EU Referendum - In/Out?

[Pestneb]

Only DC could state what would happen in a leave situation, he was the ONLY one in a position to lay out a position. He didn't, hoping that the uncertainty would work on the general UK populace as it did with scotland (What WOULD have happened if scotland left the UK? to this day we can't say, because they left it ambiguous).

 

We will see if article 50 ever gets triggered. The remainers are being very vocal because they lost. If article 50 isn't triggered, and it is announced that we're staying then that is very tricky.

 

nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.

 

The people of the UK have announced to the world that they wish to be sovereign and leave the governance of the EU.

As things stand now, can the EU even allow the UK government to ignore its people?

The only way out of this would, in my view, have been a pre-emptive negotiation, then a second referendum spelling out "leave will mean... £350 million sent to the EU, following the EU's laws, accepting freedom of movement.... but no say on the running of the EU. Remain will mean the same but with a say on how it is run. Make your choice UK."

 

However, the EU are refusing this until article 50 is triggered. Once that takes place, I believe that it is irreversable, meaning that a decision to remain in the EU would mean adopting the Euro, losing many of the perks the UK still currently enjoys and probably being opted in to "an ever closer union".

 

I believe a leave then return scenario is the worst possible out come here... ignore the leave vote and remain or leave and permanently leave having negotiated terms well are the two scenarios that I see that would inflict the least damage to the UK.. although I see only one of those options being left open to the UK. To be honest, the EU's response to the referendum has made me more eurosceptic and happier with the vote outcome.. despite the fact that I have lost thousands in the immediate aftermath.

[Ashley]

A fair point. I understand where you're coming from, I just think many people were simply voting to get out of the EU, not voting for what to do afterwards.

 

In this case it ties back in to my point in that maybe MPs should have decided it because that kind of approach, while completely your right, is completely fucking reckless and now a great deal of my future plans have been buggered over because people said "fuck this!"

 

Lies are a part of politics i'm afraid, politicians also lie during the elections that determine the representatives you say should have decided our EU membership, should we not vote on them either because of lies?

 

Imagine if someone had decided not to count a vote of yours, or deny you your right to vote altogether, because they decided in their proclaimed wisdom that you didn't have discernment to tell the truth from the lies. Would you be content to yield to their judgement?

 

Additionally if a vote can be prevented or disqualified on the basis that there may be lies affecting the vote, then that is open to constant abuse, because then the mere presence of a lie inserted into the public discourse is all that is needed to prevent any undesired vote.

 

The volume of lies though is much deeper (or maybe just more pronounced as within days many of the Leave campaign's lies were exposed) and the impact is so much greater than a general election. In five years we won't be able to have our say again. That's it. This is done.

 

Only DC could state what would happen in a leave situation, he was the ONLY one in a position to lay out a position. He didn't, hoping that the uncertainty would work on the general UK populace as it did with scotland (What WOULD have happened if scotland left the UK? to this day we can't say, because they left it ambiguous).

 

Oh yeah he should have done, no doubt about that. But if the Leave campaigners were so strong in their belief, they should have stuck it out and tried to take the mantle. The only one that didn't quit was Gove and that's mostly because he was kicked out beforehand.

 

We will see if article 50 ever gets triggered. The remainers are being very vocal because they lost. If article 50 isn't triggered, and it is announced that we're staying then that is very tricky.

 

May basically said it will today.

 

The people of the UK have announced to the world that they wish to be sovereign and leave the governance of the EU.

As things stand now, can the EU even allow the UK government to ignore its people?

The only way out of this would, in my view, have been a pre-emptive negotiation, then a second referendum spelling out "leave will mean... £350 million sent to the EU, following the EU's laws, accepting freedom of movement.... but no say on the running of the EU. Remain will mean the same but with a say on how it is run. Make your choice UK."

 

Contrary to belief, EU does not hold that much power over any nation that they can force them to do something like invoke article 50.

 

However, the EU are refusing this until article 50 is triggered. Once that takes place, I believe that it is irreversable, meaning that a decision to remain in the EU would mean adopting the Euro, losing many of the perks the UK still currently enjoys and probably being opted in to "an ever closer union".

 

It (like many things) is unclear whether we could change our mind during that two years. There's no definite word so its down to interpretation.

 

I don't think remaining would mean adopted the Euro though, I think that would only be if we decide to join in the future.

 

I believe a leave then return scenario is the worst possible out come here... ignore the leave vote and remain or leave and permanently leave having negotiated terms well are the two scenarios that I see that would inflict the least damage to the UK.. although I see only one of those options being left open to the UK. To be honest, the EU's response to the referendum has made me more eurosceptic and happier with the vote outcome.. despite the fact that I have lost thousands in the immediate aftermath.

 

I think their response has been understandable given a) they hold all the power (and by that I mean we've entered a negotiation and allowed ourselves to have the weaker hand) and b) they are quite entitled to make us have to compromise if we wish to regain benefits such as access to the single market. We have ultimately written off a lot of money from the global market. Maybe we should be punished.

[Ashley]

A fair point. I understand where you're coming from, I just think many people were simply voting to get out of the EU, not voting for what to do afterwards.

 

In this case it ties back in to my point in that maybe MPs should have decided it because that kind of approach, while completely your right, is completely fucking reckless and now a great deal of my future plans have been buggered over because people said "fuck this!"

 

Lies are a part of politics i'm afraid, politicians also lie during the elections that determine the representatives you say should have decided our EU membership, should we not vote on them either because of lies?

 

Imagine if someone had decided not to count a vote of yours, or deny you your right to vote altogether, because they decided in their proclaimed wisdom that you didn't have discernment to tell the truth from the lies. Would you be content to yield to their judgement?

 

Additionally if a vote can be prevented or disqualified on the basis that there may be lies affecting the vote, then that is open to constant abuse, because then the mere presence of a lie inserted into the public discourse is all that is needed to prevent any undesired vote.

 

The volume of lies though is much deeper (or maybe just more pronounced as within days many of the Leave campaign's lies were exposed) and the impact is so much greater than a general election. In five years we won't be able to have our say again. That's it. This is done.

 

Only DC could state what would happen in a leave situation, he was the ONLY one in a position to lay out a position. He didn't, hoping that the uncertainty would work on the general UK populace as it did with scotland (What WOULD have happened if scotland left the UK? to this day we can't say, because they left it ambiguous).

 

Oh yeah he should have done, no doubt about that. But if the Leave campaigners were so strong in their belief, they should have stuck it out and tried to take the mantle. The only one that didn't quit was Gove and that's mostly because he was kicked out beforehand.

 

We will see if article 50 ever gets triggered. The remainers are being very vocal because they lost. If article 50 isn't triggered, and it is announced that we're staying then that is very tricky.

 

May basically said it will today.

 

The people of the UK have announced to the world that they wish to be sovereign and leave the governance of the EU.

As things stand now, can the EU even allow the UK government to ignore its people?

The only way out of this would, in my view, have been a pre-emptive negotiation, then a second referendum spelling out "leave will mean... £350 million sent to the EU, following the EU's laws, accepting freedom of movement.... but no say on the running of the EU. Remain will mean the same but with a say on how it is run. Make your choice UK."

 

Contrary to belief, EU does not hold that much power over any nation that they can force them to do something like invoke article 50.

 

However, the EU are refusing this until article 50 is triggered. Once that takes place, I believe that it is irreversable, meaning that a decision to remain in the EU would mean adopting the Euro, losing many of the perks the UK still currently enjoys and probably being opted in to "an ever closer union".

 

It (like many things) is unclear whether we could change our mind during that two years. There's no definite word so its down to interpretation.

 

I don't think remaining would mean adopted the Euro though, I think that would only be if we decide to join in the future.

 

I believe a leave then return scenario is the worst possible out come here... ignore the leave vote and remain or leave and permanently leave having negotiated terms well are the two scenarios that I see that would inflict the least damage to the UK.. although I see only one of those options being left open to the UK. To be honest, the EU's response to the referendum has made me more eurosceptic and happier with the vote outcome.. despite the fact that I have lost thousands in the immediate aftermath.

 

I think their response has been understandable given a) they hold all the power (and by that I mean we've entered a negotiation and allowed ourselves to have the weaker hand) and b) they are quite entitled to make us have to compromise if we wish to regain benefits such as access to the single market. We have ultimately written off a lot of money from the global market. Maybe we should be punished.

[Pestneb]

Contrary to belief, EU does not hold that much power over any nation that they can force them to do something like invoke article 50.

 

sorry if I was being unclear! I meant that they may not accept the UK government saying they'd remain...

 

It (like many things) is unclear whether we could change our mind during that two years. There's no definite word so its down to interpretation.

 

I don't think remaining would mean adopted the Euro though, I think that would only be if we decide to join in the future.

True, but under what conditions would they allow us to remain? once we trigger article 50, the ball is very much in their court, they can point blank refuse any proposal we make and tell us what terms they offer, take it or leave it. Once May triggers article 50, THAT is when I am scared, because a small misstep here, a misplaced word, a lack of attention, the ramifications for the UK would be huge.

And I meant, if Article 50 is locked in once we invoke it (I believe the EU can unilaterally say that's what it means - it has to be unanimous, otherwise at the end of the two years we're booted out anyway) then the only "remain" option would be to return - at which point I believe the Euro would not be an option, it would be a fact.

 

 

I think their response has been understandable given a) they hold all the power (and by that I mean we've entered a negotiation and allowed ourselves to have the weaker hand) and b) they are quite entitled to make us have to compromise if we wish to regain benefits such as access to the single market. We have ultimately written off a lot of money from the global market. Maybe we should be punished.

 

We haven't written any money off the global market. Think of things in sold terms... what have we broken? what have we destroyed? words. ideas. the money that has been written off is vapourware - I know most of the wealth these days is.. but how many crops have been destroyed? homes? vehicles? land? these things are tangible goods. the worlds markets are built on speculation, how well a company will do, how easily will this product sell.. levels of intangibility are sold to such a point that our vote can wipe out the wealth of men who have more money in their bank account than most of us will ever have pass through our hands. So no, I don't think we should be "punished". Nor am I overly concerned that my savings have effectively lost 10% of their value overnight. If the EU take a harsh approach to negotiations and May serves the UK correctly, they will be cutting off their noses to spite their face. It is in the EU's interest to minimise damage to their respective economies. They have said about making an example of the UK, I'm sure they can do that very effectively.

 

But pause for a second....

Think about that. "Lets hurt them for leaving us". OK. Sure, this organisation REALLY cared for the UK... such a shame we're leaving.

 

A wiser approach, to me, would be to look inward and focus on making the EU a great place so that the UK regrets its decision, not through the EU being an arsewipe, but through the EU being an awesomer place than it is today.

 

Equally from the UK's point of view, I think it is important that the negotiations reaffirm our commitment to europe (not the EU necessarily) and allow us to continue being an influential local economy.

 

It seems foolish to me to have two large economies so close to each other and not have some mutual benefit. That should be the desired outcome from both parties, redefining a HEALTHY attitude towards each other.

Of course, as politicians are hammering out the details, I can more easily imagine the EU trying to damage the UK as much as it can without being too obvious, while the UK for its part tries to hobble the european project as well as it can.

[Pestneb]

Contrary to belief, EU does not hold that much power over any nation that they can force them to do something like invoke article 50.

 

sorry if I was being unclear! I meant that they may not accept the UK government saying they'd remain...

 

It (like many things) is unclear whether we could change our mind during that two years. There's no definite word so its down to interpretation.

 

I don't think remaining would mean adopted the Euro though, I think that would only be if we decide to join in the future.

True, but under what conditions would they allow us to remain? once we trigger article 50, the ball is very much in their court, they can point blank refuse any proposal we make and tell us what terms they offer, take it or leave it. Once May triggers article 50, THAT is when I am scared, because a small misstep here, a misplaced word, a lack of attention, the ramifications for the UK would be huge.

And I meant, if Article 50 is locked in once we invoke it (I believe the EU can unilaterally say that's what it means - it has to be unanimous, otherwise at the end of the two years we're booted out anyway) then the only "remain" option would be to return - at which point I believe the Euro would not be an option, it would be a fact.

 

 

I think their response has been understandable given a) they hold all the power (and by that I mean we've entered a negotiation and allowed ourselves to have the weaker hand) and b) they are quite entitled to make us have to compromise if we wish to regain benefits such as access to the single market. We have ultimately written off a lot of money from the global market. Maybe we should be punished.

 

We haven't written any money off the global market. Think of things in sold terms... what have we broken? what have we destroyed? words. ideas. the money that has been written off is vapourware - I know most of the wealth these days is.. but how many crops have been destroyed? homes? vehicles? land? these things are tangible goods. the worlds markets are built on speculation, how well a company will do, how easily will this product sell.. levels of intangibility are sold to such a point that our vote can wipe out the wealth of men who have more money in their bank account than most of us will ever have pass through our hands. So no, I don't think we should be "punished". Nor am I overly concerned that my savings have effectively lost 10% of their value overnight. If the EU take a harsh approach to negotiations and May serves the UK correctly, they will be cutting off their noses to spite their face. It is in the EU's interest to minimise damage to their respective economies. They have said about making an example of the UK, I'm sure they can do that very effectively.

 

But pause for a second....

Think about that. "Lets hurt them for leaving us". OK. Sure, this organisation REALLY cared for the UK... such a shame we're leaving.

 

A wiser approach, to me, would be to look inward and focus on making the EU a great place so that the UK regrets its decision, not through the EU being an arsewipe, but through the EU being an awesomer place than it is today.

 

Equally from the UK's point of view, I think it is important that the negotiations reaffirm our commitment to europe (not the EU necessarily) and allow us to continue being an influential local economy.

 

It seems foolish to me to have two large economies so close to each other and not have some mutual benefit. That should be the desired outcome from both parties, redefining a HEALTHY attitude towards each other.

Of course, as politicians are hammering out the details, I can more easily imagine the EU trying to damage the UK as much as it can without being too obvious, while the UK for its part tries to hobble the european project as well as it can.

[Ashley]

sorry if I was being unclear! I meant that they may not accept the UK government saying they'd remain...

 

They have no way of forcing either decision upon us. They can't make us not stay (at this stage anyway!)

 

True, but under what conditions would they allow us to remain? once we trigger article 50, the ball is very much in their court, they can point blank refuse any proposal we make and tell us what terms they offer, take it or leave it. Once May triggers article 50, THAT is when I am scared, because a small misstep here, a misplaced word, a lack of attention, the ramifications for the UK would be huge.

And I meant, if Article 50 is locked in once we invoke it (I believe the EU can unilaterally say that's what it means - it has to be unanimous, otherwise at the end of the two years we're booted out anyway) then the only "remain" option would be to return - at which point I believe the Euro would not be an option, it would be a fact.

 

It's all unknown, but yes I imagine they would have to agree the conditions that we'd stay so it depends what we say/offer. I don't think we could just say "soz, let's ignore it". We'd have to make concessions. Although given May is so anti-immigration it seems unlikely she'd concede anything.

 

We haven't written any money off the global market. Think of things in sold terms... what have we broken? what have we destroyed? words. ideas. the money that has been written off is vapourware - I know most of the wealth these days is.. but how many crops have been destroyed? homes? vehicles? land? these things are tangible goods. the worlds markets are built on speculation, how well a company will do, how easily will this product sell.. levels of intangibility are sold to such a point that our vote can wipe out the wealth of men who have more money in their bank account than most of us will ever have pass through our hands. So no, I don't think we should be "punished". Nor am I overly concerned that my savings have effectively lost 10% of their value overnight. If the EU take a harsh approach to negotiations and May serves the UK correctly, they will be cutting off their noses to spite their face. It is in the EU's interest to minimise damage to their respective economies. They have said about making an example of the UK, I'm sure they can do that very effectively.

 

But pause for a second....

Think about that. "Lets hurt them for leaving us". OK. Sure, this organisation REALLY cared for the UK... such a shame we're leaving.

 

A wiser approach, to me, would be to look inward and focus on making the EU a great place so that the UK regrets its decision, not through the EU being an arsewipe, but through the EU being an awesomer place than it is today.

 

Equally from the UK's point of view, I think it is important that the negotiations reaffirm our commitment to europe (not the EU necessarily) and allow us to continue being an influential local economy.

 

It seems foolish to me to have two large economies so close to each other and not have some mutual benefit. That should be the desired outcome from both parties, redefining a HEALTHY attitude towards each other.

Of course, as politicians are hammering out the details, I can more easily imagine the EU trying to damage the UK as much as it can without being too obvious, while the UK for its part tries to hobble the european project as well as it can.

 

Been nothing overly substantial yet, but it's been a few weeks. The knock on effect is down the road. Jobs, businesses...

 

They can be arsewipes and make us regret our decisions. One proposed approach they could take is to ensure if we want to remain in the single market we don't have the financial passporting. This then means France, Germany and others get a lot of our financial industry and the money it brings. Thus they give us what we want (access to single market), while being an arsewipe and benefiting out of it.

 

And given the arsewipes we've sent to the EU and Nigel Farage's frankly rude and stupid shittalking there a few weeks ago we've done ourselves no favour when it comes to the negotiating table. Should they be above it? Sure. Could they be blamed for not being...?

[Ashley]

sorry if I was being unclear! I meant that they may not accept the UK government saying they'd remain...

 

They have no way of forcing either decision upon us. They can't make us not stay (at this stage anyway!)

 

True, but under what conditions would they allow us to remain? once we trigger article 50, the ball is very much in their court, they can point blank refuse any proposal we make and tell us what terms they offer, take it or leave it. Once May triggers article 50, THAT is when I am scared, because a small misstep here, a misplaced word, a lack of attention, the ramifications for the UK would be huge.

And I meant, if Article 50 is locked in once we invoke it (I believe the EU can unilaterally say that's what it means - it has to be unanimous, otherwise at the end of the two years we're booted out anyway) then the only "remain" option would be to return - at which point I believe the Euro would not be an option, it would be a fact.

 

It's all unknown, but yes I imagine they would have to agree the conditions that we'd stay so it depends what we say/offer. I don't think we could just say "soz, let's ignore it". We'd have to make concessions. Although given May is so anti-immigration it seems unlikely she'd concede anything.

 

We haven't written any money off the global market. Think of things in sold terms... what have we broken? what have we destroyed? words. ideas. the money that has been written off is vapourware - I know most of the wealth these days is.. but how many crops have been destroyed? homes? vehicles? land? these things are tangible goods. the worlds markets are built on speculation, how well a company will do, how easily will this product sell.. levels of intangibility are sold to such a point that our vote can wipe out the wealth of men who have more money in their bank account than most of us will ever have pass through our hands. So no, I don't think we should be "punished". Nor am I overly concerned that my savings have effectively lost 10% of their value overnight. If the EU take a harsh approach to negotiations and May serves the UK correctly, they will be cutting off their noses to spite their face. It is in the EU's interest to minimise damage to their respective economies. They have said about making an example of the UK, I'm sure they can do that very effectively.

 

But pause for a second....

Think about that. "Lets hurt them for leaving us". OK. Sure, this organisation REALLY cared for the UK... such a shame we're leaving.

 

A wiser approach, to me, would be to look inward and focus on making the EU a great place so that the UK regrets its decision, not through the EU being an arsewipe, but through the EU being an awesomer place than it is today.

 

Equally from the UK's point of view, I think it is important that the negotiations reaffirm our commitment to europe (not the EU necessarily) and allow us to continue being an influential local economy.

 

It seems foolish to me to have two large economies so close to each other and not have some mutual benefit. That should be the desired outcome from both parties, redefining a HEALTHY attitude towards each other.

Of course, as politicians are hammering out the details, I can more easily imagine the EU trying to damage the UK as much as it can without being too obvious, while the UK for its part tries to hobble the european project as well as it can.

 

Been nothing overly substantial yet, but it's been a few weeks. The knock on effect is down the road. Jobs, businesses...

 

They can be arsewipes and make us regret our decisions. One proposed approach they could take is to ensure if we want to remain in the single market we don't have the financial passporting. This then means France, Germany and others get a lot of our financial industry and the money it brings. Thus they give us what we want (access to single market), while being an arsewipe and benefiting out of it.

 

And given the arsewipes we've sent to the EU and Nigel Farage's frankly rude and stupid shittalking there a few weeks ago we've done ourselves no favour when it comes to the negotiating table. Should they be above it? Sure. Could they be blamed for not being...?

[Blade]

For those that are interested here is an article from The Guardian about the current state of play of the Tories and Labour.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/12/tories-labour-angela-eagle-labour-corbyn-party-membership

 

For a left-leaning paper it is pretty damning on the Labour Party. Labour currently provides nil opposition. It is also clear that under Corbyn it has faced the worst local council election result since 1982. If the party wishes to be a party of government rather than a left wing pressure group then it needs to buck up its ideas and get its act together. The party membership has always been broadly more left wing than the party's voters.

 

The party should represent the voters not the membership. Only winners can achieve. Being a protest movement achieves very little. Labour created the NHS as it won an election. Winning elections has resulted Labour being able to ensure there is a minimum wage, to implement the Working Time Directive and to pass the Human Rights Act.

 

Corbyn has energised the broad membership and the SWP. We have people joining the party who are self declared socialists with the sole objective of keeping Corbyn leader (surely the SWP would be more appropriate). Yes the Labour movement back at the beginning of the 20th century was about socialism and came at a time when there were no workers rights but those times are in the past.

 

In order to protect the workers and to enforce progressive polcies the party needs to win elections.The country is unlikely to vote for a party that doesn't represent them and unfortunately the Labour party with its effort to appeal to its membership doesn't.

 

I personally don't think that Corbyn is up for the job. However, should the party membership reselect him then as a party member I will shut up and get behind him.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Blade

[Blade]

For those that are interested here is an article from The Guardian about the current state of play of the Tories and Labour.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/12/tories-labour-angela-eagle-labour-corbyn-party-membership

 

For a left-leaning paper it is pretty damning on the Labour Party. Labour currently provides nil opposition. It is also clear that under Corbyn it has faced the worst local council election result since 1982. If the party wishes to be a party of government rather than a left wing pressure group then it needs to buck up its ideas and get its act together. The party membership has always been broadly more left wing than the party's voters.

 

The party should represent the voters not the membership. Only winners can achieve. Being a protest movement achieves very little. Labour created the NHS as it won an election. Winning elections has resulted Labour being able to ensure there is a minimum wage, to implement the Working Time Directive and to pass the Human Rights Act.

 

Corbyn has energised the broad membership and the SWP. We have people joining the party who are self declared socialists with the sole objective of keeping Corbyn leader (surely the SWP would be more appropriate). Yes the Labour movement back at the beginning of the 20th century was about socialism and came at a time when there were no workers rights but those times are in the past.

 

In order to protect the workers and to enforce progressive polcies the party needs to win elections.The country is unlikely to vote for a party that doesn't represent them and unfortunately the Labour party with its effort to appeal to its membership doesn't.

 

I personally don't think that Corbyn is up for the job. However, should the party membership reselect him then as a party member I will shut up and get behind him.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Blade

[Kav]

I'm backing Corbyn until someone worthwhile comes to oppose him.

[Kav]

I'm backing Corbyn until someone worthwhile comes to oppose him.

[Pestneb]

first 20 seconds isn't needed... but made me chuckle.

[Pestneb]

first 20 seconds isn't needed... but made me chuckle.

[Rummy]

I'm backing Corbyn until someone worthwhile comes to oppose him.

 

Of all the politicians I see there's something about him that appeals to me most(or rather least unappealing) than the others. He actually makes me want to vote Labour now, and if he can do that for me - how many others can he do it for?

[Rummy]

I'm backing Corbyn until someone worthwhile comes to oppose him.

 

Of all the politicians I see there's something about him that appeals to me most(or rather least unappealing) than the others. He actually makes me want to vote Labour now, and if he can do that for me - how many others can he do it for?

[Ashley]

For a left-leaning paper it is pretty damning on the Labour Party. Labour currently provides nil opposition.

 

I've always found its left-leaning in the sense it will give voices to the left, but not without criticism if needed. Unlike most right-leaning papers who outright attack Corbyn for no reason.

 

I read something yesterday (and I completely forget where) which basically highlighted how Corbyn is a lot of things we say we want from politicians - honest, not careerist, not claiming great expenses (I heard £9 but not sure how true that is), down to earth (i.e. still uses public transport) etc etc - but for some reason the general public has rejected him (probably because of the character assassination from a lot of media).

 

He's not perfect and I'm not an ardent fan. If someone came along that I felt represent what the Labour party should be about while being more generally "liked" (which is unfortunately what it's become - a popularity contest) then sure. But I don't believe that person is Angela Eagle.

 

Kudos to the Lib Dems for some top notch trolling.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Ashley

[Ashley]

For a left-leaning paper it is pretty damning on the Labour Party. Labour currently provides nil opposition.

 

I've always found its left-leaning in the sense it will give voices to the left, but not without criticism if needed. Unlike most right-leaning papers who outright attack Corbyn for no reason.

 

I read something yesterday (and I completely forget where) which basically highlighted how Corbyn is a lot of things we say we want from politicians - honest, not careerist, not claiming great expenses (I heard £9 but not sure how true that is), down to earth (i.e. still uses public transport) etc etc - but for some reason the general public has rejected him (probably because of the character assassination from a lot of media).

 

He's not perfect and I'm not an ardent fan. If someone came along that I felt represent what the Labour party should be about while being more generally "liked" (which is unfortunately what it's become - a popularity contest) then sure. But I don't believe that person is Angela Eagle.

 

Kudos to the Lib Dems for some top notch trolling.

Edited July 12, 2016 by Ashley

[Rummy]

Yeah I've been reading a lot of Guardian articles recently with everything happening - there's certainly been articles/PoVs from people who clearly aren't all that lefty, but I find that too quite refreshing to see. Balance! What a mad concept. Well, of sorts, I'm mostly reading 'left leaning' stuff so who knows where the full balance is.

 

I also completely agree with you on Corbyn. I don't understand why there's such umbrage taken with him. I don't know about the £9 figure, but he reportedly does have one of the lowest expenses claims amongst those of the house. Just like yourself too, I'm sharing a lot about him on fb but I'm taking him as my least disliked politician, really. As you say if someone else came along that I felt did what I wanted better, I'd be behind them too. I'm just not seeing it of anyone yet.

 

The LibDem troll is pretty hilarious :p! Such fucking irony considering May and Cameron apparently expressed sentiments against Brown when he took over after Blair, calling for another election. That's what I hate so much about all these fucking politicians, they're absolute walking contradictions - yet Jeremy Corbyn for whatever is being thrown at him doesn't actually seem to be. I feel like I could, god forbid, actually trust the man to try and do what he says he's going to!!

[Rummy]

Yeah I've been reading a lot of Guardian articles recently with everything happening - there's certainly been articles/PoVs from people who clearly aren't all that lefty, but I find that too quite refreshing to see. Balance! What a mad concept. Well, of sorts, I'm mostly reading 'left leaning' stuff so who knows where the full balance is.

 

I also completely agree with you on Corbyn. I don't understand why there's such umbrage taken with him. I don't know about the £9 figure, but he reportedly does have one of the lowest expenses claims amongst those of the house. Just like yourself too, I'm sharing a lot about him on fb but I'm taking him as my least disliked politician, really. As you say if someone else came along that I felt did what I wanted better, I'd be behind them too. I'm just not seeing it of anyone yet.

 

The LibDem troll is pretty hilarious :p! Such fucking irony considering May and Cameron apparently expressed sentiments against Brown when he took over after Blair, calling for another election. That's what I hate so much about all these fucking politicians, they're absolute walking contradictions - yet Jeremy Corbyn for whatever is being thrown at him doesn't actually seem to be. I feel like I could, god forbid, actually trust the man to try and do what he says he's going to!!

[Choze]

 

And given the arsewipes we've sent to the EU and Nigel Farage's frankly rude and stupid shittalking there a few weeks ago we've done ourselves no favour when it comes to the negotiating table. Should they be above it? Sure. Could they be blamed for not being...?

 

As long as these politicians win and get in power that is all that will matter. Everything else be damned. Thats how it works in most parts of the world. The only problem is that the UK's political stability premium is now weakened.

 

 

Yeah I've been reading a lot of Guardian articles recently with everything happening - there's certainly been articles/PoVs from people who clearly aren't all that lefty, but I find that too quite refreshing to see. Balance! What a mad concept. Well, of sorts, I'm mostly reading 'left leaning' stuff so who knows where the full balance is.

 

Balance is nonsense and lazy. The guardian has definitely been poor. Viewpoints are not that useful and in places like the guardian they are 'crafted' by authors.

 

Actions speak much louder than words. Especially with Brexit and post Brexit.

 

edit: I am just pissed off at the politicians responsible for this mess. All those brexiters ran off. The opposition are uselss/infghting etc.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Choze

[Choze]

 

And given the arsewipes we've sent to the EU and Nigel Farage's frankly rude and stupid shittalking there a few weeks ago we've done ourselves no favour when it comes to the negotiating table. Should they be above it? Sure. Could they be blamed for not being...?

 

As long as these politicians win and get in power that is all that will matter. Everything else be damned. Thats how it works in most parts of the world. The only problem is that the UK's political stability premium is now weakened.

 

 

Yeah I've been reading a lot of Guardian articles recently with everything happening - there's certainly been articles/PoVs from people who clearly aren't all that lefty, but I find that too quite refreshing to see. Balance! What a mad concept. Well, of sorts, I'm mostly reading 'left leaning' stuff so who knows where the full balance is.

 

Balance is nonsense and lazy. The guardian has definitely been poor. Viewpoints are not that useful and in places like the guardian they are 'crafted' by authors.

 

Actions speak much louder than words. Especially with Brexit and post Brexit.

 

edit: I am just pissed off at the politicians responsible for this mess. All those brexiters ran off. The opposition are uselss/infghting etc.

Edited July 13, 2016 by Choze

[ipaul]

I think the Labour party's decline may now be terminal. I can't see any way out of the woods for them on this. Corbyn, for all of his (very agreeable) anti austerity politics is completely unelectable. He also at various points supprted the IRA, Hamas/Hezbollah, Hugo Chavez and has a full on Stalinist as his spin doctor. He's not a decent man, as people so often like to state, and has suffered 'character assasination' for very good reason.

 

The tories will now rule for a very long time to come.

[Ashley]

I think part of the problem is he's suffered character assassination for the wrong reasons. You can find fault in his actions and beliefs. If you can't find any further than the depth of his bow or the volume of his singing then perhaps you shouldn't be trying to make a point about his character.

[ipaul]

I think part of the problem is he's suffered character assassination for the wrong reasons. You can find fault in his actions and beliefs. If you can't find any further than the depth of his bow or the volume of his singing then perhaps you shouldn't be trying to make a point about his character.

 

I know what you mean. Much as I dislike him I remember thinking 'Oh come on!' at that sort of 'reporting'.

 

I don't get the endgame for Momentum. Purge Labour of Blairite scabs and then what? Do they seriously believe Corbyn can win a GE?

[Charlie]

Well at least Jeremy Hunt lost his cabinet position over this. One positive.