Numero Veinticinco

Yeah, you're not wrong mate. I dunno, it just seemed pretty sensible stuff to me. I have hit out at Labour for their stance on Brexit, but this is a thing they're doing that I support. I want to either stay in the EU or if we have to leave then we need to do so with a deal that leaves as tightly integrated as possible to protect the economy. Labour, quote obviously, offers the best and only real chance of that.

It all depends on other factors, like how much we get from certain sales and rights.

Yes, we very clearly disagree. As Lib Dems have roughly 0 chance of winning a majority, they are not the party to vote for if you want a choice on whether or not we are going to leave. Labour have a chance of either winning a majority or being the larger party in a coalition. Lib Dems won't be able to get the Tories to revoke article 50, even if they went into coalition with them - and if they went into coalition and voted to leave, they'd be completely finished as a party. Labour already campaigned to remain, but the vote is in. They are now saying their position is to get a deal to leave as instructed, then put that to a vote with remain on the ballot. That's perfectly acceptable, and actually it's probably the only reasonable thing to do at this point. Calling it 'mental' with no real attempt to say why other than your own view on what they should do doesn't really mean or achieve anything. They campaigned remain, the voters chose leave, they will go and try to get a deal, then people can vote on that deal or remain. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Well, quite easily. Labour are the only chance of remaining.

You didn’t mention a couple of things. First, why given the mess of a situation he would inherit from the Conservatives, why it would be ‘mental’ to remain neutral (not campaign), and second what a better solution would be.

Why? He's following what the electorate directed government to do - leave Europe. He'd be doing so in a way acceptable to parliament, with a deal. And he'd go back and ask the electorate if this is still what they want. What better way is there. If there is one, I'm all ears.

He was getting criticised for saying he would remain neutral.

He isn't going to argue that people should reject it, so...

They can all agree that they want to remain though, right? I mean, the point I was getting at was there could be, feasibly, something that wouldn't be classed as divisive. But yeah, I'm talking about the wider country though, and unless somebody can show me something else that Corbyn could have done that would have not been divisive, I don't think it's a fair criticism of him.

There's one party where one view wouldn't be divisive - the Lib Dems/against. In general, with the country, there's no position. In the Labour Party, there's no position. His is just about the most sensible, though; which is pretty much the only direction you can go when nobody can agree.

2 in the chest, 1 in the head.

Because he hates Corbyn, you say? Interesting. Very interesting.

To be fair, is there a position - any position - on Brexit that isn't going to be divisive?

Fabinho is excellent. He has really settled into the way we play and is one of the obvious names on the team sheet. I very much hope Keita can transition and play his part soon.

Nope, we don't. Allison will walk back in. Obviously.

Past NV was a moron. It's either Eminem or it's Biggie.

Fortune cookie psychiatry. How much for a four pack?

We roll on.

Lost faith, not for family issues like he said? Interesting.

Euphemism?

That may well, in addition, be absolutely true.