Brexit negotiations

xmiles wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:

xmiles wrote:Corbyn is as bad as May. If they were both drowning and I could only save one I would save May.

Strange attitude, May the architect of the hostile environment who has created the shambles we are now in.

Corbyn is the bigger hypocrite.

Because of unfounded claims he secretly supports leave?

The policy was agreed at the Labour conference with Labour members. If Mays deal fails then they push a general election should that fail last resort is a second vote.

The hostile environment started under labour.

Also Corbyn himself has spent years moaning about the EU. Now he loves it? Ok.

He's a pure opportunist. Sat his arse on the brexit fence for years to avoid causing problems in his deeply divided party.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

xmiles wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:

xmiles wrote:Corbyn is as bad as May. If they were both drowning and I could only save one I would save May.

Strange attitude, May the architect of the hostile environment who has created the shambles we are now in.

Corbyn is the bigger hypocrite.

Because of unfounded claims he secretly supports leave?

The policy was agreed at the Labour conference with Labour members. If Mays deal fails then they push a general election should that fail last resort is a second vote.

Secretly supports leave? It's no secret. If Labour win a general election he will try to take us out of the EU. He has been saying it for years! This despite 71% of Labour voters and 88% of party members wanting to stay in the EU according to a recent poll.

Large numbers of potential Labour voters will not vote for Labour if Corbyn campaigns on a leave policy which is why I doubt Labour would win a general election.

He campaigned to remain (far more prominently than May did I might add). The policy makes sense to me, you don’t best serve the country by ignoring 51% of them. He has a responsibility to enact Leave if he can as does every other party.

T.R.O.Y wrote:He campaigned to remain (far more prominently than May did I might add). The policy makes sense to me, you don’t best serve the country by ignoring 51% of them. He has a responsibility to enact Leave if he can as does every other party.

No he didn't. He refused to co-operate with the official remain campaign and when he did make a speech it looked like he didn't mean it. I have seen more convincing messages delivered by hostages at gun point.

51% of the country didn't vote leave - barely 37% of the registered electorate did.

He has no "responsibility" to enact leave - he is just very keen to do so (hardly an unfounded claim).

Giving people a chance to vote when they know the terms that we are being offered is democratic not undemocratic. You should resist the temptation to buy into brexiteer framing.

You can’t question the legitimacy of the vote and expect to be taken seriously. It happened, I wish it was the other result but we have to put up with it - that’s the way democracy goes.

T.R.O.Y wrote:You can’t question the legitimacy of the vote and expect to be taken seriously.

No one does.

T.R.O.Y wrote:You can’t question the legitimacy of the vote and expect to be taken seriously. It happened, I wish it was the other result but we have to put up with it - that’s the way democracy goes.

There is nothing undemocratic about giving people a vote.

There is before attempting to implement the decision that was made.

Try that in a general election and I'm sure people would say that was "just more democracy."

If labour win the next election I'd definitely be after a people's vote to make absolutely sure we want labour.

*

xmiles wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:You can’t question the legitimacy of the vote and expect to be taken seriously. It happened, I wish it was the other result but we have to put up with it - that’s the way democracy goes.

There is nothing undemocratic about giving people a vote.

I guess it depends how many times you want to ask the question.

Best of three?

Best of five?

Until you get the result you want!

xmiles wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:You can’t question the legitimacy of the vote and expect to be taken seriously. It happened, I wish it was the other result but we have to put up with it - that’s the way democracy goes.

There is nothing undemocratic about giving people a vote.

Surely you’d agree there is something fundamentally undemocratic about ignoring the result of a vote though?

The vote was flawed from the start. 
The required split should have been put at 60/40 minimum to affect the status quo. The country has been split right down the middle, and the moaning will continue longer after we've left the EU.
If we ever do.

I agree with you Bonce, but unfortunately Cameron's arrogance has had a catastrophic affect on the future of this country.

I'm sure he'll be remembered fondly for it.

boltonbonce wrote:The vote was flawed from the start. 
The required split should have been put at 60/40 minimum to affect the status quo. The country has been split right down the middle, and the moaning will continue longer after we've left the EU.
If we ever do.

Completely agree.

T.R.O.Y wrote:

xmiles wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:You can’t question the legitimacy of the vote and expect to be taken seriously. It happened, I wish it was the other result but we have to put up with it - that’s the way democracy goes.

There is nothing undemocratic about giving people a vote.

Surely you’d agree there is something fundamentally undemocratic about ignoring the result of a vote though?

The reason I think another referendum is justified is

1. the original campaign for brexit was both dishonest and corrupt, and
2. we were not given the basis on which we would leave the EU.

Reason 2 is I think the strongest argument for having another referendum because now we do know the terms. If people still voted to leave I would have to accept it and stop arguing about it on here (although I reserve the right to say I told you so when it all goes tits up).

I also agree with you and bonce about Cameron's incredible stupidity in having a referendum on such a major issue and not requiring a significant majority for change simply to placate the loonie wing in his party. This was too important an issue for a 52/48 split to decide it (as Farage always pointed out).

I agree about the 60/40 also. 

At this point it's clear we will not be leaving in any meaningful way so a people's vote really is pointless. The result desired by that is already happening.

Their may be questions about the legitimacy of the 2016 referendum or not but that's history so forget it.

Now we should vote on something completely different e.g. whether or not we are finally grown up enough to accept that the NHS won't be getting £350 million a week, Turkey's entire population won't moving in next door, the Americans, Indians and Chinese won't be giving us massive trade deals, the billions we've poured into joint european ventures will be lost forever and the only terms on the table will shaft the surviving British businesses and the economy as a whole.

xmiles wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:

xmiles wrote:

T.R.O.Y wrote:You can’t question the legitimacy of the vote and expect to be taken seriously. It happened, I wish it was the other result but we have to put up with it - that’s the way democracy goes.

There is nothing undemocratic about giving people a vote.

Surely you’d agree there is something fundamentally undemocratic about ignoring the result of a vote though?

The reason I think another referendum is justified is

1. the original campaign for brexit was both dishonest and corrupt, and
2. we were not given the basis on which we would leave the EU.

Reason 2 is I think the strongest argument for having another referendum because now we do know the terms. If people still voted to leave I would have to accept it and stop arguing about it on here (although I reserve the right to say I told you so when it all goes tits up).

I also agree with you and bonce about Cameron's incredible stupidity in having a referendum on such a major issue and not requiring a significant majority for change simply to placate the loonie wing in his party. This was too important an issue for a 52/48 split to decide it (as Farage always pointed out).

But reason 2 is what parliament are deciding at the moment. If it gets rejected those terms could change before another deal is put before parliament.

If, and that is a big if, the terms change we should have a vote on that deal. All that I and possibly the majority of the population are asking for is a vote on the deal when we know the terms of the deal.

Personally I would not trust Corbyn to negotiate his way out of a paper bag. He is even more stubborn than May but that is not the same thing as being a good negoiator.