UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[Gravlen]

And besides, what interest does it serve for them?

The russians? Their main goal is to ferment chaos and polarization, and undermine trust in the liberal democracy. It is to demoralize, subvert the population and have an erosion of democratic institutions. Further, it is to make the populus unsure of what to believe, what is fact or fiction, and it is to stoke anger and distrust.

"If you can't beat your enemy on the battlefield, go into your adversary, win over their populations and help elect officials that are sympathetic to the Russian viewpoint, and tie up your enemy, essentially, with politics and infighting."

[Celritannia]

He has stated a leave deal and a remain opposition on a referendum. What's hard to understand that?

Has he said Bollocks to Brexit or does he support Brexit? That's still not clear. Of course he *could* stay on the fence for longer but true remainers should have no delusions about what kind of party they're in.

Along with their other policies.

Their semi-official neurodiversity manifesto is a progressive step but other than that it's a hopeless, unpatriotic party which is stuck somewhere between a 1970s working man's club and a modern student woke group.

Parties are allowed a manifesto during an election.
Yes they have been, however, the Lib Dems have written off any form of Coalition with Corbyn.

They did in the last election but it could be different this time since the prospect of a second referendum vs no deal is bigger on the agenda. I could be wrong though, maybe they've ruled it out this time too.

And Labour will have a referendum.

If they win. What's less clear is if they'll try to vote for a referendum in the event of a hung parliament. If they don't then it only further shows that Corbyn is only using the referendum as a tactical ballast for his fence-sitting rather than supporting it on principle.

1. As a true remainer, I care about the problems with austerity too, and do not trust the Lib Dems.

2. It is backed by a number of economists, where as the Tory manifesto is not. Also, please explain to me how their manifesto is unpatriotic when it is ending the austerity of the regular people caused by Tory policies?

Wow, BBC hates Corbyn? Who'd have though?

And why shouldn't we teach the injustices of the British Empire? Why should we hide from the problems the Empire caused for people across the world?

3. And which is their fault, and why I don't trust them.

4. While ending Brexit is important, the austerity is actually the major aspect of this election.

[Hirota]

Brexit: Tory minister admits US will be free to raise prices for drugs bought by NHS

It's nice to see even the conicidentally Russian Oligarch owned Independent admit that drug pricing was only discussed in exploratory talks, as opposed to the advanced talks Corbyn claimed. Not that I'm one to have a blinding all-encompassing distrust of anything associated with the R word mind.

Of course, US pharmas probably already have the freedom to tender drug price increases already. It's just that the NHS as such a large bloc is not really worth the risk to the US companies of being declined. I don't really see how a UK-US trade deal post-Brexit is going to force the NHS to accept whatever number US Pharmas are going to put on drug x or drug y when other global and domestic pharma companies probably can offer drug z with most of the same results.

You also get into the murky area of patents, but again, how does that stop US companies offering terms and the NHS accepting or denying them?

I've got to admit, tendering for pharmacutical sales isn't one of my fields of expertise, I'm just applying what I know of the purchasing process in IT, and applying it to drugs. It would be nice if we had someone who knows more about this thing than us regular NSG plebs!

And besides, what interest does it serve for them?

The russians? Their main goal is to ferment chaos and polarization, and undermine trust in the liberal democracy. It is to demoralize, subvert the population and have an erosion of democratic institutions. Further, it is to make the populus unsure of what to believe, what is fact or fiction, and it is to stoke anger and distrust.

"If you can't beat your enemy on the battlefield, go into your adversary, win over their populations and help elect officials that are sympathetic to the Russian viewpoint, and tie up your enemy, essentially, with politics and infighting."

Assuming that's true (and personally it makes more sense to me than some of the nonsense), It kind of buries the theory that x or y are Russian stooges if Russia isn't really interested in promoting stooges by releasing evidence counter to the narrative that would favour their presumed stooge.

They don't care if Corbs or Bojo are in power. They just care that there is a proportion of their own population opposed to them in power.

The obvious solution to this would be to not fall foul of engaging in petty tribalism. Unfortunately petty tribalism is doing pretty well both sides of the Atlantic.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Police believe not one, but two republican paramilitary groups were involved in the murder of a man outside a school last year in west belfast.

Police now believe that two republican paramilitary groups were involved in the murder of a man outside a west Belfast school a year ago.

Jim Donegan, 43, was shot dead as he waited to pick up his 13-year-old son outside St Mary's Grammar School on the Glen Road on 4 December 2018.

Police have previously attributed the murder to the INLA.

They now believe another republican group, Óglaigh na hÉireann (ONH), was also involved in the shooting.

...

One gunman carried out the killing which police said was witnessed by hundreds of children and their parents.

Det Ch Insp Peter Montgomery said the investigation into the "callous execution" continues to progress.

He said the gunman is believed to have emerged from Clonelly Avenue onto Glen Road at about 15:10 GMT.

...

And a DUP councillor in North Belfast, Dale Pankhurst is facing questions after a catholic single mother was a victim of a sectarian attack as she prepared to move into a new house

A DUP councillor facing questions about his contact with a housing association after sectarian intimidation prevented a young Catholic mother from moving into a new home has defended his actions.

Dale Pankhurst approached Choice Housing saying a "concern" had been raised about the mother-of-four moving into one of its new-build properties in north Belfast.

The social housing body sought an assessment from police who confirmed they were unaware of any threats against the 24-year-old single mother.

But last week shortly before she was due to move in, windows were smashed and the anti-Catholic slur 'KAT' (kill all taigs) was scrawled on a wall.

...

A Union flag was also draped from a drainpipe on the property at Tyndale Gardens in the mainly unionist Ballysillan area.

There is no suggestion Mr Pankhurst had advance knowledge of the intimidation directed against the young mother.

....

Yay i love my home.

[SD_Film Artists]

Has he said Bollocks to Brexit or does he support Brexit? That's still not clear. Of course he *could* stay on the fence for longer but true remainers should have no delusions about what kind of party they're in.


Their semi-official neurodiversity manifesto is a progressive step but other than that it's a hopeless, unpatriotic party which is stuck somewhere between a 1970s working man's club and a modern student woke group.



They did in the last election but it could be different this time since the prospect of a second referendum vs no deal is bigger on the agenda. I could be wrong though, maybe they've ruled it out this time too.



If they win. What's less clear is if they'll try to vote for a referendum in the event of a hung parliament. If they don't then it only further shows that Corbyn is only using the referendum as a tactical ballast for his fence-sitting rather than supporting it on principle.

1. As a true remainer, I care about the problems with austerity too, and do not trust the Lib Dems.

2. It is backed by a number of economists, where as the Tory manifesto is not. Also, please explain to me how their manifesto is unpatriotic when it is ending the austerity of the regular people caused by Tory policies?

Wow, BBC hates Corbyn? Who'd have though?

And why shouldn't we teach the injustices of the British Empire? Why should we hide from the problems the Empire caused for people across the world?

3. And which is their fault, and why I don't trust them.

4. While ending Brexit is important, the austerity is actually the major aspect of this election.

1. Of course you're free to have other priorities but it's delusional to think that you're in a pro-remain party when it's clearly not.

2. The IFS said that both the Labour and Tory manifestos are flawed.

Most parties have some gripe with the BBC; Labour isn't alone in its victimhood.

It's about focus; I'm not saying that we should pretend that Britain was perfectly innocent and did no wrong, but it's also unpatriotic and fallacious to pretend that Britain and its empire was a 2-dimensional cartoon villain who did nothing but evil. Britain and Europe wasn't unique in imperialism, they were just more efficient in doing it. The Aztecs had their own empire of sorts before the Spanish arrived.

3. Sorry, what's their fault?

4. See #1

[Celritannia]

1. As a true remainer, I care about the problems with austerity too, and do not trust the Lib Dems.

2. It is backed by a number of economists, where as the Tory manifesto is not. Also, please explain to me how their manifesto is unpatriotic when it is ending the austerity of the regular people caused by Tory policies?

Wow, BBC hates Corbyn? Who'd have though?

And why shouldn't we teach the injustices of the British Empire? Why should we hide from the problems the Empire caused for people across the world?

3. And which is their fault, and why I don't trust them.

4. While ending Brexit is important, the austerity is actually the major aspect of this election.

1. Of course you're free to have other priorities but it's delusional to think that you're in a pro-remain party when it's clearly not.

2. The IFS said that both the Labour and Tory manifestos are flawed.

Most parties have some gripe with the BBC; Labour isn't alone in its victimhood.

It's about focus; I'm not saying that we should pretend that Britain was perfectly innocent and did no wrong, but it's also unpatriotic and fallacious to pretend that Britain and its empire was a 2-dimensional cartoon villain who did nothing but evil. Britain and Europe wasn't unique in imperialism, they were just more efficient in doing it. The Aztecs had their own empire of sorts before the Spanish arrived.

3. Sorry, what's their fault?

4. See #1

1. Austerity is a far more important issue currently, and Labour are the only ones putting policies forward to it.

2. So? At least Economists are backing labour's manifesto. It shows they have achievable policies.

3. The BBC have attacked Labour more than any other party. There is actual evidence to show Corbyn is the most attacked politician out of every other party leader.

No, but schools tend to teach mainly British subjects. and teaching about the horrors of the Empire is necessary. There isn't an in depth aspect into how far they are going into the atrocities of the Empire.
Also, to call it unpatriotic is stupid.

4. Then you are only blinded by a single issue.

[Gravlen]

The russians? Their main goal is to ferment chaos and polarization, and undermine trust in the liberal democracy. It is to demoralize, subvert the population and have an erosion of democratic institutions. Further, it is to make the populus unsure of what to believe, what is fact or fiction, and it is to stoke anger and distrust.

"If you can't beat your enemy on the battlefield, go into your adversary, win over their populations and help elect officials that are sympathetic to the Russian viewpoint, and tie up your enemy, essentially, with politics and infighting."

Assuming that's true (and personally it makes more sense to me than some of the nonsense), It kind of buries the theory that x or y are Russian stooges if Russia isn't really interested in promoting stooges by releasing evidence counter to the narrative that would favour their presumed stooge.

They don't care if Corbs or Bojo are in power. They just care that there is a proportion of their own population opposed to them in power.

The obvious solution to this would be to not fall foul of engaging in petty tribalism. Unfortunately petty tribalism is doing pretty well both sides of the Atlantic.

I think you are right, at least about the main actors in the UK. There may be some MPs or marginal actors (such as potentially Farage) who may or may not be Russian stooges, but apart from attempting to bolster some useful idiots I think the tactic in the UK is to continue a general attack on the political system and the public trust. If they can push stories about Corbyn the anti-semite and Boris the Buffoon, they'll do both.

It's a different story in the US, because the Russians knew all about Trump, and had a clear preference for him as he clearly was a destructive force with regard to the established order but also amenable to Russian influence. Their primary goal was to get him elected, and the secondary goal was to attack the system and the public trust.

[Ostroeuropa]

Assuming that's true (and personally it makes more sense to me than some of the nonsense), It kind of buries the theory that x or y are Russian stooges if Russia isn't really interested in promoting stooges by releasing evidence counter to the narrative that would favour their presumed stooge.

They don't care if Corbs or Bojo are in power. They just care that there is a proportion of their own population opposed to them in power.

The obvious solution to this would be to not fall foul of engaging in petty tribalism. Unfortunately petty tribalism is doing pretty well both sides of the Atlantic.

I think you are right, at least about the main actors in the UK. There may be some MPs or marginal actors (such as potentially Farage) who may or may not be Russian stooges, but apart from attempting to bolster some useful idiots I think the tactic in the UK is to continue a general attack on the political system and the public trust. If they can push stories about Corbyn the anti-semite and Boris the Buffoon, they'll do both.

It's a different story in the US, because the Russians knew all about Trump, and had a clear preference for him as he clearly was a destructive force with regard to the established order but also amenable to Russian influence. Their primary goal was to get him elected, and the secondary goal was to attack the system and the public trust.

You're forgetting that the Russian goal of polarizing the public and undermining trust in public institutions and the process aligns with the goals of modern Anglo-conservatism and their 'Starve the beast' goals. While it may be the case that the Russians do not particularly favor Labour or the Conservatives per se provided that goal is attained, their goal is nonetheless more easily attained with the conservatives in power. Hence all the Russian money pumped into their party and why Labour gets basically none.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ney-report

Conversely, a Labour government will attempt to foster trust in public institutions because they are the primary means by which Labour enacts policy.

[Hirota]

I think you are right, at least about the main actors in the UK. There may be some MPs or marginal actors (such as potentially Farage) who may or may not be Russian stooges, but apart from attempting to bolster some useful idiots I think the tactic in the UK is to continue a general attack on the political system and the public trust. If they can push stories about Corbyn the anti-semite and Boris the Buffoon, they'll do both.

It's a different story in the US, because the Russians knew all about Trump, and had a clear preference for him as he clearly was a destructive force with regard to the established order but also amenable to Russian influence. Their primary goal was to get him elected, and the secondary goal was to attack the system and the public trust.

I don't think I agree about Trump, but the good thing is we do have another election coming up, and that allows us to determine if Russia is inclined to meddle again for and/or against Trump in the 2020 elections.

So yeah, if whichever democrat candidate suddenly gets a video with a cyrillic timestamp showing Trump actually getting peed on by hookers, that would probably be evidence of them meddling for the sake of destabilisation rather intending to go down the route of copying the Manchurian candidate.

Still, This is a local thread, for local people; there's nothing for you American politics folks here.

[Gravlen]

I think you are right, at least about the main actors in the UK. There may be some MPs or marginal actors (such as potentially Farage) who may or may not be Russian stooges, but apart from attempting to bolster some useful idiots I think the tactic in the UK is to continue a general attack on the political system and the public trust. If they can push stories about Corbyn the anti-semite and Boris the Buffoon, they'll do both.

It's a different story in the US, because the Russians knew all about Trump, and had a clear preference for him as he clearly was a destructive force with regard to the established order but also amenable to Russian influence. Their primary goal was to get him elected, and the secondary goal was to attack the system and the public trust.

You're forgetting that the Russian goal of polarizing the public and undermining trust in public institutions and the process aligns with the goals of modern Anglo-conservatism and their 'Starve the beast' goals. While it may be the case that the Russians do not particularly favor Labour or the Conservatives per se provided that goal is attained, their goal is nonetheless more easily attained with the conservatives in power. Hence all the Russian money pumped into their party and why Labour gets basically none.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ney-report

Conversely, a Labour government will attempt to foster trust in public institutions because they are the primary means by which Labour enacts policy.

Not forgetting it as much as thinking it has comparatively less significance in their choice of strategy. But you are quite correct, and I absolutely agree with you that tory policies will (continue to) make the UK more vulnerable. Not just through austerity and class resentment either. It is, for example, clear that the policy of getting Brexit done no matter what the cost puts the Union itself at risk, and that would be something to support for someone who'd like to see a reduction of the power and influence both the EU and the UK currently have.

[Gravlen]

I think you are right, at least about the main actors in the UK. There may be some MPs or marginal actors (such as potentially Farage) who may or may not be Russian stooges, but apart from attempting to bolster some useful idiots I think the tactic in the UK is to continue a general attack on the political system and the public trust. If they can push stories about Corbyn the anti-semite and Boris the Buffoon, they'll do both.

It's a different story in the US, because the Russians knew all about Trump, and had a clear preference for him as he clearly was a destructive force with regard to the established order but also amenable to Russian influence. Their primary goal was to get him elected, and the secondary goal was to attack the system and the public trust.

I don't think I agree about Trump, but the good thing is we do have another election coming up, and that allows us to determine if Russia is inclined to meddle again for and/or against Trump in the 2020 elections.

So yeah, if whichever democrat candidate suddenly gets a video with a cyrillic timestamp showing Trump actually getting peed on by hookers, that would probably be evidence of them meddling for the sake of destabilisation rather intending to go down the route of copying the Manchurian candidate.

Still, This is a local thread, for local people; there's nothing for you American politics folks here.

I'll just add that I don't see any reason to wait, when we have reports from multiple intelligence agencies both in the US and Europe all saying the same. This is common knowledge within the intelligence communities.

[Hirota]

He has stated a leave deal and a remain opposition on a referendum. What's hard to understand that?

His 40 odd years of advocating for leaving the EU for a start.

I've talked about this in the incarnations of UK politics thread on NSG: Corbyn is a life-long Eurosceptic.

So it's difficult to understand why someone with such long-held values and alleged integrity is willing to turn his back on that.

I'll just add that I don't see any reason to wait, when we have reports from multiple intelligence agencies both in the US and Europe all saying the same. This is common knowledge within the intelligence communities.

Maybe I remember the last time multiple intelligence agencies all said the same thing, and why I'm sceptical nowadays.

<shrugs>

I'm just not ready to commit myself to one tribe or the other. If I develop a strong opinion about US politics I'll be sure to make sure everyone knows about it in the appropriate place

[Fartsniffage]

He has stated a leave deal and a remain opposition on a referendum. What's hard to understand that?

His 40 odd years of advocating for leaving the EU for a start.

I've talked about this in the incarnations of UK politics thread on NSG: Corbyn is a life-long Eurosceptic.

So it's difficult to understand why someone with such long-held values and alleged integrity is willing to turn his back on that.

Because he's running for Prime Minister, not President. His views may not match the parties views on all things.

[Novus America]

1. Of course you're free to have other priorities but it's delusional to think that you're in a pro-remain party when it's clearly not.

2. The IFS said that both the Labour and Tory manifestos are flawed.

Most parties have some gripe with the BBC; Labour isn't alone in its victimhood.

It's about focus; I'm not saying that we should pretend that Britain was perfectly innocent and did no wrong, but it's also unpatriotic and fallacious to pretend that Britain and its empire was a 2-dimensional cartoon villain who did nothing but evil. Britain and Europe wasn't unique in imperialism, they were just more efficient in doing it. The Aztecs had their own empire of sorts before the Spanish arrived.

3. Sorry, what's their fault?

4. See #1

1. Austerity is a far more important issue currently, and Labour are the only ones putting policies forward to it.

2. So? At least Economists are backing labour's manifesto. It shows they have achievable policies.

3. The BBC have attacked Labour more than any other party. There is actual evidence to show Corbyn is the most attacked politician out of every other party leader.

No, but schools tend to teach mainly British subjects. and teaching about the horrors of the Empire is necessary. There isn't an in depth aspect into how far they are going into the atrocities of the Empire.
Also, to call it unpatriotic is stupid.

4. Then you are only blinded by a single issue.

Is Austerity really a thing in the UK still? Neither party in the US has actually practiced it since the 70s.

[Ifreann]

1. Austerity is a far more important issue currently, and Labour are the only ones putting policies forward to it.

2. So? At least Economists are backing labour's manifesto. It shows they have achievable policies.

3. The BBC have attacked Labour more than any other party. There is actual evidence to show Corbyn is the most attacked politician out of every other party leader.

No, but schools tend to teach mainly British subjects. and teaching about the horrors of the Empire is necessary. There isn't an in depth aspect into how far they are going into the atrocities of the Empire.
Also, to call it unpatriotic is stupid.

4. Then you are only blinded by a single issue.

Is Austerity really a thing in the UK still? Neither party in the US has actually practiced it since the 70s.

Austerity has been the guiding principle of economic policy in the UK since the global financial crisis hit.

[Novus America]

Is Austerity really a thing in the UK still? Neither party in the US has actually practiced it since the 70s.

Austerity has been the guiding principle of economic policy in the UK since the global financial crisis hit.

That is weird. The is the literal opposite of most places.

[Souseiseki]

Austerity has been the guiding principle of economic policy in the UK since the global financial crisis hit.

That is weird. The is the literal opposite of most places.

yes the UK is ran by a bunch of fucking clowns and the people are trapped between being clowns themselves and not having the option to realistically vote non-clowns into power. we stuck to austerity for years after everyone else abandoned it which fucked the country then we realized the country was fucked and decided brexit was somehow going to fix it.

[Ostroeuropa]

That is weird. The is the literal opposite of most places.

yes the UK is ran by a bunch of fucking clowns and the people are trapped between being clowns themselves and not having the option to realistically vote non-clowns into power. we stuck to austerity for years after everyone else abandoned it which fucked the country then we realized the country was fucked and decided brexit was somehow going to fix it.

This election reminds me of the Bill Maher bit tbh. I'd apply it to Labour under Corbyn and Conservative party in general.

"I get a lot of shit for giving the democrats a lot of shit as though they're just as bad as the republicans. Blue V Red, D V R. But you know what a D is? It's a passing grade. It's the worst passing grade, but it's a pass. R is
what a pirate says before he shoots you, rapes your corpse, and steals all your money."

Corbyn might be lackluster, but he's the only viable choice.

[Dooom35796821595]

Not according to the British electorate, and they’re the ones who should decide.

Again, you misunderstand the SNP. They won’t stop trying for independence unless they loose their seats to another party, and even then they’ll keep trying.

Do you have a adequate poll to suggest that?
Because 17.4 million votes to leave are not hard leave voters.
Remaining in the UK is the best option for the UK.

I said they will not push for it as hard if we remain.

They voted leave, not remain which is what Labour is trying to pull.

On the same basis, we could describe the bulk of the people who voted remain as preferring a good deal over a hard exit, so the best all round option would be to negotiate a cross party leave agreement that is in the best interest of the UK.

[Salandriagado]

Do you have a adequate poll to suggest that?
Because 17.4 million votes to leave are not hard leave voters.
Remaining in the UK is the best option for the UK.

I said they will not push for it as hard if we remain.

They voted leave, not remain which is what Labour is trying to pull.

On the same basis, we could describe the bulk of the people who voted remain as preferring a good deal over a hard exit, so the best all round option would be to negotiate a cross party leave agreement that is in the best interest of the UK.

It's significantly closer to what the overwhelming majority voted for than Boris' "no deal by any other name" bollocks. Indeed, you could make a fair argument that either remain or an EEA-ish deal is the closest legally workable option to what they voted for.

There is no such thing as a "leave agreement that is in the best interest of the UK": any plausible deal to leave is going to be worse than remain. The more similar to remain it is, the less shitty it is.

[Dooom35796821595]

They voted leave, not remain which is what Labour is trying to pull.

On the same basis, we could describe the bulk of the people who voted remain as preferring a good deal over a hard exit, so the best all round option would be to negotiate a cross party leave agreement that is in the best interest of the UK.

It's significantly closer to what the overwhelming majority voted for than Boris' "no deal by any other name" bollocks. Indeed, you could make a fair argument that either remain or an EEA-ish deal is the closest legally workable option to what they voted for.

There is no such thing as a "leave agreement that is in the best interest of the UK": any plausible deal to leave is going to be worse than remain. The more similar to remain it is, the less shitty it is.

And why, exactly is remaining in the EU such a great option?

And I’d say the leave vote can’t be counted as remaining in an organisation whose main motto is an “ever closer union”.

The most important part is the fact that the public don’t trust politicians, not from any party. That’s not going to improve if they essentially tell the majority of the electorate, who turned out to a vote they though mattered that actually you’re all idiots and we’re not leaving.

[Salandriagado]

It's significantly closer to what the overwhelming majority voted for than Boris' "no deal by any other name" bollocks. Indeed, you could make a fair argument that either remain or an EEA-ish deal is the closest legally workable option to what they voted for.

There is no such thing as a "leave agreement that is in the best interest of the UK": any plausible deal to leave is going to be worse than remain. The more similar to remain it is, the less shitty it is.

And why, exactly is remaining in the EU such a great option?

It's not. It's mediocre: it's the baseline option. Every other option available is strictly worse.

And I’d say the leave vote can’t be counted as remaining in an organisation whose main motto is an “ever closer union”.

A motto that we have a specific exemption to.

The most important part is the fact that the public don’t trust politicians, not from any party. That’s not going to improve if they essentially tell the majority of the electorate, who turned out to a vote they though mattered that actually you’re all idiots and we’re not leaving.

This has literally nothing to do with anything that I said.

[Dooom35796821595]

And why, exactly is remaining in the EU such a great option?

It's not. It's mediocre: it's the baseline option. Every other option available is strictly worse.

And I’d say the leave vote can’t be counted as remaining in an organisation whose main motto is an “ever closer union”.

A motto that we have a specific exemption to.

The most important part is the fact that the public don’t trust politicians, not from any party. That’s not going to improve if they essentially tell the majority of the electorate, who turned out to a vote they though mattered that actually you’re all idiots and we’re not leaving.

This has literally nothing to do with anything that I said.

By your opinion.

Yeah, that’s part of the problem, we’re having to get an awful lot of these exemptions, to the point that we spend most of our influence on them instead of reforming a stagnating organisation.

It has a lot to do with why people voted, and why remaining will alienate a large amount of the electorate which is very bad for democracy.

[Salandriagado]

It's not. It's mediocre: it's the baseline option. Every other option available is strictly worse.



A motto that we have a specific exemption to.



This has literally nothing to do with anything that I said.

By your opinion.

By every objective measure. I notice that you've also entirely declined to provide any example of a deal that's better than the "half-in, half-out" deal we've had for decades, and which you're calling "remain".

Yeah, that’s part of the problem, we’re having to get an awful lot of these exemptions, to the point that we spend most of our influence on them instead of reforming a stagnating organisation.

No, we've spent our time coming up with silly exemptions due to a sequence of incompetent governments. The problem is entirely on our end.

It has a lot to do with why people voted, and why remaining will alienate a large amount of the electorate which is very bad for democracy.

Yeah, no. Annoying people is not "very bad for democracy".

[SD_Film Artists]

1. Of course you're free to have other priorities but it's delusional to think that you're in a pro-remain party when it's clearly not.

2. The IFS said that both the Labour and Tory manifestos are flawed.

Most parties have some gripe with the BBC; Labour isn't alone in its victimhood.

It's about focus; I'm not saying that we should pretend that Britain was perfectly innocent and did no wrong, but it's also unpatriotic and fallacious to pretend that Britain and its empire was a 2-dimensional cartoon villain who did nothing but evil. Britain and Europe wasn't unique in imperialism, they were just more efficient in doing it. The Aztecs had their own empire of sorts before the Spanish arrived.

3. Sorry, what's their fault?

4. See #1

1. Austerity is a far more important issue currently, and Labour are the only ones putting policies forward to it.

2. So? At least Economists are backing labour's manifesto. It shows they have achievable policies.

3. The BBC have attacked Labour more than any other party. There is actual evidence to show Corbyn is the most attacked politician out of every other party leader.

No, but schools tend to teach mainly British subjects. and teaching about the horrors of the Empire is necessary. There isn't an in depth aspect into how far they are going into the atrocities of the Empire.
Also, to call it unpatriotic is stupid.

4. Then you are only blinded by a single issue.

1. Cool, and how does that address my point that Labour isn't a remain party?

2. The IFS are also economists are they not? Or do we only count pro-Labour economists?

3. The Tories say that the BBC are too left-wing, the Lib Dems say they don't give them a proportionate amount of air time, and Labour says that the BBC are criticising Jeremy Corbyn, and to be fair to the BBC they're only using the ammuntion that Corbyn gives them. It's the Daily Mail, Daily Express etc who are doing the real cherry-picking against Corbyn.

Is further teaching on that really necessery? I mean are there millenials and gen Zs who know nothing about slavery? Is this somekind of secret that we've suppressed? It instead sounds more like Labour wants to flagellate Britain for its sins. I think it's very umpatriotic, and that's not even counting Corbyn rubbing shoulders with the IRA, Hezbollah and others who wouldn't want him to be big on defence.

4. Would you care to explain why? Caring about the EU doens't mean that you don't care about any other policies. The Lib Dems are a pro-remain party yet they are not a single-issue party.