They might get fleas anyway if they obstruct something their voters support.


And exactly what would that resolve?


I’m sorry, what?


The “blame” for this mess doesn’t sit with Corbyn. Nor May, not even Cameron.

It sits with the arsehat “leave” campaign leaders who lied through their teeth using the same dog whistling tactics that Dutton and Morrison engage in here regularly.

And with every arsehat that believed them and voted to leave.


No need to apologise


It would hopefully get rid of Tory Government.


Well, you don’t say!

And then? Remember Brexit??


Firstly, you seem to have a very blinkered view of how parliamentary systems work. There are plenty of parliaments around the world where multiple parties work together to form government (coalitions), or work together on individual pieces of legislation (bipartisan deals). I’m not sure why you say Corbyn can’t do something similar.

But if we take your view. Under the viewpoint of the parliamentary system you’re espousing, the opposition is meant to be an alternative to the government, and ready at any time to be in government. Given that, and the fact Labour is pushing for a new set of elections, surely Corbyn should have a position on Brexit? Yes? Yet he doesn’t. All he has is “we’ll hold an election, for some reason the EU will give us time, we’ll renegotiate and get a better deal”. Why would EU agree to any of that? It’s pink unicorns.

So even if you take your view of the UK parliament, Corbyn has a responsibility as the opposition who are calling for a snapshot election to have a position on the most important topic such an election would cover (and the reason for it occurring). Effectively, spell out a realistic position labour is taking. Which fundamentally would need to be Remain, May’s Deal or a referendum, as nothing else is realistically possible.

This is something he has refused to do.


The most annoying thing about the Brexit impasse is the English imperialism evinced by the Tories.

Scotland voted against Brexit. So did Northern Ireland. England voted in favour (although Greater London was against) and so did the Principality of Wales.

The Tories are forever preaching and trumpeting about their “United Kingdom,” which originally referred to the union of the two crowns of England and Scotland 1n 1707, the English having already invaded Wales. Ireland was added in later (1801) and in 1922 this was reduced to “Northern Ireland”.

Surely the ideal of a United Kingdom should involve the consent of the individual countries as separate entities ? If such referenda involving the future of the Union are to be taken on a one vote one value basis across the entire population of the UK, then any decision will be made by the English part of the Union, as they have the greatest population — which is manifestly unconstitutional, to anyone but an English Tory Imperialist.

As for Northern Ireland, the Good Friday agreement, signed twenty years ago by the Prime Minister of the UK and the Taoiseach of Ireland, and facilitated and brokered by the President of the USA, is still in force. Certainly, the English Tories would like to ignore it, which they have studiously attempted since Brexit was first mooted; this only emphasises the historical contempt that they continue to hold for Ireland. In addition, May’s Tory government is being maintained in power by the votes of the Northern Ireland Democratic Unionist Paisleyite rump. (The DUP don’t have a majority of the Westminster seats from Northern Ireland, by the way — the majority is held by Sinn Féin, who refuse to take their seats, because they won’t swear allegiance to any English monarch.)

The answer — the only answer to the impasse — would be a General Election, to discover who the people of the UK want to govern them in the present circumstances.

This would need to be followed by another Referendum, to determine whether people having learnt a little of whan Brexit means, wish to change their attitude or not, in the altered circumstances now prevailing. Votes for this should be counted on the basis of a majority in each constituent country of the Union, on the understanding that if, say, Scotland or Northern Ireland wish to stay within the EU, they must be allowed to do so, even if it means breaking away from the English Empire.

The English Tories don’t have the guts for that — but the Scots Nats and Sinn Féin certainly do…


They should just go for a 2nd ref ffs.

The case would be easy as falling over to make.

Ignorant Ref Vs Informed Ref

Deliberate misinformationed / Lied to Ref Vs Reality Ref

Russian tampered Misinformation/ Disruption Campaign Ref Vs We’re onto all the games and BS now Ref.

There’s no way they can’t sell that to the populace, and it’s hard to see any Party posting a net loss of votes/support in the process…


The problem is both May and Corbyn want to exit the EU. Nobody is actually representing the 49% of UK citizens who voted to remain. They have no voice.


Why in God’s green fk would Labour have ANY responsibility for this shtfest?

The Tories trying to attribute partial blame is the most childish sht ever. They’ve knocked over mum’s good vase and are sooking because no one will help them fix it.


May was a prominent Remainer initially, and no doubt still is, and I suspect Corbin is too in reality.

IIRC, he really didn’t have a position until he could see which way the wind was blowing, … and now that it’s swung decidedly the other way, … I don’t think he’d have any real objections.

Thing is, regardless of all the posturing, the Gov is tasked with doing what the Majority of it’s Citizens want, … and that, at this point in time, now people or more informed and across the issue, is to remain, so again, from a political saleability point of view, it’s a no brainer, … it’s just what they are constitutionally bound to do.


Well they say they are. They say — or their leader, Jeremy, says — that it’s essential to get a good exit.

He just doesn’t say what it will consist of. Only that he’ll negotiate a great deal, not like Teresa May’s rubbish, because … well, because.


Corbin has personally been anti-EU since the 1970’s.


This is far from clear. It’s what we’d all expect, but polling still has the Leave or Stay votes on raw figures as virtually even. There’s a lot of fudging of questions going on - Do you support Mays version of Brexit , for example, which isn’t actually translatable as now wanting to stay - but the UK has been increasingly anti EU over the years.

From what I can read online, If it’s still a Yes or No to leave then the polls suggest a very close outcome hinging on 10% of undecided voters. Assuming that actually transfers to the ballots on the day. It may not.


It is called democracy Ants, the majority wins.

You have an interesting view of what a Westminister Parliamentary democracy is all about. Corbyn or indeed Bill Shorten have the primary responsibility today to ensure Government does the best job it can and highlight where it is poor by voicing opposition.

Bill is closer to presenting Labor as an alternative, only because an election is due before May. Corbyn and Labour are not close to any election unless May falls.


Corbin got a no confidence vote which if he won would have triggered a general election and you say he didn’t need to set out his position on the major subject???


For a start he was never going to win, as the numbers were not there.

And I bet he a plan , once an election is called.



Corbin got a no confidence vote which if he won would have triggered a general election and you say he didn’t need to set out his position on the major subject???

A no confidence vote just means forming a new government without May in charge. She would merely be replaced by someone else in her party. If a no confidence vote is lost I am pretty sure you cant have another one for a year.