Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[NotThePars]

1 minute ago, G51 said:

If you turned it into a straight Remain vs Leave contest, you'd have gotten the same outcome as the 2016 referendum. Remain would have been whooped.

There was a compromise position available to Remainers when the indicative votes were being held - a Brexit so soft it barely counted as Brexit at all. But this wasn't acceptable to the fanatics, who could only accept some kind of annulment or reversal of 2016.

This was by far the best opportunity to avoid ending up where the UK is now, and Remainers rejected it.

In fairness to LTL, if you hadn't had the Hated Lib Dems running in this election on pure lies and misdirection then you wouldn't have a Conservative MP representing Grenfell. Sam Gyimah might be the biggest disgrace of the entire election.

 

Just now, welshbairn said:

I remember him being almost invisible during the campaign and being half hearted when he did appear. He claimed he was spending all his time out campaigning on the street and at rallies to bother with the MSM, so maybe that's true.

This article puts Corbyn's media appearances at 6.1% of the total coverage versus Johnson's 1%. In fairness, they do state that the accounts of the campaign claim that Johnson was more actively engaged but Seymour argues that Corbyn made sixty public appearances in as many days at the end of the campaign and quotes noted Corbyn supporter Angela Eagle praising him for travelling “up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25-year-old tire”. If Corbyn, and Labour, were actively engaged in public appearances and campaigning that wasn't being reflected in TV coverage then you one have major suspect for why that is which the article below points to.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/08/10/the-bbcs-obsession-with-balance-took-labour-off-air-during-the-referendum-campaign/

Not to be all The Hated BBC and it's also the fault of Labour for never coming to terms with the coverage mismatch but I firmly remember the campaign being framed as an internal battle of the Conservative Party and apparently that's backed up by the stats. 

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, G51 said:

Sure, because according to this logic the only way of stopping Brexit was to get behind Corbyn, and stopping Corbyn was far more important than stopping Brexit to these people.

That, and Labour refusing to countenance a compromise caretaker leader for the few months it would take.

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, Jedi said:

 

Incidentally the EU DID go after tax evasion from the likes of Amazon and Starbucks, as well as large Belgian breweries. Singapore on the Thames doesnt have to bother about that sort of nonsense now though, and a few deals with American pharma should open up the NHS nicely.

I don't know about the brewery case, but both of Amazon and Starbucks was the member state being challenged for not applying its tax law evenly to all taxpayers under state aid rules.  The EU decided that the Dutch rules that facilitated Starbucks avoidance were ok because everyone used them, whereas Ireland gave amazon preferential treatment. 

It does show an appetite for some degree of tax justice, granted, but it's not "clamping down on avoidance". 

As i said earlier, we're still in the oecd and have historically done what we've agreed through them to minimise avoidance. We changed our R&D tax rules to get off the oecd naughty step for example. The current government might depart from history though. 

I think that the UK will still be bound by the EU competition rules and the view that tax enforcement is part of that to a degree through the level playing field rules in the deal, but haven't fully digested those yet. It will be interesting to see what happens if we do try to become even more of a haven. 

[G51]

6 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

That, and Labour refusing to countenance a compromise caretaker leader for the few months it would take.

Because the Labour leader is democratically elected by the party members, and having him usurped by the PLP would be profoundly undemocratic.

End of the day, MP's had a choice, and they picked Brexit over Corbyn. Which, given the hysteria we saw over Brexit, gives you some indication as to just how much they hate left-wing politics.

Edited December 30, 2020 by G51

[BallochSonsFan]

3 minutes ago, G51 said:

Because the Labour leader is democratically elected by the party members, and having him usurped by the PLP would be profoundly undemocratic.

End of the day, MP's had a choice, and they picked Brexit over Corbyn. Which, given the hysteria we saw over Brexit, gives you some indication as to just how much they hate left-wing politics.

Corbyn was a coward. He wanted out but didnt want to go against the position of the majority of his MPs or his party members. So he did the bare minimum of campaigning during the referendum. He then campaigned on an entirely unworkable post-referendum policy.

[G51]

2 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

Corbyn was a coward. He wanted out but didnt want to go against the position of the majority of his MPs or his party members. So he did the bare minimum of campaigning during the referendum. He then campaigned on an entirely unworkable post-referendum policy.

Brave of pro-EU folk to concede that a 2nd referendum was a completely unworkable policy. If only they'd realised this before the Titanic hit the iceberg.

[welshbairn]

10 minutes ago, G51 said:

Because the Labour leader is democratically elected by the party members, and having him usurped by the PLP would be profoundly undemocratic.

I wasn't meaning a new Labour leader, Corbyn would have stayed, I meant a temporary PM in name only to allow a coalition to run things for a few months while they sorted out Brexit, and then had a general election.

[G51]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I wasn't meaning a new Labour leader, Corbyn would have stayed, I meant a temporary PM in name only to allow a coalition to run things for a few months while they sorted out Brexit, and then had a general election.

So Corbyn would have remained as Labour leader while another member of his party became PM?

You realise why that's undemocratic, right? Labour members are voting to elect someone to lead a Labour government.

[welshbairn]

8 minutes ago, G51 said:

So Corbyn would have remained as Labour leader while another member of his party became PM?

You realise why that's undemocratic, right? Labour members are voting to elect someone to lead a Labour government.

Coalitions are troublesome things. I wasn't thinking of someone else in Labour, maybe someone about to retire like Ken Clarke just for the 2 or 3 months it would take to sort. Instead we got Boris for 5 years. Corbyn had zero chance of support from even 100% of his own party, far less the other parties and Tory rebels, apart from maybe the SNP.

Edited December 30, 2020 by welshbairn

[G51]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Coalitions are troublesome things. I wasn't thinking of someone else in Labour, maybe someone about to retire like Ken Clarke just for the 2 or 3 months it would take to sort. Instead we got Boris for 5 years.

They're not that troublesome - the leader of the largest party becomes the leader of the government. That's how coalitions work all across the world, and it says much about the centre that it would rather trample over democratic conventions than respect them.

The idea of Ken Clarke, leader of a Labour government is laughable.

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, G51 said:

They're not that troublesome - the leader of the largest party becomes the leader of the government. That's how coalitions work all across the world, and it says much about the centre that it would rather trample over democratic conventions than respect them.

The idea of Ken Clarke, leader of a Labour government is laughable.

It wouldn't have been a Labour Government. I said at the start why it wouldn't have worked, neither Labour nor the rest of the opposition was willing to compromise on a caretaker PM to fulfil the constitutional requirements. It wasn't about fairness, it was about getting the job done and they failed.

Edited December 30, 2020 by welshbairn

[NotThePars]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

It wouldn't have been a Labour Government. I said at the start why it wouldn't have worked, neither Labour nor the rest of the opposition was willing to compromise on a caretaker PM to fulfil the constitutional requirements. 

How do you imagine it would've played outside of the Westminster bubble if this had happened?

[NotThePars]

25 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Why do you think he did the bare minimum when @NotThePars just showed he did more than any other Labour MP and was kept off the airwaves by editorial decisions to focus on Conservative infighting?

Why do you think the all-option confirmatory referendum was unworkable?

People really do just be saying anything

[G51]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

It wouldn't have been a Labour Government. I said at the start why it wouldn't have worked, neither Labour nor the rest of the opposition was willing to compromise on a caretaker PM to fulfil the constitutional requirements. It wasn't about fairness, it was about getting the job done and they failed.

Of the 330-odd members of Government, 270-odd would have been Labour. It's effectively a Labour government, the same way that the 2010 coalition was effectively a Tory one.

And you're right, it's not about fairness - it's about democracy.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, G51 said:

Of the 330-odd members of Government, 270-odd would have been Labour. It's effectively a Labour government, the same way that the 2010 coalition was effectively a Tory one.

And you're right, it's not about fairness - it's about democracy.

In that case it was right to leave the largest party in power, the Tories.

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

How do you imagine it would've played outside of the Westminster bubble if this had happened?

No idea. My point was just that a coalition of the opposition taking over the Government was the only way to avert what we've got now.

[SANTAN]

31 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Why do you think he did the bare minimum when @NotThePars just showed he did more than any other Labour MP and was kept off the airwaves by editorial decisions to focus on Conservative infighting?

Why do you think the all-option confirmatory referendum was unworkable?

He didn't show that at all, the quality of the argument is definitely more important than the amount of lip service you give to Novara media etc.. 

[John Lambies Doos]

I'm watching the debate on catch up - about 1 hour behind. 
Blackford's speech was absolutely superb - continually challenging Boris to respond which he of course declined.
This must be his best ever performance since he became SNP leader at WM.
Independence here we come!

Problem with this ICT is both Sky News and BBC pulled away before Blackfords speech to cover the vaccine conference. Afterwards Sky News gave a debrief of debate and failed to mention Blackfords speech (concentrating more on May's barb)
Majority of Scots probably won't get to see speech and if so it will watered down.

[BallochSonsFan]

34 minutes ago, MixuFruit said:

Why do you think he did the bare minimum when @NotThePars just showed he did more than any other Labour MP and was kept off the airwaves by editorial decisions to focus on Conservative infighting?

Why do you think the all-option confirmatory referendum was unworkable?

He did the absolute minimum for the remain campaign. No editor was going to keep the leader of the opposition off air during a campaign for remaining in the EU - a campaign during which the media were criticised by Leave voters for being significantly pro-EU. His public statements during the referendum campaign were as weak as a pretend homeopathy medicine or sex in a canoe: fucking close to water.

 

As for the unworkable referendum? What would it have achieved? Was it a mandate for the deal put to the electorate or an instruction to renegotiate? Was it a mandate for the deal or to cancel Brexit? You can't just keep re-running referendums until you get the answer that you want. Corbyn knew that and all he really did by allowing Labour to promote this idea of a 2nd referendum on the content of any deal is create an unhelpful sideshow. He didnt have the numbers to make it happen. Remain backing Tories were never likely to turn on their own government in enough numbers to make it happen. It was kite flying by somebody who knew that by that point he could say whatever he wanted to because he didnt have to worry about delivering on any of it.

[NotThePars]

12 minutes ago, Stormzy said:

He didn't show that at all, the quality of the argument is definitely more important than the amount of lip service you give to Novara media etc.. 

 

21 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

People really do just be saying anything