I understand and accept and agree in large parts with the sentiment on here about Brexit, but there is no way Parliament will ever recover from this, and I am fed up with MP's on all sides inc the Gov coming up with ways to get their way..
It may be clever for the SNP to suddenly brake protocol to stop Brexit but this shit carries on, anyone who suddenly thinks once once they secure a second Ref or stops Brexit that Parliament will suddenly revert is naive
From the speaker down, the genie is out now and we will have generations of poisonous politics. And I am just waiting for the day with one of these idiots tries to get the queen involved
With your current politics, I have no idea why you would want to do away with monarchy. There is more reason to switch to a real monarchy and do away with parliament.Likewise. As a republican I can't wait for the day when she starts wading in, whichever way her intervention goes.
With your current politics, I have no idea why you would want to do away with monarchy. There is more reason to switch to a real monarchy and do away with parliament.
I still think it's pretty astonishing. You can sort of understand how watching Fox leads people to like Trump in the US, but the British media does a pretty consistent job of exposing what an absolute shit Trump is, and it's still not enough for these troglodytes. I'm not surprised that there are some who like him, but a fucking majority of them think that Donald Trump would be a good Prime Minister? Jesus Christ. At best they're idiots, at worst they're basically traitors.
With your current politics, I have no idea why you would want to do away with monarchy. There is more reason to switch to a real monarchy and do away with parliament.
Why? The Queen is a remoaner Europhile.That's only if you believe the myth that the Windsors are really politically neutral and aren't a bunch of conservatives.
I can see why a Brexiter might want a real monarchy in the current situation.
what fence? If there's a Tory/No deal they'll support a second ref and if there's an election first (and they win) they'll put the deal to a second ref.When I read the Guardian headline I just knew he would still be on that fence somehow. "We back remain against the Tory deal or no deal".. but no doubt would still try to implement a deal of his own if in power.
Labour, please drop Corbyn and his puppet masters Milne and Len etc.
what more do you want?
They support a second ref on any deal (including one they would hypothetical negotiate should there be an election and they win).
They say remain should be an option on any ballot.
They'd campaign to remain.
Not sure what else Corbyn can do to appease some people.
But then I see those people as about as reasonable as the Brexit party.
what fence? If there's a Tory/No deal they'll support a second ref and if there's an election first (and they win) they'll put the deal to a second ref.
The obvious and crucial contextual difference you're omitting being that Tory default in the case they don't get what they want is no deal, which Labour have consistently and constantly ruled out.It's fine to a point if Labour don't get into power because they would be full on remain versus no deal/Tory deal, however the chances of such a ballot being on the table or there ever being one, slim to none so it's easy for Labour to positon themselves as remain in this case, nothing to lose.
If there is a snap election before Brexit, what would their Brexit position be, this is were it unravels fast and goes into unicorn nonsense fence sitting, they wouldn't be remain 100%, they would be Labour fantasy deal and we already know they want to cherry pick that the EU won't accept so we are back to square one, Tory fantasy versus Labour fantasy Brexit.
Take the following two statements:
A) Labour supports a second referendum*
*with caveats, provisos and disclaimers
B) Labour supports a second referendum.
A lot of people want B, but always seem to get a version of A. Brexit is a polarizing issue and there are few people that have patience for the fallacy that it's still possible to appease both sides of the debate.
Oh no, the guardian thinks Corbyn isn't saying the exact right thing, what an unforeseen series of events
Plenty here on Corbyn's vagueness.
Where does it say this? Because in the Guardian live feed he's not clearly defining what would happen if Labour gained power. He's just opposing the Tory deal (or no deal).
And as for the Brexit Party comment above, Jesus Christ. Personally I draw more parallels between the blind following of Farage and Corbyn supporters.
Take the following two statements:
A) Labour supports a second referendum*
*with caveats, provisos and disclaimers
B) Labour supports a second referendum.
A lot of people want B, but always seem to get a version of A. Brexit is a polarizing issue and there are few people that have patience for the fallacy that it's still possible to appease both sides of the debate.
Their position on the Tory-negotiated deal and a referendum is fine. The messaging compared to other parties is weak, however. Instead of "if this, then we back that" approach, NOW is the time to be hammering home that the Tory deal is a disaster and a failure, and it needs to go to the public NOW.
Their position on a Labour-negotiated Brexit is still typical cakeism. 3 years on and there's no real substance to their belief that they can deliver their slightly-softer-than-the-Tories Brexit without having the exact same problems re: Irish border OR delivering a Brexit so soft as to be pointless.
Grieve's attempt to stop the prorogation of Parliament hasn't been selected. Welp.
Labour's position is B) though. They support a second referendum in all circumstances. 'Labour supports remain' is the statement that comes with caveats.
Think this is a good article, particularly:
"Centrist thinking is focused on two false premises. The first is that the 2012 London Olympic ceremony represented an idyllic high-point of culture and unity in the UK, rather than occurring amid the brutal onslaught of austerity, with food bank use growing and the bedroom tax ruining lives. The second is that the UK became divided by Brexit and the 2016 vote, rather than it being a symptom of long-term problems: the decline of industry and the public sector begun by Margaret Thatcher and continued by Tony Blair and David Cameron; vast inequality of opportunity, wealth and health; and the number of people being routinely ignored in a system with a huge democratic and electoral deficit. "
Grieve's attempt to stop the prorogation of Parliament hasn't been selected. Welp.
What a load of shite.
I really hate this attitude of Corbynites lumping in critics of Corbyn as some sort of right wing centrists that have invaded the party and must be removed. I generally agree with most of Corbyns political stances in essence, but in practice he's just not a good leader and he isn't a remainer.
Being a remainer or agreeing a critic of Corbyn does not then make you a fucking idiot that thinks the 2012 olympics solved racism. It makes you somebody that craves to see some real leadership.
Corbyn could honestly fart in to a microphone and some people would give a standing ovation.
Don't bring that fucking centrist rhetoric from the states back in here. A centrist in the middle of the democrat and republican party is far far far different from a UK centrist and even then, Tom Watson is not a centrist, disagreeing or being critical of Corbyn does not make you a centrist, backing remain does not make you a centrist.
Don't bring that fucking centrist rhetoric from the states back in here. A centrist in the middle of the democrat and republican party is far far far different from a UK centrist and even then, Tom Watson is not a centrist, disagreeing or being critical of Corbyn does not make you a centrist, backing remain does not make you a centrist.
Personally, I have a lot of issues with Corbyn. I get quite annoyed that I end up being in a position of defending him so much because the objections from the centre are just so annoying.
Their message is literally that the tory deal is a disaster/failure and if Labour can't get into power then the tory deal needs to go to a public in a referendum (for which Labour will back remain).Take the following two statements:
A) Labour supports a second referendum*
*with caveats, provisos and disclaimers
B) Labour supports a second referendum.
A lot of people want B, but always seem to get a version of A. Brexit is a polarizing issue and there are few people that have patience for the fallacy that it's still possible to appease both sides of the debate.
Their position on the Tory-negotiated deal and a referendum is fine. The messaging compared to other parties is weak, however. Instead of "if this, then we back that" approach, NOW is the time to be hammering home that the Tory deal is a disaster and a failure, and it needs to go to the public NOW.
Their position on a Labour-negotiated Brexit is still typical cakeism. 3 years on and there's no real substance to their belief that they can deliver their slightly-softer-than-the-Tories Brexit without having the exact same problems re: Irish border OR delivering a Brexit so soft as to be pointless.
You think centrists and conservatives will let Brexit go? It's the perfect smoke screen for austerity. Brexit won't be solved for another 15 years at least.We cannot actually address the fundamental issues with the country until Brexit is solved, and if it's solved in the wrong way it'll be 10 times harder than it is now, and it's already really fucking hard.
I am so sick of people capitulating to brexiteers who won a very narrow vote on lies, and i am deeply, deeply disappointed in Corbyn for not condemning it from the start.
Who are "the centrists"? The lib dems?You think centrists and conservatives will let Brexit go? It's the perfect smoke screen for austerity. Brexit won't be solved for another 15 years at least.
TBQH, it's already being hurled as such.Give it a couple of years and we'll start to see people claiming "centrist is a slur!"