Your second link suggests their current stance is to have a referendum on the negotiated deal. So in effect it's slightly harder brexit than the Tories who just want the deal. Libdems are arguing for deal or hard Brexit. That's a complete 360 in 1 year.
Alternatively they haven't got a clue what they want or simply don;t understand the mechanics of it, which is what I suspect and is worrying. Dead in the water for any sensible voter in my opinion until they clarify things. It;s sad because we need a credible opposition and credible middle ground party. We have neither.
Views and opinions posted are my own unless commenting with respect to forum moderation.
Sein Fein are a legitimate peaceful political party and have been for 20 years or more now. There's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be fully involved in any government, whatever its political orientation. You'll know that I was no fan of the IRA, but it's important that Northern Irish politicians are fully involved in the political life of the country if we're not going to return to the troubles of the past.Seriously Corbyn can only win by being propped up by the SNP and Lib Dems. Plus knowing Corbyn, Sein Fein in Northern Ireland would all off a sudden turn up in Westminster to offer their 'support' to Comrade Corbyn. Imagine what he would promise to get that lot into his Government? For me that would be far worse than any bad Brexit deal.
whatever your view on Mrs Thatcher, note the days after the Brighton Bomb in the 80s which was an attack on our government (forget which one the IRA didnt care they attacked our elected government) Comrade Corbyn was photographed with Martin McGinuess and Gerry Adams, both must have at least known about the bomb if not ordered it. This might be a long time ago, but Labour supporters is this really the man to lead the UK? we need a proper opposition and one lead by Corbyn and his crew is not that. My parents life long Labour voters will never vote for them again until him and his views are gone from the party.
Corbyn is a communist in all but name and despite his appearance a very scary proposition. Not one of the problems Britain faces today would be solved by a Corbyn government. In fact I think things would get a lot worse. We all want the rich taxed more, or the NHS to be perfect or to live in a world full of peace and love, but on planet earth all those things are impossible to achieve. Take taxing the rich, the figure I saw was anyone earning over 70k should pay a lot more in tax. Yes sounds great but the people it would hit the hardest would be the ones earning just above that. Not the people its really aimed at hitting. How about taxing our over paid footballers, Pop stars and film stars correctly? Deosnt Gary Barlow for instance owe millions in tax? No one mentions going after the likes of him only 'rich bankers' or 'executives'. On to the NHS yes soundbites are easy but no one knows how to sort it out. Note, Doctors would fall into the 70k+ tax category and they would be so happy at being taxed more (just an example of a ill thought out sound bite).
Anyway its going to be a long few weeks until this election and with the footy season pretty much over for us it will seem even longer...
You quote the attack on Thatcher and the Tories, but that was more than 30 years ago and at a time when the troubles were at their height. The IRA did many horrific things, but then it would be wilfully blind to deny that so did the British Army. I don't suppose you would want to ban ex-Army people who'd served in NI or politicians who ordered ex-judicial killings and things like internment without trial of innocent people to be banned from being MPs, so it seems equally obvious that ex-IRA members also shouldn't be banned.
What you have now is a proper opposition. One that has opposing views from those of the Tories, rather than New Labour who were also in favour of privatisation, war, benefits crackdowns, immigration controls and being "seriously relaxed about the seriously rich". Now you have a Labour Party that is true to what it's supposed to represent - the interests of the poor and bettering their lot as opposed to representing the rich and powerful. I'm sorry to hear that neither your parents nor you are interested in that, but there's not much that can be done about it. If you feel you'll be better looked after by the millionaire's party and the Sir Roland Bufton-Tuftons with waistcoats bursting at their bellies making woofing noises at any young female opposition MP who dares to speak in the commons, then that's really up to you.
Corbyn is of course not a communist, nor has he ever been.
I'm not sure what you think are the biggest problems facing Britain today, but I should judge that these include ever-increasing poverty, a ballooning gap between the rich and poor, a lack of decent housing for normal people, exploitative and precarious "gig economy" zero hours employment, climate change and above all the danger of becoming dragged into overseas wars by a mentally unstable US president. I would say that Labour has effective policies to tackle all those problems, whereas the Tories quite plainly don't. What do you think are the problems we face that Labour can't tackle?
You say nobody can fix the NHS, but Labour, which was responsible for us having an NHS in the first place, surely stands a much better chance than the Tories and their pals in the private health sector. Tories virulently opposed the NHS ever since it was first formed and would like nothing more than to kill it stone dead and flog off what they can to private providers. That certainly won't fix it!
Finally you seem a little confused over taxation of rich people. If you earn over 70k then the amount over 70k gets taxed at the higher rate. So if you earn 71k a year, you aren't much affected. If however you earn 700k a year like a footballer you are affected much more. It's called progressive taxation and from what I can see, you seem to agree with it!
I just meant that they saw the opportunity to get PR - which would have putan end to future one party goverments - they got shafted on that too.
They paid a massive price in 2015 but now is time to move on.
Many people though would like a better form of brexit than TM is proposing. Is it so wrong for LibDems to ask for the people to approve the deal when it is done? After all nobody could tell us before - nor even now - what deal will be done. If people voted brexit should they be allowed to say they have what they voted for?
Where is the option for the Ba'ath party?
Warning: not itk, and I may choose to change my mind suddenly and without warning
I voted UKIP to reduce the number of bleedin' tourists i'm seeing on the weekends during home games!
- bland "best deal for Britain" words, and
- declaring that if the EU play hard ball in an effort to change our minds, we'll still just leave, even if it mean WTO, etc.
- and the initial negotiating posturing,
what has she said that is so disagreeable?
Last edited by zztop; 21-04-2017 at 08:02 PM.
- Provide certainty about the process of leaving the EU.
- Control of our own laws. Leaving the European Union will mean that our laws will be made in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.
- Strengthen the Union between the four nations of the United Kingdom.
- Deliver a practical solution that allows the maintenance of the Common Travel Area with the Republic of Ireland.
- Brexit must mean control of the number of people who come to Britain from Europe.
- Protect rights for EU nationals in Britain and British nationals in the EU. We want to guarantee rights of EU citizens living in Britain and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can.
- Protect workers' rights. Not only will the government protect the rights of workers set out in European legislation, we will build on them.
- Free trade with European markets through a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union.
- New trade agreements with other countries. It is time for Britain to get out into the world and rediscover its role as a great, global, trading nation.
- The best place for science and innovation. We will welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research and technology initiatives.
- Co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism. We will continue to work closely with our European allies in foreign and defence policy even as we leave the EU itself.
- A smooth, orderly Brexit. We believe a phased process of implementation will be in the interests of Britain, the EU institutions and member states.
Seems reasonable to me.
Warning: not itk, and I may choose to change my mind suddenly and without warning
If you want to cut immigration you have to cut it from all sources and have a points system or such like. Targeting EU immigration is xenophobic.
Nobody I know about proposes uncontrolled worldwide immigration.
Control means having an objective as to who comes here - not what nationality.
No, let's us keep skiing and scuba diving and golfing and consuming as hard as we can and to the devil with the poor! Let 'em suffer.
Giving them any succour or safe refuge would be mouth-frothing, crazy and communistic.
It's all meaningless. We have had massive immigration from outside the EU which has been within our power to reduce - especially under May's watch as Home Secretary - but have we? No. We have had the power to send back EU immigrants without jobs or means, but have we ? No.
As eny fool kno, we will continue to take in immigrants in large numbers so long as our economy and public services need them, and to pay for our ageing population. The only way immigration will fall is if our economy tanks and no-one wants to come here, or if our currency bombs so that the wages we pay in global terms are not so attractive. This notion of 'taking back control' is simply that - a spurious notion - and one that we have ****ed over our country for.
Now I may be an idiot, but there is one thing I am not, Sir, and that, Sir, is an idiot.