Corbyn sacks former leadership rival over Brexit claims

[Arglwydd Golau]

the Labour Party is now a pathetic shadow of its former self.

...of which particular era in the history of the Labour Party are you thinking of?

 

[Bromley boy]

51.8% of people voted for Brexit (after a number of lies were circulated by politicians ahead of the referendum.)

And the % difference correlated to around 2 million (sorry I said 4 before) more who voted leave than remain. A large number, albeit a relatively small 4%ish margin.

That was a referendum to advise the government of the public opinion, not a legally binding referendum. If David Cameron had gone back to the EU and said "Look 51.8% voted to leave, that's not a big majority, do you want to offer them more concessions to see if they change their mind" then it would not have been undemocratic.

So your solution is “keep asking the same question until we get the result I want”. What message would that send out to voters?

In an election would you be happy for the losing party to remain in power and say “we will make some changes to our manifesto and keep calling elections over and over again until we win”?

The referendum was quite clearly intended to be acted on by parliament and it would be an absolute travesty for any government to call a referendum and not implement the result.

Following your reasoning you shouldn’t be in favour of the U.K. being in the EU in the first place, since our current membership was itself determined by a non binding referendum in the 1970s.

The way Brexit is being handled is undemocratic though. The Conservatives (who don't even have a majority in Westminster) tried to block politicians voting on the final Brexit deal and after they didn't get their way David Davies has said MPs will accept the deal negotiated by the Conservatives or we'll leave without one - there's no option for going back to get a better deal.

The elected government isn’t required to consult parliament on every issue*. That in itself isn’t undemocratic, it’s simply the way our democracy works. The government has now agreed to give MPs a vote on the final deal.

Of course David Davies has said that. What would be the point of going to the EU in negotiations and saying “if we don’t get the deal want we will just end up staying in anyway”? I don’t doubt that’s exactly the outcome you’d like.

*Just as how it wasn’t clear at the outset that a parliamentary vote would be required in order to trigger article 50. The legal case brought by Gina Miller was a cynical attempt to frustrate the Brexit process by a remainer with a rich husband who is arrogant enough to want to frustrate the will of the people of the U.K. for her own self interest.

 

[Bromley boy]

There, I actually agree with you on something.

Finally some common ground!

 

[edwin_m]

So your solution is “keep asking the same question until we get the result I want”. What message would that send out to voters?

In an election would you be happy for the losing party to remain in power and say “we will make some changes to our manifesto and keep calling elections over and over again until we win”?

No, but in an election we get the chance to vote them out a few years later if when they actually implement (or otherwise) their promises it turns out badly.

The nature of "leaving" was completely undefined at the time of the referendum, probably less defined than any election manifesto, so it's completely reasonable that we should have a chance to change our minds a few years later once we see how it's going to turn out.

After all, by your logic the 1976 referendum should be binding until the end of time. And if you say the EC of 1976 has changed completely in the meantime then you prove my point, because the consequences of being outside the EU will be very different from what most people expected or were told in 2016.

 

[najaB]

The referendum was quite clearly...

There are many adjectives that you can use about the referendum but 'clear' is not one of them. It was never clear what 'Leave' actually meant (e.g. in the single market or out) and the result was far from decisive. It is what it is, and while I'm far from happy with the result I'm more concerned that the negotiations (and the negotiators) seem shambolic from the outside.

 

[pemma]

So your solution is “keep asking the same question until we get the result I want”. What message would that send out to voters?

In an election would you be happy for the losing party to remain in power and say “we will make some changes to our manifesto and keep calling elections over and over again until we win”?

If the governing party were unable to deliver the promises in their manifesto and the opposition party changed what they were offering then yes I would be happy for a new election. I would think it would be undemocratic to not have one in those circumstances and I would hope if the government didn't call one that there would be a vote of no confidence in the government to result in a new election. In the same way given Leave admitted there would be no £350m for the NHS, if the EU had come back and offered us control over free movement within the EU then the same would apply to the EU vote.

Following your reasoning you shouldn’t be in favour of the U.K. being in the EU in the first place, since our current membership was itself determined by a non binding referendum in the 1970s.

I'm not saying the government should ignore a referendum result. I'm saying the government aren't legally obliged to remove us from the EU based on the referendum result if circumstances change e.g. the EU offer us a better deal to remain.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why not look for guidance to an organisation who claim to know the answers to all matters political.....and see how the RMT viewed the "correct" way to vote when the referendum was being held.

 

[pemma]

Tony Lloyd has taken the place of Owen Smith in the shadow cabinet.

 

[Bromley boy]

After all, by your logic the 1976 referendum should be binding until the end of time. And if you say the EC of 1976 has changed completely in the meantime then you prove my point, because the consequences of being outside the EU will be very different from what most people expected or were told in 2016.

I’m not saying referenda should be binding forever. The EU has changed completely since what was envisaged in the 1970s, therefore it’s appropriate that another referendum was held in order to put the question of remaining or leaving to the British public.

If in the future circumstances change again, for example if the EU undergoes a root and branch reform, perhaps then it will be right to consider rejoining and another vote will be held at that point.

In the same way given Leave admitted there would be no £350m for the NHS, if the EU had come back and offered us control over free movement within the EU then the same would apply to the EU vote.

The £350m soundbite was just that - a sound bite. Lots of lies and misinformation was spread by both sides during the campaign. We as a country have voted to leave, so we need to now do so. I have no issue with that position changing in the future, but the result of this particular referendum needs to respected.

I'm not saying the government should ignore a referendum result. I'm saying the government aren't legally obliged to remove us from the EU based on the referendum result if circumstances change e.g. the EU offer us a better deal to remain.

That’s unlikely to happen because the EU is too arrogant and intransigent to change, and is terrified that other countries may wish to leave in the future.

Unfortunately the EU’s main preoccupation is empire building and perpetuating its own existence, rather than serving its member states. The tail is now wagging the dog.

 

[Bromley boy]

There are many adjectives that you can use about the referendum but 'clear' is not one of them. It was never clear what 'Leave' actually meant (e.g. in the single market or out) and the result was far from decisive. It is what it is, and while I'm far from happy with the result I'm more concerned that the negotiations (and the negotiators) seem shambolic from the outside.

I don’t disagree with you, but at the same time it’s obvious that people who voted leave didn’t vote for things to remain as they are. Clearly remaining in the common market is not compatible with the spirit of leaving the EU, and indeed we were told constantly by the remain campaign that a vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the common market.

My hope is that negotiations now seem to be moving in the right direction and that a grown up solution can be found which will enable the U.K. to have a close, mutually beneficial relationship with Europe going forward.

 

[najaB]

The £350m soundbite was just that - a sound bite.

Sorry, but you get to use the 'only a sound bite' excuse for something that was said once. It was said over and over again. They had it on the side of a freaking bus. It was a mantra, not a sound bite.

 

[Bromley boy]

Sorry, but you get to use the 'only a sound bite' excuse for something that was said once. It was said over and over again. They had it on the side of a freaking bus. It was a mantra, not a sound bite.

Based on the below photo the statement was made that £350m is spent on the EU per week, “let’s fund our NHS instead”. That isn’t an explicit promise they precisely that figure would be spent on the NHS. It’s just a sound bite. People get far too hung up on it.

In any case the point being made was a sound one. A great deal of money is spent on the EU (more than we receive, as I recall from looking at figures at the time). From memory we are the second largest contributor to their coffers while the majority of member states break even or take out more than they put in.

 

[greyman42]

...of which particular era in the history of the Labour Party are you thinking of?

When Blair was in power would be the obvious answer.

 

[pemma]

The £350m soundbite was just that - a sound bite. Lots of lies and misinformation was spread by both sides during the campaign. We as a country have voted to leave, so we need to now do so. I have no issue with that position changing in the future, but the result of this particular referendum needs to respected.

There was one big lie and it was from Leave, even Farage admitted the £350m claim should never have been made (but only on the day after the vote!) Remain used a lot of predictions which could prove to be right or wrong but we don't know they are wrong yet, some claim they have been proved wrong despite not us not having left the EU yet - obviously there were some not very intelligent people backing Leave!

 

[Bromley boy]

When Blair was in power would be the obvious answer.

And the correct one (not that I’m any fan of Blair).

 

[najaB]

In any case the point being made was a sound one. A great deal of money is spent on the EU (more than we receive, as I recall from looking at figures at the time).

I really don't understand why people get so het up about this. It's a basic principle that the better off contribute and the less well off receive. It's exactly the same way that taxation works.

 

[Bromley boy]

There was one big lie and it was from Leave, even Farage admitted the £350m claim should never have been made (but only on the day after the vote!) Remain used a lot of predictions which could prove to be right or wrong but we don't know they are wrong yet, some claim they have been proved wrong despite not us not having left the EU yet - obviously there were some not very intelligent people backing Leave!

As per my reply above, it was a sound bite and wasn’t actually an explicit promise when you read it. In any case it was illustrating a sound principle.

Of course both sides were backed by some who are not intelligent and some who are highly intelligent. We live in a democracy not an intellectual meritocracy. Unless you believe people who aren’t intelligent shouldn’t be allowed to vote in elections?

On the subject of lies what happened to the “punishment budget” George Osbourne threatened us with if we dared to vote leave?!

 

[pemma]

As per my reply above, it was a sound bite and wasn’t actually an explicit promise when you read it. In any case it was illustrating a sound principle.

This was the original claim which implies there would be £350m to send to the NHS (which was a direct lie):

The bus with what you call 'the soundbite' came later (which is misleading rather than an outright lie):

Of course both sides were backed by some who are not intelligent and some who are highly intelligent. We live in a democracy not an intellectual meritocracy. Unless you believe people who aren’t intelligent shouldn’t be allowed to vote in elections?

I'm not saying the non-intelligent shouldn't be allowed to vote but I will say they are less likely to spot politicians telling lies. For instance, you need to understand the difference between gross and net to understand the issue with the £350m figure quoted. It could be argued Farage is very intelligent as he knew exactly how to get such people to believe he represents the working class. :roll:

On the subject of lies what happened to the “punishment budget” George Osbourne threatened us with if we dared to vote leave?!

It happened in last November's budget, when £3bn (which could be used to fund the NHS ) was put aside to fund Brexit and possibly more to follow.

The impact of Brexit was everywhere to be seen in Wednesday’s budget, but nowhere to be found in most of the chancellor’s speech. Philip Hammond’s only direct reference to the most seismic economic event in Britain’s postwar history was to confirm he would have to put aside extra money to prepare government departments for the worst-case scenario of a “no deal” exit.

“We are determined to ensure that the country is prepared for every possible outcome. We have already invested almost £700m in Brexit preparations. Today I am setting aside over the next two years another £3bn. And I stand ready to allocate further sums if and when needed,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...top-up-but-skulks-unflagged-in-hammond-budget

 

[edwin_m]

I’m not saying referenda should be binding forever. The EU has changed completely since what was envisaged in the 1970s, therefore it’s appropriate that another referendum was held in order to put the question of remaining or leaving to the British public.

The bit of my post you didn't quote:

And if you say the EC of 1976 has changed completely in the meantime then you prove my point, because the consequences of being outside the EU will be very different from what most people expected or were told in 2016.

 

[londiscape]

I’m not saying referenda should be binding forever. The EU has changed completely since what was envisaged in the 1970s, therefore it’s appropriate that another referendum was held in order to put the question of remaining or leaving to the British public.

If in the future circumstances change again, for example if the EU undergoes a root and branch reform, perhaps then it will be right to consider rejoining and another vote will be held at that point.



The £350m soundbite was just that - a sound bite. Lots of lies and misinformation was spread by both sides during the campaign. We as a country have voted to leave, so we need to now do so. I have no issue with that position changing in the future, but the result of this particular referendum needs to respected.



That’s unlikely to happen because the EU is too arrogant and intransigent to change, and is terrified that other countries may wish to leave in the future.

Unfortunately the EU’s main preoccupation is empire building and perpetuating its own existence, rather than serving its member states. The tail is now wagging the dog.

Was about to reply - but Bromley boy has expressed views very similar to mine.

The next opportunity the electorate have to register dissatisfaction with Brexit will be in 2022, when any party desiring UK EU membership can make a headline general election manifesto commitment that if that party succeeded in forming a Government, they would immediately start a process for the UK to rejoin the EU. If Labour and Conservatives decline to take this position, one can always vote for a party that will (Lib Dems wouldn't surprise if they went down this path).

 

[Bromley boy]

This was the original claim which implies there would be £350m to send to the NHS (which was a direct lie):

Fair point there. I will acknowledge those slogans were a lot more overt than the one on the coach and it was a bad decision to use them.

On the other hand, do you seriously think anyone who voted leave would have changed their vote if they were told “the NHS will be getting £50m back per week instead of £350m”?

I'm not saying the non-intelligent shouldn't be allowed to vote but I will say they are less likely to spot politicians telling lies. For instance, you need to understand the difference between gross and net to understand the issue with the £350m figure quoted. It could be argued Farage is very intelligent as he knew exactly how to get such people to believe he represents the working class. :roll:

For the umpteenth time. It’s a sound bite to illustrate a principle. The only people who obsess over it and wish to pick it apart are those who would like to reverse Brexit.

If it makes you better to demonise all leave voters as thick and unintelligent because you didn’t get the result you wanted, fill your boots, although it seems more than a little childish. (As a leave voter I find your obvious frustration at the result very satisfying. )

It’s also a case of pot kettle black. If anyone around here has issues with identifying lying, self serving politicians it’s apparently you as your below silly statement shows:

It happened in last November's budget, when £3bn (which could be used to fund the NHS ) was put aside to fund Brexit and possibly more to follow.

Well, no, that wasn’t the punishment budget we were lied to about at the time. As per the below article we were threatened with massive tax rises and spending cuts within a few weeks of a leave vote, by the then chancellor!

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ole-in-public-finance-if-uk-votes-to-leave-eu

George Osborne will warn that he would have to fill the £30bn black hole in public finances triggered by a vote to leave the European Union by hiking income tax, alcohol and petrol duties and making massive cuts to the NHS, schools and defence.

In a sign of the panic gripping the remain campaign, the chancellor plans to say that the hit to the economy will be so large that he will have little choice but to tear apart Conservative manifesto promises in an emergency budget delivered within weeks of an out vote.

So, jcollins, having banged on and on about the £350m per week soundbite point, can you please now acknowledge that the so called “punishment budget” was actually nothing more than a darstadly lie on behalf of the remain campaign, told by a then cabinet minister?

The bit of my post you didn't quote:

Because it’s a complete non sequitur.

What consequences of being outside the EU are apparent in 2018 that weren’t in 2016? None, because nobody really knows what the eventual consequences will be.

 

[yorksrob]

Collective Responsibility - The shadow cabinet is presumably expected to follow party policy ?

 

[najaB]

As a leave voter I find your obvious frustration at the result very satisfying

I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

 

[jon0844]

I'm disappointed, but not surprised.

It's great to have a divided society. Guaranteed to be good for morale, our security, the future of our children, and of course politics.

 

[Domh245]

Vote Leave 'broke spending limits' in Brexit referendum

Vote Leave broke the law during the EU referendum by exceeding legal spending limits, a Brexit activist has claimed.

Shahmir Sanni told Channel 4 News that the official Brexit campaign used a different group, BeLeave, to overspend.

Vote Leave chief Dominic Cummings has already denied the claim and said he checked with the Electoral Commission before donating money to the group.

Mr Sanni has also criticised Vote Leave manager Stephen Parkinson, his ex-boyfriend, for outing him as gay.

"I know that, that Vote Leave cheated… I know that, that people have been lied to and that the referendum wasn't legitimate," Mr Sanni told Channel 4 News.

"Leaving the European Union, I agree with.

"But I don't agree with losing what it means to be British in that process; losing what it means to follow the rules; losing what it means to be quite literally a functioning democracy."

Mr Sanni told the Observer that Vote Leave donated £625,000 to the founder of BeLeave, Darren Grimes, before the June 2016 referendum.

Vote Leave would have gone over its campaign spending limit of £7m if it had spent the money.

Mr Sanni claimed Mr Grimes was not in control of how the money from Vote Leave was spent and everything they did they passed through ground campaign manager Mr Parkinson - who is now the prime minister's political secretary.

He told the newspaper that most of the donation went to Canadian data firm Aggregate IQ, which has been linked to Cambridge Analytica - the firm facing claims it amassed the data of millions of people without their consent.

Mr Sanni said he and two other pro-Brexit friends reported the overspending allegation to the Electoral Commission on Thursday.

"In effect they used BeLeave to overspend, and not just by a small amount… Almost two thirds of a million pounds makes all the difference and it wasn't legal," said Mr Sanni, who first worked as a Vote Leave outreach volunteer before working for BeLeave.

"They say that it wasn't coordinated, but it was. And so the idea that… the campaign was legitimate is false."

Vote Leave has previously said it made the donation to Mr Grimes because it was coming up to its £7m spending limit and wanted a way of using the £9.2m it had raised from individuals and companies on campaigning activities.

The campaign separately spent £2.7m on the services of AIQ in the run-up to the EU referendum.

BeLeave was set up to give young pro-Brexit campaigners a voice during last year's referendum.

Separate campaign groups could spend up to £700,000 if they registered as permitted participants.

The foreign secretary - and leading campaigner for Vote Leave - Boris Johnson has dismissed the claims as "utterly ludicrous".

In a blog on Friday, Mr Cummings denied allegations of links between his campaign and Cambridge Analytica and said the claims were "factually wrong, hopelessly confused, or nonsensical".

Lawyers for AIQ told Channel 4 News that it had "never entered into a contract with Cambridge Analytica" and it had "never knowingly been involved in any illegal activity".

'Misleading'
In a "personal statement" issued to Channel 4 News, Stephen Parkinson denied the allegations and said he was confident he had stayed within the law and spending rules "at all times".

He said he was "saddened" by the "factually incorrect and misleading" statements from Mr Sanni, who now works for the Taxpayer's Alliance.

Earlier, Mr Sanni said - in a statement issued through his lawyers - that Mr Parkinson had outed him as gay in his original response.

Mr Sanni, a British Pakistani, said he was forced to tell his family and that relatives in Pakistan could be in danger as a result.

In his original statement, published on Mr Cummings' blog on Friday, Mr Parkinson said he dated Mr Sanni for 18 months, before splitting up in September 2017.

"That is the capacity in which I gave Shahmir advice and encouragement, and I can understand if the lines became blurred for him, but I am clear that I did not direct the activities of any separate campaign groups," he said.

Mr Grimes told Channel 4 News he denied the allegations.

A solicitor for Vote Leave told the programme the campaign had been cleared twice on this issue by the Electoral Commission.

The Electoral Commission said: "The commission has a number of investigations open in relation to campaigners at the EU referendum; it does not comment on live investigations."

 

[AlterEgo]

The nature of "leaving" was completely undefined at the time of the referendum, probably less defined than any election manifesto, so it's completely reasonable that we should have a chance to change our minds a few years later once we see how it's going to turn out.

If Remain had won, you can bet any Leavers asking for a second referendum would be ridiculed and vilified.

 

[NSEFAN]

If Remain had won, you can bet any Leavers asking for a second referendum would be ridiculed and vilified.

They probably would have been, but that wouldn't have stopped similar attempts to hold another one until the "correct" answer was obtained.

 

[AlterEgo]

There was one big lie and it was from Leave, even Farage admitted the £350m claim should never have been made (but only on the day after the vote!) Remain used a lot of predictions which could prove to be right or wrong but we don't know they are wrong yet, some claim they have been proved wrong despite not us not having left the EU yet - obviously there were some not very intelligent people backing Leave!

It really does not matter anyway. The vote was split on ideological grounds rather than practical ones.

People who voted Leave basically voted that way to stick two fingers up at the “metropolitan elite”.

Since the referendum (in which I voted Remain), whenever I’ve taken a journey through a deprived area like Medway or Teesside or South Wales, I’ve thought to myself: “Jeez, what a forgotten-about dump. I bet they voted Leave here”. And I’ve always been right. Generally, if a place is a dive, the vote was to Leave.

The Leave vote was predominantly white, lower class, less likely to have a degree and more likely to have low incomes.

It was a great big “F you” to people who for too long haven’t given a toss about white working class people. Me included.

 

[Dai Corner]

It really does not matter anyway. The vote was split on ideological grounds rather than practical ones.

People who voted Leave basically voted that way to stick two fingers up at the “metropolitan elite”.

Since the referendum (in which I voted Remain), whenever I’ve taken a journey through a deprived area like Medway or Teesside or South Wales, I’ve thought to myself: “Jeez, what a forgotten-about dump. I bet they voted Leave here”. And I’ve always been right. Generally, if a place is a dive, the vote was to Leave.

The Leave vote was predominantly white, lower class, less likely to have a degree and more likely to have low incomes.

It was a great big “F you” to people who for too long haven’t given a toss about white working class people. Me included.

Ironically, EU membership has benefited the deprived parts of South Wales (we have middling and wealthy areas too) with lots of funding for various projects.

The Valleys have consistently voted for the red rosette, whichever position the party has taken from hard left to centre. The current Welsh Labour government is probably more Blairite than Corbynite. A stronger Remain message from the UK Labour leadership may have made all the difference.

Keeping on topic, Owen Smith is the MP for Pontypridd in South Wales.

 

[pemma]

So, jcollins, having banged on and on about the £350m per week soundbite point, can you please now acknowledge that the so called “punishment budget” was actually nothing more than a darstadly lie on behalf of the remain campaign, told by a then cabinet minister?

Read what you posted properly

the chancellor plans to say that the hit to the economy will be so large that he will have little choice but to tear apart Conservative manifesto promises in an emergency budget delivered within weeks of an out vote.

When Theresa May called the 2017 General Election, Robert Peston said 80 pages of the Conservative's 2015 manifesto had effectively been torn up so that part proved to be correct. You should also note the exact wording - Osborne said he would hike income tax, he didn't say it was official Conservative Party policy that income tax would be hiked in the even of us voting to leave. Within a few weeks of the leave vote he was removed from his post. Whenever there's a change of personnel in the cabinet, the new person comes up with different ideas - Osborne liked to pull a rabbit out of a hat in his budgets and then find a way to fund the rabbit, Hammond doesn't do the rabbit tricks so doesn't need to find a way to fund them. However, despite that he's still put aside billions for Brexit as I already posted so notable extra funding for the NHS, roads, social care etc. has been put on the back burner due to Brexit. Also note Hammond tried to find a loophole to the Conservative's manifesto promise to not hike income tax or NI in hiking NI but only for self employed people but dropped it due to how unpopular it was.