Jump to content

Referendum  

50 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. In or out?

    • Stay in
      26
    • Leave
      24


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, holystove said:

Is it true that if the right wing of the conservative party had voted for May's deal, it would have passed?  Were there enough Labour members to offset the DUP voting against?

If so, how are they getting away with saying people like Gauke, Hammond, etc are frustrating Brexit?  It is the right wing tories (currently in government) that have stopped Brexit from happening thus far by voting against it three times.

That depends on whether you call May's WA Brexit or not. It certainly wasn't what we were told we were voting for so it was (quite rightly imho) rejected three times because it left us under the control of EU via, inter alia the Backstop.

Share this post


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

Is it true that if the right wing of the conservative party had voted for May's deal, it would have passed?  Were there enough Labour members to offset the DUP voting against?

If so, how are they getting away with saying people like Gauke, Hammond, etc are frustrating Brexit?  It is the right wing tories (currently in government) that have stopped Brexit from happening thus far by voting against it three times.

The Gauke's and Hammond's of this world will vote against any Brexit deal (as will all arch-remainers) which is why May's deal was voted down three times. They don't want a deal of any description, they want to remain in the EU.

Share this post


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

What time will we know if Hillary Benn's bill gets passed?

Between 9-00pm and 10-00pm provided the debate runs for the full 3 hours which should be allocated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RPG said:

That depends on whether you call May's WA Brexit or not. It certainly wasn't what we were told we were voting for so it was (quite rightly imho) rejected three times because it left us under the control of EU via, inter alia the Backstop.

Brexit means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  May's deal may not be what you think you were told, or what you specifically voted for, but you can't presume this extends to 17.4m people.   May's deal would have taken you out of the EU and would have effectively ended freedom of movement  (a lot of people would say immigration concerns were one of the major driving forces behind Brexit).

One thing is for sure, you certainly weren't told you were voting for 'no-deal'.

4 minutes ago, johnh said:

The Gauke's and Hammond's of this world will vote against any Brexit deal (as will all arch-remainers) which is why May's deal was voted down three times. They don't want a deal of any description, they want to remain in the EU.

They tried to achieve remaining in the EU, by voting for the only available way to leave the EU?  That is strange reasoning.

Share this post


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

May's deal may not be what you think you were told, or what you specifically voted for, but you can't presume this extends to 17.4m people.   

One thing is for sure, you certainly weren't told you were voting for 'no-deal'.

 

Yep, you can't really rely on one of these without accepting the other.

So really the only solution is another referendum with the following question:

The parliament has been unable to negotiate a withdrawal agreement that can command a majority in the house of commons, should the United Kingdom:

Leave the EU with no deal

Remain in the EU

A GE with Brexit not decided will be a disaster.

Share this post


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

Brexit means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  May's deal may not be what you think you were told, or what you specifically voted for, but you can't presume this extends to 17.4m people.   May's deal would have taken you out of the EU and would have effectively ended freedom of movement  (a lot of people would say immigration concerns were one of the major driving forces behind Brexit).

One thing is for sure, you certainly weren't told you were voting for 'no-deal'.

They tried to achieve remaining in the EU, by voting for the only available way to leave the EU?  That is strange reasoning.

Again, I disagree. David Cameron was quite specific about what we were voting for. From memory: And, amongst other things,

A once in a generation referendum.

The government will enact the result of the referendum.

Leave means out of the Customs Union, out of the Common Fisheries Policy, making our own laws and controlling our own immigration.

May's WA did not satisfy the terms of what we were told we were quite clearly voting for.

1 hour ago, holystove said:

 

 

Share this post


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

Brexit means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  May's deal may not be what you think you were told, or what you specifically voted for, but you can't presume this extends to 17.4m people.   May's deal would have taken you out of the EU and would have effectively ended freedom of movement  (a lot of people would say immigration concerns were one of the major driving forces behind Brexit).

One thing is for sure, you certainly weren't told you were voting for 'no-deal'.

They tried to achieve remaining in the EU, by voting for the only available way to leave the EU?  That is strange reasoning.

That's not what I said?  May's deal was REJECTED three times (as will any deal that Johnson comes up with). They are also fighting to eliminate 'no deal'.  Wonder what the option is then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chach said:

Yep, you can't really rely on one of these without accepting the other.

So really the only solution is another referendum with the following question:

The parliament has been unable to negotiate a withdrawal agreement that can command a majority in the house of commons, should the United Kingdom:

Leave the EU with no deal

Remain in the EU

A GE with Brexit not decided will be a disaster.

Totally disagree with your second referendum question.

First, I do not think there should be a second referendum.

Second, however you try to spin it, the result of the referendum was Leave. Therefore, if there is to be a second referendum, the questions should be restricted purely to how we leave EU as we have already decided that we will leave.

Share this post


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

Brexit means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.  May's deal may not be what you think you were told, or what you specifically voted for, but you can't presume this extends to 17.4m people.   May's deal would have taken you out of the EU and would have effectively ended freedom of movement  (a lot of people would say immigration concerns were one of the major driving forces behind Brexit).

One thing is for sure, you certainly weren't told you were voting for 'no-deal'.

We weren't told we were voting for a bad deal, either.

Only 3 Labour MPs voted for May's initial deal so it's not as if the Conservatives were the only party to throw it out. Parliament threw it out. The deal was not good enough.

I welcome your comment about presuming 17.4 million people thought the same way about Brexit. Reasons for leaving were various and individual. Reasons for staying, likewise.

We are now removing any hope of securing a better deal by removing the only bargaining chip the UK has.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that took a lot of catch up and fuck me it was a waste of time largely. Even after all this time, simple things are basically still not understood, e.g about what actually constitutes the British democracy and what the EU democracy. Basic hypocrisies are still being ignored, e.g. still calling the vote being “democratic” despite being a tool of direct democracy, not parliamentary, e.g. comparing the year, let alone current global economic situation we live in, with that of 10-50 years ago (how that even starts to be an “argument” for either side) is baffling. 

If anything though, there may be 1 bright side to Brexit. It is the biggest evidence of parliamentary democracy being completely outdated and unrepresentative of the population. My only hope is that causes some sort of revolution in Britain. But it won’t, because the population seems to still be shouting about a yes/no result that had no detail or plan on either side and was largely fuelled by lies and deceit by the very people who are left to “run” the country. 

This isn’t aimed just at the leavers in here, but a lot of the remainers too. Too much personal opinion on too big a topic. Which, ironically, is why we have a parliamentary democracy in the first place. 

Also found this recently too, which seems to undermine the main arguments of both sides of the “debate”

https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, RPG said:

Watching Parliament now and I have to say that Johnson does look a tad rattled.

He looks and sounds exactly like a Jim Henson creation to me, I keep expecting the camera to cut away to Statler & Waldorf heckling from the public gallery.

Image result for Stadler & Waldorf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Matt said:

So there’s no majority anymore (well, technically never was without the May bribe).

Before Dr Lee's defection, Mr Johnson only had a working majority of one in the Commons.

In a letter to the prime minister, Dr Lee said Brexit divisions had "sadly transformed this once great party into something more akin to a narrow faction in which one's Conservatism is measured by how recklessly one wants to leave the European Union".

"Perhaps more disappointingly, it has become infected by the twin diseases of English nationalism and populism."

He told BBC Radio 4's PM the "bullying" of MPs opposed to no deal showed the "tone and culture" of the Conservative Party had fundamentally changed, and he knew of other like-minded colleagues who were also considering their futures.

Good man.

As a wise man once said, 

"The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents, of whom he is the representative but not the delegate.....It is only in the third place that his duty to party organization or programme takes rank. All these three loyalties should be observed, but there is no doubt of the order in which they stand under any healthy manifestation of democracy."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RPG said:

Wilson, Callaghan, Foot.

The policies I refer to are the one's where the Labour Party 'borrows' enough money to try to kick start industry, fails (again) and we end up with high interest rates, high unemployment, high iinflation, high taxation, strikes and a slowdown in the economy.

It is always the same with a left wing government - everything is great for about one year until they run out of other people's money to spend.

https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/uk_government_debt_in_cash.png

Spike under labour was thanks to the bankers. It should have then been brought down as the recession was over yet the tories and all their cuts has somehow managed to double it.. And murder 200,000+ people with their beliefs/policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pete0 said:

https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/uk_government_debt_in_cash.png

Spike under labour was thanks to the bankers. It should have then been brought down as the recession was over yet the tories and all their cuts has somehow managed to double it.. And murder 200,000+ people with their beliefs/policy. 

1970's double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, 98% supertax, record unemployment and strikes was entirely down to left wing policies.

Share this post


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

1970's double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, 98% supertax, record unemployment and strikes was entirely down to left wing policies.

Yet the tories still managed to increase debt more than any other other party... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pete0 said:

Yet the tories still managed to increase debt more than any other other party... 

In absolute terms, maybe. But, without double digit inflation, without double digit interest rates, without high taxation, without high unemployment, without having to go to the IMF for a bail out and they have presided over a far stronger economy than any left wing government has managed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF IS GOING ON? ]

the general public voted (by a small majority I admit) to leave the EU   and there are politicians actively saying that the leaving would  be undemocratic…  I do not understand,  the more they  dig in the heels over this  the more it will drag ot out and it will become more painful when we do leave.  i  do not like Boris by the way  but he is right to throw out the rebels.

Share this post


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

Totally disagree with your second referendum question.

First, I do not think there should be a second referendum.

Second, however you try to spin it, the result of the referendum was Leave. Therefore, if there is to be a second referendum, the questions should be restricted purely to how we leave EU as we have already decided that we will leave.

For the love of god, it's not spin it's a good faith argument. There is a good faith argument both ways which is why a second referendum is the only way of getting a final decision and some closure.

Now we are going to have a GE on whether there should be a second referendum or no deal which is the same thing anyway but much much muddier.

Share this post


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

WTF IS GOING ON? ]

the general public voted (by a small majority I admit) to leave the EU   and there are politicians actively saying that the leaving would  be undemocratic…  I do not understand,  the more they  dig in the heels over this  the more it will drag ot out and it will become more painful when we do leave.  i  do not like Boris by the way  but he is right to throw out the rebels.

What’s going on? British parliamentary democracy actually doing what it’s supposed to for a change!

Share this post


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

Now we are going to have a GE on whether there should be a second referendum or no deal which is the same thing anyway but much much muddier.

But Labour saying they'll oppose a GE unless no-deal legislation is passed first to ensure Johnson doesn't do the dirty (unthinkable!) and move the election date to November. If they don't vote for it there would be no GE so Boris would presumably have to go to the Queen and tell her he can no longer form a government; under those circumstances she would then invite the leader of "her" opposition to see if he could form an agreement with the smaller parties to take over.

That's my take on it anyway (at the moment, it could all change any time, we're in uncharted territory).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that, perhaps, the only thing we can agree on is that it's a mess.

I am not at all impressed by Parliament though. The referendum result, we were told by both Labour and Conservative parties, would be respected and enacted but many in Parliament are now actively trying to overturn it - in many cases, contrary to the wishes of the many constituencies whose interests they falsely claim to represent.

This is not democracy.

Where we go from here I do not know. But maybe Johnson should follow the lead of Gina Miller and try to get the latest motion (likely to be approved) declared illegal?

Share this post


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

For the love of god, it's not spin it's a good faith argument. There is a good faith argument both ways which is why a second referendum is the only way of getting a final decision and some closure.

Now we are going to have a GE on whether there should be a second referendum or no deal which is the same thing anyway but much much muddier.

No, sorry. I still don't agree.

If there is to be a second referendum, there is absolutely no way that remain can be an option. We have already decided that we are leaving. The only argument for the hair splitters can be about how we leave, not if we leave.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a second referendum, and the will of the people is to leave the EU, what would be the harm in having remain as an option? Surely leave would still be victorious? 

From a leave voter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already quoted that notable enemy of democracy Winston Churchill on this but going back a bit further.

In 1774, [Edmund] Burke's Speech to the Electors at Bristol at the Conclusion of the Poll was noted for its defence of the principles of representative government against the notion that elected officials should merely be delegates:

"It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Share this post


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

Already quoted that notable enemy of democracy Winston Churchill on this but going back a bit further.

In 1774, [Edmund] Burke's Speech to the Electors at Bristol at the Conclusion of the Poll was noted for its defence of the principles of representative government against the notion that elected officials should merely be delegates:

"It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Unfortunately, that is not what is happening in 99% of cases where MPs are voting contrary to their constituents wishes.

There is a lot of self interest at play and very little judgement in the interests of the constituents imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, StevO said:

If there was a second referendum, and the will of the people is to leave the EU, what would be the harm in having remain as an option? Surely leave would still be victorious? 

From a leave voter. 

Simple. It splits the vote. If there were to be a second referendum it would have to be binary between leave with no deal or leave with a specific deal proposed by Parliament.

And Parliament would have to agree to abide by the outcome in advance - otherwise there would be no point whatsoever in having a second referendum - something I believe flies in the face of democracy anyway and should not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RPG said:

Simple. It splits the vote. If there were to be a second referendum it would have to be binary between leave with no deal or leave with a specific deal proposed by Parliament.

And Parliament would have to agree to abide by the outcome in advance - otherwise there would be no point whatsoever in having a second referendum - something I believe flies in the face of democracy anyway and should not happen.

You seem like someone who gets into the detail about things they are passionate about. So after the meddling of Cambridge Analytica for Leave.eu, can the referendum really be considered democratic?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, StevO said:

You seem like someone who gets into the detail about things they are passionate about. So after the meddling of Cambridge Analytica for Leave.eu, can the referendum really be considered democratic?  

I believe so, yes, but that is only my personal opinion. I say that as I have faith in the British people to form their own opinion and make their own judgements no matter the distractions.

As soon as you have more than 2 choices in a referendum, you have a problem. For the sake of argument if the choices were Leave with no deal, Leave with a deal or Remain and the split was 40/30/30 can you imagine how those with different partisan opinions would try to spin the outcome?

You would have Leave with no deal claiming they had won, the other 2 claiming there was no outright majority etc, etc. And we would be right back to square one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, RPG said:

Unfortunately, that is not what is happening in 99% of cases where MPs are voting contrary to their constituents wishes.

There is a lot of self interest at play and very little judgement in the interests of the constituents imho.

I fail to see how 21 Tories were acting in self interest when they effectively resigned because they acted (in their judgement) in their constituents best interests. What has Nicholas Soames (for example) gained from it?

Was Mr Johnson thinking of self interest when he defied the party whip? By far the more plausible example surely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Matt said:

What’s going on? British parliamentary democracy actually doing what it’s supposed to for a change!

So the people don't count.  The remainers in Parliament are destroying democracy in this country. End of.

Share this post


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

So the people don't count.  The remainers in Parliament are destroying democracy in this country. End of.

In parliamentary democracy no. Their vote is for their local representatives who go to parliament on their behalf to make the decisions for them regarding the country.

Thats not remainers destroying :rofl:, that’s just how British democracy works.  It’s shit, but that’s how it works. Oh, and I think you’ll find a lot of Leavers continue to rule against any deal to leave and not just remainers, another simple fact. Only people ruining democracy are politicians in general  and the ignorant to or refusers of the rules

Share this post


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

I fail to see how 21 Tories were acting in self interest when they effectively resigned because they acted (in their judgement) in their constituents best interests. What has Nicholas Soames (for example) gained from it?

Was Mr Johnson thinking of self interest when he defied the party whip? By far the more plausible example surely.

Well, I guess we will never agree on that.

There are, I am told, over 90 Labour constituencies which voted Leave (many by large majorities) yet have MPs who support Remain and all that goes with it. An election is not far away. How do you think that will play out in those Labour constituencies?

Farage must be salivating at the opportunities this presents for the Brexit Party.

Share this post


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

I fail to see how 21 Tories were acting in self interest when they effectively resigned because they acted (in their judgement) in their constituents best interests. What has Nicholas Soames (for example) gained from it?

Was Mr Johnson thinking of self interest when he defied the party whip? By far the more plausible example surely.

 

5 minutes ago, RPG said:

Well, I guess we will never agree on that.

Interesting you quote my questions and then fail to respond to them, are you a politician?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RPG said:

There are, I am told, over 90 Labour constituencies which voted Leave (many by large majorities) yet have MPs who support Remain and all that goes with it. An election is not far away. How do you think that will play out in those Labour constituencies?

Farage must be salivating at the opportunities this presents for the Brexit Party.

That's a question for the voters in those constituencies, many people (even on here) have changed their minds in the last three years having got a clearer understanding of the situation; I'm sure that's pretty widespread, in both directions probably.

The Tories (whatever happens) are now the "de facto" leave party; Farage will be humiliated.

Share this post


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

 

Interesting you quote my questions and then fail to respond to them, are you a politician?

Try telling the people they don't count when it comes to an election in the 90 Labour constituencies that voted Leave but who are saddled with Remainer MPs.

The people will count (literally) then.

Share this post


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

Try telling the people they don't count when it comes to an election in the 90 Labour constituencies that voted Leave but who are saddled with Remainer MPs.

The people will count (literally) then.

...and again.

Share this post


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

That's a question for the voters in those constituencies, many people (even on here) have changed their minds in the last three years having got a clearer understanding of the situation; I'm sure that's pretty widespread, in both directions probably.

The Tories (whatever happens) are now the "de facto" leave party; Farage will be humiliated.

I disagree. Those 90 Labour constituencies may not feel like changing from Labour to tory, but a pact between tory and Brexit parties would probably see a large number of those constituencies elect a brexi MP. Now, imagine a Tory/Brexit Party coalition with support from DUP and the Labour party will be in a weak, minority opposition I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RPG said:

I disagree. Those 90 Labour constituencies may not feel like changing from Labour to tory, but a pact between tory and Brexit parties would probably see a large number of those constituencies elect a brexi MP. Now, imagine a Tory/Brexit Party coalition with support from DUP and the Labour party will be in a small minority opposition I think.

Now you're assuming that the British public, in whom you have so much faith to make the right decisions, will treat a GE as a second referendum and not take any other manifesto issues into account. I give them a bit more credit than that.

Besides that Farage has already said that he won't enter an agreement with Johnson unless the Tories dismiss any notion of a deal and commit to "no deal," which isn't going to happen.

Share this post


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

I fail to see how 21 Tories were acting in self interest when they effectively resigned because they acted (in their judgement) in their constituents best interests. What has Nicholas Soames (for example) gained from it?

Was Mr Johnson thinking of self interest when he defied the party whip? By far the more plausible example surely.

I was referring to the MPs who have been ardent Remainers from day one. They have pretended to just want to stop a no deal brexit but, in reality, have been trying to overturn brexit, without having the decency (apart from in a rare few cases) to honestly declare their agenda.

Share this post


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

Now you're assuming that the British public, in whom you have so much faith to make the right decisions, will treat a GE as a second referendum and not take any other manifesto issues into account. I give them a bit more credit than that.

Besides that Farage has already said that he won't enter an agreement with Johnson unless the Tories dismiss any notion of a deal and commit to "no deal," which isn't going to happen.

At the moment, you are correct. But, as you have already stated, people change their minds.

With the continuing polarisation of opinions I don't think we are too far away from such a pact becoming very likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RPG said:

I was referring to the MPs who have been ardent Remainers from day one. They have pretended to just want to stop a no deal brexit but, in reality, have been trying to overturn brexit, without having the decency (apart from in a rare few cases) to honestly declare their agenda.

OK, so how have any of those MPs (pick whichever one you like, the most obvious example is fine because you must have many to choose from) acted in their own self interest in the way they've voted?

The fairy at the top of the Christmas Tree when it comes to voting for personal gain is Boris Johnson, hands down and completely unopposed. He set out to be PM, plotted it for years and now (hopefully for a very short while) he's achieved it. No Labour back bencher or Tory rebel is in the same ball park.

Share this post


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

OK, so how have any of those MPs (pick whichever one you like, the most obvious example is fine because you must have many to choose from) acted in their own self interest in the way they've voted?

The fairy at the top of the Christmas Tree when it comes to voting for personal gain is Boris Johnson, hands down and completely unopposed. He set out to be PM, plotted it for years and now (hopefully for a very short while) he's achieved it. No Labour back bencher or Tory rebel is in the same ball park.

Sure,

Let me answer you with one word. Corbyn.

At heart he is an ardent brexiteer. There are countless videos of him espousing Eurosceptic comments. But he thinks that the way to No.10 is now to head up a Remain party (totally contrary to Labour party manifesto for the last election) and he has totally compromised (some would say suppressed) his own beliefs for (in his opinion) a chance to get his grubby mitts on the levers of power. It may even work. But it will never dilute the argument against him.

In that regard, there is nothing to choose between Corbyn and Johnson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RPG said:

Sure,

Let me answer you with one word. Corbyn.

At heart he is an ardent brexiteer. There are countless videos of him espousing Eurosceptic comments. But he thinks that the way to No.10 is now to head up a Remain party (totally contrary to Labour party manifesto for the last election) and he has totally compromised (some would say suppressed) his own beliefs for (in his opinion) a chance to get his grubby mitts on the levers of power. It may even work. But it will never dilute the argument against him.

In that regard, there is nothing to choose between Corbyn and Johnson.

He's a eurosceptic who's (eventually) settled with his party and his fans point of view. 

Strangely if we were to leave he probs would have been the best man for the job. May and Cameron were both remain and Boris is just whatever is best for himself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, RPG said:

Sure,

Let me answer you with one word. Corbyn.

At heart he is an ardent brexiteer. There are countless videos of him espousing Eurosceptic comments. But he thinks that the way to No.10 is now to head up a Remain party (totally contrary to Labour party manifesto for the last election) and he has totally compromised (some would say suppressed) his own beliefs for (in his opinion) a chance to get his grubby mitts on the levers of power. It may even work. But it will never dilute the argument against him.

If you trust Johnson over him you are truly delusional. You might not agree with his politics but he's a conviction politician, Johnson is an opportunist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Chach said:

For the love of god, it's not spin it's a good faith argument. There is a good faith argument both ways which is why a second referendum is the only way of getting a final decision and some closure.

Now we are going to have a GE on whether there should be a second referendum or no deal which is the same thing anyway but much much muddier.

I do not think so as remainers have voted the general election down.  My own opinion is tht the whole thing could have been avoided years ago if the polititions involved were not so scared of doing the job they were elected to do, instead of hanging on the coat tails of euro polititions who are doing the best they can for Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...