Professor Moriarty wrote: » I understand it. But people like a slogan they understand. Labour's empty slogan, which could mean anything, belies the confusion and division throughout the party leadership. Other parties have definitive slogans and positions. Labour don't.
shatners bassoon wrote: » I won't profess to know a great deal about Corbyn prior to the Brexit fiasco but to those who repeatedly call him out as useless and often, 'as bad as Boris', what could he have done differently that would change your opinion?
Enzokk wrote: » The deal vs Remain. Their policy is very simple, but you can make it complicated. Labour believes there is a better deal for the UK out there and would like to try and find out if there is. If they find one and it is beneficial they will back that new deal vs Remain. If however the best deal is the Johnson deal then it will go against Remain. Either way the people will decide and have a choice between what has been negotiated and Remain. This is not complicated to understand, unless you are trying not to understand it.
Enzokk wrote: » Seven weeks is a long time for a message to be amplified. Heathrow 3rd runway, Garden Bridge, Affairs, Lied to the Queen, Rather die in a ditch than request an extension, Doesn't want an election. Just a few more appearances like his at the Police academy where the recruit fainted and he babbled on and who knows how people will react at the poll booth.
shatners bassoon wrote: » I won't profess to know a great deal about Corbyn prior to the Brexit fiasco but to those who repeatedly call him out as useless and often, 'as bad as Boris', what could he have done differently that would change your opinion? That's a genuine question btw I have no allegiance to the guy.
schmittel wrote: » That's complete nonsense. The Lib Dems can revoke if their manifesto clearly says "We will revoke" and then they win a General Election on the strength of that manifesto. I agree that outcome is unlikely, but if it did happen there could be no valid questions about democracy.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » In 2017, Andrew Neil asked Tim Farron why he was proposing to renegotiate a deal with the EU and then campaign to remain in the EU. It is simply a preposterous position.
quokula wrote: » What would be less preposterous? Assuming you're not a hardcore Brexiteer (which I believe Andrew Neil is based on various things I've seen him say over the years, though he is a skilled journalist capable of putting pressure on all sides) And assuming you accept the revoke is just not something that can fly democratically - even if it happened it would be like gifting the next election to the far right so they can revoke again. A referendum is the only viable way forward for the UK if you believe in close ties to the EU. If one option is remain, there has to be another option. Shouldn't the government provide a second option that they believe is credible? Rather than an option that was negotiated by a different party and they believe would be seriously damaging to the UK? Or an option of No Deal which would be utterly reckless?
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Is it though? The SNP are running with a mandate for independence and could declare an independent Scotland based on getting the majority of MPs in Scotland (similar to Ireland in 1918)
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Is it not odd to negotiate a deal you intend to campaign against? A referendum already has Johnson's deal as a second option so there is no issue there.
quokula wrote: » But why not put something better? Again, Labour aren't looking for unicorns or squeezing something out of the EU, they're looking to remove Theresa May's red lines that they don't believe in. Also Labour haven't said they would campaign against it, I'd imagine they will allow individual MPs to decide, just as the Tories did after Cameron's renegotiation prior to the 2016 referendum.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » They won't, because Ireland in 1918 led to a war and then a civil war and then hostility and outright violence for many of the intervening 100 years, but they certainly could. Instead they will keep campaigning for an orderly independence.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » All I can see Labour getting is something akin to or identical to EEA status and that's just objectively inferior to remaining.
quokula wrote: » That's exactly what I see them getting, and it's objectively superior to every other possible option (other than remain, which they're also offering in a people's vote)
Zubeneschamali wrote: » But "Get Brexit Done" is a shockingly bad slogan for the party who have been blathering about Brexit for years and getting nothing done.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I'll still vote for that, mind. I'm just saying that Corbyn will need to come up with some sort of justification. He might even be able to woo the DUP if he commits to protecting the union.
Enzokk wrote: » I am getting very tired of Johnson's style. His blabbering and repeating his words is grating me. If I am alone then Johnson will be okay, but if others start finding him grating and he continues this on the campaign it will be bad for him. His performance again today at PMQs is underwhelming again on the NHS and his problem is and will always be that the Tories has been in charge for 9 years so they cannot hide behind the faults of another government. Another problem Johnson will have is any talk of parliament frustrating Brexit will be countered that he pulled the bill from parliament.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Because they are interactive, I can't display them here but The Economist have a poll tracker project some here might find useful:https://projects.economist.com/uk-elections/poll-tracker/
Varta wrote: » It's an excellent slogan when you support it with the idea that it was the opposition that stopped Brexit from being done. Far too many people on here only seeing it from one side. Looking at it objectively I can see an awful lot of people voting on the basis of that slogan and a lot of remain voters dividing their vote fruitlessly between the opposition parties in the FPTP system.
