O/T Jeremy corbyn

[KerrAvon]

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

I don't think it sensible to try to guess what would have happened based on current polling data.

I don't know whether Labour acted in good faith or whether they were continuing to play politics with the issue and placing themselves in a position where it's activists could claim they acted in good faith.

In fairness, it may be the case that some of the Labour side were acting in good faith and others weren't given the divisions within the party.

[ragingpup]

I don't think it sensible to try to guess what would have happened based on current polling data.

I don't know whether Labour acted in good faith or whether they were continuing to play politics with the issue and placing themselves in a position where it's activists could claim they acted in good faith.

In fairness, it may be the case that some of the Labour side were acting in good faith and others weren't given the divisions within the party.

No you don't really need to use current polling data to read the referendum. It speaks for itself in that 48% wanted to remain and the other 52% we can safely say would be split between soft/hard brexiters. The fact that 'Hard Brexit' to most people meant leaving the SM and CU still implied that there was a deal involved. So I think that it is absolutely safe to state the the majority of people when voting were in favour of soft/hard brexit/remain. You could argue against this as the No Dealers are attempting to but surely common sense and elementary maths argue against it.

In discussing this at lengths over the years with my fellow activists (! ) I have not heard one person in the party even remotely suggest that "we must just take a line that will lead to a general election, whatever that line is". It just doesn't happen. The vast majority of labour supporters want us to remain, but those that want to honour the election just want to protect the economy and livelihoods by negotiating a deal that does this. I know of not one No Deal labour party in the 50 or so that I have met in our area. Not one has talked of doing whatever it takes to bring the government down. I see what you are saying but it sounds paranoid and twisted in my opinion.

[Exiletyke]

And todays newly adopted in phrase is

" activist"

New kid on the block eh, or is that bloc?

[KerrAvon]

No you don't really need to use current polling data to read the referendum. It speaks for itself in that 48% wanted to remain and the other 52% we can safely say would be split between soft/hard brexiters. The fact that 'Hard Brexit' to most people meant leaving the SM and CU still implied that there was a deal involved. So I think that it is absolutely safe to state the the majority of people when voting were in favour of soft/hard brexit/remain. You could argue against this as the No Dealers are attempting to but surely common sense and elementary maths argue against it.

In discussing this at lengths over the years with my fellow activists (! ) I have not heard one person in the party even remotely suggest that "we must just take a line that will lead to a general election, whatever that line is". It just doesn't happen. The vast majority of labour supporters want us to remain, but those that want to honour the election just want to protect the economy and livelihoods by negotiating a deal that does this. I know of not one No Deal labour party in the 50 or so that I have met in our area. Not one has talked of doing whatever it takes to bring the government down. I see what you are saying but it sounds paranoid and twisted in my opinion.

I appreciate that it suits your argument to use current polling data to try to draw ‘65%’ conclusions from the referendum that took place more than three years ago, but no amount of quasi maths makes it a valid or sensible exercise. Who are you to say that Leave voters were equally spilt between hard and soft? Those terms hadn’t even been coined at that time.

Maybe the people who voted Leave wanted out and didn’t give much though to how it would happen? I don’t think it remotely safe let alone ‘absolutely’ safe to draw the conclusions that you are doing. I think you doing nothing more than trying to find a basis for what you want to be so and making up the maths to suit.

The public position of your party time and time again has been that it wants a General Election. Indeed, that is the only clear positon that they have adopted over Brexit. The Great Leader even said it on the day after the European Elections.

There is no deal that will protect the economy and livelihoods. Leaving means economic disruption. It’s as simple as that, but Leave won. Labour has since been instrumental in preventing the UK leaving on the only deal that is on offer and has punctuated its position with a no confidence vote and repeated calls for a GE.

Labour went into talks with the government demanding a commitment to a Custom Unions. Setting aside whether that is a good idea (I’d argue that it isn’t a good idea to commit to anything without knowing the price), they knew that May could not agree to it and that even if she did, there was no guarantee that either this or a future Parliament would agree to it. There was certianly no guarantee that a future Tory PM would. I don’t know if it was game playing or just an indication that Labour couldn’t think of anything else to do, but it was always a futile exercise.

Why are you taking umbrage at ‘activist’? You have told us that you like to get on the knocker to tell people of the happiness that you have found in the words of Jez. You are an activist. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.

[ragingpup]

I appreciate that it suits your argument to use current polling data to try to draw ‘65%’ conclusions from the referendum that took place more than three years ago, but no amount of quasi maths makes it a valid or sensible exercise. Who are you to say that Leave voters were equally spilt between hard and soft? Those terms hadn’t even been coined at that time.

Maybe the people who voted Leave wanted out and didn’t give much though to how it would happen? I don’t think it remotely safe let alone ‘absolutely’ safe to draw the conclusions that you are doing. I think you doing nothing more than trying to find a basis for what you want to be so and making up the maths to suit.

The public position of your party time and time again has been that it wants a General Election. Indeed, that is the only clear positon that they have adopted over Brexit. The Great Leader even said it on the day after the European Elections.

There is no deal that will protect the economy and livelihoods. Leaving means economic disruption. It’s as simple as that, but Leave won. Labour has since been instrumental in preventing the UK leaving on the only deal that is on offer and has punctuated its position with a no confidence vote and repeated calls for a GE.

Labour went into talks with the government demanding a commitment to a Custom Unions. Setting aside whether that is a good idea (I’d argue that it isn’t a good idea to commit to anything without knowing the price), they knew that May could not agree to it and that even if she did, there was no guarantee that either this or a future Parliament would agree to it. There was certianly no guarantee that a future Tory PM would. I don’t know if it was game playing or just an indication that Labour couldn’t think of anything else to do, but it was always a futile exercise.

Why are you taking umbrage at ‘activist’? You have told us that you like to get on the knocker to tell people of the happiness that you have found in the words of Jez. You are an activist. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.

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.

[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]

I appreciate that it suits your argument to use current polling data to try to draw ‘65%’ conclusions from the referendum that took place more than three years ago, but no amount of quasi maths makes it a valid or sensible exercise. Who are you to say that Leave voters were equally spilt between hard and soft? Those terms hadn’t even been coined at that time.

Maybe the people who voted Leave wanted out and didn’t give much though to how it would happen? I don’t think it remotely safe let alone ‘absolutely’ safe to draw the conclusions that you are doing. I think you doing nothing more than trying to find a basis for what you want to be so and making up the maths to suit.

The public position of your party time and time again has been that it wants a General Election. Indeed, that is the only clear positon that they have adopted over Brexit. The Great Leader even said it on the day after the European Elections.

There is no deal that will protect the economy and livelihoods. Leaving means economic disruption. It’s as simple as that, but Leave won. Labour has since been instrumental in preventing the UK leaving on the only deal that is on offer and has punctuated its position with a no confidence vote and repeated calls for a GE.

Labour went into talks with the government demanding a commitment to a Custom Unions. Setting aside whether that is a good idea (I’d argue that it isn’t a good idea to commit to anything without knowing the price), they knew that May could not agree to it and that even if she did, there was no guarantee that either this or a future Parliament would agree to it. There was certianly no guarantee that a future Tory PM would. I don’t know if it was game playing or just an indication that Labour couldn’t think of anything else to do, but it was always a futile exercise.

Why are you taking umbrage at ‘activist’? You have told us that you like to get on the knocker to tell people of the happiness that you have found in the words of Jez. You are an activist. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.

"There is no deal that will protect the economy and livelihoods. Leaving means economic disruption. It’s as simple as that, but Leave won. Labour has since been instrumental in preventing the UK leaving on the only deal that is on offer"

You assert this as a fact when it's really only your opinion
I believe that Labour has been so dithery on just about every Brexit issue
But reading your post particularly the bit highlighted above I get the impression that you are somehow blaming Labour for our current position
Make no bones about it the Tory Gov't [you know the strong & stable one] has well & truly made a dogs breafast of the leaving process
all on its own [most likely by design,[lots of moving parts & all that]
The reason for our current plight is found at the door of Maybot & her inept Gov't but I can at least understand them [ & you] for trying to shovel the sh1t from their doorstep to any other doorstep they [& you] can

No defence of Labour here,but really!

[ragingpup]

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.

I was thinking this. I hardly ever copy/paste, usual just link to articles. I may write a load of *******s, but at least it fools some folks into thinking it's by a proper writer!

[rolymiller]

You wouldn't be labelling supposed socialist policies there by any chance Mt Kerr. You may be wrong you know!

[KerrAvon]

You wouldn't be labelling supposed socialist policies there by any chance Mt Kerr. You may be wrong you know!

I don't think that you have got the hang of this labelling thing. I'm not labelling anyone or anything. I'm simply offering my views of what current Labour Party policies would do to the country.

The clue is the endless spending promises and the lack of any real idea of how to grow the economy to pay for it.

As for whether I'm wrong - it does happen. Interestingly, however, John McDonnell appears to recognise that a Labour government would cause a flight of capital out of the country (for which read 'jobs'). He let on a couple of years ago that he had been 'war gaming' the issue.