Corbyn sacks former leadership rival over Brexit claims

[Bromley boy]

I note you still haven’t answered my previous question about how you feel about our existing EU membership being based on a simple in/out vote in the 70s.

I can only assume it is because you have no answer to it.

If we look at the 2017 General Election result there was a turnout of just under 70% and almost 58% voted for parties other than the Conservatives, so you could say the public want to get the Conservatives out of government, more than they want to leave the EU.

With respect the above paragraph is nonsensical. You’re trying to compare a first past the post GE with a single issue referendum.

A general election is is not a single issue contest. People vote in GEs based on a range of domestic/international/economic/tribal issues.

It certainly doesn’t follow that, because 58% voted for parties other than the Tories in a GE, that “the public want the Tories out more than they want to leave the EU.”, unless you know for a fact that the 58% who didn’t vote also all wanted to remain (I expect that’s news to many UKIP voters ).

There are a great many people who didn’t vote Tory in the 2015 election who did vote leave in 2016. That is a mathematical certainty. Therefore your statement above is unsafe.

The 2016 referendum, on the other hand, was a straight two-way shoot out. We know that circa. 52% of votes cast were to leave. Therefore we can say that the result of that vote was that more of the public want to leave the EU than want to remain, irrespective of their party political affiliations.

I think it would be the same if we had a vote on the type of Brexit we want, the winning form of Brexit would get fewer votes than remaining in the EU got in the previous referendum which is why Brexiteers don't want another referendum of any kind on leaving the EU.

But this is also nonsensical. What are you suggesting, that the government negotiates 6 different types of Brexit and we have another referendum to choose one?

Even if that weren possible (it isn’t), as I said before you should be very careful here because the “first past the post”/“biggest minority” favoured Brexit option may well be the hardest possible version.

I suspect what you really want isn’t a vote on the type of Brexit people want at all, it’s a rerun of the 2016 referendum which didn’t give you the result you wanted. Ie you want to ask the same question again.

If that's your argument surely you also think we should have another referendum x years after leaving so that if we end up worse off as a result of being outside the EU then we have a chance of rejoining. Not that leaving and rejoining would be a good option due to the expense and the EU being unlikely to offer us the opt outs we currently have a founder member, given new members don't get the opt outs and the EU doesn't want countries walking out every time they are unhappy with something.

How many times do I have to say I wouldn’t object to another referendum in the future, in principle.

But certainly not until after we have left and if/when things have changed enough to make another vote meaningful. Perhaps in 20 or 30 years time things will be different.

For now we need to respect the 2016 vote, leave, and make the best of it.

That’s something most remainers I know made their peace with long ago.

 

[pemma]

I note you still haven’t answered my previous question about how you feel about our existing EU membership being based on a simple in/out vote in the 70s.

What question? You said

If you accept the 1970s vote, you should acccept the 2016 vote, even if you don’t like the result. It’s hypocritical not to.

To which I responded I wasn't born at the time. There was no question there.

It certainly doesn’t follow that, because 58% voted for parties other than the Tories in a GE, that “the public want the Tories out more than they want to leave the EU.”, unless you know for a fact that the 58% who didn’t vote also all wanted to remain (I expect that’s news to many UKIP voters ).

I in no way implied that the reason 58% didn't vote for the Conservatives was because they wanted to remain but for some absurd reason you want to pretend I did. :roll:

Just under 52% voted for Brexit, 42% voted for the Conservatives. If I say exactly the same thing I said before using wording a Brexiteer might like more I'm saying Brexit is more popular than the Conservatives.

I guess you like talking about Brexit so much you want to pretend people said things they didn't even imply so you can carry on boasting about how a small majority of the population voted to leave the EU in 2016.

That’s something most remainers I know made their peace with long ago.

Most people never cared about the result being acted upon as much as you currently do, many thought a referendum was a waste of time and money.

 

[AlterEgo]

Most people never cared about the result being acted upon as much as you currently do, many thought a referendum was a waste of time and money.

Doesn't make it any less binding.

Suck it up. I did.

 

[Bromley boy]

To which I responded I wasn't born at the time. There was no question there.

Question asked (at least) twice previously and ignored.

I note you ignored my question earlier so I’ll repeat it: since you are evidently unhappy with an in/out referendum, why do you believe it’s acceptable to be in the EU in the first place, since that membership was also determined by a binary in/out referendum?

If you accept the 1970s vote, you should acccept the 2016 vote, even if you don’t like the result. It’s hypocritical not to.

You still aren’t addressing my previous point that our current membership of the EU was determined by an in\out referendum. In that referendum nobody voting “in” was voting for the EU in its current form. If that is acceptable to you, and evidently it is, why can’t you accept that a leave vote in 2016 is equally valid, even though the precise nature of what the deal will look like is currently unknown.

I in no way implied that the reason 58% didn't vote for the Conservatives was because they wanted to remain but for some absurd reason you want to pretend I did. :roll:

You did when you said “almost 58% voted for parties other than the conservatives so you could say the public want to get the conservatives out of government more than they want to leave the EU”.

You cannot say that for the reasons I have highlighted in detail above and I note you have not addressed.

Doesn't make it any less binding.

Suck it up. I did.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This. Even I’m getting bored of this discussion now. And that takes some doing!

 

[pemma]

So Bromley Boy you think some of the 58% of those who voted for parties other than the Conservatives actually want a Conservative government? I'll never understand your logic.

 

[edwin_m]

I note you still haven’t answered my previous question about how you feel about our existing EU membership being based on a simple in/out vote in the 70s.

The membership terms were clear at the time, as we actually joined before the vote. I'm just old enough to remember the vote going on but not the details, but I assume had it been rejected we would have reverted to our status before joining.

Yes the EU has changed in the meantime. But if you argue that these changes created the need for a referendum in 2016 then you must also accept that the situation we are now heading into was very different from what was expected in 2016 and therefore another referendum is needed.

Quite apart from that, I'd say the highly misleading promises of the Leave campaign mean that little weight can be put on a decision made by a relatively narrow margin. And that's before taking account of whatever arises from the current allegations of electoral fraud. Election of MPs can be cancelled and re-run if fraud takes place - is the same true of referendums?

 

[Bromley boy]

So Bromley Boy you think some of the 58% of those who voted for parties other than the Conservatives actually want a Conservative government? I'll never understand your logic.

Oh dear.

Please, please, read what I said again.

The above statement shows you’ve once again utterly failed to understand the point I was making.

It probably also explains why you’ve ignored most of my previous comments and questions. You evidently don’t understand them.

For future reference, I only like to discuss things with people who are articulate and educated enough to:

a. Understand the point I’m making; and
b. respond with something coherent.

If you can’t do that there’s precious little point engaging with you further.

 

[pemma]

Oh dear.

Please, please, read what I said again.

The above statement shows you’ve once again utterly failed to understand the point I was making.

It probably also explains why you’ve ignored most of my previous comments and questions. You evidently don’t understand them.

Quite frankly no I will no re-read any of your posts again. Domh245 made an excellent point and I gave you some statistics which proves it was an excellent point and you resorted to making up false claims to make it look like I was talking rubbish. I never said 42% voting for the Conservatives at the last election in any way suggested 58% wanted to remain in the EU a year after the referendum, yet you made up that claim (or perhaps your reading skills aren't that good, in which case you're in no position to criticise mine) and keep banging on about it, despite the fact I've said multiple times I didn't say or imply that. I actually didn't read every word of most of your posts because it's clear you were clutching at straws to try and come up with anything based on facts so I started responding to them before I read the full post. If you want me to read your posts properly and in full then stop posting your opinion as if it's a fact. Let's face it you've said everything you could on Brexit on Rail Forums before this thread even started but you couldn't resist posting it all again initially to defend Corbyn for sacking someone not 100% behind Brexit.

 

[pemma]

The membership terms were clear at the time, as we actually joined before the vote. I'm just old enough to remember the vote going on but not the details, but I assume had it been rejected we would have reverted to our status before joining.

Yes the EU has changed in the meantime. But if you argue that these changes created the need for a referendum in 2016 then you must also accept that the situation we are now heading into was very different from what was expected in 2016 and therefore another referendum is needed.

Quite apart from that, I'd say the highly misleading promises of the Leave campaign mean that little weight can be put on a decision made by a relatively narrow margin. And that's before taking account of whatever arises from the current allegations of electoral fraud. Election of MPs can be cancelled and re-run if fraud takes place - is the same true of referendums?

Excellent post. I notice how someone posted about the recent discovery about Vote Leave breaking election rules with a potential criminal investigation on the way but how that's been completely ignored. I certainly hope Corbyn doesn't sack shadow cabinet ministers who back 'anti-Brexit' actions based on the result of that criminal investigation, the way he sacked Owen Smith, otherwise it would suggest Corbyn wants to run a dictatorship.

 

[Jonny]

Excellent post. I notice how someone posted about the recent discovery about Vote Leave breaking election rules with a potential criminal investigation on the way but how that's been completely ignored. I certainly hope Corbyn doesn't sack shadow cabinet ministers who back 'anti-Brexit' actions based on the result of that criminal investigation, the way he sacked Owen Smith, otherwise it would suggest Corbyn wants to run a dictatorship.

Some of the claims appear to have very little evidence to back them up. There is also the slight matter of the nine million pound mailshot by the government on a pro-remain series of leaflets.

 

[pemma]

There is also the slight matter of the nine million pound mailshot by the government on a pro-remain series of leaflets.

Which was within the rules because it was done prior to the pre-referendum campaigning starting. That leaflet seemed to do more to benefit Leave than Remain due to Cameron annoying people by spending government money on it.

 

[najaB]

Therefore we can say that the result of that vote was that more of the public want to leave the EU than want to remain, irrespective of their party political affiliations.

No, we can't. More of the voters, but not more of the public. The only thing we can say for sure about 'the public' is that c. 40% of eligible voters cast a ballot in favor of leaving the EU and c. 37% cast a ballot in favor of staying. We have no data about the desires of the c. 22% of eligible voters who didn't take part.

As above, I'm not trying to invalidate the result of the referendum, just making sure that claims are accurate.

 

[EM2]

And that’s precisely my point.

Nobody knows what the consequences will be on either side. It is an ideological question to which there is no right answer.

This is why we needed to have an in out referendum .

How can you logically have an in/out vote on a question which has no right answer?!

 

[SWTCommuter]

How can you logically have an in/out vote on a question which has no right answer?!

Why would you have a vote on a question to which there is a right answer?

 

[EM2]

Why would you have a vote on a question to which there is a right answer?

It depends on your definition of 'right', of course.
But one Remainer's 'right' is not the same as another's, nor is another Leaver's 'right' the same as another's.

 

[Bromley boy]

I actually didn't read every word of most of your posts because it's clear you were clutching at straws to try and come up with anything based on facts so I started responding to them before I read the full post.

Oh dear.

Now you've properly shown yourself up. What a strange and laughable thing to say!

How can you possibly know I was “clutching at straws” if you haven’t even read what I have written!?

You also admit you don’t actually bother to read the posts you are responding to?! So why bother posting on here in the first place?!

I can’t say that surprises me based on the poor quality of your responses. It also also explains why I’ve utterly destroyed you on every factual point, yet you continue ignore the points raised, rather than addressing them.

It raises the question (in bold so you’ll read it, it’s in big letters): what’s the point of being on a discussion forum if you aren’t prepared to engage with the discussion?!

There are some bizarre people on this forum.

 

[Bromley boy]

The membership terms were clear at the time, as we actually joined before the vote. I'm just old enough to remember the vote going on but not the details, but I assume had it been rejected we would have reverted to our status before joining.

That’s also my understanding. It was (I imagine) much less of a big deal than the 2016 referendum. It’s interesting to note that Corbyn voted “out” in the 1970s referendum, he must surely have voted “out” in 2016, he’s nothing if not consistent!

Yes the EU has changed in the meantime. But if you argue that these changes created the need for a referendum in 2016 then you must also accept that the situation we are now heading into was very different from what was expected in 2016 and therefore another referendum is needed.

I don’t think the current situation is any different from what was envisaged in 2016?!

What is it you think has changed?

Quite apart from that, I'd say the highly misleading promises of the Leave campaign mean that little weight can be put on a decision made by a relatively narrow margin. And that's before taking account of whatever arises from the current allegations of electoral fraud. Election of MPs can be cancelled and re-run if fraud takes place - is the same true of referendums?

Thing is the same could be said about the remain campaign - lies, fear mongering, “let’s scare the little oiks into voting the right way so that house prices in Islington don’t dip” was the gyst, as far as I could tell!

As far as I’m concerned the vote was an ideological one. I’d still have voted leave even if we end up poorer as a result (although I don’t believe we will in the long term).

EDIT: it’s great to see a well written and reasoned response from a poster who is capable of reading and understanding the posts they are responding to, unlike some on here .

 

[najaB]

I’d still have voted leave even if we end up poorer as a result (although I don’t believe we will in the long term).

In the long term, the Earth will be swallowed by an expanding sun which will eventually collapse and form a white dwarf. And I suppose that, in the very long term, entropy will reach a maximum and the universe will suffer heat death.

So I guess it really is just a matter of perspective.

 

[Busaholic]

Some of the claims appear to have very little evidence to back them up. There is also the slight matter of the nine million pound mailshot by the government on a pro-remain series of leaflets.

I've lived in the same property for a quarter of a century, on the electoral roll, etc, and didn't receive the leaflet; when I mentioned this to my regular postman, he told me he'd not been given any to deliver, and I live in the centre of a town.

 

[Bromley boy]

In the long term, the Earth will be swallowed by an expanding sun which will eventually collapse and form a white dwarf. And I suppose that, in the very long term, entropy will reach a maximum and the universe will suffer heat death.

So I guess it really is just a matter of perspective.

You’ve already exhausted my knowledge of particle physics/thermodynamics etc. by using the word “entropy”.

For the record, I don’t care if we end up financially poorer in the short term, either.

We will be a far wealthier country once we’ve left.

 

[najaB]

We will be a far wealthier country once we’ve left.

How so?

 

[Bromley boy]

How so?

We will no longer be a “member state”, a prisoner of the undemocratic, empire building, self-serving, bureaucratic monstrosity the EU has become. Therefore we will be enormously wealthier, even if fiscally poorer, for a brief period.

I could write an entire essay on the reasons I want the U.K. to be outside the EU, but it would be off topic.

 

[Bromley boy]

It depends on your definition of 'right', of course.
But one Remainer's 'right' is not the same as another's, nor is another Leaver's 'right' the same as another's.

So you agree there’s no “right” answer, then?

Hence why the referendum was necessary. A bit like an election - no right answer - so throw it out for a plebiscite vote.

Or do you also disagree with elections?

 

[EM2]

So you agree there’s no “right” answer, then?

Hence why the referendum was necessary.

No, I'd say 'hence why a referendum was the wrong mechanism to use'.

 

[edwin_m]

I don’t think the current situation is any different from what was envisaged in 2016?!

What is it you think has changed?

In 2016 various "promises" were made from one or other prominent Leavers about staying in the single market, £350m a week for the NHS, etc as outlined by others further back. The subject of Northern Ireland barely got a mention. For over a year afterwards, and to some extent still today, the May administration maintained that it would get things it has now conceded it won't. We still don't know what "out" will look like but it's a long way from what a lot of people were led to expect when they voted.

Thing is the same could be said about the remain campaign - lies, fear mongering, “let’s scare the little oiks into voting the right way so that house prices in Islington don’t dip” was the gyst, as far as I could tell!

The Leave campaign made promises which turned out to be impossible and which some of them probably knew were impossible when they made them. To be charitable, this was because no details of the Leave option had been defined so they could make it up on the hoof. If May had made her speech about no single market, no customs union a year earlier (which is at least an achievable aim) then there would have been a lot more certainty about what was being voted for.

I believe the Remain campaign was wrong not to highlight the achievements and benefits of the EU, ranging from cheap mobiles abroad through the working time directive to the prevention of war in Europe after 1945 (only partly joking). Instead they concentrated on the downsides, which was probably the wrong thing to do presentationally when people were voting on ideology rather than rational grounds. But I don't think the downsides they forecast were actually wrong. The first was a major fall in the pound, which happened. Although it wasn't too clearly spelt out the predictions were apparently based on an immediate declaration of Article 50 to leave as soon as possible, and most credible authorities forecast that most of the downsides will still happen during the now extended process of leaving. Depending of course on what the end result is, which of course we don't know...

 

[EM2]

We will no longer be a “member state”, a prisoner of the undemocratic,

More democratic than Westminster

empire building,

Other countries want to join, the EU doesn't force them to

self-serving,

Working in the interests of its members and residents

bureaucratic monstrosity

It's easier to deal with one market than twenty-seven

the EU has become.

 

[Bromley boy]

More democratic than Westminster

Other countries want to join, the EU doesn't force them to

Working in the interests of its members and residents

It's easier to deal with one market than twenty-seven

Needless to say I disagree with all of the above. On the democracy point the European Commission originates legislation, yet is comprised of unelected members, contrast with the U.K. parliament.

How anyone can state that the EU is “more democratic than Westminster” simply defeats me.

You’re clearly in thrall to the EU and see it as flawless - feel free to go and live in it.

 

[trash80]

Needless to say I disagree with all of the above. On the democracy point the European Commission originates legislation, yet is comprised of unelected members, contrast with the U.K. parliament.

The UK Parliament includes 797 unelected members.

 

[Bromley boy]

The UK Parliament includes 797 unelected members.

That’s the upper house.

The lower house originates the vast majority of legislation and must vote on all of it.

So how does that compare to the EU Commission?!

 

[trash80]

You said the EU commission had unelected members in contrast to the UK parliament, which consists of both houses.