1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Post-Brexit Thread

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Irish_Tom, 1 Jan 2021.

Tags:
  1. Murphy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 16 Sep 2018

    Posts: 7,628

    That's a bit like saying the passengers in a plane hijacking are complicit because they didn't do anything to stop the plane from being hijacked, as much as people blaming the opposition for the governing parties faults is almost meme worthy there comes a point where it's beyond ridiculous.
     
  2. ICDP

    Mobster

    Joined: 30 Dec 2011

    Posts: 3,399

    Location: Belfast

    Is it really ridiculous though? Your analogy only works if the passengers were not more than capable of intervening and had every opportunity to do so without putting themselves at any real risk.

    Corbyn stood back and hoped the Tories would tear themselves apart but failed to see it was the country that was being tore apart and not the Tories.

    Corbyn was not an innocent bystander in all of this. He and Swinson could have done more and worked together if they REALLY believed what was happening was wrong for the UK. Instead they engaged in petty political games over who should be the Unity PM. Despite the fact the only desired outcome of such a collaboration was to stop a poor Brexit deal, or even forcing another Referendum.

    Instead these utter cretins decided to vote for a GE because they really believed they had a chance. When the House of Commons voted for an early election the polls showed Labour a very distant second to the Conservatives. Everyone with an ounce of wit could see they were missing their only opportunity to stop Brexit becoming what it has.
     
    Last edited: 16 Oct 2021
  3. ltron

    Mobster

    Joined: 30 Aug 2014

    Posts: 3,378

    I agree, unfortunately Swinson and Corbyn cared much more about perceived advantage for their parties than giving us the chance to stop Brexit and avoid ruination. The irony is that their parties would have been handsomely rewarded if they had given us the means to save ourselves from Brexit catastrophe, I firmly believe that.
     
    Last edited: 16 Oct 2021
  4. Nasher

    Capodecina

    Joined: 22 Nov 2006

    Posts: 21,815

    Except Corbyn is one of the biggest anti-EU politicians around. He just pretanded to sit on the fence, to not upset his hipster followers.
     
  5. ICDP

    Mobster

    Joined: 30 Dec 2011

    Posts: 3,399

    Location: Belfast

    Indeed.

    I believe that the remainers in the UK wanted a valid voting choice to undo the damage. Unfortunately for Labour, Corbyn's consistent failiue to pick a side meant remainers and brexiteers both found a vote for Labour would be a waste. Corbyn did attempt to appease remainers by saying he would have another referendum but the damage to Labour was already done. Had he been saying that since the entire saga began people would have believed him but he had long since lost any trust among remainers.

    Swinson thought just cancelling Brexit would get votes for the LDs but even most ardent remainers knew it was a failed strategy. They needed the country to have the final say in a proper lawful referendum that was seen as demoncartic and fair. It was the country that needed to make it's choice to prove once and for all how the majority felt.

    Ironically turnout for the 2019 election was lower than in 2017. Despite the outcome of the 2019 GE being on of the most profound and monumental the UK ever faced.
     
    Last edited: 16 Oct 2021
  6. Murphy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 16 Sep 2018

    Posts: 7,628

    Yes.
    No because everyone is more than capable of intervening (unless their incapacitated) and had every opportunity to do so (there's opportunities every second from when the hijacking starts to when it's over) and risk (how much you're exposing yourself to danger) is only something that can be objectively evaluated with hind-site
    That's besides the point, he wasn't involved in Brexit because it is, and always was, entirely a Conservative party spat that spilled out into the public sphere.
    Could have done more is again besides the point, saying he was complicit would be like saying the passengers in a plane hijacking were complicit because they could've done more.
     
  7. ICDP

    Mobster

    Joined: 30 Dec 2011

    Posts: 3,399

    Location: Belfast

    Yeah, because your utterly pointless analogy worked the first time right. :rolleyes:

    Corbyn was not an innocent passenger on a hijacked plane. He was someone who had the official capacity and responsibility to stop the hijacking in the first place. To suggest Corbyn was literally powerless is utter garbage and will not wash with anyone.

    In your ill conceived analogy the people of the UK are the passengers, the Tories are the terrorists and Corbyn/Swinson were the security who could have stopped the terrorists but they were so incompetent that they failed.

    Corbyn was the leader of the opposition and his utter ineptitude helped Brexit get were it is today. PERIOD
     
    Last edited: 17 Oct 2021
  8. Freakbro

    Capodecina

    Joined: 29 Jul 2010

    Posts: 20,011

    Location: Lincs

    Christ, I've never realised what a joke the Telegraph is. Read an article this morning about how Britain can easily bear a trade war with Europe and could come out of it stronger!

    The Brexiteer frothing in the comments is just laughable, still all the same rhetoric being used about how we have the upper hand blah blah
     
  9. Murphy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 16 Sep 2018

    Posts: 7,628

    Yes, yes it did. Unfortunately you seem to think the word complicit means something entirely different.
    No one is doubting that, but he was not complicit. Go look up the word.
     
  10. ICDP

    Mobster

    Joined: 30 Dec 2011

    Posts: 3,399

    Location: Belfast

    I know what complicit means and it wasn't me who used that word to describe Corbyn's actions in all of this mess. I referred to him as inept, which I think is far more apt. Though you don't need to collude to be judged complicit in a criminal act.

    I was just pointing out that your analogy implies that Corbyn was somehow some innocent victim.
     
    Last edited: 17 Oct 2021
  11. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: 19 May 2004

    Posts: 24,427

    Location: Nordfriesland, Germany

    The day Harriet Harman whipped for Labour to back a referendum this stopped being true. Having backed the referendum, Labour needed to fight it, instead they had lifetime Euroskeptic Corbyn at the helm, who was far more interested in tribal beef with the Tories (and his own party) than winning the referendum. Having failed to stand up in the referendum, he then failed to put together a coherent opposition position with which to fight the pants-on-head Brexits of May and Johnson.

    Blaming Corbyn, or Labour, for the Brexit disaster over its architects on the right, or over Swinson's egotistical decision to hand Boris the election he wanted entirely on his own terms, is of course wrong. But Corbyn was complicit in Brexit and his failure as a leader continues to cost the country dear.
     
  12. Murphy

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 16 Sep 2018

    Posts: 7,628

    I didn't say you used it, you've been defending someone else's use of the word. My analogy in no way implies that Corbyn was somehow an innocent victim, I've even pointed out that I'm not disagreeing that he was more than capable of intervening, had every opportunity to do so, and with hindsite could've risked more, could've done more.
    Last time i checked Harriet Harman's name is not Corbyn. I don't disagree that he was a wet blanket when it came to Brexit, and pretty much everything IMO, but saying he helped the Conservatives to achieve Brexit is entirely wrong IMO, yes he could've done *more to stop it but that's entirely different than helping to achieve something.

    *more being an largely subjective.
     
  13. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: 19 May 2004

    Posts: 24,427

    Location: Nordfriesland, Germany

    That seems like a non sequitur tbh. The point is that whilst Brexit should have been an internal Tory squabble, after Labour under Harman (and, to be fair, Miliband had incompetently laid the groundwork beforehand) backed the referendum, the referendum wasn't any more. It was a cross-party approach.

    The Conservatives, at the time of the referendum, were on the Remain side. Something which seems easily forgotten now. Brexit was a collective failure of the UK democracy, not a Conservative victory. And, yeah, Corbyn didn't help with Leave win; but his failures are part of why they did, and his failures as leader after that are a part of how we ended up in such a bad place in the disaster afterwards. So, yeah, I agree he wasn't there actively helping out the Brexiteers.
     
  14. kinetic747

    Mobster

    Joined: 2 Apr 2006

    Posts: 2,886

    Believe it or not, I looked up the definition of complicit before using it but, although it didn't quite fit what I was trying to say, I used it anyway. :p I do believe though that the two main parties had a hand in this mess, and I certainly don't remember the opposition putting up any meaningful objections to Brexit. My home town voted Tory for the very first time purely on the Brexit message, that shows how effective Labours message was at the last election.
     
  15. Dj_Jestar

    Caporegime

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 29,210

    Location: Back in East London

    I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Corbyn might have thought Brexit would be the hill the conservatives die on, but he didn't see the blowback he'd get from it.
     
  16. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: 19 May 2004

    Posts: 24,427

    Location: Nordfriesland, Germany

    That does seem to have been the case, given reports coming out of their discussions at the time.
     
  17. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,824

    The Telegraph used to be the intellectual paper of the right but now it is a joke and no different from the Mail
     
  18. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 50,083

    Location: Plymouth

    Indeed, and it's why so few remainers took the offer of a second referendum from Labour seriously.

    The only strategy that explains the approach taken by Labour (oppose every deal, but also every attempt to steer away from brexit when the commons was voting) is that they wanted a catastrophic no deal that could then be blamed on the Tories (and used to justify the sort of insane economic policy that would never fly in the UK normally). As with everything when corbyn et al were involved, what they said was nowhere near as important as what they actually did.

    It's also the reason why corbyn could never have led a remain coalition.
     
  19. And

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 7 Dec 2002

    Posts: 1,020

    The print version is nothing like the Mail.

     
  20. ltron

    Mobster

    Joined: 30 Aug 2014

    Posts: 3,378

    Someone please save us from these idiots :mad:. This country is becoming a joke, a very dystopian one.