I put my apology up front: for whatever I did to help Corbyn get elected to the Labour leadership, I am contrite. Corbyn's stance on Article 50 shows why he whilst he remains Labour leader the party's position is a disaster for the country and its supporters. That's because even if Corbyn thinks he has to accept the referendum result (and there is no obligation on anyone to do so) there are three things he does not have to do.
The first is support us leaving the single market: no one said the vote meant that.
Second is leaving the customs union: that's just economic suicide and I really do not think people voted for that.
But third, and most importantly, nothing said he said he had to support the government, and yet that is precisely what he is going to do, come what may. And he will even sack shadow ministers for actually believing it is their job to be in opposition. And yet this opposition is absolutely vital now because even if Labour did believe in leaving (and I do not think most of it does) opposing a government that is doing it so badly is at the core of the job it has to do.
For those in doubt let me summarise Corbyn's apparent position as outlined in an interview this morning. Bizarrely he claimed Labour was succeeding on Article 50. The evidence, he suggested, was that there was now to be a vote in parliament. For the record, Guina Miller achieved that: Labour did not.
Then he claimed success in getting a white paper. Except we have not got one yet, and won't before he is committing his party to voting for Article 50, which makes it utterly meaningless.
After which he claimed it was essential that Labour's amendments to the governmnt's bill be passed but when challenged whether he would impose a three line whip whether or not Labour's amendments were accepted or not agreed that he would. In other words, he has already conceded that all Labour's amendments are worthless. Incompetence on this scale would be sackable in any other job. It's actually incomprehensible that any other Labour leader in history could ever have been this stupid, especially when there is a completely viable strategy available.
Heidi Alexander has laid the groundwork for the first base of opposition. Her position is to call for the bill's demise on the grounds that the government has failed to “safeguard British interests in the single market” or offer proper guarantees on whether parliament or the electorate should decide on leaving the single market. Given that the government committed to staying in the single market in its 2015 election manifesto this is entirely reasonable.
When and if that fails the next defence is that no support can be offered until a fully costed white paper has been offered to the House. As that has not happened and iis not expected to do so until later in February to vote for Artcile 50 must be impossible: no one can be asked to vote for a plan whose content is not known. Labour can and should take this position to the country. To say that the government is not delivering Brexit because it has no plan to do so is a mesaage that has the merit of being both simple and true, but Corbyn won't say it.
Then Labour's amendments have to be proposed. And Labour should look to support those of other parties. And if those amendments are not accepted them Labour is duty bound to vote against the government on exercising article 50: nothing else is sustainable when there is no indication at present of what the vote means.
So why won't Labour do this? Fist there is incompetence: thinking out a strategy appears to be beyond Corbyn's team.
Then there is fear. Labour is so petrified of UKIP it will ape it. As far as I can see that makes Labour largely irrelevant in man you constituencies now. People might as well vote UKIP instead, and many MPs rightly fear that will happen. Stoke may just be the first.
Third, there is the possibility that Corbyn wants what the government is doing, which many have long felt to be his true position. But in that case it has under Corbyn no role left to offer the people of this country, so he should go.
I have called for politicians to join together to oppose Brexit. I can't imagine Corbyn supporting any such call. So be it. Those who should be working together to save this country from disaster will have to point out in that case that the extremes of left and right are the real threat to our well being.
There is ample room for political disagreement in the centre ground of UK politics. But this is not one of those times. Pointing out that Corbyn is conniving in destroying the future prospects of people in this country is the job of those who believe that we must have real political and economic choices left to fight over in the future. Right now he's joining the right of British politics in destroying them.
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 first is support us leaving the single market: no one said the vote meant that.”
Apart from Cameron, Osborne, Johnson and Gove, who said the vote meant precisely that during the referendum campaign. There may have been others who said it too.
Please do not lie
They said the exact opposite
None said we would leave the single market
Here’s a video of Cameron and Osborne saying just that:
“If Leave, you’re quitting the Single Market”
They warned
The Leavers denied
Come on, get things right
I have to say that whilst campaigning for remain in the high street opposite Brexiteers, I have no doubt what they were promoting was a complete and irrevocable break with the EU. In fact for many of them they saw it as implying closing the tunnel and cancelling ferries too.
That was not the public campaign said though
I have seen Tom Ball’s claim repeated on other social media such as the comments in my local newspaper. Yet as far as I know (can we be sure?)this is indeed and alternative fact or total lie. There are screen shots going round facebook of Johnson, Gove (and Farage too) saying precisely that voting leave would not mean we left the single market.
To be fair I think I remember Cameron and Osborne and other Remainers contradicting this and saying an out vote would scupper the single market (sorry have not researched this, has anybody got the evidence?). But they would not have to worry about the truth of this, basically a guess about their opponents intentions) if they won, and would not be in a position to prove it if they lost.
It is down to the Leavers to deliver on their promises.
Remain said this was a risk
Leave said, always, we would look to stay in
Norway was discussed, for example
The bigger lies were from Leavers
“Michael Gove says leaving EU would mean quitting single market”, 8 May 2016 https://www.ft.com/content/0c5c74bc-151e-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e
Nigel Farage says he doesn’t want to be part of the European Single Market, 22 Feb 2016 http://www.cityam.com/235159/eu-referendum-ukip-leader-nigel-farage-says-he-doesnt-want-to-be-part-of-the-european-single-market
Another poster has linked to a video showing Cameron and Osborne saying that the UK would leave the single market.
So I think an apology from both you and lionsafterslumber is in order.
Nonsense
Osborne and Cameron were on the r main side. Maybe you didn’t notice? It does undermine the credibility of what you say
And the evidence that Norway etc was discussed go heavily js abundant
You are spreading alternative facts
Why is it relevant that Cameron and Osborne were on the remain side? In fact having demonstrated that both sides said that the UK would leave the ESM makes the position even clearer. It is you who is talking nonsense. It was also known at the time (and again pointed out at the time) that the Leave campaign’s other pitches – ending ECJ jurisdiction over the UK, limiting free movement of labour – could not be accomplished without leaving the ESM.
With the greatest of respect (implying g absolutely none at all, and appropriately so) if this was the case why as it such news when May made it clear that this was the case very recently
This is not a site for those who spread complete misinformation and you are doing just that
Andrew Marr was claiming that yesterday, My recollection is that Johnson and Farage were saying that a deal could be struck so we would have , at least, some access.
Marr, as is not untypical, was way off mark
Johnson and Farage were talking Norway, etc and so single market membership
I don’t think an apology is in order. Here are some claims from the Leave camp and their leaflet which may have swung the referendum.
“The EU’s supporters say ‘we must have access to the Single Market’. Britain will have access to the Single Market after we vote leave”. Vote Leave, What Happens When We Vote Leave?
“there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market”, Boris Johnson, The Telegraph, 26 June 2016
“It should be win-win for us and it will be if we vote to leave and we can maintain free trade, stop sending money and also have control of our borders”, Michael Gove, BBC, 8 May 2016
These are the promises that have to be delivered by Leave.
Any MP who says they will vote against the main resolution (Ken Clarke?) but who does not support the amendments is not really serious.
The most important votes are on the Labour amendments committing the Government to negotiating aims on the single market, and bringing the final deal back before Parliament.
I agree with your points raised Richard.
I get the impression Corbyn thinks the EU is a right wing cabal. Compared to the alternative of Mayday and Trump, they’re communists by comparison.
I wonder if Trump will make his horse a senator?
Maybe the worst web log piece ever written on the internet,
Certainly in the bottom five.
Is that supposed to be useful comment?
If do, you failed miserably
If “do” ?
You voted leave I assume? Utter fool.
Can you back up your dismissive comment with some factal challenges to the points Richard Murphy makes? If not I suggest you take your pointless, puerile remarks elsewhere.
Certainly could do with editing … it is very poorly written
I apologise then
I wrote it whilst waiting for a late plane at Stansted and put it up when the plane got called
Do you have any idea at all how blogs get written? And that there is no editorial team? There was me, an iPad and a few spare minutes.
No Dave, it is not poorly written; it is very well written, though with a number of trivial typing errors which (as Newton is reputed to have said of the printing errors in his Principia) any intelligent reader can automatically correct for him (or her)self.
The main reason for the trivial typing errors is the conditions under which the blog is written, i.e. the author often has to write it when travelling between engagements carried out in the service of the same mission as the blog: the propagation of useful information and constructive ideas. Without the travel and the engagements, the ideas and information propagated in the blog would spread less than half as effectively as they do.
Given the choice between the trivial typos and the effective spread of the ideas, I choose the latter. If you don’t like the ideas, fine, criticise the ideas; but don’t nitpick about typos.
Richard, I hope not to see you feeling you have to apologise for typos again. If you do, please feel free to re-use this post to save you time.
You could add that the typos can provide free entertainment when one has finished the crossword or the sudoku, as occasionally they do take more than one second to decipher, but that’s part of the fun.
With best wishes as always
Many thanks
You get it!
You are demanding that Parliament ignore the vote in the referendum. That is not democratic and fails to address the legitimate concerns of many traditional working class Labour voters.
Can you not see what a disaster it would be if Parliament defeated the Government on Article 50? This would immediately lead to a “stab in the back” narrative of politicians ignoring the people, much on the lines of the narratives spun in Germany after the First World War. I can’t think of anything more calculated to solidify and increase the “Leave” vote and land us with the hardest of Brexits.
The Labour party is an organisation dedicated to advancing the cause of the vast majority of the people. It’s main aim is not just keeping us in the EU. While the “Remain” campaign demonstrated that leaving the EU under the Tories would be detrimental compared with staying in under the Tories this is minor compared to the damage caused by Tory cuts and austerity policies.
If trade Union members voted 52 to 48 to take action with others abstaining only somebody with contempt for democracy would argue that there was no mandate to proceed.
The “Leave” campaign promised that it would be easy to negotiate continued membership of the single market, together with the UK controlling its borders and no longer obliged to pay a contribution or obey EU rules. It is time to see if they can deliver.
As with a democratic body like a trade union, if the offer falls short of the claim then they should then re-consult with the electorate.
Clearly you are unaware of trade union voting requirements
And you also seem unaware that a union vote only authorises a specific course of action
The referendum was a vote to advise parliament: that was it. The job was done when the ballot closed, as the SC noted.
But even if it was morally binding the vote was to leave the EU, not the single market etc
And the vote was not to do so whatever the consequence. As Dominic Cummings has made clear, it was won solely in e basis of the £350 million promise. In other words the vote was completely conditional. The mandate was to leave if it could be shown there would be more spending on domestic issues as a result: that was it
In that case to say Article 50 can only be triggered if it is just about leaving the EU and only if there will be more domestic spend as a result is to completely respect the vote. Doing anything else – as the government is doing – does not respect the vote
And would be be like a union calling a ballot on a work to rule and then saying it justified a strike. That, for the record, would be illegal
So you are completely wrong and I think it right to say so
I don’t think we completely disagree. But it is the Labour amendments that are important, and these include instructing the Government to negotiate tariff free access to the Single Market and a Parliamentary vote on the final deal.
I am aware of the soon to be introduced laws on trade union voting and they have been introduced by Tories who have a contempt for democracy.
The referendum vote does mean Article 50 must be triggered. However if the facts change, for instance the “leavers” promise of continued access to the single market, (or indeed the £350 M for the NHS does not materialise), then , and only then, we should have a right to another vote.
But Labour has to demand that path and right now it is not
That is our difference
But we are still on the same page
The vote was an advisory referendum with no legal force. There is no sense in which the referendum result mandates MPs from the Labour Party, or any other party, to vote for Article 50. Given that the Leave campaign’s entire public pronouncements during the referendum campaign were a complete tissue of lies, I would say that fact by itself renders the referendum result null and void. People were voting for a fantasy – remaining in the single market, spending £350 a week extra on the NHS, etc. – which bore no relation to what is actually being implemented.
Given the fact that the referendum was won on the basis of lies, and given the fact that ‘Hard Brexit’ will lead to a very major decline in the living standards of the British people, Jeremy Corbyn is, in my opinion, completely wrong to order a 3-line whip on Article 50. He has lost the confidence of a large section of the Labour party membership on this, and will most likely be defeated in a new leadership challenge later in the year.
I can’t see labour having no the appetite for another poll as yet
But Stoke and Copeland may change that, I agree
Richard
There is no centre ground. It’s gone. We must accept this.
Whatever follows will need to be much more to the Left – a Left that truly reflects that we are successful species because our true self is about being with and sharing with others.
Neo-liberalism has just about killed capitalism and what we are left with is akin to a scratched record on a phonograph.
We are now amidst the early beginnings of the last days I think of neo-liberal hegemony.
Man has a short time to live and I was hoping to be around to see the birth of something new. There are green shoots everywhere but no trees yet. Instead therefore I and many others will only see the messy drawn out end of a maleficent credo.
So be it.
As I noted most people are socially to the left
What is lacking is a viable left
Corbyn is an incompetent left. I do believe that with the right economic narrative avian,e left of centre position can be built. But not without it. And that viable narrative remains absent
Jack London “Iron Heel” – won’t live to see it – but will die with fingers crossed – there is something better than what we have.
corbyn is respecting the democratic vote… that is it.. that is the full story. Simple honest democracy being accepted by a politician
Utter nonsense. This is completely wrong. The only viable way to support the vote is to oppose the government who have no plan on how to deliver this the public called for
It’s absurd to say that a government that is doing things that were said would not be done and which has no plan for how to deliver them is in any way supporting a democratic vote that was for something entirely different from what might be delivered
I was a bit unhappy when you jumped ship Richard. I have very reluctantly come around. On Article 50 Jeremy Corbyn had options. He actually did his job in securing the Remain vote.. He headed up something in excess of 130 rallies (more than anyone else) and 70% of Labour voters voted Remain… only 40% of Conservatives did. To then stand on his head wasn’t necessary. If he’d had any constitutional lawyers advising him, surely they’d have told him that on constitutional matters it would be a grave mistake to make it a whipping matter. He knew it would cause resignations and do YET more damage to the PLP but he did it anyway. Who would have finger pointed if he’d allowed his MPs to do their job and decide for themselves?
It’s bizarre. Almost as if he was trying to destroy his party…..
Indeed, given that his party is composed largely of rebel MPs, closet Tories like ‘imaginary wheelchair woman’ Yvette Cooper, he may be taking the opportunity to do just that, with a view to rebuilding it based around genuine lefties.
The problem is Corbyn and McDinnell have already failed the left so badly we might as well have Cooper
And I agree, economically she is not good, to be polite (she hasn’t been about me)
No no no! He did not head up 130 rallies! He attended about ten events only a couple of which had anything to do with the Referendum. The much quoted number came from a media analysis and refers to press mentions only. There is an investigation online which used data from the leaders office which demonstrates his referendum activity was near single figures. I can’t find the original blog but this mirror article links both the media study and details the appearances. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-really-give-122-8617013
Also it was 63% of labour voted remain and 42% of Tory (according to the Ashcroft poll).
Those 130 press mentions weren’t all rallies, I’m afraid. That study was widely misreported. Nevertheless, his thoughtful, respectful position was much better judged than the official campaign, which amounted to, “do what your betters tell you or you’ll be sorry”.
Than God for people with integrity willing to speak the truth. We are walking into the biggest nightmare ever . Contempt for the High Court decision, no guarantees what so ever that we will be securing jobs and investment and easing away from safety and trade deals we have taken for granted. No one voted for what is happening now .. they had no idea of what is unfolding.
And unfortunately many of them still don’t thanks to the hegemony of the Right wing press and the cowardice of the BBC.
The BBC IS the right-wing press:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/sarah-sands-today?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_press_office&ns_linkname=corporate
Maybe
Notice Laura Kuensberg with Trump?
Labour sorted the establishment position in Scotland during the independence referendum. And were wiped out. I think Corbyn should be forgiven for staying a lesson from this.
Does he need a negotiating position to get his amendments through? Don’t they each get voted individually? Sorry for my ignorance here.
Sorry “supported” the establishment…
And
“taking” a lesson.
Thanks. Also glad to see you have come round on Europe. At one point you seemed pretty relaxed about it.
I was allowed to vote for the first time in 1964. My parents, when they voted, seemed to ape the pretensions of the Conservatives, bettering yourself, bigger this, better that. As part of the “swinging sixties” and loving it, Labour seemed to offer a more egalitarian approach, I voted for Harold Wilson and I have voted for Labour ever since.
I marched with CND and I was the first person in my village to fit a solar panel on my roof in the 1970’s. I collected papers with Friends of the Earth. Throughout, I voted for the Labour party.
Yesterday I jumped ship. I joined the LibDems. I support their campaign to offer the British people a second referendum on the terms of Brexit, when they are known, and logically, that we decide that the best terms on offer are not good enough, and we should stay in the EU.
Also, the LibDems are a party that seem to have a willingness to seek out partnership with other like minded parties in order to further sensible objectives. Whilst I do agree with all their ideas, I am concerned to leave this world a better place, and they seem to best fit solution at present.
I have no idea what Corbyn is up to. Personally, I am compelled to believe that he actually wants to see an end to the Labour movement, and in some phoenix-like aftermath, he will rise as the leader of a new socialist party that better fits with his North London radical brothers and sisters ideology.
Ironically, Trump, May, Corbyn, Farrage and their sycophants will be long gone, pushing up the daisies, and it will be left to our descendants to pick up the pieces and repair the damage. I’ve no idea if voting LibDem in the next election will make their job any easier, but as far as I can see, its the best option on the table right now.
PS. Richard, I truly believe that you have nothing to apologise for if your exemplary blog postings contain the odd tpyo… Your continued commitment to seek out the truth of an issue, to stare reality in the face, warts and all, is sorely missing. Long may your gallant efforts continue.
Bob
You confirm the challenge many are facing in this world
Wondering what the right thing to do might be is a task for us all
Good luck, and thanks
Richard
Leaving aside the economic catastrophe of Brexit it is a fundamental change in the balance of power towards Russia and Trump. How ever many platitudes May spouts about international participation she is a nationalist sleepwalker with little leverage for options to govern and history will judge her harshly. As for Corbyn he wants Brexit done and dusted so he and McDonnell can dream up half-baked Bennite protectionist plans that have little relevance in a 21st-century internationalist services economy like the UK.
Corbyn is out of his depth. And we’re all gonna pay the price as a result.
Labour MP’s are not aligned with Corbyn: they have, for tbe most part, grown into the pitics of the ‘safe Labour vote’ whereby thirty percent, or more, or all of their constituency will vote Labout no mater what. Call it the working class vote, if you will. With that certainty to fall back on, the focus of their politics had shifted to the suburban middle classes: the key vote to swinging a national election (and most constituencies).
Fast forward to 2010, and the unwelcome discovery that UKIP are taking votes in Labour Constituencies. The response it to chase the UKIP vote by being just a little bit racist…
… And to make no arguments, whatsoever, for the benefits of immigration and the European Union. Nor to stop taking their core vote for granted.
A handful of Labour MP’s are seeing sense. A few saw sense all along; others do not and will not and many will pursue a course tgat takes their ‘core’ vote for granted while treating their economic interests with visible contempt.
All are terrified of the media: more so than five years ago, when the Party had an ineffective (but coherent and well-run) media team.
It is not yet clear that a majority of Labour MP’s will support EU membership at all, let alone publicly and with their vote.
You will note that I offer no comment on the Labour leadership: there is nothing useful to say about Jeremy Corbyn beyond repeating his published statements. You have done so, and no harsher criticism is necessary or even possible.
Thanks
The problem here is really a Catch 22 situation. Heidi Alexander can not claim that the government has failed to safeguard British interests because before Article 50 is implemented no one has a clue what may or may not be protected. Until that sort of detail does start to emerge and the negative consequences become more explicit, public opinion will not change much and the press (whose malign influence trumps democracy) are unlikely to co-operate in any dawning reality. Thus it is easy to brand straightforward opposition and opposition to the process as undemocratic and such opposition would fail anyway. I assume that Keir Starmer and others support the tactical position not to oppose Article 50 too, so why is all your ire directed solely at Corbyn?
He is the party leader
Maybe you hadn’t noticed?
Well a heated debate. It is clear that there is much division. Many things trouble me
1) The years of EU bashing by the right wing press. “Post Truth”, “Alternative Facts” and “Truthiness”have been employed thee there for decades. Millions gain there very flawed and biased understanding of the EU from these very dubious sources.
2) the banality and dishonesty of the Brexit campaign which on the Brexit side in particular could be described as “‘Dishonesty on an Industrial scale”. Including the £350M per week for the NHS and the fact that Turkey for example would imminently join the EU and swamp us with migrants.
3) The continual insistence many Brexieers that there was no question of leaving the single market and a Norway or Switzerland model was an potential outcome and the subsequent rewriting of history to say that of course people had agreed to this.
4) The use of a very slim margin in an advisory referendum to start a process with almost no chance of succeeding; which will potentially be a disaster. I keep on hoping I am overly pessimistic here; the English ave been a very lucky people.
5) The contempt with which NI and Scotland are being treated. No surprise here. Indeed May is meeting representatives today and I will await events.
6) The abysmal quality of our current tranche of politicians including Corbyn.
If it were not for the collateral damage to other parts of the UK; Northern Ireland in particular but also to the Republic of Ireland – I would be more relaxed. In many respects it would be useful for the English to have a total disaster (which I think is more likely than not). Sadly it will not be the likes of Arron Banks (“Facts are just White Noise”) who will suffer most but many decent hardworking English.
Corbyn has to go. May is also a disaster – obsessed with doing the Home Office job of controlling immigration to the detriment of nearly everything else. She is leaden at the dispatch box. Any half decent leader of the opposition could drive a coach and horses through her arguments.
Corbyn was never remotely interested in staying in the EU and went through the motions during the referendum. To have come out openly in favour of leaving he would have meant he would have to step down as leader, as the party’s position was unequivocally to support the remain campaign. Nothing he did during the campaign or after it (he called for A50 to be triggered on 24 June you may recall) suggests any kind of commitment to honouring Labour’s position, which was endorsed at conference last September. Labour are a pro EU party and believe our best interests are served remaining in it, or by having the closest possible ties to it.
Now, any way Labour go there is difficulty and it would be quite wrong to say that it should be a breeze to oppose the government and set out a clear, coherent position. But another leader, more in tune with party policy and the wishes of the overwhelming majority of MPs, members and supporters, would have adopted a different approach.
It’s a great tragedy, both for the party and for the nation that deserves effective opposition, that we have a leader completely ill equipped to lead us through the demands of brexit.
My first reaction was ‘Bloody well said, Richard.’…and I was going to leave it at that but scrolled down, and then my second reaction was ‘Have people got nothing better to do than mark yuour typing out of ten?!’ (I’ll leave my typo in out of solidarity)…and my third reaxtion (and another) was ‘Some people posting on here are irredeemably thick’.
That this is a trait apparently shared by the ‘team’ at the top of the Labour Party and apparently the Leader himself means we’ve now gone from farce to tragedy (or perhaps in the other direction!) – bereft of logic, political nous, strategic thinking/tactical planning or even simple ‘principle’, for which he at least purported to stand, they will surely now preside over the party’s disintegration and descent into political irrelevance. The irony of course is that this was precisely what Blair et al predicted, but before they say ‘I told you so’ I hope they. or someone, will point out that they feared Corbyn had abandoned the centre ground, whilst sadly in the end he abandoned the Left, and they (we), in turn, him.
Richard, I’m a bit tired of hearing that the referendum can be disregarded and that people like me who voted for Brexit didn’t really mean it. Do you honestly think that people voted to “leave the European Union… but only to the extent Parliament considers prudent”?
I prevaricated because my natural tendency is to be a ‘remainer’. What tipped it in the end was the lies told my the remain side. Naturally you’re entitled to focus on the lies told by Brexiteers, but lets not forget Project Fear. I’ve always assumed that the out vote would have been much more conclusive without this.
What really gets my goat is hearing that I voted for some fantasy solution. The land of milk and cheap echinacea honey for all. I didn’t. It is true that I didn’t vote for Brexit whatever the consequences. No more than anyone voted remain “whatever the consequences”. But the fact is I knew we risked leaving the single market. Still I voted Brexit.
It simply won’t do for commentators to say x% of leave voters have now changed their minds when asked if they would leave at any cost. Precisely the same findings would apply if the question was put to remainers. “Would you still vote remain if it involved your children being put into indentured slavery?” Er, no. And I appreciate the irony of that example given the risks we face with a Theresa May Government, unhindered by EU social democracy [sic]. But still I voted Brexit.
You can consider me a fool, but please don’t imagine that my vote was given carelessly.
Of course your vote can be disregarded. It had no meaning. The law made clear it did not. Don’ blame me for that. Blame Cameron. And if you did not know that blame yourself.
But please do not also say I am disregarding you. I am not for a minute dong so. I am respecting you. I am saying that your vote mattered so much Brexit must be done properly and it’s the duty of the opposition to make sure that is the case when the government is undertaking that task incompetently. I am trying to get what you want. What are you complaining about?
Why not get your facts right instead of whining?
It’s ridiculous to suggest you are respecting me or trying to get what I want. If there’s a spectrum of possible Brexit outcomes, where, honestly, on the spectrum are you? I suspect the most modest form of token-gesturism is your preference. Statements such as “I have called for politicians to join together to oppose Brexit” suggest even less. That’s OK of course. Please just don’t ask me to be grateful. Gratuitous insults also not welcome.
If you want a massive economic car crash then of course I am not supporting you
But I am trying to ensure the government has a sane plan for Brexit
That’s obviously not your wish
The thing you forget from your lofty position is that many people down here will see any failure to implement the referendum’s vote, as a sign of the failure in our democracy. I have heard the anger of those who voted leave, when Gina Miller first brought her case. There are a great many who will consider any action that does not involve leaving the EU, further sign of the corruption of our politics. I do not believe parliament can just merrily ignore what was delivered in the referendum without making significant efforts to reconnect with the population. May be Corbyn makes this realisation. This society has fractured – we can not stay with the status quo nor with the economic ideology we have adhered to so far. I did not vote leave but I understand it. And I also, contemplate that under it’s rules of banning state aid, can we repair the parts of our country which have been destroyed by unemployment and poverty?
Hang on a minute?
Are you really saying we are now bound by error, miscomprehension and incompetence?
Really?
Richard you do Pob a disservice that wasn’t how I read the comment and I’m in a similar position to Pob. Voted Remain but I think I understand the Brexit vote. The error was the referendum and that’s on Cameron and the coward ran away. But there’s a zeitgeist here that’s been created by decades of politicians making promises, asking for trust and failing to deliver.
I don’t like the prospects for leaving but I genuinely fear what could happen if we don’t.
I fear all options
We are in for turbulence as good as that I just suffered on the way back from Vienna
Corbyn’s Labour has backed itself into a corner and, as a result faces losing seats to UKIP in the upcoming by-elections and future general elections. Maybe the suggestions that Corbyn wants to purge the party and then rebuild in his desired image are right but, based on current performance, there seems little reason to believe that such a change will make Labour any more electable. Whereas, as electorally difficult as it might prove, surely it would be a chance worth taking to base Labour’s position on principles rather than tribalism induced incompetence. Yes, it would cost Labour seats but it would also position them rather well when the Brexit shit hits the fan, as it surely will if the current government get away with their assault on the law and democracy itself. And it would make cross-party co-operation of the sort you rightly propose that much easier.
Precisely my point Nick
We live in a country divided equally into 2 camps both with very passionate views with neither able to hear the other’s POV. There is no easy answer to this problem. The man who caused this to happen was Cameron, who didn’t “fall on his sword” he ran away with no doubt a 6 figure job to lessen his humiliation of failing. The cause of the discontent in this country is nothing to do with immigration it is to do with total inequality, the widening of the gap between rich & poor and the infliction of austerity which you Richard, as a good man have been campaigning against for years. I get your daily blog because `i believe you are excellent in your field of knowing how to solve some of our economic problems. That is your fote & I hold you up as an example. On some other matters I have been very upset that people like you have been duped into thinking that attacking Corbyn is a good way forward. He didn’t lose the EU vote, the Tories did. No-one has held them to account for the 42% or 46% of their voters who lost the referendum. The country has spoken. I don’t like the result but then if we just ignore it, we are throwing out any electural democracy. I believe we should turn our attention to May who will do any deal with America, just to make a deal to save her skin. We are saddled with Maximus who are even worse than the hated ATOS. We should be looking at protecting our country from more ifiltration from American multi-nationals. Let’s unite and make sure that May & her cronies can not sell anny more of our publics sector to anyone with enough dollars or pounds to buy it.
No one duped me on Crobyn, bar maybe Corbyn
He wanted me as their main economic adviser
He used my policies to get elected
McDonnell wanted me as a peer
I wasn;’t duped
I walked away when I saw that McDonnell planned to deliver hardcore austerity and as as long as he and Rebecca Long Bailey talk about R ‘;living within out means’ that is what they will deliver
They’re during you. These people are either a) hardcore neoliberals b) ignorant or c) both
I deeply regret them using my ideas
And let’s not pretend anyone will unite around incompetence – because that is all they have to offer
I’ve tried to find quotes from prominent leave campaigners from the few months before the referendum for either retaining single market membership or following the Norway model and I can’t find any.
Various leavers supported the Norway model in the past, but during the referendum campaign, the vote leave campaign rejected the Norway model, with Farage and Boris both stating they were against the Norway model, even though they had previously spoken positively about it. Early on Boris switched from the Norway model to the Canada model. A few weeks before the referendum Farage was quoted as saying:
“The people of Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are happy — but I don’t want a Norwegian deal or an or Icelandic one.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/679499/Brexit-Norway-EEA-EU-European-Union-referendum-YouGov
There was a lot of talk of the Norway model in the press but I can’t find any quotes from actual prominent leavers in the referendum build-up saying they want the Norway model. I think some of the confusion arises because in the past Farage and others praised Norway without actually saying he wants to copy them.
I think a lot of confusion is because leave campaigners talked a lot about single market access, which is a meaningless term as virtually every country on earth has access to it, and May has said she wants to get ‘the best possible access’. No one really talked about membership. It’s unfortunate that the distinction wasn’t clearly made before the referendum so that leave campaigners could have been explicit about membership, rather than using the meaningless phrase of access. It means that now any leaver who spoke strongly about single market access, whether they meant membership or not, can now say they never spoke about membership. Unless they specifically used the word “membership” then they can’t be relied upon as a source for leavers supporting membership.
Open Britain made a video supposedly of leavers supporting retaining membership or following the Norway model but Andrew Neil pointed out how they were taken out of context and virtually all from a long time ago:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/watch-james-mcgrorys-car-crash-interview-sunday-politics/
If anyone can give a link to quotes from prominent leave campaigners in the months prior to the referendum (not from before) for either single market membership (not ‘access’) or support for the Norway model, I would be grateful.
I had thought it might be a good way to gain support for retaining membership to use such quotes, but as I could not find any I now wonder if perhaps it would be better to point out that as the leave campaign promised the NHS £350m a week, Turkey joining the EU, and leaving the single market that as their case was built on lies then this invalidates their whole case, including the part about leaving the single market, as well as pointing out, as Richard has done, that whatever was said, the only two relevant mandates the government have are the manifesto (which spoke out keeping us in the single market) and the referendum ballot question (which made no mention of the single market and hence gives no mandate for the single market either way).
Hopefully Wes Streeting’s tabled amendment on giving MPs a vote on single market membership will get added and debated, and if it gets passed, it will be interesting to see how many MPs are prepared to support it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-labour-mps-force-vote-single-market-parliament-article-50-theresa-may-wes-streeting-chuka-a7553091.html
I also hope Chuka Umunna goes through with his proposal for an amendment guaranteeing the NHS an extra £350m a week.
It was every where
No one talked hard Brexit
It was all the deals we would do
Are you part of post fact revisionism?
My comment was about trying to find facts and yet you are asking if I am part of post fact revisionism. I said I could not find any quotes from the months leading up the referendum from prominent leavers saying they backed retaining single market membership or following the Norway model. You tell me it was everywhere, and yet you do not provide any such quotes. If it really was everywhere then perhaps you could provide a link to such quotes. Not jut talk of the Norway model, but leavers saying they want to adopt the Norway model. Not just talk of single market access but leavers saying they want to retain membership.
I did not say that these quotes do not exist, only that I could not find them. I hope that they do exist. I hope that you are right and such talk was everywhere and I have just not been very good at trawling through Google results for the months before the referendum looking for key words. I agree with you in that I would prefer to stay in the EU, and if we do leave I agree with you that it would be best to retain single market membership. That is why I was looking for such quotes. But they have to be specific, otherwise they are of no use. Speaking in general terms about it was everywhere and everyone said it isn’t helpful — the quotes need to be specific, from prominent Brexiters, in the buildup to the referendum, otherwise they can easily be dismissed by the Brexiters. I would be very happy if you could show me such quotes.
Respectfully, I lived through last year
I observed what was said, acutely
I know what was said
Please don’t waste my time
Just go and watch the Brexit debates
I agree with you now Richard on J Corbyn. He has to go. But the majority of Labour constituencies are Leave. The majority of those it needs to win to form a government are for Leave. Sub 20% of the electorate cannot form a government. The rump is not enough.
Piling up votes in the centre of cities doesn’t help much – particularly when Scotland and Northern Ireland are lost causes.
At constituency level 75% of Labour constituencies voted out. That’s where the majority is and where Labour needs to appeal. They currently don’t under Corbyn.
Plus Labour if they win will probably protect the interests of workers by increasing the minimum wage to £10 an hour for those that have jobs, and will throw the rest under a bus. All because they have an allergic reaction to the term ‘visa’.
Trust me
Things change
Oppositions can only work on that basis
Richard
Firstly – I take everything you say about this country with a pinch of salt because clearly your first allegiance is to Ireland and Ireland is put in an unsure position by Brexit and I expect that is what you are primarily acting for.
Secondly – the biggest lies were on the Remain side (or lack of info – few of them even knew)- that the Trade Commission is the heavyweight part of the EU to which all else defers, and this did not emerge at all. So Remainers certainly didn’t know what THEY were voting to stick with.
Thirdly – as imperfect as the voting process, mechanism and definitions were – that’s how people voted. There are a lot of foundations being shaken at the moment – do you really think that overturning that vote would just be accepted?
Now – let’s pursue a unity government, forcing transparency and anyone in that set- up to act responsibly, intelligently and positively – or get out. This is how we have more chance of a people’s Brexit instead of a financial services Brexit – and it’s urgent.
Re Corbyn – you must have seen through him for the last however many years he’s been around…? Being part of a unity government would make or break him.
Your presumptions are wrong, as usual
We must understand standard parliamentary process, and in this case, some blogs are saying that Corbyn is being very clever.
A bill is voted on several times at various stages of it’s development before a final vote in parliament.
You can vote for a bill at every stage and vote against the last reading.
Th last vote decides if a bill becomes law, not the votes at the earlier stages.
Votes at previous stages only have consequence on amendments and changes to it as it progresses, so these initial votes only really matter to the contents of the bill and not the final decision as to it becoming law or not.
What many people don’t realise, is that voting against a bill at the early stages, means that you rule yourself out of the process of tabling amendments, allowing the Tories to dicate all the terms of the deal.
This is of course OK if the bill is dreadful and you don’t think there’s any way you can make it better under any circumstances. Then you may as well do this.
In the context of the fact that 52% of the country voted to leave the EU, it would appear massively undemocratic for labour to vote themselves out of the process at this stage.
If Labour try to kill this bill now, it not only sends a message to the 52%, but it allows the Daily Mail to write some interesting headlines about Corbyn being an unprincipled.
It is clever to allow the bill to progress to its final vote offering amendments and shaping it.
I have a very keen awareness of the parliamentary process
Corbyn says he’ll vote yes at the end come what may
That[s where he will whip
That is why he is an idiot
Idiots are not clever
And it is clever to vote against now: this is going horribly wrong. Labour needs to build a platform for saying ‘we told you so’
Such a basic strategy is beyond them
Don’t make a fool of yourself defending the indefensible, please
My word Richard.
Your Corbyn bashing blogs do seem to have a life all of their own!!
I’m reading Streeck’s book now and cannot see Corbyn’s Labour being at the vanguard of the sort of movement that Streeck says might well get us out of our current mess.
What about the left wing case for Brexit?
The EU is a neoliberal organisation. It is a organisation which allows Germany to achieve by economic means that it was not able to do by war. What do you think of the treatment of Greece by the ECB (aka the Blundesbank)?
You are a man of little brain.
There is no left wing case for Brexit
There is a case for a reformed EU
The EU like all modern economic and financial entities is of course influenced by neo-liberalism. But I do not feel that it is neo-liberal per se. It is a complicated mix of liberal and statist tendencies that sometimes tend to feel as though they work against each other.
This is because of the democracy within the EU system that can work to throw some balance in.
Your comment about Germany is fanciful however. Germany ‘hegemony’ in the EU is because it is not as neo-liberal as the other states in the zone. Rather than increased financialisation (the neo-lib mantra) Germany has maintained a strong manufacturing base and a less debt driven economy because of decent wage settlements because of strong unions. Germany is strong because it is not pre-dominantly neo-liberal. For how long this remains the case remains to be seen.
But look at the UK and even more look at London. If Germany is the engine of real money through making things, London is the engine of ‘funny money’ in the zone. And again with that there are pluses and minuses. London is still seen as more potent than even Frankfurt.
And what do you have to say about solidly neo-liberal USA – whose lax management of its financial institutions created the 2008 crash? The EU zone was pootling along quite nicely until then.
And when people line up to have a go at the EU saying that the current staid economy is the EU’s fault, they are/you are basically ignoring American hegemony that enabled it in the first place.
There was no mechanism to reform the EU. All moves, including the Lisbon Treaty, ECJ decisions concerning labour, the current internal EU ‘Better Regulation (ie deregulation)and the EU’s international trade agenda have been taking the EU further and further in the direction of an institution primarily serving transnational corporations – with no mechanisms to enact the ‘social Europe’ myth.
So let’s not get starry eyed about the EU now.
If anything, it will be Brexit that will encourage some change of direction for those left in the EU. But without that definitive move there was nothing to change its direction. As always, including in this country, the EU agenda is that of the elites.
Of course there can be a mechanism for reform
But not if you don’t seek it
So what is it?
And whose version of reform?
Currently the EU is calling the ‘Better Regulation’agenda, which came from Cameron so from the City, ‘reform’.
There was no way the EU was going to change its neoliberal direction – and the other stuff has no mechanisms.
It’s you who is grabbing at ‘pie-in-the-sky’.
If you want to think so
Linda
Although I agree that neo-liberalism has infected the EU (Wolfgang Streeck in his latest book highlights the mobility of labour in the EU zone as a neo-liberal phenomenon) I am not sure how much our MEPs have had a go at changing the institutions that manage the treaty from the inside.
An abiding question for me up to and after BREXIT has been over just what UK MEPs have been up to all these years whilst representing us there? Have they used their time well?
I fear not. I have always had the impression that UK MEPs and the UK in general always wanted the benefits of being a member of the EU but never really wanted to do much else to be honest.
The UK’s conduct always seemed as though we went along to get along so to speak. So in other words we might not have been really convinced but if it was good for business – why not? All I ever remember about Britain and the EU is that we were always falling out with them about something.
However, this lack of engagement by England and a focus on outcomes rather than process, meant that I don’t think we ever really put forward any mechanisms for improving the EU in general (I think we tried and succeeded in making changes however when it benefitted us).
This lack of engagement with process, our lukewarm commitment and a feral anti-EU press plus a flawed political system has meant that endogenous change mechanisms within the EU have been under developed in my view because of our half heartedness.
Some good work could have been done here by UK MEPs. But it wasn’t. If the EU is still not functioning properly the member states and us in England have to take responsibility for this. To not accept this, means that one is saying that the EU is a State when in fact it is not; it means that you are one of those who believes in ‘taking back control’ when in fact we always had control – but we just too bloody lazy to use it properly. The EU is a treaty framework and what goes forth is agreed by the members.
We all could have made the EU better – but we couldn’t be arsed even here in merrie olde England to try.
I have to say though that BREXIT as a change mechanism is in my view too high a price to pay for change – far too high and very,very dangerous particularly since we have still not recovered from the 2008 crash.
So, when we walk ourselves (our people and our economy) voluntarily off the gang plank of the EU vessel in which we have harboured safely since the end of WWII we will be in treacherous waters and the sharks will pick us off one by one.
It’s a nasty way to go Linda and cannot be justified in any shape or form.
Agreed
Yes, well said PSR; you’ve summed up Britain’s self-serving and small minded approach to the EU very well. And in particular, the stupid Leave campaign lie that by leaving it we’ll be gaining a greater degree of control over Britain, and that we had little influence over the EU.
In fact, the truth is the complete opposite. We will, almost certainly, crash out of the EU without no access to the single market, and so be casting frantically around for all those wonderful free trade treaties the Europhobes bang on about.
But of course, as our grovelling to Trump shows, these will just consist of selling this countries people and assets off in a frantic rush to compensate for the loss in trade with the EU.
How, Linda, is that an improvement on being in the EU? The illusions of some left wingers like Linda over this are as bad as the bombastic, nationalistic delusions of the foaming at the mouth right.
I don’t see any awareness in this discussion that:
– the UK has been the most neoliberal force in the EU – recognised across the EU but not here in mushroom land
– that the position the UK takes in the EU Council is the government’s , which comes from transnational financial services – ie City of London, and is quite separate to ‘us’ and what we want
– that there is no EU ‘democracy’when people neither know who their MEPs are nor how they vote
– that the power of the European Parliament is stymied at every turn by the Commission, where the real power lies, hand-in-glove with transnational business.
Surely you should inform yourselves before commenting?
Leaving gives us an opportunity to go for something really different. But with the evil force here in our midst, it was never going to deliver it on a plate or without an intense (and informed?) fight. The City wanted to stay in the EU, but had also been formulating its fall-back position for a long time – it was there in the newsletters of the CEO of TheCityUK – ready to swing into action while too many people were acting like stunned mullets, ‘waiting to see’ or, worse, trying to go into reverse.
The most counterproductive element at this stage is the cohort of losers who are crying for another referendum and doing everything to be able to say ‘we told you so’ – deliberately inherently destructive. At least Corbyn is going in the direction despite his inadequacy.
Who is the City paying off to do this work? They’ve certainly got the money.
What – ? you are serving transnational financial services for free…?
If you do want to see what MEPs do, look to the upcoming CETA vote on 15th Feb.
The Tories group, the ECR, will vote for CETA, as will the biggest group, the conservative EPP, and the Lib Dems group – ALDI. The Greens, the Left (GUE) will vote against, as will most of the non-inscribed and the broadly nationalist group to which UKIP MEPs belong. The second biggest group is the Socialist and Democrat group to which Labour MEPs belong. At this stage they are undecided/split. Certainly the dirty Scottish MEP David Martin who is on the international trade committee will vote for CETA and probably Seb Dance from London. The S&D vote will decide CETA. I suggest if you think the European Parliament is a force, that you write to your MEPs, especially Labour Party MEPs and see how they respond to you and then how they vote. Yes if you have such faith – engage – this is the mechanism you are speaking up for (and the only bit you can affect) after all.
To be honest I think most people commenting in depth here know all your predicate facts and presume they do not need to restate them all the time
And can I second or even third psr’s response. It has always baffled me how people see our fellow (for the time being) European countries as beng some dark neo-liberal conspiracy. Compared to the UK, they have for example, been much less keen to flog off public services and infrastructure, more advanced in terms of regulation on say jobs and environment. It is the UK that has blocked attempts to tighten up on bank regulation and tax avoidance. That is not in any way to deny the negative impacts on Greece (though that cannot be entirely laid at the EUs feet). No it’s far from perfect and I for one would want to be in there trying to change it.
It may even be easier for the EU to move on now that its most neo-liberal member is leaving. And leaving to throw in its lot with the worst bunch of neo-liberals we’ve ever seen. How a vote for that can be anything other than an extra-ordinary step back from progressive policies that might temper or even reverse the worst excesses of neoo-liberalism beats me
I’m old enough to remember when elements of the left really would have preferred the UK to join the Comecon countries, under the delightful hegemony of the Soviet Union. I suspect that the Corbyns and Milnes of this world still hanker after those days. I’m afraid that I see those on the further left left who voted for Brexit as being as warped ideologically as those on the far right, though their rationales may differ. It’s no coincidence that both groups tend towards authoritarianism, under which they can impose their ideologies
Transparency. I voted leave. I don’t assume we (the nation, the electorate)will now gain greater control over Britain. However, our politicians will no longer be able to blame the EU for our ills. They will be held directly to account. If we do indeed sell the NHS supply chain to US private equity, or pay the German state to run our railways, or continue to pay starvation wages for critical jobs then we will know who to string up from the nearest lamp post. It will no longer be “Brussels’s” fault. It will be Parliament’s. The real champions and the real costs of the neo-liberal agenda will be plain(er) for all to see.
There may be a near-term economic cost, but what price do you put on democracy? You tell me.
Wow
You think screwing the economy was worth it for that?
When we knew it was always down to us?
Jeeee…..
“The first is support us leaving the single market: no one said the vote meant that.”
Cameron, Osborne, the Remain Campaign, the Leave campaigns all said exactly that. It was used as an example of the economic harm leaving would entail.
Trying to rewrite history with the internet holding a record is not a good idea.
This was not said
Respectfully, no one knew that was intended until May confirmed it
What Remoan said is irrelevant : only Leave mattered
So please do stop the lying.
Explain this then. Cameron said it 28 times in one of the debates in the run up.
https://youtu.be/zNnh-KhiLm0
He was right to do so
Here’s the Leave side saying it too
https://youtu.be/twGArSBBkYU
Sure
But the overall message was we could negotiate
The reality is we can’t
Now stop wasting my time
Trials for GM wheat have just been approved
This is the sort of thing that is going through (the UK was always a main push for GM in the EU context) behind the silly arguments for ‘let’s go backwards’
Let’s start to focus on what matters going forward in this country – climate change, food, health, education, housing, land – who controls it and what its used for, well-being here and a decent development policy for others, and get these prioritised across policy-making. Grow up.
“You think screwing the economy was worth it for that?”
Time will tell whether leaving the common market screws the economy. Here on the ground it feels pretty screwed anyway so I was prepared to take the chance. Anyway, I’ll take a slowdown in GDP or even a reversal if per capita real incomes at the bottom end increase. But no one claims it will happen by magic despite what Ken Clarke so amusingly claims.
If you think the gains will be at the bottom under this government you really are due at that tea party