Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Silva said:
That's why I posted his parliamentary voting record which among other things shows he voted for the Lisbon treaty.
Click to expand...

It's his actions since he was leader of the opposition that are important

Does he though? He's voted against all of the governments Brexit bills and is constantly criticising her, maybe that's not made it to France, who knows.
Click to expand...

The only thing I can't see is the BBC because I don't have a UK TV licence but I watch Sky and other news channels and also tune into PMQ now and again. His performances in those I've seen are woeful, not saying that May is any better mind.

1+1=3 maths here
Click to expand...
In what way, no CU/SM means Hard Brexit that's unquestionable. Are you saying you believe he can have his different flavoured cake and eat it? If he is so Pro -Remain then at least the next best thing is "in all but name"

this is just a stupid opinion piece
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't agree with yours I presume. Yes it's an opinion.
 
I think the very fact we're having discussions over how committed Corbyn and the like were to the EU does exemplify some of the inherent problems any Remain campaign faced heading into a vote. We were in a position where the leader of the country had been scapegoating the EU for years over a variety of issues, while the opposition leader historically held some Eurosceptic positions.

These positions themselves aren't/weren't necessarily problematic - the EU is a large, sprawling organisation, and so anyone who either thinks it's completely good or completely bad is probably a bit of an idiot. It's obviously got virtues, and it's obviously got flaws. Cameron/Corbyn feeling that way makes sense if they're viewed as astute, knowledgeable politicians.

But the problem is that when it comes to political campaigning, this puts you at an inherent disadvantage. People often follow politicians with conviction, however misguided or hypocritical that conviction might be, and in a vote where it was between people who really wanted to leave the EU, and people who didn't but who also kind of didn't like it, the Leavers were handed a massive advantage. Imagine if during the Scottish referendum Cameron had made a speech where he was intensely critical of the UK, and argued that it wouldn't benefit Scotland to leave, but he could see why they'd want to without heavy reform. It'd have been patently fecking mental, a campaign-sabotaging move. And yet it's essentially what the EU referendum consisted of, in large part. Most Remainers were, to varying degrees, reluctant to defend what they believed because for years they've often been critical of the EU. Even the intense Labour Europhiles, who've tended to frame any closer relationship with the EU in the terms of what we're not having to do, as opposed to what we are.
 
Cheesy said:
This is sort of true, but to be honest Labour's problems in Scotland went far beyond the referendum itself and had been festering for roughly a decade, as Holyrood elections had demonstrated. If anything, in fact, that's actually a vindication of Corbyn because a lot of the frustration with Labour came not necessarily from their referendum stance in itself but from their generally meek policies from Blair-Miliband.

It's a criticism I used at the time - that they were 'red Tories' for working alongside Cameron etc, but I feel like it's a bit silly and trite now - politicians should be able to unite on issues they feel are genuinely important and crucial to the country. Splintering into lots of different factions during such an incisive vote where there's no real strategy certainly doesn't help. Although granted a lot of the criticism for Corbyn over the Brexit vote is a tad overblown - Davie C's ultimately 100 times more culpable for all that went on there.
Click to expand...
There's coming together on an issue, i.e voting the same way in parliament and there's campaigning together and hitting the road together as the Remain campaign wanted of Corbyn and Cameron. It would have ruined his credibility to go from essentially campaigning that "most criticisms of the EU are actually criticisms of UK policy, these are the EUs issues and those can be reformed and the EU has improved the UK through environmental standards and workers rights" to holding hands with Dave around the country.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
It's his actions since he was leader of the opposition that are important
Click to expand...
As leader of the opposition he campaigned against leaving the EU and has voted against every government Brexit bill. He's taken zero actions that have made life easier for the government. If you're looking for people who say one thing and do another, look no further than the so called Tory rebels who write amendments then vote against them anyway.
 
Cheesy said:
But the problem is that when it comes to political campaigning, this puts you at an inherent disadvantage. People often follow politicians with conviction, however misguided or hypocritical that conviction might be, and in a vote where it was between people who really wanted to leave the EU, and people who didn't but who also kind of didn't like it, the Leavers were handed a massive advantage. Imagine if during the Scottish referendum Cameron had made a speech where he was intensely critical of the UK, and argued that it wouldn't benefit Scotland to leave, but he could see why they'd want to without heavy reform. It'd have been patently fecking mental, a campaign-sabotaging move. And yet it's essentially what the EU referendum consisted of, in large part. Most Remainers were, to varying degrees, reluctant to defend what they believed because for years they've often been critical of the EU. Even the intense Labour Europhiles, who've tended to frame any closer relationship with the EU in the terms of what we're not having to do, as opposed to what we are.
Click to expand...
I don't think that played the biggest part in it. The major problem for the remain campaign was that it was extremely uninspiring, they made almost zero effort to highlight the good the EU does - spending the overwhelming majority of their resources warning that leaving would be bad. And no matter how true that is, the demographics who were most likely to vote leave didn't give a shit about a doomsday scenario. Does 80 year old Ethel in the countryside really give a flying feck if there's a long queue at dover or if the city of London collapses? No, she's spent the last 10 years barely able to move in her living room watching the TV tell her that there's a billion immigrants coming from the EU who are ruining the country and committing all sorts of crimes.
 
Silva said:
As leader of the opposition he campaigned against leaving the EU and has voted against every government Brexit bill. He's taken zero actions that have made life easier for the government. If you're looking for people who say one thing and do another, look no further than the so called Tory rebels who write amendments then vote against them anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you but he can vote till the cows come home but unless the Tories do actually rebel he's not going to win and he knows it. Yes the supposed Tory rebels are pathetic.

If he was more of a belligerent opposition leader he could have wiped the floor with May every single week, she's a hopeless PM and of no substance at all but any arguments he puts forward peter out. He's the only one who can do it but he's not strong enough.

I'd like you to answer my question about his stance on the CU/SM - surely you don't believe he would be able to get the EU to change the rules.
 
Genuine question... Doesn't simple game theory suggest that since the Brexit vote, the only type of exit that was really possible was the "no deal" Brexit? Wasn't the situation we're heading in to, entirely pre-determined?

So long as the cabinet can't agree on a negotiating position it only suits one side, the hard brexiteers among the cabinet who wanted the "no deal" exit. What incentive do they have to compromise to a more moderate negotiating position with EU if that's not what they want? By merely stalling and bickering they can achieve their desired goal due to expiring deadlines.

I think it's inevitable we're heading towards that outcome. We'll be on WTO rules until at least a general election takes place and a different government with a more pro-EU stance takes it to negotiating some sort of trade deal with EU.
 
sun_tzu said:
That's an outright lie
He has voted with the government ... Indeed he has made it labour policy to do so forcing people to rebel against the party (or not even grant a free vote)

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-bill-rebellion-plp-labour-party-backbenchers-three-line-whip-article-50-vote-a7566931.html?amp&ved=2ahUKEwiaqNawmv7bAhXnD8AKHXMnBbYQFjAQegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw049YK1jFYG0ABET9DQ26iW&ampcf=1
Click to expand...
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php...orth&house=commons&display=allvotes#divisions

crtl+f 8 feb 2017, that was the article 50 notification bill, he's voted against all the specifics coming from the tories including that day, I thought it was implied he voted for A50 but my bad
 
Silva said:
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php...orth&house=commons&display=allvotes#divisions

crtl+f 8 feb 2017, that was the article 50 notification bill, he's voted against all the specifics coming from the tories including that day, I thought it was implied he voted for A50 but my bad
Click to expand...
Again here
https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...ario-minister-tells-tory-rebels-politics-live
You say he voted against ... Lie... He abstained and made it party policy to do so... Those who voted with their conscience had to quit the labour from bench...
 
Last edited:
that's assuming you're talking about the EEA amendment, in any case - had labour put a three line whip voting in favour of it instead of abstention, the bill would still have been very easily defeated



this was the rebel breakdown, it was not only a doomed amendment, it would have done feck all for a soft brexit
 
A marginal result on a non-binary issue where the central assertions made since the referendum were not even part of the question that was voted on with increasing evidence that there was some kind of shenanigans in respect of the funding of one the main proponents of the winning side.

"There must be no re-evaulating the decision, no rethinking the consequences despite how hard the poor and public services will be hit. We must pretend the result was decisive and conclusive and do nothing but accept what Nigel says"

Anyone who isn't ashamed that that's Labour's position are Corbyn groupies and really care little for the party, its members, its voters or the people it has traditionally sought to represent.
 
Oscie said:
Anyone who isn't ashamed that that's Labour's position are Corbyn groupies and really care little for the party, its members, its voters or the people it has traditionally sought to represent.
Click to expand...
Oscie said:
Should there not then be a proviso that you have to either be in education or full-time work in order to qualify?
Click to expand...
Oscie said:
Arms sales are important to our economy.
Click to expand...
 
MadMike said:
Genuine question... Doesn't simple game theory suggest that since the Brexit vote, the only type of exit that was really possible was the "no deal" Brexit? Wasn't the situation we're heading in to, entirely pre-determined?

So long as the cabinet can't agree on a negotiating position it only suits one side, the hard brexiteers among the cabinet who wanted the "no deal" exit. What incentive do they have to compromise to a more moderate negotiating position with EU if that's not what they want? By merely stalling and bickering they can achieve their desired goal due to expiring deadlines.

I think it's inevitable we're heading towards that outcome. We'll be on WTO rules until at least a general election takes place and a different government with a more pro-EU stance takes it to negotiating some sort of trade deal with EU.
Click to expand...

But the game theory to start with from both Tories and Labour was and still is to a certain extent that the EU were going to wilt and give in to the UK demands. That was never going to happen.

Those that wanted a Hard Brexit are getting their way. Time is almost up and when the UK have left it's WTO rules all the way. There will be a trade deal negotiated in the future but having a tariff on certain items will be one of the lesser problems the UK have to face next March if a no deal Brexit occurs.
 
Silva said:
I don't think that played the biggest part in it. The major problem for the remain campaign was that it was extremely uninspiring, they made almost zero effort to highlight the good the EU does - spending the overwhelming majority of their resources warning that leaving would be bad. And no matter how true that is, the demographics who were most likely to vote leave didn't give a shit about a doomsday scenario. Does 80 year old Ethel in the countryside really give a flying feck if there's a long queue at dover or if the city of London collapses? No, she's spent the last 10 years barely able to move in her living room watching the TV tell her that there's a billion immigrants coming from the EU who are ruining the country and committing all sorts of crimes.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, but then that's sort of my point. Politicians on most sides of the political spectrum on Britain have for years been critical of the EU and a lot of what it does. Suddenly changing their positions and being incredibly positive about it was always going to be a difficult sell because they were on record as holding positions which contradict such a stance. Cameron obviously being by far the worst offender along with a lot of his party in that regard.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
But the game theory to start with from both Tories and Labour was and still is to a certain extent that the EU were going to wilt and give in to the UK demands. That was never going to happen.
Click to expand...

Hoping/expectation =/= game theory. Game theory, is the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers.

I don't think they expected the EU to wilt in the slightest. If they genuinely believed that, they would have at least agreed to a ludicrously optimistic negotiating position.

If I am hard brexiteer cabinet member, logic dictates that I can achieve my desired outcome with 100% certainty if I can effectively sabotage any negotiations from taking place. Easily achieved by never agreeing to a negotiating position in the first place.

If both sides get to the negotiating table then an agreement might be reached, and consequently put in front of the parliament, that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Therefore I'll stall and bicker and delay until it's too late for anything to be done.
 
Corbyn has am open goal if he points out that all of the things people blame the EU for are actually the fault of successive Tory governments. Instead he jumps on the anti-EU bandwagon.

He's an utter fraud.
 
MadMike said:
Hoping/expectation =/= game theory. Game theory, is the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers.

I don't think they expected the EU to wilt in the slightest. If they genuinely believed that, they would have at least agreed to a ludicrously optimistic negotiating position.

If I am hard brexiteer cabinet member, logic dictates that I can achieve my desired outcome with 100% certainty if I can effectively sabotage any negotiations from taking place. Easily achieved by never agreeing to a negotiating position in the first place.

If both sides get to the negotiating table then an agreement might be reached, and consequently put in front of the parliament, that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Therefore I'll stall and bicker and delay until it's too late for anything to be done.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but that is one reason I'm so bemused by Labour who are in effect saying the same thing as the Tories in a different way.

But what would be the agreement that is reached if something sensible and rational did happen? I don't see it.
 
C3Pique said:
Corbyn has am open goal if he points out that all of the things people blame the EU for are actually the fault of successive Tory governments. Instead he jumps on the anti-EU bandwagon.

He's an utter fraud.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't he be more of a fraud if he pretended to be pro-EU for political gain? He's being just honest enough to stay popular while his desire to see the UK out of the EU happens.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Plus Corbyn declared himself as pro-Remain - an out and out lie.
Click to expand...

horsechoker said:
Wouldn't he be more of a fraud if he pretended to be pro-EU for political gain? He's being just honest enough to stay popular while his desire to see the UK out of the EU happens.
Click to expand...

They've all told so many lies none of them can remember what they said, I can.
 
We had the head of NHS England on the telly this morning saying that emergency plans will have to be implemented in case the supply of drugs are affected. Imagine that and also imagine the fact Labour have nothing to say about it because their policy puts the NHS as much at risk in this regards as the Tory policy does. Combine that with the fact there will be people genuinely annoyed not at that but at the idea that anyone has the audacity to notice.

What a time to be alive.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
They've all told so many lies none of them can remember what they said, I can.
Click to expand...

To be fair to Corbyn if he opposes Brexit he'll only have the overwhelming majority of his MPs, his voters, his party members and the largest unions in the country behind him.


What we should do is pretend that somehow it's a difficult decision on the basis that a small minority of voters who live largely in safe Labour constituencies in the north might object and attack anyone who challenges that view.
 
Oscie said:
To be fair to Corbyn if he opposes Brexit he'll only have the overwhelming majority of his MPs, his voters, his party members and the largest unions in the country behind him.


What we should do is pretend that somehow it's a difficult decision on the basis that a small minority of voters who live largely in safe Labour constituencies in the north might object and attack anyone who challenges that view.
Click to expand...

The frightening thing for the UK population as a whole is if the government did fall and Labour did gain power, he'd probably be the next PM.
 
Officially what's the reasoning behind why we should all be confident that the Labour 'having cake and eating it' policy will succeed where the Tory policy of exactly the same, won't?

Is it: "Oh! Jeremy Corbyn!", by any chance?
 
Oscie said:
To be fair to Corbyn if he opposes Brexit he'll only have the overwhelming majority of his MPs, his voters, his party members and the largest unions in the country behind him.


What we should do is pretend that somehow it's a difficult decision on the basis that a small minority of voters who live largely in safe Labour constituencies in the north might object and attack anyone who challenges that view.
Click to expand...

More than a 'small' minority of Labour voters supported Brexit.
 
Roughly the same number of Labour voters backed Remain (65%) as Tory voters backed Leave (61%). Yet we're not in a position where the Tory party is backing remain for fear of alienating the minority of their vote. Odd that, isn't it?


More recent polling has shown 80% of Labour members want a second referendum.
 
Silva said:
It'll be more or less the Norway+ model that's made possible in the stage 1 and 2 agreements.
Click to expand...

So a soft Brexit. If the estimations of the people who support his current position are correct, he'll get a heavy amount of flak for that in that he'll be alienating Labour Brexiteers by not committing to an end for freedom of movement etc.
 
Oscie said:
Roughly the same number of Labour voters backed Remain (65%) as Tory voters backed Leave (61%). Yet we're not in a position where the Tory party is backing remain for fear of alienating the minority of their vote. Odd that, isn't it?


More recent polling has shown 80% of Labour members want a second referendum.
Click to expand...

Well no, but that's because the Leave side won. The Tories can therefore back what the majority of their membership supported because it's not hypocritical at all to do otherwise. I think Corbyn's position is increasingly silly and naive but we shouldn't pretend there's no difference.
 
Silva said:
It'll be more or less the Norway+ model that's made possible in the stage 1 and 2 agreements.
Click to expand...

Specifically what is it about the stage 1 and 2 agreements that you think make the Norway deal possible?

I've seen you cite this before but never explained why.
 
Cheesy said:
So a soft Brexit. If the estimations of the people who support his current position are correct, he'll get a heavy amount of flak for that in that he'll be alienating Labour Brexiteers by not committing to an end for freedom of movement etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but he'll have 5 years until the next election for voters to get over it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.