No, Labour are very clearly remain. They campaigned for remain in 2016. Corbyn campaigned for remain in 2016. Pretty much all of their front bench are remainers. Look at Emily Thornberry for example. She has repeatedly stated that she would work to get the UK the 'best' W.A possible and then campaign against it in favour of remain! JC still refuses to say that he won't campaign against his own W.A. Keir Starmer has said many times over the past six months that he wants, and expects, Labour to campaign strongly for remain if there were to be another referendum. Barry Gardiner is another. The list goes on. To claim Labour are not a remain party is absurd. Look at their latest Brexit position. Barry Gardiner says the party will now amend T.M's deal (which they thrice rejected), put this amended deal to the people and then oppose it! Now in the past week or so he has modified his rhetoric and is saying that he thinks Labour's amended deal would be a good option but flat out refuses to say if he (and Labour) would still campaign against it. The fact that he has said they would in the past and now refuses to comment tells you all you need to know.
What? That they don't know what they're doing? I've thought that for a while now. Labour's main problem is that they've been wishy-washy over this entire thing. Brexit split their party much the same as it did the Tories, but they haven't been in the driver's seat for most of this so it's been harder to tell. Now that they actually have to campaign, it's become more obvious.
Hence why I made the distinction that I didn't know whether it was just Corbyn's faction who is secretly hoping for 'a Brexit their way' (which is why he can't say whether he'd campaign for his plan or not, which would probably be a vote splitter, let's be honest), or if it was Labour's main plan. If this is actually Labour's main plan then they're morons. If it's Corbyn's design then his faction is full of wishful thinking. Either way, they, like the Tories, have also failed to coalesce around a single cohesive idea, and it's hurting their position badly.
As an aside, you do realize that just because Corbyn campaigned for remain doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't want to do it his way right? In politics, stopping the opposition is often seen as more pressing then fighting within your own party over differing ideals. Normally, that's because while you're busy fighting among yourselves, your opponent can potentially come in and snatch the prize so dealing with them takes higher priority.
I don't see how having a voice in the decisions and being subject to them is worse or equal to having no voice and being subject to those same decisions but okay.
If B.J did as the DUP wanted there wouldnt even have been a W.A to vote on in the first place. That was the unfortunate reality when you had the majority of MPs opposed to the government.
Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that it negatively affected his already shaky power base. The thing about burning bridges is that you end up becoming more dependent on the ones you haven't burned.
The manifesto says “NO deal is better than a bad deal for the UK". The Tories stated that any deal would take the UK OUT of the single market and out of the customs union.
Specifically the Tory election manifesto stated that:
- "As we leave the European Union, we will NO longer be members of the single market OR customs union."
- "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."
It's all there in black and white. Check for yourself.
Neither of which proclaims that the Tories would stop attempting to make a deal past 2 years. "No deal is better than a bad deal for the UK" does not mean "We will negotiate for 2 years and if we can't reach an acceptable deal then we will leave without one". Also, "we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union" does not mean "we are obligated and duty bound to vote for the first WA that achieves those goals somewhat".
If anything, that entire manifesto states the opposite intention. That they will fight bitterly and to the end if need be to get 'the best deal for the UK', which is not necessarily Johnson's WA.
What you advocate for is ending negotiations with the EU. Quite funny, considering all of the 'UK can make the most out of Brexit' and 'we will achieve the best deal for the UK' talk around the leave camp and especially the Tory camp.
So it's the tories fault some of their members refused to do what they promised they would if elected. It's the publics fault that the 21 rebels went back on their promises. Interesting.
So again, it's fine for politicians to promise to act in a certain way if elected and then refuse to honour their commitment to those who voted for them. Not how i see things but so be it.
I was unaware that they all promised they would back Johnson's plan, or that they would not oppose an attempt to force no-deal.
You havent answered my questions. Again:
- HOW do you co-operate (really compromise) when one side is saying we will do as the people asked and take the country out of the EU whilst the other side are saying we think the people were wrong and we want the country to remain in the EU. How do they co-operate?
With that attitude, compromise becomes difficult. If you insist on pursuing this version of Brexit because of a moral obligation and insist that the opposition wants nothing but to remain in the EU, then yes compromise becomes increasingly difficult.
- HOW do they compromise?
As I've said already, both sides should re-examine their beliefs and figure out what they can and cannot give on. Then they should meet, WITHOUT the traitor rhetoric hanging in the air, and hash that out. I cannot tell you anything more than that because I don't know, ultimately, what the two sides would hypothetically give up on, in their entirety. Unless you would prefer this conversation spin into unending hypothetical situations then I suggest that you not ask me to discuss guesswork.
- WHY should they even have to compromise?
Why should they have to compromise? Because, as I have said many times already, they don't have the power to enact their polices otherwise. You can view that any way you wish but it doesn't change the reality or the math.
- What compromises do you think remain supporters would have made had they won in 2016?
What would leave supporters have supported instead of complete dissolution? If that's the only demand or route they would be willing to take, then compromise becomes difficult. If instead they wanted to address some of the issues that I've seen you and others bring up, like the concerns over 'ever closer unions' then there is some common ground among a lot of the remain camp, who have some of those same concerns.
No. The whole point of the vote in 2016 was to let the PEOPLE decide whether or not they wanted the UK to remain in the EU.
If Parliament agrees to ask the people what it is they want Parliament then needs to respect the wishes of the people. The 2016 people's vote wasnt a G.E. Parliament agreed to the people's vote. They reinforced this when they passed a bill giving authority to the PM to trigger article 50. Since that moment the majority of MPs have been doing everything possible to stop Brexit from happening because they don't like it. In effect the people voted to leave and the pollies then voted to remain. So this election is very much a case of the people vs parliament.
I meant that's the whole point of voting in general. Voting bequeaths power to the representative, and a majority of similar minded empowered representatives increase the chances of policy going a certain direction.
I was referring to the fact that when the 21 rebels crossed the floor the result was a hung parliament. Well more accurately a 'zombie parliament'. So going into this election the people knew they were dealing with a hung parliament and they have seen what the result is. So if they returned a parliament that was still hung then the blame falls on them. Again, UNLESS Parliament once more ends up hung because of MPs refusing to do what they told voters they would.
Do you not understand what a hung Parliament means or something? Because it definitely wasn't just created when the rebellion happened, nor is a hung Parliament necessarily equivalent to a 'zombie Parliament'.
I believe that the actions of the rebel alliance who refused to accept the result of the people's vote was undemocratic and that there should never have been the need for yet another election. However, the fact is that their actions made another election necessary. Now an election is obviously a democratic process and i believe that you should respect the outcome of a democratic process. Doesn't mean you have to like it. Not accepting the outcome of the G.E would be as bad as not accepting the outcome of the 2016 people's vote and i don't think two wrongs make a right.
Again, the people were asked what they wanted re the UK's relationship with the EU back in 2016. That should have been enough. In a democracy that should have ben enough. Only it wasnt and so there is yet another vote (though Labour have tried hard to make this election about anything other than Brexit). Anyway, if the people return a remain government and Brexit is overturned I would not be happy as it confirms that when people voted in 2016 their votes meant nothing. It would confirm that when people were told their wishes would be respected they were lied to. But, if the people still want to return a government that is determined to ignore the 2016 people's vote then so be it.
Voting is a means, not an end. Our participation in democracy does not end after we vote. In a democracy, just voting is typically not enough. Whether you wish to believe that or not is up to you, but from my perspective, since I started paying attention to politics almost 15 years ago, it has never once been enough to just vote.
"Firstly a 2nd in/out referendum would be undemocratic when you haven't even honoured the result of the first one" says the person who also said "Not accepting the outcome of the G.E would be as bad as not accepting the outcome of the 2016 people's vote and i don't think two wrongs make a right". Is a G.E. somehow more intrinsically democratic then a second ref? How is it that not accepting the results of a G.E. would "be as bad as not accepting the outcome of the 2016 people's vote" but not accepting a second ref would not? They're both people's votes that (potentially) invalidate the 2016 ref. You seem to be opposed to a second ref on principle, not based on anything on the political landscape.
Firstly a 2nd in/out referendum would be undemocratic when you haven't even honoured the result of the first one. But the only people pushing for a 2nd referendum are refusing to give the people a genuine leave option. As stated in previous posts parliament will only offer the people the choice btw remain or remain without a voice. That's all they are offering. It's not even BRINO it's remain light. So the difference is that in the G.E people have a genuine leave option that they won't get with a 2nd referendum. In the G.E the people can vote for the Tories who are promising to 'respect the result of the (2016) referendum'. In the proposed 2nd referendum all people would have to choose from is two different versions of remain. That is the difference and it's a BIG one. That is why a G.E can result in 'respect (for) the result of the referendum' whilst the proposed 2nd referendum is completely disregarding and disrespecting the result of the 2016 people's vote.
Okay, but I wasn't talking about Labour's ref proposal. I was talking about a ref in general, of which you had continuously opposed months before we ever knew what a potential ref might conceivably look like. Even then, the Tories could have held their own ref proposal that was more 'fair' to the previous vote if they wanted to. They chose not to.