Corbyn might have made an astute political move yesterday. He got the crowd behind him. He even got George Osborne behind him. But let's be clear what he did not do.
He did not tackle the issue of migration. That was a mistake.
He did not tackle the issue of Ireland: a customs union is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to solve that. Only the single market prevents economic and greater mayhem there.
And it may be that he is backing a parliamentary amendment to supposedly achieve his goal that is not legally binding, so why take the risk?
In that case was yesterday just a manouevre? In reality, did it have substance? It may have looked astute but was it enough? I am not convinced as yet.
What we can say for sure is that Corbyn did not lay out a viable plan for Brexit yesterday. In that sense the shambles at the heart of British politics continues unabated. I welcome a step in the right direction. But things have to go a lot further as yet.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I imagine he’s stalling while looking for an excuse to call a second referendum, one in which the people will be shown to have changed their minds (those few who have minds, anyway), so we can all go back to normal. Fence-sitting seems an admirable policy at the moment, given the Tories bring themselves closer to extinction with each passing day.
Leadership would be better
Yesterday was a step in that direction
“What we can say for sure is that Corbyn did not lay out a viable plan for Brexit yesterday.” Which could be regarded as providing ammunition for the Tories. I’m guessing that the aim is to de-stabilise what passes for the current gov to the point where elections have to be called , the secret will be to get enough Tory MPs to support this (calling an election) – which in some ways would be turkeys voting for Christmas.
It is a call for a proper policy
I think it will emerge eventually
That is what matters to me
Looking at Channel 4 News last night and how John Snow dealt with a rep from Labour I am none the wiser as to what Labour have actually done.
This whole BREXIT business is just so toxic. I get the feeling that Corbyn is well aware of this and being ultra cautious is his way of dealing with it. I don’t think he has much choice in the matter to be honest.
I think that Labour’s way forward can be called ’emergent’ – and given the mismanagement by the Tories – this is the only way in my view. BREXIT it chaos
But you are right – we need something more and I hope that it will come. Corbyn must realise that the best way to improve the EU is to be in it.
I could tread carefully like Corbyn
But that’s not my role
Well put – but at this rate, by the time Labour ‘emerges’ it will be too late.
With every day that passes, more irrevocable damage is done to Britain’s position, socially, politically and economically, not just in Europe but the wider world as well
Listening to our representative overseas, The Johnson, this am together with Fox’s comments on business there is no limit to the damage this lot are prepared to inflict, or to their incompetence
Robin Stafford says:
“Well put — but at this rate, by the time Labour ‘emerges’ …..”
Labour have no need to ’emerge’. They haven’t done so since 1945 and then only in response to cataclysmic events.
Labour will do what they always do and wait for the Tories to tear themselves apart and render themselves leaderless, and then be elected by default.
What a wonderful system democracy is.
The EU will not improve because it doesn’t want to. The people in charge benefit from the current arrangement and have no incentive to implement a new one. They could have given Cameron something concrete in February 2016 but they chose not to, because they refused to see that a lot of people don’t like where their ideology has led them.
It will only change if its survival is genuinely threatened, which is what a successful Brexit will do, because the PIIGS (less so Ireland I would think) will see it can be done and get ideas of their own. If 1 or 2 others break ties, the game is over. I can’t imagine Greece wouldn’t make moves in that direction – I’m in the middle of Yanis Varoufakis’ book and he’s just outlined that Britain lost c. 5% of its national income after the 2008 crash in 1 year whereas Greece lost 7% in 2010 and then 8% in 2011. The Greeks have been utterly humiliated by the EU.
I think the EU did make a mistake with Cameron
Like many, they misread the mood
But to say others will leave. I doubt it. Many who might are big net gainers
Foreign Secretary says that the Camden-Islington border is a “very relevant comparison” for the current debate on the post Brexit Ireland-UK border.
Yesterday his Irish counterpart, Simon Coveney, was in Brussels with Barnier fleshing out the Legal text for the December agreement, in particular paragraph 49.
It does not look good for the UK, a dose of reality is likely to hit about 20 Months after it should.
Sean, is there anything other than a ‘red hot poker up the ****’ that is capable of acquainting the anti-EU fanatics with political or economic reality?
Fox still drones on with the ludicrous assertion that Britain can have better trading arrangements outside the EU than in it;
Johnson and other idiots (like Kate Hoey) still seem to believe NI can be outside of the Customs Union and SM and not have a proper border with Ireland;
And, a couple of days ago, Frank Field finished off a ‘warning’ to Jeremy Corbyn about changing Labour’s position with the pathetic Leavers bleat ‘they need our money’.
Like Hitler in his bunker in 1945 still trying to kid himself that final victory was possible as the Red Army closed in. Is the anti EU mindset some kind of psychosis do you think?
“Foreign Secretary says that the Camden-Islington border is a “very relevant comparison” for the current debate on the post Brexit Ireland-UK border.”
Foreign Secretary is a c**t. *
* I mean ‘clot’, of course. Whatever else did you think I may have meant ?
Actually Andy, I think I know exactly what you mean; and I agree with you entirely. I see he is now saying the border issue is being used as an excuse to stop Brexit by it’s opponents.
The ‘stab in the back myth’ resurrected.
Recent events suggest that May’s government, or rather the ERG/DUP government, have every intention of delivering the hardest of cliff edge Brexits. In fact, recent events aside, their whole approach has been heading in that direction. Clearly they are not really bothered about the consequences for Ireland, both N and Eire. Or the consequences for the rest of the country come to that.
The EU countries and Brussels seem to be preparing reluctantly for that eventuality and have been detailed, consistent and clear about their position. Supposedly Mays next speech will make the UK s position clear. Just like the last one did….. not.
The EU countries have proven to be much better at finding alternative markets for their ‘prosecco, BMWs and Brie’ than the UK has. In the context of the national budgets of say Germany and France, making up for the UKs budget contributions are small change. They have other more important challenges to worry about which may even be easier to tackle without a recalcitrant UK.
On this basis a united EU seems like a better medium term bet than a United Kingdom
Meanwhile I await with interest to hear about the society and economy Corbyn’s Labour have in mind Post-Lexit. I’m pretty clear (and appalled) about the deregulated, shrunken public services nirvana that the Tory right have in mind, but what’s the irresistible alternative from Labour? A Scandinavian style social democracy with well regulated capitalism? East German democratic socialism with minimal private sector (has featured on JC and Milne’s radar)? Clause 4 Old Labour with large scale nationalisation of industry and infrastructure?
Time that they made this clear so the public know what they would be voting for rather than just what they are voting against (May’s Tories)
“Softly, softly, catchee monkey”
It’s deeply disappointing and potentially hugely damaging that, in the time of such a grave national challenge, we have our two main political parties led by such mediocrities, completely unable to rise to the occasion and offer true leadership, or at least some much needed hard headed honesty.
May and Corbyn, along with their respectively inadequate front benches, are exactly the wrong people to be in charge at this time.
Our politics is at it’s lowest ebb in my lifetime.
We are in a truly sorry state.
I don’t think things are as simple as you portray.
It is the previous Prime Minister’s stupidity (David Cameron) that has created this mess. Make no mistake: Cameron opened the doors to the mental asylum that is BREXIT and anti-European/British exceptionalism that has existed and been stoked up for some time in this country. And then he walked away into well paid business speaking.
I don’t care for May at all but she was seen as far from incompetent before BREXIT.
Corbyn has had huge problems being taken seriously by the media and his own party but has certainly made some headway.
Both are political leaders however who have been left an unholy mess by a political leader of no real substance – Cameron the Clown. I don’t envy May or Corbyn at all for the position they are in which can only be described as a clusterfuck of biblical proportions.
Pilgrim,
“Corbyn has had huge problems being taken seriously by the media and his own party but has certainly made some headway.”
He’d maybe make a bit more headway if he’d made it plain that the closet Tories in ‘his’ party should come out of the closet and stand for seats under an appropriate coloured rosette. (distinctly more mauve than even pink)
It seems to me that the political problem is quite fundamental. The British political system, based on a two-party Parliament, has catastrophically failed the British people.
48% of the electorate that voted in the referendum, voted to remain in the EU. The number who wish to remain in the Single Market, Customs Union or European Court of Justice is, on a strict reading of the referendum result; unknown. Thus we may conclude, almost axiomatically, that neither major party in Parlaiment today is prepared to represent the 48% – at all. Parliament has failed the people; badly. It quite literally does not represent them. No modern democracy in the world, other than the UK, would allow the Constitution fundamentally to change on a narrow electoral vote, by a thin majority; in a result that may prove affected by transient political reasons or events that do not represent a reaonably stable and settled consensus of the public view, rather than exacerbating deep and eternal divisions.
A Bill that requires a fundamental change to the constitution (like the Brexit Referendum) should require more than 52% of those who voted (only 37.5% of the total electorate). In Scotland the 1979 devolution referendum was defeated in spite of ironically recording a similar 52% majority, because there was a 40% (of total electorate) qualifying threshold inserted by Parliament. In 1997 the rules were different, but the result was decisive: ‘Yes’ 74% (on a 45% threshhold). There was no threshold either in the 1997 or 2016 referendums.
The Scottish Parliament was established on the basis of a stable consensus founded on authoritative opinion. Holyrood therefore has a political legitimacy beyond almost any institution in the State; and hence the political and constitutional difficulty of the Conservative Government in trying to set aside the Devolution Settlement in order to
apply arbitrary rule over Holyrood in the Brexit Bill. The Government has been reduced to vulgar ‘spin’ and the gross hypocrisy that the Scottish Government is trying to undermine Parliamentary sovereignty, in its own desperation to change the constitution again, by stealth through an amendment to the Brexit Bill that returns power from Holyrood to Westminster, without even acknowledging the application of arbitrary power in order to rule by statutory instruments or Orders in Council at the British government’s sole discretion.
“(on a 45% threshhold)”.
This should read “on 45% of the total electorate”. There was no threshold appled by Parliament in 1997, but the Scottish referendum passed the 40% threshold comfortably. The 2016 EU referendum did not.
There is little practical difference between the Tories and Labour over Brexit neither of which support the single market or a second referendum on ratification of the Brexit outcome . The only difference between the two is Corbyn’s recent empty rhetoric on “a customs union” which is not supported by the Tories and is unlikely to be implemented by the EU on the terms demanded by Corbyn. Consequently there is no effective opposition to Brexit from the two man parties unless there is a substantial rebellion from within their back benches. The only sensible and viable plan comes from the Liberals who are unfortunately hardly seen as an effective opposition
The Corbyn speech is about as good as I expected.
He’s just not challenging the orthodox narrative. It’s Brexit-lite. Same cake-and-eat-it fantasy we’re getting from the government.
The logic of what he says Labour doesn’t want, rules out Brexit whilst saying we must accept the democratic referendum decision, because it is ‘the will of the people’.
Simply paraphrased it reads “Brexit means Brexit’.
Now where have I heard that before ?
Harsh but fair Andy – cuts through the flannel.
Put crudely, the concern seems to be to get back the UKIP vote. Are they the kind of voters that today’s Labour primarily identifies with?
Meanwhile they will alienate those voters in larger cities (and elsewhere) who stuck with Labour, and do not blame their problems on the EU or immigrants., but recognise the primary role of austerity and the current government
I agree on the matter of immigration, that thorn needs to be grasped and soon.
Though he did mention keeping access to the single market. Sure, that is political fudge, since we do not know exactly how much access the E.U. will allow us, but it seems clear that Labour can see the dangers, even if they do not have a concrete solution to show us…
On the contrary I think it’s a perfectly acceptable plan for Brexit – keep the trade going in the short-term, but not bind ourselves to the pernicious portions of the Single Market (i.e. the free movement of capital and restrict the role of the thoroughly captured ECJ).
Come GFC2 all bets will be off and we won’t have our hands tied when it comes to the (long-over due) re-building of our society (yes, not just the economy).
But you really think we can rebuild in isolation?
Really?
Labour has always been internationalist in outlook
Why not now?
We won’t be in isolation — we won’t be bricking up the Chunnel, we won’t be unplugging the internet. All kinds of relationships and networks will continue to exist outside the EU.
As for Internationalism — I’d say that it’s long over due that it extended beyond the borders of the EU — so that cocoa produces in Africa can import value added goods to the UK rather than having to ship it all off to Germany for a meagre slice of the (chocolate) cake. Where’s the Internationalism of continuing to poach expensively trained medical staff from across the continent because there’s no impetus for us to train our own? Most importantly, where’s the Internationalism in continuing to allow the City of London to carry on it’s pillaging of the world protected by a complicit EU?
Outside (a courageous) UK will be able to set about this ourselves, the day after any General Election and set an example to all as we do it. Inside we’ll continue to be hamstrung by the anti-democractic structure, a few over-powerful states, the numerous captured institutions and the need to assemble a pan-European movement of progressives to get anywhere.
And how will we make cars in an integrated world?
Or most other things come to that?
And how will we ensure products are safe?
And qualifications valid?
How will we police?
And share tax data?
At what cost will we export goods to Europe?
And why do we want to tear Ireland apart?
Or risk peace 8n Europe by encouraging xenophobia?
Please tell?
AdrianD says:
“On the contrary I think it’s a perfectly acceptable [Corbyn] plan for Brexit — ” Well we’ll just have to differ on that. Only time will tell.
“Come GFC2 all bets will be off and we won’t have our hands tied when it comes to the (long-over due) re-building of our society (yes, not just the economy).”
Given that we were not tied to the Euro we could have continued that process from 2010, instead George Osborne decided he would shut down the economy through austerity policies which were ‘paid for’ by those at the bottom of the heap. (In lost employment, and drastic removal of services which is still going on).
The monied class has not suffered noticeable austerity and the seriously wealthy have made a fortune. It was stupid policy and unnecessary unless his objective was to produce the sort of destruction of the public estate (particularly noticeable at local government level, still) which we have witnessed and suffered for eight years.
Unless there is a radical reappraisal of what the real options are we will doubtless have a repeat performance of another period of pointless and counterproductive austerity in some shape or form.
I see no evidence from Corbyn’s tepid offering that he has any grasp of the options which are available. If he does it would be reassuring if he would say so instead of waffling empty platitudes in general terms so as not to frighten the horses.
We need some seriously frightened horses to produce the manure to grow the roses.
Andy, Jim Craig and others
Did you really expect Labour to say no to BREXIT? To try to stop it? Really? We are in the grip of the mob – a small mob in parliament and bigger one outside it seems.
Building on my other point above I see BREXIT as a truly extraordinary problem that is so bad, politicians will continue to tip toe around it. How can politicians act and behave normally in such a unique situation?
Corbyn has actually stuck his head up above the parapet (just enough to see the top of his helmet) and said he wants to maintain a customs union. Bravo!
Please: we do not know if this will fail or not. So let us see before we condemn.
And as for those who think that Corbyn is playing games let us remember that this stance means the fight goes back to where it should be: in Parliament. Not the media. Not the courts. Parliament. And that is a good thing in my view.
But make no mistake: there is nothing normal or reasonable about this farce. Normal rules of engagement are suspended I’m afraid.
“But make no mistake: there is nothing normal or reasonable about this farce. Normal rules of engagement are suspended I’m afraid.”
But that’s the problem, Pilgrim. Normal rules of engagement are in full force. What else was that apology for a speech, yesterday a confirmation of ?
A tepid stream of yellow stuff purporting to address what you rightly say is a situation which is neither ‘normal or reasonable’.
Pah !
Andy
As I’ve tried to make clear – it is BREXIT that is stymieing politicians doing the right thing. They are all either scared of it (Labour) or feel that they have to use it in the policy mix (Tories) because it WILL have an impact on the next general election for them.
The BREXIT Beast has been unleashed and is at liberty in the country whether you accept it or not. BREXIT is like taking a tiger for a walk on a very short leash. Think about it.
My advice: Deal with it. Timidity is the new normal.
And I think that as usual, Carol Wilcox talks a lot of sense.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
“As I’ve tried to make clear — it is BREXIT that is stymieing politicians doing the right thing.”
I’ve just scanned through this thread again and noticed this which I passed over previously.
Brexit was just some sort of natural disaster was it ? Not a calamity manufactured by politicians ? Silly me, to be so easily misled.
I’m not prepared to accept that Brexit is the reason we have ineffectual politicians when it was these very same ineffectual politicians who created the ‘monster’ in the first place.
PS (without the ‘R’ :-)) I agree, Carol Wilcox does say sensible things and I’m inclined to take her opinion seriously even when my instinct is to disagree with what she’s saying. I extend to you the same respect as being a thoughtful person, who like me is not always right.
No surprise that I think Corbyn has done the right thing. He put the Labour position on Brexit firmly on being able to implement his manifesto – not possible within EU. He was no fan of the EU, but would never have gone for a referendum without being able to provide a proper plan for leaving – rather than the charade of having a referendum on trying to maintain the status quo – in an entirely different world to 1975.
The Labour Party are not in government. They don’t have to spell out exactly what has to be done. Things change, there is no need to fix your position. It is just possible that this tactic could help to get the tories out. And that’s the very best thing that could happen.
The issue of immigration is important. There is resentment on both sides with the influx of more skilled workers from Poland (in particular) vying for unskilled jobs here and willing to accept minimum wages and poor working conditions. I have good Polish friends and they look down on lazy British workers. Is this good? And isn’t the reason why our productivity is so low that employers have had up to now an endless supply of cheap labour and haven’t had to spend much on capital?
I went to a recent LRC conference where they passed a resolution on open borders. This is a far=left fantasy. No developed country in the world has open borders.
Re the last – agreed!
Carol and Richard both,
“No developed country in the world has open borders.”
But wouldn’t it be nice if they did ?
Isn’t it worth having idealistic aspirations even if we know they are nigh-on impossible to achieve ? It sets out a basic direction of travel and shows us how far we have to go.
Without a destination we aren’t going to travel in the right direction except by chance.
A ‘promised land’ is somewhere we have never been before. Doesn’t mean it can’t be reached. Biblically, Moses never saw the promised land it was to Joshua to complete the journey.
And did anyone living ever love their neighbor as themselves, But much good has been achieved in the attempt. Are we to scrap the principle of gender pay equality because we haven’t got close yet?
Where there is no vision the people perish.
But that’s what the EU has tried to do – make borders as open as possible
And we’re the country building them
John wrote:
“The Scottish Parliament was established on the basis of a stable consensus founded on authoritative opinion. Holyrood therefore has a political legitimacy beyond almost any institution in the State…”
To that legitimacy must be added the fact that the Scottish Government is elected by proportional representation and therefore better reflects public opinions. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Tories to blame the Scottish Government for obstructing the Brexit process given that Scotland voted by 62% to 38% to remain in the EU and given that the SG is quite rightly seeking to protect the powers devolved to it by Statute.
Just to be clear Brexit is a Tory mess and it is for the Tory government to deal with until they give up and call a general election.
Contrary to the whining on here and else where; Corbyn’s job is not to pander to the whims of millions of moaning remainers. His job is to find the most effective way to bring down this vile minority government and give us the first non-neoliberal government for 40 years and thus one last realistic shot at creating an equitable and sustainable society before the Great Extinction takes us all with it into the abyss for all eternity.
Given that the UK is the only country in the world where such a transition is even remotely possible right now and that right now is pretty much all the time we have left it is my pessimistic opinion that Brexit is simply inconsequential by comparison to the importance of making an attempt to show the world there’s a better way.
So if the priority is to bring down this government and the best way to do that is to mostly let them hang themselves while timing opposition policy announcements to cause maximum damage then so be it. I don’t notice anyone else offering a better plan on this subject. All they do is say “just don’t Brexit” which leaves the bigger question unanswered.
In the fullness of time the evolving Labour approach to Brexit will become known and I believe the EU will be much happier to negotiate a more reasonable deal with Corbyn than with May and infinitely happier again than if they had to deal with Johnson or Mogg.
Although the neoliberal EU hates Corbyn’s plans for our domestic economy they are going to find his approach to trade, international relations, support for international anti-tax-evasion rules and ongoing support for EU workers rights and production standards to be vastly preferable to the international impact of a Tory led post-Brexit-UK. That would amount to little better than a vast pirate ship anchored off their coast.
The EU may say it holds all the cards and intends to budge not at all but they would be idiots not to do a deal with Corbyn. It may be their last chance to avoid a large Trumpian tax haven on their doorstep constantly trying to undermine their union and drag member states out into a US style race to the bottom.
I also note that at every stage over the last three years Corbyn has been roundly maligned and mocked and yet time and time again he hugely outperformed expectations. Are all you who doubt his ability to cope with Brexit right now as confident of your judgement as when you doubted him during his first leadership contest, during the Labour coup or during the last general election?
You mock a man who has fought on and succeeded despite the entire establishment attacking him and yet you simultaneously decry the incompetence/venality of a Tory leadership that fails again and again despite the entire establishment backing them? Maybe it’s time you all put your differences aside and started accepting what some of us have known for a long time – Corbyn’s the best leader we’ve had in a long time and if we all got behind him we could completely transform this country.
You can carry on waiting for someone better but I don’t think there’s long left.
Adam Sawyer says:
“Just to be clear Brexit is a Tory mess and it is for the Tory government to deal with until they give up and call a general election.”
With all the likelihood of success of a recalcitrant teenager expected to tidy the mess in his bedroom 🙂
I hope you are approaching correct about the positive nature of the Corbyn strategy and that he’s playing a good long game. I don’t think he’s going the right way about it, …..but then …he’s got this far and he’s still in the job against all the brickbats of a vicious right wing media criticism, much of which is tantamount to (if not actual) lying.
“Given that the UK is the only country in the world where such a transition is even remotely possible right now…..”
That is the height of optimism and I just don’t see it. And that is why I want to see Scotland out of the UK and able to achieve what I think Westminster has no appetite for (nor, appallingly, appreciates the need for) on either side of the house.
You are right to draw our attention to Mr. Corbin’s inability to set before the British electorate a viable plan for the Brexit minefield. The question that probably needs answering is — Was it his intention to do that? The answer is probably “no” The truth probably centres on his personal desire to replace Teresa May with himself. If there had been any real substance to this, that gave the electorate something to get behind, and restore its faith in the whole Brexit affair, he would have done a great service to the nation. Instead he has allowed his personal ambition to get in the way with a thinly vailed attempt at unseating the present prime minister with tactics rather than policy.
Let me remind people that a majority (small, but still a majority) voted to leave the EU.
The “debate” upon the vote result has become increasingly toxic, racist and xenophobic.
We have now returned to the era of the 1930/40s, with fascists parading through the streets, and appearing on various media platforms and publications.
We have a ruling government, that is unable to rule.
We have a prime minister who is unable to command the loyalty of a large proportion of her own party, some of who seem to be closely allied to the rather public fascist members of society.
We have a large European country, un-allied or joined with the EU, which seems quite willing to use technology to pervert the democratic processes of the EU and the USA.
We have social media, which we are unable to trust because of the rather toxic atmosphere within society and within the media platforms.
We have major news organisations whose owners are also interfering in the democratic process, we can only hope it is just for money, but probably it is for command of power also.
And with this pile of decomposing socio-political garbage, we expect some sense to appear and take command.
Nobody in their right mind is going to lay any plan of any sort down, just to have it attacked.
Nobody will go against the vote result, it would be political suicide, whatever you think. A large proportion of even those that voted to remain would have problems with that, it would negate the entire process of democracy, whatever that is/was/will-be.
This is a mess.
It will be a mess for decades.
The ONLY way to make any alteration is via another vote…and even that will be another mess.
Nothing except a sensible and working exit, then work to rejoining, is going to work…and even that is far from certain.
Having come this far, the only viable route is to attempt to stay as far in as possible, and as far out as possible.
Welcome to The Mess.
JohnM says:
“Let me remind people that a majority (small, but still a majority) voted to leave the EU.”
No! they didn’t.
It was a minority of the population (I’ve seen 37.5% quoted) who actually voted to leave. We don’t do referenda properly in this country. We only do them at all because our parliamentary democracy is an unrepresentative shambles)
Major constitutional change should be supported by a majority of the population not just a bamboozled third and some zealots.
It makes no difference Andy…we can converse, at length, on the benefits of PR v FPTP, but while the percentage of the population who voted for brexit was quite low, it also included people who did not vote. If you only count those who DID vote (its quite easy to vote really) then a majority voted to leave.
If you want to consider that the “polls” say a majority now want to remain…I’ll point-out that prior to the vote, the “polls” also said a majority wanted to remain…
Pretty soon, with the current posse of clowns running the brexit show, the EU is going to ignore everything they say on the basis that what they said yesterday is not what they say tomorrow, and the day after that it is different too.
They are either the most inept clowns in the industry, or they are playing a deep game…
Is it any wonder the EU citizens living here are regarding us as stupid? (and they are)
Hard to believe the country once ran an empire…mind you, it was an empire based on trade…and slaves…maybe that’s the deep game…a Return to Empire
JohnM says:
“It makes no difference Andy…we can converse, at length, on the benefits of PR v FPTP, but while the percentage of the population who voted for brexit was quite low, it also included people who did not vote. If you only count those who DID vote (its quite easy to vote really) then a majority voted to leave.”
No they didn’t. A minority of the population voted to leave. Those who didn’t vote were, in some cases, more honest in saying ‘don’t know’ than the don’t knows who didn’t realise that they didn’t know. And how could anyone have known the implications of the vote 20 months ago when we still don’t 20 months later ?
There was no majority for change. There were some zealots and a bamboozled and misled following.
But I have to agree ‘it makes no difference’. We are subject to collective stupidity.
If you ask stupid questions you get stupid answers. Almost invariably.
It is common to say that we should respect other people’s opinions, but I suggest we should not feel bounden to respect opinions which are based on misinformation, lies, blind prejudice and stupidity.
You may grant such respect if you wish.
JohnM says:
“The “debate” upon the vote result has become increasingly toxic, racist and xenophobic.”
You describe the so called debate leading UP TO the referendum perfectly. The result has not changed the degree of toxicity one iota by my reckoning.
Alas JohnM, you are so right.
[…] A commentator on this blog yesterday suggested that: […]
Do you not think one step at a time should be the approach, warm people to the benefits of a customs union and once that is achieved, look towards regulatory alignment or mutual recognition for the single market aspect? Without the basics of a customs union, anything else is a moot point, for Ireland at least.