Hmmm. Labour won Kensington. The richest constituency in the UK.Originally Posted by IUFG
EDIT: Of course Labour voters are damned whether they have money or not.
Hmmm. Labour won Kensington. The richest constituency in the UK.
EDIT: Of course Labour voters are damned whether they have money or not.
Did they, by God?!
Urgent new hobby alert for whoever the conservative candidate was then. And the party leader too, just to be on the safe side.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
London innit. They voted 60% to Remain and now they're getting their own back. That and the students in London jumping all over Comrade Corbyn's handouts pretty much explains the entire election.
But on the upside, here comes a nice, soft Brexit.
If they wanted to vote remain they should have voted Lib Dem.London innit. They voted 60% to Remain and now they're getting their own back. That and the students in London jumping all over Comrade Corbyn's handouts pretty much explains the entire election.
But on the upside, here comes a nice, soft Brexit.
Soft Brexit = Fake Brexit.
♫♪.ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı.♫♪
Yes, I agree but that's exactly what is about to happen, I think.
The smug Leavers are about to be seriously disappointed. I'd be surprised if it looks very different from Remain, really. But that's modern politics, it's all about the here and now.
Well, I don't consider myself as smug but I am more than disappointed. The election campaigns were fought on the basis of 'Brexit is settled', and saw UKIP's vote collapse to nothing, from a fairly substantial national share, and to the benefit of the two main parties. Over 80% of people voted for parties who said they would leave the single market.
Now the election is over, May's battering is being used as an excuse for the dominant political and media classes to do what they've wanted ever since the referendum - to stop Brexit. The electorate at large hasn't voted against Brexit in this election (even though some people will have done), they have voted on all the basis of various reasons.
If this scenario plays out as we imagine, the majority who voted Leave will have been betrayed. UKIP will be back in five years when Britain is still subject to undemocratic and unnacountable external rule, still has no control over its borders, and still subsidises other countries from which it gets little (except cheap labour which is good for the wealthy and bad for the less wealthy).
The argument has to be that the will of the people was expressed at the referendum. If that was true before the election it is just as true now. I would also agree that any Brexit that involves remaining in the single market and retaining freedom of movement is an absolute betrayal of that vote. Nobody in their right can honestly think that those voting leave were voting for that. Its a joke.
There are more complex, longer term issues in there around cheap labour, the drift of skills and capital towards the areas of economic strength within the EU and away from those areas requiring development. The potential for widening an east-west divide within the Union that already exists.....
I have already heard plenty of references to a 'jobs Brexit', an 'economic Brexit', a 'Brexit that works for Britain'. As you say , this is politician-speak for the political establishment devising a brexit that works for them.
Yes, it will absolutely be a betrayal, but the reality is that whether or not Brexit is good in the long run, it will clearly be bad in the short run. And many politicians will be thinking 'if we go hard Brexit the economy will die and there goes my seat. If I go soft Brexit the economy should be just fine and I can argue my way out of the betrayal argument'.
Brexit may ultimately be better for the country but it clearly has a far lower downside in the short run and as I said, it's all about the here and now nowadays. As we've just seen with the student vote.
1. No parliament can bind its successor. Otherwise the 1975 vote would have been good for all time and the Jocks wouldn't have been talking about an IndyRef 2. Which, btw, has been derailed by the general election. People voted to say there was no longer a majority in Jockland for the party wanting independence.
Likewise, the two parties promising a hard Brexit got only 44.2% of the vote (and a minority of seats.) So over 55% voted against a hard Brexit and there is no majority in the HoC for such.
2. And no, a softer Brexit would not be a betrayal of the vote. Only of some people's interpretation. Were people asked if they wanted to stop free movement? No. Or leave the EEA? Or the SM or CU? Or if they had a problem with rejoining EFTA? No, no, no and no.
Basically, if they had wanted those questions asked, they should have done so at the time. They didn't.
And if the voters had wanted to answer those questions themselves, they should have done so this month, when they had a chance to vote for the two parties promising a hard Brexit. They didn't.
They didn't. The referendum didn't ask, ad therefore didn't answer, these questions. The GE did. And a majority of voters and of MPs said the answer to a hard Brexit is no.
If the voters don't like this parliament giving a soft Brexit, they can vote for a hard Brexit party next time. {Just like if the Jocks do want IndyRef 2, they can all go and vote SNP.}
We can join EFTA, which wasn't precluded by the referendum, and then voters can vote for a party promising to leave that or promising a referendum on leaving.
Sorry, but if you believe in GB's parliamentary democracy, then you have to accept that the answer to questions given in a recent GE trump questions not asked in a prior referendum.
Hopefully we can rejoin EFTA, wait for the OAP Brexiters to die and then rejoin the EU.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote