3 ms·

"However, Labour Party leader Keir Starmer has been cautious about giving details of how he would strengthen ties with the EU." This Omerta on talking about Br

by Stevvo 3y ago

"However, Labour Party leader Keir Starmer has been cautious about giving details of how he would strengthen ties with the EU." This Omerta on talking about Brexit is ridiculous. As leader of the opposition, why not try representing the opposing views of the population?

EA-3167 3y ago
Because it's done. It would have been lovely is Keir had been the leader instead of Corbyn before it happened, then taking a principled stance could have made a difference. Unfortunately the past is what it is, and now Brexit is a political third rail for a party that's looking to cruise into a historic victory over the Tories. The Tories have been so incompetent, unloveable and at times criminal that they've alienated a shocking number of British voters; the polls are predicting a slaughter. So all Labour has to do is... not screw up.
scott_w 3y ago
Plenty of reasons: Key voters don’t want to relitigate Brexit. Either they support it in principle (yes, these people still exist), or they fear reopening the blazing rows they had over it, or they’re not ready to admit they were wrong. To get into a strong position, Labour needed to come out strong on “Brexit is decided” in 2019. Remember that they just lost a catastrophic election on exactly this topic. To tell the public they were all wrong was to guarantee electoral oblivion. They had to come out so strongly, in fact, that it would be decried as a huge U-turn if they did that now. And it would stick. The EU won’t let the UK join until the Conservative Party are also pro-EU. They don’t want to negotiate reentry only to have the Tories rip us straight back out after they get reelected. Rejoining takes time in any case. The UK is in an absolute shambles, so Labour have to focus on those immediate improvements if they want to get elected then reelected.
nvm0n2 3y ago
Although I'm not a Starmer fan, the actual reason he doesn't want to publicly re-open the topic is that he's smart enough to realize that it would be a disaster for the pro-EU left. Right now the Brexit debate in the UK is frozen in time. Remainers in particular haven't changed their ideas about it since 2016. If the topic were to be reopened in a big way (e.g. second referendum) then people would become aware of or reminded of many things the establishment would prefer people forget. For example, this claim by Khan is economic. Remainers generally aren't aware of how badly their economic predictions failed, so continue to believe this kind of claim. But if Starmer were to make a big public position out of trying to undo Brexit, the people who campaigned for it would reawaken and refocus on it (e.g. Farage). They are more popular than Starmer and people listen to them. They would then systematically revisit the claims of the pro-EU establishment and point out how drastically wrong they were about everything. They would imply or outright assert that it was deliberate. And a lot of people - the majority - would agree with them, given what's happened in the years since. For example, Remainer MPs promised the public there would be a massive recession at the moment of leaving caused by uncertainity. The economy grew instead. You can't be more wrong than that. Then they promised that actually leaving would be chaotic. Most people didn't even notice anything had changed. Then they promised that it would be destructive to trade with the EU, yet trade ratios haven't changed [1]. Then they promised that the UK would be frozen out of international programmes, be "alone" without friends, and sneered at Brexiteer claims that cooperation would continue as being "cakeism". In fact the UK has rejoined the few European programmes it actually wanted, like the Horizon research programme, something that academics and the EU formerly assured Brits would be impossible. Even the guy who negotiated Brexit for the EU side has adopted Brexiteer positions in the years since. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/26/michel-barnier-french-presidency-my-secret-brexit-diary-interview https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/26/michel-barnier... But the politics of Michel Barnier have, it is fair to say, moved on. Tough controls on immigration; a restricted role for European courts and a new politics of patriotism: these are the eyebrow-raising new demands of the EU’s former chief Brexit negotiator. [...] “The first chapter of my book is entitled ‘A warning’,” says Barnier, holding up an elegant yellow-jacketed French edition. “People in the bubble of Brussels think they are always right,” he says. “They don’t want to listen. They don’t want to change anything. This is precisely the way to provoke more Brexits elsewhere in Europe. I’m not a federalist. I’ve never been a federalist. I’m a Gaullist and I’m still on the same track – a patriot and a European. And I’m a European in addition to being a patriot and not instead of being a patriot. As the former Brexit negotiator and as a French politician I will draw the lessons of Brexit, OK?” Remainers are for now happy stewing in their 2016-era bubble where none of this ever happened. Starmer would like to keep them on side, which means keeping them there, which means being very careful about what he does or does not say in public. [1] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-... (p15)

by Stevvo 3y ago

EA-3167 3y ago

Because it's done. It would have been lovely is Keir had been the leader instead of Corbyn before it happened, then taking a principled stance could have made a difference. Unfortunately the past is what it is, and now Brexit is a political third rail for a party that's looking to cruise into a historic victory over the Tories. The Tories have been so incompetent, unloveable and at times criminal that they've alienated a shocking number of British voters; the polls are predicting a slaughter. So all Labour has to do is... not screw up.

scott_w 3y ago

Plenty of reasons: Key voters don’t want to relitigate Brexit. Either they support it in principle (yes, these people still exist), or they fear reopening the blazing rows they had over it, or they’re not ready to admit they were wrong. To get into a strong position, Labour needed to come out strong on “Brexit is decided” in 2019. Remember that they just lost a catastrophic election on exactly this topic. To tell the public they were all wrong was to guarantee electoral oblivion. They had to come out so strongly, in fact, that it would be decried as a huge U-turn if they did that now. And it would stick. The EU won’t let the UK join until the Conservative Party are also pro-EU. They don’t want to negotiate reentry only to have the Tories rip us straight back out after they get reelected. Rejoining takes time in any case. The UK is in an absolute shambles, so Labour have to focus on those immediate improvements if they want to get elected then reelected.

nvm0n2 3y ago

Although I'm not a Starmer fan, the actual reason he doesn't want to publicly re-open the topic is that he's smart enough to realize that it would be a disaster for the pro-EU left. Right now the Brexit debate in the UK is frozen in time. Remainers in particular haven't changed their ideas about it since 2016. If the topic were to be reopened in a big way (e.g. second referendum) then people would become aware of or reminded of many things the establishment would prefer people forget. For example, this claim by Khan is economic. Remainers generally aren't aware of how badly their economic predictions failed, so continue to believe this kind of claim. But if Starmer were to make a big public position out of trying to undo Brexit, the people who campaigned for it would reawaken and refocus on it (e.g. Farage). They are more popular than Starmer and people listen to them. They would then systematically revisit the claims of the pro-EU establishment and point out how drastically wrong they were about everything. They would imply or outright assert that it was deliberate. And a lot of people - the majority - would agree with them, given what's happened in the years since. For example, Remainer MPs promised the public there would be a massive recession at the moment of leaving caused by uncertainity. The economy grew instead. You can't be more wrong than that. Then they promised that actually leaving would be chaotic. Most people didn't even notice anything had changed. Then they promised that it would be destructive to trade with the EU, yet trade ratios haven't changed [1]. Then they promised that the UK would be frozen out of international programmes, be "alone" without friends, and sneered at Brexiteer claims that cooperation would continue as being "cakeism". In fact the UK has rejoined the few European programmes it actually wanted, like the Horizon research programme, something that academics and the EU formerly assured Brits would be impossible. Even the guy who negotiated Brexit for the EU side has adopted Brexiteer positions in the years since. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/26/michel-barnier-french-presidency-my-secret-brexit-diary-interview https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/26/michel-barnier... But the politics of Michel Barnier have, it is fair to say, moved on. Tough controls on immigration; a restricted role for European courts and a new politics of patriotism: these are the eyebrow-raising new demands of the EU’s former chief Brexit negotiator. [...] “The first chapter of my book is entitled ‘A warning’,” says Barnier, holding up an elegant yellow-jacketed French edition. “People in the bubble of Brussels think they are always right,” he says. “They don’t want to listen. They don’t want to change anything. This is precisely the way to provoke more Brexits elsewhere in Europe. I’m not a federalist. I’ve never been a federalist. I’m a Gaullist and I’m still on the same track – a patriot and a European. And I’m a European in addition to being a patriot and not instead of being a patriot. As the former Brexit negotiator and as a French politician I will draw the lessons of Brexit, OK?” Remainers are for now happy stewing in their 2016-era bubble where none of this ever happened. Starmer would like to keep them on side, which means keeping them there, which means being very careful about what he does or does not say in public. [1] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7851/CBP-7851.pdf https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-... (p15)