I believe that some of the poker chat posters have organised a party, to celebrate this thread being moved after 5 months. What they going to moan about now?
Goldon is a perfect example of why the average person on the street shouldn't have been allowed to vote on something so important.
Ha ! Ha ! You lost your Credibility some time ago ...... everyone in the UK should be made to vote or face prosecution .... that way we would have true Democratic vote. Till then we have majority in favour of Leave. Like it or Lump it ...... live with it.
I've just picked one but all the polls and info shows that Remain would cruise to victory if another vote was granted.
This is because it would now be an informed vote, instead of voting in the dark like we did in 2016. We've all seen that leaving the EU is gonna demolish our economy, and that there are zero tangible benefits to leaving.
Of course there will still be a number of idiots that think ''Brexit means Brexit'' and 'the will of the people' and all that bo11ocks, but they would be firmly in the minority.
I am reverting to ignoring your posts. Anyone that genuinely believes that the EU are responsible for UK citizens debts, and force people to live in slums, can make no real contribution to this debate. To allow someone that is so ill informed that they believe the above, to take part in a referendum, is clearly the waste of a vote.
This "debate" is turning into 2 or 3 people setting out 1 side of an argument, and taking the micky out of anyone who tries to defend Brexit.
Anyone who has read my previous posts on this topic knows where my sympathies lie. Nevertheless, in the spirit of fair play, I think it is only right that I set out some of the reasons why Brexit won the battle.
1. We are an island, rather different from Continental Europe. Other EU Members have huge borders with other countries, and are used to co-existing. We are not.
2. We have spent most of our history fighting the very same countries that are in the EU. That not only affects the way we deal with those countries, but also the way they deal with us. So (for example) France used its veto to prevent us joining for many years. Barnier is as appalling a negotiator as Davis, but no-one in Europe speaks out in our favour.
3. We have never been an integral part of the EU, rather someone on the fringes of the team. So (for example) we are not in the Euro, and have great antipathy to ever joining it. We do not wish to have greater fiscal integration.
4. Similarly, we wish to maintain our own Armed Forces, and not just be a part of some European Army.
5. We do not trust what we perceive as unelected Commissioners telling us what we can and cannot do. We have never understood the different strands of European Union governance.
6. Immigration. Firstly, coming back to us being principally an island nation, we do not want people from other countries having an automatic right to come here without us having a clear say. Secondly, a "points based" system of immigration makes more sense for an island nation. As an example, EU rules prevent us being able to recruit enough chefs for Indian restaurants. We need to target immigration that works for us, not the Continental land mass.
7. We have a clear affection for certain things that, although they are European, we still hold dear. Our monarchy might be German, but we trust them far more than an EU Commissioner. We want the (French) (avoirdupois) lbs and ozs to be displayed alongside kgs.
8. IF it was just the old European Economic Community, we would be mad to leave. It is not. It is a Union. The majority of people voted against having one. The Minority (including me) need to accept that and move on.
I keep hearing about Brexiteers not being honest at the time. There is some truth in that. However, it conveniently ignores the fact that the Remain camp seemed to just have the argument that the boogeyman was going to get us. People just did not believe that. Everyone knew where Farage stood. With the late exception of Gordon Brown, Remainers were vague and complacent.
''This "debate" is turning into 2 or 3 people setting out 1 side of an argument, and taking the micky out of anyone who tries to defend Brexit''
Well not really. There is one regular 'leaver' in here, and when people put genuine questions to him he responds with gibberish, so really he's taking the p1ss out of himself.
This "debate" is turning into 2 or 3 people setting out 1 side of an argument, and taking the micky out of anyone who tries to defend Brexit.
Anyone who has read my previous posts on this topic knows where my sympathies lie. Nevertheless, in the spirit of fair play, I think it is only right that I set out some of the reasons why Brexit won the battle.
1. We are an island, rather different from Continental Europe. Other EU Members have huge borders with other countries, and are used to co-existing. We are not.
2. We have spent most of our history fighting the very same countries that are in the EU. That not only affects the way we deal with those countries, but also the way they deal with us. So (for example) France used its veto to prevent us joining for many years. Barnier is as appalling a negotiator as Davis, but no-one in Europe speaks out in our favour.
3. We have never been an integral part of the EU, rather someone on the fringes of the team. So (for example) we are not in the Euro, and have great antipathy to ever joining it. We do not wish to have greater fiscal integration.
4. Similarly, we wish to maintain our own Armed Forces, and not just be a part of some European Army.
5. We do not trust what we perceive as unelected Commissioners telling us what we can and cannot do. We have never understood the different strands of European Union governance.
6. Immigration. Firstly, coming back to us being principally an island nation, we do not want people from other countries having an automatic right to come here without us having a clear say. Secondly, a "points based" system of immigration makes more sense for an island nation. As an example, EU rules prevent us being able to recruit enough chefs for Indian restaurants. We need to target immigration that works for us, not the Continental land mass.
7. We have a clear affection for certain things that, although they are European, we still hold dear. Our monarchy might be German, but we trust them far more than an EU Commissioner. We want the (French) (avoirdupois) lbs and ozs to be displayed alongside kgs.
8. IF it was just the old European Economic Community, we would be mad to leave. It is not. It is a Union. The majority of people voted against having one. The Minority (including me) need to accept that and move on.
I keep hearing about Brexiteers not being honest at the time. There is some truth in that. However, it conveniently ignores the fact that the Remain camp seemed to just have the argument that the boogeyman was going to get us. People just did not believe that. Everyone knew where Farage stood. With the late exception of Gordon Brown, Remainers were vague and complacent.
Firstly, other than those appearing on this thread purely to moan about the fact that it shouldn't have been in poker chat, there has been one person that has been criticised. This criticism has been concerning his ridiculous, nonsensical, unfunny posts, rather than any unfairness. I can only treat a fan of Victor Orban, a man who has, among many other things, described immigrants as poisonous, with utter contempt. To hold this man up as representative of the EU is utter nonsense.
Many of the points you make may be quite true, but I don't feel they are really representative of the reasons that people voted to leave, the majority of which are much simpler. Many of the people that voted to leave will be unaware of many of the points you make.
Many ill informed, currently unhappy with the status quo, leave voters will be so disappointed when little change to their everyday lives, occurs the day after we leave. Many more will become disappointed when the economic effects kick in.
If you take the person referred to above, he really thinks that the EU is responsible for one in six British families being in debt, and for people being forced to live in slums for 40 years. Leaving the EU will obviously not effect either case.
I watched a programme on Welsh tv just after the referendum, where they interviewed leave voting members of the public, and asked them for their reasons for voting leave. The first was a woman, who I swear was about 90, and she said that the immigrants are taking all our jobs. The second was a fella who said that the EU don't to anything for us. The interviewer said, what about the money, to which he replied they only give us about 10 million per year in Wales. Yet in reality the give us 650 million per year in Wales, and how many jobs does a woman of about 90 want.
Immigration was an influencing factor in the referendum.
I honestly think that successive Governments have been ineffective on this matter. Our immigration over the last few years has been split with about half coming from the EU countries, and half from elsewhere. So I would have no idea why there would be any difficulty over Indian chefs. Anyone would think that we couldn't train some of the Indians already living here to become chefs, if there is a shortage. Or if it was at all possible to train someone who wasn't Indian, to become an Indian chef.
On a wider point, we manage immigration so badly in this country. There is no plan. There may be one and a half million immigrants in this country that shouldn't be. These are from all over the world not the EU.
Some EU countries that implement the rules correctly, make all EU immigrants register, send them back if they haven't got a job in three months, and only allow them to stay for a limited period. We don't do any of this.
We just do immigration badly. I listened to a politician being quizzed about the lack of a border in Ireland being used to smuggle people into the UK. He bluntly said there is no need for that, they could just fly into Luton Airport because we don't do any checks.
We often take over 20 years just to make a decision on whether an asylum seeker can stay.
This "debate" is turning into 2 or 3 people setting out 1 side of an argument, and taking the micky out of anyone who tries to defend Brexit.
Anyone who has read my previous posts on this topic knows where my sympathies lie. Nevertheless, in the spirit of fair play, I think it is only right that I set out some of the reasons why Brexit won the battle.
1. We are an island, rather different from Continental Europe. Other EU Members have huge borders with other countries, and are used to co-existing. We are not.
2. We have spent most of our history fighting the very same countries that are in the EU. That not only affects the way we deal with those countries, but also the way they deal with us. So (for example) France used its veto to prevent us joining for many years. Barnier is as appalling a negotiator as Davis, but no-one in Europe speaks out in our favour.
3. We have never been an integral part of the EU, rather someone on the fringes of the team. So (for example) we are not in the Euro, and have great antipathy to ever joining it. We do not wish to have greater fiscal integration.
4. Similarly, we wish to maintain our own Armed Forces, and not just be a part of some European Army.
5. We do not trust what we perceive as unelected Commissioners telling us what we can and cannot do. We have never understood the different strands of European Union governance.
6. Immigration. Firstly, coming back to us being principally an island nation, we do not want people from other countries having an automatic right to come here without us having a clear say. Secondly, a "points based" system of immigration makes more sense for an island nation. As an example, EU rules prevent us being able to recruit enough chefs for Indian restaurants. We need to target immigration that works for us, not the Continental land mass.
7. We have a clear affection for certain things that, although they are European, we still hold dear. Our monarchy might be German, but we trust them far more than an EU Commissioner. We want the (French) (avoirdupois) lbs and ozs to be displayed alongside kgs.
8. IF it was just the old European Economic Community, we would be mad to leave. It is not. It is a Union. The majority of people voted against having one. The Minority (including me) need to accept that and move on.
I keep hearing about Brexiteers not being honest at the time. There is some truth in that. However, it conveniently ignores the fact that the Remain camp seemed to just have the argument that the boogeyman was going to get us. People just did not believe that. Everyone knew where Farage stood. With the late exception of Gordon Brown, Remainers were vague and complacent.
I would dispute your point one. We have always had immigrant from all over the world. Being an island with many busy ports has made it easy for people from elsewhere to arrive, and live in Britain.
On your point two, I think that our previous wars are of less concern to our youngsters, who were unlikely to be taking Agincourt into account in the referendum. They will also be less likely than our generation to be asking the first German they came across, who won the war? I don't think there is much resistance shown to the Eastern Europeans doing jobs that Brits don't want to do. They seem to be happy with menial jobs, in care, fruit picking, working in the health service, serving in bars, cleaning in hotels etc.
I would not criticise Michel Barnier for his negotiating. He has been told what he can and cant do. The EU is a rules based members club. From day one we have accused him of intransigence for only sticking to the rules, that we helped to formulate. The four freedoms are fundamental and indivisible. Everybody knows that, yet we accuse them of intransigence over their refusal to split them. David Davis said we could get the same benefits after we left, that we had when we were members. That was an out and out lie. Why on earth would any club member speak out in favour of a member that was leaving?
3. We have never been an integral part of the EU, rather someone on the fringes of the team. So (for example) we are not in the Euro, and have great antipathy to ever joining it. We do not wish to have greater fiscal integration.
4. Similarly, we wish to maintain our own Armed Forces, and not just be a part of some European Army.
5. We do not trust what we perceive as unelected Commissioners telling us what we can and cannot do. We have never understood the different strands of European Union governance.
6. Immigration. Firstly, coming back to us being principally an island nation, we do not want people from other countries having an automatic right to come here without us having a clear say. Secondly, a "points based" system of immigration makes more sense for an island nation. As an example, EU rules prevent us being able to recruit enough chefs for Indian restaurants. We need to target immigration that works for us, not the Continental land mass.
7. We have a clear affection for certain things that, although they are European, we still hold dear. Our monarchy might be German, but we trust them far more than an EU Commissioner. We want the (French) (avoirdupois) lbs and ozs to be displayed alongside kgs.
8. IF it was just the old European Economic Community, we would be mad to leave. It is not. It is a Union. The majority of people voted against having one. The Minority (including me) need to accept that and move on.
I keep hearing about Brexiteers not being honest at the time. There is some truth in that. However, it conveniently ignores the fact that the Remain camp seemed to just have the argument that the boogeyman was going to get us. People just did not believe that. Everyone knew where Farage stood. With the late exception of Gordon Brown, Remainers were vague and complacent.
On point 3, I think we would be better staying in, as we probably wouldn't get the same terms. They would probably suspend article 50 if another referendum was planned.
Point 4 I suppose we would always maintain our armed forces, in addition to anything we did jointly with the EU.
I just laugh when people talk of unelected commissioners. I look at some of our MPs on times, and just wonder how on earth they got elected. Wasn't it our elected representatives that robbed the taxpayers in the expenses scandal, I could go on and on. The overwhelming majority of our population spend their whole lives being ordered around by unelected bosses, and for the men, when they get home they get bossed around by unelected wives.
Going back to immigration they have just done a piece on the news about Corby. Where they have said that 80% of the EU immigrants that are living, working, and contributing to the economy, wouldnt be allowed in, under the new rules. We are going to have Indian doctors picking fruit, that is the new plan.
I am going to leave point 7 as not everyone is a great fan of the Royal Family, and kids in school these days probably don't know what pounds and ounces are.
I think it would be fair to say that many people were mislead into voting to leave.
I think that the remainers sales pitch was shocking, and many politicians that were in favour were guilty of a poor contribution. There is a big difference between incorrect forecasts and outright lies.
Labour have now got double the number of standard answers to any question regarding Brexit.
They used to have one, now they have two.
Either, we are not ruling it out, or, we are not taking it off the table.
Will they ever become a credible opposition.
That is what the Opposition (of any party) have always done. Not their fault-we as an electorate vote against things rather than for them, so Opposition do nothing but s lag off everything the Government does...
Labour have now got double the number of standard answers to any question regarding Brexit.
They used to have one, now they have two.
Either, we are not ruling it out, or, we are not taking it off the table.
Will they ever become a credible opposition.
That is what the Opposition (of any party) have always done. Not their fault-we as an electorate vote against things rather than for them, so Opposition do nothing but s lag off everything the Government does...
Labour have now got double the number of standard answers to any question regarding Brexit.
They used to have one, now they have two.
Either, we are not ruling it out, or, we are not taking it off the table.
Will they ever become a credible opposition.
That is what the Opposition (of any party) have always done. Not their fault-we as an electorate vote against things rather than for them, so Opposition do nothing but s lag off everything the Government does...
The point I am making is that the opposition is supposed to oppose the government, the clue is in the name. They are meant to hold the Government to account. They are not supposed to just sit on a fence.
People get browned off when politicians refuse to answer questions, sit on fences, and lie.
The opposition get elected when the electorate prefer their policies to those of the incumbent Government.
Brexit is probably the most important thing happening in this country for 70 years.
Their main policy regarding Brexit seems to be to not rule anything out, or to keep everything on the table.
As much as I dislike them, the Tories are at least clear in comparison, The Prime Minister has clearly said, it is Chequers or no deal, and is completely against another referendum.
The Labour Party Conference had a day on Brexit yesterday, which resulted in a vote to keep a second referendum on the table. They are not saying they are in favour of one, despite the fact that 86% of their membership being in favour.
What they are saying is that they would prefer an election, but are not ruling out a second referendum. So they are now even having votes on not ruling stuff out. Didn't we used to have votes on whether you are in favour or not. Labour could have a vote that was unanimously in favour or not ruling something out, but that wouldn't mean they were in favour of it. Isn't that ridiculous?
So they think that Theresa May will call an election in the next couple of months, they will win, and they will start negotiations all over again. Despite the fact we will leave at the end of March next year.
Labour have said they will vote against any deal that doesnt pass their six tests. We are not able to get a deal that will pass these tests, which means that they will vote against any deal that comes back. So unless something else happens, this will result in us leaving in March without a deal, which would be disastrous.
Labour have learnt nothing from the negotiations so far. They say they want the same trade benefits that we have now, and be in the Customs Union, which would avoid the need for an Irish Border. They are not having freedom of movement, and want a say in Single Market Rules.
The only way to get all those benefits would mean staying in. Yet they wont say they are in favour of another referendum, which is the only way to achieve their aims. They prefer to sit on the fence, rather than campaign for things that they feel are in the best interests of the country.
They are just sitting there on this fence just waiting for something to happen, rather than campaigning for their beliefs.
Full Single Market, and Customs Union access would involve an annual payment to the EU, and not attainable without freedom of movement. A say in the trading rules as non members is unlikely, to say the least.
So the fact that the four freedoms are indivisible under any circumstances hasn't sunk in to Labour yet.
I believe that this is one of the real reasons why Labour are lagging behind in the polls. They should be 20% in front of the Tories after their disastrous performance since the election.
Can anyone explain in simple terms what would happen if there is no trade deal agreed upon? The way I understand it,is that the EU wants the UK to pay a sum of money to be able to trade with Europe(I may be wrong on that as it's totally confusing).How would that work out with EU countries wishing to sell their goods to the UK,would they have to pay a tariff to trade with the UK? Like I said,I may be totally wrong in my thinking.
Comments
Till then we have majority in favour of Leave. Like it or Lump it ...... live with it.
I've just picked one but all the polls and info shows that Remain would cruise to victory if another vote was granted.
This is because it would now be an informed vote, instead of voting in the dark like we did in 2016. We've all seen that leaving the EU is gonna demolish our economy, and that there are zero tangible benefits to leaving.
Of course there will still be a number of idiots that think ''Brexit means Brexit'' and 'the will of the people' and all that bo11ocks, but they would be firmly in the minority.
The EU not wishing to broker a deal say's they are "Not" our friends or allies.
This will make Leave stronger. With Nigel at the helm.
The Nation spoke and Leave was the ANSWER.
Anyone that genuinely believes that the EU are responsible for UK citizens debts, and force people to live in slums, can make no real contribution to this debate.
To allow someone that is so ill informed that they believe the above, to take part in a referendum, is clearly the waste of a vote.
The Labour response to any question on any aspect of Brexit is that they are not taking it off the table.
This has been going on for two years so this table must creaking under all the weight by now.
Anyone who has read my previous posts on this topic knows where my sympathies lie. Nevertheless, in the spirit of fair play, I think it is only right that I set out some of the reasons why Brexit won the battle.
1. We are an island, rather different from Continental Europe. Other EU Members have huge borders with other countries, and are used to co-existing. We are not.
2. We have spent most of our history fighting the very same countries that are in the EU. That not only affects the way we deal with those countries, but also the way they deal with us. So (for example) France used its veto to prevent us joining for many years. Barnier is as appalling a negotiator as Davis, but no-one in Europe speaks out in our favour.
3. We have never been an integral part of the EU, rather someone on the fringes of the team. So (for example) we are not in the Euro, and have great antipathy to ever joining it. We do not wish to have greater fiscal integration.
4. Similarly, we wish to maintain our own Armed Forces, and not just be a part of some European Army.
5. We do not trust what we perceive as unelected Commissioners telling us what we can and cannot do. We have never understood the different strands of European Union governance.
6. Immigration. Firstly, coming back to us being principally an island nation, we do not want people from other countries having an automatic right to come here without us having a clear say. Secondly, a "points based" system of immigration makes more sense for an island nation. As an example, EU rules prevent us being able to recruit enough chefs for Indian restaurants. We need to target immigration that works for us, not the Continental land mass.
7. We have a clear affection for certain things that, although they are European, we still hold dear. Our monarchy might be German, but we trust them far more than an EU Commissioner. We want the (French) (avoirdupois) lbs and ozs to be displayed alongside kgs.
8. IF it was just the old European Economic Community, we would be mad to leave. It is not. It is a Union. The majority of people voted against having one. The Minority (including me) need to accept that and move on.
I keep hearing about Brexiteers not being honest at the time. There is some truth in that. However, it conveniently ignores the fact that the Remain camp seemed to just have the argument that the boogeyman was going to get us. People just did not believe that. Everyone knew where Farage stood. With the late exception of Gordon Brown, Remainers were vague and complacent.
Well not really. There is one regular 'leaver' in here, and when people put genuine questions to him he responds with gibberish, so really he's taking the p1ss out of himself.
And we all know why Brexit won.
Many of the points you make may be quite true, but I don't feel they are really representative of the reasons that people voted to leave, the majority of which are much simpler. Many of the people that voted to leave will be unaware of many of the points you make.
Many ill informed, currently unhappy with the status quo, leave voters will be so disappointed when little change to their everyday lives, occurs the day after we leave. Many more will become disappointed when the economic effects kick in.
If you take the person referred to above, he really thinks that the EU is responsible for one in six British families being in debt, and for people being forced to live in slums for 40 years. Leaving the EU will obviously not effect either case.
I watched a programme on Welsh tv just after the referendum, where they interviewed leave voting members of the public, and asked them for their reasons for voting leave. The first was a woman, who I swear was about 90, and she said that the immigrants are taking all our jobs. The second was a fella who said that the EU don't to anything for us. The interviewer said, what about the money, to which he replied they only give us about 10 million per year in Wales. Yet in reality the give us 650 million per year in Wales, and how many jobs does a woman of about 90 want.
Immigration was an influencing factor in the referendum.
I honestly think that successive Governments have been ineffective on this matter. Our immigration over the last few years has been split with about half coming from the EU countries, and half from elsewhere. So I would have no idea why there would be any difficulty over Indian chefs. Anyone would think that we couldn't train some of the Indians already living here to become chefs, if there is a shortage. Or if it was at all possible to train someone who wasn't Indian, to become an Indian chef.
On a wider point, we manage immigration so badly in this country. There is no plan. There may be one and a half million immigrants in this country that shouldn't be. These are from all over the world not the EU.
Some EU countries that implement the rules correctly, make all EU immigrants register, send them back if they haven't got a job in three months, and only allow them to stay for a limited period. We don't do any of this.
We just do immigration badly. I listened to a politician being quizzed about the lack of a border in Ireland being used to smuggle people into the UK. He bluntly said there is no need for that, they could just fly into Luton Airport because we don't do any checks.
We often take over 20 years just to make a decision on whether an asylum seeker can stay.
We are to blame not them.
I will come back to the rest later.
On your point two, I think that our previous wars are of less concern to our youngsters, who were unlikely to be taking Agincourt into account in the referendum. They will also be less likely than our generation to be asking the first German they came across, who won the war? I don't think there is much resistance shown to the Eastern Europeans doing jobs that Brits don't want to do. They seem to be happy with menial jobs, in care, fruit picking, working in the health service, serving in bars, cleaning in hotels etc.
I would not criticise Michel Barnier for his negotiating. He has been told what he can and cant do. The EU is a rules based members club. From day one we have accused him of intransigence for only sticking to the rules, that we helped to formulate. The four freedoms are fundamental and indivisible. Everybody knows that, yet we accuse them of intransigence over their refusal to split them. David Davis said we could get the same benefits after we left, that we had when we were members. That was an out and out lie. Why on earth would any club member speak out in favour of a member that was leaving?
back later
4. Similarly, we wish to maintain our own Armed Forces, and not just be a part of some European Army.
5. We do not trust what we perceive as unelected Commissioners telling us what we can and cannot do. We have never understood the different strands of European Union governance.
6. Immigration. Firstly, coming back to us being principally an island nation, we do not want people from other countries having an automatic right to come here without us having a clear say. Secondly, a "points based" system of immigration makes more sense for an island nation. As an example, EU rules prevent us being able to recruit enough chefs for Indian restaurants. We need to target immigration that works for us, not the Continental land mass.
7. We have a clear affection for certain things that, although they are European, we still hold dear. Our monarchy might be German, but we trust them far more than an EU Commissioner. We want the (French) (avoirdupois) lbs and ozs to be displayed alongside kgs.
8. IF it was just the old European Economic Community, we would be mad to leave. It is not. It is a Union. The majority of people voted against having one. The Minority (including me) need to accept that and move on.
I keep hearing about Brexiteers not being honest at the time. There is some truth in that. However, it conveniently ignores the fact that the Remain camp seemed to just have the argument that the boogeyman was going to get us. People just did not believe that. Everyone knew where Farage stood. With the late exception of Gordon Brown, Remainers were vague and complacent.
On point 3, I think we would be better staying in, as we probably wouldn't get the same terms. They would probably suspend article 50 if another referendum was planned.
Point 4 I suppose we would always maintain our armed forces, in addition to anything we did jointly with the EU.
I just laugh when people talk of unelected commissioners. I look at some of our MPs on times, and just wonder how on earth they got elected. Wasn't it our elected representatives that robbed the taxpayers in the expenses scandal, I could go on and on. The overwhelming majority of our population spend their whole lives being ordered around by unelected bosses, and for the men, when they get home they get bossed around by unelected wives.
Going back to immigration they have just done a piece on the news about Corby. Where they have said that 80% of the EU immigrants that are living, working, and contributing to the economy, wouldnt be allowed in, under the new rules.
We are going to have Indian doctors picking fruit, that is the new plan.
I am going to leave point 7 as not everyone is a great fan of the Royal Family, and kids in school these days probably don't know what pounds and ounces are.
I think it would be fair to say that many people were mislead into voting to leave.
I think that the remainers sales pitch was shocking, and many politicians that were in favour were guilty of a poor contribution. There is a big difference between incorrect forecasts and outright lies.
They used to have one, now they have two.
Either, we are not ruling it out, or, we are not taking it off the table.
Will they ever become a credible opposition.
The point I am making is that the opposition is supposed to oppose the government, the clue is in the name. They are meant to hold the Government to account. They are not supposed to just sit on a fence.
People get browned off when politicians refuse to answer questions, sit on fences, and lie.
The opposition get elected when the electorate prefer their policies to those of the incumbent Government.
Brexit is probably the most important thing happening in this country for 70 years.
Their main policy regarding Brexit seems to be to not rule anything out, or to keep everything on the table.
As much as I dislike them, the Tories are at least clear in comparison, The Prime Minister has clearly said, it is Chequers or no deal, and is completely against another referendum.
The Labour Party Conference had a day on Brexit yesterday, which resulted in a vote to keep a second referendum on the table. They are not saying they are in favour of one, despite the fact that 86% of their membership being in favour.
What they are saying is that they would prefer an election, but are not ruling out a second referendum. So they are now even having votes on not ruling stuff out. Didn't we used to have votes on whether you are in favour or not. Labour could have a vote that was unanimously in favour or not ruling something out, but that wouldn't mean they were in favour of it. Isn't that ridiculous?
So they think that Theresa May will call an election in the next couple of months, they will win, and they will start negotiations all over again. Despite the fact we will leave at the end of March next year.
Labour have said they will vote against any deal that doesnt pass their six tests. We are not able to get a deal that will pass these tests, which means that they will vote against any deal that comes back. So unless something else happens, this will result in us leaving in March without a deal, which would be disastrous.
Labour have learnt nothing from the negotiations so far. They say they want the same trade benefits that we have now, and be in the Customs Union, which would avoid the need for an Irish Border. They are not having freedom of movement, and want a say in Single Market Rules.
The only way to get all those benefits would mean staying in.
Yet they wont say they are in favour of another referendum, which is the only way to achieve their aims. They prefer to sit on the fence, rather than campaign for things that they feel are in the best interests of the country.
They are just sitting there on this fence just waiting for something to happen, rather than campaigning for their beliefs.
Full Single Market, and Customs Union access would involve an annual payment to the EU, and not attainable without freedom of movement. A say in the trading rules as non members is unlikely, to say the least.
So the fact that the four freedoms are indivisible under any circumstances hasn't sunk in to Labour yet.
I believe that this is one of the real reasons why Labour are lagging behind in the polls. They should be 20% in front of the Tories after their disastrous performance since the election.