Politics

[Rayvin 4964]

10 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

He needed to be a lot stronger on the IRA stuff too, for example. It shouldn't be an issue when there's real problems facing the country, but it's exactly the kind of thing that sticks (and has now stuck, irrevocably) with the middle-England voters you need if you want to actually win an election, and it's unrealistic to believe otherwise. Ditto getting a couple of people on his team who are more friendly to those voters and putting them out there to do the talking for you when necessary. Know your audience, basically.

 

Of course, "if you want to actually win" may be the key phrase here.

 

Yeah ok, fair enough. I mean it didn't register remotely with me but I'm too young to remember appreciate that period directly. To me, it just looks like he was on the right side of history with that - but I have an unemotional view of it.

 

I do worry a bit if he actually has it in him to make the changes he wants if he ever did win tbh, so maybe he doesn't want to - but why do all of this, if that was the case? He clearly never expected to be here in the first place.

 

8 minutes ago, Alex said:

A certainty for the Tories but they couldn't secure a majority? Meenzer already answered the other bit

 

Yeah I think so. If we had run with a pro-Remain Labour leader in that GE, the Tories would have their majority. I have no doubt about that. Corbyn's Brexit fudging and changing of the conversation actually worked well for him there.

[Rayvin 4964]

6 minutes ago, Alex said:

I'd also add that if he's so principled, why didn't he campaign under the banner of hard Brexit?

 

Pre-referendum his view was that the EU was in serious need of reform but that on balance it was better to stay in and be part of the change.

 

Post-referendum, his view is that the result should be honoured, and that the only Brexit that makes sense in the context of the question asked is a hard one.

 

Those two statements aren't contradictions of each other, the latter is just a developed view based on a developed reality. And tbh, he and the hard Brexit zealots are right about the latter point. In the context of the question asked at the time, the only Brexit that makes sense is indeed a hard one. The Norway model maybe is the best we can hope for as remainers but it sure as shit isn't what people voted for, or thought they were voting for, because it doesn't make us any more sovereign than we were before, and indeed arguably less so.

 

The fact that Brexit is an unworkable catastrophe is the reason we should be cancelling it, not because 'no one voted for hard Brexit'. They really actually did. Logically, I can't see any other conclusion - I think I said as much at the time. I recall making a post saying how fucking pointless the result was if all it will achieve is a soft Brexit.

[ewerk 26394]

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Post-referendum, his view is that the result should be honoured, and that the only Brexit that makes sense in the context of the question asked is a hard one.

 

The public didn't vote for a hard Brexit.

[Alex 30433]

8 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Pre-referendum his view was that the EU was in serious need of reform but that on balance it was better to stay in and be part of the change.

 

Post-referendum, his view is that the result should be honoured, and that the only Brexit that makes sense in the context of the question asked is a hard one.

 

Those two statements aren't contradictions of each other, the latter is just a developed view based on a developed reality. And tbh, he and the hard Brexit zealots are right about the latter point. In the context of the question asked at the time, the only Brexit that makes sense is indeed a hard one. The Norway model maybe is the best we can hope for as remainers but it sure as shit isn't what people voted for, or thought they were voting for, because it doesn't make us any more sovereign than we were before, and indeed arguably less so.

 

The fact that Brexit is an unworkable catastrophe is the reason we should be cancelling it, not because 'no one voted for hard Brexit'. They really actually did. Logically, I can't see any other conclusion - I think I said as much at the time. I recall making a post saying how fucking pointless the result was if all it will achieve is a soft Brexit.

That's bolloclks. You can't possibly argue people voted for something different to that which they were told they would get.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3205]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

The public didn't vote for a hard Brexit.

 

The public voted for a pack of lies.

[Alex 30433]

2 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

 

The public voted for a pack of lies.

It was fucking advertised as a soft Brexit. Incredible to suggest otherwise.

[Rayvin 4964]

6 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

 

The public voted for a pack of lies.

 

 This is where I am on it too. I don't recall a clear 'soft Brexit, pro-single market' message at the time.

3 minutes ago, Alex said:

It was fucking advertised as a soft Brexit. Incredible to suggest otherwise.

 

By Johnson maybe. By Farage?

Edited June 7, 2018 by Rayvin

[Meenzer 14055]

The public voted for gold-shitting unicorns, that doesn't mean Corbyn is obliged to strap on a horn and start straining.

[Renton 17799]

15 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

The Norway model maybe is the best we can hope for as remainers but it sure as shit isn't what people voted for, or thought they were voting for, because it doesn't make us any more sovereign than we were before, and indeed arguably less so.

 

In as much that sovereignty is a none issue, this is patently bollocks. Removing ourselves from the political structures of the EU, and 75% of acquis along with it, and joining EFTA is not losing sovereignty. Do some research. 

[ewerk 26394]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

By Johnson maybe. By Farage?

Farage mentioned Norway many times.

[Renton 17799]

3 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

This is where I am on it too. I don't recall a clear 'soft Brexit, pro-single market' message at the time

Don't you? I do. I don't recall a suicidal hard Brexit though. No-one would vote for that.

[Rayvin 4964]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

In as much that sovereignty is a none issue, this is patently bollocks. Removing ourselves from the political structures of the EU, and 75% of acquis along with it, and joining EFTA is not losing sovereignty. Do some research. 

 

I meant in terms of the fact that within the EU we had a clear say in decision making, and in a Norway model, we don't. For crying out loud man, simmer down.

[Rayvin 4964]

Just now, ewerk said:

Farage mentioned Norway many times.

 

Well, fair enough then. But logically it's fucking absurd.

[ewerk 26394]

1 minute ago, Renton said:

 

In as much that sovereignty is a none issue, this is patently bollocks. Removing ourselves from the political structures of the EU, and 75% of acquis along with it, and joining EFTA is not losing sovereignty. Do some research. 

Eh? Norway accepts EU rules without representation.

[Renton 17799]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

I meant in terms of the fact that within the EU we had a clear say in decision making, and in a Norway model, we don't. For crying out loud man, simmer down.

 

Except that's not entirely true. We would have a huge influence, but outside the EU. I'll simmer down when you start think critically instead of swallowing the right wing rhetoric that we voted hard Brexit.

[Alex 30433]

7 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

 This is where I am on it too. I don't recall a clear 'soft Brexit, pro-single market' message at the time.

 

By Johnson maybe. By Farage?

Farage did say we could be like Norway or Switzerland before the referendum. Not that he had any power over how Brexit could be implemented.

[Renton 17799]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

Eh? Norway accepts EU rules without representation.

 

No, it's represented before laws change and can be highly influential. We would be much more so. It's also exempt from most laws and has its own trade deals. It can't vote on laws though, but democracy on a supranational basis is a myth. Most laws and regulations are international now.

[Alex 30433]

 

10 minutes ago, Meenzer said:

The public voted for gold-shitting unicorns, that doesn't mean Corbyn is obliged to strap on a horn and start straining.

Perfectly put.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Real Brexit shit incoming

[Rayvin 4964]

5 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Except that's not entirely true. We would have a huge influence, but outside the EU. I'll simmer down when you start think critically instead of swallowing the right wing rhetoric that we voted hard Brexit.

 

I'm not swallowing right wing rhetoric, I just can't see any good case for a soft Brexit that makes logical sense in terms of what people voted for. Here is my post at the time:

 

On 26/06/2016 at 00:35, Rayvin said:

 

I think there were some. Immigration can be considered a legitimate concern, definitely. Unfortunately it turns out that Brexit, according to those who led the Leave campaign, isn't actually going to address that. So that's now irrelevant and a wasted vote for anyone who wanted it. This was of course revealed post-vote.

 

Spending on the EU has also been rubbished, so that went out the window as a legitimate reason.

 

We're left with the sovereignty argument. People don't like the EU dictating how we should run things. I can see why some people feel this way, but we're actually going to have to continue doing what the EU wants as part of joining the single market again, it would seem. So in reality they're not going to get that either. I suppose they do get symbolic sovereignty. Maybe that's worth it to some.

 

Otherwise, I've heard a lot about the EU falling to pieces and that we should be well shot of it, but this ignores the fact that in or out of the EU, if it fell to pieces, it'd take Britain with it.

 

I'm afraid that this really was as stupid a decision as it looks.

 

And here was your view of my post:

 

On 26/06/2016 at 01:03, Renton said:

To summarise rayvin's well made points toonotl, the UK is canny fucked, or might be. I really think we're going down the swanney.

 

The EU is a massive scape goat in all this imo. It's not an entirely benevolent organisation, but it has given the whole of Europe so, so much. I am actually ashamed to be English now. A lot on this board will not see why, but it's how i see it. A nation of cunts, still trying to get one over all our neighbours, and playing the bizarre "UK exceptionqlism" rule.

 

Anyway, Howay Iceland!

Edited June 7, 2018 by Rayvin

[Alex 30433]

Just now, Christmas Tree said:

Real Brexit shit incoming

Bit odd of you to announce your own arrival

[ewerk 26394]

4 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

No, it's represented before laws change and can be highly influential. We would be much more so. It's also exempt from most laws and has its own trade deals. It can't vote on laws though, but democracy on a supranational basis is a myth. Most laws and regulations are international now.

How is it represented within the EU institutions?

It isn't exempt from most laws, it adopts 75% of EU laws. It has no voice in the EU parliament or Council of Ministers. Rayvin is entirely correct in saying that they have less sovereignty than we currently do.

[Rayvin 4964]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

How is it represented within the EU institutions?

It isn't exempt from most laws, it adopts 75% of EU laws. It has no voice in the EU parliament or Council of Ministers. Rayvin is entirely correct in saying that they have less sovereignty than we currently do.

 

Which isn't to say that we shouldn't grab the same deal with both hands if someone offers it now.

[ewerk 26394]

I can’t say sovereignty is of much importance to me. Whatever way you look at it it’s a bunch of cunts telling us what to do.

[Rayvin 4964]

Just now, ewerk said:

I can’t say sovereignty is of much importance to me. Whatever way you look at it it’s a bunch of cunts telling us what to do.

 

Damn fucking straight.