Jeremy Corbyn

[mashedonmud]

Oooohh Jeremy give in,

Oooohh  Jeremy give in,

Oooohh Jeremy give in.

 

 

Theresa can just f@ck off.

 

[Alex DeLarge]

Corbyn's Brexit position is the worst option for his younger support base really.

One of the biggest opinions after the referendum amongst young remain voters was that we had our rights to work and live in the EU countries easily taken away. It's going to be a hard sell removing that sense of removing opportunity, I don't see how he can do that. 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, Mr.Tease said:

but I do think the invitation is just more game playing to run down the clock

as is his refusal.

If he wants to walk on the moral high ground, he has to put one of his feet in front of the other and do a bit of movement.

The story is now his refusal, and not May being shit.

[Ayrshire Chris]

Corbyn has an open goal with idiots like may, boris and Rees Mogg as opposition and he is not willing to shoot. He should be fronting the campaign for a second vote and would get support from all parties. I reckon he is fearful of losing votes in the leaver areas of north England. He needs to realise opinions have changed. I’ve always thought that the whole issue of immigration dominated the first vote. Now the economic realities of Brexit are clearer voters opinions will change. 

[DeanoL]

16 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Yup. But as the EU know that a claim over another's sovereignty is a never-do in the world of diplomacy, it might be reasonably suggested that they always wanted to force a choice between remain and no-deal.

If they did, I don't really have a problem with that. They're allowed to play things for their own interests as much as the UK is.

I feel like everyone agreed the backstop was non-negotiable. It was one of the first things everyone, us and the EU, agreed on. We can't have a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. None of them actually worked out how to do that at the time but anyone with half a brain should have figured out something like the backstop was inevitable.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I feel like everyone agreed the backstop was non-negotiable. It was one of the first things everyone, us and the EU, agreed on.

that's clearly not the case. May has been back again and again to try and get changes to the backstop such as an end-date (because then it wouldn't be a claim on UK sovereignty forever, which would make it easier for some to swallow).

All sides agree that what the backstop is there to ensure is what they want to achieve - no border. That side of the backstop isn't an issue.

It's the fact that the backstop when written down in the way it has been is a claim on the UK's sovereignty.

And the backstop and that sovereignty issue it causes will still be there even if the plan for a future trade deal is a full CU & SM - so changes like that don't make much difference.

[mcshed]

35 minutes ago, Ayrshire Chris said:

Corbyn has an open goal with idiots like may, boris and Rees Mogg as opposition and he is not willing to shoot. He should be fronting the campaign for a second vote and would get support from all parties. I reckon he is fearful of losing votes in the leaver areas of north England. He needs to realise opinions have changed. I’ve always thought that the whole issue of immigration dominated the first vote. Now the economic realities of Brexit are clearer voters opinions will change. 

How many Leave supporters do you know who've changed their minds?

[RichardWaller]

22 hours ago, TheNoise said:

FWIW I completely agree with you.

Although, that's not what I got from what Grayling said. I took it to mean that he wants to avoid a surge in the far right, not appease them.

I'd like to avoid a surge in the far right too but I don't think compromising yourself and giving them an inch is the way to go about it, that is appeasement. 

[DeanoL]

8 minutes ago, mcshed said:

How many Leave supporters do you know who've changed their minds?

Most of them. Pretty much every suggested deal is shot down by Leave voters claiming that it's "not what we voted for". 

[doogie]

43 minutes ago, Ayrshire Chris said:

Corbyn has an open goal with idiots like may, boris and Rees Mogg as opposition and he is not willing to shoot. He should be fronting the campaign for a second vote and would get support from all parties. I reckon he is fearful of losing votes in the leaver areas of north England. He needs to realise opinions have changed. I’ve always thought that the whole issue of immigration dominated the first vote. Now the economic realities of Brexit are clearer voters opinions will change. 

Why would he front the campaign for a second vote when the most likely outcome (Remain) would thwart his ultimate objective of a socialist revolution in the UK?

[Keithy]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The story is now his refusal, and not May being shit.

Yep, bang on the money. Yet again Corbyn has allowed himself to be the story.

Theresa is now going to look like the reasonable one, open to discussions (the fickle public will ignore the last 2 years) and Corbyn will now take on May's previous mantle of stubborn leader who refuses to talk to others.

Plus,  if he eventually talks to her, it'll now look like he has caved in and she has been the strong leader.

Corbyn should have met with her, put the "take no deal off the table' to her and when she obviously refused, he could have come out and said "I went with good faith but despite all her warm words of reaching across party lines for compromise, her first response was no."

[mcshed]

11 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Most of them. Pretty much every suggested deal is shot down by Leave voters claiming that it's "not what we voted for". 

They clearly don't know what they want, but in another Referendum it'd still be Brexit they vote for.  If we have another Referendum the hardest brexity-est option will win. 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, mcshed said:

They clearly don't know what they want, but in another Referendum it'd still be Brexit they vote for.  If we have another Referendum the hardest brexity-est option will win. 

opinion polls say different, with opinion shifting stronger for remain.

I'm happy to risk the idiot option, because if we don't we'll end up with an idiot option anyway - and it seems quite clear that the country is not in favour of leaving the EU if they can vote for reality and not unicorns.

[jackarmy]

1 hour ago, Ayrshire Chris said:

Corbyn has an open goal with idiots like may, boris and Rees Mogg as opposition and he is not willing to shoot. He should be fronting the campaign for a second vote and would get support from all parties. I reckon he is fearful of losing votes in the leaver areas of north England. He needs to realise opinions have changed. I’ve always thought that the whole issue of immigration dominated the first vote. Now the economic realities of Brexit are clearer voters opinions will change. 

78% of the 45 seats Labour must gain from the Conservatives to win the next general election voted Leave

72% of Labour's 25 most vulnerable constituencies (majorities under 2,000) voted Leave

61% of all Labour constituencies voted Leave

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, jackarmy said:

61% of all Labour constituencies voted Leave

Were they the labour voters? Mostly not.

Will Labour keep remainers votes if they pursue brexit? Not a chance.

[mcshed]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

opinion polls say different, with opinion shifting stronger for remain.

I'm happy to risk the idiot option, because if we don't we'll end up with an idiot option anyway - and it seems quite clear that the country is not in favour of leaving the EU if they can vote for reality and not unicorns.

Opinion polls on the day of the referendum said Remain would win, but even if you accept those polls, Leave ran a better campaign(in terms of convincing people) last time and this time have the simple messages of "they're not listening tell them again" and "get on with it".

I hope I'm wrong.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Opinion polls on the day of the referendum said Remain would win, but even if you accept those polls, Leave ran a better campaign(in terms of convincing people) last time and this time have the simple messages of "they're not listening tell them again" and "get on with it".

I hope I'm wrong.

simple messages for simple people.

Thing is, there's fewer simple people, as many have wised up to what the reality of leaving the EU means. It's no longer something where people can make up their own perfect version (tho plenty are still doing that), but something where it's real outcomes.

Democracy is a process and not an event.

[Mr.Tease]

1 hour ago, Ayrshire Chris said:

Corbyn has an open goal with idiots like may, boris and Rees Mogg as opposition and he is not willing to shoot. He should be fronting the campaign for a second vote and would get support from all parties. I reckon he is fearful of losing votes in the leaver areas of north England. He needs to realise opinions have changed. I’ve always thought that the whole issue of immigration dominated the first vote. Now the economic realities of Brexit are clearer voters opinions will change. 

If they're going to call for another referendum, the longer they leave it, the greater chance there is that people will vote to remain, simply because all other options apart from no deal brexit will have been eliminated.

At the moment there's still an ability to claim another deal can be struck (Norway style, Canada) or that May's deal could still go through (no matter how slight the chances are). If, in a week on Tuesday, Parliament again makes clear they won't back her deal, and pushes for no deal being ruled out, and the EU then says they won't extend Article 50 unless there's a referendum or general election, then there will be no choice other than election, or second referendum with no deal or remain, and in that situation I think remain might be in with it's best chance.

While I don't trust YouGov (as they're being funded by Peoples vote to generate these polls), they have shown some movement towards remain, so there is hope that will continue IF all other options are eliminated.

At the end of the day people are eventually going to have to do something they don't want to do, and the only thing that will force that is taking the other options off the table. 

Brexiteers had their chances- they didn't want to leas the negotiations (Gove and Boris running off in the leadership contest), they didn't want the negotiated deal, they don't want Norway, there's no time for Canada, so that just leaves no deal or no brexit (with next to no preparation). They can cry betrayal all they want, but at the end of the day if they didn't want to lead the negotiations, and won't accept any compromise and the only brexit they want (no deal) isn't accepted by a majority of the population, then they have only themselves to blame for no brexit. (and I say that as a remain voter who opposed another referendum until now).

If you call for a second referendum too soon you give brexiteers ammo. I still favour a compromise soft brexit, but once that's left with no other options, then I'm fine risking a second referendum because it looks less like a fix.

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

simple messages for simple people.

Thing is, there's fewer simple people, as many have wised up to what the reality of leaving the EU means. It's no longer something where people can make up their own perfect version (tho plenty are still doing that), but something where it's real outcomes.

Democracy is a process and not an event.

I agree, but part of that process is that people learn from experiencing it themselves rather than just being told. once people have gone through this process and experienced each option not working out, then I think they'll be more open to changing their minds and voting remain (see my other post)

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

I still favour a compromise soft brexit

I really don't see the point in none of the voters getting anything of what they want - and I reckon that'll be the view of MPs too.

But even if that were agreed in Parliament it still doesn't get a vote on the withdrawal agreement thru the HoC, because that won't get voted thru because of the claim on sovereignty via the backstop.

[Mr.Tease]

10 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Opinion polls on the day of the referendum said Remain would win, but even if you accept those polls, Leave ran a better campaign(in terms of convincing people) last time and this time have the simple messages of "they're not listening tell them again" and "get on with it".

I hope I'm wrong.

That's the risk, which is why a second referendum has to be called when all other options have been demonstrated to have been tried. I hate May, but she did negotiate in good faith (in that she tried to get the best deal she could). Sure the end result was crap, but they can't claim that it wasn't tried in good faith. Next step is to show in good faith the possibility of another deal (by pushing for Norway++). If that gets shown as a no go, then again they can't cry betrayal. Eventually reality has to set in.

[Mr.Tease]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

I really don't see the point in none of the voters getting anything of what they want - and I reckon that'll be the view of MPs too.

But even if that were agreed in Parliament it still doesn't get a vote on the withdrawal agreement thru the HoC, because that won't get voted thru because of the claim on sovereignty via the backstop.

For me it's part of a process that needs to be gone through until reality sets in.

[eFestivals]

Just now, Mr.Tease said:

For me it's part of a process that needs to be gone through until reality sets in.

but I'd say you're missing reality by thinking the blockage is the future trade deal. 

The way i see it, it's about the claim on UK sovereignty via the backstop. Even Corbyn used that as his first line of attack in the debate the other day(s).

The thing Treeza had been back to the EU about - again and again - is the backstop, and not about the no-border that it ensures, but the way it makes a claim on UK sovereignty forever (or until such time as the EU agree to give it up via making a deal).

[jackarmy]

So, assuming May's deal is dead in the water after the vote the other day... 

We have a second referendum, what does the Government put as the question on the ballot? "Remain in the European Union OR Leave the European Union on WTO terms?"

For a convincing Remain vote, which I think is necessary to kill the question dead, you need to win round a convincing percentage of the Leave voters. Who heads up the Remain campaign this time? A lot of arch Remainers are toxic to a big section of the electorate.

It's a right ol' mess innit?

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, jackarmy said:

"Remain in the European Union OR Leave the European Union on WTO terms?"

it wouldn't be "WTO terms" it would be "no terms". There's much more to this than just trade.