[fokker]

It probably never crosses your mind,considering your statement, that pensioners may vote the way they do, for the long term benefit of the country,based on their lifelong experience, for which our membership of the E.U is just one part & they have the earlier history in their experience from which the idea arose.

Similarly like there is uncertainty about the severity of economic consequences, there is uncertainty about long term benefits. World is more globalized than it was 50 years ago. Some voters may come to conclusion it is not worth it to risk it. It may be a better idea to revoke article 50, block EU decisions and force the EU to split into multi speed organization with Britain remaining in the less integrated part (possibly only an economic union), not being affected by the core part. This strategy would force the EU to find a solution rather than Britain.

An 'indecisive' parliament, is not grounds for calling an election, or, by definition, requesting an extension to Article 50.

An indecisive parliament is quite useless in parliamentary democracy if Brexit is consuming most of its time. It is perfect grounds for new elections and new elections are a good reason for extending Article 50.

The remedy of course, is for parliament to act decisively, by, either delivering Leave, or agree to an election & suffer the consequences for not implementing Leave.

An indecisive parliament cannot act decisively.

Your second proposition has been tried-tested within the existing referendum result, the 'options' have all been exhaustively rejected in parliament, whether that be MAY's 'soft' Brexit, [b]'hard' Brexit of 'no-deal'[/b], or Brexit 'by agreement' as per Theresa MAY's concoction & the only 'option' left, is the default one of leaving on 31 October 2019.

No, the parliament although indecisive, is quite certain it doesn't want a no deal Brexit on 31 October 2019, unless Boris Johnson decides to ignore the law and refuse to ask for an extension.

Your final option of choosing [b]'the form of Brexit that won in the referendum'[/b](Leave), has been continuously thwarted by that body chosen to implement Brexit.
"Referendum always reflects will of the people, therefore it cannot be undemocratic regardless of how many times it is repeated".

The 'problem' is, having a second referendum is 'undemocratic', because the first referendum was democratic,so what you state above, is contradictory, because you say, no matter how many times it is repeated it cannot be undemocratic,but, you are not accepting it,even though it was democratic.

No, there is no contradiction in repeated referendums, similarly like there is nothing undemocratic about repeated votes in parliament on the same issue. Before a serious decision is taken, people may need to be asked multiple times, with sufficient time to think about it. That is a sign of responsible behaviour. Frustrated Brexiteers must calm down and accept that Brexit may even be never delivered. If parliament fails to approve any form of Brexit, the only remaining option is to revoke Article 50, despite the fury from Brexiteers.

[Nonsense]

Does anyone seriously believe that any 'remain' government, would ever reform the E.U from within?

That is the argument that 'remainer' MP's make, who are opposed to referendums on the issue.

Those who advocate that argument, are dishonest,deceitful & contemptious of those who elect them.

Further, the opposition to referendums, in favour of parliamentary 'democracy argument goes as above, that, if we stay, we can reform,hence, no reason to leave.

First of all,any government that's got a fibre of remain, or, as they claim , that they are representative of the people democratically, would never, ever allow the people a say in a general election on that specific issue.

Only the 1975 referendum allowed that,thanks to Harold WILSON,even he used public money to publish propaganda as a means of influencing the public vote in their efforts to get them to vote remain.

The essential difference between a general election vs a referendum is simple, the latter is the people's voice, the former is the shackle that prevents the latter.

In a general election, people vote on multiple issues that interest them, not necessarily on all of them, so, they only get one choice on multiple issues, whereas a referendum relates to one issue, two choices, of which a straight answer requires just one answer & that is the only way to solve all issues that are important to the people.
That's the important relevance of a referendum, it gets the attention it deserves, with no other distractions getting in the way of one question & one answer.

Politicians at Westminster cannot dodge the will of the people by hiding behind a general election full of ambiguous policies in avoidance of the real issues affecting the country.

[Atlantis]

As for "excessive neoliberalism", you are the principal cheerleader on this forum for the world's largest neoliberal project, the European Union, so I find that particularly odd.

I really took you to be more intelligent than to fall for this utter rant. I suppose you don't mean what you are writing, but just in case: the EU is a broad church reflecting the broad range of its members. To call it socialist is just as stupid as to call it neoliberal. If there are neoliberal tendencies in the EU, it is primarily due to the UK. Brexit will solve that problem. Thus, we don't have to hate Britain to want it to leave. Continental Europe is profoundly social democrat. In Germany, even the conservative party is a staunch advocate of the social market economy.

The EU is a Union of independent nations to defend against the hegemonic ambitions of the imperialistic powers, both external and internal. While the empire thrives on divide and conquer tactics, the EU lives by consensus politics, which the UK is incapable of.

Just for the record, I have been very Anglophile since I first moved to the UK in the 60s. If you knew history, you would know what I'm talking about. Until recently, I have always hoped that the UK would one day be able to integrate with the European family of nations like every other normal country in Europe. Today, after more than half a century, I have to face the fact that that isn't going to happen and that Europe is better off without the UK. I'm sorry you guys had to take the populist bullet, but then Karma is a bitch and you had it coming.

[foxdemon]

Corbyn isn't interested in making the UK Oceania. That is Johnsons domain. Corbyn I suspect would keep the UK in a Swiss model customs union whilst aligning the UK to a more socialist model in terms of public services. Johnson on the other hand would pimp the UK out to capitalist America and sell off whatever was left to sell.

You say UK Oceania, a socialist state, is Johnson’s domain dispite him being a Tory. And you also claim Chairman Corbyn, a far left socialist, would do something else, like implement socialism.

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
― George Orwell, 1984

It seems you are ready for Ingsoc, citizen BOycey.

Another referendum would not undemocratic. Not at all.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wNzqf8a3mbc

By that reasoning, any sort of election would be undemocratic.

No. A referendum is a single purpose vote. If the result isn’t implemented, then you have made the vote void.

The examples of other EU related referendum being repeated involved a no change outcome being voted on again. EG: Irish referendum on Lisbon Treaty, which passed on the second attempt after some amendments.

[Presvias]

No, they couldn't have negotiated a good deal. There was never any chance of that.

Besides, what's a good deal? it's all things to all people.

(shrugs) Like Nonsense, you're mostly correct in your observations, except for this bit which I'm quoting.

'a good deal' = a least worst deal, ie the Norway option, it would give the Brexiters a bit of what they wanted and other people wouldn't suffer too much for it. A good govt could easily have negotiated this.

I'm just dealing with the way things are mate. What's done is done, and unfortunately, people voted for that slimy toad David Camoron, which as you say..is the main reason for our current woes.

Now let's work out the democratic arguments logically...

1. The legitimate reasons for holding a 2nd ref are..

The first one was totally corrupt; as Nonsense said, both sides lied & cheated. But the electoral commission are under a lot of fire at the moment.. for letting leave especially get away with it. There was foreign saudi/russian/israeli/us right-wing ngo interference.


Multiple polls of polls prove that the majority have changed their mind; and there's large petitions to rerun it.


Bojo et al have behaved appallingly.


Multiple polls of polls prove that the majority would vote for anti NDBrexit parties (LD, SNP, GRN, LAB, CHGUK plus don't forget any Tory rebels..).


2. The democratic arguments in favour of no deal leave right now are:

The first one was totally corrupt; as Nonsense said, both sides lied & cheated. But the electoral commission are under a lot of fire for supposedly being remain biased/and allowing them to get away with it. And goldman sachs, Obama et al intervened a lot.


Multi polls of polls show a Tory majority and 12 % Bricksit party support. (and Bj's support went up after the prorogation)


The British people's will should be respected no matter what. The other side voted down the WA three times and multi mps/orgs/court cases tried to stop it.


(Needless to say, that's IMHO wrongful thinking as I outlined)


3. The democratic arguments in favour of revoke:

The first one was totally corrupt; as Nonsense said, both sides lied & cheated. But the electoral commission are under a lot of fire at the moment.. for letting leave especially get away with it. There was foreign saudi/russian/israeli/us right-wing ngo interference.


Multiple polls of polls prove that the majority have changed their mind; and there's large petitions for it.


Bojo et al have behaved appallingly.

If there's any details missing, feel free to correct me (that applies to any posters reading this).

[Presvias]

Just in the interest of being balanced & unbiased.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/matthe ... 91462.html

I appreciate good arguments in favour of Brexit, in fact I welcome such.. because it really does make the debate so much more interesting.

However, with respect, that article does not contribute anything to the debate.

Let's just rip one of its ludicrous points to shreds...

"George Osborne predicted tax rises and spending cuts would be implemented. To date, no changes to the planned tax rates or public spending have been implemented. So, another lie, and thankfully after his sacking Osborne is no longer in a position create his 'punishment budget'."

Well, we haven't left yet or am I missing something here?

Over half of the article is like that ^, it says "this hasnt happened" - we haven't left yet! Or it's speculation about obvious hyperbole.

Another unbelievable point they make lol...

"
We were told companies would leave the UK in their droves, especially in the car industry. There is no sign of this, and UK car manufacturing achieving its 12th successive month of growth in July, with production passing one million units in seven months for the first time in 12 years. Lie number 7."

That was a very shooting himself in the foot moment.

https://www.smmt.co.uk/category/news/manufacturing/

There are much, much better arguments against Remain than that.

[SolarCross]

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I agree. That legislation did mess up the system. It is remarkable that a system of government that worked for hundreds of years could be messed up by the contemporary aspirational class. Perhaps this is due to their belief in their superiority not only of those around them but also of all those who came before them? Could it come to pass that posterity will use ‘the anywheres’ as a by word for arrogance?

It's just another version of the new and improved man bringing about utopia, in this case via globalisation. Leaving aside the complete absence of understanding of human nature, the EU is a peculiar choice to pin those hopes on. For some time now, it has been making noises that it's ambition is to consolidate as a power block and global player, more recently adding the United States to its list of threats and opponents. This means a tighter coupling of economics and defence/security (which I think you mentioned a while ago in the context of the TPP), but economics is the junior partner in that relationship, and the EU is and remains for the foreseeable future a paper tiger on defence and security. On the other hand, the anglosphere is unequaled in terms of military and intelligence cooperation and on that basis alone the UK has no business being an EU member any longer. In hindsight the US might regret having propped up an entity that turns out to be a thorn in its side, albeit not a threat in a meaningful sense.

I was watching a video by Carl Benjamin regarding twitter reactions to #BritishIndependance, when it occurred to me that the British public is the last imperial subjects of the British ruling class. Though in today’s world, that ruling class is more like the EU’s Raj, given they are the rule class of a vassal state.

Maybe that's a pitfall into which new ruling classes tend to fall, and if so I would view it, to a large degree, as a function of insecurity and lack of willingness to accept the responsibility that comes with power.

At the same time, I can't help but be very amused by Rees-Mogg as a popular democracy firebrand:



Similarly, the Telegraph recently ran a headline stating that the ruling elite is the only group in favour of the EU, seemingly implying a lack of legitimacy. It's definitely an upside down world at the moment.

[Presvias]

https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1172950462137585670

(^ politico.eu poll of polls)

[Kaiserschmarrn]

"George Osborne predicted tax rises and spending cuts would be implemented. To date, no changes to the planned tax rates or public spending have been implemented. So, another lie, and thankfully after his sacking Osborne is no longer in a position create his 'punishment budget'."

Well, we haven't left yet or am I missing something here?

Osborne's measures were supposed to be a direct response to the vote, in case it was in favour of leaving:

George Osborne says he will have to slash public spending and increase taxes in an emergency Budget to tackle a £30bn "black hole" if the UK votes to leave the European Union.

[...]

George Osborne, together with the former Labour Chancellor Alistair Darling, vows today that the hit to the economy would be so great if we vote to leave the EU that he'd hold a Budget with cuts and tax rises almost immediately.

This was in part based on the May 2016 treasury report which forecast a recession in response to the vote itself.

This paper focuses on the immediate economic impact of a vote to leave and the two years that follow. Such a vote would change fundamentally not just the UK’s relationship with the EU, our largest trading partner, but also our relationship with the rest of the world. The instability and uncertainty that would trigger is assessed. The Treasury analysis in this document uses a widely-accepted modelling approach that looks at the impact of this uncertainty and instability on financial markets, households and businesses, as our economy transitions to a worse trading arrangement with the EU. I am grateful to Professor Sir Charles Bean, one of our country's foremost economists and a former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, who has reviewed this analysis and says that it “provides reasonable estimates of the likely size of the short-term impact of a vote to leave on the UK economy”.

The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.

These findings sit within the range of what is now an overwhelming weight of published estimates for this short-term impact, which all find that UK GDP would be lower following a vote to leave. The analysis also presents a downside scenario, finding that the shock could be much more profound, meaning the effect on the economy would be worse still. The rise in uncertainty could be amplified, the volatility in financial markets more tumultuous, and the extent of the impact to living standards more acute. In this severe scenario, GDP would be 6% smaller, there would be a deeper recession, and the number of people made unemployed would rise by around 800,000 compared with a vote to remain. The hit to wages, inflation, house prices and borrowing would be larger. There is a credible risk that this more acute scenario could materialise.

My first duty as Chancellor is to seek to deliver economic security and higher living standards for the people of Britain. We already know the long-term effects of a vote to leave: Britain would be permanently poorer. Now we know the short-term shock too: an economy in recession, major job losses and a self-inflicted blow to living standards and aspirations of the British people. A vote to remain in the EU, however, would be the best way to ensure continued growth and safeguard jobs, providing security for working people now and opportunity for the next generation.

This document provides the facts that I hope the people of Britain will consider when they make this historic decision one month from today.

"Facts" . These people are shameless.

Another unbelievable point they make lol...

"We were told companies would leave the UK in their droves, especially in the car industry. There is no sign of this, and UK car manufacturing achieving its 12th successive month of growth in July, with production passing one million units in seven months for the first time in 12 years. Lie number 7."

That was a very shooting himself in the foot moment.

https://www.smmt.co.uk/category/news/manufacturing/

There are two claims in that paragraph, and the one about companies deserting the UK in droves is still valid.

The other one no longer holds, but that piece was written at least two years ago. In the meantime, there has been a global slowdown which has hit the German car industry as well, with the car production trend being down by ~20% since 2017. From the VDA's website:

So I'd say your rebuttal is not quite as strong as you seem to think it is.

There are much, much better arguments against Remain than that.

These are perfectly good arguments, although I agree that there are many more, starting with the question why the UK would want to remain in a union which seemingly desires to economically annex one of its constituent nations.

[Heisenberg]

I really took you to be more intelligent than to fall for this utter rant. I suppose you don't mean what you are writing, but just in case:

What you mean to say here is, you disagree with me.

If there are neoliberal tendencies in the EU, it is primarily due to the UK. Brexit will solve that problem. Thus, we don't have to hate Britain to want it to leave. Continental Europe is profoundly social democrat. In Germany, even the conservative party is a staunch advocate of the social market economy.

I guess the Eurozone crisis and Germany's response to it entirely passed you by. Understandable, since it doesn't paint you guys in a particularly flattering light.

The EU is a Union of independent nations to defend against the hegemonic ambitions of the imperialistic powers, both external and internal. While the empire thrives on divide and conquer tactics, the EU lives by consensus politics, which the UK is incapable of.

Oh, no doubt. I'm sure it's purely by coincidence that the "consensus" of the EU always settles on "whatever Germany wants, she gets".

Just for the record, I have been very Anglophile since I first moved to the UK in the 60s. If you knew history, you would know what I'm talking about.

Hilarious. I have never met anyone as viscerally Anglophobic as you, and I live in America with an Indian woman!

Until recently, I have always hoped that the UK would one day be able to integrate with the European family of nations like every other normal country in Europe.

The reason I find you so amusing is that you genuinely seem to think this post sounds like anything other than naked imperial ambition.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Maybe some Brexiters can go ahead and explain these quotes to me, cos I bit fick.

This means Gove would much rather leave the EU with a deal.


This means Farage prefers an insurance-based healthcare system, perhaps similar to that of many countries in Continental Europe.


This means people try to predict market movements and make some money based on their predictions. This would happen in the absence of Brexit as well; they would just adjust their prediction and strategy.

You are welcome.

[Presvias]

Osborne's measures were supposed to be a direct response to the vote, in case it was in favour of leaving:

This was in part based on the May 2016 treasury report which forecast a recession in response to the vote itself.

"Facts" . These people are shameless.

Very well, what about the other similar claims in the article that sound super hyperbolic?

And although we've had no recession, our growth has massively lagged behind the rest of the EU
Https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-economy-slow-lane/

There are two claims in that paragraph, and the one about companies deserting the UK in droves is still valid.

Not really.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 75711.html

City financial firms have so far committed to move at least 7,000 jobs and £1 trillion of assets out of the UK to prepare for Brexit, with the true cost likely to be higher, research has

….
EY said that the true impact was likely to be greater because just 13 of the 222 firms it monitors have put a figure on the direct financial impact of Brexit.
…

Mr Ali said: “So far, only a small proportion of the largest, listed firms have put a number on potential costs, which means this number is likely to be a drop in the ocean as firms prepare to do business post-Brexit.

“The financial impact of Brexit is beginning to fall to the bottom line, and firms are now making a direct link between financial performance and the tangible commercial impacts of Brexit.

The other one no longer holds, but that piece was written at least two years ago. In the meantime, there has been a global slowdown which has hit the German car industry as well, with the car production trend being down by ~20% since 2017. From the VDA's website:

So I'd say your rebuttal is not quite as strong as you seem to think it is.

The point has been disproven. And you implicitly concede such.

EU growth has outpaced UK growth and I could show you a raft of other indices that really shred your comparison point. However, I'll await your reply first, because this is taking long enough to write as it is.

These are perfectly good arguments, although I agree that there are many more, starting with the question why the UK would want to remain in a union which seemingly desires to economically annex one of its constituent nations.

Can you show me Proof that the EU 'desires to economically annex' the UK?

And what are your other good arguments?

The soapbox is all yours.

You have your chance to convince us to support No-Deal Brexit. Good luck (you'll need it..!).

[Presvias]

This means Gove would much rather leave the EU with a deal.

Really?! Then why is he supporting Boris when Boris has barely even been in Brussels trying to negotiate anything; when BJ clearly doesn't want a deal?

And why is he willing to support breaking the law to get no deal?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... s-49541942

This means Farage prefers an insurance-based healthcare system, perhaps similar to that of many countries in Continental Europe.

Lol(!)

I really believe that, espesh when the whole quote actually says this...

Other footage showed him proposing that the BBC should not be completely dismantled but slimmed down to concentrate on radio rather than television, with a licence fee slashed to £40 or £50. He also suggested that benefit claimants could be made to clean up litter after six months
....
However, his comments about the NHS were the most striking, leading Labour to claim it was now “plain for all to see that a vote for Ukip is a vote for the privatisation of the NHS”.

Speaking at a meeting in East Sussex, Farage said: “I think we’re going to have to think about healthcare very, very differently. I think we are going to have to move to an insurance-based system of healthcare.

“Frankly, I would feel more comfortable that my money would return value if I was able to do that through the market place of an insurance company than just us trustingly giving £100bn a year to central government and expecting them to organise the healthcare service from cradle to grave for us.

“I just feel with the whole healthcare service – one promise Blair did keep is that he would increase expenditure; we’ve doubled expenditure on the NHS in 15 years – and we haven’t got frankly double the return.

“If I had a magic answer, I could glibly say, don’t give the EU £50m a day and spend it on British pensioners. That would get a clap round the audience but actually even that would not be sufficient to deal with the scale of this problem. That is me being completely honest with you.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... -companies

Then there's ukip's paul nuttall's quote from 2011 when Fromage was leader..

"However, in 2011 he told an election hustings that the NHS is "a monolithic hangover from days gone by.""

Then there's cathy baiklock of the brickit party

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/e ... -you-think

Nuff sed.
Then there's this..

This means people try to predict market movements and make some money based on their predictions. This would happen in the absence of Brexit as well; they would just adjust their prediction and strategy.

LOL! Brilliant reimagining of what he said. Are you a lawyer?

You are welcome.

I may have been well fick before, but having read your post, I'm certainly even thicker for it now..

(J/k )

-------------------------------------
Rather interestingly, Fromage himself refuted the 350m pw claim.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegr ... stake/amp/

[B0ycey]

You say UK Oceania, a socialist state, is Johnson’s domain dispite him being a Tory. And you also claim Chairman Corbyn, a far left socialist, would do something else, like implement socialism.

Oceania - or more fitting to you quote "Airstrip One" was part of the American empire in the book in which no doubt Johnson will sell us off to in order to pay for Brexit. It was also a fascist state so not left leaning at all. Socialism is merely a term to say community ran/owned. Since when was Big Brother everyone? Hence the watching.

[SolarCross]

Oceania - or more fitting to you quote "Airstrip One" was part of the American empire in the book in which no doubt Johnson will sell us off to in order to pay for Brexit. It was also a fascist state so not left leaning at all. Socialism is merely a term to say community ran/owned. Since when was Big Brother everyone? Hence the watching.

The double-think is strong in this one. ^

1984 was a world where socialism had won everywhere including America. IngSoc is the Fabian Society.

[snapdragon]

@Nonsense

It would be a different referendum.

The only way forward now is a People’s Vote because the Brexit deal…

• Shows what was promised in the last referendum can’t be delivered
• Is a much worse deal than the deal we’ve already got in the EU
• Will mean negotiations go on forever as successive governments try to make sense of something that makes no sense for Britain.
The same problems will apply to any form of Brexit, no matter how it is presented. That’s why the final decision should now be handed back to the people - because only they can sort this out.

https://www.peoples-vote.uk/we_need_a_vote

If any government wanted a 'confirmatory' referendum, based on the outcome of negotiations, such as MAY's W.A, then the proper way would have been for parliament to order that the P.M must not sign any 'agreement' until parliament decides to ratify the same, as set before it.

And?

Any 'second' referendum, where the ability to unravel the initial result was codified by way of a 'confirmatory' vote, would simply be seen as a device for 'rebels' to expoit for their own political ends,leading to the same situation prevailing now, because all manner of 'caveats' would creep into the debate in parliament.
These suggestions are the work of those who failed to win the popular vote & wish to prevail by other means.

They're the work of people who want a way out of this mess.

The idea that people were not told this or that, or all the issues were not known,revealed or whatever, is complete & utter tosh.

It was called Project Fear by the leave side, and people believed them.
The leave side at no time told people there would be any sort of bad outcome and to ignore what the remain camp said, because it was just fear mongering.

In the 1970's, there was no internet with public forums, in which to debate issues like leaving the E.U or anything else.

Not only that, political issues were kept out of public debate, the only issues aired, were those in the newspaper publications, owned by mainly 'Tory' type press 'Barons' or someone of dubious nature like Robert MAXWELL & the public only saw what they published with no public input whatsoever.

No, the people voted back then on the available information, or experience they have\had in life, they accepted the outcome, even when opposed to the result.

In fact, the Labour government in 1975 was recommending 'remain', promising to abide by the result, which they had conveniently accentuated the positive's towards 'remain'.
If you suggest that people should agree or disagree on the negotiations,were they to disagree, then negotiations could\would repeated ad infinitum, with this or any country not actually leaving, precisely the game plan of CORBYN & Co.

The result, back then, delivered what was promised.
The result this time has delivered a shit storm, because what was promised is undeliverable.

The question asked was very similar to have asked Do you want Michael Gove as PM or not Michael Gove, of the Tory membership during the leader election.

Or better still The Current Government or Not the Current Government as the choices in a general election vote.

No wonder it's such a mess.

[Atlantis]

Last night at the Proms:



@Heisenberg, I now understand that you don't have any arguments. "Pearls before the swine."

[B0ycey]

IngSoc is the Fabian Society.

Ingsoc was a Totalitarian party. Perhaps it is you and Foxdemon who suffer from double think as you confuse Socialism with everything Totalitarian because Totalitarian states usually hide their intentions under the guise of Socialism and Americans call anything not to their liking "Communism". Orwell understood that well hence why he was an Anarchist as he knew power always corrupts. He wasn't too keen on Western powers either FYI, hence why Napoleon turned into a farmer. If you actual understood the criteria for what constitutes as Socialism that would help perhaps.

Nonetheless if you look at Corbyns policies they are nothing more than returning vital services to state ownership where they should be and where they were before Thatcher privatised everything. He doesn't intend on touching enterprise so you don't need to worry about your Taxi being state owned or worrying about paying expensive insurance to fund a broken hip in your elderly years.

[SolarCross]

Ingsoc was a Totalitarian party. Perhaps it is you and Foxdemon who suffer from double think as you confuse Socialism with everything Totalitarian because Totalitarian states usually hide their intentions under the guise of Socialism and Americans call anything not to their liking "Communism". Orwell understood that well hence why he was an Anarchist as he knew power always corrupts. He wasn't too keen on Western powers either FYI, hence why Napoleon turned into a farmer. If you actual understood the criteria for what constitutes as Socialism that would help perhaps.

Nonetheless if you look at Corbyns policies they are nothing more than returning vital services to state ownership where they should be and where they were before Thatcher privatised everything. He doesn't intend on touching enterprise so you don't need to worry about your Taxi being state owned or worrying about paying expensive insurance to fund a broken hip in your elderly years.

I have no need to worry because the geriatric traitor does not have a chance of becoming PM. Venezuala will not be Britain's fate.

Orwell was thinking of the Fabian Society when he crafted IngSoc. Calling IngSoc fascist hardly changes anything because the Fabians are basically stealth-fascists.