General Election

wanderlust wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:What? Why would you want Boris’s over a softer, less damaging deal negotiated by Labour without the right wing constraints placed by the ERG?

On your first question - I don’t care what he thinks, personally I think we should leave but with a better deal than what’s on offer. Corbyn will do what the people decide, that’s a position I’ll vote for. Who will you vote for X?

The thing is Corbyn hasn't got a deal to discuss and can only guess at what deal he might get given the opportunity.
And talking of opportunities, Corbyn put his own political ambitions ahead of looking for a solution to defeat the Tories as an alliance with the numerous pro-Remain parties wherein they agreed to only field candidates in the winnable marginals would have done the job - but he chose to attempt to further his deluded ambitions instead.
A smarter person would have realised there are more ways to skin a cat and unfortunately his actions will probably give the Tories a shoo-in.
In my constituency, if Labour, the Libdems and Greens (whose policies are broadly similar) put up just one coalition candidate they would win a seat that has been held by the Tories for over 100 years.
Naive of Corbyn to think that he could gain power by splitting the vote.

Your entire premise seems to be based around a notion that Labour is a remain party - but 60% of its constituencies voted leave - so why should Labour ignore half it’s voters to keep you happy?

Im afraid you’re talking rubbish.

The Lib Dem’s could have backed a no confidence vote months ago - the best opportunity to stop a hard Brexit - but refused because of the delusion Swinson could become PM.

xmiles wrote:And yet you support having a referendum on Corbyn's deal. How is that any different from having a referendum on Boris's deal? That is just as "extreme". How do you justify that?

The extreme position is revoking Article 50, going back to the country for a final say is the only option left as parliament can’t get a deal through.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:What? Why would you want Boris’s over a softer, less damaging deal negotiated by Labour without the right wing constraints placed by the ERG?

On your first question - I don’t care what he thinks, personally I think we should leave but with a better deal than what’s on offer. Corbyn will do what the people decide, that’s a position I’ll vote for. Who will you vote for X?

The thing is Corbyn hasn't got a deal to discuss and can only guess at what deal he might get given the opportunity.
And talking of opportunities, Corbyn put his own political ambitions ahead of looking for a solution to defeat the Tories as an alliance with the numerous pro-Remain parties wherein they agreed to only field candidates in the winnable marginals would have done the job - but he chose to attempt to further his deluded ambitions instead.
A smarter person would have realised there are more ways to skin a cat and unfortunately his actions will probably give the Tories a shoo-in.
In my constituency, if Labour, the Libdems and Greens (whose policies are broadly similar) put up just one coalition candidate they would win a seat that has been held by the Tories for over 100 years.
Naive of Corbyn to think that he could gain power by splitting the vote.

Your entire premise seems to be based around a notion that Labour is a remain party - but 60% of its constituencies voted leave - so why should Labour ignore half it’s voters to keep you happy?

Im afraid you’re talking rubbish.

The Lib Dem’s could have backed a no confidence vote months ago - the best opportunity to stop a hard Brexit - but refused because of the delusion Swinson could become PM.

You say that 60% of Labour constituencies voted leave but ignore the far more important point that 70% of Labour voters voted remain. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjYr5jM9_rlAhWnRhUIHcFrDl0QFjADegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-politics-48039984&usg=AOvVaw0438eNOjj85BkSMF_0vRMY

T.R.O.Y wrote:

xmiles wrote:And yet you support having a referendum on Corbyn's deal. How is that any different from having a referendum on Boris's deal? That is just as "extreme". How do you justify that?

The extreme position is revoking Article 50, going back to the country for a final say is the only option left as parliament can’t get a deal through.

You still haven't explained how supporting a referendum on Corbyn's deal is different from supporting a referendum on Boris's deal.

I said it in post 192, Labour's deal would keep us in the customs union and therefore be far less damaging to the economy. 

Boris's deal shouldn't be on the table at all.

xmiles wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:What? Why would you want Boris’s over a softer, less damaging deal negotiated by Labour without the right wing constraints placed by the ERG?

On your first question - I don’t care what he thinks, personally I think we should leave but with a better deal than what’s on offer. Corbyn will do what the people decide, that’s a position I’ll vote for. Who will you vote for X?

The thing is Corbyn hasn't got a deal to discuss and can only guess at what deal he might get given the opportunity.
And talking of opportunities, Corbyn put his own political ambitions ahead of looking for a solution to defeat the Tories as an alliance with the numerous pro-Remain parties wherein they agreed to only field candidates in the winnable marginals would have done the job - but he chose to attempt to further his deluded ambitions instead.
A smarter person would have realised there are more ways to skin a cat and unfortunately his actions will probably give the Tories a shoo-in.
In my constituency, if Labour, the Libdems and Greens (whose policies are broadly similar) put up just one coalition candidate they would win a seat that has been held by the Tories for over 100 years.
Naive of Corbyn to think that he could gain power by splitting the vote.

Your entire premise seems to be based around a notion that Labour is a remain party - but 60% of its constituencies voted leave - so why should Labour ignore half it’s voters to keep you happy?

Im afraid you’re talking rubbish.

The Lib Dem’s could have backed a no confidence vote months ago - the best opportunity to stop a hard Brexit - but refused because of the delusion Swinson could become PM.

You say that 60% of Labour constituencies voted leave but ignore the far more important point that 70% of Labour voters voted remain. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjYr5jM9_rlAhWnRhUIHcFrDl0QFjADegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-politics-48039984&usg=AOvVaw0438eNOjj85BkSMF_0vRMY

You beat me to it XM. So yes, my entire premise is based around the notion that Labour is a Remain party. Unfortunately, the leadership is out of touch with the membership.

Edit: Sorry I just used the word "leadership" in the context of Corbyn. If I didn't know better I'd suspect that Corbyn is a sleeping Tory agent sent to infiltrate the party and render it unelectable. Either that or he doesn't pay any attention to the views of the rank and file members or the general public opinion polls. Either way it can't be construed as leadership in the true sense.

T.R.O.Y wrote:I said it in post 192, Labour's deal would keep us in the customs union and therefore be far less damaging to the economy. 

Boris's deal shouldn't be on the table at all.

You are missing the point. If a referendum is held on Corbyn's deal people will be able to vote to stay in the EU - something you said at 198 was "Wanting to completely ignore a democratic vote ... There’s no justifiable argument for doing so".

Yet you won't support a referendum on Boris's deal despite it offering a better chance of being rejected. You seem to want to leave the EU.

To revoke article 50 without putting an option to the people is unjustifiable - really not sure why that’s so difficult to follow?

Also don’t know how many times I need to say that I think a soft Brexit is the best option available now to bring people together. Compromise is the only way forward, not the extreme positions of Lib Dem or Tory.

So yes you can say I want to leave the EU if you want.

T.R.O.Y wrote:To revoke article 50 without putting an option to the people is unjustifiable - really not sure why that’s so difficult to follow?

Why is it unjustifiable? Surely that's just going from a position/deal that nobody either wants or voted for to a holding position where there is plenty of time to find out what people really want and work out the best way forward?

In all honesty I believe a second referendum is necessary. I am a "Remain" supporter but that's not why I want this. Since the initial vote more than 200,000 people have turned 18 and now have the right to vote. Since it's my firm belief that the outcome of Brexit will have a far greater effect on our children's generation than our own I think it appropriate that their voice be heard and that the country has the opportunity to state how it feels now rather than how it did in 2016.

Much has changed since then including the fact that Boris Johnson's deal is catastrophically bad for the nation. As to Corbyn's 'deal' it doesn't even exist and there's absolutely no guarantee that the EU would accept it if he was in a position to put it to them OR that Parliament would agree to it if they did.

With no disrespect to lusty or xmiles I think they overestimate just how much time we have on this. I can't see the EU agreeing to yet another delay in Brexit so this is a matter that MUST be dealt with immediately following the Election. Personally I feel the referendum should have 3 options. The Johnson deal, a 'hard' brexit or remain.

One thing is very clear though. This country is divided in a way it probably hasn't been since 1641. If we are to heal those breaches anytime soon the screaming rhetoric and distasteful haranguing of those we disagree with must stop and I think a 2nd referendum may just be the way to do it.

wanderlust wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:To revoke article 50 without putting an option to the people is unjustifiable - really not sure why that’s so difficult to follow?

Why is it unjustifiable? Surely that's just going from a position/deal that nobody either wants or voted for to a holding position where there is plenty of time to find out what people really want and work out the best way forward?

Sorry are you suggesting that the plan should be revoke Article 50, debate Brexit then start the withdrawal again?

luckyPeterpiper wrote:In all honesty I believe a second referendum is necessary. I am a "Remain" supporter but that's not why I want this. Since the initial vote more than 200,000 people have turned 18 and now have the right to vote. Since it's my firm belief that the outcome of Brexit will have a far greater effect on our children's generation than our own I think it appropriate that their voice be heard and that the country has the opportunity to state how it feels now rather than how it did in 2016.

Much has changed since then including the fact that Boris Johnson's deal is catastrophically bad for the nation. As to Corbyn's 'deal' it doesn't even exist and there's absolutely no guarantee that the EU would accept it if he was in a position to put it to them OR that Parliament would agree to it if they did.

With no disrespect to lusty or xmiles I think they overestimate just how much time we have on this. I can't see the EU agreeing to yet another delay in Brexit so this is a matter that MUST be dealt with immediately following the Election. Personally I feel the referendum should have 3 options. The Johnson deal, a 'hard' brexit or remain.

One thing is very clear though. This country is divided in a way it probably hasn't been since 1641. If we are to heal those breaches anytime soon the screaming rhetoric and distasteful haranguing of those we disagree with must stop and I think a 2nd referendum may just be the way to do it.

Time is running out and that is why I think Boris's deal should be put to a referendum. Much as I like your suggestion of a 3 way choice I don't think it is practical. Leavers would argue that it splits the leave vote between two options.

I don't understand TROY's position on this. He opposes a vote on Boris's deal but supports a vote on a purely hypothetical Corbyn deal.

T.R.O.Y wrote:To revoke article 50 without putting an option to the people is unjustifiable - really not sure why that’s so difficult to follow?

Also don’t know how many times I need to say that I think a soft Brexit is the best option available now to bring people together. Compromise is the only way forward, not the extreme positions of Lib Dem or Tory.

So yes you can say I want to leave the EU if you want.

1. I disagree with you about revoking article 50 and believe a case can be made for it but what I am arguing for is a referendum on Boris's deal.

2. Sadly whether we stay or leave I don't think anything but time is going heal the damage caused by holding this totally needless referendum in 2016.

3. When the people wanting us to leave the EU are led by Boris, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Daily Mail, Telegraph and Sun and supported by Trump and Putin it clearly can't be good for ordinary people in the UK. Wanting to leave the EU is lining up on the same side as these and opposing what 70% of Labour voters wanted.

It's not about opposing one, it's about what I think is a better option.

A labour deal where we stay in the customs union is a deal id rather see implemented.

Really not sure why you're struggling with that.

The best option is staying in the EU.

Really not sure why you're struggling with that.

xmiles wrote:3. When the people wanting us to leave the EU are led by Boris, Farage, Rees-Mogg, Daily Mail, Telegraph and Sun and supported by Trump and Putin it clearly can't be good for ordinary people in the UK. Wanting to leave the EU is lining up on the same side as these and opposing what 70% of Labour voters wanted.

I think this kind of polarisation is a big issue at the moment. You're taking a very complex issue with a range of potential outcomes and making it black and white.

I don't think leaving (under any circumstances) will be good for the UK. But I do think ignoring the vote will also be hugely damaging.

So take the deal which is not as economically damaging, get out and move on. 

Obviously we're not going to agree on this, but I think I've made it perfectly clear why I think that's the best thing to do.

200,000 assuming they all vote you're still gonna lose buddy.

Is this fair?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50508009

Until donations to political parties are restricted to a reasonable level the Tories will always be financed by rich bastards many of whom are not even British.

xmiles wrote:Is this fair?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50508009

Until donations to political parties are restricted to a reasonable level the Tories will always be financed by rich bastards many of whom are not even British.

Once uncontrolled political donations were used to buy peerages - now they buy policies, we have the corrupt "first past the post" electoral system instead of a proper democracy, we have a media that is allowed to spout propaganda and lies without sanction that has escalated into social media and personal data abuse that it out of control.

Who told you British politics is fair?
It's never been fair.
It's not even democratic.

xmiles wrote:Is this fair?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50508009

Until donations to political parties are restricted to a reasonable level the Tories will always be financed by rich bastards many of whom are not even British.

'Reasonable' meaning what the labour, and other parties, can afford.  We are being told constantly how many official members there are in the Labour Party, yet it seems nobody has the confidence to donate more than a very small amount. 
Please don't give me the argument that Labour voters are worse off, as there are some very rich Labour donors I'm sure. 
I wouldn't be surprised if they are keeping their money safe knowing that the ludicrous Labour manifesto is going to cost everyone a small fortune.