lawred2 wrote: » I'm not sure even with a disastrous post apocalyptic Brexit that Corbyn will ever electable
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I'd say that the idea of voting for someone other than the Tories will cinch it for him.
Enzokk wrote: » Also, the Tories still have to claim the past 8 years of policies and austerity and whatever happens with Brexit they were in place before the vote and that is what Labour will focus on. You can see this with Corbyn and wanting to talk about domestic policies instead of Brexit on a Brexit debate shows he knows what could win him the next election. The question is though if Brexit is a disaster what portion of blame he will have to burden seeing as he is not providing any opposition to it.
lawred2 wrote: » I'm not sure even with a disastrous post apocalyptic Brexit that Corbyn will ever prove to be electable
lawred2 wrote: » Seems a bit farcical to point to Tory austerity of the past decade when you've stood idly by offering no alternative as the Tories delivered the single most devastating and long lasting blow to the British economy of all.. a blow that could lead to another decade's worth of austerity but this time under a labour government. He's toxic
Headshot wrote: » Another defeat for May tonight. Good thing it proves there's no majority for leaving the EU without a deal
Enzokk wrote: » Yes he is toxic, but he is not the other party as pointed out by ancapailldorcha.
Itssoeasy wrote: » What was the vote on that proves that ?
cml387 wrote: » Much as we might like to ignore the point,Corbyn's view of the EU corresponds with big proportion of his working class voters, if not with his parliamentary party.
listermint wrote: » Well I don't have to look far for Minsters telling us that they will be invited into former colonies who will seek to be 'guided' by Britain in trade relations. As if Britain were the source of all Political guidance. There's an arrogance in those statements, I'm sure you've seen them yourself. Tell me what you would read from Minsters making such proclamations ?
Beechwoodspark wrote: he is a total and utter leftwing ideologue. He’s spent decades up to his neck in it. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. He is far too much of a impractical man bound by theory to ever be an effective PM.
S.M.B. wrote: » I'm going to struggle with my vote in the next GE if Corbyn is there. I'd also love to see how he'd go down at a Glastonbury appearance this year? I was there in 2016 and if be stunned of the festival going public hold him in such high regard right now because of his stance on brexit.
Tell me how wrote: » Is there a UK version of Boards where regular people discuss Brexit or is it all taking place on Twitter and Facebook. I would be interested in viewing the assessment part of their opinions. I suspect the opinions themselves are typically polarised.
jm08 wrote: » Sunderland has Nissan which is a lot more than a lot of regions have. Despite being told by Nissan to vote remain, they voted to leave. Explain that one!
Enzokk wrote: » Even the phrase you used there, giving powers over to the EU. That makes it sound as if the UK has had to surrender decisions to an institution that it has no control over. We know this is not true but the phrase you just used and that was used extensively during the campaign is not an accurate assessment of the true position of the UK before Brexit.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » Members of the EU do surrender decisions to an institution they have no power over. It's the nature of the beast. Why wouldn't democrats want to be able to change their government if they do not agree with its decisions.
Sam Russell wrote: » The UK continued to spend huge sums on defence, and in particular, on Nuclear weapons, first developing their own, and then buying the US ones. They have steadily reduced the forces over the years and now have a much smaller navy, army and air force, but are still prepared to deploy them in support of the US in wars that are really of no interest to the UK. Why are they in Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan? Why do they need nuclear weapons that can only be used with the permission of the USA? The Germans did well because they controlled the labour unions through cooperation, and did not spend on the military.
Calina wrote: » Uh, they do have power over.
BonnieSituation wrote: » I certainly hope you mean 2017? I was stuck in that crowd and I've never been so embarrassed for my generation with that charlatan up there espousing "a better way". It was awful.
ThePanjandrum wrote: » No, they don't, they have a degree of representation but most of the power in the EU is not wielded by the European Parliament. And in the case of the UK, I think that it has the least number of MEPs in relation to its population of any member nation.
J Mysterio wrote: » You can have all the control you want when your country is lying in ruins. Not so great then. I also find that people who advance this argument have great difficulty in explaining exactly in which areas they need more control or where control is lacking. It's just emotional bollocks.
