Home & Garden12 mins ago
Labour: The Party Of Remain?
51 Answers
https:/
what's the chances of:-
a) this being debated at conference?
b) being passed into a change of labour party policy?
what's the chances of:-
a) this being debated at conference?
b) being passed into a change of labour party policy?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"But we do now know that winning side did win by breaking electoral spending law and using highly dubious data mining."
And we also know that the losing side lost despite a £9m leaflet campaign from the government (not included in their spending) and a series of scare stories (which related to merely voting to leave, not actually leaving) almost all of which have turned out not only to be blatantly wrong but wrong by some considerable margin. More than that the campaigns did nothing to change the minds of me or anybody I know. I made up my mind about the EU in 1992 and nothing that a few "here today, gone tomorrow" (literally with respect to one particular gentleman with the initials DC) did or could do would make me alter my opinion. In fact if anything the Remain campaign made me even more determined than ever to vote to leave).
A similar "Project Fear" campaign is now being waged with some prophesies which quite simply are laughable. The problem is that, like Project Fear Mk1, some people will believe that they will no longer be able to buy a BLT sandwich or fly to Benidorm.
All that's happened is that it has now been demonstrated that what everybody should have known from the beginning is turning out to be true. The EU will do everything it can to make our departure as difficult as possible. That's why we should leave on our own pre-determined terms over which the EU has no influence. But you don't decline to do something just because it might be a bit tricky. You do whatever you believe is right. The majority of people who voted put their mark in the "Leave" box and they did that because they believed it is the right thing to do.
And we also know that the losing side lost despite a £9m leaflet campaign from the government (not included in their spending) and a series of scare stories (which related to merely voting to leave, not actually leaving) almost all of which have turned out not only to be blatantly wrong but wrong by some considerable margin. More than that the campaigns did nothing to change the minds of me or anybody I know. I made up my mind about the EU in 1992 and nothing that a few "here today, gone tomorrow" (literally with respect to one particular gentleman with the initials DC) did or could do would make me alter my opinion. In fact if anything the Remain campaign made me even more determined than ever to vote to leave).
A similar "Project Fear" campaign is now being waged with some prophesies which quite simply are laughable. The problem is that, like Project Fear Mk1, some people will believe that they will no longer be able to buy a BLT sandwich or fly to Benidorm.
All that's happened is that it has now been demonstrated that what everybody should have known from the beginning is turning out to be true. The EU will do everything it can to make our departure as difficult as possible. That's why we should leave on our own pre-determined terms over which the EU has no influence. But you don't decline to do something just because it might be a bit tricky. You do whatever you believe is right. The majority of people who voted put their mark in the "Leave" box and they did that because they believed it is the right thing to do.
Let's just clear up a few things:
1. "Project Fear" is becoming an excuse to ignore the rather obvious fact that leaving the EU can go wrong if you don't manage it properly;
2. In any case, it actually *was* leaving, rather than merely voting to leave, that was the "D-Day" of any negative consequences of leaving.
What I really don't get is why Leavers aren't even willing to acknowledge a single iota of this, since it follows naturally from their own position: the EU and the UK are integrated deeply with each other, which is true whether or not you argue that this is because of EU interference or dominance or whatever. But, no matter the reason for this deep link between the two, if you simply tear it all out then it causes serious damage.
All that "project fear" really amounts to is pointing out this obvious truth. To call it laughable is naive and ignorant in the extreme.
1. "Project Fear" is becoming an excuse to ignore the rather obvious fact that leaving the EU can go wrong if you don't manage it properly;
2. In any case, it actually *was* leaving, rather than merely voting to leave, that was the "D-Day" of any negative consequences of leaving.
What I really don't get is why Leavers aren't even willing to acknowledge a single iota of this, since it follows naturally from their own position: the EU and the UK are integrated deeply with each other, which is true whether or not you argue that this is because of EU interference or dominance or whatever. But, no matter the reason for this deep link between the two, if you simply tear it all out then it causes serious damage.
All that "project fear" really amounts to is pointing out this obvious truth. To call it laughable is naive and ignorant in the extreme.
I suppose the comparison to the UK is tricky because there are different histories. The US started out as unified states essentially from the beginning; an equivalent United States of Europe does have to overcome a lot of history of separate nations. But the principle that the continent should be more united, rather than less, seems to me one worth pursuing.
Incidentally, the patriotism argument is also a fallacy: one need only look at the French to see this. They are proudly European, and proudly French, at the same time.
Incidentally, the patriotism argument is also a fallacy: one need only look at the French to see this. They are proudly European, and proudly French, at the same time.
Anything can go wrong but it's up to those involved to ensure it doesn't. If one side refuses to be reasonable then the other side must ensure that the UK springs back quickly from the no-deal forced upon them.
As for Project Fear; tempting it may be for remainers to dismiss the title as simply leavers ignoring claims of doom, but it's fairly clear that's a valid position to take when folk are talking down everything and coming up with worst case, or often fantasy case horror scenarios. It's pure and simple attempts to thwart the referendum result rather than help plan for a successful exit and an improving future.
As for Project Fear; tempting it may be for remainers to dismiss the title as simply leavers ignoring claims of doom, but it's fairly clear that's a valid position to take when folk are talking down everything and coming up with worst case, or often fantasy case horror scenarios. It's pure and simple attempts to thwart the referendum result rather than help plan for a successful exit and an improving future.
"if great nations in Europe can see their future cooperating, why dont you?"
The UK does see its future co-operating with its European neighbours. That is why the "negotiations" (for want of a suitable alternative term) that the UK is taking part in include the collaborative projects which it has been involved in - and in many cases played a leading role in - for the past forty years or more. The EU is not necessary to see successful conclusions to those projects, the individual nations taking part in them are.
With the greatest respect to you, if you see the EU as simply a collaborative body which draws individual nations together to facilitate their co-operation then you need to have a read up on the constitution of the EU, what it stands for and what its aims are (both published and unpublished). Your analogy with Rhode Island is not quite all there is to it.
The UK does see its future co-operating with its European neighbours. That is why the "negotiations" (for want of a suitable alternative term) that the UK is taking part in include the collaborative projects which it has been involved in - and in many cases played a leading role in - for the past forty years or more. The EU is not necessary to see successful conclusions to those projects, the individual nations taking part in them are.
With the greatest respect to you, if you see the EU as simply a collaborative body which draws individual nations together to facilitate their co-operation then you need to have a read up on the constitution of the EU, what it stands for and what its aims are (both published and unpublished). Your analogy with Rhode Island is not quite all there is to it.
"As for Project Fear; tempting it may be for remainers to dismiss the title as simply leavers ignoring claims of doom,..."
I'm happy to accept that in some cases there are legitimate reasons to be sceptical of the warnings, either because they are exaggerated in media reports or because the worst-case scenario is emphasised in favour of the more plausible.
But the problem is that this is not what is happening. Doctors and medical experts point out that supplies of vital medicines are dependent on smooth trade with the EU, that will be, by definition, affected in a "No Deal" scenario -- immediately, this is dismissed as Project Fear. Farmers worry that their trade will be disrupted -- Project Fear again. Scientists determine that approximately half of all funding received from the EU will be lost if No Deal is reached. Oh wait, never mind, that careful analysis is just Project Fear again!
And so on, and so forth. It's just stupid to reject every possible warning, no matter how careful it is reached, as part of a conspiracy. At this point, pretty much every sector of the UK economy has realised the obvious: that if the rules of EU membership are no longer valid with nothing to replace them, then chaos will reign and the UK -- and the EU -- will suffer. At the very least, it is important to plan for this eventuality, to be aware of what can go wrong to ensure that it does not, and to try to avoid this scenario in the first place.
If Brexiteers simply ignore all this, then either they are blind, or they are deluded, or they are relying on things to crash to sell a conspiracy that will catapult them into power.
I'm happy to accept that in some cases there are legitimate reasons to be sceptical of the warnings, either because they are exaggerated in media reports or because the worst-case scenario is emphasised in favour of the more plausible.
But the problem is that this is not what is happening. Doctors and medical experts point out that supplies of vital medicines are dependent on smooth trade with the EU, that will be, by definition, affected in a "No Deal" scenario -- immediately, this is dismissed as Project Fear. Farmers worry that their trade will be disrupted -- Project Fear again. Scientists determine that approximately half of all funding received from the EU will be lost if No Deal is reached. Oh wait, never mind, that careful analysis is just Project Fear again!
And so on, and so forth. It's just stupid to reject every possible warning, no matter how careful it is reached, as part of a conspiracy. At this point, pretty much every sector of the UK economy has realised the obvious: that if the rules of EU membership are no longer valid with nothing to replace them, then chaos will reign and the UK -- and the EU -- will suffer. At the very least, it is important to plan for this eventuality, to be aware of what can go wrong to ensure that it does not, and to try to avoid this scenario in the first place.
If Brexiteers simply ignore all this, then either they are blind, or they are deluded, or they are relying on things to crash to sell a conspiracy that will catapult them into power.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles55 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles128 mins ago
Are We Heading Towards Another...
Politics128 mins ago
ChatterBank133 mins ago
