- Re: #### you all!! Archived Message
Posted by johnlilburne
on December 14, 2019, 1:44 pm, in reply to "Re: #### you all!!"
|
I agree largely with your measured and commonsense response, John. I agree about the election. It shouldn't have happened. Brexit should have been sorted separately from other issues. Personal hostility and personal ambition stopped Labour, the LibDems, independents and Tory 'moderates' getting behind a Corbyn caretaker government, which might have negotiated a 'soft' Brexit that could have got through the Commons. Only if there was a further impasse in the Commons should any WA be put to the people (against remain). It was always the Commons' responsibility to deliver Brexit as per the peoples' will, but not any old Brexit and not q damaging no-deal Brexit. A second appeal to the people should only have been a last resort. Only after a WA was agreed should there have been an election, fought on other issues, without the Brexit distraction. Confusing Brexit and other issues has led to where we are today. Many normally Labour voters in Leave constituencies saw the so-called peoples' vote/second referendum offer as an attempt to reverse the 2016 vote, as a Labour betrayal of the 2017 promise to deliver Brexit. Corbyn was pushed into adopting a 2nd ref (soft Brexit versus remain) by the remainiacs on his own side, probably against his own best judgement. The result was a confused message at the election. In a sense, he fell into the trap of his enemies in his own party. For every reamin seat Labour did relatively well in, ten were lost in leave areas. Hard Brexit, with all its suffering, is, to many, a price worth paying if it means an end to Corbyn and Corbynism. |