6 ms·

I have watched Brexit avidly but comfortably from across the pond for the last two years. Every PMQs Corbyn has got up and, in the earlier days, ignored Brexit

by cgiles 7y ago

I have watched Brexit avidly but comfortably from across the pond for the last two years. Every PMQs Corbyn has got up and, in the earlier days, ignored Brexit entirely, and now, he complains about lack of clarity and progress by the Government. While he and his party have never had any clear position on it, by design. The Tories' current position of hard Brexit or bust may be insane, but at least it is a position. The Lib Dems and SNP have one too. But not Labour. So while this "talking point" may have been noticed by the Mail and Telegraph, it has been apparent to many of us for some time. If Labour had kicked Corbyn out for, say, Starmer, and taken a clear soft Brexit or even Remain position, they could have long ago taken Government from the Tories, who have obviously badly screwed up everything in Brexit that it is possible to screw up. On the other hand I am keeping my fingers crossed for the incredibly unlikely event of a unity government under Ken Clarke. TL;DR: philpem is completely correct.

pytester 7y ago
>While he and his party have never had any clear position on it, by design. Their position is to negotiate another deal (if possible) and put it to a public vote, and put the existing deal to a vote if not. It's pretty clear albeit not so easy to understand for the perennially simple minded (for whom simple messages like "remain at all costs" and "we must execute the glorious brexit revolution on october 31st" appeal). Unfortunately it isn't possible to make promises about what will be possible to negotiate with the EU. >If Labour had kicked Corbyn out for, say, Starmer, and taken a clear soft Brexit or even Remain position, they could have long ago taken Government from the Tories This is a theory that's quite popular in the London remainer bubble. Unfortunately London forgetting that the rest of the country exists is partly what got us into this mess, and it's not a winning strategy to keep doing it.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > Their position is to negotiate another deal (if possible) and put it to a public vote That's not really much more information - revoke if the deal is not accepted? What do they actually want from the deal? What is the party's true desired outcome, being in the EU or not being in the EU? It's very hard to form an accurate picture of Corbyn. I can't think of anything impressive he's done, and he's doing tremendously badly in the polls against a disaster government - but all the media coverage is so heavily slanted against him that I'm reluctant to form a negative opinion that's clearly being indoctrinated into me.
  - cgiles 7y ago
    > What do they actually want from the deal? The conventional wisdom is that the party is split between Remainers and Leavers, and that Corbyn himself is a closet Leaver who wants to leave so he can get out from under EU rules on state aid and bring about a glorious socialist revolution. If this is remotely true, then Corbyn's personal aim is to help the Tories to a no-deal Brexit, or even a hard Brexit under the WA, but in such a way that Labour does not get the blame. However, much of the party wants a soft Brexit or Remain so he cannot be seen to be doing this. Hence why he does not want, and never has wanted, to obtain Government until Brexit has been sorted (badly) by the Tories, and to come along and pick up the pieces. The entire Labour strategy has been to completely disassociate themselves from Brexit and this latest non-proposal is just a continuation of that. > What is the party's true desired outcome, being in the EU or not being in the EU? In short, they do not know and are split. The only thing they agree on is not being blamed for either Remain, soft Leave, or hard Leave. And whoever is in power when the final decision is made most certainly will get blame for any decision taken.
    - pytester 7y ago
      >The conventional wisdom is that the party is split between Remainers and Leavers, and that Corbyn himself is a closet Leaver who wants to leave so he can get out from under EU rules on state aid and bring about a glorious socialist revolution. More of an absurd conspiracy theory than conventional wisdom, that. >If this is remotely true, then Corbyn's personal aim is to help the Tories to a no-deal Brexit Which I suppose he would achieve by passing a law that prohibits the tories from achieving a no deal brexit? If he truly didn't want that he probably wouldn't have whipped for it. Wouldn't be the first time his position was completely misrepresented though... and the motive for the various parts of the media owned by tax avoiders to do this is pretty obvious. >he cannot be seen to be doing this. How convenient for the conspiracy theory that he does and says the exact opposite of what he truly "wants" to do because he can't be "seen" to be doing it.
      - cgiles 7y ago
        OK, I confess that no one really knows what is going on in the mind of Jeremy Corbyn, possibly not even the man himself. What is unquestioned fact is that the party is split on Brexit. Known facts about Corbyn are: - He has opposed expansion of the EU throughout his political career - After the referendum, he urged rules on state aid to be jettisoned on the grounds they would no longer be valid after Brexit anyway - He is a self-identified socialist and is far left, even by Labour standards My take is that overall, he is anti-EU but has been forced into a publicly neutral or pro-EU (during the referendum) position because that is the position of the majority of his party. What are his precise motivations for this, I do not know. Thus I read his whipping against no-deal and his new stance on a referendum as more of a forced concession to his party, and as a tool to beat the Tories over the head with, than as something arising out of his personal convictions. Especially because of how long it took him to arrive at those positions. But no one can know for sure. Keep in mind "no no-deal", which was JC's only position for so long, is not really a position, as pjc50 pointed out. This was made painfully obvious during the series of indicative votes during the spring.
- cgiles 7y ago
  > Their position is to negotiate another deal (if possible) and put it to a public vote, and put the existing deal to a vote if not. Yes, but even this very unclear proposition is a recent invention (last 3 months IIRC). Before that they had nothing. For 2+ years. > Unfortunately it isn't possible to make promises about what will be possible to negotiate with the EU. True enough -- to a point. But he could say what the general outline of the UK's goals in the negotiations will be and how the strategy/objectives/redlines will differ from TM's and Boris's. At this point without specifics, we can all be forgiven for assuming it is more unicorn horns and pixie dust. Does "I'm going to go to Brussels and get a deal, a great deal" sound at all familiar by now? I am surprised anyone buys it at this point. He cannot say for certain how the EU will respond to any proposal, although honestly Barnier has been crystal clear about what is required of the UK and what the options are. And does Corbyn even know the difference between the Single Market and Customs Union? I have seen no indication that he does. > Unfortunately London forgetting that the rest of the country exists Going for a soft Brexit would be a compromise between the rural areas of England and Wales, who want to leave the EU entirely at any cost, and Scotland and NI (and Gibraltar), who want to remain. I would say it is the strategy that takes most into account the rest of the country in its entirety. Whether or not such a stance would be to Labour's electoral advantage is anyone's guess. They have apparently concluded it would not be. In fact the EU has been essentially forcing England to listen to the rest of the country -- NI, specificially. Which is quite ironic.
  - pytester 7y ago
    >Before that they had nothing. For 2+ years. This is simply not true. They made it perfectly clear that they wanted a deal with the customs union and single market. >True enough -- to a point. But he could say what the general outline of the UK's goals in the negotiations will be and how the strategy/objectives/redlines will differ from TM's and Boris's. Could and did. The media has done a grand job of obfuscation about this despite the fact that it was right there in the manifesto. >He cannot say for certain how the EU will respond to any proposal, although honestly Barnier has been crystal clear about what is required of the UK and what the options are. What Barnier has been less clear about is whether they are prepared to negotiate a new deal at all after May's deal. The EU actually has flip flopped on that issue and its mind probably still isn't made up even now. >And does Corbyn even know the difference between the Single Market and Customs Union? I have seen no indication that he does. I suppose you have seen an indication that he doesn't?
benj111 7y ago
We have a divided country, and the only party capable of bridging the gap is Labour. The Tories position is as divisive and unhelpful as the Lib Dem's. I'm not a particular Corbyn fan, but I'd like an intact nation at the end of this.

by cgiles 7y ago

pytester 7y ago

>While he and his party have never had any clear position on it, by design. Their position is to negotiate another deal (if possible) and put it to a public vote, and put the existing deal to a vote if not. It's pretty clear albeit not so easy to understand for the perennially simple minded (for whom simple messages like "remain at all costs" and "we must execute the glorious brexit revolution on october 31st" appeal). Unfortunately it isn't possible to make promises about what will be possible to negotiate with the EU. >If Labour had kicked Corbyn out for, say, Starmer, and taken a clear soft Brexit or even Remain position, they could have long ago taken Government from the Tories This is a theory that's quite popular in the London remainer bubble. Unfortunately London forgetting that the rest of the country exists is partly what got us into this mess, and it's not a winning strategy to keep doing it.

pjc50 7y ago
> Their position is to negotiate another deal (if possible) and put it to a public vote That's not really much more information - revoke if the deal is not accepted? What do they actually want from the deal? What is the party's true desired outcome, being in the EU or not being in the EU? It's very hard to form an accurate picture of Corbyn. I can't think of anything impressive he's done, and he's doing tremendously badly in the polls against a disaster government - but all the media coverage is so heavily slanted against him that I'm reluctant to form a negative opinion that's clearly being indoctrinated into me.
- cgiles 7y ago
  > What do they actually want from the deal? The conventional wisdom is that the party is split between Remainers and Leavers, and that Corbyn himself is a closet Leaver who wants to leave so he can get out from under EU rules on state aid and bring about a glorious socialist revolution. If this is remotely true, then Corbyn's personal aim is to help the Tories to a no-deal Brexit, or even a hard Brexit under the WA, but in such a way that Labour does not get the blame. However, much of the party wants a soft Brexit or Remain so he cannot be seen to be doing this. Hence why he does not want, and never has wanted, to obtain Government until Brexit has been sorted (badly) by the Tories, and to come along and pick up the pieces. The entire Labour strategy has been to completely disassociate themselves from Brexit and this latest non-proposal is just a continuation of that. > What is the party's true desired outcome, being in the EU or not being in the EU? In short, they do not know and are split. The only thing they agree on is not being blamed for either Remain, soft Leave, or hard Leave. And whoever is in power when the final decision is made most certainly will get blame for any decision taken.
  - pytester 7y ago
    >The conventional wisdom is that the party is split between Remainers and Leavers, and that Corbyn himself is a closet Leaver who wants to leave so he can get out from under EU rules on state aid and bring about a glorious socialist revolution. More of an absurd conspiracy theory than conventional wisdom, that. >If this is remotely true, then Corbyn's personal aim is to help the Tories to a no-deal Brexit Which I suppose he would achieve by passing a law that prohibits the tories from achieving a no deal brexit? If he truly didn't want that he probably wouldn't have whipped for it. Wouldn't be the first time his position was completely misrepresented though... and the motive for the various parts of the media owned by tax avoiders to do this is pretty obvious. >he cannot be seen to be doing this. How convenient for the conspiracy theory that he does and says the exact opposite of what he truly "wants" to do because he can't be "seen" to be doing it.
    - cgiles 7y ago
      OK, I confess that no one really knows what is going on in the mind of Jeremy Corbyn, possibly not even the man himself. What is unquestioned fact is that the party is split on Brexit. Known facts about Corbyn are: - He has opposed expansion of the EU throughout his political career - After the referendum, he urged rules on state aid to be jettisoned on the grounds they would no longer be valid after Brexit anyway - He is a self-identified socialist and is far left, even by Labour standards My take is that overall, he is anti-EU but has been forced into a publicly neutral or pro-EU (during the referendum) position because that is the position of the majority of his party. What are his precise motivations for this, I do not know. Thus I read his whipping against no-deal and his new stance on a referendum as more of a forced concession to his party, and as a tool to beat the Tories over the head with, than as something arising out of his personal convictions. Especially because of how long it took him to arrive at those positions. But no one can know for sure. Keep in mind "no no-deal", which was JC's only position for so long, is not really a position, as pjc50 pointed out. This was made painfully obvious during the series of indicative votes during the spring.
cgiles 7y ago
> Their position is to negotiate another deal (if possible) and put it to a public vote, and put the existing deal to a vote if not. Yes, but even this very unclear proposition is a recent invention (last 3 months IIRC). Before that they had nothing. For 2+ years. > Unfortunately it isn't possible to make promises about what will be possible to negotiate with the EU. True enough -- to a point. But he could say what the general outline of the UK's goals in the negotiations will be and how the strategy/objectives/redlines will differ from TM's and Boris's. At this point without specifics, we can all be forgiven for assuming it is more unicorn horns and pixie dust. Does "I'm going to go to Brussels and get a deal, a great deal" sound at all familiar by now? I am surprised anyone buys it at this point. He cannot say for certain how the EU will respond to any proposal, although honestly Barnier has been crystal clear about what is required of the UK and what the options are. And does Corbyn even know the difference between the Single Market and Customs Union? I have seen no indication that he does. > Unfortunately London forgetting that the rest of the country exists Going for a soft Brexit would be a compromise between the rural areas of England and Wales, who want to leave the EU entirely at any cost, and Scotland and NI (and Gibraltar), who want to remain. I would say it is the strategy that takes most into account the rest of the country in its entirety. Whether or not such a stance would be to Labour's electoral advantage is anyone's guess. They have apparently concluded it would not be. In fact the EU has been essentially forcing England to listen to the rest of the country -- NI, specificially. Which is quite ironic.
- pytester 7y ago
  >Before that they had nothing. For 2+ years. This is simply not true. They made it perfectly clear that they wanted a deal with the customs union and single market. >True enough -- to a point. But he could say what the general outline of the UK's goals in the negotiations will be and how the strategy/objectives/redlines will differ from TM's and Boris's. Could and did. The media has done a grand job of obfuscation about this despite the fact that it was right there in the manifesto. >He cannot say for certain how the EU will respond to any proposal, although honestly Barnier has been crystal clear about what is required of the UK and what the options are. What Barnier has been less clear about is whether they are prepared to negotiate a new deal at all after May's deal. The EU actually has flip flopped on that issue and its mind probably still isn't made up even now. >And does Corbyn even know the difference between the Single Market and Customs Union? I have seen no indication that he does. I suppose you have seen an indication that he doesn't?

benj111 7y ago

We have a divided country, and the only party capable of bridging the gap is Labour. The Tories position is as divisive and unhelpful as the Lib Dem's. I'm not a particular Corbyn fan, but I'd like an intact nation at the end of this.