It's on Public record that they declared they were voting Remain.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
It's on Public record that they declared they were voting Remain.
It was a secret ballot, what they say on public record is irrelevant once they are in the booth. Am I being ignorant or cynical here?
Democracy works, but in an educated society.
All people probably have some misgivings one way or another but usually vote on balance what would be in their interests and in the case of politicians what should be the best for their country.
My very low opinion of both May and Corbyn is that they are both basically liars and have no integrity.
I don't know. I certainly wouldn't trust either.
In the UK don't we vote for a representative for the constituency whose own politics may differ from the parties? So if you voted for a remain candidate in a leave party then you still voted remain.
For example people who voted Ken Clarke voted for a remain candidate in a leave party.
For example people who voted Ken Clarke voted for a remain candidate in a leave party.
But what if you voted for a remain candidate in a leave party, in a leave constituency?
Sums up one of the many problems with the UK system.
Except that MPs don’t run on a single issue. The election wasn’t a choice or remain vs leave and I wish people would stop suggesting it was whichever way people voted.
It's a consideration but largely party politics is based on party mandates. They didn't have a choice to vote for another Tory candidate even if they disagreed with Ken.
Even deselection which is demonstrating choice has become a dirty word. There's just no mechanism to vote against your candidate views but for your party.
A lot of different ways of claiming Labour voters aren't responsible for Brexit here, or their leaders, I suspect. In denial is the phrase that comes to mind.
Except that's not what has been said at all.
Intellectual dishonesty is the phrase that comes to mind...
I am with you on this. Always voted for Labour primarily because I didn't agree with the nasty party politics and still don't.
I will wait and see what happens because I don't see a GE being iminent.
Change UK might be interesting but absolutely not Liberal.
This country has far more important things to get resolved before the time is right for an election.
Oh right, so Labour voters are responsible for Brexit then? I wasn't being dishonest, I genuinely thought people were claiming otherwise.
Vote SNP
Me for one.
I don’t see how the two are not mutually compatible. Politics is so dominated by leaving the EU but we must remember that there are countless other issues within the UK that need to be resolved.
We can all see the fallout from the failed austerity policy. With the idiot Cameron and his henchmen lead by the equally idiotic George Osborne they only had one policy - austerity for austerity sake.
When it became obvious that the fiscal side was not going to be achieved they kicked that target into the long grass but continued to screw public services.
I live in Bristol not Glasgow...
Someone else who has swallowed the Tories blame culture. It is everyone else who is at fault but not us...
Complete and utterly bullshit.
Change UK are considering an alliance with the Lib Dems:
https://www.businessinsider.com/the...-alliance-with-liberoal-democrats-2019-3?IR=T
I blame the Tories first Buster, sorry if I didn't make that clear.
That's the problem, it's not just about one subject. There are plenty of Tory voters who are pro-remain as there are Labour voters, also as there are Tory Mps and Labour MPs. Brexit has really broken UK politics and it needs a complete overhaul.
The only people I consider responsible for Brexit are the people who voted for it, whatever their political persuasion, being gullible, ignorant or xenophobic is no excuse. But whatever happens they must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Last edited:
Very few people will defend the leadership on this issue. Dobba and Mozza will, but that's about it.
Nevertheless, I'm pretty certain you know how our electoral system works and I'm pretty certain you know why people might vote for a party that has a policy they don't like (such as Labour's manifesto pledge for a softer form of Brexit) in order to prevent a party with a manifesto pledge that they REALLY don't like winning — especially when they think that a party with a policy they do like (such as holding a referendum) won't win their seat.
To claim otherwise, and then to accuse others of being in denial simply for correctly pointing out how elections work when I'm certain you already know this, stinks of intellectual dishonesty.
There are Remain supporting Labour voters I don't have sympathy for (if you voted for Kate Hoey in a seat which has Lib Dems in second place you are an idiot or don't care about her stance on Brexit), but you're simply trying to blame people for having to cast their vote in a flawed system.
Not debating the rest but where is Labour's softer form of Brexit? Unicorns don't count.
Well they definitely do in this case. Your options in 2017 were a rock hard Brexit supported by a bunch of racists and cnuts, or a pledge for a softer Brexit which was unfeasible. They weren't by any stretch of the imagination great choices, but there's not really any issue with voters deciding they preferred what Labour was offering to the Tories whether they knew Labour's Brexit plan was flawed or whether they didn't.
Not entering negotiations with several ultimatum's right off the bat would have been a start.
Which means either Labour were lying or stupid. Depressing stuff.
Agreed but look where we are today - Labour still trying to convince they can negotiate an impossible deal and most of the Tories determined to leave under any circumstances.
I think it depends on what you think those unicorns were doing. At that stage it wasn't necessarily a problem that you were asking the EU to do to things they wouldn't agree to, as long as it was a negotiating position and were prepared to compromise.
As we now know, I think it's pretty clear that they actually represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what the EU is, wants, and could agree too.
The fact that that still was a better option than May and her red lines is certainly depressing.
Yes of course, it's how five minutes later those same people loudly protest that the secondary 'policy they don't like' is the biggest disaster to hit the country for generations that rankles. If you think that's dishonest, so be it, although it's ironic that is the very thing I'm accusing Corbyn supporters of being, although more dishonest with themselves to be fair.
I'm just going to post this again in bold and underlined: You're simply trying to blame people for having to cast their vote in a flawed system.
If that's how you regard 'five minutes later those same people loudly protest that the secondary 'policy they don't like' is the biggest disaster to hit the country for generations that rankles' then we've identified our disagreement and I'll leave it there.
I'd prefer this to mays deal or no deal, but I cant help but think this suits no-one. EU membership is totemic for both sides of the argument, so this halfway house is more likely to suit no-one than everyone.
Because, providing you understand (as you claim to do) how our system works, that is a completely consistent position to hold.
If you think Brexit is a disaster and your two options are 1) Really, really bad disaster and 2) really bad disaster it is completely legitimate to vote for 'really bad disaster' over 'really, really bad disaster'.
That was the reality for a huge portion of Labour Remainers in the last election. That they didn't vote Lib Dem or Green because they were worried that that would lead to the Tories winning says nothing other than FPTP is a bad system.
Our disagreement stems from you claiming to know this, but trying to argue against this fundamental point.
Unfortunately there is no option that suits everyone. Ive been thinking for a few weeks now that Common market 2.0 is the least worst option.
A bit irrelevant, no? It's much more important what they campaigned for (no matter how weak the campaign) than what they voted for. Their vote is one vote like anyone else, their campaigns would be worth thousands of votes.
Last edited:
That's true about Corbyn, why anyone should think he will change his beliefs I don't know... well perhaps if he gets his GE, he will 'turn his coat', but since the Tories aren't playing that game... just yet, then he can carry on with his subterfuge.
May foolishly thought if she could just land/agree some change on FoM, with EU, then everything else would pass muster with the 'Leavers' and they would vote her deal through. The truth is there is a myriad of reasons why people voted leave, mostly it had nothing to do with economics and was about 'getting out from under' in a political sense. For some people voting leave was done on a whim, for others an expression of long held deep belief, but for most I suspect it was a poke in the eye for the 'liberal elite'.
The truth is the UK has been a poor European State, in particular when various UK leaders realised what we had signed up to; hence we have opted out of all sorts of things, demanded rebates, not joined the euro zone, are definitely against further integration, no support for a EU army, etc. etc. you would think the EU would be glad to be rid of us wouldn't you?
So why haven't they said "on yer bike"? Perhaps they will in the next week or so? After all there are enough looming problems in the other 27 States and there is a change of leadership etc. due in the EU, that they could well do without the awkward squad from the UK stirring things up.
Liberal voters obviously would argue against that point wouldn't they? I can understand you disagreeing but how that makes them (and me) dishonest is slightly beyond me I'm afraid. The electoral system is a whole different subject, if you want PR (as Liberals do of course) you then have to say what type of PR, and discuss and accept that there are pros and cons to each of those as well, but as I say, that is a different subject.
Is Tom Dunn reliable?