EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 568
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11635 Posts
| ||
|
rjpageuk
United Kingdom13 Posts
On November 06 2019 08:31 KwarK wrote:Pretty much what I thought. A dog could win this election with “If elected I will revoke article 50 because this Brexit shit is taking years and nobody cares anymore and we need to talk about police and public services and the NHS and pensions and all of that shit is way more important than Brexit but we just can’t do any of it until Brexit is over so we just need it to be over so fuck it, leave, stay, I don’t fucking care anymore but apparently we can’t leave so let’s just stay so we can stop fucking talking about it and talk about the NHS instead”. This is exactly Lib Dem's position. They wont be winning the election, so this is patently false. I cant comprehend the mental gymnastics required to blame Brexit on Corbyn and Labour - the only reason why we haven't already left is because of a number of defeats in parliament directly due to Labour's votes against. The Tories losing their majority last election is a big part of this. The only hope the UK has of not leaving the EU is for Labour to either win a majority or form a minority government and then for remain to win in the resulting referendum. Anyone who is serious about avoiding brexit should be fighting for that to happen. | ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9728 Posts
It restores some measure of confidence in our justice system, which I had always envisioned as being fairly biased towards the government and the police vs the people. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/police-ban-on-extinction-rebellion-protests-ruled-illegal-by-high-court Hundreds of Extinction Rebellion protesters may sue the Metropolitan police for unlawful arrest after the high court quashed an order banning the group’s protests in London last month. In a judgment handed down on Wednesday morning, Mr Justice Dingemans and Mr Justice Chamberlain said the section 14 order imposed during XR’s “autumn uprising” in October was unlawful. Dingemans said: “Separate gatherings, separated both in time and by many miles, even if coordinated under the umbrella of one body, are not a public assembly within the meaning of ... the act. “The XR autumn uprising intended to be held from 14 to 19 October was not therefore a public assembly … therefore the decision to impose the condition was unlawful because there was no power to impose it under … the act.” | ||
KwarK
United States43262 Posts
On November 06 2019 19:55 rjpageuk wrote: This is exactly Lib Dem's position. They wont be winning the election, so this is patently false. I cant comprehend the mental gymnastics required to blame Brexit on Corbyn and Labour - the only reason why we haven't already left is because of a number of defeats in parliament directly due to Labour's votes against. The Tories losing their majority last election is a big part of this. The only hope the UK has of not leaving the EU is for Labour to either win a majority or form a minority government and then for remain to win in the resulting referendum. Anyone who is serious about avoiding brexit should be fighting for that to happen. The Lib Dems aren’t “fuck it, we just need this to be over”, they’re Remain. They’re also a third party in a two party system so they’re irrelevant. Labour aren’t a Remain party or a “fuck it all” party, they’re a “well of course we must be paralyzed by Brexit until it’s decided but we don’t know how we plan to decide it”. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On November 06 2019 21:11 Jockmcplop wrote: So this is the first time I remember police policy in the UK being ruled unlawful in a court. Its fantastic news for the right to protest, because I had assumed the police would win this case, as they usually win every case like this. It restores some measure of confidence in our justice system, which I had always envisioned as being fairly biased towards the government and the police vs the people. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/06/police-ban-on-extinction-rebellion-protests-ruled-illegal-by-high-court I remember the mayor of London criticising the met's decision which lead me to wonder who exactly ordered the order in the first place. If the police didn't accidently arrest a bunch of MP's and a prominent journalist, the misuse of police power may not have been challenged. I hope, but don't expect to see some accountability from whatever public servant chose to issue the order. | ||
|
rjpageuk
United Kingdom13 Posts
On November 07 2019 01:27 KwarK wrote:The Lib Dems aren’t “fuck it, we just need this to be over”, they’re Remain. They’re also a third party in a two party system so they’re irrelevant. Their position is to revoke. It is also to then put all the bonus money this creates toward public services, so basically the exact position you outlined. On November 07 2019 01:27 KwarK wrote:Labour aren’t a Remain party or a “fuck it all” party, they’re a “well of course we must be paralyzed by Brexit until it’s decided but we don’t know how we plan to decide it”. Labour's position is pretty clear - referendum between remain and a new deal they will negotiate. As I said, the only way that the UK can avoid brexit now is for either the Lib Dems to win (which they wont), or for Labour to win either a majority or minority government and then for remain to win in the resultant referendum. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43262 Posts
On November 07 2019 23:27 rjpageuk wrote: Their position is to revoke. It is also to then put all the bonus money this creates toward public services, so basically the exact position you outlined. Labour's position is pretty clear - referendum between remain and a new deal they will negotiate. As I said, the only way that the UK can avoid brexit now is for either the Lib Dems to win (which they wont), or for Labour to win either a majority or minority government and then for remain to win in the resultant referendum. The Labour Brexit stance does not tell voters if we’ll be leaving, remaining, or what leaving will look like. They’re running on a platform of TBD. Do you know if they’ll be campaigning to support the deal they negotiated? Or how they’ll then get it through Parliament given referendums cannot bind Parliament? | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On November 08 2019 00:15 KwarK wrote: The Labour Brexit stance does not tell voters if we’ll be leaving, remaining, or what leaving will look like. They’re running on a platform of TBD. Do you know if they’ll be campaigning to support the deal they negotiated? Or how they’ll then get it through Parliament given referendums cannot bind Parliament? A referendum result on a specific deal would pass Parliament no problem. It did last time when they voted for a50, just that the referendum didn't give any instructions other than that. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43262 Posts
On November 08 2019 14:11 Longshank wrote: A referendum result on a specific deal would pass Parliament no problem. It did last time when they voted for a50, just that the referendum didn't give any instructions other than that. Maybe, depends on the deal and the result. I don't know that you'll count too many Tory MPs for a Corbyn deal if it breaks up the Union, for example. | ||
|
rjpageuk
United Kingdom13 Posts
On November 08 2019 00:15 KwarK wrote:The Labour Brexit stance does not tell voters if we’ll be leaving, remaining, or what leaving will look like. They’re running on a platform of TBD. Do you know if they’ll be campaigning to support the deal they negotiated? Or how they’ll then get it through Parliament given referendums cannot bind Parliament? How can the Labour Brexit stance tell voters if we'll be leaving or remaining if it is dependant on a referendum? What the leave option looks like is a legitimate criticism as Labour have clearly been vague about that, but your post just doesnt make sense. You are criticising Labour for not knowing what the result of a new referendum will be. With regard to whether they will be campaigning to support the deal they negotiated, Corbyn has said he will remain neutral on the issue and it will be up to individual MPs to decide which to support. In any case you are still avoiding the obvious conclusion that the only way brexit can be stopped is for Labour to win either a majority or minority government and then for remain to win in the resultant referendum. All the bluster, criticism and obfuscating of Labours position just makes that less likely to happen. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On November 08 2019 18:55 rjpageuk wrote: In any case you are still avoiding the obvious conclusion that the only way brexit can be stopped is for Labour to win either a majority or minority government and then for remain to win in the resultant referendum. All the bluster, criticism and obfuscating of Labours position just makes that less likely to happen. On the other hand, depending on your candidate, a vote for Labour could become a vote FOR leaving with Boris deal. That could become quite relevant should Boris form a minority government. I would be very wary of voting for someone like Lisa Nandy(who I otherwise like) if I was a remainer living in Wigan. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26085 Posts
In practice it is proving pretty disastrous and detrimental to the party at large in not having a more clear official party line on it. | ||
|
rjpageuk
United Kingdom13 Posts
On November 08 2019 19:58 Longshank wrote:On the other hand, depending on your candidate, a vote for Labour could become a vote FOR leaving with Boris deal. That could become quite relevant should Boris form a minority government. I would be very wary of voting for someone like Lisa Nandy(who I otherwise like) if I was a remainer living in Wigan. Yeah you are right there might be some special local issues you need to consider. In the example of Wigan though you dont have a lot of choice as the winner will either be Labour or the Tories, and in the choice between those you know what makes sense  .When I say if you want brexit to happen you need to do everything you can to ensure Labour win either a minority or majority government this means voting for whichever party you need to to keep the Tories out based on your local situation. On November 08 2019 22:14 Wombat_NI wrote:In practice it is proving pretty disastrous and detrimental to the party at large in not having a more clear official party line on it. Labour's party line on it is clear and has been clear for months, just because people keep saying it isnt clear doesnt make it so. How they are going to negotiate a leave option and do it so quickly is unclear and unnecessarily unclear too as Labour do not want to commit on the FOM issue, and this is a legitimate complaint but that doesnt mean their policy as a whole isnt clear. All you know is that Labour want to negotiate a better solution and this is a necessity for any policy that backs a second referendum as you need to have two options on the referendum and it would be irresponsible to include either no deal or boris's deal on any such referendum. Labour policy has certainly shifted a lot over the past two years, but what is ridiculous is that we are now at the point most remainers were demanding from the start i.e. a peoples vote on the final deal in all situations, except now it isnt good enough for some reason. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43262 Posts
On November 08 2019 18:55 rjpageuk wrote: How can the Labour Brexit stance tell voters if we'll be leaving or remaining if it is dependant on a referendum? What the leave option looks like is a legitimate criticism as Labour have clearly been vague about that, but your post just doesnt make sense. You are criticising Labour for not knowing what the result of a new referendum will be. With regard to whether they will be campaigning to support the deal they negotiated, Corbyn has said he will remain neutral on the issue and it will be up to individual MPs to decide which to support. In any case you are still avoiding the obvious conclusion that the only way brexit can be stopped is for Labour to win either a majority or minority government and then for remain to win in the resultant referendum. All the bluster, criticism and obfuscating of Labours position just makes that less likely to happen. Your first point is an obvious problem with “we’ll hold a referendum” as a manifesto promise. They’re calling on people to vote for them so that they can hold a vote and ask the voters what they should do. It’s about as far from leadership as you can get. If they believe we should stay they should argue it at the polls and get a mandate from the people there, if they believe we should stay they can do the same. This is going in with absolutely no stance and asking for a popular mandate (electoral win) to abdicate responsibility. It’s not just that they haven’t defined what they disliked about the existing deals or what a Labour deal looks like, it’s that they aren’t able to say whether they’ll even agree with what’ll be in their deal. It’s nonsensical, dishonest, and farcical. Let’s say that they win, they negotiate a new deal which places a trade barrier in the Irish Sea, and then take that to the people to approve or reject. Do Labour ask the people to support their deal or vote it down? If they ask them to support it then they’re a leave party masquerading as a confused party. If they ask them to oppose it, as they should because it’d break the Union, then what the fuck are we even doing here? Why are they negotiating deals they oppose? I want Boris to lose in a fucking landslide because he’s an insult to the collective dignity of the British people (not to mention the human race) but fucking hell Labour, get your shit together. Get in a room and work out whether you think we should leave the EU and then tell people what you decided. It’s called leadership. If you think we shouldn’t leave the EU then don’t commit to making an agreement to leave the EU and then dither on it. If you think we should then the time to say that is now. Say that you’re in favour of leaving but that you opposed the May deal because it lacked X, you’re going to try to get a new deal including X, and then to help get it through Parliament, because apparently you’re expecting to get a minority government at best(?), you’re going to seek a separate popular mandate for your deal. You can’t try to play both sides by roping in remain voters with a promise of a second referendum and a cancellation of Brexit while also insisting that you’re going to negotiate your own Brexit deal. If it was better organized the current Labour Party could aspire to being called systematically dishonest and self serving, but right now it’s failing to even serve itself. It’s a fucking clustershambles that results from a deficit of leadership. We can’t be four years into the Brexit drama and still have an opposition that doesn’t have a coherent policy on Brexit. | ||
|
Zealos
United Kingdom3576 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43262 Posts
I’m not okay with a Remain party negotiating a deal they don’t support unless they actively campaign against that deal in the referendum but even then it’s farcical. If Labour came out as a leave party and explained why their deal was going to be better, and were prepared to use the whip to get it through Parliament, I’d at least respect them. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43262 Posts
On November 09 2019 01:19 Zealos wrote: I think you way underestimate the level of political suicide it would be for Labour to out&out support revoking article 50 I think there’s popular support for Remain, and that it’s less divided on party lines that the support for Leave. But more importantly, if they do support revocation they cannot possibly negotiate an exit deal in good faith and the promise to do so is defrauding the electorate. Labour need to pick a side and that side can’t be “vote for us and if we win we’ll ask you what side that should be”. | ||
|
Banaora
Germany234 Posts
On November 09 2019 01:29 KwarK wrote: I think there’s popular support for Remain, and that it’s less divided on party lines that the support for Leave. But more importantly, if they do support revocation they cannot possibly negotiate an exit deal in good faith and the promise to do so is defrauding the electorate. Labour need to pick a side and that side can’t be “vote for us and if we win we’ll ask you what side that should be”. Vote for us and we will negotiate a labour brexit that ensures worker rights and ecologic standards are equal or above those in the EU. We will put this labour brexit to the vote to find out whether the public in the UK supports it or whether the majority would prefer to remain in the EU. Those could be the slogans. The thing is it is unclear to me what kind of deal labour wants with the EU. I heard something about labour wanting to keep freedom of movement. If that is correct, does labour want to stay in the single market? If they want to stay in the single market there will still be payments into the EU budget. Does labour want to give up political representation in the EU? If not what's leave supposed to mean? | ||
| ||
