The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Brexit

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...23 24 25 26 27 ...51 52 53 · >>
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#361New Post! Dec 09, 2019 @ 08:12:45
@nooneinparticular Said

I don't really know what those potential demographics would vote for if given the chance, but I assume Labour has some reason for pushing for it.

Well yes, because most under 18's don't work and have spent their entire school lives receiving an overwhelmingly 'progressive' left view of the world. With very little real life experience they generally accept the views of their teachers. So no surprise that polls consistently show that this age group is far more likely to vote Labour. As for EU citizens...well that is pretty self explanatory.

@nooneinparticular Said

I can't really predict whether or not those demographics would vote for a hypothetical Labour deal over remain, for instance, nor do I know which outcome Labour would want

You have been telling us that Labour are a Leave party. If so it's obvious what they want. Now however you are saying you don't know what Labour want.

@nooneinparticular Said

...having not seen any deal plans from Labour thus far.

Just listen to Labour MP's like Emily Thornberry and Barry Gardiner. They have just recently stated what Labour's newest vision for a deal would be. It would be a version of T.M's deal. You know, the one they rejected three times! They would however make some changes fully lock the UK into not simply the customs union and the single market but also to include a political declaration that would firmly lock the UK into alignment with all aspects of the EU. That would mean the UK would have too follow all EU laws, decisions, policies, directives etc. Basically their deal involves the UK remaining without representation.

@nooneinparticular Said

Be that as it may, is there a reason to block either of those demographics from voting on principle? Regardless of what is being voted on or how they ultimately end up voting?

My oath there are reasons but, seeing as you are the one advocating for change, why should these groups be permitted to vote? What are the compelling reasons for changing UK electoral law?

@nooneinparticular Said

What's the contention here? That he sought advice at all, or that he sought advice only now when the election is so close?

He's not checking just in case the UK leave. He knows the only two outcomes possible are remain, or remain without representation. So he needs to check that there will be no problems as he knows the UK will be bound by EU law no matter what the result of the clayton's referendum.
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#362New Post! Dec 09, 2019 @ 12:21:00
@nooneinparticular Said

What? That they don't know what they're doing?

No, they know what they're doing. They just don't want their traditional voters in the north and in Cymru to know what they are doing. But having heard a fair few traditional Labour supporters speaking on LBC few people are being fooled.

@nooneinparticular Said

...I didn't know whether it was just Corbyn's faction who is secretly hoping for 'a Brexit their way'

So JC has been lying when he has said he wants the UK to remain in the EU? Was he also just acting a part in 2016 when he campaigned against leave? If you are right then this makes JC a liar, a manipulator and an imposter. Now personally I don't claim to know what JC really thinks. Maybe you are right, but without being able to read his mind I have to take him at his word, and he has repeatedly stated over the past 4 years that he wants the UK to remain in the EU.

Furthermore, you are in effect stating that JC is an extremely weak leader who doesn't have control over his own party. How else do you explain the fact that senior Labour MPs like Emily Thornberry and Barry Gardiner have been constantly saying for months that having negotiated a new deal Labour would then campaign against it in favour of remain.

@nooneinparticular Said

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?

I think if you campaign against Leave, and you consistently state (in public forums) that you WANT the UK to remain in the EU then it is not unreasonable for people to believe that you are pro remain. It is also not unreasonable for people to view the party you lead as being pro remain...esp as all of your shadow cabinet have publicly expressed a pro remain position.

By the way, if Labour were a leave party (of any kind) then that would mean that, according to the latest polls, 79-82% of respondents state they they will vote for a leave party. So from 52% support for Leave in 2016 it's now at apparently 79-82%. After-all, this is primarily a Brexit election (though Labour try hard to avoid talking about Brexit) so it's not unreasonable to think that most people will cast their vote primarily on whether or not a party is Leave or Remain.

@nooneinparticular Said

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.

Are you referring to Labour's proposed referendum? If so can you elaborate.

The quote of mine that you responded to was concerned with your assertion that Labour's W.A (which would see the UK tied to the customs union, to the single market, subject to ECJ jurisdiction, unable to strike it's own trade deals, to control it's own borders or waters etc etc etc) was a legitimate form of leaving the EU.

@nooneinparticular Said

The thing about burning bridges is that you end up becoming more dependent on the ones you haven't burned.

Interestingly the DUP only yesterday stated that they could still work with BJ after the election.

@nooneinparticular Said

Neither of which proclaims that the Tories would stop attempting to make a deal past 2 years.

The UK Government could have 'negotiated' with the EU till the cows came home and it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference. The only thing that got the EU to move at all was the combination of a 'hard' deadline and the threat of no deal. Anyway...

The rebels crossed the floor well after the two year negotiation period was up. They crossed the floor after the negotiation period had already been extended. They specifically crossed the floor as they opposed BJ's stated intention to leave with no deal if a good deal couldnt be agreed upon. The time line is irrelevant. It was his apparent (I'm unconvinced) preparedness to leave with NO deal that saw them cross the floor. So simply put they crossed the floor when they thought there was the chance the UK could leave with NO deal. And yet they were elected on the promise that NO deal was a legitimate option.

It's pretty simple. The rebel MPs stood before the people and promised to support the party position that NO deal was better than a bad deal. And yet these same people then crossed the floor stating that they could NEVER support the UK leaving with NO deal. It's unlikely that they had only just had a change of heart. Indeed JS has publicly stated that Grieve had been working with her for over a year (so whilst he was still a Tory) on ways to STOP Brexit from happening at all.

@nooneinparticular Said

"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".

No, but as previously stated the negotiation period had already been extended beyond 2 years and nothing looked like changing. The only way it seemed that the EU could be persuaded to re-open negotiations was to stick to the new, defined deadline and to be prepared to leave without a deal. The rebels however crossed the floor as despite what they had told their electorate in 2017 they had NO intention whatsoever in supporting any NO deal scenario.

Now what "No deal is better than a bad deal for the UK" meant was that (drum roll please)...NO deal was better than a bad deal! Now there had already been an extension beyond 2 years and still the UK was only being offered what the great majority of MPs thought was a bad deal. A deal they had rejected three times. So what do you do? Just keep on extending and hoping that out of the blue the EU change their mind and concede a little ground? Or do you say "the deal you are married to is a bad deal for the UK. So if you won't re-negotiate then that's fine, we shall leave without a deal because NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL". That is the scenario that the rebels promised the people they would support and that is the scenario they crossed the floor to PREVENT from happening.

@nooneinparticular Said

"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".

BJ hadn't negotiated any deal when they crossed the floor. They had no idea what his deal might look like or if he would even get one. They were not shy in telling people why they crossed the floor, and they crossed the floor because they refused to accept ANY scenario that might lead to NO deal. This despite the fact that they were elected on the PROMISE that they would support NO deal as an option.

@nooneinparticular Said

If anything, that entire manifesto states the opposite intention.

That is absurd.

@nooneinparticular Said

What you advocate for is ending negotiations with the EU.

If they listened to you the UK would still be stuck with TM's deal with an unending number of extensions. This is actually what remoaners and the EU were hoping for.

If one side are insisting that an offer you find unacceptable is the only offer available then there comes a time when you have to be able to walk away.

@nooneinparticular Said

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.

Seriously, what part of "NO DEAL is better than a bad deal" don't you understand? When they crossed the floor TM's deal was the only one in existence. They crossed the floor specifically because they didnt want to support ANY scenario that might lead to no deal. They said as much numerous times. In crossing the floor to try and prevent any no deal scenario they broke their election promises that they made to the people.

@nooneinparticular Said

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.

The people were asked what they wanted. They were told that if you vote leave then that would mean leaving the customs union and leaving the single market. They were specifically told this, and yet the majority voted to leave. So how can you respect the democratic process without taking the UK out of the customs union and out of the single market? If you don't do this then you are betraying the people. You seem to be of the belief that the winners should have to compromise with those who lost when the reverse wouldnt have been true. When you have a democratic vote one side wins and one side loses. The winning side (that being the majority) should not then be expected to compromise and give up what they have won in order to placate those who lost (the minority). That's not how it works.

@nooneinparticular Said

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.

No they shouldn't. The MPs should all respect the result of the single biggest democratic vote in the country's history. They should recognise that they are there to SERVE the people. They asked the people what they wanted them to do. The people told them. They should therefore do what the people have asked. Otherwise, don't ever hold another referendum about anything ever again. Don't ask the people what they want if you are going to simply ignore them if they don't give you the answer you want.

@nooneinparticular Said

I cannot tell you anything more than that because I don't know, ultimately, what the two sides would hypothetically give up on

The people were told 'if you vote leave the result would be the country would leave the customs union and leave the single market'. The majority still voted leave. Now the rebel alliance were absolutely opposed to this happening. They simply would not accept ANY deal where this is the result. The government however could not agree to anything that doesnt result in the UK leaving the customs union and the single market, as to do so would be to ignore the wishes of the majority. To not do so however means they could never find common ground with the rebel alliance. So what should the Government have done? Exactly what it did. You respect the outcome of a democratic vote.

@nooneinparticular Said

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 maths.

To compromise is to betray the result of the single biggest democratic vote in the UK's history. To compromise is to tell over 17.4 million people that, despite what we said beforehand, your vote doesnt count. You don't reward people for giving the finger to democracy. You don't reward people for shamelessly breaking promises that they were elected on. If MPs betray those who elected them, and you therefore don't have the numbers, then you have to go back to the people...which will happen in a few days time.

@nooneinparticular Said

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.

I don't think you understand how referendums work. Certainly not in the UK style Parliamentary system. A referendum is a single vote in which the people are asked what it is they would like politicians to do in regard to a single issue. You seem to make no distinction btw a referendum and a G.E.

@nooneinparticular Said

Is a G.E. somehow more intrinsically democratic then a second ref?

Well it's certainly fairer. In 2016 the people were asked if they wanted the UK to leave or remain in the EU. Under Labour's referendum people wouldn't be given this choice. It would be a choice btw remain with a voice in the EU or remain without a voice in the EU. So no real choice at all. That is why calling Labour's referendum a '2nd' referendum is really disingenuous as it wouldn't even be asking the same question again. So it should more accurately be called 'another referendum'.

This referendum, as stated, wouldn't give people the choice btw remain or leave which they were given in 2016, and which they will in effect be given in a few days time. So that is the fundamental difference. In a few days time people will be given the chance to vote in MPs who say they will take the UK out of the EU, or they can vote in MPs who state they will ensure that the UK remains in the EU. Or they can vote for Labour who will keep the UK tied to the EU one way or the other. This really is the last chance (in the foreseeable future) for people to tell MPs what they want re the EU. The last chance for people to chose btw remain or leave.

@nooneinparticular Said

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.

I have explained all of this previously. Maybe you didn't read that part of my post. Firstly there should NOT have been the need for another G.E. But, in order to respect the result of the 2016 people's vote there had to be. There was simply NO other option. Now whilst another G.E is undesirable, and only necessary because MPs wouldn't respect the result of the 2016 people's vote, it is still a democratic exercise and so should be respected. As for another referendum...well as previously stated, it will NOT give people the same choice they were given in 2016. So what would happen is you ignore the results of 2016 and then ask the people a different question that doesn't give them the chance to vote to
leave.

@nooneinparticular Said

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.

I opposed another referendum because the people have already been asked what they want. There is no justification for ignoring the results of the 2016 people's vote and having another referendum simply because you didn't like the result of the first one. I know the EU like to do that but it's hardly democratic. And what happens if you had another in/out ref (which the rebel alliance would NEVER have supported) and the result is the same? Do we go again? Do we follow the EU's lead and just keep on holding referendums until you get the desired outcome? What if remain won 52-48? Surely that would mean you have yet another referendum. What is the acceptable majority? Is it 55-45? 60-40? What if the result is always say 60-40 or less one way or the other? Do you simply keep on having referendums for the next 50 years asking the same question over and over and over again? Historically referendums have always been asking a single question about a single issue and then ACTING upon the result. You don't keep re-running the referendum until you are happy with the result. So either respect the result or don't have a referendum in the first place.

@nooneinparticular Said

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.

The question people were asked in 2016 was straightforward. The question was asked and answered. All that was required was that MPs respect the wishes of the people and do as the people asked. And so yes the Tories rightly chose not to hold another referendum. Had they done so they would have been saying 'F.U' to the 17.4 million who voted in 2016 on the promise their vote would be respected. So I personally don't think it a bad thing that the Tories didn't do that. I don't see it as a bad thing that BJ wants to respect the outcome of the single biggest democratic vote in the UK's history. You obviously think otherwise.
nooneinparticular On September 04, 2020




, Hawaii
#363New Post! Dec 10, 2019 @ 02:08:44
@shadowen Said

Well yes, because most under 18's don't work and have spent their entire school lives receiving an overwhelmingly 'progressive' left view of the world. With very little real life experience they generally accept the views of their teachers. So no surprise that polls consistently show that this age group is far more likely to vote Labour. As for EU citizens...well that is pretty self explanatory.


Good to know that we can always invalidate the views of another group by claiming group mind washing. Doesn't sound so different from the remainers viewpoint of why leave won when you think about it.

Quote:

You have been telling us that Labour are a Leave party. If so it's obvious what they want. Now however you are saying you don't know what Labour want.


I don't know what Labour would want, as in I can't read minds and fully admit that multiple times. I don't know how the numbers work out in practice, because I don't know how strong each faction in Labour is. You could ask me what Corbyn's group wants or you could ask me what the remain group wants, and I could make a somewhat educated guess on that, but if you ask me what Labour as a whole wants, then I can't help you there.

Going through my past posts I will say this though. I stated before that Labour was "largely" a leave party. This indicates relative scale and I should not have done so with no data to back that up so I do apologize for that.

Quote:

Just listen to Labour MP's like Emily Thornberry and Barry Gardiner. They have just recently stated what Labour's newest vision for a deal would be. It would be a version of T.M's deal. You know, the one they rejected three times! They would however make some changes fully lock the UK into not simply the customs union and the single market but also to include a political declaration that would firmly lock the UK into alignment with all aspects of the EU. That would mean the UK would have too follow all EU laws, decisions, policies, directives etc. Basically their deal involves the UK remaining without representation.


To me, it looks like a schism is forming in the party between those who wish to remain and those who have other plans.

Show me a plan, a real solid plan with ink on the table and maybe we go somewhere, but until then it all just looks like wishful thinking to me.

Quote:

My oath there are reasons but, seeing as you are the one advocating for change, why should these groups be permitted to vote? What are the compelling reasons for changing UK electoral law?


I don't know if I'd say I'm advocating for it, I just don't really understand why it should be blocked. The age thing is an oldy, so I understand it, even if I don't personally agree with it, but why also ex-pats? Disregarding long-term ex pats or those who have renounced their citizenship to live in the UK, ex-pats are a group of people who should have some representation in a democratic society, shouldn't they? After all, they are taxed for their income by the UK government, aren't they?

Quote:

He's not checking just in case the UK leave. He knows the only two outcomes possible are remain, or remain without representation. So he needs to check that there will be no problems as he knows the UK will be bound by EU law no matter what the result of the clayton's referendum.


Alternatively, you could argue that attempting to promise certain things without being able to deliver them because they conflict with the laws that the EU itself has to abide by in any negotiation would be a poor move.
nooneinparticular On September 04, 2020




, Hawaii
#364New Post! Dec 10, 2019 @ 05:58:28
@shadowen Said

No, they know what they're doing. They just don't want their traditional voters in the north and in Cymru to know what they are doing. But having heard a fair few traditional Labour supporters speaking on LBC few people are being fooled.


I must say, I've never seen someone win an election by either:

A) Playing the puppet master using puppets that go against the puppet master's line, or

B) Appearing so ineffectual that they appear to have lost control of their own party.

Quote:

So JC has been lying when he has said he wants the UK to remain in the EU? Was he also just acting a part in 2016 when he campaigned against leave? If you are right then this makes JC a liar, a manipulator and an imposter. Now personally I don't claim to know what JC really thinks. Maybe you are right, but without being able to read his mind I have to take him at his word, and he has repeatedly stated over the past 4 years that he wants the UK to remain in the EU.


From what I've seen, Corbyn doesn't want to remain in the EU because he believes in the bloc or it's ideals. He want's to remain in the EU so that he can start pushing reforms through not only the UK but all of Europe.

Quote:

Furthermore, you are in effect stating that JC is an extremely weak leader who doesn't have control over his own party. How else do you explain the fact that senior Labour MPs like Emily Thornberry and Barry Gardiner have been constantly saying for months that having negotiated a new deal Labour would then campaign against it in favour of remain.


Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. It's exactly what I have been saying for several pages of posts now. I also can't read minds, but the actions of his party leave very little room for interpretation. Either, Cameron has changed his mind over the last 20-30 years regarding the EU and he's acting like he's non-commital and wish washy (because THAT'S a good look for a leader, not) for some unknown purpose to the short term detriment of his own party, or he's lost control of his party.

Cameron strikes me as an ideologue and an idealist, so I honestly question whether he could pull off using a mask for almost 5 years just to appeal to a demographic that's almost impossible to predict. To me, the more likely scenario is that his idealist nature finally caused a revolt in his party.

Quote:

I think if you campaign against Leave, and you consistently state (in public forums) that you WANT the UK to remain in the EU then it is not unreasonable for people to believe that you are pro remain. It is also not unreasonable for people to view the party you lead as being pro remain...esp as all of your shadow cabinet have publicly expressed a pro remain position.

By the way, if Labour were a leave party (of any kind) then that would mean that, according to the latest polls, 79-82% of respondents state they they will vote for a leave party. So from 52% support for Leave in 2016 it's now at apparently 79-82%. After-all, this is primarily a Brexit election (though Labour try hard to avoid talking about Brexit) so it's not unreasonable to think that most people will cast their vote primarily on whether or not a party is Leave or Remain.


Your point being?

Quote:

Are you referring to Labour's proposed referendum? If so can you elaborate.

The quote of mine that you responded to was concerned with your assertion that Labour's W.A (which would see the UK tied to the customs union, to the single market, subject to ECJ jurisdiction, unable to strike it's own trade deals, to control it's own borders or waters etc etc etc) was a legitimate form of leaving the EU.


Uh no. I first said that Labour's platform is not the same as remaining. Whether it is a "legitimate form of leaving" is not something I am concerned with, because that ties into personal belief. The only thing I said was that Labour's plan could hardly be called a plan to remain. You said you disagreed with that, so I thought that meant that you thought that there was no difference between actually remaining and Labour's platform. Hence my response that Labour's platform seemed fairly worse than remaining.

Quote:

Interestingly the DUP only yesterday stated that they could still work with BJ after the election.


Well for as many bridges that BJ burned, the DUP definitely seem to have burned more of them.

Quote:

The UK Government could have 'negotiated' with the EU till the cows came home and it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference. The only thing that got the EU to move at all was the combination of a 'hard' deadline and the threat of no deal. Anyway...

The rebels crossed the floor well after the two year negotiation period was up. They crossed the floor after the negotiation period had already been extended. They specifically crossed the floor as they opposed BJ's stated intention to leave with no deal if a good deal couldnt be agreed upon. The time line is irrelevant. It was his apparent (I'm unconvinced) preparedness to leave with NO deal that saw them cross the floor. So simply put they crossed the floor when they thought there was the chance the UK could leave with NO deal. And yet they were elected on the promise that NO deal was a legitimate option.

It's pretty simple. The rebel MPs stood before the people and promised to support the party position that NO deal was better than a bad deal. And yet these same people then crossed the floor stating that they could NEVER support the UK leaving with NO deal. It's unlikely that they had only just had a change of heart. Indeed JS has publicly stated that Grieve had been working with her for over a year (so whilst he was still a Tory) on ways to STOP Brexit from happening at all.


No, but as previously stated the negotiation period had already been extended beyond 2 years and nothing looked like changing. The only way it seemed that the EU could be persuaded to re-open negotiations was to stick to the new, defined deadline and to be prepared to leave without a deal. The rebels however crossed the floor as despite what they had told their electorate in 2017 they had NO intention whatsoever in supporting any NO deal scenario.

Now what "No deal is better than a bad deal for the UK" meant was that (drum roll please)...NO deal was better than a bad deal! Now there had already been an extension beyond 2 years and still the UK was only being offered what the great majority of MPs thought was a bad deal. A deal they had rejected three times. So what do you do? Just keep on extending and hoping that out of the blue the EU change their mind and concede a little ground? Or do you say "the deal you are married to is a bad deal for the UK. So if you won't re-negotiate then that's fine, we shall leave without a deal because NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL". That is the scenario that the rebels promised the people they would support and that is the scenario they crossed the floor to PREVENT from happening.


BJ hadn't negotiated any deal when they crossed the floor. They had no idea what his deal might look like or if he would even get one. They were not shy in telling people why they crossed the floor, and they crossed the floor because they refused to accept ANY scenario that might lead to NO deal. This despite the fact that they were elected on the PROMISE that they would support NO deal as an option.


Ah, now we're getting somewhere. In order to address this we must first acknowledge something. You fundamentally believe that negotiations have gone as far as they can go, and that doing any more is meaningless. Parliament, apparently, does not. Whether that light of hope is a false one or not is irrelevant.

What it comes down to ultimately is this. You conflate personal belief with fact. You believe that there is no point in further negotiations because the EU will not agree to anything else. Because of this you think it's a fact that the MPs betrayed their platform when they defected. You are attempting to push your own beliefs onto other people and then use those metrics to call them 'traitors' when they don't act in line with YOUR beliefs. Negotiations being pointless is your belief, not theirs. To say that because YOU believe that negotiations are pointless, that the MPs betrayed the electorate is nonsense.

We both believe that negotiations are pointless at this juncture, but the difference between you and I is that I acknowledge that my beliefs are not their beliefs. We could call it stubbornness or recklessness or any number of other things, but if they want to keep fighting for a deal, then that's their prerogative, until their people say otherwise.

Quote:

That is absurd.


Yes, because all of the wording in their manifesto clearly gave the impression that if the road they picked looked difficult or even impossible, they would willingly throw their hands up in the air and give up. At the first hurdle, no less.

Quote:

If they listened to you the UK would still be stuck with TM's deal with an unending number of extensions. This is actually what remoaners and the EU were hoping for.

If one side are insisting that an offer you find unacceptable is the only offer available then there comes a time when you have to be able to walk away.


If you'll remember, I stated that all of this WA nonsense could be ended EITHER by accepting TM's deal OR by voting to leave without one, and that they chose neither.

If they had listened to me, they would have made a decision one way or the other at this point and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Quote:

Seriously, what part of "NO DEAL is better than a bad deal" don't you understand? When they crossed the floor TM's deal was the only one in existence. They crossed the floor specifically because they didnt want to support ANY scenario that might lead to no deal. They said as much numerous times. In crossing the floor to try and prevent any no deal scenario they broke their election promises that they made to the people.


And once again, you demonstrate that you believe the only options on the table are bad deal and no deal. For the record, I thought that 2 years ago when this all began (and I still think so now), but the leavers here (I honestly don't remember if you were one of them) kept insisting that there was a way around it. That I should have faith. Well 4 years later, and look where we are.

My opinion on the options hasn't changed, but it also doesn't matter because I neither vote in UK elections nor am a member of their Parliament. The same can be said of you, Shadowen. Ultimately, our opinions of what the options are doesn't matter because we aren't the ones who have to vote for, and live with, whatever Parliament decides to do.

Quote:

The people were asked what they wanted. They were told that if you vote leave then that would mean leaving the customs union and leaving the single market. They were specifically told this, and yet the majority voted to leave. So how can you respect the democratic process without taking the UK out of the customs union and out of the single market? If you don't do this then you are betraying the people. You seem to be of the belief that the winners should have to compromise with those who lost when the reverse wouldnt have been true. When you have a democratic vote one side wins and one side loses. The winning side (that being the majority) should not then be expected to compromise and give up what they have won in order to placate those who lost (the minority). That's not how it works.


Then have the votes to push it through. That's why the public voted to give the majority majority power. That's what makes them the majority. If they don't have enough power then maybe look at the dynamics of your own side, to figure out what's happening and why you can't get it through. Or you know, keep blaming the minority who hold even less power in a democracy then the majority.

Quote:

No they shouldn't. The MPs should all respect the result of the single biggest democratic vote in the country's history. They should recognise that they are there to SERVE the people. They asked the people what they wanted them to do. The people told them. They should therefore do what the people have asked. Otherwise, don't ever hold another referendum about anything ever again. Don't ask the people what they want if you are going to simply ignore them if they don't give you the answer you want.


You asked me what I think they should do and I told you. The fact that you think they shouldn't have to do it is irrelevant.

Quote:

The people were told 'if you vote leave the result would be the country would leave the customs union and leave the single market'. The majority still voted leave. Now the rebel alliance were absolutely opposed to this happening. They simply would not accept ANY deal where this is the result. The government however could not agree to anything that doesnt result in the UK leaving the customs union and the single market, as to do so would be to ignore the wishes of the majority. To not do so however means they could never find common ground with the rebel alliance. So what should the Government have done? Exactly what it did. You respect the outcome of a democratic vote.


I don't understand how any of this flows from what I said.

Quote:

To compromise is to betray the result of the single biggest democratic vote in the UK's history. To compromise is to tell over 17.4 million people that, despite what we said beforehand, your vote doesnt count. You don't reward people for giving the finger to democracy. You don't reward people for shamelessly breaking promises that they were elected on. If MPs betray those who elected them, and you therefore don't have the numbers, then you have to go back to the people...which will happen in a few days time.


Didn't you say earlier that Johnson's plan was a compromise? Did that also 'betray the result'?

Either way, to not do so is to condemn the nation to infighting until a 'winner' emerges, and even then there will be sizeable resistance every step of the way. If that is worth those principles then that is yours, and every other voters, burdens to carry. Holding on to principles is all well and good, but it doesn't come without cost. Just be prepared to pay it.

Quote:

I don't think you understand how referendums work. Certainly not in the UK style Parliamentary system. A referendum is a single vote in which the people are asked what it is they would like politicians to do in regard to a single issue. You seem to make no distinction btw a referendum and a G.E.


I don't understand how you reached that conclusion from what you quoted.

Quote:

Well it's certainly fairer. In 2016 the people were asked if they wanted the UK to leave or remain in the EU. Under Labour's referendum people wouldn't be given this choice. It would be a choice btw remain with a voice in the EU or remain without a voice in the EU. So no real choice at all. That is why calling Labour's referendum a '2nd' referendum is really disingenuous as it wouldn't even be asking the same question again. So it should more accurately be called 'another referendum'.

This referendum, as stated, wouldn't give people the choice btw remain or leave which they were given in 2016, and which they will in effect be given in a few days time. So that is the fundamental difference. In a few days time people will be given the chance to vote in MPs who say they will take the UK out of the EU, or they can vote in MPs who state they will ensure that the UK remains in the EU. Or they can vote for Labour who will keep the UK tied to the EU one way or the other. This really is the last chance (in the foreseeable future) for people to tell MPs what they want re the EU. The last chance for people to chose btw remain or leave.


You do realize that this GE is not about remain or leave either, right? It's between Johnsons deal, Labours vague plan, and a revoking of Article 50.

Quote:

I have explained all of this previously. Maybe you didn't read that part of my post. Firstly there should NOT have been the need for another G.E. But, in order to respect the result of the 2016 people's vote there had to be. There was simply NO other option. Now whilst another G.E is undesirable, and only necessary because MPs wouldn't respect the result of the 2016 people's vote, it is still a democratic exercise and so should be respected. As for another referendum...well as previously stated, it will NOT give people the same choice they were given in 2016. So what would happen is you ignore the results of 2016 and then ask the people a different question that doesn't give them the chance to vote to
leave.


Of course there was another choice. YOU COULD HAVE HAD ANOTHER REFERENDUM. The fact that everyone chose not to have one does not then mean that you were forced to run a GE. By choosing not to run a referendum, they chose to run a GE. There was never 'no other option'. No one wanted to pick the other option.

As an aside you do realize that even if you ran the same exact referendum again, no matter what the outcome it would invalidate the 2016 referendum right?

Quote:

I opposed another referendum because the people have already been asked what they want. There is no justification for ignoring the results of the 2016 people's vote and having another referendum simply because you didn't like the result of the first one. I know the EU like to do that but it's hardly democratic. And what happens if you had another in/out ref (which the rebel alliance would NEVER have supported) and the result is the same? Do we go again? Do we follow the EU's lead and just keep on holding referendums until you get the desired outcome? What if remain won 52-48? Surely that would mean you have yet another referendum. What is the acceptable majority? Is it 55-45? 60-40? What if the result is always say 60-40 or less one way or the other? Do you simply keep on having referendums for the next 50 years asking the same question over and over and over again? Historically referendums have always been asking a single question about a single issue and then ACTING upon the result. You don't keep re-running the referendum until you are happy with the result. So either respect the result or don't have a referendum in the first place.


At the end of the day, I don't give a rat's a** about what the UK decides to do regarding Brexit. It's their decision, not mine.

Be that as it may, this isn't about 'whether or not they liked the outcome of the first one'. It's about having the political power and capital to get it done. It was clearly lacking.

As for voting a lot, welcome to a democracy that more regularly runs referendums then 'once in a generation'.

Quote:

The question people were asked in 2016 was straightforward. The question was asked and answered. All that was required was that MPs respect the wishes of the people and do as the people asked. And so yes the Tories rightly chose not to hold another referendum. Had they done so they would have been saying 'F.U' to the 17.4 million who voted in 2016 on the promise their vote would be respected. So I personally don't think it a bad thing that the Tories didn't do that. I don't see it as a bad thing that BJ wants to respect the outcome of the single biggest democratic vote in the UK's history. You obviously think otherwise.


Good thing we avoided saying "'F.U' to the 17.4 million who voted in 2016 on the promise their vote would be respected" by having a second referendum and instead ended up saying "'F.U' to the 17.4 million who voted in 2016 on the promise their vote would be respected" by holding a G.E. instead.
Jennifer1984 On about 8 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#365New Post! Dec 10, 2019 @ 18:05:38
@shadowen Said


If they listened to you the UK would still be stuck with TM's deal with an unending number of extensions. This is actually what remoaners and the EU were hoping for.

If one side are insisting that an offer you find unacceptable is the only offer available then there comes a time when you have to be able to walk away.





As much as Johnson would dearly love to just "walk away" without any deal, he is hindered by a little thing called 'Parliament'.

It's quite clear that you would love to see this country ruled by a petty tinpot dictator, but we're not quite at that stage yet, and all the time the law and Parliamentary process dictate that he plays by the rules, then he is going to have to persuade the House of Commons to agree with what he puts before them.



Are you really so thick that you didn't know that, or is it just a good act...?
Jennifer1984 On about 8 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#366New Post! Dec 11, 2019 @ 06:09:40
This is how the Tories make it appear that they have a larger following than they actually have.

Sock puppet accounts on Twitter......

shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#367New Post! Dec 11, 2019 @ 11:36:41
@nooneinparticular Said

You could ask me what Corbyn's group wants or you could ask me what the remain group wants, and I could make a somewhat educated guess on that, but if you ask me what Labour as a whole wants, then I can't help you there.

Again you are implying that Corbyn and his group are not pro remain. You imply this even though Corbyn campaigned for remain, even though he has said multiple times SINCE the people's vote that he WANTS the UK to REMAIN in the EU, even though all of the senior ministers he has appointed WANT the UK to REMAIN. I still don't understand how you can claim Corbyn and his faction are not remain.

So anyway, IYO what does Corybn's group want then. Clearly you don't believe them when they say they want to remain so what do they really want? And based on what?

@nooneinparticular Said

Show me a plan, a real solid plan with ink on the table and maybe we go somewhere, but until then it all just looks like wishful thinking to me.

According to Emily Thornberry and Barry Gardiner Labour have secretly been working with the EU on a WA that - among other things - would ensure that the UK remained in the customs union and the single market. So to me (if they are to be believed) it's a little more than wishful thinking.

@nooneinparticular Said

Alternatively, you could argue that attempting to promise certain things without being able to deliver them because they conflict with the laws that the EU itself has to abide by in any negotiation would be a poor move.

Labour policy is that NO matter what happens the UK will REMAIN in the customs union and the single market. So they would be bound by EU laws and regulation. Now the great Labour Party manifesto presumably wasn't thought up overnight, so you would have thought they would have ensured that it would be compatible with EU law BEFORE announcing it. After-all, they KNOW that no matter what happens they will be bound by EU law.
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#368New Post! Dec 11, 2019 @ 11:43:18
@nooneinparticular Said

From what I've seen, Corbyn doesn't want to remain in the EU because he believes in the bloc or it's ideals. HE WANT'S TO REMAIN IN THE EU (my emphasis) so that he can start pushing reforms through not only the UK but all of Europe.

You have been arguing all along that Labour and Corbyn are pro Leave and now all of a sudden you are saying that "He want's to remain in the EU." I have been saying this all along and you have been disagreeing with me this whole time. Why the sudden change of heart?

Now I do agree with the part in which you say JC wants to reform the EU. Fat chance of being able to do that though.
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#369New Post! Dec 11, 2019 @ 14:10:06
@nooneinparticular Said

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. It's exactly what I have been saying for several pages of posts now. I also can't read minds, but the actions of his party leave very little room for interpretation. Either, Cameron has changed his mind over the last 20-30 years regarding the EU and he's acting like he's non-commital and wish washy (because THAT'S a good look for a leader, not) for some unknown purpose to the short term detriment of his own party, or he's lost control of his party.

Firstly I assume you mean Corbyn and not Cameron. If so then Corbyn publicly has changed his views on the EU over time. Back in 1975 he voted against the UK’s membership of the EEC. In 1996 he condemned the EU claiming (rightly) that significant power had gone from National Parliaments to an unaccountable European bureaucracy. Fast forward to 2016 and he said that that despite its deficiencies, there was still an “overwhelming case” for the UK remaining within the EU. He has since said a number of times that he is very much in favour of remain. So yes, I think it reasonable to assume that his view of the EU and on leaving has changed over the years. Mind you, immediately after the leave vote won in 2016 he said that Labour would accept the result and move on. He also ruled out another referendum stating that “you have to respect the decision people made.” Obviously he no longer believes you need to respect the people's wishes. In July 2019 he proclaimed that Labour would campaign for remain in another referendum. So yes, JC seems to have changed his mind on the EU, on the importance of respecting the people's wishes and on holding another referendum.

@nooneinparticular Said

Cameron strikes me as an ideologue and an idealist, so I honestly question whether he could pull off using a mask for almost 5 years just to appeal to a demographic that's almost impossible to predict. To me, the more likely scenario is that his idealist nature finally caused a revolt in his party.

So are you saying he was lying and simply playing a part in the lead up to the 2016 people's vote? Was he lying when he has said HE wants the UK to remain? Did he say that Labour would support remain in another referendum simply in order to hold on to his leadership?


@nooneinparticular Said

Your point being?

That Labour are a leave party.

@nooneinparticular Said

Uh no. I first said that Labour's platform is not the same as remaining. Whether it is a "legitimate form of leaving" is not something I am concerned with, because that ties into personal belief. The only thing I said was that Labour's plan could hardly be called a plan to remain.

I see Labour's platform on Brexit as being remaining one way or the other. Again, before the 2016 people's vote the electorate were told by BOTH sides that if you vote leave then the UK would LEAVE the customs union and the single market. Knowing this the majority of people voted to Leave. Therefore any version of leave MUST result in the UK leaving the customs union and the single market or you are not doing what people voted for. Labour's policy on Brexit absolutely guarantees that the UK will NOT leave either the customs union or the single market. So under Labour those who voted remain will not have their vote of 2016 acted upon.

@nooneinparticular Said

What it comes down to ultimately is this. You conflate personal belief with fact.

Only i don't. These are the simple facts:
* The 21 rebels who crossed the floor did so BEFORE BJ had any sort of a deal.
* They crossed the floor saying that they could NEVER support ANY scenario that might lead to a no deal exit.
* In 2017 they stood before the electorate and PROMISED that if elected they would support NO deal if a good deal couldn't be reached.

Those are the facts. Not personal belief. Facts.

Now if they had crossed the floor AFTER BJ has negotiated a new deal and said "we think this is a bad deal and we want the government to make specific amendments then I would have said fair enough. Only they didn't do this. They crossed the floor simply because (by their own admission) they did not want there to be any chance of a no deal scenario. This goes against the promise they were elected on. That means they betrayed the people who believed their promises and voted for them.

@nooneinparticular Said

You believe that there is no point in further negotiations because the EU will not agree to anything else. Because of this you think it's a fact that the MPs betrayed their platform when they defected.

No I don't. I believe they betrayed those who voted for them as they had promised to support a no deal scenario but then crossed the floor stating that they would never support a no deal scenario. If somehow you think this doesn't mean they broke their promise and betrayed those who elected them then so be it.

@nooneinparticular Said

You are attempting to push your own beliefs onto other people and then use those metrics to call them 'traitors' when they don't act in line with YOUR beliefs.

No I'm not, unless by my beliefs you are referring to the belief that politicians should be held accountable when they break the promises they were elected on.

@nooneinparticular Said

Negotiations being pointless is your belief, not theirs. To say that because YOU believe that negotiations are pointless, that the MPs betrayed the electorate is nonsense.

I am not saying that at all. What they or I believed about the nature of efforts to re-open negotiations is entirely irrelevant. Again, there hadn't even been any new negotiations when they crossed the floor. BJ was at the time simply trying to get the EU to re-open negotiations. Something you think they would have supported. However, as stated earlier, the rebels crossed the floor before there was any new deal. Indeed when they crossed the floor most people were adamant that BJ wouldnt get any sort of a new deal.

What lead the rebels to cross the floor was BJ simply stating the reality of the situation. That was that the TM deal was unacceptable to the House who had thrice rejected it. That the default position under law was that the UK would leave without a deal at the end of October, and that this therefore is what would happen if nothing changed. At this point the rebels crossed the floor as clearly they didn't think the EU would budge (and probably didnt want them to) whilst they thought that BJ might actually mean what he said re leaving without a deal. Now when they crossed the floor they told us why they did so. And they said they crossed the floor as they could never support ANY scenario which might lead to the UK leaving without a deal. This was in direct conflict with one of the key promises they made to their electorate in the lead up to the G.E. They didnt cross the floor because they thought that new negotiations were possible. After-all that's exactly what BJ was trying to achieve. They crossed the floor simply because they opposed ANY scenario that might see the UK leave without a deal.

Seriously, read what they said when they crossed the floor and compare that to the promises they made to their electorate. How you can see their actions as being anything other than betraying the people who elected them is beyond me. The fact that some of them crossed to parties that directly oppose any form of Brexit, whilst others are standing as independents under a stop Brexit platform, tells you all you need to know. Anyway, we have been going back and forth on this and it seems we shall never see eye to eye. That's fine. You can have the last word and then I think we should move on.


@nooneinparticular Said

We both believe that negotiations are pointless at this juncture, but the difference between you and I is that I acknowledge that my beliefs are not their beliefs.

I haven't said that my beliefs were theirs. Haven't said it, haven't implied it.

@nooneinparticular Said

but if they want to keep fighting for a deal, then that's their prerogative.

And exactly what deal were they fighting for? TM's deal that they had rejected three times? Certainly not BJ's deal which they opposed before he even had one. Again, they told us why they crossed the floor. It's no mystery. They didn't try and hide their reasons. They crossed the floor as they were fundamentally opposed to the UK leaving without a deal, even though they were elected on the promise that they would support a no deal exit if an acceptable deal couldn't be reached.

@nooneinparticular Said

Yes, because all of the wording in their manifesto clearly gave the impression that if the road they picked looked difficult or even impossible, they would willingly throw their hands up in the air and give up. At the first hurdle, no less.

Hardly the first hurdle. They had already rejected TM's deal three times. Surely each of those times was a hurdle. Anyway, for the umpteenth time, they crossed the floor because they fundamentally opposed the UK EVER leaving without a deal. This is in direct opposition to the promises they had made in the run up to the 2017 G.E. This really is pretty straightforward. They promised to do one thing but did the exact opposite. They told the electorate that if you vote for me I will support no deal as an option. They then crossed the floor saying they could never support no deal as an option. How yo can defend their actions is a mystery to me. I guess I have higher behavioural expectations when it comes to politicians.

@nooneinparticular Said

If you'll remember, I stated that all of this WA nonsense could be ended EITHER by accepting TM's deal OR by voting to leave without one, and that they chose neither.

There was no simple choice. TM tried three times to leave with her deal but it was (rightly) rejected each time. BJ was apparently (i'm not convinced) prepared to leave without a deal but he was also blocked. Furthermore, Parliament wouldnt agree to a further referendum that offered the choice btw TM's deal and No Deal.

@nooneinparticular Said

If they had listened to me, they would have made a decision one way or the other at this point and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

How? How would you have been able to get TM's deal accepted by Parliament? How would you have managed to see the UK leave without a deal? That option for example was never going to be allowed in a referendum.

@nooneinparticular Said

And once again, you demonstrate that you believe the only options on the table are bad deal and no deal.

The rebels who crossed the floor believed that TM's deal was a bad deal and yet they opposed BJ in his efforts to get a new deal. All the rebels wanted to do (or so it appears) was to stop no deal and extend once again. Hardly consistent with the manifesto they were elected on.

@nooneinparticular Said

Then have the votes to push it through.

Again, it was a referendum, it wasnt a G.E. They are two very different things. Supporters of all parties voted leave or remain. Parliament as a whole asked the people what they wanted them to do re one singular issues and said they would do whatever the people wanted. Had the pollies respected the single biggest vote in the UK's history and kept their word this whole sorry mess would never have been and the UK would be out and concentrating on other matters.

@nooneinparticular Said

That's why the public voted

The public voted as Parliament asked them to. And then Parliament simply ignored them as they didnt like the answer.


@nooneinparticular Said

If they don't have enough power...

Again, you talk about the referendum as if it were a GE. They are not one and the same.

@nooneinparticular Said

figure out what's happening and why you can't get it through.

It's obvious what's happening and why Brexit has been blocked. The politicians asked the people for instructions, they were given these instructions in the single biggest vote in the UK's history, and they then ignored these instructions as they didnt like them.

@nooneinparticular Said

Or you know, keep blaming the minority who hold even less power in a democracy then the majority.

That makes no sense at all as clearly those blocking Brexit were the majority. If they werent Brexit would have been done.

@nooneinparticular Said

Didn't you say earlier that Johnson's plan was a compromise? Did that also 'betray the result'?

For reasons I have previously articulated the bare min a Government had to ensure re Brexit, in order to respect the people's vote, was to take the UK out of the customs union and out of the single market. His WA gives the Government the opportunity to do this. Does it do all that many leave voters would hope? Far from it. But it does (potentially) fulfill the bare min requirements. So no, it doesn't betray the result.

@nooneinparticular Said

Either way, to not do so is to condemn the nation to infighting until a 'winner' emerges, and even then there will be sizeable resistance every step of the way. If that is worth those principles then that is yours, and every other voters, burdens to carry. Holding on to principles is all well and good, but it doesn't come without cost. Just be prepared to pay it.

Doing what is right often means doing that which is not easy. In a democracy the will of the people as expressed in a democratic vote must be respected. This is certainly something worth fighting for.

@nooneinparticular Said

You do realize that this GE is not about remain or leave either, right? It's between Johnsons deal, Labours vague plan, and a revoking of Article 50.

Nope, it's btw remain or leave. It's btw remaining in the customs union and the single market etc or leaving those two things. You can't claim to 'leave' the EU whilst still being in the customs union and single market with all that this entails. I think most voters understand this and therefore view this election as largely a choice btw leave or remain...and yes Labour is remain.


@nooneinparticular Said

Of course there was another choice. YOU COULD HAVE HAD ANOTHER REFERENDUM.

Why? Because you didnt like the result of the first one? How many referendums do you have to have before you accept the result? What does the majority have to be? Having another in/out referendum would have undermined the democratic process. The people were told this was a one time deal. They were specifically told there would not be another referendum. They were told their vote mattered and the result would be honoured. And that's what should have happened.

The only possible justification for a 2nd referendum would have been one btw a WA that was passed by Parliament or No Deal. Any other option would be a big FU to 17.4 million people and the democratic process. But of course those campaigning for another referendum opposed another in/out referendum anyway. They wanted another shot at remain whilst taking away a genuine leave option.

@nooneinparticular Said

As an aside you do realize that even if you ran the same exact referendum again, no matter what the outcome it would invalidate the 2016 referendum right?

You know I am aware of this as I have said countless times that another in/out referendum should not have been held (and should not be held) as it would be a big FU to 17.4 million people and the democratic process.

@nooneinparticular Said

this isn't about 'whether or not they liked the outcome of the first one'. It's about having the political power and capital to get it done. It was clearly lacking.

It's because MPs didnt like the answer the people gave them that the Government didnt have the power to honour the people's wishes.

One of the many political reforms that must happen is that referendums must be made legally binding. In the past governments have always respected the results of referendums, and like so much of the UK parliamentary system, referendums operated under precedence and convention. But the last 6-12 months have shown that if MPs break with these things there is nothing to control their actions and they are free to give the people a big two fingered salute.

@nooneinparticular Said

As for voting a lot, welcome to a democracy that more regularly runs referendums then 'once in a generation'.

Maybe the US does but the UK (and Australia) don't. Referendums are rarely held and (until now) always respected. Asking the people what they want, ignoring their answer because you don't like it and then asking them a similiarish question is hardly a sign of democracy.


@nooneinparticular Said

Good thing we avoided saying "'F.U' to the 17.4 million who voted in 2016 on the promise their vote would be respected" by having a second referendum and instead ended up saying "'F.U' to the 17.4 million who voted in 2016 on the promise their vote would be respected" by holding a G.E. instead.

Holding a GE is hardly the same as ignoring the result of the 2016 people's vote and simply holding another referendum. Holding a GE was the ONLY way the people's vote could be honoured. The government had tried to honour the people's vote and been blocked by Parliament. The only recourse they had was to go back to the people and say "look you know we have been trying to do as you directed us to but parliament wont allow us. So here is your chance to give us the power to do as you wished re the 2016 people's vote". To compare a GE being held to try and unseat a zombie parliament intent on denying the result of the people's vote with holding another referendum is nonsense.
nooneinparticular On September 04, 2020




, Hawaii
#370New Post! Dec 11, 2019 @ 23:46:08
@shadowen Said

Again you are implying that Corbyn and his group are not pro remain. You imply this even though Corbyn campaigned for remain, even though he has said multiple times SINCE the people's vote that he WANTS the UK to REMAIN in the EU, even though all of the senior ministers he has appointed WANT the UK to REMAIN. I still don't understand how you can claim Corbyn and his faction are not remain.


And yet, as you have pointed out numerous times, he refuses to say whether or not he would campaign for his deal or remain if it came down to it. He refuses to pick a side or a policy. If Corbyn and his group were really remain, would this strategy make sense with senior members of his own party publicly stating their remain stances?

I've seen many statements about Corbyn leading up to this election talking about campaigning for remaining, but they always have a condition. Corbyn will only campaign for remain if it's the Tories who initiate the second referendum and, presumably, made it between their deal and remaining or leaving with no deal or remaining.

When it's his party's policies on the chopping block, he suddenly doesn't know what he would do. I wonder why that would be?

Quote:

So anyway, IYO what does Corybn's group want then. Clearly you don't believe them when they say they want to remain so what do they really want? And based on what?


Having read both this post and the next one, I have revised and expanded my original statement somewhat.

Corbyn wants to create a 'utopic' communist society. Out of all his fence-sitting, this seems to be the one and only constant. Corbyn's stance to not take a side, seems to indicate to me that he's not particularly arsed with whatever happens with Brexit. It also explains why he has been avoiding that topic every chance he gets, because to him it is ultimately unimportant whether the UK leaves or stays. The only thing Corbyn seems to care about in that regard is that the Tories don't get their version.

His stance on the EU in the past seems to be his overall thoughts on how he could achieve his ultimate goals while out of the EU. He seemed to talk at great length about all the rules and regulations that hampered his 'vision' that were a result of EU legislation.

Conversely, while taking a stance that blocks Johnsons attempts at leaving on the Tories terms, if he ultimately loses the opportunity to leave himself, he can simply take on this newer stance of 'change from within'.

Either way he and his supporters get closer to his dream.

Quote:

According to Emily Thornberry and Barry Gardiner Labour have secretly been working with the EU on a WA that - among other things - would ensure that the UK remained in the customs union and the single market. So to me (if they are to be believed) it's a little more than wishful thinking.


Of which they have revealed nothing concrete at all. Remember that in politics that 'nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to'. People, politicians especially, love to make big eye catching promises and work out how to make them reality later. Particularly when campaigning.

Quote:

Labour policy is that NO matter what happens the UK will REMAIN in the customs union and the single market. So they would be bound by EU laws and regulation. Now the great Labour Party manifesto presumably wasn't thought up overnight, so you would have thought they would have ensured that it would be compatible with EU law BEFORE announcing it. After-all, they KNOW that no matter what happens they will be bound by EU law.


You would think so. Doesn't necessarily mean it was. When it comes to ideologically driven legislation especially, I've seen national parties have a tendency to not really sweat the 'small stuff' like feasibility or cost. You'd think they'd work all that out before they announce it, but that rarely seems to be the case.


@shadowen Said

You have been arguing all along that Labour and Corbyn are pro Leave and now all of a sudden you are saying that "He want's to remain in the EU." I have been saying this all along and you have been disagreeing with me this whole time. Why the sudden change of heart?


I apologize. I shouldn't have been so careless with my words. "He wants to remain in the EU" was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said "He doesn't mind remaining in the EU all that much" instead.

I also thank you. By pointing this out, you made me realize that I might have been subconsciously thinking of Corbyn as a 'leaver' rather than 'not a remainer'. As a result I refined my thought process a bit regarding that question you asked before about 'what Corbyn wants'.

Quote:

Now I do agree with the part in which you say JC wants to reform the EU. Fat chance of being able to do that though.


For what it's worth I agree with you, but I never said that Corbyn was a realistic man.
nooneinparticular On September 04, 2020




, Hawaii
#371New Post! Dec 12, 2019 @ 02:35:27
@shadowen Said

Firstly I assume you mean Corbyn and not Cameron.


Yes sorry. Every time I see JC I always think James Cameron before Jeremy Corbyn, and I don't know why.

Quote:

If so then Corbyn publicly has changed his views on the EU over time. Back in 1975 he voted against the UK’s membership of the EEC. In 1996 he condemned the EU claiming (rightly) that significant power had gone from National Parliaments to an unaccountable European bureaucracy. Fast forward to 2016 and he said that that despite its deficiencies, there was still an “overwhelming case” for the UK remaining within the EU. He has since said a number of times that he is very much in favour of remain. So yes, I think it reasonable to assume that his view of the EU and on leaving has changed over the years. Mind you, immediately after the leave vote won in 2016 he said that Labour would accept the result and move on. He also ruled out another referendum stating that “you have to respect the decision people made.” Obviously he no longer believes you need to respect the people's wishes. In July 2019 he proclaimed that Labour would campaign for remain in another referendum. So yes, JC seems to have changed his mind on the EU, on the importance of respecting the people's wishes and on holding another referendum.


You don't find it at all odd that he didn't change his mind until the Tories actually attempted to leave on their terms, something he had been openly floating for years himself? To me, that seems like rather convenient timing.

Quote:

So are you saying he was lying and simply playing a part in the lead up to the 2016 people's vote? Was he lying when he has said HE wants the UK to remain?


I suppose that depends on whether or not you think that not telling the whole truth is the same as lying.

Quote:

Did he say that Labour would support remain in another referendum simply in order to hold on to his leadership?


Did he say that? Last I heard he was still all 'let the people decide' to sidestep the issue entirely.

Quote:

That Labour are a leave party.


You mean remain, right?

I meant what's your point about this:

Quote:
By the way, if Labour were a leave party (of any kind) then that would mean that, according to the latest polls, 79-82% of respondents state they they will vote for a leave party. So from 52% support for Leave in 2016 it's now at apparently 79-82%. After-all, this is primarily a Brexit election (though Labour try hard to avoid talking about Brexit) so it's not unreasonable to think that most people will cast their vote primarily on whether or not a party is Leave or Remain.


Quote:

I see Labour's platform on Brexit as being remaining one way or the other. Again, before the 2016 people's vote the electorate were told by BOTH sides that if you vote leave then the UK would LEAVE the customs union and the single market. Knowing this the majority of people voted to Leave. Therefore any version of leave MUST result in the UK leaving the customs union and the single market or you are not doing what people voted for. Labour's policy on Brexit absolutely guarantees that the UK will NOT leave either the customs union or the single market. So under Labour those who voted remain will not have their vote of 2016 acted upon.


Quote:
Whether it is a "legitimate form of leaving" is not something I am concerned with, because that ties into personal belief.


Quote:

Only i don't. These are the simple facts:
* The 21 rebels who crossed the floor did so BEFORE BJ had any sort of a deal.
* They crossed the floor saying that they could NEVER support ANY scenario that might lead to a no deal exit.
* In 2017 they stood before the electorate and PROMISED that if elected they would support NO deal if a good deal couldn't be reached.

Those are the facts. Not personal belief. Facts.


And there's the rub. As BJ demonstrated, there was still room for negotiation. There is always room for negotiation. It's one of the reasons why, while I think it will be absurdly difficult, I don't outright dismiss the notion that the UK can get good trade deals outside of the EU. I'm just extremely skeptical of it.

The same light that keeps Brexiters hopeful for 'future trade relationships' is the exact same light that keeps Parliament hopeful that 'a new deal may materialize with better terms', despite the failure for one to become reality up to this point. Both to me are nonsensical to believe in blindly, but that doesn't stop others in believing in the dream.

Quote:

No I don't. I believe they betrayed those who voted for them as they had promised to support a no deal scenario but then crossed the floor stating that they would never support a no deal scenario. If somehow you think this doesn't mean they broke their promise and betrayed those who elected them then so be it.


No I'm not, unless by my beliefs you are referring to the belief that politicians should be held accountable when they break the promises they were elected on.

I am not saying that at all. What they or I believed about the nature of efforts to re-open negotiations is entirely irrelevant. Again, there hadn't even been any new negotiations when they crossed the floor. BJ was at the time simply trying to get the EU to re-open negotiations. Something you think they would have supported. However, as stated earlier, the rebels crossed the floor before there was any new deal. Indeed when they crossed the floor most people were adamant that BJ wouldnt get any sort of a new deal.

What lead the rebels to cross the floor was BJ simply stating the reality of the situation. That was that the TM deal was unacceptable to the House who had thrice rejected it. That the default position under law was that the UK would leave without a deal at the end of October, and that this therefore is what would happen if nothing changed. At this point the rebels crossed the floor as clearly they didn't think the EU would budge (and probably didnt want them to) whilst they thought that BJ might actually mean what he said re leaving without a deal. Now when they crossed the floor they told us why they did so. And they said they crossed the floor as they could never support ANY scenario which might lead to the UK leaving without a deal. This was in direct conflict with one of the key promises they made to their electorate in the lead up to the G.E. They didnt cross the floor because they thought that new negotiations were possible. After-all that's exactly what BJ was trying to achieve. They crossed the floor simply because they opposed ANY scenario that might see the UK leave without a deal.



Seriously, read what they said when they crossed the floor and compare that to the promises they made to their electorate. How you can see their actions as being anything other than betraying the people who elected them is beyond me. The fact that some of them crossed to parties that directly oppose any form of Brexit, whilst others are standing as independents under a stop Brexit platform, tells you all you need to know. Anyway, we have been going back and forth on this and it seems we shall never see eye to eye. That's fine. You can have the last word and then I think we should move on.


Ultimately, it comes down to this. Do you think that the Tories manifesto said they would support no deal if, at the end of an unspecified amount of time, they failed to reach a deal? Or did it say that they would vote for no deal if they decided that pursuing one was pointless?

Quote:

And exactly what deal were they fighting for? TM's deal that they had rejected three times? Certainly not BJ's deal which they opposed before he even had one. Again, they told us why they crossed the floor. It's no mystery. They didn't try and hide their reasons. They crossed the floor as they were fundamentally opposed to the UK leaving without a deal, even though they were elected on the promise that they would support a no deal exit if an acceptable deal couldn't be reached.


Probably the same type that exists in the minds of Brexiters over trade. The one that exists currently only in their minds.

Quote:

There was no simple choice. TM tried three times to leave with her deal but it was (rightly) rejected each time. BJ was apparently (i'm not convinced) prepared to leave without a deal but he was also blocked. Furthermore, Parliament wouldnt agree to a further referendum that offered the choice btw TM's deal and No Deal.


How? How would you have been able to get TM's deal accepted by Parliament? How would you have managed to see the UK leave without a deal?


You made a comment that 'if they had listened to me they would have been stuck with TM's deal with an unending number of extensions'. I half-cheekily responded that 'if they had listened to me they would have made a decision by this point and we wouldn't be having this conversation'.

The point being that I did not advocate for TM's deal, I advocated for a decision to be made between TM's deal and leaving with no deal. That comment was not about being able to better control the Tories better than TM. It was about how you incorrectly characterized what I had been saying.

Quote:

That option for example was never going to be allowed in a referendum.


If they had made a decision, there would have been no need for a referendum.

Quote:

The rebels who crossed the floor believed that TM's deal was a bad deal and yet they opposed BJ in his efforts to get a new deal. All the rebels wanted to do (or so it appears) was to stop no deal and extend once again. Hardly consistent with the manifesto they were elected on.


Again, it was a referendum, it wasnt a G.E. They are two very different things. Supporters of all parties voted leave or remain. Parliament as a whole asked the people what they wanted them to do re one singular issues and said they would do whatever the people wanted. Had the pollies respected the single biggest vote in the UK's history and kept their word this whole sorry mess would never have been and the UK would be out and concentrating on other matters.


The public voted as Parliament asked them to. And then Parliament simply ignored them as they didnt like the answer.



Again, you talk about the referendum as if it were a GE. They are not one and the same.



It's obvious what's happening and why Brexit has been blocked. The politicians asked the people for instructions, they were given these instructions in the single biggest vote in the UK's history, and they then ignored these instructions as they didnt like them.


That makes no sense at all as clearly those blocking Brexit were the majority. If they werent Brexit would have been done.


Remember that there was a G.E in 2017 after the referendum, whose express purpose was to increase May's power so she could negotiate with a stronger hand. The people chose to take some of her power and give it to Labour in that election. The public gave the Tories a minority government.

Quote:

For reasons I have previously articulated the bare min a Government had to ensure re Brexit, in order to respect the people's vote, was to take the UK out of the customs union and out of the single market. His WA gives the Government the opportunity to do this. Does it do all that many leave voters would hope? Far from it. But it does (potentially) fulfill the bare min requirements. So no, it doesn't betray the result.


So compromising your beliefs is a betrayal, but giving up on your hopes that stem from those beliefs is not. That's an...interesting outlook.

Personally I don't see much point in beliefs if they don't compel you to fight for your hopes, but that's just me I guess.

Quote:

Doing what is right often means doing that which is not easy. In a democracy the will of the people as expressed in a democratic vote must be respected. This is certainly something worth fighting for.


I'll remember this the next time you blame the remoaners for not following 'the will of the people'. You chose this fight, so fight it. Don't blame the opposition for the fight you chose just as much as they did.

Quote:

One of the many political reforms that must happen is that referendums must be made legally binding. In the past governments have always respected the results of referendums, and like so much of the UK parliamentary system, referendums operated under precedence and convention. But the last 6-12 months have shown that if MPs break with these things there is nothing to control their actions and they are free to give the people a big two fingered salute.


Without making referendums about bills, such a move would just create chaos. Even now, there are rumblings in the Brexit circles that the Supreme Court of the UK is 'biased'. If you make referendums legally binding, then the 'biased' Supreme Court will most likely have to arbitrate over the majority of them. Keep them about direction instead of bills, and the Supreme Court then has to decide the interpretation of that direction.

Quote:

Maybe the US does but the UK (and Australia) don't. Referendums are rarely held and (until now) always respected. Asking the people what they want, ignoring their answer because you don't like it and then asking them a similiarish question is hardly a sign of democracy.


Maybe, in order to construct a referendum correctly, the UK (and Australia) should have taken more cues from the US, who are clearly more experienced in such matters. Instead of listening to those of us in the US who have commented on the state of the referendum question itself, you and others have apparently decided that such considerations are inconsequential and that the way it happened was just fine.

"But, the vote was about leaving the single market and the customs union." Yeah? Well maybe it should have said that on the paper itself instead of relying on other people to infer it.

The fact of the matter is that more clarity is always good, especially when attempting to legislate using a direct public vote. So, the UK and Australia can learn from this and decide to hold referendums on bills from now on to improve clarity, or they can choose to continue to hold referendums on general direction, which has resulted in this infighting mess.

Quote:

Holding a GE is hardly the same as ignoring the result of the 2016 people's vote and simply holding another referendum. Holding a GE was the ONLY way the people's vote could be honoured. The government had tried to honour the people's vote and been blocked by Parliament. The only recourse they had was to go back to the people and say "look you know we have been trying to do as you directed us to but parliament wont allow us. So here is your chance to give us the power to do as you wished re the 2016 people's vote". To compare a GE being held to try and unseat a zombie parliament intent on denying the result of the people's vote with holding another referendum is nonsense.


Once again, just because you think that "holding a GE was the ONLY way a people's vote could be honored" does not negate the fact that it ignores the 2016 referendum, whatever the result. Regardless of motivation or reasoning.
Jennifer1984 On about 8 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#372New Post! Dec 12, 2019 @ 22:16:36
The polls have closed now and the exit poll being revealed on the BBC estimates that the Tories will have an 86 seat majority.

The Tories have been wiped out in Scotland though. The same poll estimates 55 seats for the SNP in Scotland, a gain of 20 on 2017 which would mean the end of the United Kingdom. Scotland has today, in effect, voted to leave the UK.

The last exit poll in 2017 was remarkably accurate and there is no reason to think that this one will be very far off the mark.

It's endgame, folks.
Leon On September 06, 2020




San Diego, California
#373New Post! Dec 12, 2019 @ 23:08:52
@Jennifer1984 Said

The polls have closed now and the exit poll being revealed on the BBC estimates that the Tories will have an 86 seat majority.

The Tories have been wiped out in Scotland though. The same poll estimates 55 seats for the SNP in Scotland, a gain of 20 on 2017 which would mean the end of the United Kingdom. Scotland has today, in effect, voted to leave the UK.

The last exit poll in 2017 was remarkably accurate and there is no reason to think that this one will be very far off the mark.

It's endgame, folks.


Looks like Brexit will happen then? At least that’s what the news outlets are saying here will happen with that kind of result.

And is this basically the equivalent of a second referendum?
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#374New Post! Dec 13, 2019 @ 07:28:26
@nooneinparticular Said

And yet, as you have pointed out numerous times, he refuses to say whether or not he would campaign for his deal or remain if it came down to it. He refuses to pick a side or a policy. If Corbyn and his group were really remain, would this strategy make sense with senior members of his own party publicly stating their remain stances?

Well, as previously stated, earlier in the year JC (not the bloke who directed Titanic!) stated that he WOULD campaign for remain in a new Labour referendum. So he was saying the same thing as people like Emily Thornberry and Barry Gardiner. He then changed tact in the lead up to the election and said he would remain neutral. Perhaps he would take a holiday during the referendum campaign, maybe spend some quality time with his friends in the Middle East. Meanwhile MPs like Thornberry and Gardiner were still saying they would campaign for leave. During this time Labour were promising the 'working class' and students lots of free stuff. I think there was the genuine belief that the traditional working class Labour supporters who had voted leave could be bought off. After all they were simple, uneducated, ignorant, easily swayed bigots who would drop their leave stance for 30 pieces of silver. When the polls showed that this wasnt happening people like Thornberry suddenly disappeared from the airwaves whilst Barry changed his tune and refused to say that either he or his party would campaign for remain. In fact it was highly amusing seeing Barry twist himself up into knots as he sought to avoid answering any questions re Labour's stance on any new referendum. But I listened to many traditional Labour voters on talk back radio making it very clear to Barry that they were not being taken in, that they could not be bought off, and that they were extremely angry over the way Labour were playing them for fools. Labour leavers were in no doubt that Labour was anti Brexit and they were telling Labour that, for the first time in their lives, they would not be voting for them in the election. And happily they have been as good as their word with Labour being flogged in their traditional heartland. The people who voted leave were given the 2 finger salute by Labour and the people have returned the favour.
shadowen On June 15, 2020




Bunyip Bend, Australia
#375New Post! Dec 13, 2019 @ 07:33:42
@Leon Said

Looks like Brexit will happen then? At least that’s what the news outlets are saying here will happen with that kind of result.

And is this basically the equivalent of a second referendum?

Re Brexit. The WA should now pass unamended fairly quickly and the UK should be out by the end of January. But the biggest, the most important fight still remains. The WA is about what happens in the transition stage. The yet to be negotiated FTA is what happens after that. There is still a lot to play out re Brexit.

As for your question re the referendum. I would see the GE result as a very strong affirmation of the 2016 people's vote. The people have made it very clear that they want to leave the EU. Now finally they should be listened to.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...23 24 25 26 27 ...51 52 53 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Tue Apr 13, 2010 @ 21:14
11 719
New posts   UK Elections & Politics
Wed Mar 24, 2010 @ 14:00
18 1112
New posts   UK Elections & Politics
Fri Apr 09, 2010 @ 16:31
7 650
New posts   UK Elections & Politics
Wed Jan 20, 2010 @ 08:25
60 3069
New posts   Conspiracies
Sun Apr 12, 2009 @ 15:48
30 1752