Forum rules Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
Good post. Your point about people like Abbott fetishing a referendum result, that's what worries. It leaves a huge opportunity for the right to exploit it. There may be pressure for other votes so we can let 'the people' speak on other issues. How could Labour argue against a government implementing awful policies if the people 'speak' and say they want them in a referendum vote ?
Abbott use of 'elites' grated with me too. She sounded patronising to voters in the Labour vulnerable areas.
Well done Tulip Siddiq.
I agree with this.
But the root of the mess, as I see it, is the asking of a binary question on a subject that most (I'm guessing) folk feel massively ambivalent about.
There wasn't a place to say "I'm not entirely happy with how the EU is working, but I suspect leaving is a bad idea", or "I think we should leave the EU but consider what aspects of the EU we might be able to stay part of".
Too true Paul. That's why I feel Labour should be saying that, and saying it loud.
Am trying to remember the debates at that time. Who was standing up and shouting about the havoc the lack of nuance would wreak ?
Ahem. Step forth Corbyn on the last leg. Roundly condemned afterwards for his 7 out of 10 comment,should've been 10/10.
StephenDolan wrote:Would anyone have been supportive of a 3 line whip against at this stage of proceedings?
The time for the whip is surely after the bill & amendments, not before. Corbyn jumped the gun and as with so much he does, he's shot it into his own foot.
He likes retweeting Spiked (how dare salt of the earth people be called racist etc?). He seems to like appearing in films. Here's somebody reacting to another of his appearances.
C @gibtsdes Jan 24
@PaulEmbery So what are ordinary people? And: whom do you consider "non-ordinary" and what does it imply?
C @gibtsdes Jan 24
@PaulEmbery Ridiculous that @BrunoBrussels is making a living out of spreading lies about #EU & if I say he lied I'm looking down on "ordinary folk".
He got a bit of a bloody nose when the FBU backed Remain. Their "liberal elite" leader Matt Wrack was clever enough to spot the people actually calling the referendum and likely to profit from it.
But the root of the mess, as I see it, is the asking of a binary question on a subject that most (I'm guessing) folk feel massively ambivalent about.
There wasn't a place to say "I'm not entirely happy with how the EU is working, but I suspect leaving is a bad idea", or "I think we should leave the EU but consider what aspects of the EU we might be able to stay part of".
Too true Paul. That's why I feel Labour should be saying that, and saying it loud.
Am trying to remember the debates at that time. Who was standing up and shouting about the havoc the lack of nuance would wreak ?
Ahem. Step forth Corbyn on the last leg. Roundly condemned afterwards for his 7 out of 10 comment,should've been 10/10.
The case for membership was higher than that, even if you don't rate the organization itself. A question to avoid, I think.
StephenDolan wrote:Would anyone have been supportive of a 3 line whip against at this stage of proceedings?
The time for the whip is surely after the bill & amendments, not before. Corbyn jumped the gun and as with so much he does, he's shot it into his own foot.
With respect pk, that's not what I'm asking. There's been a lot of support for Labour to be against A50 being invoked, I wondered if any that had expressed this opinion would've been supportive of a TLW against invocation.
yahyah wrote:
Too true Paul. That's why I feel Labour should be saying that, and saying it loud.
Am trying to remember the debates at that time. Who was standing up and shouting about the havoc the lack of nuance would wreak ?
Ahem. Step forth Corbyn on the last leg. Roundly condemned afterwards for his 7 out of 10 comment,should've been 10/10.
The case for membership was higher than that, even if you don't rate the organization itself. A question to avoid, I think.
pk1 wrote:The comment at 11.06 speaks for me. When I recall how Steve worked so hard at disproving the Mid-Staffs stuff (speaking of which, where is St Julie since she got her gong - job done I guess) to see him so entrenched in nonsense & conspiracy theories is sad.
For membership? 10. But that would have been made to look silly too, I accept that.
His problem is that he doesn't get the EU at all, and can't speak with any authority on it. That came across more generally.
As a friend of mine put it, Denmark is like Britain, in the EU and not in the Eurozone. Wouldn't we like to be much more like Denmark? We would, and it can't be the EU's fault that we aren't.
Have to admit the pic was taken a few years ago.
My waist isn't quite that small anymore, and I've given up grabbing half naked men with my long limbs.
edited to add...you'd have to see the whole pic to understand the latter part of my post.
Good post. Your point about people like Abbott fetishing a referendum result, that's what worries. It leaves a huge opportunity for the right to exploit it. There may be pressure for other votes so we can let 'the people' speak on other issues. How could Labour argue against a government implementing awful policies if the people 'speak' and say they want them in a referendum vote ?
Abbott use of 'elites' grated with me too. She sounded patronising to voters in the Labour vulnerable areas.
Well done Tulip Siddiq.
I agree with this.
But the root of the mess, as I see it, is the asking of a binary question on a subject that most (I'm guessing) folk feel massively ambivalent about.
There wasn't a place to say "I'm not entirely happy with how the EU is working, but I suspect leaving is a bad idea", or "I think we should leave the EU but consider what aspects of the EU we might be able to stay part of".
Or, to quote a letter to, I think, Private Eye, 'just because the EU is shit doesn't mean the alternative is any less shit'.
Tubby Isaacs wrote:For membership? 10. But that would have been made to look silly too, I accept that.
His problem is that he doesn't get the EU at all, and can't speak with any authority on it. That came across more generally.
As a friend of mine put it, Denmark is like Britain, in the EU and not in the Eurozone. Wouldn't we like to be much more like Denmark? We would, and it can't be the EU's fault that we aren't.
We would?
FTNers would.
I think we're in this mess because not enough people in this country agree.
I'm giving up on hope.
StephenDolan wrote:Would anyone have been supportive of a 3 line whip against at this stage of proceedings?
Not sure what you mean by "at this stage of proceedings".
I would prefer Labour policy to be to vote against if none of the amendments are accepted, if that's what you mean. How to vote if amendments are accepted can't be decided until you know what they are.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
Have to admit the pic was taken a few years ago.
My waist isn't quite that small anymore, and I've given up grabbing half naked men with my long limbs.
edited to add...you'd have to see the whole pic to understand the latter part of my post.
Good post. Your point about people like Abbott fetishing a referendum result, that's what worries. It leaves a huge opportunity for the right to exploit it. There may be pressure for other votes so we can let 'the people' speak on other issues. How could Labour argue against a government implementing awful policies if the people 'speak' and say they want them in a referendum vote ?
Abbott use of 'elites' grated with me too. She sounded patronising to voters in the Labour vulnerable areas.
Well done Tulip Siddiq.
I agree with this.
But the root of the mess, as I see it, is the asking of a binary question on a subject that most (I'm guessing) folk feel massively ambivalent about.
There wasn't a place to say "I'm not entirely happy with how the EU is working, but I suspect leaving is a bad idea", or "I think we should leave the EU but consider what aspects of the EU we might be able to stay part of".
Too true Paul. That's why I feel Labour should be saying that, and saying it loud.
Am trying to remember the debates at that time. Who was standing up and shouting about the havoc the lack of nuance would wreak ?
StephenDolan wrote:Would anyone have been supportive of a 3 line whip against at this stage of proceedings?
The time for the whip is surely after the bill & amendments, not before. Corbyn jumped the gun and as with so much he does, he's shot it into his own foot.
With respect pk, that's not what I'm asking. There's been a lot of support for Labour to be against A50 being invoked, I wondered if any that had expressed this opinion would've been supportive of a TLW against invocation.
Am more bothered (as has been outlined better by others now) about the fact that we are not opposing it in word at this stage. We will be tarnished by this parroting of the Tory narrative (metropolitan elite, restrictions on immigration etc) in due course. And rightly so, I'm afraid.
Tubby Isaacs wrote:For membership? 10. But that would have been made to look silly too, I accept that.
His problem is that he doesn't get the EU at all, and can't speak with any authority on it. That came across more generally.
As a friend of mine put it, Denmark is like Britain, in the EU and not in the Eurozone. Wouldn't we like to be much more like Denmark? We would, and it can't be the EU's fault that we aren't.
We would?
FTNers would.
I think we're in this mess because not enough people in this country agree.
I'm giving up on hope.
Brits could never stomach the tax levels. Too many generations of letting the rich get away with it (because they are not seen to be scrounging off us, despite reality) and despising anyone with less than us. Can't see us turning it around any time soon.
Yesterday I had creamy celeriac and pear soup with focaccia and Welsh butter, delicious buttery risotto with Perl Wen cheese and spinach - the spinach was the healthy part of the meal, salted chocolate cremeaux [fancy name for mousse] with creme fraiche ice cream. I didn't care and I still don't.
Eat, drink and be merry. For tomorrow it'll still all be crap.
pk1 wrote:
The time for the whip is surely after the bill & amendments, not before. Corbyn jumped the gun and as with so much he does, he's shot it into his own foot.
With respect pk, that's not what I'm asking. There's been a lot of support for Labour to be against A50 being invoked, I wondered if any that had expressed this opinion would've been supportive of a TLW against invocation.
Am more bothered (as has been outlined better by others now) about the fact that we are not opposing it in word at this stage. We will be tarnished by this parroting of the Tory narrative (metropolitan elite, restrictions on immigration etc) in due course. And rightly so, I'm afraid.
Diane Abbot on R4 has just said
"Clearly if we don't get any of our amendments though, then we will have to review our position" (about voting to let A50 go ahead)
So, those of us who are 'obsessed by Brexit' and oppose triggering Article 50 are not alone, and any attempt to paint it us as 'red Tories' etc will not stand up when our arguments and concerns are agreed with by people like Monbiot, The Canary and Harry Leslie Smith who says Corbyn is wrong on it.
Phew...what a relief. It was like living in an alternate universe but it looks like reality is finally dawning.
AngryAsWell wrote:Diane Abbot on R4 has just said
"Clearly if we don't get any of our amendments though, then we will have to review our position" (about voting to let A50 go ahead)
AngryAsWell wrote:Diane Abbot on R4 has just said
"Clearly if we don't get any of our amendments though, then we will have to review our position" (about voting to let A50 go ahead)
..........??
Is it me?
It's this horsesh** bothering me no end regardless who it comes from - talk and act coherently, don't say one thing then say something else. This matters, the contradiction above. It matters a lot. Don't turn around and let fly something totally contradictory from previous action or statements.
AngryAsWell wrote:Diane Abbot on R4 has just said
"Clearly if we don't get any of our amendments though, then we will have to review our position" (about voting to let A50 go ahead)
..........??
Is it me?
No. No it isn't.
I was washing up and it was noisy in the kitchen (dishwasher broken) so need to find it on Iplayer to make sure, but I swear that's how it came across.
AngryAsWell wrote:Diane Abbot on R4 has just said
"Clearly if we don't get any of our amendments though, then we will have to review our position" (about voting to let A50 go ahead)
..........??
Is it me?
No. No it isn't.
I was washing up and it was noisy in the kitchen (dishwasher broken) so need to find it on Iplayer to make sure, but I swear that's how it came across.
She's here at 8mins50. I quote verbatim:
"The leadership has a lot of sympathy with people in heavily remain constituencies who find themselves in difficulty. It's not a question of voting with the Tories. This is a question of opening the process, we will seek to amend and if we're not able to get any of our amendments through, clearly we'll have to review our position"
Et tu Ed ? Oh dear.
