Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

He's hopeless but its not all down to him. The UK is deeply divided on all things Europe and the fault lines don't coincide with the positions of the political parties. Labour is as divided about Brexit as the Tories so no leader of either party can accurately represent their parliamentary or general membership.

What you're really saying there is that the Labour party is as badly led as the Tory party.

Which is correct, but not much of a vindication for Corbyn, given that the Tory Party has just had its worst leader ever succeeded by an even worse leader, who in turn seems likely to be succeeded by one who looks likely to be yet worse again.

Igotadose

Peregrinus wrote: »

Canada is not "bullying" the UK; it is behaving the way a rational, fair-minded country would be expected to behave when pursuing its own advantage in trading relationships. That Canada would take this particular step was always predictable and, indeed, was widely predicted. Lots of people have pointed out that third countries won't want to commit to trade terms with the UK until they know what the UK's trade terms with the EU are going to be. The fact that the UK is known to be considering unilateral tarriff reductions simply copperfastens the Canadian decision; why should Canada make concessions to obtain that which the UK is going to offer to other countries without requiring concessions? It has long been pointed out that the measure the UK will have to consider adopting in order to ameliorate the pain of a no-deal Brexit will also limit hugely the trading policy that the UK can realistically pursue.

Canada's stance can only be characterised as "bullying" if you buy into the Brexiter implicit assumptions that (a) the UK is entitled to pretty much anything it wants, and (b) other countries have a responsibility to design and deliver the magical sparkly Brexit to which the UK is so richly entitled, even at their own expense.

Apologies, bullying was poorly chosen. Completely agree that Canada is doing what's best for Canada. My schadenfreude is my own musing at the upset that it's causing Brexiteers, having to consider 'bending the knee' somewhat to yet another ex-colony.

Peregrinus

Igotadose wrote: »

Apologies, bullying was poorly chosen. Completely agree that Canada is doing what's best for Canada. My schadenfreude is my own musing at the upset that it's causing Brexiteers, having to consider 'bending the knee' somewhat to yet another ex-colony.

Bending the knee to reality, more like, in having to live with the entirely forseeable, and widely predicted, consequences of the choices they freely made.

Leroy42

Where Corbyn, and Labour, have failed is by not demanding any form of accountability from the government.

By being si so utterly divided themselves, and with Corbyn afraid to take any position, it has allowed Tories to avoid any real scrutiny.

Even know, with both John's and Hunt making ludicrous and clearly undeliverable statements, Labour some hammering them.

Instead they are free to say anything they want knowing that no one is going to challenge them on it.

Every functioning democracy needs a functioning and credible opposition.

lawred2

Peregrinus wrote: »

Bending the knee to reality, more like, in having to live with the entirely forseeable, and widely predicted, consequences of the choices they freely made.

Well I don't think anyone bar a small select few ever made this choice.

Only the smallest set of Victorian era yearning set of laissez faire loons and Europe hating bigots voted for a no deal Brexit in 2016.

How a Nation has got from there to deciding that what they voted for was a crash out Brexit is going to be studied for a long time to come..

kunst nugget

lawred2 wrote: »

Well I don't think anyone bar a small select few ever made this choice.

Only the smallest set of Victorian era yearning set of laissez faire loons and Europe hating bigots voted for a no deal Brexit in 2016.

How a Nation has got from there to deciding that what they voted for was a crash out Brexit is going to be studied for a long time to come..

How they've arrived at a point where they're presenting a No Deal Brexit as nearly the only viable solution with little pushback has incredible/incredulous piece of political manoeuvring.

Peregrinus

lawred2 wrote: »

Well I don't think anyone bar a small select few ever made this choice.

Only the smallest set of Victorian era yearning set of laissez faire loons and Europe hating bigots voted for a no deal Brexit in 2016.

How a Nation has got from there to deciding that what they voted for was a crash out Brexit is going to be studied for a long time to come..

The nation hasn't decided that they voted for a crash-out Brexit. Public support for this peaks at around 35%. That's pretty alarming in itself, but a substantial majority of the public is not at all happy about the prospect.

It's the political leadership who have lead the UK to this pass, by making catastropically bad choices for the UK or by standing aside and letting others do so, because of a reluctance to jeopardise perceived personal and party advantage by actually doing their job properly and taking their responsibility to the country seriously.

trellheim

By being si so utterly divided themselves, and with Corbyn afraid to take any position, it has allowed Tories to avoid any real scrutiny.

Even know, with both John's and Hunt making ludicrous and clearly undeliverable statements, Labour some hammering them

Like it or not, and antisemitism aside(serious though that is), and ignoring Kate Hoey , Labour are just about holding together, which makes them radically different to the Tory Party .

This is part of the reason why Corbyn takes the stance he does as unity is much more important for the Left

Roger_007

Peregrinus wrote: »

The nation hasn't decided that they voted for a crash-out Brexit. Public support for this peaks at around 35%. That's pretty alarming in itself, but a substantial majority of the public is not at all happy about the prospect.

It's the political leadership who have lead the UK to this pass, by making catastropically bad choices for the UK or by standing aside and letting others do so, because of a reluctance to jeopardise perceived personal and party advantage by actually doing their job properly and taking their responsibility to the country seriously.

The Brexit campaign was never about the economic merits of the proposal. As all the leading lights on the YES side kept saying its was all about 'taking back control'.
Many British people have an image of Britain as being a major player on the world stage and therefore didn't like, or need, to have to adhere to rules made by the EU or any other body that wasn't entirely British.
It seems to entirely escape them that in the modern world you cannot absolute sovereignty. They are members of NATO, the UN and many other international bodies where they have to abode by rules made elsewhere.
They also seem happy to join the WTO and operate under WTO rules which are made in Geneva.
As the British themselves say " There's nowt so queer as folk".

Peregrinus

trellheim wrote: »

Like it or not, and antisemitism aside(serious though that is), and ignoring Kate Hoey , Labour are just about holding together, which makes them radically different to the Tory Party .

This is part of the reason why Corbyn takes the stance he does as unity is much more important for the Left

The truth is that they are holding together because, and only because, they are in opposition. When you don't have to implement any decisions it's much easier not to take them.

Their supporters and potential supporters are not fooled. Labour got 13.7% in the European Parliament election in the UK, their worst performance in a national election since 1910. They may have avoided much of a formal split, but nobody thinks they are a united movement.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

What you're really saying there is that the Labour party is as badly led as the Tory party.

That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm no fan of Corbyn but nobody can "lead" a party that has divergent and polarised views about something as fundamental as this.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

That's not quite what I'm saying. I'm no fan of Corbyn but nobody can "lead" a party that has divergent and polarised views about something as fundamental as this.

Leadership would involve acting so as to discourage or impede the development of the division in the first place, and if that fails acting so as to foster work towards a consensus, and the marginalisation within the part of extremist views. In both parties, the leadership conspicuously failed to attempt any of this at any point.

May's failure is more serious, because she also needed to do that for the country, and she didn't. But Corbyn has served his party very, very badly here. And they know it.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

The truth is that they are holding together because, and only because, they are in opposition. When you don't have to implement any decisions it's much easier not to take them.

Yes, but that only works until the next election.

I'm imagining a LibDem/Green/SNP Remain Government with the Brexit Party as the official opposition and both Tories and Labour irrelevant.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, but that only works until the next election.

I'm imagining a LibDem/Green/SNP Remain Government with the Brexit Party as the official opposition and both Tories and Labour irrelevant.

I'd add the Tories to the Brexit Party and Labour to your Remain alliance.

VinLieger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, but that only works until the next election.

I'm imagining a LibDem/Green/SNP Remain Government with the Brexit Party as the official opposition and both Tories and Labour irrelevant.

Cant see such a government happening with FPtP, but i do think the brexit party are in line to steal many tory seats

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

The truth is that they are holding together because, and only because, they are in opposition. When you don't have to implement any decisions it's much easier not to take them.

Their supporters and potential supporters are not fooled. Labour got 13.7% in the European Parliament election in the UK, their worst performance in a national election since 1910. They may have avoided much of a formal split, but nobody thinks they are a united movement.

They also lost a bunch of decent, principled MP's because they can't get off the fence and make the right decision. Corbyn has been crossing his fingers for a Tory Brexit for a few years now, he's a complete swine.

There's not so many decent Labour MP's left. Yvette Cooper, Tony Benn...

Peregrinus

VinLieger wrote: »

Cant see such a government happening with FPtP, but i do think the brexit party are in line to steal many tory seats

If the Remain parties - particularly LibDems and Greens in England - can make an electoral pact and not compete against one another, I could see the Brexit party splitting the Tory vote in many Tory seats and allowing a Remain candidate to be elected on less than 50% of the vote.

(Well, I can dream, can't I?)

Cryptopagan

J Mysterio wrote: »

They also lost a bunch of decent, principled MP's because they can't get off the fence and make the right decision. Corbyn has been crossing his fingers for a Tory Brexit for a few years now, he's a complete swine.

There's not so many decent Labour MP's left. Yvette Cooper, Tony Benn...

Tony Benn is dead. You may be thinking of his son Hilary.

David Lammy has impressed.

robinph

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'd add the Tories to the Brexit Party and Labour to your Remain alliance.

Yeah, I can't see Labour falling that badly that the Greens have more seats than them. Greens might get a decent proportion of the vote around the country, but other than Brighton they are not going to have enough elsewhere to actually win much in the way of seats.

The slightly PR system of the EU elections gave a boots to both Lib/ Green and especially Brexit parties. Sure the Brexit party will win some seats in the next GE, depending on when it happens, but would they actually get enough organised votes across the whole of England that translate into seats? More likely to cut the Tory vote and so let one of the others in, either Labour or Lib.

J Mysterio

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Tony Benn is dead. You may be thinking of his son Hilary.

That's the one. I need covfefe.

Midlife

Leroy42 wrote: »

Where Corbyn, and Labour, have failed is by not demanding any form of accountability from the government.

By being si so utterly divided themselves, and with Corbyn afraid to take any position, it has allowed Tories to avoid any real scrutiny.

Even know, with both John's and Hunt making ludicrous and clearly undeliverable statements, Labour some hammering them.

Instead they are free to say anything they want knowing that no one is going to challenge them on it.

Every functioning democracy needs a functioning and credible opposition.

Corbyn's not afraid to take a position, he wants the UK out.

As long as he manages to hang on to power in Labour, he'll be in a great position once the conservatives do the dirty work while destroying their party.

I'm not saying he's great or anything but staying away from this car crash while the dirtywork is done by someone else is the right idea.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'd add the Tories to the Brexit Party and Labour to your Remain alliance.

My point is that the Government might not need Labour, and if the Brexit Party are the largest in Opposition, they ARE the official Opposition.

Both Labour and Tories could be reduced to the position the SNP have in Westminster today, they have 35 MPs, but they are neither in Government nor are they the Official Opposition.

I don't think this is very likely, but it is fun to imagine.

J Mysterio

Midlife wrote: »

Corbyn's not afraid to take a position, he wants the UK out.

As long as he manages to hang on to power in Labour, he'll be in a great position once the conservatives do the dirty work while destroying their party.

I'm not saying he's great or anything but staying away from this car crash while the dirtywork is done by someone else is the right idea.

No, the right idea would have been to oppose Brexit (a very long time ago) and provide an actual opposition.

Corbyn is helping to destroy the lives of the normal 'worker'.

VinLieger

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Tony Benn is dead. You may be thinking of his son Hilary.

David Lammy has impressed.

Jess Philips has also impressed me, however she like most labour members is still far too hesitant to criticise Corbyns complete lack of leadership and ardent fence sitting

Zubeneschamali

robinph wrote: »

Yeah, I can't see Labour falling that badly that the Greens have more seats than them.

The Greens don't have to be bigger than Labour to get into Government ahead of Labour.


My LibDem/SNP/Green alliance is a Remain alliance. Labour are not a Remain party not under Corbyn, so why would the actual Remain parties want them if they had the numbers without them.

ancapailldorcha

J Mysterio wrote: »

No, the right idea would have been to oppose Brexit (a very long time ago) and provide an actual opposition.

Corbyn is helping to destroy the lives of the normal 'worker'.

This is the thing. Parties are supposed to show leadership instead of just pandering to their base. Sure, there might be some vexed voters but this position of constructive ambiguity is going to cost them votes on the other side to the Lib Dems. Younger people favour staying in. It's the longer term option which entails short term pain but sitting on the fence may no longer be a viable option given that 7 years seems to the requisite period in British politics for a sin to be forgotten, namely the tuition fees.

Laois_Man

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Greens don't have to be bigger than Labour to get into Government ahead of Labour.


My LibDem/SNP/Green alliance is a Remain alliance. Labour are not a Remain party not under Corbyn, so why would the actual Remain parties want them if they had the numbers without them.

Those three parties combined aren't going to get anywhere near a majority!

Midlife

J Mysterio wrote: »

No, the right idea would have been to oppose Brexit (a very long time ago) and provide an actual opposition.

Corbyn is helping to destroy the lives of the normal 'worker'.

Yeah, I get that. But given he doesn't oppose Brexit, his actions make sense (from his point of view).

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

No, the right idea would have been to oppose Brexit (a very long time ago) and provide an actual opposition.

For a Labour Brexit supporter, the right move is to stand clear. The Tories deliver Brexit, it's a disaster, Labour win the next election.


Labour get into Government and get Brexit without getting blamed for Brexit. All the downsides of Brexit can be blamed on the fool Tories incompetence, and Corbyn can set about returning the UK to the year 1970.

Leroy42

Midlife wrote: »

Yeah, I get that. But given he doesn't oppose Brexit, his actions make sense (from his point of view).

Not really. Fine if he want to support Brexit, at least that is a position. What he should have been doing to holding the Tories to account for the debacle that TM was in charge over.

She had the two biggest defeats in HoC history and JC had almost nothing to say. He called for a GE, but that was it. It didn't offer any alternative for BRexiteers to go.

So even if you take the point that he was happy with Brexit, then his complete abdication of his role means that even that is under threat.