O/T Jeremy corbyn

[ragingpup]

Have you noticed how all the people fighting against "hate" are full of hate?

I don't think it's that Fire. I think it's a kind of human empathy with the 100,000 people in our country who are attacked/abused because of the race/religion/gender/disability. These are just the recorded ones. And then a further 10,500 hate crimes (mainly race/religious) have been recorded on under 16 year olds at school. On children, by children.

I personally don't feel hate but it makes me angry. But why don't these stats make everyone angry?

[Exiletyke]

Sorry? Are you under the impression that I am arguing for Remain? Why are you saying this?

Must say raging if you're not arguing for remain [which is your right] you certainly do a bad job of hiding it
As for howdy's comment "You have no idea what I agree with and what I don’t. All you know is that I’ve never voted Tory."
We all gather impressions of others by what they post thus what they do & don't agree with
All we know is that you have told us [raging] that you have never voted Tory but that's what you have told us so we don't really know

[ragingpup]

Must say raging if you're not arguing for remain [which is your right] you certainly do a bad job of hiding it
As for howdy's comment "You have no idea what I agree with and what I don’t. All you know is that I’ve never voted Tory."
We all gather impressions of others by what they post thus what they do & don't agree with
All we know is that you have told us [raging] that you have never voted Tory but that's what you have told us so we don't really know

If you look back through the years of the Brexit thread you will not find me once arguing that we should remain. I have always felt we should respect the referendum that we should leave. The only argument is how we should leave. However, there have been many discussions of the merits of the EU vs Leaving with Deal v Leaving with No deal and in those arguments I have of course argued (as a person that voted Remain) that of course I think we are economically much better in the EU. But that's another argument entirely from whether we should actually Leave.

My dilemma now is what to do as we see No Dealers attempt to hijack the referendum for their own ends. We should leave, but we should leave with a deal, however long it takes and by whatever means it takes to get one. Unfortunately many No deal advocates are like kids waiting for Xmas - "want it ALL and NOW!"

If we proceed towards No Deal then I can't stand and watch. The majority of the country did not vote for No deal. It is an undemocratic outcome. Maybe that's where Howdy is confused?

But to be clear, I think we should keep working towards a Deal that gets through parliament, however long that takes.

[howdydoo]

Not confused at all.

Brexit means exit. Simples. All the complex arguments should have been debated before the vote. Now it just looks like sour grapes

All this Noel Edmunds nonsense is just the vehicle being used to try and keep us in.

We voted out. Thst’s it. The world will not end if we come out with no deal. Too many people running scared. Nor do they have any intention of accepting anything until they get their way.

How about rolling your sleeves up, take this one on the chin and just get on with it?

Three years wasted and counting.

It’s pathetic.

[rolymiller]

Going back to the original posts on here about Corbyn, and this is where I take issue with the likes of Kerr. Does anyone on this board seriously believe that if Labour got in power next election even with a landslide majority, we would have some sort of stalinist state in the UK. It just wouldn't happen even if Corbyn wanted this which is equally nonsensical. Its just scaremongering and character assassination from the usual suspects in the gutter press. Some of his critics on here may very well be pleasantly surprised (even you Mr Kerr). Lets put it this way, I would rather take a gamble on Corbyn than Boris/ Farage etc.

[ragingpup]

Not confused at all.

Brexit means exit. Simples. All the complex arguments should have been debated before the vote. Now it just looks like sour grapes

All this Noel Edmunds nonsense is just the vehicle being used to try and keep us in.

We voted out. Thst’s it. The world will not end if we come out with no deal. Too many people running scared. Nor do they have any intention of accepting anything until they get their way.

How about rolling your sleeves up, take this one on the chin and just get on with it?

Three years wasted and counting.

It’s pathetic.

Sorry mate. You're not having it all your own way. I'll continue to support the Leave vote as long as the outcome is satisfactory and represents the wishes of the democratic majority of the country.

We could and should have been clearer with the vote stating that we will leave the EU on wto terms so that the vote was clear.

The o boy problem is that if it had been framed in this way, the vote would have been majority for remain, probably by over 65%. We could do this now, but you know as well as I do that if framed that way, the majority would be clearly for remain. And you would lose brexit altogether.

So we need a compromise that will speak for the majority of were going to move forward. I hope that parliament can find that with amendments to the agreed deal. But you will have to compromise some also on no deal because it isn't the democratic will and Parliament knows this. A reminder, the WA IS leaving the EU once the backdrop is solved. I'm sorry that so many of you don't like those terms but it is a compromise, one that I don't like, sticks in the craw, but it's better than no deal or revoke in my opinion. That may take many years (to solve the backstop) but I agree with Kerr that the WA is not a great deal for the EU either, and I think they will move to allow the WA to complete ASAP.

[KerrAvon]

Going back to the original posts on here about Corbyn, and this is where I take issue with the likes of Kerr. Does anyone on this board seriously believe that if Labour got in power next election even with a landslide majority, we would have some sort of stalinist state in the UK. It just wouldn't happen even if Corbyn wanted this which is equally nonsensical. Its just scaremongering and character assassination from the usual suspects in the gutter press. Some of his critics on here may very well be pleasantly surprised (even you Mr Kerr). Lets put it this way, I would rather take a gamble on Corbyn than Boris/ Farage etc.

No, I don't think we would end up with a Stalinist state. I think that we would end up with mounting unemployment as capital fled punitive tax rates and resurgence in TU militancy that made the UK a bad place to do business and employ people. I also think that you would see falling numbers of people being able to go into higher education, as the government failed to replace tuition fee funding on a pound for pound basis, because it couldn’t afford to. I think you would see rising inflation destroying the value of people's savings and pensions as a consequence of a collapse in confidence in the pound as traders feared that a Corbyn led government would eventually do what all Socialist governments do in the end - print money and impose capital controls to try to stop it leaving the country.

It's not scaremongering - it's the lesson of history.

What do you think you would get? Bland soundbites about 'the many and not the few'?

[KerrAvon]

Sorry mate. You're not having it all your own way. I'll continue to support the Leave vote as long as the outcome is satisfactory and represents the wishes of the democratic majority of the country.

We could and should have been clearer with the vote stating that we will leave the EU on wto terms so that the vote was clear.

The o boy problem is that if it had been framed in this way, the vote would have been majority for remain, probably by over 65%. We could do this now, but you know as well as I do that if framed that way, the majority would be clearly for remain. And you would lose brexit altogether.

So we need a compromise that will speak for the majority of were going to move forward. I hope that parliament can find that with amendments to the agreed deal. But you will have to compromise some also on no deal because it isn't the democratic will and Parliament knows this. A reminder, the WA IS leaving the EU once the backdrop is solved. I'm sorry that so many of you don't like those terms but it is a compromise, one that I don't like, sticks in the craw, but it's better than no deal or revoke in my opinion. That may take many years (to solve the backstop) but I agree with Kerr that the WA is not a great deal for the EU either, and I think they will move to allow the WA to complete ASAP.

Is the 65% figure a product of your imagination, or is there science behind it?

The EU has been clear that the Withdrawal Agreement will not be reopened. Whether that might happen if a new PM wisely puts no deal back on the table, I don't know, but I wouldn't bet on it. Labour spent weeks demanding changes to the Political Declaration that they knew May could not give them and which were meaningless in any event, given that it isn’t a binding document.

As for ‘however long it takes’ , we have until 31st October for certain, after that you will be in the hands of an increasingly frustrated and impatient group of 27 countries, with a fair chance that France, Belgium and Spain will say ‘no’.

My guess is that you will see the EU agreeing to amend the Political Declaration to put a time limit on the backstop, provide that there is a clear indication that would get the WA through Parliament.

[ragingpup]

Is the 65% figure a product of your imagination, or is there science behind it?

The EU has been clear that the Withdrawal Agreement will not be reopened. Whether that might happen if a new PM wisely puts no deal back on the table, I don't know, but I wouldn't bet on it. Labour spent weeks demanding changes to the Political Declaration that they knew May could not give them and which were meaningless in any event, given that it isn’t a binding document.

As for ‘however long it takes’ , we have until 31st October for certain, after that you will be in the hands of an increasingly frustrated and impatient group of 27 countries, with a fair chance that France, Belgium and Spain will say ‘no’.

My guess is that you will see the EU agreeing to amend the Political Declaration to put a time limit on the backstop, provide that there is a clear indication that would get the WA through Parliament.

The 65% is arrived at as all polling suggests that we're split pretty evenly between no deal, revoke and in between.

I don't think the attempted negotiations were a waste of time as it was a good faith attempt to unlock the situation.

Your end scenario is a likely outcome. As you know from previous posts, I'm far from happy about it but compromise is the only way to avoid the extremes

[John2]

But reading them is easier than trawling to find the original sources on the internet.

I like how you're complementary without even realising it, like in your mind the content is such high quality it *must* have been taken from elsewhere otherwise why would you suggest it's not original. Every time you accuse someone of copy and pasting when to everyone else it's obviously just something they've written I read it as an accidental complement and smile.