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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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'.
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.