As I said, not obliged to vote for any policy.

Subsequent to the policy being rejected, they have also rejected an offer from May to meet and discuss what kind of deal they could support.


Why is Westminister politics so hard for some of you to understand ? Corbyn is doing his job as required under this system, and if May cannot get the job done she should resign.

Brexit is not even close to the major issue facing the UK, but it is the most political and polarising because people are hurting due to lack of jobs and poor future opportunity.

It is trite to suggest that British Labour should work with May on Brexit when her own Party has refused.

The only example that comes to mind was the situation facing Menzies in 1941 when he could not Govern, had lost support of his own Party, John Curtin would not support his war policy, and Menzies resigned as PM. Labor became a minority Government after a no confidence motion in Parliament toppled the UAP.

History proves for Australia it was the correct outcome, Curtin was probably our greatest PM and consolidated our fought against the Japs with support from the Yanks.

Hope Corbyn is UKs John Curtin.


His job is to represent his constituents in Parliament.

Leave / Remain voting patterns do not align very well with party political voting lines.

It’s not unreasonable to suggest that some bipartisanship is needed for the good of the country.


It is not his primary job at all to represent his constituents, same as it is not the primary job of an MP in Australia.

MPs are elected to vote on legislation that is their primary task, helping individual constituents is a secondary role. Their is no compulsion for any MP in Australia or Great Britian to vote as per constituents wish, if they did then which constituents or do they take a poll before every vote.

Reckon they need to teach politics and political systems at school much better.


Maybe you learn about looking after the country’s interests first before your own party’s…and not being an ■■■■■■■■.


And the country’s best interests would mean scuttling Brexit.


You want Labour to cave to a terrible deal.

Because… erm… reasons.


Every time Bacchus talks about politicians it reminds me of Uncy Herb talking about Essendon’s bright new future.

We’re going to do what’s right for the club and all you people who support the club can suck it!


Given the person around when it started was Chamberlain, I think that would be the better comparison. And he gets plenty of blame.

And you think the French president who was the equivalent of Churchill doesn’t get blame for how easily the French capitulated? Certainly the Vichy French get lots of blame. Churchill doesn’t get blame because he (mostly) did well in the position he was put in. If he’d just surrendered the UK history would have a very different view of him.

Of course, the Axis powers get the major portion of the blame for WWII, and that is appropriate. Just as May and the Tories will for Brexit.


Because if you agree that there is a mandate from the people to exit the EU, and you look at the major things that people who voted such did agree on (control on borders, control on legislation, control on free trade agreements), then this is the best deal that meets those needs.

The reason its “a steaming pile of excrement” is that is has for the first time in a two year process starkly highlighted what the cost is of trying to meet those Brexit goals. Which contrasts sharply with the pink unicorns (i.e. lies) that the most prominent members of all non-remain factions (i.e. the hard brexiters, May’s group, UKIP and Corbyn) have been making for three years. So everyone thinks its rubbish because for three years everyone non-remain has been saying you can have the world, and saying that the Remain crowd (who have no real figurehead or prominent spokesman) are just a bunch of scairdy cats trying to scare everyone. And everyone compares it against those promises, and against the status quo, and goes, “oh hell”.

But as I said, if you accept the goals of Brexit are those I set out above, this is not a pile of excrement, but actually the best deal achievable for exiting the EU.


That’s spectacular.

The point, which I thought was so obvious it didn’t need spelling out, is it wasn’t any English or French politician’s fault for retaliating (or not) against Hitler’s atrocities and aggression.


They are looking after the Country’s interest Mr Noonan.

That is what they are elected to do, make farking decisions and not pander to individuals.


You are smarter than that.

And actually if EFC Board did what some of the farkheads on here wanted, then we would be Carlscum.


But how well they reacted to WWII, and how well things turned out, certainly were partly the responsibility of the English and the French.

I didn’t realise the discussion was whether or not the initial Brexit referendum occurring was anyone’s fault except Cameron’s and the Torries. Given we were talking about actions now (e.g. Corbyn not meeting May), defining it as who was to blame for it all starting seems out of sync with what was being discussed.



May, as PM, need’s Corbyn’s cross bench votes to get her party’s policy through.

He’s given her conditions for that to happen - on his terms. And she hasn’t put up, and now she’s whinging.


I agree with all of that.

That doesn’t really touch on whether what Corbyn has done has helped/hindered the likelihood of Britain exiting the EU, and whether if they exit some of the blame for the mess sits at his door versus other people having a monopoly on the blame. Which is what we were discussing.


Has Labor been involved in the negotiations?

Becuase if they want a bipartisan solution you need a bipartisan negotiation.


That’s the government’s job, not the opposition.

He’s just meant to nod polite agreement to whatever ■■■■ sandwich the conservatives throw up.


Following the rejection of the withdrawal agreement, the conservatives invited all opposition parties into talks to determine what kind of deal could be passed by Parliament. They are dipping their toes in the water of a Bipartisan solution (although I concede it may just be for show). All opposition parties (excl. Labour) agreed to talks. It’s not clear whether or not bipartisan negotiations would follow.

Even though Labour is not obliged to meet with the Conservatives, their refusal to do so comes across as obstruction. Some valid criticisms have been leveled at Corbyn about his willingness to meet with certain other organisations without pre-conditions which makes him seem to be a bit of a hypocrite.


If you lay down with dogs you get fleas.

There can be no “bipartisan” agreement on Brexit. May needs to get her Party to agree, they have a majority with their Irish Mates in Parliament.

It is not up to an Opposition to find a solution. In fact, there is no solution, other than May resigning and another election.