused.
Quite possible to criticise the EU but vote remain due to lack of alternative arrangement.
Did you see his ballot paper?
If you're suggesting that he's lying then I think the burden of proof is with you.
Have you got a source for this. It's the first time I've heard this
I heard it on the radio but:
Here's an article that supports it:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/renationalise-railways-what-no-one-will-tell-you-we-cant-while-were-eu
...and here's an article that doesn't:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sam-fowles/nationalisation-is-not-ag_b_8231336.html
On reflection I can't see how the EEAs competition and subsidy rules could possibly allow Nationalization of industries and improvements to those industries with public money.
EDIT: Although the second article fails to mention stuff in the spectator article and doesn't really support it's own rather emphatic headline.
If you're suggesting that he's lying then I think the burden of proof is with you.
well he didn't answer Smith's question until the 3rd go.
And whatever he said he voted his actions are clear now - he wants the hard brexit.
This has a lot of similarities to the apologists for LA not accepting his drugs use for so long.
This has a lot of similarities to the apologists for LA not accepting his drugs use for so long.
Well it would if LA had spent 30 years shouting that he was doping from the rooftops.
This has a lot of similarities to the apologists for LA not accepting his drugs use for so long.
There was evidence that LA was taking drugs. Is there any evidence that Corbyn voted Leave?
There was evidence that LA was taking drugs. Is there any evidence that Corbyn voted Leave?
so what if he didn't - maybe he succumbed to peer pressure - maybe his answer was as truthful as the when he said that he had never met the IRA.
and how has that any elevance now to his actions - is he acting like he regrets the decision to leave the EU ? He is actively supporting a hard brexit.
Seems pretty obvious to me what Corbyn wants. He wants the freedom in government to create an industrial policy which involves the nationalisation of key strategic industries, enable government support of non-nationalised industries, improve trade union representation and recognition in those industries, and protect and improve workers rights. All of those things can't be done within the current EU rules, so it hardly merits debate as to whether he wants to leave or remain. Also any considerations around the single market hard/soft brexit etc will be driven by the above requirements. Clearly his judgement is that these can't be achieved whilst maintaining formal single market membership. He probably also believes that he would have a much stronger negotiating position with Europe on issues of trade, immigration, security etc with the above policies, as opposed to the tory threats of becoming a beggar-thy-neighbour tax haven sweatshop.
Indy:
It is a sign of the dramatic switchback in British politics that Jeremy Corbyn can sack a clutch of rebel shadow ministers with scarcely a murmur of protest from anyone, while Theresa May has to put up with her own Chancellor going around saying that she messed up the election and poking fun at the Foreign Secretary’s fondness for cake.
Double post bug.
Love the Mash's take on this:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/you-do-know-that-im-the-leader-of-the-labour-party-corbyn-asks-may-20170710131463
He's sending her a copy of the Labour manifesto.
Whatever you think about him, you have to admit that's a sick burn.
you have to admit that's a sick burn.
I might. If I had the remotest clue what that means 🙂
Does Corbyn have a similar pamphlet on Venezuelan Economics? Or maybe a spare copy of 'Freedom Fighting for Dummies' ?
What decent person wouldn't spend an evening in the company of this guy ?
[img] 
[/img]
Orrrr diddums 😆
Are we a little sad that nasty Jeremy is being mean to mummy?
I'll bet Corbyn & co are spamming Maybot with plenty of advice.
It's nice that she's finally acknowledging that she literally doesn't have a clue
Orrrr diddumsAre we a little sad that nasty Jeremy is being mean to mummy?
Is that really how you react to news that someone is tweeting about what fun it is to spend an evening with a genocide denier ?
Well, we are being led by reality deniers.
Is that really how you react to news that someone is tweeting about what fun it is to spend an evening with a genocide denier ?
It's nice that you're trying so hard.
2 months since any activity. Must mean the pantomime critics have given up, like many of his MPs 😀
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41659504
its a start, corbyn is doing a good job of setting the domestic agenda, while the tories tie themselves in knots over brexshit
Don't be silly. He's a loony left communist 6th former who will take us back to the 1970s and condemn the labour party to electoral oblivion or force it to split. Oh, hang on...
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/13/jeremy-corbyn-advisers-mi5-lists-claims-dame-stella-rimington/ ]members of communist and Trotskyist organisations in the 1980s who attracted attention from MI5 are now advising Corbyn on how to prepare himself for power[/url]
Move along people, there's nothing to see here 😆
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/16/stella-rimington-should-stop-fuelling-paranoid-fantasies-about-jeremy-corbyn ]Well she would say that wouldn't she.[/url]
enfht - MemberMove along people, there's nothing to see here
love it, righties still trying to throw mud at corbyn, like they did withe IRA fantasies that no one (sane) believed last time either 😛
infact spreading more lies like last the time just seemed to strengthen his support!
keep it up enfht, youre helping him into power, the same way that torygraph campaign did to get people righties to join labour for £3 to vote for him 😆
Be amazing to see who gets on lists... Though it's telling that's all the righties have 😉 I'm sure many people have been on lists for various reasons these days.
Anyway in keeping with the spirit of the other threads
BORRIS
MAY
GOVE
corbyn is doing a good job of setting the domestic agenda, while the tories tie themselves in knots over brexshit
I think Brext might have a fair bit of domestic impact. I don't think you can dismiss it as some kind of irrelevant foreign policy Labour can ignore. You could equally have said Corbyn is avoiding what is overwhelmingly the most important issue of the day.
But yeah. Electorally staying out of it is 100pc the right thing to do.
IRA fantasies that no one (sane) believed last time either
I assume you're referring to the 'Bobby Sands' speech? If so that was true, McDonnell, doesn't deny it:
This all seems a lifetime ago now. In a totally different political world
[img] 
[/img]
Remember those happy, carefree days when all we had to worry about was that the country was being run by a cabal of monumentally annoying Etonian muppets, and there was no opposition party worthy of the name
Halcyon days indeed
I assume you're referring to the 'Bobby Sands' speech?
no it was enfht (i believe) much earlier in the thread repeatedly linking to the Suns claims that corbyn had helped prolong the IRAs campaign
[img] 
[/img]
turns out that the 'source' used admitted to having made up stories to the murdoch press for cash previously
he also claimed to have single handedly saved princess Di from an IRA plot
his testimony had been thrown out by UK courts for being a "practised deceiver" and his Garda handlers labeled him a "deluded fantasist"
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/murderer-served-ira-and-garda-but-mostly-himself-1.19950
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7924601.stm
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ira-killer-turned-police-informer-sean-ocallaghan-claims-provos-still-want-to-murder-him-in-spite-of-ceasefire-34167409.html
Of course Im sure that the editor of the Sun knew all about his history but the rw press' obsession with smearing Corbyn far to important to worry about facts
and some just lap it up
like they did withe IRA fantasies that no one (sane) believed last time either
So why did Corbyn invite two convicted IRA terrorists to parliament one week after the Brighton Bombing?.
And nobody mention Corbyn's Marxist 'Chancellor'
Or why Corbyn's handlebars are so bloody high on his clown bike!
Gandhi Foundation International Peace Prize winner, 2013.
For his work in Northern Ireland.
Funny how that never gets mentioned much.
youre helping him into power, the same way that torygraph campaign did to get people righties to join labour for £3 to vote for him
Wasn't that the plan? To help Momentum take over the Labour Party to kill it off? ...and hasn't it worked? The NEC have changed the nomination requirement from %15 to %10 so all future leaders will be from Corbyn's wing of the party. They couldn't even beat the worstr PM I can remember with with a giveaway budget.
Game over, surely.
Nah the plan was for a Tory landslide....
They couldn't even beat the worstr PM I can remember with with a giveaway budget.
I do love a bit of tory revisionism 🙂
No doubt Jamba will be back soon saying his 150 seat majority prediction never happened.
So Corbyn just had an easy win at PMQs......... on the economy
No wonder the Tories all look so glum
enfht - Member
So why did Corbyn invite two convicted IRA terrorists to parliament one week after the Brighton Bombing?
Obviously on a fundraising drive for the cause.
They couldn't even beat the worstr PM I can remember with with a giveaway budget.
I do love a bit of tory revisionism
It'll be it the biased press misleading me into thinking Labour lost and May is the worst PM I can remember. Bloody fake news.