Labour ?

Hungryhalibut posted:

dave marshall posted:

HH

Hungryhalibut posted:

dave marshall posted:

That's the second person on here, in as many days, who has referred to those who voted for Brexit as "idiots".

You really do need to wind your necks in, chaps. 

Why? Economically Brexit makes no sense. It's purely down to ideology. Brexit may happen, but it doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. Global warming is happening but that doesn't mean everyone needs to like it. 

I would defend to the hilt your right to your opinion on the whole Brexit question, particularly where your views differ from my own.

However, calling others who may disagree with your point of view, "idiots", betrays a rather less charitable attitude, I feel.

Dave, you are quite correct. Calling supporters of Brexit 'idiots' was inappropriate and I apologise unreservedly. 

I think they are wrong though, but if we go ahead - and I hope and suspect we won't - we won't really know for some years.

Already Brexit has hit the £ and led to inflation of 2.9% and registration of EU nurses, when we don't have enough of our own, has dropped by 96% apparently. Very few supporters of Brexit can give a positive reason, other than keeping out the immigrants that we need to run our economy of stopping European laws that keep our own Government in check. Maximum working hours? Statutory leave? Clean beaches? All European legislation. Why do we want to get rid of it? 

 

It's time to 'fess up! I am one of those 'idiots' who voted to leave the EU. Without rehashing all the arguments and reasoning, suffice it to say that were there to be another referendum tomorrow my vote would be to remain. I am now aware of far more reasons to stay than were highlighted by the Remain camp during the campaign. I was probably guilty of not seeking out the information myself, but I undoubtedly allowed myself to be taken in by some of the Leave camp's arguments.

I still have some grave misgivings about ever closer political union, but agree we could have probably fought that from within.

I now believe that the 'softer' the Brexit we have, the better.

Eternally hopeful!!

Tim

Moi aussi!

As I said in a earlier, uncommented post: "I am amazed that some tiny personal financial commitments have a mandatory cooling-off period attached, yet a massive commitment, affecting hundreds of millions of people across a continent, does not."

Why cannot we not repeat the referendum with 60:40 being the necessary threshold for leaving?

Fraser 

Timmo1341 posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

dave marshall posted:

HH

Hungryhalibut posted:

dave marshall posted:

That's the second person on here, in as many days, who has referred to those who voted for Brexit as "idiots".

You really do need to wind your necks in, chaps. 

Why? Economically Brexit makes no sense. It's purely down to ideology. Brexit may happen, but it doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. Global warming is happening but that doesn't mean everyone needs to like it. 

I would defend to the hilt your right to your opinion on the whole Brexit question, particularly where your views differ from my own.

However, calling others who may disagree with your point of view, "idiots", betrays a rather less charitable attitude, I feel.

Dave, you are quite correct. Calling supporters of Brexit 'idiots' was inappropriate and I apologise unreservedly. 

I think they are wrong though, but if we go ahead - and I hope and suspect we won't - we won't really know for some years.

Already Brexit has hit the £ and led to inflation of 2.9% and registration of EU nurses, when we don't have enough of our own, has dropped by 96% apparently. Very few supporters of Brexit can give a positive reason, other than keeping out the immigrants that we need to run our economy of stopping European laws that keep our own Government in check. Maximum working hours? Statutory leave? Clean beaches? All European legislation. Why do we want to get rid of it? 

 

It's time to 'fess up! I am one of those 'idiots' who voted to leave the EU. Without rehashing all the arguments and reasoning, suffice it to say that were there to be another referendum tomorrow my vote would be to remain. I am now aware of far more reasons to stay than were highlighted by the Remain camp during the campaign. I was probably guilty of not seeking out the information myself, but I undoubtedly allowed myself to be taken in by some of the Leave camp's arguments.

I still have some grave misgivings about ever closer political union, but agree we could have probably fought that from within.

I now believe that the 'softer' the Brexit we have, the better.

Eternally hopeful!!

Tim

"Better a sinner that repenteth ......"

or something like that

Fraser Hadden posted:

Moi aussi!

As I said in a earlier, uncommented post: "I am amazed that some tiny personal financial commitments have a mandatory cooling-off period attached, yet a massive commitment, affecting hundreds of millions of people across a continent, does not."

Why cannot we not repeat the referendum with 60:40 being the necessary threshold for leaving?

Fraser 

The ideal time for that was after the election last year, when all the Brexit leaders had evaporated. Indisputedly an appropriate and reasonable thing to do given the gravity and potential long term consequences of the decision, and with already then the extent misinformation becoming very evident - and in the event of a repeat decision to leave, well it really would be a clear mandate. Next opportunity was when it was voted on in Parliament in January - MPs didn't have the bottle or gumption, one or the other. Maybe now would be another opportunity, particularly if May's coalition doesn't gel well...

Were there to be a new vote, which seems highly doubtful, it should be based on a majority or registered voters, not just those who can be bothered to vote. Then we really would know what the majority view was. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

Were there to be a new vote, which seems highly doubtful, it should be based on a majority or registered voters, not just those who can be bothered to vote. Then we really would know what the majority view was. 

That approach to assessing a majority may be unusual in the political arena, but  it makes sense when contemplating making a very drastic change (far more drastic than was, at the time, the original decision to join). The other approach of defining the size of majority to carry it is also valid - however Id be willing to bet there'd be a bigger turnout if there indeed were to be another referendum. Sadly, the political leadership of the UK seems hell bent on pursuing the current path despite the very clear lack of a sound basis on which people could make an appropriate decision when they cast their votes - I truly believe this will be the biggest failure in modern political history.

To bring this back to topic rather than becoming another Brexit thread, so what is labour, and other parties not siding with the current government, going to do about it???

Cdb posted:

Romi posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

I was most amused to hear Jeremy Corbin say in the Commons yesterday that he offered a strong and stable government, whereas May offered a coalition of chaos. In bed with bigots. Oh dear. 

So whats new?  Its easy to promise all kind of things from the side lines like JC but its a different situation when one is in the present siruation as TM.  For all her faults she is steering the ship while JC is the disgruntled sailor dreaming of a mutiny.

It's interesting that the right (led by the press) have recently been showing quite strong anti-democratic tendencies. First has been the dismissal of those who voted for remaining in the EU even though the vote to leave was by a bare majority (remember the 'saboteurs'). Now with a hung parliament and with the Tories achieving a small majority over Labour in the popular vote, the views of the 40% who voted for Labour seem to have no legitimacy. The comment here suggests that the Tories have a legitimate right to rule whereas those who vote for something different are mutineers against that natural order!

Clive

At the end of the day it was TM who was asked by the queen to form a government so in effect she is in control (presently).  I think TM voted to remain like me in regard to EU.   The moral of this whole fiasco is when in power and one has an option never offer an election referendum to the public if the other choice is to carry on in government.  I wonder what position would we be now if Cameron just carried on and never hinted of any vote in regard to EU.  Sometimes it does not pay to be too transparent with ones democratic issues if it effects the beneficial interests of the UK.

Romi posted:

Cdb posted:

Romi posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

I was most amused to hear Jeremy Corbin say in the Commons yesterday that he offered a strong and stable government, whereas May offered a coalition of chaos. In bed with bigots. Oh dear. 

So whats new?  Its easy to promise all kind of things from the side lines like JC but its a different situation when one is in the present siruation as TM.  For all her faults she is steering the ship while JC is the disgruntled sailor dreaming of a mutiny.

It's interesting that the right (led by the press) have recently been showing quite strong anti-democratic tendencies. First has been the dismissal of those who voted for remaining in the EU even though the vote to leave was by a bare majority (remember the 'saboteurs'). Now with a hung parliament and with the Tories achieving a small majority over Labour in the popular vote, the views of the 40% who voted for Labour seem to have no legitimacy. The comment here suggests that the Tories have a legitimate right to rule whereas those who vote for something different are mutineers against that natural order!

Clive

At the end of the day it was TM who was asked by the queen to form a government so in effect she is in control (presently).  I think TM voted to remain like me in regard to EU.   The moral of this whole fiasco is when in power and one has an option never offer an election referendum to the public if the other choice is to carry on in government.  I wonder what position would we be now if Cameron just carried on and never hinted of any vote in regard to EU.  Sometimes it does not pay to be too transparent with ones democratic issues if it effects the beneficial interests of the UK.

Actually From what BBC news had said, TM had to first inform the Queen that she could field a majority. The Queen then has no option but to ask her to form a government: the queen can't do anything else, however much sometimes over her reign she might have liked to send the would-be PM away with a flea in his/her ear...

Innocent Bystander posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

Were there to be a new vote, which seems highly doubtful, it should be based on a majority or registered voters, not just those who can be bothered to vote. Then we really would know what the majority view was. 

That approach to assessing a majority may be unusual in the political arena, but  it makes sense when contemplating making a very drastic change (far more drastic than was, at the time, the original decision to join). The other approach of defining the size of majority to carry it is also valid - however Id be willing to bet there'd be a bigger turnout if there indeed were to be another referendum. Sadly, the political leadership of the UK seems hell bent on pursuing the current path despite the very clear lack of a sound basis on which people could make an appropriate decision when they cast their votes - I truly believe this will be the biggest failure in modern political history.

To bring this back to topic rather than becoming another Brexit thread, so what is labour, and other parties not siding with the current government, going to do about it???

Nothing, so far as I can see. Except manoveauering around to unseat TM for their own ends.

What should they be doing ? They should be lining up with moderate Conservatives to force TM to negotiate for a "soft Brexit" or better still, to simply stay, ie withdraw A50.

We can always have another Referendum in 5 years time if we think that is a good idea, based on a clearer picture than we had last year.

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

Were there to be a new vote, which seems highly doubtful, it should be based on a majority or registered voters, not just those who can be bothered to vote. Then we really would know what the majority view was. 

That approach to assessing a majority may be unusual in the political arena, but  it makes sense when contemplating making a very drastic change (far more drastic than was, at the time, the original decision to join). The other approach of defining the size of majority to carry it is also valid - however Id be willing to bet there'd be a bigger turnout if there indeed were to be another referendum. Sadly, the political leadership of the UK seems hell bent on pursuing the current path despite the very clear lack of a sound basis on which people could make an appropriate decision when they cast their votes - I truly believe this will be the biggest failure in modern political history.

To bring this back to topic rather than becoming another Brexit thread, so what is labour, and other parties not siding with the current government, going to do about it???

Nothing, so far as I can see. Except manoveauering around to unseat TM for their own ends.

What should they be doing ? They should be lining up with moderate Conservatives to force TM to negotiate for a "soft Brexit" or better still, to simply stay, ie withdraw A50.

We can always have another Referendum in 5 years time if we think that is a good idea, based on a clearer picture than we had last year.

I don't think this is a fair description of what Labour are up to. It was reported at the weekend that there actually have been some discussions between Labour and Conservative MPs in favour of a soft Brexit - necessarily the details won't be overtly in the public domain. There have been suggestions of a cross-party approach and I don't  think Labour have ruled out engaging in this. It seems to me that most of the manoeuvering is being done by one TM who is desperate to cling on to power and is showing no signs of being willing to compromise on anything. 

Is it TM desperate to cling on to power or JC desperate to have power?  

wenger2015 posted:

Is it TM desperate to cling on to power or JC desperate to have power?  

Well - both.  

Cdb posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

Were there to be a new vote, which seems highly doubtful, it should be based on a majority or registered voters, not just those who can be bothered to vote. Then we really would know what the majority view was. 

That approach to assessing a majority may be unusual in the political arena, but  it makes sense when contemplating making a very drastic change (far more drastic than was, at the time, the original decision to join). The other approach of defining the size of majority to carry it is also valid - however Id be willing to bet there'd be a bigger turnout if there indeed were to be another referendum. Sadly, the political leadership of the UK seems hell bent on pursuing the current path despite the very clear lack of a sound basis on which people could make an appropriate decision when they cast their votes - I truly believe this will be the biggest failure in modern political history.

To bring this back to topic rather than becoming another Brexit thread, so what is labour, and other parties not siding with the current government, going to do about it???

Nothing, so far as I can see. Except manoveauering around to unseat TM for their own ends.

What should they be doing ? They should be lining up with moderate Conservatives to force TM to negotiate for a "soft Brexit" or better still, to simply stay, ie withdraw A50.

We can always have another Referendum in 5 years time if we think that is a good idea, based on a clearer picture than we had last year.

I don't think this is a fair description of what Labour are up to. It was reported at the weekend that there actually have been some discussions between Labour and Conservative MPs in favour of a soft Brexit - necessarily the details won't be overtly in the public domain. There have been suggestions of a cross-party approach and I don't  think Labour have ruled out engaging in this. It seems to me that most of the manoeuvering is being done by one TM who is desperate to cling on to power and is showing no signs of being willing to compromise on anything. 

That's also what I heard.I said above that in my opinion TM will need the support of about 100 Labour MPs to counteract the effects of the Conservative hard right such as Redwood, Gove and Mogg. Of course, Corbyn isn't going to let this happen. He will want to be seen as the great saviour of demonocracy.

TM doesn't look like she is listening to the People or the moderate MPs who represent us. She is listening to the Hard Right which IMHO is where her heart is. Hopefully, Ruth Davidson and a few determined Conservative MPs will make it clear that a hard brexit is no longer on the cards.

So the next victim of the election... Tim Farron has resigned basically for being a Christian and following Christian values.

Now I disagree with his opinion, but will fight for his right to hold it so long as (and it hasn't) influenced his voting.

Voltaire maybe dead but his quotes certainly live on.  Now if he was the leader of the Labour party that would be an interesting alternative...

UK needs a Macron.  

The Strat (Fender) posted:

UK needs a Macron.  

We had one... 20 years ago!

The Strat (Fender) posted:

UK needs a Macron.  

Another bankster centrist neolibtard? Haven't we had enough of those already?

Eloise posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

UK needs a Macron.  

We had one... 20 years ago!

If you mean Tony Blair he only masqueraded as a liberal.  

Eloise posted:

So the next victim of the election... Tim Farron has resigned basically for being a Christian and following Christian values.

Now I disagree with his opinion, but will fight for his right to hold it so long as (and it hasn't) influenced his voting.

Farron had a very poor election campaign in my view.  

Maybe with his re-election as an MP this is an opportunity for Cable. I think he's much more credible in the eyes of many. 

MDS posted:

Eloise posted:

So the next victim of the election... Tim Farron has resigned basically for being a Christian and following Christian values.

Now I disagree with his opinion, but will fight for his right to hold it so long as (and it hasn't) influenced his voting.

Farron had a very poor election campaign in my view.  

Maybe with his re-election as an MP this is an opportunity for Cable. I think he's much more credible in the eyes of many. 

Cable is more likely to be a caretaker leader, I would assume they would favour a younger more dynamic personality? Not that their are many options available?

wenger2015 posted:

MDS posted:

Eloise posted:

So the next victim of the election... Tim Farron has resigned basically for being a Christian and following Christian values.

Now I disagree with his opinion, but will fight for his right to hold it so long as (and it hasn't) influenced his voting.

Farron had a very poor election campaign in my view.  

Maybe with his re-election as an MP this is an opportunity for Cable. I think he's much more credible in the eyes of many. 

Cable is more likely to be a caretaker leader, I would assume they would favour a younger more dynamic personality? Not that their are many options available?

True. But the leader doesn't have to be an MP.

Don Atkinson posted:

wenger2015 posted:

MDS posted:

Eloise posted:

So the next victim of the election... Tim Farron has resigned basically for being a Christian and following Christian values.

Now I disagree with his opinion, but will fight for his right to hold it so long as (and it hasn't) influenced his voting.

Farron had a very poor election campaign in my view.  

Maybe with his re-election as an MP this is an opportunity for Cable. I think he's much more credible in the eyes of many. 

Cable is more likely to be a caretaker leader, I would assume they would favour a younger more dynamic personality? Not that their are many options available?

True. But the leader doesn't have to be an MP.

I thought they did?  Jo Swinson is the "favourite".  I suspect Tim was looking to stand down as leader soon as he was wanting a "deputy" to be elected, then the resignation earlier forced his hand.

I felt the LDs had a very poor campaign and TF not my cup of tea. I felt awkward with his very strong religious views influencing his decisions If I'm honest. I have a very strong antipathy to those who might mix Faith and Politics, and he was struggling with that (fair play for accepting it too).

I've voted LD for several elections although not this time because they did not even put up a candidate in my seat.

Not sure I'd want Vince cable. Quite a divisive figure, and tainted by coalition for many voters I suspect?

Bruce

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

I felt the LDs had a very poor campaign and TF not my cup of tea. I felt awkward with his very strong religious views influencing his decisions If I'm honest. I have a very strong antipathy to those who might mix Faith and Politics, and he was struggling with that (fair play for accepting it too).

 

Me too. I'm not anti-faith but would very much prefer to see it kept outside of politics.  While I think the House of Lords provides a valuable balance (I know I'm probably in the minority in that view with many being hostile to the unelected Lords), I would still have the bishops removed asap.