Jump to content

Referendum  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. In or out?

    • Stay in
      25
    • Leave
      24


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MikeO said:

Two of the three companies bidding to produce our new blue passports are French it turns out:lol:.

And Theresa May, "....and I think it's absolutely right that when we leave the EU we return to deciding the colour of passports that we want, not what the European...." trails off.

She probably trailed off because she knew she was on the verge of lying. If she'd said "union dictate" she'd have been pulled up but if she'd have finished "union offered as an option" it wouldn't have had the same impact. The EU never mandated burgundy passports: it simply produced a standard format that many member states chose to use for the sake of convenience. Croatia chose to stay blue, we could've done as well.

Ask her about that deception next time she pops in for a chat John;).

Who even gives a shit about the colour? Of all the things we have to think about and deal with, the colour of the passport could be decided by a toddler or that octopus that picked the world cup results. It should be headline news!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bailey said:

Who even gives a shit about the colour? Of all the things we have to think about and deal with, the colour of the passport could be decided by a toddler or that octopus that picked the world cup results. It should be headline news!

Most of the negotiations would be done better too;

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43139703

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s loads of fruit pickers in this country make everyone who’s not in work pick the fruits and the farmers can pay the government for their services.

 If that was to happen there would be a massive cry out for a second referendum from all the dole dosing I’m hard done by moaners who voted out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.K.’s ambition to chart its own course as a trade champion outside the EU is facing a brutal reality check: Not enough of its exports are actually “Made in Britain.”

Revealingly, EU trade partners like Canada and Japan are signalling a willingness to roll over the terms of their deals with the U.K. post Brexit. This is hardly out of the goodness of their hearts. They realise that they would be able to export tariff-free to the U.K. under those terms, while Britain would fall foul of rules of origin requirements.

https://www.politico.eu/article/localization-barrier-risks-to-spoil-britains-free-trade-hopes/?utm_content=buffer5f2d0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Chach said:

The U.K.’s ambition to chart its own course as a trade champion outside the EU is facing a brutal reality check: Not enough of its exports are actually “Made in Britain.”

Revealingly, EU trade partners like Canada and Japan are signalling a willingness to roll over the terms of their deals with the U.K. post Brexit. This is hardly out of the goodness of their hearts. They realise that they would be able to export tariff-free to the U.K. under those terms, while Britain would fall foul of rules of origin requirements.

https://www.politico.eu/article/localization-barrier-risks-to-spoil-britains-free-trade-hopes/?utm_content=buffer5f2d0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Surely this will be solved by diagonal cumulation of origin between UK and EU?  This is one of the minor issues that, if the UK gets itself together, could be solved quite quickly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, holystove said:

Surely this will be solved by diagonal cumulation of origin between UK and EU?  This is one of the minor issues that, if the UK gets itself together, could be solved quite quickly.  

This isn’t going to end harmoniously so no discussions will be easy, all indications are the EU are going to make this has hard for us as possible, to show there way is the right path for the future and ours is wrong.

They can’t and won’t help us become a success because if we flourish there model will calapse with more wanting to leave. 

So nothing is going to be simple in this process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, holystove said:

Surely this will be solved by diagonal cumulation of origin between UK and EU?  This is one of the minor issues that, if the UK gets itself together, could be solved quite quickly.  

Maybe, not really in the true spirit of Brexit and making Albion great again though is it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Palfy said:

This isn’t going to end harmoniously so no discussions will be easy, all indications are the EU are going to make this has hard for us as possible, to show there way is the right path for the future and ours is wrong.

They can’t and won’t help us become a success because if we flourish there model will calapse with more wanting to leave. 

So nothing is going to be simple in this process. 

The Times reported yesterday US trade negotiators told UK MP's that in any future US-UK-deal agriculture will have to be included (UK really doesn't want this).  The Financial Times has reported the US is set to offer way worse terms to British carriers than it currently does to EU member states via the EU-US open skies agreement.  etc. etc.

Is this the US punishing the UK for brexit?  ..  It is about the UK realising it is the demandeur in negotiations with much larger economies.  The EU27 will only make it as hard as is beneficial to them.  Whether or not a third country is successful outside the EU is irrelevant to this.   (look at Norway, Switzerland etc, they're all doing fine).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, holystove said:

The Times reported yesterday US trade negotiators told UK MP's that in any future US-UK-deal agriculture will have to be included (UK really doesn't want this).  The Financial Times has reported the US is set to offer way worse terms to British carriers than it currently does to EU member states via the EU-US open skies agreement.  etc. etc.

Is this the US punishing the UK for brexit?  ..  It is about the UK realising it is the demandeur in negotiations with much larger economies.  The EU27 will only make it as hard as is beneficial to them.  Whether or not a third country is successful outside the EU is irrelevant to this.   (look at Norway, Switzerland etc, they're all doing fine).

They are but they weren’t full members who have left also Norway does well as an economy through its vast reserves of gas and I  think the same for Denmark 

With the Italians backing a party that is anti EU Germany will do its upmost to make sure one of the founding members doesn’t leave if that means hurting the U K to put others off they will. 

Germany has the most to gain if the E U stays in tact and the most to lose if it doesn’t, make no mistake they will be pulling the strings. 

As for America I think Trump sees the E U as a threat to world trade power because combined it is bigger than U S and getting bigger, with the emerging economies of China and India growth becoming bigger the U S is in fear of it’s position as the world leader, that’s why he’s trying to force tariffs on steel and aluminium, if he’s allowed to go down this root you are destined for hard times ahead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎06‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 16:24, Palfy said:

They are but they weren’t full members who have left also Norway does well as an economy through its vast reserves of gas and I  think the same for Denmark 

With the Italians backing a party that is anti EU Germany will do its upmost to make sure one of the founding members doesn’t leave if that means hurting the U K to put others off they will. 

Germany has the most to gain if the E U stays in tact and the most to lose if it doesn’t, make no mistake they will be pulling the strings. 

As for America I think Trump sees the E U as a threat to world trade power because combined it is bigger than U S and getting bigger, with the emerging economies of China and India growth becoming bigger the U S is in fear of it’s position as the world leader, that’s why he’s trying to force tariffs on steel and aluminium, if he’s allowed to go down this root you are destined for hard times ahead. 

seems to make sense  but we need to wait to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeO said:

Controversial! But a lot of truth in there; I've always liked Vince Cable, always struck me as an honest man (rare among politicians) even when I've not agreed with what he's said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43364331

My wife's parents both voted out for those reasons, her dad reminiscing how Britain was when he was a young man, and her mum concerned about her grandchildren's future with all the Muslims we were letting in the country.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Palfy said:

My wife's parents both voted out for those reasons, her dad reminiscing how Britain was when he was a young man, and her mum concerned about her grandchildren's future with all the Muslims we were letting in the country.

Demographics of it are scary really; 75% of under 25s voting to stay having their future shaped by people who won't be around to live it, certainly in my family my kids/nephews/nieces were (still are) devastated by what's happening. Sad times, specially when we have a PM who was a remain supporter telling us how great it's going to be to be out, real conviction politician her (even if she is a sweetie over a cup of tea with John:)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MikeO said:

Demographics of it are scary really; 75% of under 25s voting to stay having their future shaped by people who won't be around to live it, certainly in my family my kids/nephews/nieces were (still are) devastated by what's happening. Sad times, specially when we have a PM who was a remain supporter telling us how great it's going to be to be out, real conviction politician her (even if she is a sweetie over a cup of tea with John:)).

In some ways I wish you hadn't posted that because as you rightly say it is scary, besides who voted us out what I find more scary is the picture he paints for the future for my kids and grandchildren.

Thanks Mike just what I needed on Sunday night before bedtime that going round and round in my head😨

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Demographics of it are scary really; 75% of under 25s voting to stay having their future shaped by people who won't be around to live it, certainly in my family my kids/nephews/nieces were (still are) devastated by what's happening. Sad times, specially when we have a PM who was a remain supporter telling us how great it's going to be to be out, real conviction politician her (even if she is a sweetie over a cup of tea with John:)).

Mike, she refused a cup of tea.  Not sure if she thought 'Henesy' was of Russian origin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, holystove said:

Best brexit-analogy thus far:   (from Twitter)

Arsenal fans, disappointed by years of underperformance, lay the blame on the Premiership and vote, by a small majority, to leave it. The club management accept the result, and announce that the ‘will of the fans’ must be implemented.  Arsenal declare that they will not be members of any league, but will approach every team in the FA and ask them for a game. They estimate that the club will prosper if they can persuade the other clubs to participate. They are not deterred by the fact that no club has ever done this, anywhere, and that they will lose the TV money, a role in drawing up the Premiership rules and a place in European competitions. Arsenal do ask the Premiership if it will still be possible to play against other Premiership teams. However they do not want to make a financial contribution to the league, be bound by the rules on standards of venue (they argue their stadium is already up to standard), and they want to use their own referee. Not surprisingly, the Premiership aren’t keen on this proposal. They mention that Arsenal may encounter other Premiership teams in the FA and League Cup, but this will be in accordance with competition rules and independent referees.What remains a mystery to football fans everywhere is how Arsenal can blame its problems on the Premiership, and how leaving the Premiership will solve them?

love that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, MikeO said:

Demographics of it are scary really; 75% of under 25s voting to stay having their future shaped by people who won't be around to live it, certainly in my family my kids/nephews/nieces were (still are) devastated by what's happening. Sad times, specially when we have a PM who was a remain supporter telling us how great it's going to be to be out, real conviction politician her (even if she is a sweetie over a cup of tea with John:)).

yes she was a remainer but she is PM so it is her duty to give the people what they voted for,  and without complaining about it in public,  I really like her, pity she is a tory though  .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, rubecula said:

yes she was a remainer but she is PM so it is her duty to give the people what they voted for

Under normal circumstances the PM will campaign (along with their party) and when elected have a mandate to enact their manifesto so under those circumstances yes. Under the current circumstances she wasn't PM during the vote, chose to stand for PM when Cameron resigned and went against what she believed in because the top Brexiteer candidates (Johnson, Gove etc) realised what a disaster they'd created so abdicated any responsibility. She was an opportunist and a mug, she should have said, "I don't believe in this policy and never have so I'm not going to play any part in it and I'm certainly not going to lead the UK down a stupid path" but she chose power over conscience. Emphasised more recently by getting into bed with the obnoxious bigots that are the DUP.

It's like if we had a referendum on hunting being legalised again and hunting won a League against Cruel Sports campaigner agreeing to oversee the reintroduction of it "because it's what the people want". Bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rubecula said:

I think we see things from two different directions on this,

Well thought out and detailed response to my points that Rubes, you almost have me convinced:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MikeO said:

Under normal circumstances the PM will campaign (along with their party) and when elected have a mandate to enact their manifesto so under those circumstances yes. Under the current circumstances she wasn't PM during the vote, chose to stand for PM when Cameron resigned and went against what she believed in because the top Brexiteer candidates (Johnson, Gove etc) realised what a disaster they'd created so abdicated any responsibility. She was an opportunist and a mug, she should have said, "I don't believe in this policy and never have so I'm not going to play any part in it and I'm certainly not going to lead the UK down a stupid path" but she chose power over conscience. Emphasised more recently by getting into bed with the obnoxious bigots that are the DUP.

It's like if we had a referendum on hunting being legalised again and hunting won a League against Cruel Sports campaigner agreeing to oversee the reintroduction of it "because it's what the people want". Bullshit.

A lot of that is what is wrong with politics generally. You should be responsible to your constituency not your party colours. If MP's disagree with their party view they should be able to stand up and say so without risk of losing their jobs. Although in truth that happens in organisations up and down the country too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some people are determined to ignore what was voted on because they disagree with it.  Makes me wonder what would happen if the vote had gone the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rubecula said:

some people are determined to ignore what was voted on because they disagree with it.  Makes me wonder what would happen if the vote had gone the other way.

Exactly the same would have happened; people who wanted out would be trying to find a reason for another referendum and saying "it was only advisory" because they'd think a mistake had been made. You think Farage would've said "OK then the people have spoken" and disbanded his party?

People have disagreed with decisions made in their name all over the World since there were people, why should this be any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeO said:

Exactly the same would have happened; people who wanted out would be trying to find a reason for another referendum and saying "it was only advisory" because they'd think a mistake had been made. You think Farage would've said "OK then the people have spoken" and disbanded his party?

People have disagreed with decisions made in their name all over the World since there were people, why should this be any different?

Exactly this if they were as committed to leaving as some are to staying and the vote went against them I would expect them to carry fighting and wouldn't condemn them for it, I would admire there passion and resolve, like Farage said if the vote was to remain he would carry on the fight to leave.

In the same way as the SNPs number one policy is for Scotland to be independent even though they lost the referendum to leave they want give up the fight to get what they want.

6 hours ago, rubecula said:

some people are determined to ignore what was voted on because they disagree with it.  Makes me wonder what would happen if the vote had gone the other way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎14‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 15:47, MikeO said:

People have disagreed with decisions made in their name all over the World since there were people, why should this be any different?

might be me being naïve but I often believed it when told we live in a democracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rubecula said:

might be me being naïve but I often believed it when told we live in a democracy

We do,  as a result of which we also have freedom of speech which kind of allows people to say what they think even if they're in a minority.

Having speculated (and not responded to the replies) how do you think things would have panned out had the vote gone the other way Rubes?

We'd have had a new tabloid invention imo; rather than "remoaners" we'd have had loads of people suffering from "Brexitears". You're a great guy mate but your posts in this thread are frankly daft. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MikeO said:

Sorry @rubecula, was in a foul mood last night for uninteresting reasons, shouldn't have been rude though; not your fault.....unless you're secretly in league with my  wife:unsure:.

not a prob mate,  it is an emotive subject  I like to think we are grown up enough to take some comments with a pinch of salt, and anyway I have said things in the past that I am not so proud of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, rubecula said:

not a prob mate,  it is an emotive subject  I like to think we are grown up enough to take some comments with a pinch of salt, and anyway I have said things in the past that I am not so proud of. 

I have said things in the past that I am not so proud of  -  me too, like 'I do'.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, johnh said:

I have said things in the past that I am not so proud of  -  me too, like 'I do'.:D

some of us have more past than others eh John?  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MikeO said:

David Davis is probably the worst public speaker any government ever had....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43456502

Well done for sorting a transition, we just need to work out (small point) what we're transitioning to.

For Brexiteers the transition is actually a smart move. Thanks to the transition the UK will be facing the cliff edge when it's already outside the EU, instead of in March 2019.  If it were facing the cliff edge when still in the EU, there could be a strong push to remain.  With transition, the UK will just ease out of the EU and noone will notice before it's too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, holystove said:

For Brexiteers the transition is actually a smart move. Thanks to the transition the UK will be facing the cliff edge when it's already outside the EU, instead of in March 2019.  If it were facing the cliff edge when still in the EU, there could be a strong push to remain.  With transition, the UK will just ease out of the EU and noone will notice before it's too late.

too late?  too late for what?  we will still be here and we are not going anywhere.  the world is not about to end in a massive fireball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, rubecula said:

too late?  too late for what?  we will still be here and we are not going anywhere.  the world is not about to end in a massive fireball

Too late to remain, obviously.

Ofcourse the world won't end, specifically because, as we can tell from what has happened so far, Brexit means continued regulatory alignment with the EU, continued financial contributions and supremacy of the Court of Justice.  The only real "result" will be the end of Freedom of Momevement.  The price? A weaker economy (on both sides of the Channel) and loss of influence on EU regulation (which will apply in the UK anyway).   I can't imagine at the end of all this, a signifciant proportion of the UK public not wondering what was the point of all of this ..  The option to remain, however, will be gone after March 2019.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the option to remain is already gone,  in truth,  we could avoid any further misunderstanding by talking more about benefits to both us and Europe.   For us we will be able to avoid being forced into a united states of Europe (I think, personally,  this  is a good thing anyway)  Europe will benefit from getting rid of an argumentative member.  I like the idea of the common market, but only when all members can be individuals,  so that allows free movement between member states.  My only argument has always been  nameless people deciding for us who is the leader.  I have never found out which political party Junker represents,   and without accountability in this way  I really can not agree with the folks on here.  besides  who voted him in and how can he be voted out if he cocks it up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, rubecula said:

I have never found out which political party Junker represents,   and without accountability in this way  I really can not agree with the folks on here.  besides  who voted him in and how can he be voted out if he cocks it up?

It's been pointed out before but he was democratically elected by the MEPs; we vote them into place and then they vote for who's going to be in charge because we've given them the mandate. Same as how Theresa got to be PM, no member of the public voted for her specifically, we just voted for our representatives and they made that daft decision. Junker represents a right wing alliance. May represents a right wing party kept in power by obnoxious creationist loonies.

Not complicated, just insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, rubecula said:

the option to remain is already gone,  in truth,  we could avoid any further misunderstanding by talking more about benefits to both us and Europe.   For us we will be able to avoid being forced into a united states of Europe (I think, personally,  this  is a good thing anyway)  Europe will benefit from getting rid of an argumentative member.  I like the idea of the common market, but only when all members can be individuals,  so that allows free movement between member states.  My only argument has always been  nameless people deciding for us who is the leader.  I have never found out which political party Junker represents,   and without accountability in this way  I really can not agree with the folks on here.  besides  who voted him in and how can he be voted out if he cocks it up?

Juncker is a member of the EPP (same party Tories were in until Cameron took them out to join ECR). He was voted in by the EU Parliament and the EU Parliament can vote him out.  I feel like we have been over this before.

There's only a very small percentage of europeans that want a US of E, I don't see it ever happening. You have to look at the EU as an institutional framework to allow like-minded nations to work together, not in statist terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MikeO said:

It's been pointed out before but he was democratically elected by the MEPs; we vote them into place and then they vote for who's going to be in charge because we've given them the mandate. Same as how Theresa got to be PM, no member of the public voted for her specifically, we just voted for our representatives and they made that daft decision. Junker represents a right wing alliance. May represents a right wing party kept in power by obnoxious creationist loonies.

Not complicated, just insane.

At some stage we may as well just introduce a proper third branch of government , everyone thinks/wants to vote for a leader and the Queen is well past her use by date.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MikeO said:

It's been pointed out before but he was democratically elected by the MEPs; we vote them into place and then they vote for who's going to be in charge because we've given them the mandate. Same as how Theresa got to be PM, no member of the public voted for her specifically, we just voted for our representatives and they made that daft decision. Junker represents a right wing alliance. May represents a right wing party kept in power by obnoxious creationist loonies.

Not complicated, just insane.

Not quite as insane as the thought that we might by governed by the extreme loony left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, johnh said:

Not quite as insane as the thought that we might by governed by the extreme loony left.

You mean the party pushing for equality for all rather than austerity for everyone except the rich? Shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think John is referring to the Jeremy Corbin lot Matt,  the labour leader wants to appease Putin over the release of nerve gas in Salisbury you see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, rubecula said:

....the labour leader wants to appease Putin over the release of nerve gas in Salisbury you see. 

Except he doesn't, it's just tory/tabloid propaganda...

"...the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence, and our response must be both decisive and proportionate. But let us not manufacture a division over Russia where none exists. Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption. And we pay tribute to Russia’s many campaigners for social justice and human rights, including for LGBT rights."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/15/salisbury-attack-conflict-britain-cold-war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rubecula said:

I think John is referring to the Jeremy Corbin lot Matt,  the labour leader wants to appease Putin over the release of nerve gas in Salisbury you see. 

 

3 hours ago, MikeO said:

Except he doesn't, it's just tory/tabloid propaganda...

"...the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence, and our response must be both decisive and proportionate. But let us not manufacture a division over Russia where none exists. Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption. And we pay tribute to Russia’s many campaigners for social justice and human rights, including for LGBT rights."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/15/salisbury-attack-conflict-britain-cold-war

Thanks, Mike. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MikeO said:

Except he doesn't, it's just tory/tabloid propaganda...

"...the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence, and our response must be both decisive and proportionate. But let us not manufacture a division over Russia where none exists. Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption. And we pay tribute to Russia’s many campaigners for social justice and human rights, including for LGBT rights."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/15/salisbury-attack-conflict-britain-cold-war

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3837299/Putin-s-useful-idiots-Corbyn-s-support-Russia-shames-party-country-writes-DOMINIC-SANDBROOK.html  

always been a Labour voter until Corbin became leader  and no power on earth could make me a Tory,  so I pray we get a real olde type Labour leader very soon.  I think the last one was Michael Foot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, rubecula said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3837299/Putin-s-useful-idiots-Corbyn-s-support-Russia-shames-party-country-writes-DOMINIC-SANDBROOK.html  

always been a Labour voter until Corbin became leader  and no power on earth could make me a Tory,  so I pray we get a real olde type Labour leader very soon.  I think the last one was Michael Foot

Proved my point Rubes; right wing tory tabloid cherry picking "facts" and making 2+2=5.

And Michael Foot was the last "real left" Labour leader, very similar to Corbyn and was ditched because he was unelectable at the time; "new labour" came about as a direct result of his left wing ideology. | really don't see how anyone reminiscing for the days of Foot could possibly be anti-Corbyn, two peas on a pod:dontknow:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, rubecula said:

different times mate  totally different imho

So you always supported "old labour" and yearn for the days when the party was like that but now we have an "old labour" leader in place again you don't want one because "times are different":huh:?

I'm confused. What is it you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MikeO said:

So you always supported "old labour" and yearn for the days when the party was like that but now we have an "old labour" leader in place again you don't want one because "times are different":huh:?

I'm confused. What is it you want?

Corbyn is no more an 'old labour leader' than Foot was, in Labour party recent history they are both anachronisms.  Gaitskell, Wilson, Callaghan, Kinnock, Smith, they are old labour leaders and all to the right of Corbyn and Foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×