I'm not sure I trust the general public to make a sensible decision. Too many people are politically and economically illiterate.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I'm not sure I trust the general public to make a sensible decision. Too many people are politically and economically illiterate.
I'm fine with Remain vs No Deal. No Deal is polling at around 45% of the British public. There should be a second referendum because there was no clarity originally about what leaving actually meant and the form it would take. That doesn't mean that the public should be denied their right to vote for the outcome they want. If a majority of British people chose No Deal over Remain, then we should leave immediately without any deal in place.
1. No, but they can win enough to form a coalition and dictate the terms regarding Brexit.
2. Why do the Lib Dems get held to a different standard to the other parties? Labour voted for the Iraq War. The Tories shredded public services and sent millions into poverty. Yet apparently we can never vote Lib Dem again because as the minority party in a coalition they didn't stop everything the Tories wanted to do?
That's just stupid and negligent.
1. No they won't. They didn't dictate anything last time. They rubber stamped. They could have blocked stuff and forced another election if needs be. They just went with it
2. Nobody holds New Labour or the Conservatives as paragons of virtue. They were and are crooks. The nation sold it's morals and sells it's morals every time it votes these people into power. The Lib Dems (and Corbyns Labour for that matter), present themselves as moral alternatives. I voted for the Lib Dems in 2010 and I did hold them to different standards than the status quo parties, because they said they were better than them and i was stupid enough to believe it.
For what it's worth, in the general election after the Iraq war i voted for that random party that was setup as a protest vote, can't remember the name.
I think its time the UK public grew up and started understanding that politics isn't a stupid reality TV show. If they want No Deal, then democratically they have to be given No Deal with all that includes.
1. They did block stuff and water stuff down last time. Did you notice the difference between coalition Tories and majority Tories? That wasn't just a coincidence.
2. I've never voted Lib Dem before. This time I will because they have a very clear policy position on the biggest issue of the moment. I don't need them to be moral right now, I just need them to help stop Brexit.
Why don't you grow up and accept that people voted for Brexit in the last referendum, and if you don't want to be incredibly divisive and risk the future of the country even more than it's already being risked, then it should be remain vs the best deal possible in the 2nd referendum.
I hope it happens, but I suspect we'll all be dissapointed.
First of all, tone down the personal insults please. Play the ball not the man.
As for your point, you're basically saying that the public are children who can't be allowed to have what they vote for because it might risk the future of the country. At the same time you're saying we have to respect their vote. Those two things do not sit comfortably together.
You just literally said the public need to grow up and I'm the one calling them children because I think there should be a deal in the 2nd referendum?
I think they should be allowed to determine their own future, however at the moment they appear to be supporting foolish self-destructive policies based on childish inattention to detail and expert advice. I don’t think the correct way to deal with that, is to refuse to allow them proper democracy. If people want to make stupid choices then they should be given sensible advice (which they have had endlessly for the last 3 years) and then given the opportunity to rethink their decision (2nd referendum). If they still want to drive the bus over a cliff, then maybe that’s what is required to make people realize the consequences of their actions.
Why don't you want to give them the choice of a deal in the referendum?
That isn't proper democracy and isn't remotely close to how this country has ever been governed.
Our public institutions are held responsible by the public, they are not ruled by the public.
Bingo.
Well I'm sure Alastair is telling the truth. I mean there is no reason to doubt him.
This argument could work if the lib dem didn't just vote someone who voted more times with the tory whip than Michael Gove!
Your literally going to vote for someone who opposed a living wage, voted to cull badgers and wants a statue of thatcher.
Last edited:
If I was from the UK, this would be my thinking too.
In the normal run of things I’d agree completely, but these aren’t normal times and the stupid decision to put it to referendum once changed the playing field completely over Brexit.
I’m fine with a Remain-Leave first question and then a ‘If we Leave, should it be with a deal or no deal’ second question. The issue I have is with not allowing leavers the opportunity to vote for no deal if that’s what they truly want.
I think, or at least I'm hoping so, that BoJo's £100m publicity blitz regarding no deal preparations might have the unintended consequence of revealing to the blissfully blind public no deal for the catastrophe it is. I mean why would a positive outcome need a public information compaign fit for major cantagions?
I think this is a misunderstanding then. What I'm saying is that the Lib Dems are happy to have Remain vs No Deal as the only options, and that this is completely negligent and dangerous.
Deal needs to be an option in the referendum, and realistically if Labour were in government then the deal would have to be a Labour negotiated deal.
Most of us here agree that brexit needs to be stopped, but I also think we need to accept that it was what was voted for. Therefore any efforts to stop brexit should at least have shown that they tried to make brexit work, but that brexit turned out to be unworkable.
I don't think it's smart for Labour to say at this point that they'd hold a second referendum and try to negotiate a deal that can be voted on, but that they would support remain in any circumstances, no matter what that deal is. It would come across as them not actually trying to get a deal.
There would actually have to be a deal in place with the EU though for that referendum question to have any meaning (otherwise how do people know what deal they are voting for?), and unless Labour win a general election they can't agree any deal with the EU. At the moment the only way deal can be a referendum question is if its May's existing deal. Otherwise deal could win a second ref and then Labour could fail to negotiate a deal with the EU, putting us right back where we started.
It doesn't help that the deal Labour claim they want, is no more possible under EU rules than the one Johnson claims to want.
You mean the whip she was subject to as a minister in the coalition govt?
But frankly this stuff about voting records is a secondary issue currently. What matters is her party's position on Brexit.
So where's the problem? Labour support a 2nd referendum in all circumstances, and they will support remain against no deal or the tory deal. If they get into power then they will attempt to negotiate a new deal and hold a referendum of remain against that deal.
I know trying to please everyone is frowned upon, but this seems like the most pragmatic solution that throws a bone to the leavers, whilst giving the majority of remainers exactly what they've been campaigning for since the brexit vote.
Lib dems have exactly the same policy with the exception that they would not attempt to negotiate a new deal if they got into power, which is negligent and just shows that they don't actually think they'll ever get into power.
So the offer to remainers is fundamentally a Labour Brexit rather the Tory one. No thanks!
They will campaign for remain the first time around. Then for Labour Brexit the second.
Labour use remainers to get into power then we get sold out.
No, the offer to remainers is a 2nd referendum, which is exactly what remainers have been campaigning for over the last few years.
The offer is Labour campaign for remain, then they campaign for Brexit.
(They of course will campaign for the Brexit deal they strike in any referendum.)
It's an offer to remainers to get used.
Dam MPs and their votes!!!
I've just explained why I think Labour's approach is rational, and you haven't engaged with me at all. If you want to look like a troll then carry on as you are.
Nick is a moron. Don't waste your time.
I have. I don't agree with you. You completely fail to comprehend how disingenuous this Labour offer looks to remainers like myself.
Not quite sure which bit the Corbyn fanatics don't understand that there is no alternative deal.
I can understand why leavers like Farage might argue that but it's the responsibility of our government and other public institutions to deny that.
If we give in to such a principle i think that's worse than brexit itself. It's a terrifying path towards all sorts of pain and misery.
True to form
Powerful argument there from someone losing this argument.
I just said that they're promising the thing that we (yes I'm a remainer too) have been asking for the last few years and you didn't even acknowledge that in your response.
The hard leave portion of the public is significant in size and increasingly vocal. If they're denied a voice then they'll grow increasingly militant and confrontational. They'll claim (and not unreasonably) that they are being denied a democratic voice, and people who don't feel represented by democracy can end up doing dangerous things. By putting no deal on the ballot they have a chance to actually make their case within a democratic framework, and it'll provide a pressure valve for their resentment.
Of course if they lose they'll still claim the will of the people was subverted by not following through with the first referendum, but its a much less compelling argument when its the British public who vote against them, not just politicians overriding the public.
Because I don't trust Labour in this! They have fudged a clear Brexit position right from the start, culminating in an offer to remainers to lend them their votes to help deliver a Labour Brexit rather than a Tory one. I don't need to accept this when the lib Dems are offering a straight forward opposition
to any Brexit. Which is what I believe in.
You're going over idealism over realism.