FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Brexit public inquiry
Brexit public inquiry
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
This seems to be gaining some currency, that at some point there will be an inquiry into this shambles and its costs.
What do you think?
From the pro-Brexit London Times today:
“One Whitehall source says: ‘In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative Party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood’.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This seems to be gaining some currency, that at some point there will be an inquiry into this shambles and its costs.
What do you think?
From the pro-Brexit London Times today:
“One Whitehall source says: ‘In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative Party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood’.”"
It is probably worth doing, but it will be a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. We are likely to hear that Remain was largely accurate, that certain unscrupulous individual (fairly well known) were trying to manipulate the result, others were telling lies, being deceiptful and falsifying much of the ‘upside’ of Brexit. Sadly, because it was only an ‘advisory’ referendum, none of the cheats can be locked away for the mess they have created. All we can learn is how not to let it happen again - which is I suppose a laudable outcome  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"This seems to be gaining some currency, that at some point there will be an inquiry into this shambles and its costs.
What do you think?
From the pro-Brexit London Times today:
“One Whitehall source says: ‘In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative Party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood’.”
It is probably worth doing, but it will be a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. We are likely to hear that Remain was largely accurate, that certain unscrupulous individual (fairly well known) were trying to manipulate the result, others were telling lies, being deceiptful and falsifying much of the ‘upside’ of Brexit. Sadly, because it was only an ‘advisory’ referendum, none of the cheats can be locked away for the mess they have created. All we can learn is how not to let it happen again - which is I suppose a laudable outcome "
"Accurate" within the parameters of any Conservative campaign that involves exaggerating the genuinely serious consequences to ludicrous levels.
The single biggest failure of the Remain campaign was doing this rather than actually explaining the benefits of EU membership.
It will be a rather depressing exercise if we do leave and discover the depth and breath of the deliberate Leave contradictions and obfuscation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This seems to be gaining some currency, that at some point there will be an inquiry into this shambles and its costs.
What do you think?
From the pro-Brexit London Times today:
“One Whitehall source says: ‘In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative Party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood’.”
It is probably worth doing, but it will be a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. We are likely to hear that Remain was largely accurate, that certain unscrupulous individual (fairly well known) were trying to manipulate the result, others were telling lies, being deceiptful and falsifying much of the ‘upside’ of Brexit. Sadly, because it was only an ‘advisory’ referendum, none of the cheats can be locked away for the mess they have created. All we can learn is how not to let it happen again - which is I suppose a laudable outcome "
I’m not sure that they cannot be locked up. The referendum was only consultative or advisory because we don’t have a written constitution that would have made it legally binding. But there were still legal requirements put in place for it. It was still governed under the rule of law. There must be other laws relating to electoral procedure and interference in the democratic process. I’m not positive about this though but I would think that there are. The problem may be in their enforcement because those who’ve have broke the law are extremely rich or perhaps in the government.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think it's almost inevitable, in some form, but maybe not for a while yet.
Agree setting the terms of reference will be very difficult, but certainly seems - to me - to be a need to examine the decision-making processes that led us to where we are. Whatever your view on Brexit, there have certainly been failings in government that have made it even harder than it was always going to be... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't. "
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately. "
*Referendum result
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Whether you voted leave or remain, it’s been a collosal failure of governance. That alone needs to learned from.
I read this morning that, in addition to primary legislation, Brexit requires some 700 pieces of secondary legislation known as statutory instruments. 300 are actually in place.
The UK, after almost three years, is hopelessly unprepared for leaving. That is shocking. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately. "
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Whether you voted leave or remain, it’s been a collosal failure of governance. That alone needs to learned from.
I read this morning that, in addition to primary legislation, Brexit requires some 700 pieces of secondary legislation known as statutory instruments. 300 are actually in place.
The UK, after almost three years, is hopelessly unprepared for leaving. That is shocking."
Exactly this. A complete failure of governance - and lack of collective strategy/direction/decision-making on behalf of the government, in my view. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+."
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Like I've said for a long time now no matter how Brexit pans out the main point going forward is for future Government's to never ever again ask the public to give a simple yes or no answer to a issue massively complicated and beyond the average voters knowledge to enable them to make a proper informed decision.
Should we allow Gay marriage Yes or No
Should we allow abortions Yes or No
Should we have permanent daylight saving/summer time Yes or No
Their the kind of issues easily dealt with a simple Yes or No
If we'd at least been told that after the Brexit negotiations we'd be given the final say as to whether we still want to leave on the negotiated terms then that would have been different. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories.
"
Then how did it get on the mandate.
How did it get voted through. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Like I've said for a long time now no matter how Brexit pans out the main point going forward is for future Government's to never ever again ask the public to give a simple yes or no answer to a issue massively complicated and beyond the average voters knowledge to enable them to make a proper informed decision.
Should we allow Gay marriage Yes or No
Should we allow abortions Yes or No
Should we have permanent daylight saving/summer time Yes or No
Their the kind of issues easily dealt with a simple Yes or No
If we'd at least been told that after the Brexit negotiations we'd be given the final say as to whether we still want to leave on the negotiated terms then that would have been different. "
This is why the whole thing was designed to get us out. Somebody on here put it well when they said it would be like asking the public to vote on which rocket propulsion system NASA should use on their next mission. Deeply technical and complex decisions like this are why we have a representative democracy. The fact the Tories put it to the people - and with such a pathetically low threshold (two-thirds is normal for constitutional changes in most nations), it is quite obvious what they were up to. This has always been them trying to free themselves from EU regulation so they can make a fortune at society’s expense. The US are clearly involved heavily in this too. They didn’t get their way during TTIP and Brexit has been a means for them to strengthen their hand at Britain’s and the EU’s expense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy. "
He didn't really campaign did he?
You really got a sense of commitment and conviction from him did you? I didn't.
It surprises me that he still retains the hero worship that he does. He is no more or less a politician than anyone else having maintained as ambiguous a Brexit position as he can I the hope of forcing a general election rather than engaging in finding a solution to the crisis. To be fair though, May has hardly invited discussion.
That isn't to say that Labour supported or supports Brexit. Its membership is remain dominated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara J OP TV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Article 50 was implemented by an overwhelming majority - that was the mandate of the referendum delivered.
The question no-one could answer then or now is what life looked after Article 50.
That is the impasse.
52 per cent of the vote is just that - it is not 100 per cent of the outcome.
A wiser leader would have built a vision around a cross party consensus - yes, we are leaving (52) but in a way that keeps us close (48).
Instead, we are being force-fed a very partisan outcome designed solely in the Conservative Party.
The Conservative Party is no longer one party however, but factions warring with each other for ideological reasons.
If the Conservative Party was the midwife of Brexit, it’s also in danger of becoming its assassin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"Article 50 was implemented by an overwhelming majority - that was the mandate of the referendum delivered.
The question no-one could answer then or now is what life looked after Article 50.
That is the impasse.
52 per cent of the vote is just that - it is not 100 per cent of the outcome.
A wiser leader would have built a vision around a cross party consensus - yes, we are leaving (52) but in a way that keeps us close (48).
Instead, we are being force-fed a very partisan outcome designed solely in the Conservative Party.
The Conservative Party is no longer one party however, but factions warring with each other for ideological reasons.
If the Conservative Party was the midwife of Brexit, it’s also in danger of becoming its assassin."
Instead - 'a wise leader' or wise house' is now looking to a customs union and single market when the 4 pillars will not be divided. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy.
He didn't really campaign did he?
You really got a sense of commitment and conviction from him did you? I didn't.
It surprises me that he still retains the hero worship that he does. He is no more or less a politician than anyone else having maintained as ambiguous a Brexit position as he can I the hope of forcing a general election rather than engaging in finding a solution to the crisis. To be fair though, May has hardly invited discussion.
That isn't to say that Labour supported or supports Brexit. Its membership is remain dominated."
It’s true that he campaigned more than any other politician. It might not have seemed that way but the media aren’t going to portray the reality while most of them are campaigning to leave. There’s nothing he could have done to reverse the result. The die was cast unfortunately. It then became his strategy to keep the pressure up on those who caused this. He knows full well what they are trying to achieve and understands that he must hurt them as much as he can by letting their own plot do that. He must not give the media anything substantial to bite onto. That’s why the whole time they’ve been coming out with all manner of bullshit to divert attention away from the Tories. He really has needed to sit on the fence because not doing so would have empowered the Tories - the architects of Brexit. The Tory party have put a noose around their own neck and he’s been trying to let them get on with that, because there’s not much else he could do after the result came in. That’s my opinion on it anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy.
He didn't really campaign did he?
You really got a sense of commitment and conviction from him did you? I didn't.
It surprises me that he still retains the hero worship that he does. He is no more or less a politician than anyone else having maintained as ambiguous a Brexit position as he can I the hope of forcing a general election rather than engaging in finding a solution to the crisis. To be fair though, May has hardly invited discussion.
That isn't to say that Labour supported or supports Brexit. Its membership is remain dominated.
It’s true that he campaigned more than any other politician. It might not have seemed that way but the media aren’t going to portray the reality while most of them are campaigning to leave. There’s nothing he could have done to reverse the result. The die was cast unfortunately. It then became his strategy to keep the pressure up on those who caused this. He knows full well what they are trying to achieve and understands that he must hurt them as much as he can by letting their own plot do that. He must not give the media anything substantial to bite onto. That’s why the whole time they’ve been coming out with all manner of bullshit to divert attention away from the Tories. He really has needed to sit on the fence because not doing so would have empowered the Tories - the architects of Brexit. The Tory party have put a noose around their own neck and he’s been trying to let them get on with that, because there’s not much else he could do after the result came in. That’s my opinion on it anyway. "
There's the hero-worship again.
Perhaps it's his unenthusiastic style, but he hardly made the case. His comments were like-warm at best.
Most remainers have a semi-enthusiastix attitude to the EU just as we do to our own government. That's perfectly normal I think.
You can't run a campaign based on that when the opposition are passionate about what they hate and detest even if there is no logic behind it.
For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.
Don't deny that he is as cynical a politician as any other even if you like his other policy positions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy.
He didn't really campaign did he?
You really got a sense of commitment and conviction from him did you? I didn't.
It surprises me that he still retains the hero worship that he does. He is no more or less a politician than anyone else having maintained as ambiguous a Brexit position as he can I the hope of forcing a general election rather than engaging in finding a solution to the crisis. To be fair though, May has hardly invited discussion.
That isn't to say that Labour supported or supports Brexit. Its membership is remain dominated.
It’s true that he campaigned more than any other politician. It might not have seemed that way but the media aren’t going to portray the reality while most of them are campaigning to leave. There’s nothing he could have done to reverse the result. The die was cast unfortunately. It then became his strategy to keep the pressure up on those who caused this. He knows full well what they are trying to achieve and understands that he must hurt them as much as he can by letting their own plot do that. He must not give the media anything substantial to bite onto. That’s why the whole time they’ve been coming out with all manner of bullshit to divert attention away from the Tories. He really has needed to sit on the fence because not doing so would have empowered the Tories - the architects of Brexit. The Tory party have put a noose around their own neck and he’s been trying to let them get on with that, because there’s not much else he could do after the result came in. That’s my opinion on it anyway.
There's the hero-worship again.
Perhaps it's his unenthusiastic style, but he hardly made the case. His comments were like-warm at best.
Most remainers have a semi-enthusiastix attitude to the EU just as we do to our own government. That's perfectly normal I think.
You can't run a campaign based on that when the opposition are passionate about what they hate and detest even if there is no logic behind it.
For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.
Don't deny that he is as cynical a politician as any other even if you like his other policy positions. "
I don’t worship any person.
The fact remains he campaigned more than any other politician and with a £1million less than the Tories. If you want to criticise someone then there’s plenty more fitting.
“For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.”
...And I’m glad of it. This has been a strategy not a confused muddle. Draw a line and the media would have gone to town on him and Labour - with the effect of empowering the architects of Brexit and allowing them to keep power in the long term.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy.
He didn't really campaign did he?
You really got a sense of commitment and conviction from him did you? I didn't.
It surprises me that he still retains the hero worship that he does. He is no more or less a politician than anyone else having maintained as ambiguous a Brexit position as he can I the hope of forcing a general election rather than engaging in finding a solution to the crisis. To be fair though, May has hardly invited discussion.
That isn't to say that Labour supported or supports Brexit. Its membership is remain dominated.
It’s true that he campaigned more than any other politician. It might not have seemed that way but the media aren’t going to portray the reality while most of them are campaigning to leave. There’s nothing he could have done to reverse the result. The die was cast unfortunately. It then became his strategy to keep the pressure up on those who caused this. He knows full well what they are trying to achieve and understands that he must hurt them as much as he can by letting their own plot do that. He must not give the media anything substantial to bite onto. That’s why the whole time they’ve been coming out with all manner of bullshit to divert attention away from the Tories. He really has needed to sit on the fence because not doing so would have empowered the Tories - the architects of Brexit. The Tory party have put a noose around their own neck and he’s been trying to let them get on with that, because there’s not much else he could do after the result came in. That’s my opinion on it anyway.
There's the hero-worship again.
Perhaps it's his unenthusiastic style, but he hardly made the case. His comments were like-warm at best.
Most remainers have a semi-enthusiastix attitude to the EU just as we do to our own government. That's perfectly normal I think.
You can't run a campaign based on that when the opposition are passionate about what they hate and detest even if there is no logic behind it.
For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.
Don't deny that he is as cynical a politician as any other even if you like his other policy positions.
I don’t worship any person.
The fact remains he campaigned more than any other politician and with a £1million less than the Tories. If you want to criticise someone then there’s plenty more fitting.
“For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.”
...And I’m glad of it. This has been a strategy not a confused muddle. Draw a line and the media would have gone to town on him and Labour - with the effect of empowering the architects of Brexit and allowing them to keep power in the long term.
"
The "fact" of him campaigning for Brexit is hardly that. Based on what?
Half-hearted support can be as damning as criticism.
If you cannot see that he is no more averse to hypocrisy and ambiguity in pursuit of his goals then you surely end up being no better than those you are opposed to.
Are you genuinely saying that he has done nothing wrong or ill-advised? That every negative story is down to a conspiracy against him?
There certainly are far worse people in politics, but that is just diversion and "whataboutism". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy.
He didn't really campaign did he?
You really got a sense of commitment and conviction from him did you? I didn't.
It surprises me that he still retains the hero worship that he does. He is no more or less a politician than anyone else having maintained as ambiguous a Brexit position as he can I the hope of forcing a general election rather than engaging in finding a solution to the crisis. To be fair though, May has hardly invited discussion.
That isn't to say that Labour supported or supports Brexit. Its membership is remain dominated.
It’s true that he campaigned more than any other politician. It might not have seemed that way but the media aren’t going to portray the reality while most of them are campaigning to leave. There’s nothing he could have done to reverse the result. The die was cast unfortunately. It then became his strategy to keep the pressure up on those who caused this. He knows full well what they are trying to achieve and understands that he must hurt them as much as he can by letting their own plot do that. He must not give the media anything substantial to bite onto. That’s why the whole time they’ve been coming out with all manner of bullshit to divert attention away from the Tories. He really has needed to sit on the fence because not doing so would have empowered the Tories - the architects of Brexit. The Tory party have put a noose around their own neck and he’s been trying to let them get on with that, because there’s not much else he could do after the result came in. That’s my opinion on it anyway.
There's the hero-worship again.
Perhaps it's his unenthusiastic style, but he hardly made the case. His comments were like-warm at best.
Most remainers have a semi-enthusiastix attitude to the EU just as we do to our own government. That's perfectly normal I think.
You can't run a campaign based on that when the opposition are passionate about what they hate and detest even if there is no logic behind it.
For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.
Don't deny that he is as cynical a politician as any other even if you like his other policy positions.
I don’t worship any person.
The fact remains he campaigned more than any other politician and with a £1million less than the Tories. If you want to criticise someone then there’s plenty more fitting.
“For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.”
...And I’m glad of it. This has been a strategy not a confused muddle. Draw a line and the media would have gone to town on him and Labour - with the effect of empowering the architects of Brexit and allowing them to keep power in the long term.
The "fact" of him campaigning for Brexit is hardly that. Based on what?
Half-hearted support can be as damning as criticism.
If you cannot see that he is no more averse to hypocrisy and ambiguity in pursuit of his goals then you surely end up being no better than those you are opposed to.
Are you genuinely saying that he has done nothing wrong or ill-advised? That every negative story is down to a conspiracy against him?
There certainly are far worse people in politics, but that is just diversion and "whataboutism"."
I didn’t say he campaigned for Brexit. He campaigned to remain - and more than any other politician.
I’m not saying he’s perfect. I’d assume that most people wouldn’t think another human could be.
The pursuit of his goals is different here though as he has people’s best interests at heart. He believes in a better nation for us - the people. So his goals in his case are entwined with the betterment of people’s lives. He must succeed then and is using staretgies he thinks will best achieve this.
My view on him is that he cares about people.
The lack of care for people by every single PM going back way before I was born is the biggest problem that society has had to endure.
So when I see a person whose life’s work has been to fight against social injustice and stick up for ordinary people, then I know he’s the right person to lead us.
And I think it’s a terrible shame that others don’t have their eyes open to this because he won’t be around forever.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Seems like an act of futility OP, after all we all know that brexit is a shit sandwich. Even those who bought into the whole con trick now have to understand that the only function of brexit was to keep the Tory party in power and stop it from tearing itself apart. Therefore we may as well have a public enquiry into why seemingly sane people hand all their wealth to con artists every day and when confronted with the reality that they have been conned refuse to believe the evidence to the point of refusing to give evidence against the criminals who have stolen everything they have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy.
He didn't really campaign did he?
You really got a sense of commitment and conviction from him did you? I didn't.
It surprises me that he still retains the hero worship that he does. He is no more or less a politician than anyone else having maintained as ambiguous a Brexit position as he can I the hope of forcing a general election rather than engaging in finding a solution to the crisis. To be fair though, May has hardly invited discussion.
That isn't to say that Labour supported or supports Brexit. Its membership is remain dominated.
It’s true that he campaigned more than any other politician. It might not have seemed that way but the media aren’t going to portray the reality while most of them are campaigning to leave. There’s nothing he could have done to reverse the result. The die was cast unfortunately. It then became his strategy to keep the pressure up on those who caused this. He knows full well what they are trying to achieve and understands that he must hurt them as much as he can by letting their own plot do that. He must not give the media anything substantial to bite onto. That’s why the whole time they’ve been coming out with all manner of bullshit to divert attention away from the Tories. He really has needed to sit on the fence because not doing so would have empowered the Tories - the architects of Brexit. The Tory party have put a noose around their own neck and he’s been trying to let them get on with that, because there’s not much else he could do after the result came in. That’s my opinion on it anyway.
There's the hero-worship again.
Perhaps it's his unenthusiastic style, but he hardly made the case. His comments were like-warm at best.
Most remainers have a semi-enthusiastix attitude to the EU just as we do to our own government. That's perfectly normal I think.
You can't run a campaign based on that when the opposition are passionate about what they hate and detest even if there is no logic behind it.
For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.
Don't deny that he is as cynical a politician as any other even if you like his other policy positions.
I don’t worship any person.
The fact remains he campaigned more than any other politician and with a £1million less than the Tories. If you want to criticise someone then there’s plenty more fitting.
“For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.”
...And I’m glad of it. This has been a strategy not a confused muddle. Draw a line and the media would have gone to town on him and Labour - with the effect of empowering the architects of Brexit and allowing them to keep power in the long term.
The "fact" of him campaigning for Brexit is hardly that. Based on what?
Half-hearted support can be as damning as criticism.
If you cannot see that he is no more averse to hypocrisy and ambiguity in pursuit of his goals then you surely end up being no better than those you are opposed to.
Are you genuinely saying that he has done nothing wrong or ill-advised? That every negative story is down to a conspiracy against him?
There certainly are far worse people in politics, but that is just diversion and "whataboutism"."
I have always admired your doggedness and the diligence with which you pursue our favourite one trick pony (you know, the one who campaigns ad nauseum for his ukip pals then cannot manage to keep his lies in order and ends up contradicting himself) but in this case I think you are buying into the media managed perception of JC. Personally I think he is willing to let this house of cards fall so that he can turn the country around with a general election and a true mandate for change. I admire his determination and even if he dresses a bit funny and sounds a bit angry I find far more to trust in him than any other “career” politician out there. I don’t know if what he is trying to do is the right direction but I fear that any other direction will lead to a collapse of the uk economy unseen in scale since the 1930’s. No hero worshipping going on here....just a search for honest and trustworthy leadership.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy.
He didn't really campaign did he?
You really got a sense of commitment and conviction from him did you? I didn't.
It surprises me that he still retains the hero worship that he does. He is no more or less a politician than anyone else having maintained as ambiguous a Brexit position as he can I the hope of forcing a general election rather than engaging in finding a solution to the crisis. To be fair though, May has hardly invited discussion.
That isn't to say that Labour supported or supports Brexit. Its membership is remain dominated.
It’s true that he campaigned more than any other politician. It might not have seemed that way but the media aren’t going to portray the reality while most of them are campaigning to leave. There’s nothing he could have done to reverse the result. The die was cast unfortunately. It then became his strategy to keep the pressure up on those who caused this. He knows full well what they are trying to achieve and understands that he must hurt them as much as he can by letting their own plot do that. He must not give the media anything substantial to bite onto. That’s why the whole time they’ve been coming out with all manner of bullshit to divert attention away from the Tories. He really has needed to sit on the fence because not doing so would have empowered the Tories - the architects of Brexit. The Tory party have put a noose around their own neck and he’s been trying to let them get on with that, because there’s not much else he could do after the result came in. That’s my opinion on it anyway.
There's the hero-worship again.
Perhaps it's his unenthusiastic style, but he hardly made the case. His comments were like-warm at best.
Most remainers have a semi-enthusiastix attitude to the EU just as we do to our own government. That's perfectly normal I think.
You can't run a campaign based on that when the opposition are passionate about what they hate and detest even if there is no logic behind it.
For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.
Don't deny that he is as cynical a politician as any other even if you like his other policy positions.
I don’t worship any person.
The fact remains he campaigned more than any other politician and with a £1million less than the Tories. If you want to criticise someone then there’s plenty more fitting.
“For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.”
...And I’m glad of it. This has been a strategy not a confused muddle. Draw a line and the media would have gone to town on him and Labour - with the effect of empowering the architects of Brexit and allowing them to keep power in the long term.
The "fact" of him campaigning for Brexit is hardly that. Based on what?
Half-hearted support can be as damning as criticism.
If you cannot see that he is no more averse to hypocrisy and ambiguity in pursuit of his goals then you surely end up being no better than those you are opposed to.
Are you genuinely saying that he has done nothing wrong or ill-advised? That every negative story is down to a conspiracy against him?
There certainly are far worse people in politics, but that is just diversion and "whataboutism".
I have always admired your doggedness and the diligence with which you pursue our favourite one trick pony (you know, the one who campaigns ad nauseum for his ukip pals then cannot manage to keep his lies in order and ends up contradicting himself) but in this case I think you are buying into the media managed perception of JC. Personally I think he is willing to let this house of cards fall so that he can turn the country around with a general election and a true mandate for change. I admire his determination and even if he dresses a bit funny and sounds a bit angry I find far more to trust in him than any other “career” politician out there. I don’t know if what he is trying to do is the right direction but I fear that any other direction will lead to a collapse of the uk economy unseen in scale since the 1930’s. No hero worshipping going on here....just a search for honest and trustworthy leadership. "
Completely agree. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Seems like an act of futility OP, after all we all know that brexit is a shit sandwich. Even those who bought into the whole con trick now have to understand that the only function of brexit was to keep the Tory party in power and stop it from tearing itself apart. Therefore we may as well have a public enquiry into why seemingly sane people hand all their wealth to con artists every day and when confronted with the reality that they have been conned refuse to believe the evidence to the point of refusing to give evidence against the criminals who have stolen everything they have. "
Where do you get your theorys from?Cloud cookoo land I reckon
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy.
He didn't really campaign did he?
You really got a sense of commitment and conviction from him did you? I didn't.
It surprises me that he still retains the hero worship that he does. He is no more or less a politician than anyone else having maintained as ambiguous a Brexit position as he can I the hope of forcing a general election rather than engaging in finding a solution to the crisis. To be fair though, May has hardly invited discussion.
That isn't to say that Labour supported or supports Brexit. Its membership is remain dominated.
It’s true that he campaigned more than any other politician. It might not have seemed that way but the media aren’t going to portray the reality while most of them are campaigning to leave. There’s nothing he could have done to reverse the result. The die was cast unfortunately. It then became his strategy to keep the pressure up on those who caused this. He knows full well what they are trying to achieve and understands that he must hurt them as much as he can by letting their own plot do that. He must not give the media anything substantial to bite onto. That’s why the whole time they’ve been coming out with all manner of bullshit to divert attention away from the Tories. He really has needed to sit on the fence because not doing so would have empowered the Tories - the architects of Brexit. The Tory party have put a noose around their own neck and he’s been trying to let them get on with that, because there’s not much else he could do after the result came in. That’s my opinion on it anyway.
There's the hero-worship again.
Perhaps it's his unenthusiastic style, but he hardly made the case. His comments were like-warm at best.
Most remainers have a semi-enthusiastix attitude to the EU just as we do to our own government. That's perfectly normal I think.
You can't run a campaign based on that when the opposition are passionate about what they hate and detest even if there is no logic behind it.
For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.
Don't deny that he is as cynical a politician as any other even if you like his other policy positions.
I don’t worship any person.
The fact remains he campaigned more than any other politician and with a £1million less than the Tories. If you want to criticise someone then there’s plenty more fitting.
“For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.”
...And I’m glad of it. This has been a strategy not a confused muddle. Draw a line and the media would have gone to town on him and Labour - with the effect of empowering the architects of Brexit and allowing them to keep power in the long term.
The "fact" of him campaigning for Brexit is hardly that. Based on what?
Half-hearted support can be as damning as criticism.
If you cannot see that he is no more averse to hypocrisy and ambiguity in pursuit of his goals then you surely end up being no better than those you are opposed to.
Are you genuinely saying that he has done nothing wrong or ill-advised? That every negative story is down to a conspiracy against him?
There certainly are far worse people in politics, but that is just diversion and "whataboutism".
I didn’t say he campaigned for Brexit. He campaigned to remain - and more than any other politician.
I’m not saying he’s perfect. I’d assume that most people wouldn’t think another human could be.
The pursuit of his goals is different here though as he has people’s best interests at heart. He believes in a better nation for us - the people. So his goals in his case are entwined with the betterment of people’s lives. He must succeed then and is using staretgies he thinks will best achieve this.
My view on him is that he cares about people.
The lack of care for people by every single PM going back way before I was born is the biggest problem that society has had to endure.
So when I see a person whose life’s work has been to fight against social injustice and stick up for ordinary people, then I know he’s the right person to lead us.
And I think it’s a terrible shame that others don’t have their eyes open to this because he won’t be around forever.
"
Typo. Agreed. We were discussing his half-hearted campaigning for remain.
I don't particularly dislike the man. I like some of his policies and think that others are not even vaguely realistic.
Can you not see strengths and weaknesses? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"An enquiry would coxt a fortune and to what end?Just money for lawers civil service etc,a waste of time leave it to historians"
Whilst I agree it would be a challenge, it would be good to get a clear view about who lied about what and how much was paid illegally. I feel that Farage, BJ, Davis and many others of that ilk would vote against any inquiry!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy.
He didn't really campaign did he?
You really got a sense of commitment and conviction from him did you? I didn't.
It surprises me that he still retains the hero worship that he does. He is no more or less a politician than anyone else having maintained as ambiguous a Brexit position as he can I the hope of forcing a general election rather than engaging in finding a solution to the crisis. To be fair though, May has hardly invited discussion.
That isn't to say that Labour supported or supports Brexit. Its membership is remain dominated.
It’s true that he campaigned more than any other politician. It might not have seemed that way but the media aren’t going to portray the reality while most of them are campaigning to leave. There’s nothing he could have done to reverse the result. The die was cast unfortunately. It then became his strategy to keep the pressure up on those who caused this. He knows full well what they are trying to achieve and understands that he must hurt them as much as he can by letting their own plot do that. He must not give the media anything substantial to bite onto. That’s why the whole time they’ve been coming out with all manner of bullshit to divert attention away from the Tories. He really has needed to sit on the fence because not doing so would have empowered the Tories - the architects of Brexit. The Tory party have put a noose around their own neck and he’s been trying to let them get on with that, because there’s not much else he could do after the result came in. That’s my opinion on it anyway.
There's the hero-worship again.
Perhaps it's his unenthusiastic style, but he hardly made the case. His comments were like-warm at best.
Most remainers have a semi-enthusiastix attitude to the EU just as we do to our own government. That's perfectly normal I think.
You can't run a campaign based on that when the opposition are passionate about what they hate and detest even if there is no logic behind it.
For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.
Don't deny that he is as cynical a politician as any other even if you like his other policy positions.
I don’t worship any person.
The fact remains he campaigned more than any other politician and with a £1million less than the Tories. If you want to criticise someone then there’s plenty more fitting.
“For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.”
...And I’m glad of it. This has been a strategy not a confused muddle. Draw a line and the media would have gone to town on him and Labour - with the effect of empowering the architects of Brexit and allowing them to keep power in the long term.
The "fact" of him campaigning for Brexit is hardly that. Based on what?
Half-hearted support can be as damning as criticism.
If you cannot see that he is no more averse to hypocrisy and ambiguity in pursuit of his goals then you surely end up being no better than those you are opposed to.
Are you genuinely saying that he has done nothing wrong or ill-advised? That every negative story is down to a conspiracy against him?
There certainly are far worse people in politics, but that is just diversion and "whataboutism".
I have always admired your doggedness and the diligence with which you pursue our favourite one trick pony (you know, the one who campaigns ad nauseum for his ukip pals then cannot manage to keep his lies in order and ends up contradicting himself) but in this case I think you are buying into the media managed perception of JC. Personally I think he is willing to let this house of cards fall so that he can turn the country around with a general election and a true mandate for change. I admire his determination and even if he dresses a bit funny and sounds a bit angry I find far more to trust in him than any other “career” politician out there. I don’t know if what he is trying to do is the right direction but I fear that any other direction will lead to a collapse of the uk economy unseen in scale since the 1930’s. No hero worshipping going on here....just a search for honest and trustworthy leadership. "
It matters not one jot if he is the Messiah or a very naughty boy.
If he can't communicate his vision then it will not happen.
There are very few conspiracies. It's almost always incompetence.
In the same way that I looked at Brexit and came to a conclusion I've looked at Labour policies and come to my own conclusion.
However, I've always been suspicious if people see no weakness in their viewpoint.
This is way off topic now. Why not start a Corbyn thread? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"This seems to be gaining some currency, that at some point there will be an inquiry into this shambles and its costs.
What do you think?
From the pro-Brexit London Times today:
“One Whitehall source says: ‘In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative Party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood’.”"
Wouldn't this need two enquiries?
One once some conclusion has been reached to try to work out why it has been such a train crash.
A second in about a decade to see what the consequences have been. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy.
He didn't really campaign did he?
You really got a sense of commitment and conviction from him did you? I didn't.
It surprises me that he still retains the hero worship that he does. He is no more or less a politician than anyone else having maintained as ambiguous a Brexit position as he can I the hope of forcing a general election rather than engaging in finding a solution to the crisis. To be fair though, May has hardly invited discussion.
That isn't to say that Labour supported or supports Brexit. Its membership is remain dominated.
It’s true that he campaigned more than any other politician. It might not have seemed that way but the media aren’t going to portray the reality while most of them are campaigning to leave. There’s nothing he could have done to reverse the result. The die was cast unfortunately. It then became his strategy to keep the pressure up on those who caused this. He knows full well what they are trying to achieve and understands that he must hurt them as much as he can by letting their own plot do that. He must not give the media anything substantial to bite onto. That’s why the whole time they’ve been coming out with all manner of bullshit to divert attention away from the Tories. He really has needed to sit on the fence because not doing so would have empowered the Tories - the architects of Brexit. The Tory party have put a noose around their own neck and he’s been trying to let them get on with that, because there’s not much else he could do after the result came in. That’s my opinion on it anyway.
There's the hero-worship again.
Perhaps it's his unenthusiastic style, but he hardly made the case. His comments were like-warm at best.
Most remainers have a semi-enthusiastix attitude to the EU just as we do to our own government. That's perfectly normal I think.
You can't run a campaign based on that when the opposition are passionate about what they hate and detest even if there is no logic behind it.
For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.
Don't deny that he is as cynical a politician as any other even if you like his other policy positions.
I don’t worship any person.
The fact remains he campaigned more than any other politician and with a £1million less than the Tories. If you want to criticise someone then there’s plenty more fitting.
“For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.”
...And I’m glad of it. This has been a strategy not a confused muddle. Draw a line and the media would have gone to town on him and Labour - with the effect of empowering the architects of Brexit and allowing them to keep power in the long term.
The "fact" of him campaigning for Brexit is hardly that. Based on what?
Half-hearted support can be as damning as criticism.
If you cannot see that he is no more averse to hypocrisy and ambiguity in pursuit of his goals then you surely end up being no better than those you are opposed to.
Are you genuinely saying that he has done nothing wrong or ill-advised? That every negative story is down to a conspiracy against him?
There certainly are far worse people in politics, but that is just diversion and "whataboutism".
I didn’t say he campaigned for Brexit. He campaigned to remain - and more than any other politician.
I’m not saying he’s perfect. I’d assume that most people wouldn’t think another human could be.
The pursuit of his goals is different here though as he has people’s best interests at heart. He believes in a better nation for us - the people. So his goals in his case are entwined with the betterment of people’s lives. He must succeed then and is using staretgies he thinks will best achieve this.
My view on him is that he cares about people.
The lack of care for people by every single PM going back way before I was born is the biggest problem that society has had to endure.
So when I see a person whose life’s work has been to fight against social injustice and stick up for ordinary people, then I know he’s the right person to lead us.
And I think it’s a terrible shame that others don’t have their eyes open to this because he won’t be around forever.
Typo. Agreed. We were discussing his half-hearted campaigning for remain.
I don't particularly dislike the man. I like some of his policies and think that others are not even vaguely realistic.
Can you not see strengths and weaknesses? "
I see his weaknesses, as I also see other’s. To me his weaknesses are acceptable. He might not be as passionate as some for the EU, however he still campaigned more than anyone else, because that’s how the result was called. He’s not a finely polished actor. I wouldn’t want him to be. This is something I like about him. He’s not completely comfortable infront of a camera. I don’t imagine he stands infront of the mirror reciting his lines like other politicians and rubbing Vaseline on his teeth for the perfect smile etc. If he did he might attract certain people, but he’d lose many others.
When he’s gone, who is there that is like him? Who else has spent their long life opposing injustices and being the voice of the ordinary person? There’s plenty of Blairs out there to take his place, but there’s not anyone like him really is there. There’s some decent ones but they haven’t got the weight of years that keeps him honest now with the power that comes with leadership. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"An enquiry would coxt a fortune and to what end?Just money for lawers civil service etc,a waste of time leave it to historians
Whilst I agree it would be a challenge, it would be good to get a clear view about who lied about what and how much was paid illegally. I feel that Farage, BJ, Davis and many others of that ilk would vote against any inquiry! "
I se where your coming from but is it worth the cost?Most enquiries are a complete waste of time and money and we would be years into the future by the time it was finished,I hope we will have all moved on |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"An enquiry would coxt a fortune and to what end?Just money for lawers civil service etc,a waste of time leave it to historians
Whilst I agree it would be a challenge, it would be good to get a clear view about who lied about what and how much was paid illegally. I feel that Farage, BJ, Davis and many others of that ilk would vote against any inquiry! I se where your coming from but is it worth the cost?Most enquiries are a complete waste of time and money and we would be years into the future by the time it was finished,I hope we will have all moved on"
Moving on would be good, but holding people to account is better. I’d really rather not be a situation where a bunch of Eton toffs had the chance to bugger our country up without any opportunity to call them out & preferably lock them up (never thought I’d use a Trumpism! ) but they have seriously conned people |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
If there was any need or argument for any enquiry into the actions of a sitting government for no forward planning then this is it ,,,, yes , an enquiry will cost but the money that must be spent in the hope of learning from mistakes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"If there was any need or argument for any enquiry into the actions of a sitting government for no forward planning then this is it ,,,, yes , an enquiry will cost but the money that must be spent in the hope of learning from mistakes "
The opposition has said there should be no money spent on no deal preparations. £93m has already gone to Scotland for councils to make brexit preparations. I don't think the we are remotely are of what preparations have gone on or are going on. There have been impact assessments in every major government department.
People voted brexit not for financial reasons (it is obviously going to hit), people voted to get out of the EU. The two are polar opposites. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *G LanaTV/TS
over a year ago
Gosport |
An investigation is needed into the behaviour of the Electoral Commission and how it's erroneous advice "tilted the playing field" in the favour of the leave campain at a critical point in the process. I feel this is vital if our democratic processes are going to have any credability going forwards. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"This seems to be gaining some currency, that at some point there will be an inquiry into this shambles and its costs.
What do you think?
From the pro-Brexit London Times today:
“One Whitehall source says: ‘In recent weeks there have been an increasing number of mentions in cabinet minutes about how Brexit has to be delivered for the sake of the Conservative Party. That will be damning when the public inquiry into Brexit happens. The civil service are now finding ways of ensuring that the political decisions that are being taken will one day be fully understood’.”"
i think it helps to understand what this means if you know there are two different "cabinet" meetings that take place....
one of them is a "normal" cabinet meeting, which is one where civil servants are present and where they talk about policy in relation to how it affects the nation.. at these meetings notes are taken, ect ect ect..
the other is a "political" cabinet meeting... at these meetings civil servants are NOT present (to prevent accusations of lobbying for examples and to keep them impartial as civil servants carry out policy, not make it!) and no notes are taken, this is where they for example talk about strategy ect ect
the reason why what is being reported is rare (and disturbing) is that would wouldn't normally hear about it because it sounds like what took places was a political cabinet meeting in a normal cabinet meeting circumstance....... and thats why civil servants were there taking notes....
but it reflects what we all guessed which is that a lot of the people in that room where on brexit they are putting the health of the conservative party first, above that of the health of the nation |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy.
He didn't really campaign did he?
You really got a sense of commitment and conviction from him did you? I didn't.
It surprises me that he still retains the hero worship that he does. He is no more or less a politician than anyone else having maintained as ambiguous a Brexit position as he can I the hope of forcing a general election rather than engaging in finding a solution to the crisis. To be fair though, May has hardly invited discussion.
That isn't to say that Labour supported or supports Brexit. Its membership is remain dominated.
It’s true that he campaigned more than any other politician. It might not have seemed that way but the media aren’t going to portray the reality while most of them are campaigning to leave. There’s nothing he could have done to reverse the result. The die was cast unfortunately. It then became his strategy to keep the pressure up on those who caused this. He knows full well what they are trying to achieve and understands that he must hurt them as much as he can by letting their own plot do that. He must not give the media anything substantial to bite onto. That’s why the whole time they’ve been coming out with all manner of bullshit to divert attention away from the Tories. He really has needed to sit on the fence because not doing so would have empowered the Tories - the architects of Brexit. The Tory party have put a noose around their own neck and he’s been trying to let them get on with that, because there’s not much else he could do after the result came in. That’s my opinion on it anyway.
There's the hero-worship again.
Perhaps it's his unenthusiastic style, but he hardly made the case. His comments were like-warm at best.
Most remainers have a semi-enthusiastix attitude to the EU just as we do to our own government. That's perfectly normal I think.
You can't run a campaign based on that when the opposition are passionate about what they hate and detest even if there is no logic behind it.
For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.
Don't deny that he is as cynical a politician as any other even if you like his other policy positions.
I don’t worship any person.
The fact remains he campaigned more than any other politician and with a £1million less than the Tories. If you want to criticise someone then there’s plenty more fitting.
“For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.”
...And I’m glad of it. This has been a strategy not a confused muddle. Draw a line and the media would have gone to town on him and Labour - with the effect of empowering the architects of Brexit and allowing them to keep power in the long term.
"
Jeremy's constructive ambiguity has succeeded so far, but he can't carry on with that now we are in the 11th hour |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
"When both sides of the house gave mandates to uphold the referendum, knowing full well there was deceit and spin at the heart of the brexit campaign, it seems untenable to have an inquiry now. I could understand an inquiry if the opposition decided not to support it from the start or if large groups of members left parties in protest as a result at the time but they didn't.
With the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote for it. However since that time it has been discovered beyond a doubt that leave campaign groups broke electoral law. This should have overturned the election result immediately.
Labour MP's were on the Brexit bus as much as the Tory's. If the Party didn't endorse the process it should have done a better job of promoting remain or sacking those MP's for going against party rules - it didn't. Both parties then ran mandates to uphold Brexit to one degree or another.
The MP's from all sides again voted to invoke A50 and to endorse Brexit, it was the majority of MP's in the house 500+.
Corbyn campaigned to remain more than any other politician - and the Labour Party also had £1 million less to do this with than the Tories. It’s incorrect to say that Labour wanted Brexit as much as the Tories. The Tories created this mess not Labour and as I said - with the state of the mainstream media in the UK, the opposition really had no choice but to vote to trigger article 50.
We have since discovered electoral law was broke by the leave campaign. This should have immediately overturned the result. The fact it hasn’t shows the state of democracy in the UK. This is an oligarchy.
He didn't really campaign did he?
You really got a sense of commitment and conviction from him did you? I didn't.
It surprises me that he still retains the hero worship that he does. He is no more or less a politician than anyone else having maintained as ambiguous a Brexit position as he can I the hope of forcing a general election rather than engaging in finding a solution to the crisis. To be fair though, May has hardly invited discussion.
That isn't to say that Labour supported or supports Brexit. Its membership is remain dominated.
It’s true that he campaigned more than any other politician. It might not have seemed that way but the media aren’t going to portray the reality while most of them are campaigning to leave. There’s nothing he could have done to reverse the result. The die was cast unfortunately. It then became his strategy to keep the pressure up on those who caused this. He knows full well what they are trying to achieve and understands that he must hurt them as much as he can by letting their own plot do that. He must not give the media anything substantial to bite onto. That’s why the whole time they’ve been coming out with all manner of bullshit to divert attention away from the Tories. He really has needed to sit on the fence because not doing so would have empowered the Tories - the architects of Brexit. The Tory party have put a noose around their own neck and he’s been trying to let them get on with that, because there’s not much else he could do after the result came in. That’s my opinion on it anyway.
There's the hero-worship again.
Perhaps it's his unenthusiastic style, but he hardly made the case. His comments were like-warm at best.
Most remainers have a semi-enthusiastix attitude to the EU just as we do to our own government. That's perfectly normal I think.
You can't run a campaign based on that when the opposition are passionate about what they hate and detest even if there is no logic behind it.
For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.
Don't deny that he is as cynical a politician as any other even if you like his other policy positions.
I don’t worship any person.
The fact remains he campaigned more than any other politician and with a £1million less than the Tories. If you want to criticise someone then there’s plenty more fitting.
“For the last two years he could have been unambiguous about Labour's Brexit position, but he has deliberately done the opposite.”
...And I’m glad of it. This has been a strategy not a confused muddle. Draw a line and the media would have gone to town on him and Labour - with the effect of empowering the architects of Brexit and allowing them to keep power in the long term.
Jeremy's constructive ambiguity has succeeded so far, but he can't carry on with that now we are in the 11th hour"
. If the ruling Conservative party , (who lead us into the referendum ) had done so with any sort of plan , we would not now be in this mess in the 11th hour , the plan should have been in place in the 1st minute , |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
