Jeremey Corbyn has made his Brexit position clear: he wants a hard Brexit and nothing less will do. If reports of a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party last night correct, and there is no reason to think that they are not, then what he's made clear is that Labour will not support any option for Brexit that means that the UK is a 'rule taker'. Quite explicitly that rules out membership of the EEA, or what is commonly known as the ' Norwegian option'.
There are three consequences. First, this leaves Labour in exactly the same position as the Tories: they have no plan unless crashing out can be described as such.
Second, this means Labour has almost no basis for opposing the Tories. To oppose you must have an alternative: right now as far as I can see Labour has none.
Third, it reveals Labour as not only clueless but are profoundly naive. It is absurd to suggest that the UK will not be a 'rule taker' if we leave the EU. Of course we will be. We will still be a member of a myriad of organisations, from the United Nations to NATO, to the OECD and beyond, all of which impose obligations upon us as result of our choice to be in membership. In addition, if we are admitted to the WTO in our own right we will have to consent to vast numbers of rules, many of which are worse than those imposed as a result of EU membership. And, of course, not to forget a theme familiar to this blog, we are party to a very wide range of tax treaties which reflect obligations to which we have agreed. And let's not pretend that any of these are more or less onerous than those that the EU create, where we have a vote ( which we have in none of these other situations) and where our government is very clearly represented as an equal.
To suggest then that we cannot be a 'rule taker' is absurd: rules, including those imposed from the EU, are always the result of mutual bargains that the parties wish to be honoured. The EU did not impose these rules on us: far too often, in fact, the UK decided to create regulation for itself that went far beyond those required by Brussels, as is very apparent from the quite different interpretation of the same rules seen in other European countries. We had a choice: we did not always make good ones.
And we are not now. Most especially, Labour is not now.
It's front bench now has no opposition to offer in any Brexit debate: no wonder it is languishing in the polls.
For a party now built on youth it is selling out those who put Corbin in this position of indecision.
And Labour is, by offering a lame excuse for this position, showing its intellectual weakness. At the very least it should be saying what could be done by rejecting this option, rather than saying we must simply walk away.
I am not, and have never been, a great fan of many MPs who favour the EEA option: with Howard Reed I have been happy to describe many of them as LINO - Labour In Name Only. I shudder at the thought of what a Labour Party with Chris Leslie as shadow chancellor would be offering as an economic policy at this moment. But, needs must, and across Parliament there are MPs from all parties who are willing to do three things that are, in my opinion, right at this moment.
First, they are willing to find a compromise solution with the EU, which is what the EEA option represents.
Second, they are willing to make sure that this country honours its obligations by maintaining appropriate borders; sustaining its agreement on Northern Ireland; supporting those who have been invited to live, work and invest here, and (most importantly) to support the jobs and well-being of people in this country.
And third, they are willing to stand alongside other countries to say that we have interests in common that are greater than the issues that stand us apart.
For those reasons I could live with an EEA deal.
In my opinion this is now the only tenable Brexit solution.
And if Corbyn won't have it, then I think his Party has to tell him that is unacceptable. And his MPs will have to ignore his whip. They would have a duty to their consciences, their country and the people that they represent to stand alongside other parties, as a coalition in the House of Lords did, to impose upon the UK's failing political leadership a solution that is in the best interests of this country as a whole.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The whole things a mess and should never have happened Northern Ireland is way to important to threaten its stubility and would be reason to withdraw from brexit if it was. The government is making such a mess of it that Labour are staying well out of the picture to not get caught up in any flac.
A neutral position can only be assertained at the point the tories fail and so best to just stay right out of the way with their plans until that point.
Its a bit long, I am a bit busy today. I will try to read again later.
As well as work, which today is from home, thanks to technology I have solar panels and have washing to be done.
My point is that Corybn didnt support David Cameron in keeping the UK in the EU. We knew his position that he is anti Europe and has always been that way. We can even go as far as say that Corbyn permitted the vote on the EU as that was decided by the house and his vote and his parties vote mattered.
I am no Corbyn fan but he is right on this.
Brussels really has created a monster.
What might that monster be called? Given that this is about subjugating democracy to corporate interests the only word for it is fascism.
So what is the alternative? The UK will not be existing in isolation, so what are you suggesting? Alternative rules may be at least as bad as those from the EU, and at least we can negotiate those at an EU level.
Staying out of a fascist organisation – that’s the alternative to being a member of it.
Other countries manage to stay outside the EU across the world, and seem to do OK. We would too.
I find such attitudes almost wholly incomprehensible
Especially when the UK already has fascist tendencies – especially amongst the truth deniers of Brexit
Adam, what on earth are you talking about? You sound like the worst kind of anti EU fanatic with rubbish like this. I’m not an expert on the EU’s governance structures, but only a particularly daft right or left wing British nationalist could accuse the EU of being wholly in thrall to corporate interests.
How about the way the EU Commission has taken on, against vocal opposition from the corporations themselves, the phone companies and technology giants? Have you noticed how it is the EU that has implemented the GDPR, which gives citizens greater protection from corporate interests?
Perhaps you’d like to explain how the UK government, on its own, could have such influence. We have far more strength inside the EU than outside it. Zuckerberg recently refused a request by Parliament to appear before it to answer questions about Facebook’s role in the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
That’s how strong we’ll be out of the EU.
Sick of TD:
I think ‘Adam’ is a troll trying to be funny by quoting Richard from some time ago.
I hope Adam got his pathetic laugh, that’s all I can say.
Seems to me almost be saying ‘we have always been at war with Eurasia’ – I don’t think even Orwell could have foreseen our current state however. The current climate has created an atmosphere of poisonous debate whereby the idea that an organisation which is the apotheosis of democracy can be described as ‘fascist’ – strange times we live in indeed…
Adam J says:
“Brussels really has created a monster.
What might that monster be called? Given that this is about subjugating democracy to corporate interests the only word for it is fascism.”
Meanwhile other observers and critics liken the EU to the old Soviet system, and bleat about its Marxist tendencies towards communism.
Can we have it both ways ? I think not. Not with any degree of credibility.
Tony Blair made the Labour party irrelevant in my estimation by declining to offer alternatives to the right wing orthodoxy.
Jeremy Corbyn seems to be determined to go the same way.
I can only assume that ‘policy’ is to hang on and hope the Tories will self destruct again and Labour can win an election and get into government by default (again). Though what there will be left standing to govern will be an ‘interesting’ thing to see.
Rule taker…Rule maker… What nonsense. The triumph of the vacuous soundbite. This is the hallmark of the way in which Chinese government used to be done. With their ideographic script all the print media cut new blocks of the current policy soundbite.
This is ‘democrassy’ writ large. I shudder to think politics can get much more stupid, but I guess we have a way to go yet.
Sorry Colin and Paul, your defence of Corbyn is just not on. Richard’s criticism of his position is absolutely correct, he is failing to provide any sort of proper opposition to this hopeless government in refusing to back the Lord’s amendment seeking to keep us in the EEA.
And it’s bad politics too. To go along with a ‘hard’ Brexit is a betrayal of the many labour supporters who voted Remain; it is a betrayal of those Labour Leave voters who have been conned by the liars and cheats of the Leave campaign into voting against their own economic interests, in the pursuit of an ideological fantasy of the hard right’s.
I’ve said it many times before; how can any real progressive go along with something that is basically a project financed and pushed by the nationalist/market fundamentalist right? The hard right and the hard left; united in irrationality, stupidity, and a total lack of concern for this country.
Both Corbyn and May have shown their true colours. They both believe that which party has the next turn at mismanaging the country for five years or less is more important than where the country stands and the state it is in for the next generation or more.
I can think of stronger words but you’d probably have to delete my post so I’ll stick with “pathetic” and “small minded”.
I can only pray that enough MPs from all political persuasions have the courage to stop this demented stampede and to put the national interest ahead of self-interest and party loyalty.
So do I George, so do I. I’ve generally been sympathetic to Corbyn when faced with rebellions by Labour MPs, but not this time. He deserves to get a lot of MPs refusing the party whip on this vital issue. Whether they will or not……….
George,
I completely agree. The reports of Corbyn’s meeting with MPs suggested that a lot of Labour MPs representing leave-voting areas were arguing for a continuation of the ambiguous position that is current Labour policy. They really should realize that this question is more important than the chances of them being returned at the next election.
Neil says:
“[Politicians] really should realize that this question is more important than the chances of them being returned at the next election.”
But they don’t see it like that. They justify their view on the basis that if they lose their seats their constituents have lost their voice.
A parallel is the ‘Good Samaritan’ justification for individual wealth (favoured by Margaret Thatcher) because it allows the wealthy the choice to be charitable. That they mostly opt not to exercise that choice doesn’t seem to impinge on their several or collective consciences.
Maybe we’re destined as a country for our future to be the opposite of what our past was; from a global power to a poorer, more diminished player. Maybe it is China’s turn, or India or whoever, to play the role Britain used to. After we helped to beat the Nazis, we were on the right path under Attlee, empire began to disintegrate, then Suez in 1956, then Neoliberalism in 1979 and 3 and half years undermining the right path; and now the stupidity and deluded self-harm of Brexit. Because we can’t bear the thought of just living in the EU or the world merely as a nation of equals. I sometimes wonder if I have the stamina to deal with this Brexit madness. It is like being in a zombie movie, the undead are going to keep on coming until they eventually, inevitably, horribly overwhelm us and turn us into them. I know it is right to resist, but it feels like one of those nightmares when a monstrous danger where Jacob Rees-Mogg glasses and an obscene Nigel Farage leer shuffles menacingly towards you, but you are lost because your legs have turned into lead. And you can’t wake up or escape the horror.
Oh well, on that cheerful note, time for coffee..
Get me one, will you?
My usual…
The problem with Corbyn or Corbyn’s problem, and ipso facto Labour’s problem, is that he has been against the EU and voted “against” the EU for decades. (https://www.markpack.org.uk/153744/jeremy-corbyn-brexit/) He therefore cannot now turn round and embrace staying in the EU without renouncing his whole political career. If a majority of Labour MP’s are anti-Brexit, he has only 2 options: resign in favour of a possibly pro-EU leader or, like May in reverse, say he will lead a campaign to stay even though he wants to leave.
But there are still a lot of people and MP’s who think Brexit will be just fine or that the Eu is a Fascist organisation, while of course the UK is a beacon of democratic enlightenment, hence an advisory referendum is interpreted as meaning we need a hard exit.
Will Tezza and Jezza fix it? No because they’ve opted/voted for Brexit without a workable plan!
I think that George has nailed it. I have been reminded of an apocryphal story about a Great Scientist. A scientist from another institution came to give a seminar to the Great Scientist’s research group. After the seminar the Great Scientist asked a question to the effect “That was a very interesting talk, but how does it relate to MY research?”. When JC and TM are told that all the evidence suggests the country and ordinary people will be worse off under ANY form of Brexit, they seem to have a similar response: “That may very well be true, but will it cost us votes?”
I think it will cost Corbyn votes – all the young people, now coming to voting age, who’d provisionally decided that he was their best bet in a poor bunch – all the Remainers who’d hoped Labour would give them the hope of a soft Brexit. But no, he’s stood up on his hind legs and ‘held by his principles’. If I were in Scotland, I’d vote Scottish Nationalist, and for early Scottish independence – when we move to Wales next year (or earlier, if we can) I’ll continue to vote Green if there’s a candidate – Plaid if not. This is the time for those members of the Labour Party who believe, with us, that Brexit will be a disaster. to tell Corbyn that he no longer has their support and to vote with any Tory rebels, the Lib Dems, and Plaid – I just wish the Sinn Fein would come into Parliament this one time to give the Remainers a better chance.
A British Union (Ireland as an honorary member) – but not the way May would want it!
Jeni Parsons aka havantaclu says:
“… If I were in Scotland, I’d vote Scottish Nationalist, ….”
I have been known to float the idea that the SNP might make some headway by standing candidates in English (and maybe even Welsh and NI) constituencies. At the very least it would offer a novel protest voting opportunity. Might even pick up a majority here and there amongst the most rabid Little Englanders convinced that Scots are lazy (foreign) freeloaders.
It would be interesting to see how far the border might be inclined shift southwards.
re “when we move to Wales next year (or earlier, if we can) ”
Run, don’t walk. Before they get the razor wire fences installed 🙂
With the greatest respect, 1) this article is written in response to hearsay 2) in an ever changing situation, ‘controlled’ by the gvt, Labour strategy is not decided by Jeremy Corbyn, but by the shadow cabinet in which Keir Starmer has a major role. 3) Labour policy is to stay in the cu, which is fundamentally different from Conservative policy. 4) The not being a rule taker does not apply to any rules agreed with anybody, ever, as you say that would be absurd, but to rules which would prevent a Labour gvt fro rolling back whichever neoliberal policies of the last 40 yrs, which have caused such havoc. I’m good with all of this, and believe it can be presented to those who won the referendum as a sensible compromise and therefore enable the election of a Labour governmment whose policies we so desperately need.
With the greatest of respect, I am far from alone amongst the informed left in having these worries
Read Naked Capitalism today
You are making excuses for Corbyn adopting far-right policy – and I have no idea why anyone wants to do that
Absolutely, worrying times. But Labour policy is clear. Customs Union and a trade agreement with EU which allows it to carry out its democratic socialist manifesto policies. No excuses.
And when the EU ways no?
So many of your blogs are critical of neoliberalism but the EU is fully signed up to neoliberalism. Are you not guilty of clinging to nurse for fear of something worse? I voted to remain but only because I’m 73 and a coward. I honestly don’t believe the sky is going to fall in after Brexit. And i don’t think things are going to get better for Greece. I think the Euro is doomed. Whether we are in or out of the EU there are going to be massive changes in the next few years and i don’t see a wonderful bright future in my lifetime. You say you want governments to recognise the potential benefits of MMT and yet your blogs on the EU suggest that you don’t want any changes. I’m afraid that you, too, are a coward like me and that we are all too comfortable. To Corbyn’s credit he is trying to navigate a difficult route and if i had to choose between him and most of the PLP I’d choose him: he’s been right more in the last 30 years than most of them.
I am a pragmatic idealist
Neoliberalism is a curse. But what’s the best way of changing it? Running away? Or staying in the tent and changing the rules?
I have not a doubt which is the right answer
There are many examples of little countries changing the rules of big countries through leading by example. You do not have to be inside other people’s tents to change what happens there.
Just look at the influence of Hong Kong on mainland China, or New Zealand on our inflation targets here in Europe, or the offshore financial centres have had on European corporate tax rates. Which place was first with the smoking ban, or a levy on plastic bags? How many thought little Venezuela was a model for the rest of us to follow? I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with any of those, but you have to concede that there are many examples where a country outside the tent has had a major effect on those inside.
I’d be curious to see your list of examples of countries who reluctantly stayed inside the tent, and then later decided that they were glad they did because by doing so they made a difference to policy which they could not have done on their own.
You mean we can change a bag or entire policy
Are you seriously suggesting you’d take the plastic bag?
Really?
Or the animosity that comes from being a pariah like a tax haven?
I think you need to get some decent non-tinted specs pretty quickly
Hong Kong changed an entire policy. Some countries have made smaller changes from the outside. My point was not about whether you agreed with them, as I made clear, but to get you to acknowledge that the changes took place.
My question was at the end – can you give examples of countries who reluctantly stayed inside the tent, and then later decided that they were glad they did because by doing so they made a difference to policy which they could not have done on their own?
Oh come on: Hong Kong has the equivalent status to Jersey
There is no equivalent to Brexit, and you know it
My question remains unanswered. Can you give an example of a country who reluctantly stayed inside the tent, and then later decided that they were glad they did because by doing so they made a difference to policy which they could not have done on their own?
And I have answered
This has not happened before
John Legere says:
“My question remains unanswered. Can you give an example of a country who reluctantly stayed inside the tent, and then later decided that they were glad they did because by doing so they made a difference to policy which they could not have done on their own?”
John, are you suggesting that the other 27 countries of the EU secretly wish to be out of the union, but only the Brits have got the cojones to do anything about it ?
Do you think that could possibly be true ?
Britain will not ‘take back control’, easily. A more likely consequence of this vanity exercise is that we will cede control to the US corporate interests who will milk us for all we’re worth. Starting with the NHS and then swiftly moving onto agriculture and eventually into finance.
No good can come of this except for the very few who will increase the fortunes they already don’t know how to spend.
Ann Courtney says:
“With the greatest respect, 1) this article is written in response to hearsay.”
A fair point, but most of the ‘news’ is hearsay after its fashion.
I admire your optimism, but I can’t say I share it with any confidence.
I fear Labour has, in failing to accept and make the case for free movement of labour in a world where free movement of Capital has long been a given, handed over the initiative to a xenophobic Little Englander mentality which is as virulent on the ‘old left’ of the workers party as it is on the right of the toffs party.
I see it as part of the Blair Brown legacy which remains to haunt us. It will be small comfort at the next GE to be offered the choice of a rock and a hard place.
“Labour will not support any option for Brexit that means that the UK is a ‘rule taker’ ”
That might be taken to mean we should remain a ‘rule maker’ within the EU.
I don’t hold out much hope.
“That might be taken to mean we should remain a ‘rule maker’ within the EU.
I don’t hold out much hope.”
Absolutely full marks for optimism though, Billl.
Even to consider it as a possible interpretation is a triumph. Would that were that much wit in our modern polity. 🙂
Some questions (so far unanswered by any party).
Short term – 3 – 6 months from march 2019
1. How much perishable food does the Uk import from the EU.
2. How is this imported (container/sea or truck)
3. What are the implications for the above if a “hard Brexit” occurs = will it be delayed?.
4. What happens if shops start to run out of food?
5. Has the gov made any contingency plans for Q4?
1 – 5 years out from March 2019
1. What is the position now of non-UK manufacturers in the UK – how might this change in 5 years – given a hard Brexit?
2. What proportion of UK exports does the EU account for (hint – its north of 40%)
3. What impact would a hard-brexit have on these exports?
4. Given what is left of Uk mfu’ing is midlands and north – does any party have any industrial plans to compensate for reduced mfu’ing?
I suspect Rees Mogg is related to Malthus
“I suspect Rees Mogg is related to Malthus”
I hadn’t noticed that, but I thought I’d detected a passing resemblance to the Grim Reaper.
o o
v
Oh dear. Your system reformatted my makeshift graphic representation. Hence the stray letters.
My apologies….
I appreciate that I sound like an old ’78’ gramaphone record (“vinyl” to you), but it has seemed to me transparently obvious that the Labour Party will not fight the Government over Brexit; even a hard Brexit. This is terrible indictment of Westminster politics. This is not “representative” democracy, and it is unsustainable.
I ask again: who represents the 48% (probably now ‘plus’) who voted against Brexit? We are entitled to representation in Parliament, and we are being failed: catastrophically. This is unacceptable. You simply should not undertake a fundamental constitutional change of this magnitude on a narrow and insecure majority. It is mere perversity to assume this can be done without serious constitutional consequences; which will come home to roost, sooner or later, but either way – finally and unavoidably.
“gramophone”; my excuse is that it is now late for those of us who listen to “records”, or the “wireless”.
The only group of any size representing you is the SNP
John S Warren says:
“I appreciate that I sound like an old ’78’ gramaphone record (“vinyl” to you),”
Vinyl nothing, John. ’78’s were made of shellac. 🙂
Perhaps you’re not as old you think.
Have you noticed incidentally that although the received wisdom says it is older people who are supposed to have memory problems, young people have hardly any memory at all beyond a very few years ago. 🙂
I did know, but I didn’t think anyone else was old enough to know; and I was trying to make my remark seem ‘cool’. You have destroyed my image.
This is simply not true. And it is misleading. There is a coherent Labour position, which is still dependant on FORMAL agreement, but has been agreed in outline.
This would mean us being in A customs union, and A single market. That is not a “HARD” Brexit.
It would solve both the N. I. situation, and our ongoing tariff situation. It has been clearly outlined, and negotiated by the Labour Brexit Team of Keir Starmer, Barry Gardiner and Matthew Pennycook. It has been discussed by both Jeremy Corbyn, and Emily Thornton.
Because we have a broken News Broadcast situation, and an entirely third rate commentariat, Labour’s proposals have apparently not been discussed. But that does not mean that they are not there.
Sorry, but you have let yourself down here, in my opinion.
There is no such position because the EU have said there cannot be any such position
You’re repositioning angels on pinheads
Thank you. And where have the EU said this, please?
The EU hascsaid they are not offering a CU of UK choice
They mean it
They cannot not
Very politely, stop being silly – it’s unbecoming
Corbyn wise to keep his powder dry over Brexit negotiations | Letters https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/15/corbyn-wise-to-keep-his-powder-dry-over-brexit-negotiations?CMP=share_btn_tw
Sorry – that’s just short term, naive politucs speaking
Some of us expect better than that
So, I am being silly? Blimey – I thought we were having a grown-up’s conversation on this blog. OK.
I really am being serious, as are Mr. Corbyn, Emily Thornton and the Labour Brexit team. But good luck with it.
I will reiterate, I know no person who is not affiliated to Labour who agrees with you
I know quite a lot of informed people and no line I know can fund a shred of either credible political positioning or sound negotiating sense left in Labour’s sophistry – for that is all it is
The problem is all yours, not ours
I am happy for you to explain why the EU would agree a Labour request for what is being rejected when suggested by the Tories – but I am not willing to be told I am just wrong
So, yes: stop being silly and talk some sense or the world will take note
I must ask you to forgive me Mr Westcombe, but to be candid; as a rationalisation of Labour’s position, and an explanation of the actual politics, that comment is just plain daft.
Labour’s position has no material difference from the broad Conservative Government position; a hard Brexit, with a promise it will not hurt by offering the undeliverable. Notice it also destroys the last vestiges of genuine Party politics in Britain. The huge Remain camp has (outside Scotland) no major party to support.
Again, as politely as I can – the source for your beliefs on this matter?
I know of no well informed person without political party affiliation who can find logic in Labour’s position and claims
The onus is all on you: you have the claim to sell
Is Andrew Harrop, General Secretary of the Fabian Society, well informed enough for you?
Just to repeat, Labour’s Policy is to remain in A customs union, and A single market. The general position has been discussed with Michel Barnier.
https://labourlist.org/2018/02/andrew-harrop-labours-new-brexit-position-is-good-economics-and-good-politics/
The Fabian Society is part of Labour
For heaven’s sake – if that’s the limit of your evidence start again
Keir Starmer: “And sensible options such as a Customs Union and a strong new relationship with the Single Market were talked down while the prospect of no deal was talked up.”
https://labour.org.uk/press/keir-starmer-speech-marking-one-year-go-brexit/
https://www.thepeoplesnewsonline.co.uk/single-post/2018/03/09/we-should-all-want-keir-starmer-negotiating-in-brussels/
Stop posting the sophistry
Please deal with the realities that are actually possible i.e. within the gift iof the EU to deliver
Jeremy Corbyn: “Labour would seek a final deal that gives full access to European markets and maintains the benefits of the single market and the customs union as the Brexit Secretary, David Davis promised in the House of Commons, with no new impediments to trade and no reduction in rights, standards and protections.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2018/02/jeremy-corbyn-s-coventry-speech-brexit-full
He might as well offer everyone a free holiday in Barbados paid for by BA at the same time: that’s also not going to happen because it fails to take into consideration the concerns of the other side
Michael Westcombe says:
“Is Andrew Harrop, General Secretary of the Fabian Society, well informed enough for you?”
For me … No. Absolutely not. I’ve just wasted my time reading the piece you have linked and it is a fine critique of the Conservative conundrum and tells me nothing whatsoever about how Labour might square the circle of incompatible demands and expectations.
Have you got anything about Labour Party policy, intentions or aspirations you could refer me to ?
That saved me the time…..
On the deliverability of Labour Policy, I think Richard and Andy Crow have provided a satisfactory rebuttal. I rest that case.
On the point of the failure of Party politics, to which I also referred, and is equally requiring a response from Labour: the Brexit constituency are already amply provided with (various) daft policies by the Conservative Party (which I think now even the PM doesn’t believe any more), and without a pointless ‘me too’ Labour second-string that merely keeps the Conservatives in office. The 48% who voted to Remain, however satisfactorily provide me with “the source for (my) beliefs”; at least the 48% exists, and is certainly a source that is a great deal more robust and tangible than anything you have offered.
None should be surprised by Labour’s position.
They are led by a brexiter, who has never made the case for contesting the referendum, or in trying to go for least damaging options in withdrawing from the EU.
Corbyn is a brexiter to the core in the same way that Rees-Mogg and his ultras in the ERG are.
Those who have hoped that Labour would provide some sensible, rational, clear headed opposition to brexit and the appalling mess the government are making of it have been played.
More fool us.
Steve H says:
“Corbyn is a brexiter to the core in the same way that Rees-Mogg and his ultras in the ERG are.”
I don’t think Corbyn is pro Brexit “in the same way” as the Tory ultras. But I admit to being unable to explain how his position is different and how it is rational.
This semantic distinction of ‘A’ Customs Union, and ‘A’ Single Market has to be drivel doesn’t it ? I remain utterly unconvinced that it is anything but fantasy. And we’ve had it from both parties now.
Neither offers cogent explanation.
You hit the nail on the head
I could understand a short(ish)-term tactical approach to allow the Tories to sink into the quicksand of their own incompetence which has served Corbyn passably well so far. But unfortunately the clock is starting to run out and now comes the time when a clear alternative has to be put forward. (The very fact that there is discussion/argument about what Labour’s position is, defines that it can’t be clear!)
Maybe Labour should aim to neutralise the animosity towards free movement by putting forward all the limits on free movement as if they are novel Labour proposals. It is clear that the vast majority of people have no idea that these limits exist and that has been the choice of British governments not to implement them. This would reassure much of the ‘traditional Labour’ heartlands.
Then maybe Richard or a similar well informed person could demolish all the claims that that the EU would prevent Labours manifesto being implemented eg rail nationalisation.
This way we might see whether Corbyn really is ideologically anti EU or whether it really is a concern about the EU thwarting what he wants to achieve.
It might even start a few more people asking why on earth we are proceeding with this madness.
I would if I did not have four papers to do by the end of June