I can see from your various contributions as of late that you were probably one of those who liked to put the boot in when people were down - we all know those types from our schooldays. Jeremy Corbyn probably does need support, but it should not be forgotten that Cameron called this referendum, and that the major actors who have precipitated the UK. into this crisis have all been Tories. Corbyn's only crime, if you can call it that, was not realizing that it is sometimes expedient to appear to give 100% for a cause which you only 70% agree with. If Labour thinks that this was a crime worthy of getting the knives out for then it is their concern and not yours.
We all know the Labour Parliamentary Party have not wanted Corbyn since day one. The outcome is not only in the interest of Labour supporters because we all agree that the country needs an effective opposition, which has not been conspicuous so far. The interesting bit is will his new supporters that got him elected actually desert him during a re-election? Maybe as w-y alluded to there is a plan to create a truly left of centre party excluding the Blairites? After last week anything is possible.
Sorry cologne, I have to disagree with you over "Corbyn's only crime". I suggest that the way in which he "campaigned" for a Remain vote (which he clearly did not want to do - certainly nowhere near as high as "70%") was the last straw for many in the PLP. His policies may appeal to those who can be bothered to join the Labour Party but they alone do not convince the wider electorate. Coupled with the obvious lack of any redeeming leadership qualities, he has as much chance of becoming PM as Michael Foot did - i.e. none. I do not see anything in the current Labour Party setup that would tempt me to vote for them in any snap general election - I find that sad in the extreme considering the inevitable lurch to the right of the Tory Party. I am left wondering who the hell I could vote for as no party now represents the policies I agree with. Tony Blair may be regarded with hostility by many on the left, but the simple fact remains that he is the only Labour Party leader to win a general election in the last 40 years. Why? Because he was a great leader and his policies resonated with the middle ground. You could argue that he was helped by the turmoil in the Tory Party in the early 90s - but I would suggest that even given the Tories' current civil war, still having Corbyn as leader in an election would result in a Labour disaster at the polls. Much as I despise sh's viewpoint, unpleasant boasting and vile personal remarks, he is right about Corbyn unfortunately. He is simply unelectable as the leader of a UK government.
23 of the 31 members of the shadow cabinet have departed. You couldn't make it up. Someone have should have a quiet word with Jeremy.
This is just about the only fully accurate thing that you have said on this board namely 'After last week anything is possible'. Also possible is that nobody actually wants to be Prime Minister now ! If, as you assume, the decision to invoke article 50 can be delayed (which is a little bit like saying 'I want a divorce but I will decide when to do it', and then, after activation, we have 2 years of negotiations then we are looking at a situation that Britain could well still be in the UK. until 2020, at least - bound by EU. laws until that time. Between now and then we would still have a majority in parliament wanting to remain - so the chances of a second referendum between now and then are very high (because the possibility exists to reverse the decision at any time before then). Parliament are perfectly entitled to either ignore this result, or ask for a second referendum at any time - in just the same way as any judge in the UK. can ask a jury to go away and reconsider its verdict. Or any parliament can ask for a second election if the first one produces a result which cannot be acted upon. What cannot be expected is that three quarters of the British Parliament vote for a measure which they believe would damage the economy and reduce Britain's standing in the World - we do not elect them to do such a thing.
It would reduce the UK's parliament's reputation around the world if they ignored the will of the people. Parliament's MPs voted to give the people say by using a referendum. It was clear to everyone what the rules were. There is no chance of Brexit being avoided. Why is it so hard for you to accept democracy as defined by parliament?
Democracy as defined by parliament says that parliament is sovereign - maybe the Brexiters should also have checked up on the referendum itself, which states quite clearly that it is not legally binding - everyone, presumably, knew that fact.
I wonder if Corbyn refuses to stand down we will see another SDP formed and a another Gang of XX* *Rather more than 4 this time
When I first saw that I thought it was a p*iss take - surely no-one could be that stupid. Now I'm not so sure though...
I find myself agreeing with nearly all of Corbyn's ideas, just as I did with those of Michael Foot, but 'personality politics' and the left are a contradiction in terms. The days are gone when someone like Keir Hardy could stand on a platform and address thousands of people, and inspire them. The modern, Americanized, televised election campaigns do not suit well to a person like Corbyn - he says things once, and thereafter says 'people know my opinions', which isn't enough. We have reduced politics to a televised event in which 'performance' is more important than 'content', and the hairstyle or dress can be as important as what a person is saying - it sucks, but we have to live with that. I think that Corbyn wanted to change the style of politics, like he changed the character of question time in parliament. It just seems so unfair that he may be sacrificed because of Cameron's referendum, and a constitutional crisis created almost solely by Conservatives. Maybe we will never get to find out how he would campaign in a cause which he 100% believed in, only time will tell.
It does not state it's NOT legally binding, it states it's advisory. Any government that ignores the advice of it's people when it asks them for it, is on very dangerous territory. As much as you hope for this, it will never happen - even our politicians have some scruples.
Parliament chose to decide the EU question by a referendum, it is unthinkable to not follow the people's decision. Your argument could be fashioned by Putin.
It is also has no restriction on the amount of times an electorate could be asked for their opinion (which changes every few days) - there are a good 3 years to go before Britain would be out, and circumstances, and opinions, can change radically within that time.
Interesting email from the Whig Party! The Whig Party statement on the EU referendum The outcome of the EU referendum was not the fault of Nigel Farage, or Boris Johnson, or the 17.4 million people who voted Leave, or the 12.9 million registered voters who didn’t vote at all on Thursday. It certainly wasn’t Jeremy Corbyn’s fault. It was the fault exclusively of David Cameron. This was Mr Cameron’s referendum, and he blew it. The referendum was lost long before Mr Cameron announced the date of the referendum on 20th February. His renegotiation with the European Council was a disaster, and it was obvious that the superficial ‘deal’ he finally secured on 19th February fell far short of what he had promised in his 2013 Bloomberg and 2014 JCB speeches. He relied on non-Tory voters to go out and vote to endorse a status quo that much of his own party opposed. That was his first error. Mr Cameron’s decision to be the public face of the Remain campaign was his second error – he is blind to just how unpopular he and George Osborne really are. His third error was to trust in ‘Britain Stronger in Europe’, a campaign group run by New Labour exiles, who ran a campaign based on discredited New Labour tactics. All of this was clear by the middle of January. A referendum on Europe might have been an enlightening conversation about the kind of country we want to be, and the kind of future we want to build for ourselves, but that wasn’t the referendum that Mr Cameron offered. Mr Cameron’s referendum could only ever become a Tory civil war, with himself personally identified with ‘Remain’, and dependent on the likes of Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson, and Jack Straw’s son to deliver a veneer of bipartisanship. All ‘Leave’ had to do to win was to fan the flames of anti-immigrant, anti-Europe, and anti-Establishment sentiment that the popular press have been stoking since 2008. Mr Cameron thought he could blag this referendum in the way he had blagged his 2005 leadership election, the 2014 Scottish referendum, and the 2015 General Election. But his luck ran out, and his referendum exposed and inflamed terrible divisions in our society – divisions that a Prime Minister should seek to contain and heal. The referendum set young against old, immigrants against the indigenous working class, Scotland against England, Nationalists against Unionists, the cities against the regions. And for what? The outcome is that an MP is dead, Farage has been free to preach hate, and the electorate has voted for Brexit. The damage that this referendum has caused will take years to resolve, even if the UK does not actually, in the end, leave the European Union. The referendum has also revealed the deep malaise in British political life. The Tory and Labour parties are divided and dysfunctional, the Lib Dems are condemned to irrelevance, and the SNP are determined to partition our country. Meanwhile Ukip and the far right have been handed a massive victory that Mr Cameron could easily have denied them by not holding his wretched referendum in the first place. Mr Cameron is one of the many victims of his own referendum, and when he steps down he will leave the country in a worse condition than it was when he became Prime Minister. The Whig Party was refounded in 2014 in response to the Coalition government and an ineffective Labour Opposition under Ed Miliband. Now that the Tories and Labour are both incapable of responsible government or Opposition, we believe there is an even greater need for an independent political voice to argue for free markets and individual liberty. The Whig Party remains pro-EU and pro-immigration, and we offer a home to people who want to stand for election against the bitterness that Mr Cameron’s referendum has aggravated in our United Kingdom.
Great text Dave.......The Whig Party (who are the modern Jacobites ?). But seriously, thinking of the Whigs - the party of the Hannoverian succession. Really Brexit is almost totally an Anglo Saxon thing so maybe they should be looking long and hard at the Monarchy (Germans) or indeed the whole aristocracy (came over with the Normans in 1066) so maybe we should be looking at a resurrection of Alfred the Great's England - because that was the last time that England stood as alone as it does now.
While it is simple to see what is happening within the UK, there are two sides involved in the leave process, not just the one in Westminster. While the commons have been trying to get some idea of what is going on there has been quite a lot coming from the EU. EU diplomats reacted witheringly to the idea that the UK could stay in the single market without following the rules. ( Boris Telegraph article.) “It is a pipe dream,” said the EU diplomat. “You cannot have full access to the single market and not accept its rules. If we gave that kind of deal to the UK, then why not to Australia or New Zealand. It would be a free-for-all.” A third EU diplomat said the Brexit side had “no clue” what was going on and did not have a plan. In the Telegraph column, Johnson claimed that the German equivalent of the CBI, the BDI, had “very sensibly reminded us there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market”. In previous interviews, the BDI spokesperson Kerber had warned that a vote to leave would spark a “tooth-and-nail fight” between the UK and erstwhile trade partners. “It wouldn’t be an amicable divorce”, Kerber told Bloomberg in February. “There’s no default European free-trade status in the waiting.” Although countries are split over how much pressure to put on London to fire the starting gun on talks, Brussels appears united that there can be no informal talks, before the UK notifies the EU of its intention to leave. “No negotiations without notification” is becoming the key phrase in the standoff with London. But some Brussels insiders are worried that the UK may never trigger article 50, because the two-year deadline for talks would put the leaver in a weak position. “I personally believe they will never notify,” the diplomat said. “The moment you push the button you are in a stupid negotiating position.”
