Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Rjd2

I think what must be infuriating for a lot of Labour supporters, the base is much more receptive to a second referendum than Corbyn might think.

May is actually in a worse position than Jez, as she knows Brexit is a bad idea, but the majority of Tory voters support it. If she or any other Tory leader was to go for a second referendum and it lost they would be finished. Heck even someone like Rudd if somehow became leader would never suggest a second referendum.

Corbyn can still tackle the issues that made working class voters vote Brexit. I don't believe that for Labour Brexit voters that leaving is as important as it for Tories grassroots. Even if Jez could not smooth it over with Labour Leavers, the impact of that loss would be compensated by pro European brits voters who are aghast at his current stance.

briany

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is why I don't see a 2nd ref happening.

Just who is going to lead and support it? The Tories, as a party can't. Labour seem totally opposed. They are not going to work together.

The SNP and Lib Dems? No chance.

I'll just throw out a scenario.

May's vote fails in Jan.

May resigns. Government goes into meltdown. GE called.

Labour gains some seats, but not enough for a government by itself. Brings the SNP and the Lib Dems on board. Lib Dems want a second ref as a condition. SNP want an indy ref 2 as a condition. Corbyn argues them down to an indy ref if they back a second EU ref, and if that ref still results in the the UK leaving the EU.

The EU grants an extension to A50 in light of this development. The Labour coalition + some moderate Tory rebels back the required legislation.

The electorate of the UK vote to stay in the EU.

Bingo bango bongo.

bob mcbob

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/21/jeremy-corbyn-labour-policy-leaving-eu?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Corbyn sticking to his guns regarding Brexit.

Ideally he would win an election and go back and get a better deal.

You have to look at this in the light of the Scottish Indy ref in 2014. Labour campaigned against a lot of their natural supporters and were destroyed in the next election.

While I am no fan of Corbyn, I would do exactly the same, promise all things to all men, with no commitments and let the Tories fight out their civil war.

EdgeCase

I think you're all forgetting that May seems to want to cling to power. It would take an awful lot to get her to just resign because the deal gets voted down.

I think you'd have to have a proper motion of no confidence by the House and even then because of the Fixed Term Parliament Act there's no guarantee that it would necessarily lead to fresh elections.

briany

EdgeCase wrote: »

I think you're all forgetting that May seems to want to cling to power. It would take an awful lot to get her to just resign because the deal gets voted down.

I think you'd have to have a proper motion of no confidence by the House and even then because of the Fixed Term Parliament Act there's no guarantee that it would necessarily lead to fresh elections.

People say May's desperate to cling on to power but I don't think she's into power for power's sake. I don't think most politicians are because they show themselves to be gladly willing to relinquish their positions if their power puts them at the center of a big enough sh*t show.

At the point that May's deal fails, she could reach the point where it's evident that she cannot impress her vision of Brexit, and a relatively soft landing, upon her parliamentary colleagues. At that point, she's looking down the barrel of presiding over the single biggest sh*t showing in recent British history, and is little more than a patsy for Brexit's true architects to simultaneously harangue and hide beyond. The only reason not to pull the ripcord then is out of a feeling of duty to Queen and Country, but with so many British MPs currently in dereliction of that, I don't think anyone would truly notice one more.

Charles Babbage

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

They'll use drones, no worries.

I would say a drone over Cullyhanna would not last as long as one over Gatwick.

Russman

It’s almost incredible that it looks like a majority of halfway sane MPs are going to allow their country be driven off the cliff by the hard core of the ERG on one side and Corbyn on the other. Surely this paralysis will stop at some point - or will it take the sight of tailbacks at Dover and shortages of essentials to give them some backbone to shout stop ?

Keatsian

Strazdas wrote: »

Corbyn, the hard Brexiteer. Just when you thought things couldn't get any more ridiculous :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/21/jeremy-corbyn-labour-policy-leaving-eu

There is nothing there that suggests he's a hard Brexiter. From what I've read, Labour supporters are mostly Remainers, but the party's internal polling suggests that adopting a no Brexit position will cost it seats in a general election.

Right now, should May wobble on Brexit and seek to extend or even withdraw the article 50 notification, ERG types - eager to frustrate the business of government while running the clock down until March 29th - have the nuclear option of backing a no confidence motion and triggering a general election, which they might favour over allowing May to buy more time from the EU. Similarly, the DUP might decide to turn on her (and Corbyn has been making overtures to it with talk of a deal that requires no border in the Irish Sea). If a general election comes to pass, Labour won't want to have provoked the pro-Brexit press and alienated leave voters by backing a new referendum.

Should Labour secure power before March 29th, I fully expect Corbyn would seek an extension of A50 with a promise to the EU that he will want a softer Brexit, and then Remainers can pressure him to permit a second referendum. Right now, it makes sense to insist that Labour will "respect the referendum" result, but oppose May's deal and claim it can deliver a better one, while remaining agnostic on a new peoples' vote. You can't lead the country from the opposition benches, and Labour can leave grappling with the contradictions of Brexit to a time when it is in power.

EdgeCase

Yeah, it's largely that they're trying to align themselves with what they see as a largely working class and what should be a traditional labour vote.

Much like the democrats have lost blue-collar voters to Trump, there is a large fear in Labour of losing because of being too close to a policy that's seen as Blairite. That's why Tony Blair's intervention is very counterproductive, unlike John Major who isn't a divisive figure.

I think you're into perfect storm scenarios in the UK on a whole load of issues that are pushing it towsrds a crash out. All sorts of odd political issues are lining up against undoing Brexit, even if there might be a majority in favour of a very soft exit from the EU, I think you'll see a crash out due to political paralysis.

listermint

EdgeCase wrote: »

Yeah, it's largely that they're trying to align themselves with what they see as a largely working class and what should be a traditional labour vote.

Much like the democrats have lost blue-collar voters to Trump, there is a large fear in Labour of losing because of being too close to a policy that's seen as Blairite. That's why Tony Blair's intervention is very counterproductive, unlike John Major who isn't a divisive figure.

I think you're into perfect storm scenarios in the UK on a whole load of issues that are pushing it towsrds a crash out. All sorts of odd political issues are lining up against undoing Brexit, even if there might be a majority in favour of a very soft exit from the EU, I think you'll see a crash out due to political paralysis.

Ya blairite a period when working class people enjoyed a huge amount of economic growth and a boom in wages and quality of life.

Perplexing whatever about the whole Iraq war stuff the country was flying then.

Enzokk

bob mcbob wrote: »

You have to look at this in the light of the Scottish Indy ref in 2014. Labour campaigned against a lot of their natural supporters and were destroyed in the next election.

While I am no fan of Corbyn, I would do exactly the same, promise all things to all men, with no commitments and let the Tories fight out their civil war.

The problem I have Corbyn right now is the obvious politics he is playing and this could be the same with Brexit. He does very well in bringing a new energy to Labour and getting younger people involved with his populist policies. He also told them all that they will steer where Labour will be going in regards to policies and yet when push came to shove this year there were obvious attempts to get around a second referendum and even what stance they should take regarding Brexit.

It also seems that Labour is about 3 people at the top. Those being Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne and there is the perception that those other 2 are using Corbyn as he is better at engaging the base but they are the ones actually steering the ship. They also don't seem to listen to anyone other than these 3 and they have all 3 been skeptical of the EU for a long time. So why would they change now?

Keatsian wrote: »

There is nothing there that suggests he's a hard Brexiter. From what I've read, Labour supporters are mostly Remainers, but the party's internal polling suggests that adopting a no Brexit position will cost it seats in a general election.

Right now, should May wobble on Brexit and seek to extend or even withdraw the article 50 notification, ERG types - eager to frustrate the business of government while running the clock down until March 29th - have the nuclear option of backing a no confidence motion and triggering a general election, which they might favour over allowing May to buy more time from the EU. Similarly, the DUP might decide to turn on her (and Corbyn has been making overtures to it with talk of a deal that requires no border in the Irish Sea). If a general election comes to pass, Labour won't want to have provoked the pro-Brexit press and alienated leave voters by backing a new referendum.

Should Labour secure power before March 29th, I fully expect Corbyn would seek an extension of A50 with a promise to the EU that he will want a softer Brexit, and then Remainers can pressure him to permit a second referendum. Right now, it makes sense to insist that Labour will "respect the referendum" result, but oppose May's deal and claim it can deliver a better one, while remaining agnostic on a new peoples' vote. You can't lead the country from the opposition benches, and Labour can leave grappling with the contradictions of Brexit to a time when it is in power.

Well you have to wonder whether those areas where they have leave voters will ever vote Conservative. Would Newcastle and Sunderland turn to the Tories? At the same time there is a Brexit supporting base in Labour constituencies all over the country so they have to tread carefully.

However I feel the time for that has passed. If you have a voter complaining about the EU you only have to show them the predictions and the real effects of what has happened since Brexit. While the predictions will not be 100% accurate there is no denial that the economy has suffered and it will continue as well so while the voter may disagree with the choice of their MP it doesn't make it wrong.

You have to feel though that if Labour had been pushing to remain even now a lot of these objections would have simmered down but seeing as they have not done anything to calm the rhetoric it allowed their Leave supporters to continue to be the loudest voices.

Basically, Labour is a mess. You can just look at what it has done to Labour activists like Owen Jones. He voted Remain, but since the referendum and seeing that Corbyn is lukewarm at best to the EU he rowed in behind the policy of allowing Brexit to proceed. This was evident in tweets of his until a few months ago where he has gone decidedly quiet on Brexit as he probably knows he is on the wrong side of what has to happen. But until Corbyn doesn't change tack he will not.

Also look at the way the march for a second vote was covered, or not, by those loyal to Corbyn. It went from totally ignoring it (Corbyn himself) to ridiculing it from his supporters. In fact the criticism of it was that more people marched against the Iraq War and that did nothing to change minds. But the next march for a cause they support you will see them tweeting support for it.

Then we get to anti-Semitism in the party. There is definitely some piling on from the Conservatives to take some heat of them (their party is rife with Islamaphobes that they need to confront) but the amount of people posting and being suspended from the party for anti-Semitism or having to apologize for links to anti-Semites is staggering.

So that is Labour, extremely flawed and yet still they are in my eyes so much better than the alternative right now. It beggars belief that you are having to choose between these two parties that really offer nothing to voters other than more misery for ideological beliefs.

Leroy42

So rather than take a lead on such an important and are defining issue, Cornyn and Labour have decided that this is no more important than a normal issue and will simply wait until things go their way before making a stand.

But what stand? A softer Brexit? How can he deliver on his renationilise agenda with that? And FoM is a major loss for the younger generation, a key part that drove him to power.

Cornyn ran on a policy of listening to the membership, even against the MPs. Now he has decided that the membership are no longer important and he gets to set the agenda.

Brexit is not the fault of Labour, that lies with the Tories. But it has played, and continues to play, a central role in allowing TM and the Tories to act as they are.

Because Cornyn is offering no alternative, the voters have little choice and thus any potential negative impact to the Tories is reduced. You can be certain that if the Tories were 20 points down in polling that they would have changed tack.

First Up

FrancieBrady wrote:

'In the meantime' we cannot 'forget' anything, which is what you were proposing.

Never sure which is the bigger blight on humanity - those who can't forget or those who can't remember.

EdgeCase

listermint wrote: »

Ya blairite a period when working class people enjoyed a huge amount of economic growth and a boom in wages and quality of life.

Perplexing whatever about the whole Iraq war stuff the country was flying then.

It is the problem though as illogical as it seems and actually is, they are kicking an establishment that they have been told did them a lot of harm.

The majority of the impacts of hard sink or swim capitalism and globalisation happened under Thatcher.

Life in 90s UK was actually extremely positive for most and saw a period of generally prosperous economics, a solid foundation of social supports and a thriving place. That's why so many people opted to make English cities their homes. It wasn't out of economic desperation that most EU nationals moved to the UK, rather that it was a very attractive and vibrant place to live. That's particularly true of people in areas like technology, finance, media, arts, healthcare and academics etc etc ...
It's also a large reason why investment flew in. It was a real hub of creativity.

The Brexit backlash has basically brought out the inward looking, small minded little Englanders and that's going to undermine all of the above.

None of the decisions being made are logical. They're emotional and based on tabloid / social media fear mongering and rabel rousing.

There'll be a lot of hindsight to be wallowed in and upset in 12 months time.

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

Never sure which is the bigger blight on humanity - those who can't forget or those who can't remember.

How about this one ? They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.

This bit from a blog could apply to Brexit.
The quote is attributed to Talleyrand in speaking about the restored Bourbon dynasty after the abdication of Napoleon, and subsequently used against the French socialists and others. It comes close to Einstein’s definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results, though the Talleyrand quote gives us a reason for their repeating mistakes of the past over and over.

The DUP would be the poster boys.

There's also the kite flying from the Tories on tweaks to Brexit. Even if you change the colour of the lipstick, it's still a pig.

The hard left in Labour are intent on proving they can win without compromise. But if they do win why should the EU allow them more time to change the deal. It'll be more cakeism. It will still be cherry picking the four freedoms.

It's like asking SKY to swap the Sports Package for the Movie package except that everyone knows that if/when the other side get in they will want to swap back. So if there is any political change during an A50 extension it's flip-flop.

There is no consensus between the UK parties or within them. Even though a majority of the MP's and Lords and business and police and probably the public want to Remain.


On the morning after the referendum a senior Tory resigned, the future of NI and Scotland in the Union looked unclear as did the nature of Brexit .

Since then it's all been Ex-minister Sir Robert Atkins condemned Cabinet members for fighting like “ferrets in a sack” and “jockeying for leadership positions”.



The old definition of a statesman as a politician who looks past the next election would suggest there aren't any left in the UK.

/RANT

Strazdas

Many Labour MPs are heavily criticising Corbyn on Twitter and saying the idea of a "good Brexit" or "successful Brexit" is complete and utter nonsense.

flatty

Rjd2 wrote: »

Labour no matter the next leader will probably win the next election just due to how stale and awful the Tories are.

The concern its not the cert it should be that Corbyn will lead the next government, I make it 60-40 that he will. It should be much more comfortable than that.



I think its a case of hoping that the polls get so crap for Labour that Corbyn is forced into backing it. Its possible, but he is shown no sign of backing down whatsoever. The likes of Blair been so prominent when it comes to chatter about a second referendum probably hardens his resolve.

Possibly, but a lot of the swinging vote would vote for Labour only if it offered a better chance of remaining in, or extremely closely aligned with the eu. If brexit has already happened, I think the tories may actually contrive to lose the race to the bottom. Corbyn will be utterly toxic.
What people don't seem to understand however, is that the EU will speak to corbyn as he actually wants a far closer alignment than the blue rinse brigade. He has no problem with freedom of movement.

Leroy42

But FoM is one, if not The, issue with the EU.

So he wants to remain in A CU, remain in the SM, and keep FoM?

But not actually remain in the EU? Don't you think he should be out articulating that rather than simply trying to avoid saying anything

FreudianSlippers

First Up wrote: »

Unionists are motivated at least as much by dislike/hatred of the ROI as love of the UK - by a lot more in many cases.

After watching De Valera's Ireland, the dominance of the Catholic Church and the small matter of the IRA, its hard to blame them. It would need a lot more than a faster growing economy or feeling short changed by London to change their minds.

It isn't going to happen so we need to forget about it and put our energies into re-enforcing our position in Europe and maximising the opportunities. Let N.I work things out for itself.

DeV was the worst

FreudianSlippers

Leroy42 wrote: »

But FoM is one, if not The, issue with the EU.

So he wants to remain in A CU, remain in the SM, and keep FoM?

But not actually remain in the EU? Don't you think he should be out articulating that rather than simply trying to avoid saying anything

I don't know what idiot thinks they're going to negotiate the EU into completely undermining and dismantling everything about the EU. It boggles the mind the arrogance of that "thinking" in the UK!

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

But FoM is one, if not The, issue with the EU.

So he wants to remain in A CU, remain in the SM, and keep FoM?

But not actually remain in the EU? Don't you think he should be out articulating that rather than simply trying to avoid saying anything

Corbyn doesn't want the Single Market because it doesn't allow easy nationalisation of industries or state subsidies for the benefit of the unions.

There are fudges but they aren't ideologically pure. The Blue Passports are being made by a French company that has a virtual monopoly in their local market because "security".



A Labour deal would be more advanced cherry picking.

Still glacé cherries but Labour/Tory want different colours.

CelticRambler

At this point, I don't think there's any reason to believe that an extension of A50 has any merit. The only purpose of such an extension would be to allow some extra time for an alternative agreement to be put in place, whether by the current government or a fresh team. But everything we've seen, heard and read about indicates that opinion in the UK is completely fragmented and there is no single proposal that has anything close to majority support. How could the EU justify taking a request for an extension back to its 27 members when there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest that the Kingdom will Unite behind one idea?

If May's deal is rejected, the only sellable position for Labour or anyone else going into an election (assuming that's what happens next) would be a unilateral revocation of A50 and promise to start the "what does Brexit mean?" discussion all over again. That could be spun as taking back control of the negotiations timetable, respecting the (revised) will of the people and eventually leading to a second referendum. I don't think the EU would be completely happy with such a development, but it would shelve the no-deal uncertainty for another EU parliamentary and budgetary cycle.

Water John

Yes Corbyn should be articulating the LB position more. Willing to stay in CU and SM. This would be fine with the EU. I can see why he would wait until after the vote on TM's Deal.

FreudianSlippers

CelticRambler wrote: »

At this point, I don't think there's any reason to believe that an extension of A50 has any merit. The only purpose of such an extension would be to allow some extra time for an alternative agreement to be put in place, whether by the current government or a fresh team. But everything we've seen, heard and read about indicates that opinion in the UK is completely fragmented and there is no single proposal that has anything close to majority support. How could the EU justify taking a request for an extension back to its 27 members when there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to suggest that the Kingdom will Unite behind one idea?

There is no circumstance in which I would agree with an extension of the effects of Article 50 occurring. The UK needs to figure out what it wants and it needs to do it now - I'm not interested in their holiday for Christmas / New Year.

If When May's deal is rejected,

FYP :pac:

the only sellable position for Labour or anyone else going into an election (assuming that's what happens next) would be a unilateral revocation of A50 and promise to start the "what does Brexit mean?" discussion all over again.

I think you're right on this take as to what the UK is likely to do, but I think in the EU we should be very sceptical of this action. We should immediately enact legislation that prevents Member States from enacting Article 50 for a period of time after doing so. Can you imagine the potential repercussions of weak Member States seeing the UK do this?

Akrasia

Strazdas wrote: »

Corbyn, the hard Brexiteer. Just when you thought things couldn't get any more ridiculous :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/21/jeremy-corbyn-labour-policy-leaving-eu

What a d1ck.

The UK is screwed

Strazdas

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Corbyn doesn't want the Single Market because it doesn't allow easy nationalisation of industries or state subsidies for the benefit of the unions.

There are fudges but they aren't ideologically pure. The Blue Passports are being made by a French company that has a virtual monopoly in their local market because "security".



A Labour deal would be more advanced cherry picking.

Still glacé cherries but Labour/Tory want different colours.

Far from clear either that Corbyn supports freedom of movement. He has made comments in the last year that suggest he wants restrictions placed on it.

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is why I don't see a 2nd ref happening.

Just who is going to lead and support it? The Tories, as a party can't. Labour seem totally opposed. They are not going to work together.

The SNP and Lib Dems? No chance.

The only way there will be an extension of A50 is if there is a 2nd referendum, and there won't be enough time to renegotiate a deal and have it ratified by the end of March, so If Mays deal is rejected it's either crash out or 2nd referendum.

breatheme

Strazdas wrote: »

Far from clear either that Corbyn supports freedom of movement. He has made comments in the last year that suggest he wants restrictions placed on it.

Yes but he wants to stay in the Customs Union. The CU is what holds up Free Movement of Goods, so whenever a politician says they want to stay in the Customs Union they are saying they want Free Movement of Goods. And the EU's position is that the 4 Freedoms are indivisible.

Strazdas

breatheme wrote: »

Yes but he wants to stay in the Customs Union. The CU is what holds up Free Movement of Goods, so whenever a politician says they want to stay in the Customs Union they are saying they want Free Movement of Goods. And the EU's position is that the 4 Freedoms are indivisible.

Labour’s 2017 manifesto stated that “Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union. Britain’s immigration system will change.”

In July (2017), Jeremy Corbyn said that immigration “would be a managed thing on the basis of the skills required… What there wouldn’t be is whole-scale importation of underpaid workers from central Europe in order to destroy conditions, particularly in the construction industries.”

Later in the summer, the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said “We’ve always defended freedom of movement in principle; but [it] cannot be on the basis that it undermines standards of living in this country – and therefore we address that issue in a practical way.”

There is no evidence that Corbyn has budged on this at all

breatheme

Strazdas wrote: »

Labour’s 2017 manifesto stated that “Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union. Britain’s immigration system will change.”

In July (2017), Jeremy Corbyn said that immigration “would be a managed thing on the basis of the skills required… What there wouldn’t be is whole-scale importation of underpaid workers from central Europe in order to destroy conditions, particularly in the construction industries.”

Later in the summer, the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said “We’ve always defended freedom of movement in principle; but [it] cannot be on the basis that it undermines standards of living in this country – and therefore we address that issue in a practical way.”

There is no evidence that Corbyn has budged on this at all

I'm not saying otherwise. What I am saying is that both positions, Free Movement of Goods (Customs Union) and no Free Movement of People are incompatible. Labour's policy is based on either lies or naïveté.