Off Topic The Politics Thread

97*




*possibly. Or 52. It was in fact 44 in 1918, 52 again in 1919 but up to 57 by 1923. He picked a stupid year to use as an example, and even got that wrong.

 

There was an interesting article in Monday's Grauniad about a poll amongst Labour's membership regarding their attitudes towards Brexit. Not sure how many of the 560,000 were polled, but the results were fascinating, if not massively surprising - vastly in favour of staying in the Single Market and strongly in favour of a second referendum on the final deal. This is of course at odds with Corbyn's current cake-eating position. The 'studied ambiguity' of Corbyn's statements worked well during the election, encouraging many defectors to UKIP to return to Labour, but he's going to have to get off the fence quite soon. He should listen to the party membership that elected him.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politic...ur-members-want-uk-to-remain-in-single-market

 

I don't think Corbyn is going to change his mind about the EU Strolls. It would be good if he did though.

Round two of negotiations ending today, yesterday was spent on citizenship, after they got nowhere on the budget, partly because the UK team didn't have a proposal to put forward, I.e. No counter offer. Both sides want agreement on citizens, and discussions went more smoothly, the only remaining differences are to whom, how and from when guaranteed residency rights would apply, oh, and the governing court to guarantee those rights. That's just everything then.

 

Do you really think that Corbyn is happy to go along with the government on its hard, 'no deal is better than a bad deal' Brexit course, Stan? He may think it's necessary to leave the EU to implement his re-nationalisation policies, but his 'economy before immigration' position suggests wanting to stay in the Single Market, it seems to me. Labour is being deliberately opaque, when it should be pressing for a 'Norway' solution. This is what its membership wants, and what most Labour voters would want, I suspect.

 

I don't think he would see it as 'going along with the government' but I think ideologically he would really struggle to do otherwise. The things he likes about the EU - workers rights and environmental stuff - he would surely think he could do better himself. The stuff he doesn't like - level playing field competition, anti national protectionism - are much tougher to rationalise away, and are bolstered by his Bennite views on sovereignty and the primacy of Parliament. Throw into this the supra national aspects of EU trade treaties with the US, now on the table again, and others and he is really not keen. It's Corbyn and McDonnell peddling the out of the single market line as far as I can see, which fits perfectly with some of their fundamental beliefs. You can't do Socialism in one country if that one country is part of a bigger sovereign body which does not want it. It would be interesting if the Labour leadership did adopt policies that the majority of its members wanted, but then would you need a leader, or just a 'desiccated calculating machine' (10 points for identifying the genuine left wing legend who said that about a Labour Party leader).

 

I suppose he can wait until the party conference to show his true hand. Here's what was resolved at the last one.....

please log in to view this image

The quote is from Bevan, about Gaitskell (no points, I had to look it up).

 

Without at least a parliamentary vote, but more likely a referendum or election, how can we decide if the final settlement is 'acceptable'? Odd position.....

Sorry, misread the statement. He should stick to the referendum/ election line.

 

It's the Stan and Stroller show!!!!!!

 

Feel free to contribute, Col.

 

Nah!

 

please log in to view this image

 

Nah, that's me and Roller at a match.

 

Conceding the need for a second (third really) referendum then?

 

No need for another referendum, we should adopt the Norway model. Which has the benefit of being what none of us voted for last year; and therefore best fudged result in time honoured British tradition.

 

Oh go on Col. Interested in your take on the latest round of negotiations, after which your hero David Davis said there is 'much to be positive about' while Barnier asked for more clarification about what the UK really wants on eight separate occasions in two different languages. DD's negotiating position is clearly not to negotiate.

Biggest issue seems to be the role of the ECJ in protecting the rights of EU citizens in the U.K. in the future. We say no way, the EU says essential and non negotiable, it's just what these people have now. And that's before we get on to the cash.....

 

The latest poll says that 24% of Leave voters want to stay in the Single Market, whilst, puzzlingly, only 81% of Remain voters want that result. No one voted for the Norway outcome because it wasn't on the ballot paper, but there's majority support for it now. It's the least bad conclusion to a farcical, damaging and wholly unnecessary process.

 

It really is a farce to be honest. Nobody including our negotiators has a clue of what the outcome will be. How on earth did people vote to leave with no knowledge of an outcome. It's like agreeing to buy a second hand motor without seeing it!!
And before you say it, I'm not a moaning remainer, I didn't vote. I didn't truly understand it. My mistake entirely as if it happened again I would remain all day long. We have been fooled, bamboozled and lied to. We get our country back bollocks ! We make our own laws yet nobody can name any they don't like that were made on our behalf! An extra 350m a week to the nhs! Immigration stopped with non freedom of movement. All these things either lied about or negotiable to the point of ridicule. If you voted leave over immigration ( a lot of people I know did) then it may not change anyway and if it doesn't then your vote was purely manipulated!

 

Leave meant leave, we all know what we voted for...I think?

 

go on
have another referendum
ask do we want to stay this time
and if that dosent get 100% agreement have another
and another
etc etc etc

 

Ha ha leave meant leave a little bit and stay a little bit. Just don't know what bits yet