O/T Jeremy corbyn

[KerrAvon]

I would disagree that we can’t use current polling data to make at least a plausible argument to what extent people had ‘hard/soft Brexit ideas in mind when they voted. If we accept that we are quite evenly split between Remain/No Deal/Deal at the moment, then we can make sensible estimations/approximations that at the very least indicate that No Deal was not what the majority of voters had in mind/wanted at the point of the referendum. If anything, if you take 48% of the population as already defined as clearly wanting to remain, then you have an X split between the 52% as to people who are fervent No Dealers and those who, on balance, have been persuaded to vote Leave but do not view the EU as the beast that the more extremes do, then I would continue to argue that there never was, and is most definitely a majority consensus for No Deal. It’s as simple as that really. To sit back and say “How can we really know…” is just conveniently copping out of engaging with the question and drawing this obvious conclusion: that there is not, and never was a national majority for a No Deal outcome.

Of course, we can elect a PM who will try and re-negotiate and antagonise the EU so that they take the decision for us but I think that once that intention becomes apparent, parliament will bring down the government. This should be good news for Labour but if translated into a win despite the split votes (Labour v Lib Dems and Tories v BP) then Corbyn or whomever then face the parliamentary arithmetic issue will be an empty win (from a Brexit end point POV).

I don’t agree that May couldn’t agree on a compromise arrangement on the CU with labour. It was perfectly within her remit to do so but obviously it would have pissed off a large part of her party. That would be difficult for her but Corbyn is running a masterclass in pissing off large sections of his own party. The only question for me was would the outcome provide a big enough majority to get the amended deal through parliament? The indicative rounds suggested no to a CU, but we’ll never know to what extent there was a genuine attempt to create a CU amendment that could have pulled in the more moderate conservatives if whipped to form a majority. Unlike you, I think that there was a good will attempt from both sides in these negotiations but it was always a long shot. But I wouldn’t agree that this was labour “playing games” or cynically using the Brexit situation as a means to gain power. From my perspective, Corbyn is resisting enormous pressure from the vast majority of (mainly moderates, the ones you would most likely quite like to control the Labour party) Labour MPs and members who want him to switch to supporting Remain right away. His reluctance to do this, to honour the referendum unless all other options run dry, is very likely to bring his overthrow from within the party.

None of which solves the problem that we have now. I remain in favour of a Deal, and will maintain that as long as there are searches from the new PM, or Corbyn if it eventually falls to him to gain a majority in parliament. I think that the EU will wait on current terms as long as they sense that there is good will to move towards a positive solution.

I personally don’t mind being labelled an activist. Just unsure as to why you don’t see yourself as one.

*Note to Grist. I copy/pasted this reply from Viz.

You have every right to speculate about the outcome of a referendum that had a no deal outcome on the paper, but that’s all it is – speculation. Sitting back and saying ‘ How can we really know' is statement of fact. It’s not an ideal position to be in, but reality cares little for convenience.


It’s not a question of a new PM antagonising the EU; they are already antagonised, frustrated and anxious to move on with their European project. They are not keen on a no deal outcome, but are aware that the deal they offered - and which the UK government accepted - has been blocked by the UK Parliament on three occasions. They might allow a further extension if there were a good reason, but there isn’t. That’s clear from your post where you talk about kicking the can down the road for as long as it takes. To what end? On the D Day for Brexit thread you argued for indicative votes; you got them and they achieved nothing. You then argued for cross party talks; you got them and they achieved nothing. As you conceded the other day – Labour have got themselves into a position where they don’t like the deal (they had so much fun with their 'damaging Tory Brexit' catchphrase) and they don’t want no deal, but sitll claim to want to leave...

Even if the remaining 27 EU members were to agree to some sort of never ending extension, the point comes at which the harm that the UK would suffer from that – in both economic and political terms – outweighs that which would flow from no deal.

I am not convinced that there would be a majority in Parliament for a vote of no confidence if we head towards no deal. Too many MPs know that they would be voting for an end to their political careers. There is the odd one or too – Dominic Grieve and Anna Soubry spring to mind – who would do it any way, but I question whether there would be enough. The Labour led attempt to take control of the Parliamentary Order Paper last week failed in large part due to the Labour MPs who either abstained or voted against the motion, which demonstrates that the Labour leadership are not in control.

May could not agree to approach the EU about a Customs Union. She knew - as did Labour - that her party stood on a referendum which rejected that approach. She knew – as did Labour – that if she were to agree to approaching the EU on that basis, the 1922 committee would change the party rules to allow an immediate vote of no confidence and that she would be out. She also knew – as did Labour – that any agreement even if carried by Parliament would be meaningless. I’m sure that the EU27 would agree to amend the Political Declaration to indicate that a Customs Union was envisaged as part of the future relationship, but that would be binding on neither side and we have no idea what 'price' the EU27 would seek to extract from us in the future relationship negotiations.

When have I expressed a view upon whether I am an activist?

[Exiletyke]

Who do you implore us to put our money on now for PM Kerr, now your man Raab has fallen at the Canal Turn?

[KerrAvon]

There are many things that I will not defend Corbyn about, but you're wrong here.



That's not an accurate analysis. He never challenged whether it was the Russians, he just (reasonably) asked what new evidence we had after pointing the finger, given our intelligence services initially suggested it was either the Russian state or disgruntled operatives.



Again, Corbyn has asked for evidence, NOT the same as not believing they did it. The EU is also advising caution before we have more evidence.

We live in strange times, I used to trust the US on issues like this, but Trump's lack of integrity and willingness to lie combined with his hostile stance towards Iran mean that I'd now demand a higher standard of evidence from the Americans than in the past.

Asking for evidence is not the same as not believing, asking for evidence is not something to be condemned, ever.

I agree in principle with your post. but don't think that it gets Corbyn fully off the hook. He knows (or ought to know) that neither the UK nor the US are going to reveal much of the evidence that they hold, as to do so could compromise either the human sources or non human techniques through which intelligence is gathered. That isn't a satisfactory position from a democratic accountability point of view, but it's another example of an inconvenient reality.

I also think it valid to question Corbyn’s wider position. We know that he likes to back slap Hamas and Hezbollah despite the wealth of evidence that links them to terrorism, indiscriminate violence and their self-proclaimed intention to destroy the state of Israel. We know too of the wealth of evidence to show the suffering of the people of Venezuela, who are living the Socialist dream, but that Corbyn declines to comment upon it. We know that Iran is a country that oppresses large swathes of its population and persecutes and arbitrarily detains dissidents and yet he is happy to trouser £20 000 fees for appearing on Iranian state TV.

Take all the above together and it’s not hard to reach the conclusion that his world view and his demands for evidence are based in large part upon showing solidarity with, and trying to supress criticism of, any country or organisation that doesn’t like America or the West.

[KerrAvon]

Who do you implore us to put our money on now for PM Kerr, now your man Raab has fallen at the Canal Turn?

Looks like Bo Jo, unless he suffers a major foot in mouth moment. Don't think you'll get a very good price.

[gm_gm]

I don't think you understand politics that well.

But indulge me, what policies do you think a Corbyn led government could actually get through parliament (assume a majority of 30) that would do such damage?

Let's see if you can produce a remotely viable policy that would bankrupt the country or if it's just a bit of cheap brainless bluster.

His mouth is his biggest problem, but foreign policy for a start

I'll post another topic each day for the next 4 months

[John2]

His mouth is his biggest problem, but foreign policy for a start

I'll post another topic each day for the next 4 months

Don't just give a vague topic, that's a cop out. Give an example of a foreign policy event you think is plausible that could bankrupt the country in 18 months?

[ragingpup]

I agree in principle with your post. but don't think that it gets Corbyn fully off the hook. He knows (or ought to know) that neither the UK nor the US are going to reveal much of the evidence that they hold, as to do so could compromise either the human sources or non human techniques through which intelligence is gathered. That isn't a satisfactory position from a democratic accountability point of view, but it's another example of an inconvenient reality.

I also think it valid to question Corbyn’s wider position. We know that he likes to back slap Hamas and Hezbollah despite the wealth of evidence that links them to terrorism, indiscriminate violence and their self-proclaimed intention to destroy the state of Israel. We know too of the wealth of evidence to show the suffering of the people of Venezuela, who are living the Socialist dream, but that Corbyn declines to comment upon it. We know that Iran is a country that oppresses large swathes of its population and persecutes and arbitrarily detains dissidents and yet he is happy to trouser £20 000 fees for appearing on Iranian state TV.

Take all the above together and it’s not hard to reach the conclusion that his world view and his demands for evidence are based in large part upon showing solidarity with, and trying to supress criticism of, any country or organisation that doesn’t like America or the West.

Surely it doesn't matter what Corbyn thinks. I would have thought that surely you, of all people, should want to see clear and beyond doubt evidence that Iran was responsible for carrying out the attacks before taking action. That's the only point.

We've got horrific previous on this kind of international knee jerk response that has cost many service people's lives for no reason. Why on earth would we want to encourage our leaders to do it again?

[KerrAvon]

For the reasons that I have stated, I know that it is highly unlikely that I will ever see the evidence upon which the American and British position is based.

It really does matter what Corbyn thinks. He wants to be PM and you and others support him in that aim.

[ragingpup]

For the reasons that I have stated, I know that it is highly unlikely that I will ever see the evidence upon which the American and British position is based.

It really does matter what Corbyn thinks. He wants to be PM and you and others support him in that aim.

You and I may not, but surely if we are going to be involved with intervention in international incidents, our security services will share the evidence with the UK government and would that involve leader of the opposition/parliament so that they can make an informed decision on the intervention? I honestly don't know, but isn't the leader of the opposition meant to be informed of such evidence as much as the security services have it? Or can the foreign secretary and PM take action without consulting opposition leader and parliament?

In asking for further evidence before taking intervention, I would support Corbyn or anyone.

[KerrAvon]

I wouldn't share my shopping list with Corbyn.

See above and previous posts for details of his association with PIRA, Hezbollah, Hamas and his lucrative relationship with the mouthpiece of the Iranian government.