Click here for Arsenal FC news and reports

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 91

Thread: Labour's attempts to differentiate their position on Brexit and specifically

  1. #31
    [QUOTE=World's End Stella;4166746]
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post

    No, you simply do not understand the difference between hard Brexit and soft Brexit. Mostly because you don't understand what soft Brexit is, I'm afraid.
    Largely because it doesn't mean anything. Or more accurately, there is no real agreement as to what it means or how the term is used responsibly.

    Brexit means Brexit is still the most sensible statement was have on the subject, which is quite terrifying

  2. #32
    [QUOTE=Peter;4166748]
    Quote Originally Posted by World's End Stella View Post

    Largely because it doesn't mean anything. Or more accurately, there is no real agreement as to what it means or how the term is used responsibly.

    Brexit means Brexit is still the most sensible statement was have on the subject, which is quite terrifying
    And yet 17mil people voted for it. Astonishing.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post
    You're both being silly. The scenario I was referring to was one in which we nominally left the EU but retained all of the substantive ties that come with being a member.
    Could everyone kindly take care to edit out the erroneous quote tag to ensure accurate attribution!

  4. #34
    [QUOTE=World's End Stella;4166746]
    Quote Originally Posted by Monty92 View Post

    No, you simply do not understand the difference between hard Brexit and soft Brexit. Mostly because you don't understand what soft Brexit is, I'm afraid.
    Please do enlighten me then...

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
    New hobby, Sir?

    1) Labour campaigned in support of the referendum outcome but with the insistence that parliament alone would make the final decision. This is NOT a semantic distinction from May's position.
    2) Labour opposed the means testing because the process costs more to run that it could ever hope to save by denying the fuel allowance to some individuals. This is classic Tory policy- it looks responsible, it looks like it saves money, but it achieves nothing.
    3) The Tory's social care policy was a disaster from start to finish, something they even recognise themselves. Seeing it as an attack on wealthy pensioners completely misses the point.
    4) Possibly true, depending on how it is implemented. If accompanied by a return to capped numbers then yes, it constitutes a middle class subsidy just like the good old days. The sensible policy would be to return to the lower tuition fee. I would say they got that one wrong but then it won a lot of votes from young people.
    1) I was referring to Labour's attempts to differentiate themselves from the Tories in terms of the kind of deal they want and how they would attain it. And you know that.
    2) But they did not oppose it on this basis. They opposed it as it was "an attack on pensioners"
    3) See above
    4) Thank you

  6. #36
    [QUOTE=World's End Stella;4166753]
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post

    And yet 17mil people voted for it. Astonishing.
    However you wish to pretend otherwise, what was voted for was remarkably simple. The vote unequivocally represented a rejection of this country's membership of and current relationship with the EU. It said clearly that a majority no longer wish to be part of the organisation and - insofar as possible with regard to a future trading relationship - no longer wish to pay for its upkeep or be subject to its laws and regulations.

    Now are those things simple to achieve? No. But that is what was voted for.

  7. #37
    [QUOTE=Burney;4166762]
    Quote Originally Posted by World's End Stella View Post

    However you wish to pretend otherwise, what was voted for was remarkably simple. The vote unequivocally represented a rejection of this country's membership of and current relationship with the EU. It said clearly that a majority no longer wish to be part of the organisation and - insofar as possible with regard to a future trading relationship - no longer wish to pay for its upkeep or be subject to its laws and regulations.

    Now are those things simple to achieve? No. But that is what was voted for.
    You've described what people didn't want, without describing what they did want.

    And that bit is rather important.

  8. #38
    [QUOTE=World's End Stella;4166763]
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post

    You've described what people didn't want, without describing what they did want.

    And that bit is rather important.
    That's a bit silly. If I had cancer and you asked me what I wanted, I'd say, 'To not have cancer'.

    Would you then tell me I hadn't answered the important question, what would I like instead of cancer?

  9. #39
    [QUOTE=World's End Stella;4166763]
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post

    You've described what people didn't want, without describing what they did want.

    And that bit is rather important.
    What we didn't want was the question at issue, though. It was a binary choice in that sense. People are entitled in such a vote to reject the status quo without offering a detailed alternative. They voted to ditch the EU and try something else and it is the duty of any government to pursue future avenues only in the context of that rejection.

    What people do want is always the same: peace, prosperity and a quiet life.

  10. #40
    [QUOTE=World's End Stella;4166763]
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post

    You've described what people didn't want, without describing what they did want.

    And that bit is rather important.
    Unfortunately, it isn't what they were asked. They were asked yes or no, they voted no. Some of us pointed out beforehand that it was a little silly to ask people to vote for something they weren't allowed to see but that is what we got.

    While its dangerous to interpret too much from a yes or no vote I find it absurd that anyone could deny that freedom of movement was a key issue within the no vote.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •