Would be the end of the Labour Party as it currently is if they abstained I think.
Might be a totally bad thing as long as a new party is set up of moderate remainers from both current mainstream parties that then win a general election.
Must put the pipe down now.
If Labour vote it down I think there will be enough Tory nutters to reject the deal. Quite where we go from there I have no idea.
Brexit diminishes the status of the EU and will potentially kickstart its disbandment. Doubt they want this and any short term benefit for them will be overshadowed by the long term implications
No winners in this other than perhaps Putin.
Pretty sure they'll miss the £9 billion net annual contribution?
Yeah it's not like we get anything for that
If I gave you £9 billion this year, the things I'd expect back from you would make your fillings rattle. Nine billion quid. In 12 months. Net.
Anyone have any idea the whole thing has cost the UK so far? Running the referendum, government spending on it, time taken endlessly discussing it in parliament, the aimless negotiations, etc. Surely could have got a few new hospitals or schools for the cost. You know, the stuff that really makes a difference in people's lives rather than just something that gives politicians a chance to posture and jockey for position.
Brexit diminishes the status of the EU and will potentially kickstart its disbandment. Doubt they want this and any short term benefit for them will be overshadowed by the long term implications
No winners in this other than perhaps Putin.
Pretty sure they'll miss the £9 billion net annual contribution?
Yeah it's not like we get anything for that
If I gave you £9 billion this year, the things I'd expect back from you would make your fillings rattle. Nine billion quid. In 12 months. Net.
Thought you said you voted Remain. Why were you happy about contributing £9billion in 2016 but see it as a problem now?
Brexit diminishes the status of the EU and will potentially kickstart its disbandment. Doubt they want this and any short term benefit for them will be overshadowed by the long term implications
No winners in this other than perhaps Putin.
Pretty sure they'll miss the £9 billion net annual contribution?
Yeah it's not like we get anything for that
If I gave you £9 billion this year, the things I'd expect back from you would make your fillings rattle. Nine billion quid. In 12 months. Net.
Thought you said you voted Remain. Why were you happy about contributing £9billion in 2016 but see it as a problem now?
I'm responding to a post that said no one is happy with the situation. I've always been sure the EU (and NATO if we extend the simple thinking) are more positive about the UK than anyone on this thread has expressed.
I'd rather be in than out, but as I've said before, the only plus side is the membership fees we pay can at least be used to offset the sky falling in to some limited extent.
Are we still pointing fingers at leavers and trying to belittle them? Surely we should be reflecting on the fact that, no matter what way you voted in terms of Brexit or Remain, and Labour or Conservative, the political class are not representing you. That's the real scandal.
So boring watching the constant baiting on here. Stop looking left and right and start looking up.
Brexit diminishes the status of the EU and will potentially kickstart its disbandment. Doubt they want this and any short term benefit for them will be overshadowed by the long term implications
No winners in this other than perhaps Putin.
Pretty sure they'll miss the £9 billion net annual contribution?
Yeah it's not like we get anything for that
If I gave you £9 billion this year, the things I'd expect back from you would make your fillings rattle. Nine billion quid. In 12 months. Net.
Thought you said you voted Remain. Why were you happy about contributing £9billion in 2016 but see it as a problem now?
I'm responding to a post that said no one is happy with the situation. I've always been sure the EU (and NATO if we extend the simple thinking) are more positive about the UK than anyone on this thread has expressed.
I'd rather be in than out, but as I've said before, the only plus side is the membership fees we pay can at least be used to offset the sky falling in to some limited extent.
You have done an excellent job in seeking to show that Corbyn is not as anti -Brexit as portrayed. By "portrayed" you refer to the media, but by extension you implicitly suggest (quite reasonably) that some of us are wrongly portraying his position on here.
Here is the problem. I am sure we all agree that politics is about getting your message across. I am one of several regulars on here, who criticise Corbyn but who would rather pull out their own teeth than vote Tory. In other words, people who either do, or would be inclined to, vote Labour in normal times. (Indeed I voted Labour last time, but I voted for the pro-Remain Spanner, Clive Efford, and not Corbyn.)
So how is it possible, if Corbyn's position is so coherent, that we have all misunderstood it? You implicitly and courteously suggest that we have believed the media lies. Do I and others in this group really look that gullible that we cannot sift through the media bollocks? In my case I voted for Ken Livingston as GLC head, and Neil Kinnock twice, when the overall tone of media comment, and indeed the views of my peers (at work especially) was far more hostile overall to a Labour government than it is now.
How come we could see through the anti Labour propaganda then, but apparently be duped by it now? Are you really suggesting that the Labour media machine cannot get as much share of voice and clarity on policies as Neil Kinnock in 1987? Well that goes entirely against the praise heaped on the Momentum social media machine and activists for the 2017 result, doesn't it?
It’s not about suggesting that anyone is ‘gullible’ or about media ‘lies’. My posts focussed on how Corbyn’s role in the EU referendum campaign has been portrayed.
What the the Loughborouh analysis of media coverage that I posted showed was not that the media lied but that they primarily reported on the ‘Dave vs Boris’ Remain/Leave battle in the Tory party.
As their report said: “Seven of the top ten people and half of all people in the top thirty [of media coverage] are Conservative politicians. In all, they account for 73% of the total number of appearances in the top thirty”.
Which bears out Angela Eagle’s comment of 13th June 2016: “if we are not reported, it is very difficult. This whole thing is about Tory big beasts having a battle like rutting stags”
However, there were lies about Corbyn’s role – but, in the main, on this issue they did not originate in the media.
The quote from Angela Eagle above is part of the longer quote from my first post on this issue where she also said:
“Jeremy [Corbyn] is up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25-year-old tired, he has not stopped”. Angela Eagle 13th June 2016
But barely two weeks later when she resigned from the shadow cabinet in preparation for her later abandoned leadership bid she said in her resignation letter:
"I was devastated by the result of the EU referendum,..and I believe this happened, in part, because under your leadership the case to remain in the EU was made with half-hearted ambivalene rather than full-throated clarity."
Angela Eagle resignation letter Monday 27th June 2016
This then became the narrative for the PLP’s attempted ‘coup’ against Corbyn and the subsequent Owen Smith leadership challenge. The media have continued to repeat this view as fact and it has become accepted as a ‘truth’; despite the evidence from the Lord Ashcroft Polls, that I posted, that Labour supporters voted 63% for Remain, only just behind the 64% of SNP supporters who voted Remain in Scotland.
In fact, given the SNP’s sweeping victory in Scotland only a year previously in the 2015 General Election and their subsequent dominance of Scottish politics, to then ‘only’ manage to persuade 64% of their supporters to vote Remain makes Labour supporters’ 63% for Remain actually seem something of an achievement for Labour (and arguably Corbyn).
You have done an excellent job in seeking to show that Corbyn is not as anti -Brexit as portrayed. By "portrayed" you refer to the media, but by extension you implicitly suggest (quite reasonably) that some of us are wrongly portraying his position on here.
Here is the problem. I am sure we all agree that politics is about getting your message across. I am one of several regulars on here, who criticise Corbyn but who would rather pull out their own teeth than vote Tory. In other words, people who either do, or would be inclined to, vote Labour in normal times. (Indeed I voted Labour last time, but I voted for the pro-Remain Spanner, Clive Efford, and not Corbyn.)
So how is it possible, if Corbyn's position is so coherent, that we have all misunderstood it? You implicitly and courteously suggest that we have believed the media lies. Do I and others in this group really look that gullible that we cannot sift through the media bollocks? In my case I voted for Ken Livingston as GLC head, and Neil Kinnock twice, when the overall tone of media comment, and indeed the views of my peers (at work especially) was far more hostile overall to a Labour government than it is now.
How come we could see through the anti Labour propaganda then, but apparently be duped by it now? Are you really suggesting that the Labour media machine cannot get as much share of voice and clarity on policies as Neil Kinnock in 1987? Well that goes entirely against the praise heaped on the Momentum social media machine and activists for the 2017 result, doesn't it?
It’s not about suggesting that anyone is ‘gullible’ or about media ‘lies’. My posts focussed on how Corbyn’s role in the EU referendum campaign has been portrayed.
What the the Loughborouh analysis of media coverage that I posted showed was not that the media lied but that they primarily reported on the ‘Dave vs Boris’ Remain/Leave battle in the Tory party.
As their report said: “Seven of the top ten people and half of all people in the top thirty [of media coverage] are Conservative politicians. In all, they account for 73% of the total number of appearances in the top thirty”.
Which bears out Angela Eagle’s comment of 13th June 2016: “if we are not reported, it is very difficult. This whole thing is about Tory big beasts having a battle like rutting stags”
However, there were lies about Corbyn’s role – but, in the main, on this issue they did not originate in the media.
The quote from Angela Eagle above is part of the longer quote from my first post on this issue where she also said:
“Jeremy [Corbyn] is up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25-year-old tired, he has not stopped”. Angela Eagle 13th June 2016
But barely two weeks later when she resigned from the shadow cabinet in preparation for her later abandoned leadership bid she said in her resignation letter:
"I was devastated by the result of the EU referendum,..and I believe this happened, in part, because under your leadership the case to remain in the EU was made with half-hearted ambivalene rather than full-throated clarity."
Angela Eagle resignation letter Monday 27th June 2016
This then became the narrative for the PLP’s attempted ‘coup’ against Corbyn and the subsequent Owen Smith leadership challenge. The media have continued to repeat this view as fact and it has become accepted as a ‘truth’; despite the evidence from the Lord Ashcroft Polls, that I posted, that Labour supporters voted 63% for Remain, only just behind the 64% of SNP supporters who voted Remain in Scotland.
In fact, given the SNP’s sweeping victory in Scotland only a year previously in the 2015 General Election and their subsequent dominance of Scottish politics, to then ‘only’ manage to persuade 64% of their supporters to vote Remain makes Labour supporters’ 63% for Remain actually seem something of an achievement for Labour (and arguably Corbyn).
That assumes a direct correlation between Corbyn's campaigning and how labour voters voted in the referendum, an issue that as we know went across traditional party lines.
I note you were at first using Eagle as a positive reference for the Dear Leader but are now dismissing her later comments made when she was no longer part of the shadow cabinet and bound by collective responsibility.
And having pulled me up for not offering evidence you've not responded to kentaddick's evidence.
You have done an excellent job in seeking to show that Corbyn is not as anti -Brexit as portrayed. By "portrayed" you refer to the media, but by extension you implicitly suggest (quite reasonably) that some of us are wrongly portraying his position on here.
Here is the problem. I am sure we all agree that politics is about getting your message across. I am one of several regulars on here, who criticise Corbyn but who would rather pull out their own teeth than vote Tory. In other words, people who either do, or would be inclined to, vote Labour in normal times. (Indeed I voted Labour last time, but I voted for the pro-Remain Spanner, Clive Efford, and not Corbyn.)
So how is it possible, if Corbyn's position is so coherent, that we have all misunderstood it? You implicitly and courteously suggest that we have believed the media lies. Do I and others in this group really look that gullible that we cannot sift through the media bollocks? In my case I voted for Ken Livingston as GLC head, and Neil Kinnock twice, when the overall tone of media comment, and indeed the views of my peers (at work especially) was far more hostile overall to a Labour government than it is now.
How come we could see through the anti Labour propaganda then, but apparently be duped by it now? Are you really suggesting that the Labour media machine cannot get as much share of voice and clarity on policies as Neil Kinnock in 1987? Well that goes entirely against the praise heaped on the Momentum social media machine and activists for the 2017 result, doesn't it?
It’s not about suggesting that anyone is ‘gullible’ or about media ‘lies’. My posts focussed on how Corbyn’s role in the EU referendum campaign has been portrayed.
What the the Loughborouh analysis of media coverage that I posted showed was not that the media lied but that they primarily reported on the ‘Dave vs Boris’ Remain/Leave battle in the Tory party.
As their report said: “Seven of the top ten people and half of all people in the top thirty [of media coverage] are Conservative politicians. In all, they account for 73% of the total number of appearances in the top thirty”.
Which bears out Angela Eagle’s comment of 13th June 2016: “if we are not reported, it is very difficult. This whole thing is about Tory big beasts having a battle like rutting stags”
However, there were lies about Corbyn’s role – but, in the main, on this issue they did not originate in the media.
The quote from Angela Eagle above is part of the longer quote from my first post on this issue where she also said:
“Jeremy [Corbyn] is up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25-year-old tired, he has not stopped”. Angela Eagle 13th June 2016
But barely two weeks later when she resigned from the shadow cabinet in preparation for her later abandoned leadership bid she said in her resignation letter:
"I was devastated by the result of the EU referendum,..and I believe this happened, in part, because under your leadership the case to remain in the EU was made with half-hearted ambivalene rather than full-throated clarity."
Angela Eagle resignation letter Monday 27th June 2016
This then became the narrative for the PLP’s attempted ‘coup’ against Corbyn and the subsequent Owen Smith leadership challenge. The media have continued to repeat this view as fact and it has become accepted as a ‘truth’; despite the evidence from the Lord Ashcroft Polls, that I posted, that Labour supporters voted 63% for Remain, only just behind the 64% of SNP supporters who voted Remain in Scotland.
In fact, given the SNP’s sweeping victory in Scotland only a year previously in the 2015 General Election and their subsequent dominance of Scottish politics, to then ‘only’ manage to persuade 64% of their supporters to vote Remain makes Labour supporters’ 63% for Remain actually seem something of an achievement for Labour (and arguably Corbyn).
That assumes a direct correlation between Corbyn's campaigning and how labour voters voted in the referendum, an issue that as we know went across traditional party lines.
I note you were at first using Eagle as a positive reference for the Dear Leader but are now dismissing her later comments made when she was no longer part of the shadow cabinet and bound by collective responsibility.
And having pulled me up for not offering evidence you've not responded to kentaddick's evidence.
David Lammy (soon to be joint leader of One Nation, the new centrist party with Anna Soubry) and many others pointing out the May offered three scenarios.
Deal being roundly condemned from all sides or at least enough for the commons vote to be a waste of time for May. Surely she can’t survive now. Assuming this deal is dead even before it draws breath the alternatives are WTO or no Brexit. Anything else ? If the Tories don’t deliver a Brexit then they must surely be finished politically ? I can’t see the 27 allowing for a new brexiteer leader being given more time to renegotiate. They just might allow for a second referendum?
You have done an excellent job in seeking to show that Corbyn is not as anti -Brexit as portrayed. By "portrayed" you refer to the media, but by extension you implicitly suggest (quite reasonably) that some of us are wrongly portraying his position on here.
Here is the problem. I am sure we all agree that politics is about getting your message across. I am one of several regulars on here, who criticise Corbyn but who would rather pull out their own teeth than vote Tory. In other words, people who either do, or would be inclined to, vote Labour in normal times. (Indeed I voted Labour last time, but I voted for the pro-Remain Spanner, Clive Efford, and not Corbyn.)
So how is it possible, if Corbyn's position is so coherent, that we have all misunderstood it? You implicitly and courteously suggest that we have believed the media lies. Do I and others in this group really look that gullible that we cannot sift through the media bollocks? In my case I voted for Ken Livingston as GLC head, and Neil Kinnock twice, when the overall tone of media comment, and indeed the views of my peers (at work especially) was far more hostile overall to a Labour government than it is now.
How come we could see through the anti Labour propaganda then, but apparently be duped by it now? Are you really suggesting that the Labour media machine cannot get as much share of voice and clarity on policies as Neil Kinnock in 1987? Well that goes entirely against the praise heaped on the Momentum social media machine and activists for the 2017 result, doesn't it?
It’s not about suggesting that anyone is ‘gullible’ or about media ‘lies’. My posts focussed on how Corbyn’s role in the EU referendum campaign has been portrayed.
What the the Loughborouh analysis of media coverage that I posted showed was not that the media lied but that they primarily reported on the ‘Dave vs Boris’ Remain/Leave battle in the Tory party.
As their report said: “Seven of the top ten people and half of all people in the top thirty [of media coverage] are Conservative politicians. In all, they account for 73% of the total number of appearances in the top thirty”.
Which bears out Angela Eagle’s comment of 13th June 2016: “if we are not reported, it is very difficult. This whole thing is about Tory big beasts having a battle like rutting stags”
However, there were lies about Corbyn’s role – but, in the main, on this issue they did not originate in the media.
The quote from Angela Eagle above is part of the longer quote from my first post on this issue where she also said:
“Jeremy [Corbyn] is up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25-year-old tired, he has not stopped”. Angela Eagle 13th June 2016
But barely two weeks later when she resigned from the shadow cabinet in preparation for her later abandoned leadership bid she said in her resignation letter:
"I was devastated by the result of the EU referendum,..and I believe this happened, in part, because under your leadership the case to remain in the EU was made with half-hearted ambivalene rather than full-throated clarity."
Angela Eagle resignation letter Monday 27th June 2016
This then became the narrative for the PLP’s attempted ‘coup’ against Corbyn and the subsequent Owen Smith leadership challenge. The media have continued to repeat this view as fact and it has become accepted as a ‘truth’; despite the evidence from the Lord Ashcroft Polls, that I posted, that Labour supporters voted 63% for Remain, only just behind the 64% of SNP supporters who voted Remain in Scotland.
In fact, given the SNP’s sweeping victory in Scotland only a year previously in the 2015 General Election and their subsequent dominance of Scottish politics, to then ‘only’ manage to persuade 64% of their supporters to vote Remain makes Labour supporters’ 63% for Remain actually seem something of an achievement for Labour (and arguably Corbyn).
That assumes a direct correlation between Corbyn's campaigning and how labour voters voted in the referendum, an issue that as we know went across traditional party lines.
I note you were at first using Eagle as a positive reference for the Dear Leader but are now dismissing her later comments made when she was no longer part of the shadow cabinet and bound by collective responsibility.
And having pulled me up for not offering evidence you've not responded to kentaddick's evidence.
Surely the criticism of Corbyn's campaigning which originated within the PLP "assume[d] a direct correlation between Corbyn's campaigning and how labour voters voted in the referendum" - if there was no relationship what has all the criticism been about?
As regards the contradictory remarks of Angela Eagle, are you really suggesting that in her first comments when she effusively said "Jeremy [Corbyn] is up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25-year-old tired, he has not stopped" that was part of some 'script' she had to follow because she was bound by shadow cabinet collective responsibility?
On at least one of the two occasions she must have been lying and I think it's more likely to have been on the second occasion when she suggested that "the result of the EU referendum,...happened, in part, because under [Corbyn's] leadership the case to remain in the EU was made with half-hearted ambivalence rather than full-throated clarity"; which, of course, also 'assumed a direct correlation between Corbyn's campaigning and how labour voters voted in the referendum', that you seem to want to dismiss when it's suggested that he might take some credit for the 63% of Labour supporters who voted Remain, but not, it appears, when his campaigning is the object of criticism.
As for what you call 'kentaddick's evidence' I've just searched for that and I assume you're referring the string of links to tweets by someone called Sarah Gibbs which seem to be about a Labour Party complaint that BBC Newsnight claimed that Jeremy Corbyn always thought UK would be better off outside the EU?
All I can say is that I'm also old enough to have taken part in the 1975 EEC referendum and in that referendum not only did I vote No but I also actively campaigned for a No vote. However, in the 2016 EU Referendum I voted Remain and actively campaigned for a Remain vote because, like Corbyn, I believe that the ordinary people of this country will be better off materially and socially and the political climate in this country will be better if the UK remains in the EU; although I also have reservations about the EU as currently constituted. So, although I didn't see the Newsnight in question I think they were wrong to say that Corbyn has always thought UK would be better off outside the EU.
A lot of leave voters said they voted leave and then trust the politicians to implement it. This draft, yet to be agreed to, withdrawal agreement is what the politicians they left it to have come up with so far. If leave voters are upset with it, they ought to say what they would do, what they can't really get away with saying is that it isn't brexit. There is no definition of what brexit is.
You have done an excellent job in seeking to show that Corbyn is not as anti -Brexit as portrayed. By "portrayed" you refer to the media, but by extension you implicitly suggest (quite reasonably) that some of us are wrongly portraying his position on here.
Here is the problem. I am sure we all agree that politics is about getting your message across. I am one of several regulars on here, who criticise Corbyn but who would rather pull out their own teeth than vote Tory. In other words, people who either do, or would be inclined to, vote Labour in normal times. (Indeed I voted Labour last time, but I voted for the pro-Remain Spanner, Clive Efford, and not Corbyn.)
So how is it possible, if Corbyn's position is so coherent, that we have all misunderstood it? You implicitly and courteously suggest that we have believed the media lies. Do I and others in this group really look that gullible that we cannot sift through the media bollocks? In my case I voted for Ken Livingston as GLC head, and Neil Kinnock twice, when the overall tone of media comment, and indeed the views of my peers (at work especially) was far more hostile overall to a Labour government than it is now.
How come we could see through the anti Labour propaganda then, but apparently be duped by it now? Are you really suggesting that the Labour media machine cannot get as much share of voice and clarity on policies as Neil Kinnock in 1987? Well that goes entirely against the praise heaped on the Momentum social media machine and activists for the 2017 result, doesn't it?
It’s not about suggesting that anyone is ‘gullible’ or about media ‘lies’. My posts focussed on how Corbyn’s role in the EU referendum campaign has been portrayed.
What the the Loughborouh analysis of media coverage that I posted showed was not that the media lied but that they primarily reported on the ‘Dave vs Boris’ Remain/Leave battle in the Tory party.
As their report said: “Seven of the top ten people and half of all people in the top thirty [of media coverage] are Conservative politicians. In all, they account for 73% of the total number of appearances in the top thirty”.
Which bears out Angela Eagle’s comment of 13th June 2016: “if we are not reported, it is very difficult. This whole thing is about Tory big beasts having a battle like rutting stags”
However, there were lies about Corbyn’s role – but, in the main, on this issue they did not originate in the media.
The quote from Angela Eagle above is part of the longer quote from my first post on this issue where she also said:
“Jeremy [Corbyn] is up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25-year-old tired, he has not stopped”. Angela Eagle 13th June 2016
But barely two weeks later when she resigned from the shadow cabinet in preparation for her later abandoned leadership bid she said in her resignation letter:
"I was devastated by the result of the EU referendum,..and I believe this happened, in part, because under your leadership the case to remain in the EU was made with half-hearted ambivalene rather than full-throated clarity."
Angela Eagle resignation letter Monday 27th June 2016
This then became the narrative for the PLP’s attempted ‘coup’ against Corbyn and the subsequent Owen Smith leadership challenge. The media have continued to repeat this view as fact and it has become accepted as a ‘truth’; despite the evidence from the Lord Ashcroft Polls, that I posted, that Labour supporters voted 63% for Remain, only just behind the 64% of SNP supporters who voted Remain in Scotland.
In fact, given the SNP’s sweeping victory in Scotland only a year previously in the 2015 General Election and their subsequent dominance of Scottish politics, to then ‘only’ manage to persuade 64% of their supporters to vote Remain makes Labour supporters’ 63% for Remain actually seem something of an achievement for Labour (and arguably Corbyn).
That assumes a direct correlation between Corbyn's campaigning and how labour voters voted in the referendum, an issue that as we know went across traditional party lines.
I note you were at first using Eagle as a positive reference for the Dear Leader but are now dismissing her later comments made when she was no longer part of the shadow cabinet and bound by collective responsibility.
And having pulled me up for not offering evidence you've not responded to kentaddick's evidence.
Surely the criticism of Corbyn's campaigning which originated within the PLP "assume[d] a direct correlation between Corbyn's campaigning and how labour voters voted in the referendum" - if there was no relationship what has all the criticism been about?
As regards the contradictory remarks of Angela Eagle, are you really suggesting that in her first comments when she effusively said "Jeremy [Corbyn] is up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25-year-old tired, he has not stopped" that was part of some 'script' she had to follow because she was bound by shadow cabinet collective responsibility?
On at least one of the two occasions she must have been lying and I think it's more likely to have been on the second occasion when she suggested that "the result of the EU referendum,...happened, in part, because under [Corbyn's] leadership the case to remain in the EU was made with half-hearted ambivalence rather than full-throated clarity"; which, of course, also 'assumed a direct correlation between Corbyn's campaigning and how labour voters voted in the referendum', that you seem to want to dismiss when it's suggested that he might take some credit for the 63% of Labour supporters who voted Remain, but not, it appears, when his campaigning is the object of criticism.
As for what you call 'kentaddick's evidence' I've just searched for that and I assume you're referring the string of links to tweets by someone called Sarah Gibbs which seem to be about a Labour Party complaint that BBC Newsnight claimed that Jeremy Corbyn always thought UK would be better off outside the EU?
All I can say is that I'm also old enough to have taken part in the 1975 EEC referendum and in that referendum not only did I vote No but I also actively campaigned for a No vote. However, in the 2016 EU Referendum I voted Remain and actively campaigned for a Remain vote because, like Corbyn, I believe that the ordinary people of this country will be better off materially and socially and the political climate in this country will be better if the UK remains in the EU; although I also have reservations about the EU as currently constituted. So, although I didn't see the Newsnight in question I think they were wrong to say that Corbyn has always thought UK would be better off outside the EU.
The 2010 video suggests the Dear Leader was still anti EU then as have all his actions an inaction since.
Of course, he could very easily clear all this up and state his views personally on the EU and a people's vote.
As for what Eagle said and the long email trail you neatly sidestepped it all points to what I said, he did next to nothing in the referendum, he was useless on purpose.
You have done an excellent job in seeking to show that Corbyn is not as anti -Brexit as portrayed. By "portrayed" you refer to the media, but by extension you implicitly suggest (quite reasonably) that some of us are wrongly portraying his position on here.
Here is the problem. I am sure we all agree that politics is about getting your message across. I am one of several regulars on here, who criticise Corbyn but who would rather pull out their own teeth than vote Tory. In other words, people who either do, or would be inclined to, vote Labour in normal times. (Indeed I voted Labour last time, but I voted for the pro-Remain Spanner, Clive Efford, and not Corbyn.)
So how is it possible, if Corbyn's position is so coherent, that we have all misunderstood it? You implicitly and courteously suggest that we have believed the media lies. Do I and others in this group really look that gullible that we cannot sift through the media bollocks? In my case I voted for Ken Livingston as GLC head, and Neil Kinnock twice, when the overall tone of media comment, and indeed the views of my peers (at work especially) was far more hostile overall to a Labour government than it is now.
How come we could see through the anti Labour propaganda then, but apparently be duped by it now? Are you really suggesting that the Labour media machine cannot get as much share of voice and clarity on policies as Neil Kinnock in 1987? Well that goes entirely against the praise heaped on the Momentum social media machine and activists for the 2017 result, doesn't it?
It’s not about suggesting that anyone is ‘gullible’ or about media ‘lies’. My posts focussed on how Corbyn’s role in the EU referendum campaign has been portrayed.
What the the Loughborouh analysis of media coverage that I posted showed was not that the media lied but that they primarily reported on the ‘Dave vs Boris’ Remain/Leave battle in the Tory party.
As their report said: “Seven of the top ten people and half of all people in the top thirty [of media coverage] are Conservative politicians. In all, they account for 73% of the total number of appearances in the top thirty”.
Which bears out Angela Eagle’s comment of 13th June 2016: “if we are not reported, it is very difficult. This whole thing is about Tory big beasts having a battle like rutting stags”
However, there were lies about Corbyn’s role – but, in the main, on this issue they did not originate in the media.
The quote from Angela Eagle above is part of the longer quote from my first post on this issue where she also said:
“Jeremy [Corbyn] is up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25-year-old tired, he has not stopped”. Angela Eagle 13th June 2016
But barely two weeks later when she resigned from the shadow cabinet in preparation for her later abandoned leadership bid she said in her resignation letter:
"I was devastated by the result of the EU referendum,..and I believe this happened, in part, because under your leadership the case to remain in the EU was made with half-hearted ambivalene rather than full-throated clarity."
Angela Eagle resignation letter Monday 27th June 2016
This then became the narrative for the PLP’s attempted ‘coup’ against Corbyn and the subsequent Owen Smith leadership challenge. The media have continued to repeat this view as fact and it has become accepted as a ‘truth’; despite the evidence from the Lord Ashcroft Polls, that I posted, that Labour supporters voted 63% for Remain, only just behind the 64% of SNP supporters who voted Remain in Scotland.
In fact, given the SNP’s sweeping victory in Scotland only a year previously in the 2015 General Election and their subsequent dominance of Scottish politics, to then ‘only’ manage to persuade 64% of their supporters to vote Remain makes Labour supporters’ 63% for Remain actually seem something of an achievement for Labour (and arguably Corbyn).
That assumes a direct correlation between Corbyn's campaigning and how labour voters voted in the referendum, an issue that as we know went across traditional party lines.
I note you were at first using Eagle as a positive reference for the Dear Leader but are now dismissing her later comments made when she was no longer part of the shadow cabinet and bound by collective responsibility.
And having pulled me up for not offering evidence you've not responded to kentaddick's evidence.
Who needs the Tory press to kick Corbyn when we have Henry? Mick was not supporting JC per se but highlighting Eagle's u-turn in light of her leadership challenge as part of the general vendetta. Tell us again how he is a racist, but with a quote from his mouth.
It's one thing being anti-EU, as am I, but it's another to follow the lemmings over the cliff.
You have done an excellent job in seeking to show that Corbyn is not as anti -Brexit as portrayed. By "portrayed" you refer to the media, but by extension you implicitly suggest (quite reasonably) that some of us are wrongly portraying his position on here.
Here is the problem. I am sure we all agree that politics is about getting your message across. I am one of several regulars on here, who criticise Corbyn but who would rather pull out their own teeth than vote Tory. In other words, people who either do, or would be inclined to, vote Labour in normal times. (Indeed I voted Labour last time, but I voted for the pro-Remain Spanner, Clive Efford, and not Corbyn.)
So how is it possible, if Corbyn's position is so coherent, that we have all misunderstood it? You implicitly and courteously suggest that we have believed the media lies. Do I and others in this group really look that gullible that we cannot sift through the media bollocks? In my case I voted for Ken Livingston as GLC head, and Neil Kinnock twice, when the overall tone of media comment, and indeed the views of my peers (at work especially) was far more hostile overall to a Labour government than it is now.
How come we could see through the anti Labour propaganda then, but apparently be duped by it now? Are you really suggesting that the Labour media machine cannot get as much share of voice and clarity on policies as Neil Kinnock in 1987? Well that goes entirely against the praise heaped on the Momentum social media machine and activists for the 2017 result, doesn't it?
It’s not about suggesting that anyone is ‘gullible’ or about media ‘lies’. My posts focussed on how Corbyn’s role in the EU referendum campaign has been portrayed.
What the the Loughborouh analysis of media coverage that I posted showed was not that the media lied but that they primarily reported on the ‘Dave vs Boris’ Remain/Leave battle in the Tory party.
As their report said: “Seven of the top ten people and half of all people in the top thirty [of media coverage] are Conservative politicians. In all, they account for 73% of the total number of appearances in the top thirty”.
Which bears out Angela Eagle’s comment of 13th June 2016: “if we are not reported, it is very difficult. This whole thing is about Tory big beasts having a battle like rutting stags”
However, there were lies about Corbyn’s role – but, in the main, on this issue they did not originate in the media.
The quote from Angela Eagle above is part of the longer quote from my first post on this issue where she also said:
“Jeremy [Corbyn] is up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25-year-old tired, he has not stopped”. Angela Eagle 13th June 2016
But barely two weeks later when she resigned from the shadow cabinet in preparation for her later abandoned leadership bid she said in her resignation letter:
"I was devastated by the result of the EU referendum,..and I believe this happened, in part, because under your leadership the case to remain in the EU was made with half-hearted ambivalene rather than full-throated clarity."
Angela Eagle resignation letter Monday 27th June 2016
This then became the narrative for the PLP’s attempted ‘coup’ against Corbyn and the subsequent Owen Smith leadership challenge. The media have continued to repeat this view as fact and it has become accepted as a ‘truth’; despite the evidence from the Lord Ashcroft Polls, that I posted, that Labour supporters voted 63% for Remain, only just behind the 64% of SNP supporters who voted Remain in Scotland.
In fact, given the SNP’s sweeping victory in Scotland only a year previously in the 2015 General Election and their subsequent dominance of Scottish politics, to then ‘only’ manage to persuade 64% of their supporters to vote Remain makes Labour supporters’ 63% for Remain actually seem something of an achievement for Labour (and arguably Corbyn).
That assumes a direct correlation between Corbyn's campaigning and how labour voters voted in the referendum, an issue that as we know went across traditional party lines.
I note you were at first using Eagle as a positive reference for the Dear Leader but are now dismissing her later comments made when she was no longer part of the shadow cabinet and bound by collective responsibility.
And having pulled me up for not offering evidence you've not responded to kentaddick's evidence.
Who needs the Tory press to kick Corbyn when we have Henry? Mick was not supporting JC per se but highlighting Eagle's u-turn in light of her leadership challenge. Tell us again how he is a racist, but with a quote from his mouth.
Since you ask, he is an anti-Semitic friend of racist, homophobic, misogynist terrorists but that is for another thread. This is the EU thread. Lets just focus on his dishonesty over his desire for the UK to leave the EU.
Watching Newsnight. I continue to be astonished at the poor quality and uninspiring MPs that Labour allow to make its case on TV. Chuka Umunna is an honourable exception.
May currently talking with Corbyn in House of Commons!
Meeting lasted 20 minutes and Corbyn pressed the PM on procedural aspect of what happens next and before Commons vote. Emphasised the sovereignty of parliament.
May currently talking with Corbyn in House of Commons!
Meeting lasted 20 minutes and Corbyn pressed the PM on procedural aspect of what happens next and before Commons vote. Emphasised the sovereignty of parliament.
Not the sovereignty of the British People? He just doesn't get the Brexit thing does he
Comments
On that basis, can I ask any of them to explain the detail in this part of the agreement, as it pertains to the Irish border..?
I've always been sure the EU (and NATO if we extend the simple thinking) are more positive about the UK than anyone on this thread has expressed.
I'd rather be in than out, but as I've said before, the only plus side is the membership fees we pay can at least be used to offset the sky falling in to some limited extent.
So boring watching the constant baiting on here. Stop looking left and right and start looking up.
What the the Loughborouh analysis of media coverage that I posted showed was not that the media lied but that they primarily reported on the ‘Dave vs Boris’ Remain/Leave battle in the Tory party.
As their report said: “Seven of the top ten people and half of all people in the top thirty [of media coverage] are Conservative politicians. In all, they account for 73% of the total number of appearances in the top thirty”.
Which bears out Angela Eagle’s comment of 13th June 2016: “if we are not reported, it is very difficult. This whole thing is about Tory big beasts having a battle like rutting stags”
However, there were lies about Corbyn’s role – but, in the main, on this issue they did not originate in the media.
The quote from Angela Eagle above is part of the longer quote from my first post on this issue where she also said:
“Jeremy [Corbyn] is up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25-year-old tired, he has not stopped”. Angela Eagle 13th June 2016
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jun/13/eu-referendum-live-labour-remain-campaign-final-10-days-vote?page=with:block-575ed486e4b0aa348f1cc33f#liveblog-navigation
But barely two weeks later when she resigned from the shadow cabinet in preparation for her later abandoned leadership bid she said in her resignation letter:
"I was devastated by the result of the EU referendum,..and I believe this happened, in part, because under your leadership the case to remain in the EU was made with half-hearted ambivalene rather than full-throated clarity."
Angela Eagle resignation letter Monday 27th June 2016
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-jeremy-corbyns-close-ally-angela-eagle-resigns-from-labour-shadow-cabinet-latest-news-a7105411.html
This then became the narrative for the PLP’s attempted ‘coup’ against Corbyn and the subsequent Owen Smith leadership challenge. The media have continued to repeat this view as fact and it has become accepted as a ‘truth’; despite the evidence from the Lord Ashcroft Polls, that I posted, that Labour supporters voted 63% for Remain, only just behind the 64% of SNP supporters who voted Remain in Scotland.
In fact, given the SNP’s sweeping victory in Scotland only a year previously in the 2015 General Election and their subsequent dominance of Scottish politics, to then ‘only’ manage to persuade 64% of their supporters to vote Remain makes Labour supporters’ 63% for Remain actually seem something of an achievement for Labour (and arguably Corbyn).
I note you were at first using Eagle as a positive reference for the Dear Leader but are now dismissing her later comments made when she was no longer part of the shadow cabinet and bound by collective responsibility.
And having pulled me up for not offering evidence you've not responded to kentaddick's evidence.
July 2017
Ultimately, everyone is going to be annoyed.
Leave voters will feel we haven't "left enough"
Remain voters will feel we've "left too much"
We'll all be poorer and our international reputation might actually never recover.
It's a clusterfuck.
Thanks Dave.
I said that on the old Article 50 thread over a year ago, it was just so obvious.
What a mess.
Her deal
No deal
No Brexit
These are crazy political times.
As regards the contradictory remarks of Angela Eagle, are you really suggesting that in her first comments when she effusively said "Jeremy [Corbyn] is up and down the country, pursuing an itinerary that would make a 25-year-old tired, he has not stopped" that was part of some 'script' she had to follow because she was bound by shadow cabinet collective responsibility?
On at least one of the two occasions she must have been lying and I think it's more likely to have been on the second occasion when she suggested that "the result of the EU referendum,...happened, in part, because under [Corbyn's] leadership the case to remain in the EU was made with half-hearted ambivalence rather than full-throated clarity"; which, of course, also 'assumed a direct correlation between Corbyn's campaigning and how labour voters voted in the referendum', that you seem to want to dismiss when it's suggested that he might take some credit for the 63% of Labour supporters who voted Remain, but not, it appears, when his campaigning is the object of criticism.
As for what you call 'kentaddick's evidence' I've just searched for that and I assume you're referring the string of links to tweets by someone called Sarah Gibbs which seem to be about a Labour Party complaint that BBC Newsnight claimed that Jeremy Corbyn always thought UK would be better off outside the EU?
All I can say is that I'm also old enough to have taken part in the 1975 EEC referendum and in that referendum not only did I vote No but I also actively campaigned for a No vote. However, in the 2016 EU Referendum I voted Remain and actively campaigned for a Remain vote because, like Corbyn, I believe that the ordinary people of this country will be better off materially and socially and the political climate in this country will be better if the UK remains in the EU; although I also have reservations about the EU as currently constituted. So, although I didn't see the Newsnight in question I think they were wrong to say that Corbyn has always thought UK would be better off outside the EU.
This draft, yet to be agreed to, withdrawal agreement is what the politicians they left it to have come up with so far.
If leave voters are upset with it, they ought to say what they would do, what they can't really get away with saying is that it isn't brexit.
There is no definition of what brexit is.
Of course, he could very easily clear all this up and state his views personally on the EU and a people's vote.
As for what Eagle said and the long email trail you neatly sidestepped it all points to what I said, he did next to nothing in the referendum, he was useless on purpose.
It's one thing being anti-EU, as am I, but it's another to follow the lemmings over the cliff.
Since you ask, he is an anti-Semitic friend of racist, homophobic, misogynist terrorists but that is for another thread. This is the EU thread. Lets just focus on his dishonesty over his desire for the UK to leave the EU.
Night, night.