Currency vs Brexit: GBP Losses

Status
Not open for further replies.
HellCat said:
Corbyn sabotaged the Remain campaign, then spent the last year telling us we need to respect the 'mandate' of an advisory referendum to Leave.

Corbyn has just lost a binding General Election. He came second and he and his followers are demanding vote be overturned.

So which is it, Jeremy? Because it can't be both.
Click to expand...

You're kinda missing the part where nobody won the general election. When everybody loses, any government that can be formed (without threatening to start war in another location) is fair game.

It's not overturning the vote, you didn't vote for the government, you voted for your MP. Who would still be your MP regardless of whether Labour or the Tories form the government. But why let facts cloud your silly biases?
 
It's not bias or ignoring facts. Evidence shows that Corbyn half arsed to outright sabotaged the Remain effort and has spent the year since avoiding calling out the damage Brexit has caused because he really wants to lead it, thus doing his job as opposition leader would undermine that. As a result he has aided a Prime Minister who has taken every opportunity to say Remain voters aren't legitimate parts of our supposed democracy.

Corbyn then consented to May's vanity election, sure he would win. He didn't. Nor did she but she gained enough seats to make a coalition, a terrible one at that. Now Corbyn and his followers are insisting although he came in second he somehow won and thus her slight majority must be ignored.

He sabotaged efforts to hold an advisory referendum to account because the winning side is what he wanted and called opposing it opposing democracy. Now he's lost an actual binding general election and wants it overturned in his favour.

If you can't see the hypocrisy there I'm amazed. I don't want to be ruled by a Tory/DUP coalition but if there's going to be a Labour/progressives coalition, then Corbyn needs to be called out on his Eurosceptic hypocrisy.
 
Not wanting to go over Brexit again, in a hung parliament, if the party with the largest number of seats can't form a "strong and stable" government, then it is thereafter incumbent on the party with the next largest number of seats to try. Numerically there's no way that a 2-party government and opposition would work for Labour, but Corbyn could potentially try and form a unity government with cross-party support just to see Brexit through, and perhaps that would be the best face to present to the EU across the negotiating table. But there's a lot of hypotheticals to deal with first, including most importantly the ConDUP falling apart and failing. And given the kind of numbers, it is still possible for the Tories to try and govern without the DUP on an issue by issue basis. They have that right as well, as well as trying to form a unity government themselves, trying to build cross party consensus.

Problems. Very few parties want to work with the Tories, even if Theresa May quits. On Labour's side, Corbyn isn't a consensus guy, he thinks he can do it all himself and his way. Shadow Chancellor McDonald is an even bigger Eurosceptic than Corbyn.

One thing that lost Corbyn some of the points that he gained over the campaign, was claiming that he had won the election, or words to that effect on Friday morning, and refusing to see the reality that the Tories had the first shot at forming a government.
 
Labour would need to form a deal with either the Conservatives or the DUP in order to get into government though? And even a ridiculous and in practice impossible Lab/SNP/LD/Plaid/Green/Hermon/DUP deal would have just 325 seats out of 650...

Remove the DUP from the mix and there's less MPs than the Conservatives have by themselves.
 
Last edited:
That's why I think a unity government, with all parties, Con. Lab, LD, SNP and so on coming together just to get a consensus on Brexit for the sake of the nation is the best option. Europe isn't going to wait for us to get our government sorted out. Unless we have a deal by March 2019, we get kicked out on WTO rules.
 
My understanding is we might not even get that, as being part of WTO is currently part of our EU membership.
 
Rumour going around that May is trying to convince Farron to go into a coalition with her rather than DUP.

Concerning if true but be aware this is coming from the Corbyn lot who are already screaming "SNAKE! WE TOLD YOU!"
 
Given that Farron has been calling on May to resign I don't think she's going to get very far if she's even trying, which I've seen no evidence to suggest that she is...
 
It's rumour but that doesn't mean it's false. For instance, those of us who kept tabs knew the election was coming months ago via leaks like a hastily hidden Tory posting for a campaign manager.
 
Labour made their position absolutely clear during the election campaign that they would be going ahead with Brexit. People who voted leave AND remain clearly still voted for them knowing that, whether they supported the policy or supported their other policies in spite of that particular position.

This hang-up on a single issue, which most of the electorate clearly are not bothered by enough to make their main issue was one of May's mistakes in calling this election. If opposing Brexit is your biggest issue as a individual voter, fair enough. You had the Lib Dems to vote for. They most certainly did not win, and blaming Labour voters for not voting tactically to give you what you want (bear in mind a lot of Labour voters voted to leave and want to leave, so they wouldn't have wanted the Lib Dems influencing policy) seems rather petty.

The referendum campaign and vote is over. It's done. If people want to keep going over how unfair battles that have already been fought were then be my guest, but I really don't see the point. Everybody will be aware of how weak of a position Corbyn was in with the PLP at the time, as evidenced by the leadership challenge that followed the referendum. Was he really a reluctant remainer who didn't like the neoliberal ideology of the present day EU (frankly that describes my position) or was he a secret leaver who felt he had to give the PLP this since so many of them were in favour of remaining? We'll probably never know, at least until he writes his memoirs.

Either way, I don't think it really matters because as people have said, he came across as lukewarm on the EU which seems to be accurate to his beliefs. What did they want him to do, say a load of stuff he didn't believe because that's what they wanted to hear? Sounds like the sort of thing all the politicians people dislike do...
 
I disagree. Brexit is the key issue right now and one presented falsely to the electorate. Every expert worth their salt has said Brexit will dominate whichever government we get in focus and budget for a very long time because it is that an enormous and damaging a task. The idea of saying 'the referendum was a year ago' seems like a way to just close the issue off which, again, can't be done. An issue this immense can't be shoved under the carpet by saying 'one vote, one time'. The referendum was flawed and exploited and the outcome will define life in Britain far more than any general election in recent memory. We need to face up to that as a society rather than say 'Geez, some people just can't move on'.

People move on when they lose a general election because they know in a few years they can try again. This? If it goes wrong (and it already is), the country is in a lot of trouble.
 
I think regardless of how anyone personally feels about it, that line under Brexit has been drawn by the fact this election clearly was not about Brexit for most voters.

By all means I think those who are still committed to remaining in the EU can and should be able to argue their case, but the sensible way to do that now would be to argue it based on what this election has told us - That things such as welfare, funding for public services and taxation are where the battle is now being fought. The referendum however, I think it's time to let go of, because most people (rightly or wrongly) are just not interested in listening to anyone bang on about it any more. It's not a vote winning strategy.
 
Well yeah, but I think the clear down-the-middle split in where the UKIP vote went shows conclusively that the issue of Brexit was not necessarily tied to a conservative or liberal ideology, which was the Tories' big mistake. They thought the Labour voters who'd turned to UKIP had become more conservative, turns out they hadn't and that (as I've mentioned before itt) actually a lot of old Labour socialists were in favour of leaving too.

I don't think many people at all actually backed Labour or Tories at this election because of Brexit. Given that both parties said they'd go ahead with it and the Lib Dem vote didn't surge in response, I think it's clear most of the electorate are now at peace with the fact we'll be leaving. People appear to have voted based on very different and more pressing issues they're facing in their daily lives like funding for schools and the police, caring for the elderly, being paid a decent wage and being able to afford housing than the unknown unknown that is Brexit.
 
Labour got Brexit voters from UKIP because imo rightfully so they believe the social issues are more important, AND i think Corbyn and his team (Which I think will get stronger when he reshuffles) are gonna get a better deal. I voted remain cos I wanted to keep jobs and the laws. I believe Corbyn will try his best to keep those especially the laws for rights, May as these three days have shown is weak and hides. The reason "JC is on a victory parade" is because the tories have disappeared so he is the only person left talking. And I think he sees this coalition will collapse within a year and cause an election which labour could win. Cos this DUP alliance (People see as anti gay etc) will be toxic to the tories.
 
Had a chance to speak to one of the heads of the Best for Britain tactical voting and it's maddening.

What's happened is now both Tories and Labour are saying support for Brexit is 80%, as they got most votes with pro Brexit manifestos. The people who voted tactically are stuck explaining their vote on social media, which is effectively useless. And yet the campaign is saying this has put Remain in a good position...how?!

Labour haven't acknoweledged it at all, they're claiming people just love Corbyn that much. Labour MPs voted for Article 50 when they hated him. What will they do now they adore him?
 
HellCat said:
Had a chance to speak to one of the heads of the Best for Britain tactical voting and it's maddening.

What's happened is now both Tories and Labour are saying support for Brexit is 80%, as they got most votes with pro Brexit manifestos. The people who voted tactically are stuck explaining their vote on social media, which is effectively useless. And yet the campaign is saying this has put Remain in a good position...how?!

Labour haven't acknoweledged it at all, they're claiming people just love Corbyn that much. Labour MPs voted for Article 50 when they hated him. What will they do now they adore him?
Click to expand...

Equally, I voted Lib Dem but want Brexit to progress. (Stopping it now would be far more damaging to the national psyche.) I assume the Lib Dems magically know that?
 
HellCat said:
I get the feeling you're taking the piss.
Click to expand...
Nope. I voted Lib Dem because my area is a Tory/Lib Dem area. It pained me greatly to vote LD. I disagree with their priorities, policies and past behavior, but it was them or the Tories in my area. It was rather a lesser of two evils affair.

And despite being a committed Remaimer, I recognise that attempting to reverse, undo or simply retry democratic processes, without significant change in circumstance is immoral, disenfranchising and mocks the concept of democracy.

Also, let's be clear, it will come back to bite us later if we don't stick up for the democratic value of all fair votes, even if we strongly disagree with the outcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top