Labour betray their leave voters..

[RingoMcCartney]

"I respect the referendum," he said, "We lost we have to respect that. It was a democratic decision. That's it. We'll be arguing that it should be a vote on the deal itself and then enabling us to go back and redo the negotiations"

I don't agree with the "enabling us to go back and redo the negotiations" part as it's clearly a grab for power, but I agree in essence with what John McDonnell is saying.

Firstly, we can't have another referendum - that's not even an option. Absolutely. I'm a Remainer and even I know that much. We can't have another referendum because it would set a frightening precedent. Where would we go next if Remain won? Best of three maybe?! The only thing it would do is create a greater sense of civil unrest in the UK.

However, what we should do is ask people whether they're happy with a no deal. I'm sticking my neck on the line here but I don't think many Leave voters voted for where we are now; on the precipice of a decision that would mean we break away from the EU without any transition period at all. I don't think anyone really wants this do they? We need to ensure there's at least the semblance of stability when we Leave and that's not the case at present.

Don't you see. By having a vote that would prevent no deal, simply emboldens the EUs already pig headed belligerence, by tying the hands of the UKs negotiators. In any negotiation you have to let the other side know that you're prepared to walk away. A vote to stop no deal would mean we are unable to walk away.

People demanding a second referendum are doing the EUs dirty work for them.

[aggi]

This was the article I read on how few seats Labour could lose switching to support Remain. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... nded-study" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The study suggests it would only be a handful (although I'm not quite convinced by the explanation of the methodolgy and I can't find the original study) of seats that Labour would lose. Obviously it's by Best for Britain so there may be some inherent bias.

(Obviously I apologise to Ringo for posting something that's relevant to the topic, I'll try and do better at making up irrelevant stuff in the future.)

[RingoMcCartney]

This was the article I read on how few seats Labour could lose switching to support Remain. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... nded-study" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The study suggests it would only be a handful (although I'm not quite convinced by the explanation of the methodolgy and I can't find the original study) of seats that Labour would lose. Obviously it's by Best for Britain so there may be some inherent bias.

(Obviously I apologise to Ringo for posting something that's relevant to the topic, I'll try and do better at making up irrelevant stuff in the future.)

No need to apologise aggi.

It's irrelevant.

Any party that sees it's elected MPs having to have a police escort into its party conference, through fear of being attacked by its own far left thugs.

Ain't gonna get anywhere near the keys of number 10.

[jlup1980]

Don't you see. By having a vote that would prevent no deal, simply emboldens the EUs already pig headed belligerence, by tying the hands of the UKs negotiators. In any negotiation you have to let the other side know that you're prepared to walk away. A vote to stop no deal would mean we are unable to walk away.

People demanding a second referendum are doing the EUs dirty work for them.

I understand and I actually agree with you, but what are our options right now? I don't trust this government to negotiate any sort of a deal for the UK. The in-fighting, constant cabinet reshuffling and Boris gaffs only go to highlight the severity of the issue. If we stand by and allow a no deal Brexit to happen without voicing our opposition we could end up sleep walking into 5 or 10 years of struggle in the UK!

[RingoMcCartney]

I understand and I actually agree with you, but what are our options right now? I don't trust this government to negotiate any sort of a deal for the UK. The in-fighting, constant cabinet reshuffling and Boris gaffs only go to highlight the severity of the issue. If we stand by and allow a no deal Brexit to happen without voicing our opposition we could end up sleep walking into 5 or 10 years of struggle in the UK!

Fair play to you.

But there is an alternative view.

A no deal Brexit may not turn out to be the "cliff edge" the doom mongers promise us. It may actually be a succesful economic spring board.

Many obviously don't want to find out. Optimists like me, are.

[JohnMcGreal]

Fair play to you.

But there is an alternative view.

A no deal Brexit may not turn out to be the "cliff edge" the doom mongers promise us. It may actually be a succesful economic spring board.

Many obviously don't want to find out. Optimists like me, are.

You misspelt 'reckless fools'

[RingoMcCartney]

You misspelt 'reckless fools'

Your opinion John.

Your fully entitled to hold it.

[dermotdermot]

The populus could hardly understand what ‘in’ or ‘out’ meant let alone a vote on whatever the Labour leadership is proposing now. It would be just too taxing for them.

[Bacchus]

Don't you see. By having a vote that would prevent no deal, simply emboldens the EUs already pig headed belligerence, by tying the hands of the UKs negotiators. In any negotiation you have to let the other side know that you're prepared to walk away. A vote to stop no deal would mean we are unable to walk away.

People demanding a second referendum are doing the EUs dirty work for them.

There is of course a massive, obvious flaw in the logic of that argument.

Normally when you're doing a deal you are choosing between making an agreement or maintaining the status quo. You go to look at a new car, you can either buy one or drive away in your existing car.

Clearly 'no deal' in the context of Brexit does not mean status quo. It means you can drive to the car showroom, abandon your car there and walk home in the ******* down rain. You then can't get to work in the morning so you have to quit your job and your income drops. At least you showed that car salesman who was boss, though.

[timshorts]

This was the article I read on how few seats Labour could lose switching to support Remain. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... nded-study" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The study suggests it would only be a handful (although I'm not quite convinced by the explanation of the methodolgy and I can't find the original study) of seats that Labour would lose. Obviously it's by Best for Britain so there may be some inherent bias.

(Obviously I apologise to Ringo for posting something that's relevant to the topic, I'll try and do better at making up irrelevant stuff in the future.)

Well it's pointless assuming that Labour will lose net votes if/because Labour support "remain". They would presumably also pick up disaffected Tory/not sure remainers who had voted Tory last time out but have cottoned on that Boris is a c0ck, and some of his crew aren't much better. Also, it is difficult to see half the population of, say, Sunderland suddenly supporting the Tories

[RingoMcCartney]

There is of course a massive, obvious flaw in the logic of that argument.

Normally when you're doing a deal you are choosing between making an agreement or maintaining the status quo. You go to look at a new car, you can either buy one or drive away in your existing car.

Clearly 'no deal' in the context of Brexit does not mean status quo. It means you can drive to the car showroom, abandon your car there and walk home in the ******* down rain. You then can't get to work in the morning so you have to quit your job and your income drops. At least you showed that car salesman who was boss, though.

With an EU dedicated to "ever closer union" enshrined in it's heart. There is no status quo when people voted Remain.

Your analogy has a flaw too!

Other car showrooms are available. It's called the rest of the world. A world that represents 85% of global GDP.

Using your flawed analogy , remoaners are the loud mouthed wife letting the salesman hear her say to her husband "we're not leaving here till you've bought that car , and I'm not prepared to go to any other showroom.

[aggi]

Well it's pointless assuming that Labour will lose net votes if/because Labour support "remain". They would presumably also pick up disaffected Tory/not sure remainers who had voted Tory last time out but have cottoned on that Boris is a c0ck, and some of his crew aren't much better. Also, it is difficult to see half the population of, say, Sunderland suddenly supporting the Tories

I think the bigger risk would be voters defecting to UKIP (if they ever get their act together) in places like Sunderland.

What often isn't taken into account is that there are a lot of floating voters who judge parties on their merits at the time rather than being ideologically tied to one party. Because they're not ideologically tied to one party they're far less vocal and noticeable.

[Bacchus]

With an EU dedicated to "ever closer union" enshrined in it's heart. There is no status quo when people voted Remain.

Your analogy has a flaw too!

Other car showrooms are available. It's called the rest of the world. A world that represents 85% of global GDP.

Using your flawed analogy , remoaners are the loud mouthed wife letting the salesman hear her say to her husband "we're not leaving here till you've bought that car , and I'm not prepared to go to any other showroom.

If you really want to labour this further, your preference is that we'd abandon the car that has served us well for years at the first showroom and then walk through the rain to another showroom at the other end of the country in the extremely strong negotiating position of desperately needing a new car because we gave our other perfectly good car away for no reason. I'm sure you'll get us a good deal, Ringo. In the meantime I hope you have good walking boots.

[RingoMcCartney]

If you really want to labour this further, your preference is that we'd abandon the car that has served us well for years at the first showroom and then walk through the rain to another showroom at the other end of the country in the extremely strong negotiating position of desperately needing a new car because we gave our other perfectly good car away for no reason. I'm sure you'll get us a good deal, Ringo. In the meantime I hope you have good walking boots.

I don't want to Labour this further. But please tell your other half to give it a rest. It does us no favours.

Analogy over.

[burnleymik]

"I respect the referendum," he said, "We lost we have to respect that. It was a democratic decision. That's it. We'll be arguing that it should be a vote on the deal itself and then enabling us to go back and redo the negotiations"

I don't agree with the "enabling us to go back and redo the negotiations" part as it's clearly a grab for power, but I agree in essence with what John McDonnell is saying.

Firstly, we can't have another referendum - that's not even an option. Absolutely. I'm a Remainer and even I know that much. We can't have another referendum because it would set a frightening precedent. Where would we go next if Remain won? Best of three maybe?! The only thing it would do is create a greater sense of civil unrest in the UK.

Agree

However, what we should do is ask people whether they're happy with a no deal. I'm sticking my neck on the line here but I don't think many Leave voters voted for where we are now; on the precipice of a decision that would mean we break away from the EU without any transition period at all. I don't think anyone really wants this do they? We need to ensure there's at least the semblance of stability when we Leave and that's not the case at present.

I think the problem is that a Deal, as such, is very unlikely to be reached so what could we actually vote for?

As for no deal (I hate that narrative), well my biggest annoyance is that this government have had over 2 years to put everything in place to prepare for leaving on WTO terms and have flatly refused until this last few weeks when they are now rushing around and making a complete mess of it. Total incompetence. They could have been in a much stronger position had we not had such a strong remain supporting PM and Civil Service surrounding her.

[levraiclaret]

Agree



I think the problem is that a Deal, as such, is very unlikely to be reached so what could we actually vote for?

As for no deal (I hate that narrative), well my biggest annoyance is that this government have had over 2 years to put everything in place to prepare for leaving on WTO terms and have flatly refused until this last few weeks when they are now rushing around and making a complete mess of it. Total incompetence. They could have been in a much stronger position had we not had such a strong remain supporting PM and Civil Service surrounding her.

Ah now the leavers are blaming the execution not the plan. What next?

[Woodleyclaret]

The nonsense of women only shortlists lost a lot of seats.The candidates should be selected on ability not gender,colour or religous grounds

[burnleymik]

Ah now the leavers are blaming the execution not the plan. What next?

There was no plan. That is the point. The government failed act upon what we voted for. At least they are finally planning for it, but left it so late that we have lost a strong bargaining tool.

[RingoMcCartney]

Keir Starmer - proving that the Labour is no longer the British working class party. It's an Islington dinner party.

[Lancasterclaret]

labour definitely not ruling out a 2nd referendum

Starmer speech went down well on that btw*

*slight caveat that its a party conference, and standing ovations are the norm!

[RingoMcCartney]

Keir Starmer - "we demand a 2nd referendum!"

John McDonald, Corbyn and Len Mccluskie - " shut the **** up, we need to get elected first you idiot!!"

[RingoMcCartney]

Shhhhh. Lancs is having a sneaky peak at my posts I think!

[ElectroClaret]

BBC news..."Labour rapidly coming to the default position of backing a second in/out referendum.... "
(Following the Kier Starmer speech.)

[Imploding Turtle]

To save me reading this whole thread can someone tell me, has Smudge even attempted to explain how a new referendum would be a betrayal of anything?

[Lancasterclaret]

Based on two years of this kind of thing, what do you think?

[RingoMcCartney]

To save me reading this whole thread can someone tell me, has Smudge even attempted to explain how a new referendum would be a betrayal of anything?

Because the result of the first one has not been enacted.

You idiot.

Jesus. Remoaners -they really don't do democracy or facts.

The most radicalized Remoaners can't bring them selves to admit they're wrong. Beyond professional help.

[Bacchus]

Agree



I think the problem is that a Deal, as such, is very unlikely to be reached so what could we actually vote for?

As for no deal (I hate that narrative), well my biggest annoyance is that this government have had over 2 years to put everything in place to prepare for leaving on WTO terms and have flatly refused until this last few weeks when they are now rushing around and making a complete mess of it. Total incompetence. They could have been in a much stronger position had we not had such a strong remain supporting PM and Civil Service surrounding her.

So your view is that we should have been positioning ourselves for no deal all along? Where is the democratic mandate for that? The vote was won based on talk of Norway models, "easiest deal in human history", keep the good bits and ditch the rest, etc. You can't just abandon all of that the day after the referendum and maintain your claim to be acting on the will of the people, upholding democracy, and all the other little soundbites the Brexit fanatics keep referring to.

[Imploding Turtle]

Because the result of the first one has not been enacted.

You idiot.

Jesus. Remoaners -they really don't do democracy or facts.

The most radicalized Remoaners can't bring them selves to admit they're wrong. Beyond professional help.

There's nothing undemocratic about saying "This is the deal available, are you sure you want to leave the EU?"
Most voters don't want us to leave if leaving means leaving with no deal so how is it democratic to enact something that the majority doesn't want? You lot whined for years that we should have a referendum and called those of us who opposed one on the basis that the we wouldn't know what Leaving the EU would look like "undemocratic". Now you got your referendum and a result you like you're suddenly opposed to having a referendum on the final deal.

We have a better information now than when we voted in 2016. We're capable of making a more informed decision than in 2016 and that's a problem for you because your agenda is entirely reliant on your favourite Pols being able to easily lie and mislead the public about what leaving the EU would look like. And anyone whose political goals require that being possible is not someone who is in favour of democracy.

[Spijed]

Because the result of the first one has not been enacted.

You idiot.

Jesus. Remoaners -they really don't do democracy or facts.

The most radicalized Remoaners can't bring them selves to admit they're wrong. Beyond professional help.

Taken from elsewhere, this sums up your attitude towards Brexit:

Surgeon to patient: "One option would be to cut off your leg."

Patient: "Ok, I agree."

Surgeon, a little while afterwards: "Actually we have decided cutting off your leg is not such a good idea."

Patient: "What? I thought we had agreed on that. We should stick with the original plan."

[RingoMcCartney]

There's nothing undemocratic about saying "This is the deal available, are you sure you want to leave the EU?"
Most voters don't want us to leave if leaving means leaving with no deal so how is it democratic to enact something that the majority doesn't want? You lot whined for years that we should have a referendum and called those of us who opposed one on the basis that the we wouldn't know what Leaving the EU would look like "undemocratic". Now you got your referendum and a result you like you're suddenly opposed to having a referendum on the final deal.

We have a better information now than when we voted in 2016. We're capable of making a more informed decision than in 2016 and that's a problem for you because your agenda is entirely reliant on your favourite Pols being able to easily lie and mislead the public about what leaving the EU would look like. And anyone whose political goals require that being possible is not someone who is in favour of democracy.

Hilarious how those who didn't want a referendum in the first place ( many refusing for the 40 odd years we were in Europe) can't wait to have another!

The fact, is calls for a so called "people's vote" is nothing more than a front to stop brexit. And it's being pushed by anti democratic forces that simply refuse to accept democracy means sometimes you lose.

"Peoples vote" my ****.

It's the "losers vote"

You, and your increasingly hysterical, radicalised Remoaners lost. Just get over it.

( My interaction with you is now concluded for today. After all, I don't want to argue with an idiot for too long. I find they only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience)

[RingoMcCartney]

Taken from elsewhere, this sums up your attitude towards Brexit:

Surgeon to patient: "One option would be to cut off your leg."

Patient: "Ok, I agree."

Surgeon, a little while afterwards: "Actually we have decided cutting off your leg is not such a good idea."

Patient: "What? I thought we had agreed on that. We should stick with the original plan."

Taken from this message board for the last 2 years-

"I'm a ceaseless Remoaner and I refuse to accept the result of the biggest single expression of democracy the UK has witnessed"

[dsr]

If Remain win the second referendum, will it be best of three? Or what if they win by less than 3.8%? Does Leave get it on aggregate?

[Lancasterclaret]

Well, I don't know to be honest, but it would be an informed referendum

Course, labours policy on the EU is still all over the place (like the Tories to be fair)

[AndrewJB]

If Remain win the second referendum, will it be best of three? Or what if they win by less than 3.8%? Does Leave get it on aggregate?

Penalties?

[burnleymik]

So your view is that we should have been positioning ourselves for no deal all along? Where is the democratic mandate for that? The vote was won based on talk of Norway models, "easiest deal in human history", keep the good bits and ditch the rest, etc. You can't just abandon all of that the day after the referendum and maintain your claim to be acting on the will of the people, upholding democracy, and all the other little soundbites the Brexit fanatics keep referring to.

We should have positioned ourselves for all the main possible scenarios. It was a complete failure to do anything else. That isn't the position of a "fanatic", that is just good practice and common sense when entering a negotiation of this magnitude.

[Jakubclaret]

Taken from elsewhere, this sums up your attitude towards Brexit:

Surgeon to patient: "One option would be to cut off your leg."

Patient: "Ok, I agree."

Surgeon, a little while afterwards: "Actually we have decided cutting off your leg is not such a good idea."

Patient: "What? I thought we had agreed on that. We should stick with the original plan."

It's a flawed scenario as the patient in this particular case knows more than the surgeon

[Bacchus]

We should have positioned ourselves for all the main possible scenarios. It was a complete failure to do anything else. That isn't the position of a "fanatic", that is just good practice and common sense when entering a negotiation of this magnitude.

Why? The vote was in favour of the Norway model, 5 minutes of negotiation, easiest deal ever, etc. If Remain had won would you have expected us to position ourselves to join the Euro and the Schengen zone? It would still have been remaining, after all.

[CardyTheClaret]

"There's nothing undemocratic about saying "This is the deal available, are you sure you want to leave the EU?"

You know full well that bearing in mind 52% voted to leave the chances of all 52% agreeing on the specifics of a deal wouldn't work. So, where do we go from there, do we keep working until we get a deal satisfies the majority?

The only people who are asking for a vote on the deal are people who want to muddy the waters further until they're so murky they get their own way and stay in the EU.

[South West Claret.]

Roll on the ''first informed referendum'' I say.

[burnleymik]

Why? The vote was in favour of the Norway model, 5 minutes of negotiation, easiest deal ever, etc. If Remain had won would you have expected us to position ourselves to join the Euro and the Schengen zone? It would still have been remaining, after all.

No. The vote was to Leave the EU. The above is just your interpretation.

We leave the EU, we try and negotiate a deal to leave the EU and if no reasonable deal could be reached then we leave on WTO terms. Unfortunately there was never any proper preparation for the latter and that is the failure of this government and I also think it didn't represent us as serious about leaving throughout the negotiations.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Roll on the ''first informed referendum'' I say.

Seems a lot of people are worried about the public being more informed.
Well I suppose we were Britain has had enough of experts. Perhaps it’s only logical.

[nil_desperandum]

No. The vote was to Leave the EU. The above is just your interpretation.

We leave the EU, we try and negotiate a deal to leave the EU and if no reasonable deal could be reached then we leave on WTO terms. .

Why do leavers continually focus on WTO when the topic of No Deal comes up.
If we have a No Deal our trade arrangements will be the least of our worries. Simply nothing is in place for a No Deal that's why they are looking at installing 5,000 portaloos on 13 miles of motorway in Kent, and urging us to stockpile food and medicine. And that's just the beginning of the list.

[claretandy]

Why do leavers continually focus on WTO when the topic of No Deal comes up.
If we have a No Deal our trade arrangements will be the least of our worries. Simply nothing is in place for a No Deal that's why they are looking at installing 5,000 portaloos on 13 miles of motorway in Kent, and urging us to stockpile food and medicine. And that's just the beginning of the list.

Because the withdrawal agreement is 90% done.

[CrosspoolClarets]

As I said today on the other thread (the 1,000+ one) the analysis of the 2017 election by Yougov was clearly showing that it was mainly Leave voters who didn't vote in the General Election in 2017 (26% of them vs 17% Remain voters). These people don't vote in elections unless they are particularly fired up, such as in 2016. There are some fired up Remain voters but a) they usually vote apart from a few kids, and b) there aren't as many of them, as Yougov demonstrated.

I'm thus unclear what the charismatic Starmer is trying to achieve. All he will succeed in doing is bringing these folk out to play. The Tories would go "all in" on Brexit with the promise of a trade deal and massive changes to migration. They may even have the sense to boot out Hammond and offer things to ordinary voters, like mass northern infrastructure spending, such would be the pivotal nature of that election.

Some of these usually non-voters hate the Tories but they could vote for them just this once. Corbyn and McDonnell get this.

He should bring it on. At least we will get a clear choice. But I feel certain Labour would lose heavily.

[CrosspoolClarets]

p.s. not sure why Baccus is saying we were promised Norway. We were promised "taking back control". That isn't Norway. A few zealots like Hannan like Norway but they are on the fringes. The TBC slogan was the key one, the one that appealed to people, because people feel they currently have no control, and no power to influence.

[dsr]

Why do leavers continually focus on WTO when the topic of No Deal comes up.
If we have a No Deal our trade arrangements will be the least of our worries. Simply nothing is in place for a No Deal that's why they are looking at installing 5,000 portaloos on 13 miles of motorway in Kent, and urging us to stockpile food and medicine. And that's just the beginning of the list.

There will be no increase in the physical difficulty of getting food in. There may be an increase in the paperwork. So if push comes to shove, what would the government do - let the food in, or let the people starve? I know you like to pretend to believe they will let the people starve, but they won't.

[Bacchus]

No. The vote was to Leave the EU. The above is just your interpretation.

We leave the EU, we try and negotiate a deal to leave the EU and if no reasonable deal could be reached then we leave on WTO terms. Unfortunately there was never any proper preparation for the latter and that is the failure of this government and I also think it didn't represent us as serious about leaving throughout the negotiations.

My interpretation? It was the entire basis Brexit was sold on. Please feel free to share the campaign material pushing the virtues of a no deal Brexit. I'm sure some people were hoping for a complete severing of ties with the EU. It's impossible to claim a mandate for that because that was not the message being put out by the leave campaign. We aren't talking about a slight variance here - it's a whole different world to the one that was promised.

If you're right though and people did just want to leave the EU by whatever means is available then you'll have nothing to fear from a final vote on the available options because that is the result that will be delivered.

[nil_desperandum]

Because the withdrawal agreement is 90% done.

So what you're saying then is that there will be a deal.
No deal means a complete severing of ties with the EU.

[Imploding Turtle]

Hilarious how those who didn't want a referendum in the first place ( many refusing for the 40 odd years we were in Europe) can't wait to have another!

The fact, is calls for a so called "people's vote" is nothing more than a front to stop brexit. And it's being pushed by anti democratic forces that simply refuse to accept democracy means sometimes you lose.

"Peoples vote" my ****.

It's the "losers vote"

You, and your increasingly hysterical, radicalised Remoaners lost. Just get over it.

( My interaction with you is now concluded for today. After all, I don't want to argue with an idiot for too long. I find they only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience)

We wanted a referendum on something the public could possi ly be informed on. Leaving the EU without knowing what leaving the EU would mean isn't "informed".

Even now we still don't know what we voted for 2 years ago. It's laughable to call that a democratic decision.

[Imploding Turtle]

You're a fan of soundbites Ringo, so here's one. Measure twice, cut once.