O/T Jeremy corbyn

Just finished watching Michael Gove on LBC and found myself nodding along with him on almost every answer he gave. WTF!

I have to say that MG has made the most sense out of all the candidates so far. I think I'm going to be sick!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John2

He was making the point that we'll STILL have to produce them to the EU standards so it won't really be "on our terms" it will be on theirs.

---

Standards are generally good and accepted, we will stick to them where it’s in our interests, we have a choice.
Standards on goods and services are completely different to the political direction of Europe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragingpup

What a shamelessly one dimensional post that was. You can sometimes carry arguments that show some elements of being able to understand nuance and complexity in political ideas. This one was pure 'Daily Express'.

Anger for the victims of abimanable IRA terrorist actions yet no thought at all for the innocent lives lost over the years to the victims of the British state in successive governments. Likewise you repeatedly post about abominable actions of the Palestinians without any acknowledgement of the abominable actions of the Israeli state. You profess to be a reader of The Guardian paper which in fairness generally shows two sides to each narrative. I see no rub off of such sophistication from you here. You'll of course claim to be independent and above such influences. But it honestly would do you good to read both sides of political history, but just the UK imperialist one that you continually spout.

And most offensively of all you claim you "don't know what the evidence was" of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that sent our soldiers to their deaths. Absolute shame on you.

There was none.

We went to war based on knee jerk, erroneous evidence that played, as we always do, to the imperialist gut of our idiot leaders (and followers, shame on us too) And we wandered, blindly into it killing our own and creating circumstances that fuelled terrorist revenge that we still suffer from. Corbyn wanted further evidence of these "weapons of mass destruction", as did most right thinking snowflake libtards. Grist and Fire will be very proud of your post. And for that you should feel quite ashamed.

---

So rather than deal with the fact that the leader of your party and his pick for Home Secretary have acted as apologists for terrorists you resort to the - oh so inevitable - whatabouttery and personal attacks that you rely upon to try to distract attention from inconvenient truths.

Quick, get the thread back onto your endless posts about why Farage is far right. That's far more comfortable ground for you. Obviously Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell are preferable to him.

Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welovebooth

Corbyn wants to hold a secound referendum on brexit.

Guessing Rotherham was a brexit town will the people of the town vote for labour knowing he doesnt want to leave the eu and hold a second referendum

---

Corbyn wants to leave, most of the Labour Party don’t, that’s his dilemma.
If the brexit situation is not sorted then the people will have a say who they want to elect.
Brexit sorted, healey will get my vote.
Brexit not sorted, healey doesn’t get my vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John2

You're being very unfair here. His job is to hold the government to account and be the opposition and demand answers and evidence. He's damned if he does damned if he doesn't under your rules of engagement.

He absolutely should be asking these questions, the government can state that sources are sensitive or brief him privately, but to suggest he just shouldn't challenge things because it might be confidential is a bit of a poor argument.

---

I wasn't suggesting that he shouldn't challenge, John, but look at the terms of his challenge:

“Without credible evidence about the tanker attacks, the government’s rhetoric will only increase the threat of war.”

Quite apart from the non-sequitur within that statement, he was not asking a question, he was clearly implying that there is no evidence to support the US/UK government's position. He was playing his usual game of attacking anything that involves criticism of one of his chums, with chums being defined as 'anyone who doesn't like the Americans.

Do you think secret intelligence on Iran could be safely shared with someone who apparently thinks nothing of taking cash from an arm of the Iranian state? Bear in mind some of it may have come from human sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rolymiller

Mr Kerr raison d'etre is to be a critic of the left. He has no interest at all in criticising the right. Why not is a total mystery for someone who purports to be fair minded. His obsession with the Labour party is just so spiteful and unnecessary. Nobody says labour is perfect but neither are the other partys. To say that a Corbyn govt for this country would lead to some sort of cataclysmic economic disaster will just not be true. Even the most biased person realises that there really ain't much difference between the political party's and that is why voters are so pissed off on general with politics and look to nutters like farage as some sort of escape.

---

I don't think it spiteful and unnecessary to remain silent about the nature of Corbyn, Abbott and McDonell's politics even if it is inconvenient for raging and his ministry here.

Does Momentum issue blinkers, I wonder?

To say that a Corbyn govt for this country would lead to some sort of cataclysmic economic disaster will just not be true. Saying that doesn't make it true. History suggests that it isn't.

The Labour Party has lost its way, forgot what it should be doing...looking after the interests of working people in the UK.
They need to drop the obsession with the PLO, Hammas and anti Jewish agenda. It’s a vote loser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiletyke

I really don't think he was
We were & are members of the EU & as such will have been instrumental in forming those standards

---

I thought it blindingly obvious what my point was; Grist says that we'll be able to trade on our terms. I was pointing out that we won't. If we trade into foreign markets - including the EU - we'll trade on WTO terms or in accordance with the terms of any trade deals that we have entered into (chlorinated chicken anyone?). Any goods and services traded into a foreign market will have to comply with the regulatory requirements of that market.

As you point out, we have had a say in current EU regulations. We won't have a say in future post-Brexit regulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KerrAvon

I thought it blindingly obvious what my point was; Grist says that we'll be able to trade on our terms. I was pointing out that we won't. If we trade into foreign markets - including the EU - we'll trade on WTO terms or in accordance with the terms of any trade deals that we have entered into (chlorinated chicken anyone?). Any goods and services traded into a foreign market will have to comply with the regulatory requirements of that market.

As you point out, we have had a say in current EU regulations. We won't have a say in future post-Brexit regulations.

---

Nor they ours
What so suddenly we become unable to meet standards that we have met for decades
Don't we import more than we export to the EU,one of our strongest advantages which Maybot somehow failed to recognise & failed to use. That's why we are in this mess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grist_To_The_Mill

The Guardian is to the left as the Daily Mail is to the right.

You won’t get balanced articles in either.

---

Independent sourses say not. The Guardian is centre left (often promotes Lib Dems at elections) and the Daily Mail is Right Wing, no centre involves. More importantly, independent sources say that the Guardian is reliable with a high fact check rating whereas the Mail is unreliable with a tendency to use fake or misleading information to slant it's political views.