Brexit thread III

1246751

Comments

  • We have reached a point in time now where Labour can credibly push a People's Vote strongly whilst arguing that they have tried everything else first.

    TBH, given the current polling for the Brexit Party and Farage's success at channelling inchoate rage, I'm surprised that Continuity Remain still think that a PV is a good idea.

    If you consider that a democratically meaningful referendum should be to confirm a policy that has already achieved a democratic mandate (eg been outlined in the manifesto of the party of government, agreed by elected representatives in Parliament) then the 2016 vote failed to reach the standard of a valid referendum. After a form of Brexit is agreed by Parliament or described in the manifesto of a party that then gets elected to government a proper referendum to confirm that that is what the people want would settle the issue one way or another. Even if the result of such a vote went against my preference I'd accept the result. As I've said before, in September 2014 I celebrated the operation of democracy despite getting the wrong result, I never celebrated the 2016 vote as it fell so far short of the standard of a democratic exercise. Hold a proper referendum once the question can be written and I will celebrate the functioning of democracy, even if the result is a narrow majority for leaving seeking the terms outlined in the question.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    We have reached a point in time now where Labour can credibly push a People's Vote strongly whilst arguing that they have tried everything else first.

    For many of us that wouldn't matter but for some in the Leave constituency this is an important thing - Brexit can be shown to have failed in its own terms.

    Now is the moment.

    Is the Labour leadership up to it? That is the question.

    But even if Labour swung 100% behind a PV, with every single MP advocating passionately for one in the House of Commons, how would that cause a PV to happen? The government would still need to propose the legislation, and I see no evidence that either May or any of her probable successors would be willing to do so.

    A referendum could be the route through the problem. If Labour and Conservatives come up with a mutually acceptable plan, but the big question is whether Mrs May could carry it through, and whether a successor would renege on it, then make it the subject of a referendum. If the people vote for it then a new Tory leader would find it politically impossible to deviate significantly from it.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited May 17
    Ricardus wrote: »
    We have reached a point in time now where Labour can credibly push a People's Vote strongly whilst arguing that they have tried everything else first.

    For many of us that wouldn't matter but for some in the Leave constituency this is an important thing - Brexit can be shown to have failed in its own terms.

    Now is the moment.

    Is the Labour leadership up to it? That is the question.

    But even if Labour swung 100% behind a PV, with every single MP advocating passionately for one in the House of Commons, how would that cause a PV to happen? The government would still need to propose the legislation, and I see no evidence that either May or any of her probable successors would be willing to do so.

    A referendum could be the route through the problem. If Labour and Conservatives come up with a mutually acceptable plan (my bold), but the big question is whether Mrs May could carry it through, and whether a successor would renege on it, then make it the subject of a referendum. If the people vote for it then a new Tory leader would find it politically impossible to deviate significantly from it.

    But the cross-party talks have just been abandoned. So the chance of them finding a mutually acceptable plan is close to zero.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited May 17
    .
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    then the 2016 vote failed to reach the standard of a valid referendum. After a form of Brexit is agreed by Parliament or described in the manifesto of a party that then gets elected to government a proper referendum to confirm that that is what the people want would settle the issue one way or another. Even if the result of such a vote went against my preference I'd accept the result.

    Assuming you are sincere; I think you have to consider the possibility that an actual achievable People's Vote/Second Referendum will not meet the bar you set above, and that all the PV-or-bust folk will have achieved in the last two years will be to make it likely that one of the two options in any referendum will literally be juche.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    We have reached a point in time now where Labour can credibly push a People's Vote strongly whilst arguing that they have tried everything else first.

    TBH, given the current polling for the Brexit Party and Farage's success at channelling inchoate rage, I'm surprised that Continuity Remain still think that a PV is a good idea.

    That's interesting. Do you mean that another referendum would be like red meat to Farage, who would be enabled once more to roar around channelling all the chaotic rage? He will think all his Christmases have come at once, while Westminster elections would probably clip his wings.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Delay is not waste for the EU. It keeps the money coming in.

    I think this is misleading, the date of the UK leaving the EU still hasn't changed, so far the extensions have just cut into the transition period.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    We have reached a point in time now where Labour can credibly push a People's Vote strongly whilst arguing that they have tried everything else first.

    TBH, given the current polling for the Brexit Party and Farage's success at channelling inchoate rage, I'm surprised that Continuity Remain still think that a PV is a good idea.

    That's interesting. Do you mean that another referendum would be like red meat to Farage, who would be enabled once more to roar around channelling all the chaotic rage? He will think all his Christmases have come at once, while Westminster elections would probably clip his wings.

    I mean that the achievement of the last two years has been to get to the point where 34% of people are voting for a party whose only stated policy is to instantly cut all ties with the UK. The number of people who would vote Leave are going to be greater than that[*] - there's not much evidence at the moment that there has been a big shift in terms of opinions in the country as a whole.

    If ones objection to the initial referendum were on procedural and conduct grounds, then there have been no changes that would suggest that things will be any different this time around.


    [*] and there's a double edged sword here to arguing that a vote for Labour is a vote for Leave.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    I was just thinking that Farage loves extra-parliamentary stuff. So he is treating the euro elections as a referendum, and a second referendum would be red meat to him.

    On the other hand, it looks as if Brexit is not deliverable. What now?
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    On the other hand, it looks as if Brexit is not deliverable. What now?

    It doesn't matter - he thrives on the humiliation/betrayal narrative. If it isn't delivered it will be a betrayal, any deal will be a humiliation.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    Shades of Dolchstosslegende, stab in the back myth, Germany 1919 onwards.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    edited May 17

    I mean that the achievement of the last two years has been to get to the point where 34% of people are voting for a party whose only stated policy is to instantly cut all ties with the UK.

    Would to God that were the case. (However, I suspect it’s the EU they’re agin).
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    Are they really saying, cut all ties with the EU? So close Dover to commercial traffic? Insane.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    But Dover will be choc-a-bloc with argosies from the Indies and Cathay and the Americas. Or something.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    We have reached a point in time now where Labour can credibly push a People's Vote strongly whilst arguing that they have tried everything else first.

    For many of us that wouldn't matter but for some in the Leave constituency this is an important thing - Brexit can be shown to have failed in its own terms.

    Now is the moment.

    Is the Labour leadership up to it? That is the question.

    But even if Labour swung 100% behind a PV, with every single MP advocating passionately for one in the House of Commons, how would that cause a PV to happen? The government would still need to propose the legislation, and I see no evidence that either May or any of her probable successors would be willing to do so.

    OK, there is a way you could do it: Labour and the other opposition parties vote in favour of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill at second reading, then at the later stages propose an amendment to make it subject to a PV.

    Except that the geniuses on the Labour frontbench have already said they will vote against the WAB, and thus cut off the only avenue that remains to avoiding no-deal and effecting the changes they want.

    Charles I was a much-maligned man ...
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    We have reached a point in time now where Labour can credibly push a People's Vote strongly whilst arguing that they have tried everything else first.

    For many of us that wouldn't matter but for some in the Leave constituency this is an important thing - Brexit can be shown to have failed in its own terms.

    Now is the moment.

    Is the Labour leadership up to it? That is the question.

    But even if Labour swung 100% behind a PV, with every single MP advocating passionately for one in the House of Commons, how would that cause a PV to happen? The government would still need to propose the legislation, and I see no evidence that either May or any of her probable successors would be willing to do so.

    A referendum could be the route through the problem. If Labour and Conservatives come up with a mutually acceptable plan (my bold), but the big question is whether Mrs May could carry it through, and whether a successor would renege on it, then make it the subject of a referendum. If the people vote for it then a new Tory leader would find it politically impossible to deviate significantly from it.

    But the cross-party talks have just been abandoned. So the chance of them finding a mutually acceptable plan is close to zero.
    Sure, and the cross-party talks were never going to get anywhere as there are simply insufficient points of agreement between Brexit as defined by Theresa May and Brexit as defined by Jeremy Corbyn (and, equally between both those definitions of Brexit and Brexit as defined by Nigel Farage, or Boris Johnson, or Jacob Rees-Mogg).

    But, if the only point that was preventing an agreement was that Labour couldn't trust the Conservatives to carry it through given the imminent change in leadership, then a referendum to confirm that the people support Brexit as defined in the cross-party talks would remove that uncertainty.
  • then the 2016 vote failed to reach the standard of a valid referendum. After a form of Brexit is agreed by Parliament or described in the manifesto of a party that then gets elected to government a proper referendum to confirm that that is what the people want would settle the issue one way or another. Even if the result of such a vote went against my preference I'd accept the result.

    Assuming you are sincere; I think you have to consider the possibility that an actual achievable People's Vote/Second Referendum will not meet the bar you set above, and that all the PV-or-bust folk will have achieved in the last two years will be to make it likely that one of the two options in any referendum will literally be juche.
    If a referendum is linked to a particular definition of Brexit defined either by the government, by cross-party talks, Parliament through a process of indicative votes or defined by the membership of a political party who then secure a majority of MPs in a general election then it will be asking the people to confirm whether they want that definition of Brexit. Which will bring the vote above the low bar set by the AV referendum. It will, at least, have a meaningful question on the ballot. I'm not, at this stage, expecting a referendum to reach the gold standard of 2014, because that question was the end point of decades of democratic processes writing it and we've only had a few years of semi-democratic processes to write a question for an EU membership referendum. At present the closest we have is the WAB that the government has put to the Commons three times - it has the backing of the PM and her government, even if it's lacking the support of Parliament or even the Conservative Party. It does, however, present a definition that the people can vote on.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    We have reached a point in time now where Labour can credibly push a People's Vote strongly whilst arguing that they have tried everything else first.

    For many of us that wouldn't matter but for some in the Leave constituency this is an important thing - Brexit can be shown to have failed in its own terms.

    Now is the moment.

    Is the Labour leadership up to it? That is the question.

    But even if Labour swung 100% behind a PV, with every single MP advocating passionately for one in the House of Commons, how would that cause a PV to happen? The government would still need to propose the legislation, and I see no evidence that either May or any of her probable successors would be willing to do so.

    A referendum could be the route through the problem. If Labour and Conservatives come up with a mutually acceptable plan (my bold), but the big question is whether Mrs May could carry it through, and whether a successor would renege on it, then make it the subject of a referendum. If the people vote for it then a new Tory leader would find it politically impossible to deviate significantly from it.

    But the cross-party talks have just been abandoned. So the chance of them finding a mutually acceptable plan is close to zero.
    Sure, and the cross-party talks were never going to get anywhere as there are simply insufficient points of agreement between Brexit as defined by Theresa May and Brexit as defined by Jeremy Corbyn (and, equally between both those definitions of Brexit and Brexit as defined by Nigel Farage, or Boris Johnson, or Jacob Rees-Mogg).

    But, if the only point that was preventing an agreement was that Labour couldn't trust the Conservatives to carry it through given the imminent change in leadership, then a referendum to confirm that the people support Brexit as defined in the cross-party talks would remove that uncertainty.

    That's true, but I can't see evidence that the PM is willing to consider a referendum.

    My question was a bit ambiguous - of course there are still lots of theoretically possible Brexit destinations that aren't no-deal, from 'everyone accepts the deal on the table' to 'revoke A50'. My problem is that I can't see a realistic path to get to any of them, given the personalities and intellects involved.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    It is worth noting that the number of folk voting Lib Dem in the local elections increased very little, but an awful lot of tories stayed home.

    Turn out the Eu elections tends to be terrible, (an issue in itself), we should be extremely wary about extrapolating the view of those who say they *will actually vote* to the majority who will not because they can’t see the point.

    Ie a 34% vote for the Brexit party in the euros, is along way shy of 34% of eligible voters, or even 34% of likely voters in the next general election.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited May 18
    The results of the EU elections are going to be important for the pathway forwards. If the polls are right and the Brexit party polls 38% with massive falls in Labour (15%) and Conservative (9%) support then we will get No Deal or maybe Parliament will vote for Theresa May's deal. But if the support for the Remain parties, currently Green (10%), Lib Dems (15%), Change UK (5%) and SNP/PC (5%) parties rallies, then that message might give us a People's Vote.

    Certainly the message I take from the local elections here, which was a staunch Brexit area voting 70% for Leave, is that there's been a change of heart. Locally every Lib Dem and Green candidate were voted in, all polling at the top of the list. Neither party fielded full slates of candidates, so the overall number of seats didn't increase as much as I suspect it could have. We had Conservative sitting candidates losing seats, together with the far right, UKIP and Labour candidates polling lowest.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    At present the closest we have is the WAB that the government has put to the Commons three times - it has the backing of the PM and her government, even if it's lacking the support of Parliament or even the Conservative Party.

    A correction - the WAB hasn't been put the commons, it is the WA itself which has been voted on up till now -- the reason the PM is able to bring it back for a '4th vote' is that this time she'll put forward the WAB in its entirety (which is also why things are likely to kick off).

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited May 18
    Boogie wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Delay is not waste for the EU. It keeps the money coming in. It's all such a shame, but enlightened liberal technocracy cannot survive unenlightened democracy.

    I wonder - we’ll see in time.

    I think you could be right :cry:

    I'm afraid I am. And it's Johnson in June. No deal Brexit in October if not before. I wouldn't put it past him to get us out immediately and call a general election.

    And point taken @chrisstiles - they're just don't want us to go. Especially the Germans.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    And point taken @chrisstiles - they're just don't want us to go. Especially the Germans.

    As above, extending the previous deadline did not benefit the EU financially. While EU27 would have on balance preferred the UK to stay, they made it clear that their interest now is in a smooth transition to a new stable set of relationships. Avoiding the hard cut off previously was both in the interests of some of the EU27 and a kindness to the UK, interpreting this as an act of coercion is the act of a knave or a fool.

  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    While on holiday in France a few days ago, I light-heartedly proposed the toast 'To Hell with Nigel Farage!' On returning to the UK, it appears to me that the words were an accurate description of our likely national destination.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    I sincerely hope you're wrong.
  • Of course it's wrong. When the UK descends to Hell-like conditions Farage will go somewhere else, maybe to Germany since his wife could move there with his children. Leaving the rest of us who don't have residence options, and massive fortunes, to struggle through the mess he created.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    And point taken @chrisstiles - they're just don't want us to go. Especially the Germans.

    As above, extending the previous deadline did not benefit the EU financially. While EU27 would have on balance preferred the UK to stay, they made it clear that their interest now is in a smooth transition to a new stable set of relationships. Avoiding the hard cut off previously was both in the interests of some of the EU27 and a kindness to the UK, interpreting this as an act of coercion is the act of a knave or a fool.

    In my view, and it is a somewhat informed one, the EU are using the time their extension has granted to plan more effectively for No Deal, and hoping it doesn't happen before the summer. I don't think there is any political hope for any other solution. If there is one, it will be a complete and welcome surprise to sane people everywhere.
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    When the UK descends to Hell-like conditions Farage will go somewhere else ... [Leaving the rest of us who don't have residence options, and massive fortunes, to struggle through the mess he created].
    He even said so himself (except for the fact he expected us to be grateful)
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited May 20
    Besides “sending a message” which is one of the reasons blamed for bringing us to this mess, what is the point of voting in a Brexit MEP.? They will effectively be parasites. Taking the money for representing us but wanting to pull out all the time. It just makes no sense and makes them richer.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    I notice that various Tories are changing their mind on the exit bill, e.g., Mogg now saying he will vote against. I know it has been said a 100 times, but these people have the luxury of doing that, but we do not?
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    And point taken @chrisstiles - they're just don't want us to go. Especially the Germans.

    As above, extending the previous deadline did not benefit the EU financially. While EU27 would have on balance preferred the UK to stay, they made it clear that their interest now is in a smooth transition to a new stable set of relationships. Avoiding the hard cut off previously was both in the interests of some of the EU27 and a kindness to the UK, interpreting this as an act of coercion is the act of a knave or a fool.

    In my view, and it is a somewhat informed one, the EU are using the time their extension has granted to plan more effectively for No Deal, and hoping it doesn't happen before the summer. I don't think there is any political hope for any other solution. If there is one, it will be a complete and welcome surprise to sane people everywhere.

    That's possible, but doesn't necessarily explain everything as the state (bar Ireland) that needs to do the most to prepare was most against the extension -- which was in any case not long enough for proper No Deal preparations. So I'm guessing you know stuff, but equally there are representative pockets of interests that are driving in different directions -- and so in the absence of being able to do parallel construction, its Kreminology at best to try and extrapolate from there to an overall strategy.
  • My comment wasn't so much about strategy as about the fact that politicians appear to have accepted No Deal as the outcome to plan for, and governments are continuing to invest money based on that scenario, eg on new Border Inspection Posts.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    My comment wasn't so much about strategy as about the fact that politicians appear to have accepted No Deal as the outcome to plan for, and governments are continuing to invest money based on that scenario, eg on new Border Inspection Posts.

    In Britain I think the effect is to "Turn Kent into a humungous truck park". Or let stuff in anyhow and hope the French reciprocate (un histoire probable / a likely story).
  • France now has new BIPs up and running, or (nearly) ready to do so. Note this is a requirement for entering the EU. I think the French border policy is now pretty clear; I have no idea what the UK's will be and I'm not sure anybody does.
  • The news has announced that as part of the offers to get the Withdrawal Agreement through there will continue to be a customs agreement until the next election.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    Rather Delphic, this "customs agreement", since presumably it can be erased by a new PM, and certainly by a general election. I suppose it's meant to attract Labour.

    It is comical how everybody and their dog is announcing what the referendum really meant. Farage seems to be saying it means a WTO deal. Why?
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    Rather Delphic, this "customs agreement", since presumably it can be erased by a new PM, and certainly by a general election. I suppose it's meant to attract Labour.

    It is comical how everybody and their dog is announcing what the referendum really meant. Farage seems to be saying it means a WTO deal. Why?

    Because he can. All the Leavers had their own take on Britain EU, but even the two campaigns weren't internally agreed, let alone agreed across the breadth of the two, which goes from a Norway deal (as now, but no say) to the WTO regime (no say, no benefits; screwed by the major economic powers).
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    It's a bit like machismo. My view of Brexit is full-on hairy chested, no wimpy customs union or single market, WTO rules, close Dover, and no foreign languages in schools. Rool Briitannya!
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    It's a bit like machismo. My view of Brexit is full-on hairy chested, no wimpy customs union or single market, WTO rules, close Dover, and no foreign languages in schools. Rool Briitannya!

    I think there are a significant number of folk who have retired or who are near retirement who have an insufficient understanding of how modern business is conducted and the consequences of Britain not having a proper industrial strategy. So the past becomes a real country that the UK can form trade deals with and so on.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    It's a bit like machismo. My view of Brexit is full-on hairy chested, no wimpy customs union or single market, WTO rules, close Dover, and no foreign languages in schools. Rool Briitannya!

    I think there are a significant number of folk who have retired or who are near retirement who have an insufficient understanding of how modern business is conducted and the consequences of Britain not having a proper industrial strategy. So the past becomes a real country that the UK can form trade deals with and so on.

    Also the idea of no deal is never explained in detail. For example, who will pay tariffs, what kind of documentation is required in transit, what about just in time movements. But I suppose the lack of detail has characterized Brexit from the beginning.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Aaaand ... Here comes another round of everyone voting down the deal, agreeing that no-deal would be a terrible thing, and failing to demonstrate how exactly they are going to arrive at a position that isn't no-deal.

    It's like being a crotchet trapped inside Satie's Vexations ...
  • The news has announced that as part of the offers to get the Withdrawal Agreement through there will continue to be a customs agreement until the next election.
    But, the Withdrawal Agreement already includes a customs agreement, so as long as the transition period extends beyond the next election that's no different from voting for the WA as presented before the House, and rejected, before.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Groundhog Day 😤
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    It seems her latest wheeze includes a vote on a "confirmatory referendum", but what would that mean in practice? If it were won by Remain, wouldn't the Brexiters just cry "foul" and demand it be run again?
  • Boogie wrote: »
    Groundhog Day 😤

    Those exact words were used by one of the ministers in the room I was in last week.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited May 22
    Piglet wrote: »
    It seems her latest wheeze includes a vote on a "confirmatory referendum", but what would that mean in practice? If it were won by Remain, wouldn't the Brexiters just cry "foul" and demand it be run again?

    They'd probably claim it should never have been run because it already had been decided.

    And this is the thing about referenda and "will of the people" and whatnot. It shifts. People don't like to lose the ground they've made. From a Brexiter's viewpoint, they managed to push it over the line in 2016 and that's that.

    I'm probably repeating myself, but Referenda to do something you don't want to do and don't think is a good idea is probably a bad use of them. I think Cameron only did it because he'd used the same trick to pull one over on the Lib Dems in 2010, and thought he could do the same to his Eurosceptic wing. It backfired and he cleared off, whistling a happy tune (yes, really). The Tory Eurosceptics should have either buggered off to a party whose policies they agreed with, or made their case to make their policy Tory policy. Then any referendum would have been to confirm public assent to something the government wanted to do.
  • Piglet wrote: »
    It seems her latest wheeze includes a vote on a "confirmatory referendum", but what would that mean in practice? If it were won by Remain, wouldn't the Brexiters just cry "foul" and demand it be run again?
    I agree fully with what @KarlLB said about the problems when a referendum isn't confirmatory. Though, there was a difference between 2010 and 2016; in 2010, AV wasn't something the government really wanted but it was a defined system so the question was meaningful and implementing the change should the result have been yes would be relatively straight-forward. Whereas there was no question in 2016, without a document stating clearly "if you vote 'leave' you will be voting for ..." the 'leave' option on the ballot was meaningless.

    If the latest wheeze ends with a referendum there will, at least, be a question to answer. Though, what that question is still needs to be defined. Would it be whether we accept the withdrawal agreement she negotiated last year and has got stuck in the Commons, or will it be on the final relationship with the EU to be negotiated during the transition period (as currently outlined in the political declaration, or something else?). Personally, a vote on the WA would be meaningless, it's the final position that we need clarity on, the WA is simply an implementation of the means to get somewhere. We could vote for the WA, and then face a very similar stalemate in a couple of years when it comes to agreement about the final deal. A vote on the WA would be like building a house and instead of making a decision on whether to go for a five-bed detached or a row of two-bed terraces the only question being asked is what brand of hammer we'll ask the builders to use.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    The problem is there is not a majority for the WA in any party. Offering a referendum on it means accepting something unpopular to almost everyone in the hope of getting rid of it somehow later.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    In Wales there's a big fuss about the Brexit Party having 36% in the opinion polls (Plaid Cymru are second on 19%). Despite that, if you add that to the 7% for the Tories and 4% for others (which can be assumed to be the other Leave parties) one still only has 47%, a full 5% down on the Referendum score. That's good news.

    The bad news is that I am sure many of the Brexit voters in Wales are the same Labour voters who voted to Leave last year, and it shows what a rotten job Jeremy Corbyn has done to lead his party. Admirable policies, but he's a dreadful leader. I'm going to find it very difficult to vote Labour.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Epiphanies Host
    Presumably the demise of British Steel will have no impact on Brexiteers?
Sign In or Register to comment.