Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyns Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

It happens that Stephen Cole formulated :
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyns Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

Yes negotiate a Labour deal then vote against it. YCNMIU.

--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

On 02/11/2019 11:04, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyns Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.


Not only is it a clear and logical policy, it's also the only policy
that makes good sense.

Brexit Party - a damaging no-deal Brexit and the hope that we can patch
together a deal after we leave

LibDems - ignore the Leave voters because we know that Remain is the
best policy and if we get into government we'll assume that all our
voters want Remain

Tories - an unsatisfactory Boris deal that many think is rather worse
than Theresa's deal, but possibly the best we can achieve, and the
electorate can like it or lump it because Boris will impose it on the
nation and will assume that the majority want it.

"The Todal" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2019 11:04, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.


Not only is it a clear and logical policy, it's also the only policy that makes good
sense.

But the whole point, as has become apparent in the last three years, is that
there is no possibility of securing a deal which would both satisfy the xenophopes
and protect UK industry and commerce.
The EU are going to insist on free movement of labour as a necessary component
of our continued membership of the single market and customs union. Without
continued membership of the SM and CU UK industry and services are severely
disadvantaged and will take years to recover if at all.

There simply is no middle way. And so its difficult to see what there is for
Labour to further negotiate over or present as a meaningful alternative to
staying in, in any referendum.

All that has happened since the referendum is a succession of politicians
Davies, Fox, May, and now Johnson all insisting they could get a better
deal than their predeccessors - that failure was down to their incompetence
rather than the EU sticking to its basic principles. And there's no reason to think
that Corbyn or anyone else would fare any better,



Brexit Party - a damaging no-deal Brexit and the hope that we can patch together a deal
after we leave

LibDems - ignore the Leave voters because we know that Remain is the best policy and if
we get into government we'll assume that all our voters want Remain

Tories - an unsatisfactory Boris deal that many think is rather worse than Theresa's
deal, but possibly the best we can achieve, and the electorate can like it or lump it
because Boris will impose it on the nation and will assume that the majority want it.


michael adams

....

On 02/11/2019 11:34, michael adams wrote:
"The Todal" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2019 11:04, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.


Not only is it a clear and logical policy, it's also the only policy that makes good
sense.

But the whole point, as has become apparent in the last three years, is that
there is no possibility of securing a deal which would both satisfy the xenophopes
and protect UK industry and commerce.


It would be idiotic to promise to get a better deal than Theresa or
Boris have managed to obtain.

Nevertheless, there are many voters who would be willing to see a
recession and job losses and factory closures if that's the price to pay
for getting full control over our borders and lawmaking.

If the people want a deal that has some benefits and some flaws, they
should be given a chance to cast their vote. We'll then see what the
majority want.

"The Todal" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2019 11:34, michael adams wrote:
"The Todal" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2019 11:04, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.


Not only is it a clear and logical policy, it's also the only policy that makes good
sense.

But the whole point, as has become apparent in the last three years, is that
there is no possibility of securing a deal which would both satisfy the xenophopes
and protect UK industry and commerce.


It would be idiotic to promise to get a better deal than Theresa or Boris have managed
to obtain.

Indeed. So why even try ? Corbyn will be on a hiding for nothing
from both sides.

As both remainers and leavers will be able to point out that May
and Johnson secured "better" deals.

The only real evidence that he had made any sort of difference would
be were his deal to be unconditionally endorsed by both Nigel Farage
and Donald Trump. And I somehow doubt he'd welcome that.


Nevertheless, there are many voters who would be willing to see a recession and job
losses and factory closures if that's the price to pay for getting full control over
our borders and lawmaking.

If the people want a deal that has some benefits and some flaws,
they should be given a chance to cast their vote. We'll then see
what the majority want.

He should have held out for a second referendum first, on Johnson's Deal.
As with Swinson its only vanity and an unrealistic view of their chances
that led them to press for a GE in the first place. Basically if Corbyn
wins an outright majority the best he can hope for is offering up a
secondhand deal in a referendum. And if people still vote leave, having
to take full responsibility for the dire consequences for the next
5 years.

Followed by another 20 years in the wilderness.


michael adams

....

On 02/11/2019 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 02/11/2019 11:04, Stephen Cole wrote:

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

Not only is it a clear and logical policy, it's also the only policy
that makes good sense.

Yes, it must be. I wonder then why Emily Thornberry couldn't quite get
the message across on Question Time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=CSa2wvJCIEc

Wor Kevin Keegan wrote:
It happens that Stephen Cole formulated :
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyns Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

Yes negotiate a Labour deal then vote against it. YCNMIU.


If Remain is a better option than the best possible Labour deal (which it
will be) then its surely perfectly intellectually honest to say as much,
no?

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

michael adams wrote:

"The Todal" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2019 11:04, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.


Not only is it a clear and logical policy, it's also the only policy that makes good
sense.

But the whole point, as has become apparent in the last three years, is that
there is no possibility of securing a deal which would both satisfy the xenophopes
and protect UK industry and commerce.

Correct. Which is why the only credible way forward is to put the best
possible deal to a referendum vs Remain.

The EU are going to insist on free movement of labour as a necessary component
of our continued membership of the single market and customs union. Without
continued membership of the SM and CU UK industry and services are severely
disadvantaged and will take years to recover if at all.

Labour will negotiate a deal that includes SM and CU membership/access.

There simply is no middle way. And so its difficult to see what there is for
Labour to further negotiate over or present as a meaningful alternative to
staying in, in any referendum.

Theyll negotiate the softest of Soft Brexits, Norway+++ or whatever, and
let the electorate decide if they want that or whether its sanest to
simply Remain.

All that has happened since the referendum is a succession of politicians
Davies, Fox, May, and now Johnson all insisting they could get a better
deal than their predeccessors - that failure was down to their incompetence
rather than the EU sticking to its basic principles. And there's no reason to think
that Corbyn or anyone else would fare any better,


Corbyns red lines are very different to the Tory red lines, and will
result in a wholly different deal.

--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur

On 02/11/2019 11:40, The Todal wrote:
On 02/11/2019 11:34, michael adams wrote:
"The Todal" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2019 11:04, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.


Not only is it a clear and logical policy, it's also the only policy
that makes good
sense.

But the whole point, as has become apparent in the last three years,
is that
there is no possibility of securing a deal which would both satisfy
the xenophopes
and protect UK industry and commerce.


It would be idiotic to promise to get a better deal than Theresa or
Boris have managed to obtain.

Nevertheless, there are many voters who would be willing to see a
recession and job losses and factory closures if that's the price to pay
for getting full control over our borders and lawmaking.

If the people want a deal that has some benefits and some flaws, they
should be given a chance to cast their vote. We'll then see what the
majority want.

Now that Labour has at last stopped prevaricating, that's what's
happening on 12 December, isn't it?

On 2 Nov 2019 11:04:37 GMT, Stephen Cole
wrote:

Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn’s Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

There is no more deal negotiating that can be done. And putting a
deal in a referendum is far too complicated for the lumpen
proletariat. HTH.

michael adams wrote:

"The Todal" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2019 11:04, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.


Not only is it a clear and logical policy, it's also the only policy
that makes good sense.

But the whole point, as has become apparent in the last three years, is
that there is no possibility of securing a deal which would both satisfy
the xenophopes and protect UK industry and commerce. The EU are going to
insist on free movement of labour as a necessary component of our
continued membership of the single market and customs union. Without
continued membership of the SM and CU UK industry and services are
severely disadvantaged and will take years to recover if at all.

There simply is no middle way. And so its difficult to see what there is
for Labour to further negotiate over or present as a meaningful
alternative to staying in, in any referendum.

It depends what you think is better. Labour wants to keep most EU
advantages. Therefore will probably negotiate something like a Norway
deal. This has the advantage that there won't be much to talk about
during the transition period, because we're already there. But we will
have nominally left the EU and have no responsibility for, or control
over, its political direction. We will stil be able to influence
detailed regs, as is Norway. Then we can choose between this and
remaining. Suits everyone except the most extreme and articulate
leavers. It really doesn't matter which vote the Labour Party supports
as the population can make up its own minds.

Personally I'd do a three way vote with a no-deal complete break and
some form of second vote. The conssensus seems to be that this would be
too difficult for the leavers to understand. If so, we could do what
the Americans do with a similarly educationally challenged population
and have what they call a "run-off" vote. I've actually forgetten what
we call a second vote in these circumstances.

I don't think the Labour Party will go for the latter solution though,
as I think everyone knows the no deal would be eliminated in the first
round.



All that has happened since the referendum is a succession of
politicians Davies, Fox, May, and now Johnson all insisting they could get
a better deal than their predeccessors - that failure was down to their
incompetence rather than the EU sticking to its basic principles. And
there's no reason to think that Corbyn or anyone else would fare any
better,



Brexit Party - a damaging no-deal Brexit and the hope that we can patch
together a deal after we leave

LibDems - ignore the Leave voters because we know that Remain is the
best policy and if we get into government we'll assume that all our
voters want Remain

Tories - an unsatisfactory Boris deal that many think is rather worse
than Theresa's deal, but possibly the best we can achieve, and the
electorate can like it or lump it because Boris will impose it on the
nation and will assume that the majority want it.


michael adams

...


--

Roger Hayter

"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...

They'll negotiate the softest of Soft Brexits, Norway+++ or whatever, and
let the electorate decide if they want that or whether it's sanest to
simply Remain.

The Norway agreement includes free movement of people. The difference
there is that very few people would want to move to Norway in the first place
so for them it's no big deal. They probably welcome as many people as
they can get.

Aside from all the questions about sovereignty which only ever really concerned
a small minority until the idea was put in people's heads, its the free movement of
people - control of our own borders which has always exercised leave voters.
Whether they are being reasonable in this is neither here nor there.

Basically Labour offering a referendum with two options both offering free movement
of people is simply asking for trouble.

As I said Labour should have backed a referendum on Johnsons Deal backing remain.
If remain won then Johnson would be discredited and possibly there would be more
dirt on this American woman by then. If leave won then Johnson could be left to another
three years of cleaning up his own mess


michael adams

....

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"The Todal" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2019 11:04, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.


Not only is it a clear and logical policy, it's also the only policy
that makes good sense.

But the whole point, as has become apparent in the last three years, is
that there is no possibility of securing a deal which would both satisfy
the xenophopes and protect UK industry and commerce. The EU are going to
insist on free movement of labour as a necessary component of our
continued membership of the single market and customs union. Without
continued membership of the SM and CU UK industry and services are
severely disadvantaged and will take years to recover if at all.

There simply is no middle way. And so its difficult to see what there is
for Labour to further negotiate over or present as a meaningful
alternative to staying in, in any referendum.

It depends what you think is better. Labour wants to keep most EU
advantages. Therefore will probably negotiate something like a Norway
deal.

Here's parts of one I posted earlier (with labour substituted for people)

The Norway agreement includes free movement of labour. The difference
there is that very few people would want to move to Norway in the
first place so for them it's no big deal. They probably welcome
as many workers as they can get.

Basically when the objection is that workers from the EU
are "coming over here, taking our jobs and working for lower
wages" (whether accurate or not) then Labour offering a referendum
with two options both offering free movement of labour is simply
asking for trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway...nion_relations

AIUI free movement of labour is among the EU's core principals.


michael adams

....

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:48:33 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:



dirt on this American woman by then.

who she?? how did she enter your rant?
where did she come from? where is she going?
when? where?


--
www.abelard.org

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:59:10 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


Basically when the objection is that workers from the EU
are "coming over here, taking our jobs and working for lower
wages" (whether accurate or not) then Labour offering a referendum
with two options both offering free movement of labour is simply
asking for trouble.

what is your estimate of the 'comfortable' carrying capacity
of the uk?


--
www.abelard.org

On 02/11/2019 13:22, abelard wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:59:10 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


Basically when the objection is that workers from the EU
are "coming over here, taking our jobs and working for lower
wages" (whether accurate or not) then Labour offering a referendum
with two options both offering free movement of labour is simply
asking for trouble.

what is your estimate of the 'comfortable' carrying capacity
of the uk?


10 million.


--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 13:26:33 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 02/11/2019 13:22, abelard wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:59:10 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


Basically when the objection is that workers from the EU
are "coming over here, taking our jobs and working for lower
wages" (whether accurate or not) then Labour offering a referendum
with two options both offering free movement of labour is simply
asking for trouble.

what is your estimate of the 'comfortable' carrying capacity
of the uk?


10 million.

so obviously you are against free movement...
but i was asking another poster

--
www.abelard.org

On 2 Nov 2019, The Natural Philosopher wrote
(in article ):

On 02/11/2019 13:22, abelard wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:59:10 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


Basically when the objection is that workers from the EU
are "coming over here, taking our jobs and working for lower
wages" (whether accurate or not) then Labour offering a referendum
with two options both offering free movement of labour is simply
asking for trouble.

what is your estimate of the 'comfortable' carrying capacity
of the uk?
10 million.

As long as they dont come and live anywhere near you - presumably?

On 02/11/2019 14:01, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 2 Nov 2019, The Natural Philosopher wrote
(in article ):

On 02/11/2019 13:22, abelard wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:59:10 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


Basically when the objection is that workers from the EU
are "coming over here, taking our jobs and working for lower
wages" (whether accurate or not) then Labour offering a referendum
with two options both offering free movement of labour is simply
asking for trouble.

what is your estimate of the 'comfortable' carrying capacity
of the uk?
10 million.

As long as they dont come and live anywhere near you - presumably?


They already do


--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 2 Nov 2019, The Natural Philosopher wrote
(in article ):

On 02/11/2019 14:01, Keema's Nan wrote:
On 2 Nov 2019, The Natural Philosopher wrote
(in article ):

On 02/11/2019 13:22, abelard wrote:
On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:59:10 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


Basically when the objection is that workers from the EU
are "coming over here, taking our jobs and working for lower
wages" (whether accurate or not) then Labour offering a referendum
with two options both offering free movement of labour is simply
asking for trouble.

what is your estimate of the 'comfortable' carrying capacity
of the uk?
10 million.

As long as they dont come and live anywhere near you - presumably?
They already do

10 million of them, eh?

Must be a bit crowded.

On Sat, 02 Nov 2019 15:59:34 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , abelard
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:59:10 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


Basically when the objection is that workers from the EU
are "coming over here, taking our jobs and working for lower
wages" (whether accurate or not) then Labour offering a referendum
with two options both offering free movement of labour is simply
asking for trouble.

what is your estimate of the 'comfortable' carrying capacity
of the uk?

About 30 million.

thank you for your estimate...mine is 30-40 million
but of course technology keeps extending that

seems the remoaners do not make such estimates yet just want
ever more...none of them engage with this *real world* problem
very strange in my models

i wonder what drives them other than fantasies

'it's all about racism' seems so intellectually bankrupt
(as does it's mirror image of course) :-)

--
www.abelard.org

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , abelard
wrote:

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:59:10 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


Basically when the objection is that workers from the EU
are "coming over here, taking our jobs and working for lower
wages" (whether accurate or not) then Labour offering a referendum
with two options both offering free movement of labour is simply
asking for trouble.

what is your estimate of the 'comfortable' carrying capacity
of the uk?

About 30 million.

A good start might be "saying goodbye" to everyone over the age of 60.

How do you feel about that ?


michael adams

....

On 02/11/2019 11:04:37, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyns Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

Any decent politician would understand that Remain is not an option,
from the once in a generation referendum result.

It should be accept the deal, or leave with no deal.

Many will simply not vote, and then the argument will be with such a
poor turnout, all those who didn't vote represent those who would leave
without a deal. Quite likely a majority of the electorate.

Perhaps the STV is the only alternative.

Choice 1: Leave with a deal
Choice 2: Leave without a deal
Choice 3: Remain

Of course that assumes people know what STV is!

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 16:26:32 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

On 02/11/2019 11:04:37, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn’s Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

Any decent politician would understand that Remain is not an option,
from the once in a generation referendum result.

It should be accept the deal, or leave with no deal.

Many will simply not vote, and then the argument will be with such a
poor turnout, all those who didn't vote represent those who would leave
without a deal. Quite likely a majority of the electorate.

Perhaps the STV is the only alternative.

Choice 1: Leave with a deal
Choice 2: Leave without a deal
Choice 3: Remain

brilliant wheeze...split the opponents vote and claim you 'won'

Of course that assumes people know what STV is!

britain voted against changing the voting system...stv is even
worse, but i doubt you know why

--
www.abelard.org

On 02/11/2019 16:29, abelard wrote:


britain voted against changing the voting system...stv is even
worse, but i doubt you know why


Perhaps, after the election, the LibDems will hold out for a referendum
changing the voting system to PR, as their price to join a coalition
with BoJo to push through hard brexit.

Although, I wouldn't be surprised if Jo Swinson would cave in for as
little as the deputy PM job.

On Sat, 02 Nov 2019 05:44:09 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grik-basstardo®™", farted
again:


Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

There is no more deal negotiating that can be done. And putting a
deal in a referendum is far too complicated for the lumpen
proletariat. HTH.

Are you sure, psychopath? Psychopathically sure again, you schäbiger Lump?
BG

--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"A lowering of the age of consent to reflect the rate at which today's
youngsters 'mature'."
MID:

"Fredxx" wrote in message ...
On 02/11/2019 11:04:37, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

Any decent politician would understand that Remain is not an option, from the once in a
generation referendum result.

David Cameron only called it a once in a generation referendum because he
thought remain would win.

Had he though there was a possibility that remain would lose by a small margin
then he might well have said there might also be a once in generation chance
to have second thoughts

It should be accept the deal, or leave with no deal.

I think the grounds for partitioning England into two separate countries are even
stronger. This will also stimulate the economy especially factories producing
breeze blocks and barbed wire, firms specialising in building walls and
people looking for a career manning customs posts. All of which leave
areas are either going to have to pay for, or starve,


Many will simply not vote, and then the argument will be with such a poor turnout, all
those who didn't vote represent those who would leave without a deal. Quite likely a
majority of the electorate.

Perhaps the STV is the only alternative.

Choice 1: Leave with a deal
Choice 2: Leave without a deal
Choice 3: Remain

Of course that assumes people know what STV is!

But that's unfair as there are two leave options and only
one remain option. To even things up there should be two
remain options

Choice 1: Leave with a deal
Choice 2: Leave without a deal
Choice 3: Remain
Choice 4: Remain and pay £1bn to a charity of the EU's
choice for messing them about for 3 years.


michael adams

....

On Sat, 2 Nov 2019 17:06:23 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Fredxx" wrote in message ...
On 02/11/2019 11:04:37, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

Any decent politician would understand that Remain is not an option, from the once in a
generation referendum result.

David Cameron only called it a once in a generation referendum because he
thought remain would win.

mind reading is a very useful aptitude

--
www.abelard.org

In article , michael adams
wrote:

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2019 11:04:37, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

Any decent politician would understand that Remain is not an option,
from the once in a generation referendum result.

David Cameron only called it a once in a generation referendum because he
thought remain would win.

Had he though there was a possibility that remain would lose by a small
margin then he might well have said there might also be a once in
generation chance to have second thoughts

It should be accept the deal, or leave with no deal.

I think the grounds for partitioning England into two separate countries
are even stronger.

London & the rest?



This will also stimulate the economy especially factories producing
breeze blocks and barbed wire, firms specialising in building walls and
people looking for a career manning customs posts. All of which leave
areas are either going to have to pay for, or starve,


Many will simply not vote, and then the argument will be with such a
poor turnout, all those who didn't vote represent those who would leave
without a deal. Quite likely a majority of the electorate.

Perhaps the STV is the only alternative.

Choice 1: Leave with a deal Choice 2: Leave without a deal Choice 3:
Remain

Of course that assumes people know what STV is!

But that's unfair as there are two leave options and only one remain
option. To even things up there should be two remain options

Choice 1: Leave with a deal Choice 2: Leave without a deal Choice 3:
Remain Choice 4: Remain and pay £1bn to a charity of the EU's choice for
messing them about for 3 years.


michael adams

...

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , michael adams
wrote:

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2019 11:04:37, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

Any decent politician would understand that Remain is not an option,
from the once in a generation referendum result.

David Cameron only called it a once in a generation referendum because he
thought remain would win.

Had he though there was a possibility that remain would lose by a small
margin then he might well have said there might also be a once in
generation chance to have second thoughts

It should be accept the deal, or leave with no deal.

I think the grounds for partitioning England into two separate countries
are even stronger.

London & the rest?

I'm only at the planning stages right now but it might be more
a case of London along with enclaves (of both persuasions) dotted
about. There will probably also need to be two BBC's and two
NHS's as well.

This might well be the stimulus England or rather Rengland and
Lengland actually need.

Obviously there will be nothing to stop leave enclaves from
getting their airlifts of chlorinated chicken but otherwise
all major ports will be connected by corridors - complete with
barbed wire and watchtowers etc - linking them directly to storage
and distribution facilities in The Capital.


michael adams

....

On 02/11/2019 11:34, michael adams wrote:

There simply is no middle way. And so its difficult to see what there is for
Labour to further negotiate over or present as a meaningful alternative to
staying in, in any referendum.


I suspect that Corbyn, if he does get the chance, will try to get a better deal by accepting the single market and customs union and therefore freedom of movement, i.e. something like Norway++. We heard quite a bit about that option just after the referendum but it seems have vanished - maybe when Mrs May drew her multiple red lines. That option would get us out of the Common Agricultural Policy and maybe for fisheries as well, but otherwise we'd be semi-members. It would not be my choice, as I'd prefer to stay an EU Citizen, but I suspect many MPs would like it.


--
Clive Page

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2019 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 02/11/2019 11:04, Stephen Cole wrote:

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

Not only is it a clear and logical policy, it's also the only policy that
makes good sense.

Yes, it must be. I wonder then why Emily Thornberry couldn't quite get
the message across on Question Time:

Because she's one of the complete duds that is actually
stupid enough to be a hard lefty too stupid to notice
that not enough of the voters are into hard left Labour
to get it into government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=CSa2wvJCIEc

On 02/11/2019 16:51, Tim Streater wrote:
Remainers pretend not to have noticed that Remain was removed from
consideration as an option by the 2016 referendum. Politicians of all
stripes said - at the time - that if we voted to Leave, then we leave.

But since then opinion has changed: just about every opinion poll for 18 months has given Remain a lead of several percent. The most recent ones suggest around 57% Remain to 43% for Leave. Of course polls are approximate but that's quite a significant difference. This explains why the Leave side are so desperate to avoid letting us have another vote on the issue.


--
Clive Page

On 02/11/2019 18:00, Clive Page wrote:
On 02/11/2019 16:51, Tim Streater wrote:
Remainers pretend not to have noticed that Remain was removed from
consideration as an option by the 2016 referendum. Politicians of all
stripes said - at the time - that if we voted to Leave, then we leave.

But since then opinion has changed: just about every opinion poll for 18
months has given Remain a lead of several percent.

Every opinion poll taken before the referendum gave "Remain a lead of
several percent".

What was the outcome?

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...

They'll negotiate the softest of Soft Brexits, Norway+++ or whatever, and
let the electorate decide if they want that or whether it's sanest to
simply Remain.

The Norway agreement includes free movement of people. The difference
there is that very few people would want to move to Norway in the first
place

At 17% it does in fact have one of the higher immigration rates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Norway

so for them it's no big deal. They probably welcome as many people as they
can get.

They don’t actually and make it hard for those who try to
take advantage of their immense sovereign wealth fund.
Obviously only with non EU citizens.

Aside from all the questions about sovereignty which only ever really
concerned
a small minority until the idea was put in people's heads, its the free
movement of
people - control of our own borders which has always exercised leave
voters.
Whether they are being reasonable in this is neither here nor there.

Basically Labour offering a referendum with two options both offering free
movement
of people is simply asking for trouble.

As I said Labour should have backed a referendum on Johnsons Deal backing
remain.
If remain won then Johnson would be discredited and possibly there would
be more
dirt on this American woman by then. If leave won then Johnson could be
left to another
three years of cleaning up his own mess

On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 04:54:49 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Because she's one of the complete duds that is actually
stupid enough to

Says the complete dud from Australia who is actually stupid enough to get up
EVERY NIGHT between 1 and 4 am, just so he can talk to somebody, as NOBODY
in real life is talking to him!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Sun, 3 Nov 2019 05:32:27 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


At 17%

You are 100% a trolling senile idiot, senile Rodent!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

michael adams wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:

"The Todal" wrote in message
...
On 02/11/2019 11:04, Stephen Cole wrote:
Omega wrote:
What is Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit position?

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.


Not only is it a clear and logical policy, it's also the only policy
that makes good sense.

But the whole point, as has become apparent in the last three years, is
that there is no possibility of securing a deal which would both satisfy
the xenophopes and protect UK industry and commerce. The EU are going to
insist on free movement of labour as a necessary component of our
continued membership of the single market and customs union. Without
continued membership of the SM and CU UK industry and services are
severely disadvantaged and will take years to recover if at all.

There simply is no middle way. And so its difficult to see what there is
for Labour to further negotiate over or present as a meaningful
alternative to staying in, in any referendum.

It depends what you think is better. Labour wants to keep most EU
advantages. Therefore will probably negotiate something like a Norway
deal.

Here's parts of one I posted earlier (with labour substituted for people)

The Norway agreement includes free movement of labour. The difference
there is that very few people would want to move to Norway in the
first place so for them it's no big deal. They probably welcome
as many workers as they can get.

Basically when the objection is that workers from the EU
are "coming over here, taking our jobs and working for lower
wages" (whether accurate or not) then Labour offering a referendum
with two options both offering free movement of labour is simply
asking for trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway...nion_relations

AIUI free movement of labour is among the EU's core principals.


michael adams

...

It is also one of Labour's core principles, albeit more honoured in
the breach ..

--

Roger Hayter

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

On 02/11/2019 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 02/11/2019 11:04, Stephen Cole wrote:

Form a Labour government, negotiate a Labour deal, put that deal to a
referendum vs Remain. HTH.

Not only is it a clear and logical policy, it's also the only policy
that makes good sense.

Yes, it must be. I wonder then why Emily Thornberry couldn't quite get
the message across on Question Time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=CSa2wvJCIEc

Ha ha ha. A Labour Deal. And make it a referendum choice with Remain.
Only a looney could come up with that.

Explain why the EU would, in those circs, offer anything other than a
****ty deal. Especially after Labour has been complicit in all attempts
to ruin the UK's negotiating position by removing no-deal as an option.
The only thing that has forced the EU to improve the rubbish deal it
offered Theresa May was the threat of no-deal.

This is a cosy delusion. There never was any deal available other than
the a transitional arrangement to Norway style or (the same)
transitional arrangement to completey separate. And since the
transitional arrangement had to be in accordance with EU principles
there never was a better transitional arrangement. Which of course
doesn't matter because if completely independent trade deal was desired
it could be negotiated later. As, of course, could any apparently
permanent backstop. It is all, and you won't be surprised by this, a
cynical game. Anyone who really wanted to leave would have accepted the
May deal and got out last March. Enough "infrastucture improvements"
would have sorted the backstop and then the final deal need bave borne
no relation to the transitional deal.





And should we be threatening these ****s? Of course we should - it's
what they've been doing to us these last three years.


--

Roger Hayter