[Politics] Jeremy Corbyn said........

[lawros left foot]

Why was it an error to jail someone for arson? Arson is a crime. As I said, women were given the vote in 1918, as their value and contribution to the war effort spoke volumes, rather than acts of 'terrorism'.

Switzerland didn't give women the vote until 1971, but I don't remember wholesale law breaking there.

There is precedent for these pardons though. In 2006, 306 soldiers excecuted in WW1 were pardoned for military crimes including desertion, and cowardice, both of which are still crimes in the Armed Forces.
Obviously, unlike gay men pardoned for homosexuality, these soldiers were dead, but, there is documentary proof that it meant an awful lot to their families.

 

[1066familyman]

Of course they were working their fingers to the bone, but it was generally at home, or in service. In other words, domestic work. Even nursing was more domestic work, than actual medicine.

True enough, many many more employment opportunities were indeed opened up to women during the war. There were even supervisory roles made available, to middle and upper class women of course.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

.........meanwhile, back to the subject.
Two views, these heroines fought for what they beleived in, and they were right to do so, but they all died, ages ago, so get off your high horse Rudd, stop trying to make it look like you are in charge and just pardon them, it does not matter, get on with your real job.
Or
It is so right to celebrate what they done, but why pardon them, they are dead, what's the point, only people who are still alive should be pardoned.
Jesus this country has enough problems to sort out without taking time arguing if a lot of long dead women should be pardoned or not.
But at least they had fight in them, I wish people today had some spunk in them to stand up and protest against what they believe to be wrong rather than putting the kettle on and making a nice cup of tea.
Lord knows there is enough to protest against.
It makes my piss boil.

 

[Tony Towner's Fridge]

Stalin with a beard!


Be afraid , be very afraid.....


TNBA

TTF

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Stalin with a beard!


Be afraid , be very afraid.....


TNBA

TTF

Would it help you if he had a shave?

 

[lawros left foot]

Stalin with a beard!


Be afraid , be very afraid
TNBA

TTF

Great comparison

 

[dingodan]

Here's two for starters - Tory MEP and Brexiteer Daniel Hannan "Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market". Tory Brexit MP Owen Paterson: "Only a madman would leave the Single Market."

I think you've been conned.

Here is the source of the claim that pro-brexit campaigners claimed we would stay in the single market:



Here is the deceitful maker of the video getting ripped a new one:



There are details about each of the specific distortions online so you can see for yourself what was said, what the context was, what was put in that Open Britain spin video and what they truth actually is.

(Specific details about the "examples" you gave, and the others, can be found here: https://medium.com/@jamesforward/a-...d-to-remain-in-the-single-market-85a0778c75a9)

Don't fall so easily for spin and lies, even if they seem convenient to your cause.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

.........meanwhile, back to the subject.
Two views, these heroines fought for what they beleived in, and they were right to do so, but they all died, ages ago, so get off your high horse Rudd, stop trying to make it look like you are in charge and just pardon them, it does not matter, get on with your real job.
Or
It is so right to celebrate what they done, but why pardon them, they are dead, what's the point, only people who are still alive should be pardoned.
Jesus this country has enough problems to sort out without taking time arguing if a lot of long dead women should be pardoned or not.
But at least they had fight in them, I wish people today had some spunk in them to stand up and protest against what they believe to be wrong rather than putting the kettle on and making a nice cup of tea.
Lord knows there is enough to protest against.
It makes my piss boil.

There were thousands marching in London on Sunday, protesting about the treatment of the NHS by this government, but it hardly got a mention on the news bulletins.

 

[synavm]

Say Britain had voted 52/48 to Remain, would Brexiteers be content with the U.K. joining the Euro and Shengen since it was the will of the people?

 

[Titanic]

Remainers are told they only want a second referendum to avoid Brexit, and whilst this is undeniably a factor for me it is just as important to have a referendum when people know what is at stake and - crucially - without the nonsense that went with the last one, i.e. £350 million a week for the NHS, the threat of an Emergency Budget, the disinformation from Brexiteers who said nobody was talking about leaving the Single Market, the Cameron/Osborne-led Project Fear and so on.

Going back to Corbyn, for him to ignore the opinion on the biggest topic of the age of the majority of left-leaning voters in this country is political suicide.

Here is someone saying just that during the referendum campaign... and even putting it on the side of a bus...

 

[cunning fergus]

Say Britain had voted 52/48 to Remain, would Brexiteers be content with the U.K. joining the Euro and Shengen since it was the will of the people?

If there was a referendum on joining the Euro do you honestly think it would be that close?

When the SNP did analysis in the lead up to their referendum they polled Scots on joining the euro.......less than 10% of those polled supported joining the Euro. This polling changed SNP policy and lead them into the referendum claiming ridiculously that they could be “independent” with the rUK holding all the cards concerning monetary policy.

Similarly if you seriously think joining Schengen would be a vote winner in the referendum (or otherwise) then we would have it, now but it’s not. Both your points are nothing short of pure whattaboutery.

 

[cunning fergus]

Here is someone saying just that during the referendum campaign... and even putting it on the side of a bus...

Hmm isn’t that sentiment racist..........can’t help think if Farage demeaned Albania like that then the streets of places like Islington and Hannover would be submerged in piss for months.

 

[synavm]

If there was a referendum on joining the Euro do you honestly think it would be that close?

When the SNP did analysis in the lead up to their referendum they polled Scots on joining the euro.......less than 10% of those polled supported joining the Euro. This polling changed SNP policy and lead them into the referendum claiming ridiculously that they could be “independent” with the rUK holding all the cards concerning monetary policy.

Similarly if you seriously think joining Schengen would be a vote winner in the referendum (or otherwise) then we would have it, now but it’s not. Both your points are nothing short of pure whattaboutery.

No, of course I don’t think it’d be that close, nor is there the desire to for either Shengen or the Euro (even I oppose both), but I see no difference between Leavers using a 52/48 margin of victory as a mandate for no deal and the hypothetical idea of Remainers claiming a mandate for the Euro and Shengen. Imagine if Remainers did all that and then claimed anyone that disagreed or protested was resisting democracy!

 

[The Rivet]

If the law on smoking cannabis is ever changed it won’t mean that the current law on cannabis will be viewed as having been fundamentally wrong and unfair. Whereas the law against homosexuality is now deemed as being fundamentally wrong and unfair.

An opinion others may not agree with.

 

[cunning fergus]

No, of course I don’t think it’d be that close, nor is there the desire to for either Shengen or the Euro (even I oppose both), but I see no difference between Leavers using a 52/48 margin of victory as a mandate for no deal and the hypothetical idea of Remainers claiming a mandate for the Euro and Shengen. Imagine if Remainers did all that and then claimed anyone that disagreed or protested was resisting democracy!

Well I think you should say more clearly what you mean; which is that in your opinion a 4% win margin (or 1.2m votes) on one of the country’s biggest ever voting turnouts of 72.3% is not a large enough margin to determine victory.

I would be interested in what you think it should be, for example, in the referendum in wales for devolution, the vote for was 50.3 to 49.7......a margin of 1.5% (or less than 7,000 votes). Last time I looked they have a devolved Parliament in Wales.

If you were more plainly speaking, you would say you oppose Brexit regardless of the margin, this just a convenient foil. It’s fine, you are in good company.

 

[synavm]

Well I think you should say more clearly what you mean; which is that in your opinion a 4% win margin (or 1.2m votes) on one of the country’s biggest ever voting turnouts of 72.3% is not a large enough margin to determine victory.

I would be interested in what you think it should be, for example, in the referendum in wales for devolution, the vote for was 50.3 to 49.7......a margin of 1.5% (or less than 7,000 votes). Last time I looked they have a devolved Parliament in Wales.

If you were more plainly speaking, you would say you oppose Brexit regardless of the margin, this just a convenient foil. It’s fine, you are in good company.

Not quite, based on the results of the referendum and the make up of Parliament right now, I think there’s probably a mandate for a soft Brexit there- leave the EU but remain in the customs union and single market. I don’t think you’d have a majority if the question on the paper was ‘no deal’ or ‘remain’. Of course, we could determine this for certain with a referendum on the final deal with impact studies presented to us and a firm understanding of what the EU can actually offer us- that’s my favoured option.

 

[beorhthelm]

Not quite, based on the results of the referendum and the make up of Parliament right now, I think there’s probably a mandate for a soft Brexit there- leave the EU but remain in the customs union and single market.

set aside thats not what was asked for, thats not something the EU will allow and it isnt leaving the EU either.

 

[cunning fergus]

Not quite, based on the results of the referendum and the make up of Parliament right now, I think there’s probably a mandate for a soft Brexit there- leave the EU but remain in the customs union and single market. I don’t think you’d have a majority if the question on the paper was ‘no deal’ or ‘remain’. Of course, we could determine this for certain with a referendum on the final deal with impact studies presented to us and a firm understanding of what the EU can actually offer us- that’s my favoured option.

The referendum was to leave the EU, staying in it’s customs union and/or single market would not constitute leaving. By “remaining” in both the U.K. would not regain control of its borders, it’s fishery policies, it’s ability to trade freely elsewhere in the world, it’s freedom from arbitrary justice by the EU’s courts.

No one ever spoke about soft Brexit during the referendum, simply in or out. Soft Brexit is still in, so there cannot be a mandate for it from the referendum result. Remainers would do themselves a much greater service by being more honest about their views in this way.

The Parliament and Lords are cases in point, as effectively all the political parties backed remain in the referendum, along with the vast majority of MPs and Peers. They know very well that they are not representative of the electorate, and we shouldn’t pretend they are.

The second referendum avenue is pure mischief too, it is proposed as a device to interfere with the negotiations. Those advocating for it do not want a good deal, they want a bad one so they can reject it in the 2nd referendum so we can start again. If it is truly bad the no deal is better than a bad deal (for once May was right) and we should walk away.

We would get a much better deal if the EU knew this threat was real and on the table; that is how negotiations take place around the world, day in day out. You cannot be a little bit pregnant.

 

[synavm]

The referendum was to leave the EU, staying in it’s customs union and/or single market would not constitute leaving. By “remaining” in both the U.K. would not regain control of its borders, it’s fishery policies, it’s ability to trade freely elsewhere in the world, it’s freedom from arbitrary justice by the EU’s courts.

No one ever spoke about soft Brexit during the referendum, simply in or out. Soft Brexit is still in, so there cannot be a mandate for it from the referendum result. Remainers would do themselves a much greater service by being more honest about their views in this way.

The Parliament and Lords are cases in point, as effectively all the political parties backed remain in the referendum, along with the vast majority of MPs and Peers. They know very well that they are not representative of the electorate, and we shouldn’t pretend they are.

The second referendum avenue is pure mischief too, it is proposed as a device to interfere with the negotiations. Those advocating for it do not want a good deal, they want a bad one so they can reject it in the 2nd referendum so we can start again. If it is truly bad the no deal is better than a bad deal (for once May was right) and we should walk away.

We would get a much better deal if the EU knew this threat was real and on the table; that is how negotiations take place around the world, day in day out. You cannot be a little bit pregnant.

The thing is, your argument falls apart for me when you say 'single market and customs union' does not constitute leaving in any form. How many times in the referendum campaign did we hear 'we never voted to be part of a political union'? leaving the EU alone solves that, and many, many folk voted leave on the basis that we leave a political union but retain the same trade links (which in my mind is the so-called soft option). I'm not saying nobody voted the way you do, but I am saying you wouldn't have a majority for it. It's actually not really as binary choice as you argue.

Now we have a situation where:

A. We don't really know what people voted for

and B. The idea that we can sever all ties with the EU but retain frictionless tariff free trade on the same, if not better terms has been disproven.

So, in my opinion we offer a second referendum with the following options:

1. Leave > If so, move to second question 1. Government's deal or 2. No Deal
2. Remain

Furthermore, I feel voters should be informed by the Government's own impact papers on the pros and cons of each of the three options- project fact you could call it.

 

[beorhthelm]

The thing is, your argument falls apart for me when you say 'single market and customs union' does not constitute leaving in any form. How many times in the referendum campaign did we hear 'we never voted to be part of a political union'? leaving the EU alone solves that, and many, many folk voted leave on the basis that we leave a political union but retain the same trade links (which in my mind is the so-called soft option). I'm not saying nobody voted the way you do, but I am saying you wouldn't have a majority for it. It's actually not really as binary choice as you argue.

its simple, the Single Market and the Customs Union is the EU.