Rather bizarrely, it appears that Labour pay has found a workable Brexit proposition to put to voters, more by default than by judgement.
With the Tories and Brexit Party both, very obviously, seeking hard Brexit, and with the LibDems seeking to withdraw Article 50, and remain come what may, Labour's position has, by default, been differentiated from that of its competition in England and Wales.
The Labour stance is to get elected (the first obstacle), negotiate a new deal that keeps us in the customs union with full access to the single market (the second obstacle) and to then puts this to the people of the country in a referendum which provides a choice between this new deal and remain, which Labour will campaign for, with Labour then delivering the chosen alternative (the third obstacle).
The merit of the plan is no one else has it.
The down side is that it is hard to sell because it is difficult to believe that negotiations will go well when Labour says it will campaign for Remain in any event.
And with the Labour leader saying he won't provide leadership on the issue, but will follow the chosen will of the people, Labour still looks rudderless.
But at least it's a plan that can be summarised and explained.
And it has the merit that no one else has it.
And, rather surprisingly, it is the middle ground.
Those are words I did not expect to write.
And that's
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:
Guess I’m, at present, ambivalent about this On the one hand, it could be thought to show a lack of leadership, or commitment to work for the perceived good of the many. On the other it is a clear position, giving the public what it is said they want – that the result of their vote in a referendum is honoured. I suppose another question should be will Corbyn, if Labour get into power, have the ability to take Parliament with him, and deliver. If the result of the next referendum is declared, in advance, to be legally binding, does this somehow avoid any battle in the Commons?
The 2016 referendum result has been interpreted (due to its faulty wording) as a direction to Parliament and the government to leave the EU. But in reality it directed Parliament and the government to initiate the process of leaving the EU (i.e., by invoking Article 50), which Parliament and subsequent governments have duly done. Even some of the most ardent Brexiteers now accept that Brexit is a process, not a destination.
If a new government reaches a revised agreement with the EU enabling legislation will be drafted. However, before this is put to Parlliament it should be put to the people with remain (the status quo) as the alternative. If a majority of voters agree to leave on the revised terms then Parliament will be obliged to enact the enabling legislation with minimum amendment. That is how referendums are conducted in countries with less archaic constitutional arrangements.
Indeed. As I’ve noted previously, slowly and painfully, Labour has arrived at this new position that is feasible, sensible and democratic – I’ve labelled it the Corbyn Doctrine.
Every one within the Labour movement and everyone outside who shares broadly similar aims needs to get behind this position to expand and develop it to enhance its credibility and eventual effectiveness in implementation and to secure traction among the public.
The obstacles may be overcome. But what is needed is a clear vision of what remaining in the EU will mean for the UK. It is not enough to say that all remainers are in favour of reforming the EU. What reforms are envisaged or required? That is the real challenge.
The brief of the ECB
That’s the start
And then the CAP
And to create a common tax policy
That should keep things going for a bit
I don’t disagree with your initial list. But these are primarily aspirations.
Fleshing out the newly found Corbyn Doctrine will require, in addition to a revised Withdrawal Agreement, two political declarations: the first will accompany the revised WA setting out the future relationship in the event that a majoirty of voters accept the revised WA; and the second setting out the programme of institutional and policy reform that will define the UK’s relationship in the event that a majority of voters opt for remain. A continuation of the status quo is not an option. There will have to be institutional and policy changes at the EU level if there is any hope of securing even the miminum of democratic acceptance from those who voted to leave.
Spot On! That those of us who grapple with the two parts this real issue (i, what ‘reforms’/changes the EU needs, and ii, the domestic objectives of the Corbyn-project) need to consult and use the likes of TaxResearch.org.uk, OpenDemocracy, PRIME and New Economics Forum, etc., to do so and that the ‘MSM’ is hardly involved speaks volumes
Thus we need to create and sustain the New Left Media on the web.
We keep trying…..
“Labour has arrived at this new position that is feasible, sensible and democratic — I’ve labelled it the Corbyn Doctrine.”
I find it to be none of those things and I’m a little astonished that someone could come to such a conclusion. The fact that it is named after Corbyn perhaps is the only logical thing in their whole muddled position.
Feasible – there’s no time. We know that Corbyn will go to the EU and make certain demands for staying in a (not ‘the’) customs union and single market such as the rules on state aid. It won’t wash, the EU will get annoyed, we’ll be back at square 1.
Sensible – for Labour to negotiate a withdrawal deal and then say they will campaign against it in a second Ref is laughable (except Jeremy who says he will stay neutral because he can’t abide to admit to his Momentum sycophants that he is a closet Brexiteer).
Democratic – Apart from the ‘big red bus nhs’ lie the one Leave slogan I remember distinctly is Take Back Control. Being in a (or the) SM/CU is the opposite. We are rule takers – one of the few things I agree with Leavers on. It’s a position that pleases no one – it will not satisfy Leavers, and Remainers think that any form of Brexit, any form at all, is moronic.
Labour’s position all along should have been accept May’s Deal subject to a confirmatory vote. Once this was agreed (including a 2nd Ref Date, fight and fight for changes to the political declaration, watch the Tories crumble under the pressure of the ERG vs May and her cabinet, then win a ‘No Confidence’ vote and try and win a general election.
Labour’s current stance – be it deliberate or arrived at by accident – is nonsense.
@stemfr
I can’t agree that the Labour position is laughable. What is wrong with trying to negotiate a deal that is the “least worst” option for leaving the EU economically but then recommending that people actually vote to remain? This is providing leadership (what they believe is best) but also giving people the option to disagree via a referendum.
Also, it is much better than the Conservative position, which is to project onto the referendum result their own belief in the hardest rupture with Europe possible. Something that was never promoted by the LEAVE side during the campaign.
stemfr says:
” one Leave slogan I remember distinctly is Take Back Control. Being in a (or the) SM/CU is the opposite. We are rule takers — one of the few things I agree with Leavers on.”
I think that is nonsense, frankly. As members we were/are/could be ‘at the table’ making the rules. Outside the EU we will be subject to EU rules without any voice (unless we are to be totally isolated and trade elsewhere. Erm… where ?) Or we will be subject to US rules which I don’t think we’ll like much and will have no influence on at all.
Taking back control is a fantasy demand. It hadn’t gone anywhere. Being a ‘rule taker’ is a ‘fantasy project fear’ slogan aka bollox.
I try not to abuse people on online forums social media etc, but I really do think that people who believe this Brexit propaganda are probably stupid. (I regularly have to bite my tongue, or whatever is the the keyboard equivalent). They are missing that the problem we have with the EU is down to the blame culture of our own governments who have pretended ‘it’ is all somebody else’s fault.
The Brexit referendum result in the first place was a misplaced kick at the Tory government and six years of pointless and counter productive austerity. On top of a very disappointing previous Labour regime. (Not all of the 17.4 million, obviously, but enough to swing the result from sense to insanity).
There are enormous areas of my life where I have no control. Think about what is regulated. The vast majority of that regulation net improves my well being. And candidly, I’m happy for someone else to decide if drugs are safe, or not. I don’t know. I don’t know how to know. And I want someone else to have control. The EU is the tiniest part of this.
I’m clearly thinking at a nuance that I’m either not articulating very well or people are just not grasping. I’m willing to accept it’s a bit of both.
1) I’m a Remainer. I’ve even been called a Remoaner.
2) I’m well aware that as EU members we help make the rules.
3) Being outside of the EU but in their CU/SM will make us a taker of EU rules.
4) Being outside of the EU but not in their CU/SM means we can negotiate rules…, but…
5) We are in a weak negotiating position and therefore we’ll end up being rule takers anyway whether it is from the EU, US, Japan, wherever.
I’m aware of all of that, and that we take rules all of the time, I’m commenting on the lack of logic in Labour’s position. It is clearly between Lib Dem and Tory but that doesn’t make it any good or any clearer. I don’t see how it can be sold.
They are going to go to people’s doorsteps and say: “Oh you’re Remain. Well, we are going to waste a bit of time negotiating a deal when the country is crying out for this to be settled; but never mind, you’ll get a choice between that and Remain – wink – and we’ll be on your side. Except Jeremy; not sure about him. Vote for us!”. Or: “Oh, you’re Leave. Well we are going to negotiate a deal that takes back control as you wanted, except it doesn’t really. Moving on; that deal will be put to a referendum against Remain, and you might win! Best of luck. Vote for us!”. Or: “Oh, you’re undecided. You should meet our leader, he doesn’t know his A from his E either. Vote for us!”.
As Alan Johnson said on World at One earlier “you’d have to have a very large foot in the door to keep people on the doorstep long enough to explain it”. Now he wasn’t very good at being the Labour Remain campaign organiser, but it doesn’t make him wrong. Labour’s position is untenable. It’s nonsense. And Mr Crow, forgiving yourself as someone who doesn’t abuse people online and then implying they are stupid isn’t cool. We are more or less on the same side here.
I entirely agree: it has a logic to it (stress on ‘a’) but as a doorstep sell it’s not good to a nation fed up with Brexit
And a leader without an opinion?
That does not sell at all
@stemfr
“And Mr Crow, forgiving yourself as someone who doesn’t abuse people online and then implying they are stupid isn’t cool. We are more or less on the same side here.”
The hat doesn’t fit you. So don’t wear it.
You points 3,4 and 5 argue for a mish-mash compromise being a poor compromise.
When people refer to me as a ‘remoaner’ it tells me something about where they are coming from and leads me to believe I know what sort of people they are. Not everybody has the same reasons for wanting Brexit, but I do think they are all likely to condemn all of us to a lot of pain for a petty gain and in some cases the gain will be illusory or maybe some token like the blue passport nonsense.
In the same way I hear ‘take back control’ as a dog whistle, along with ‘Will of the people’. These are the vacuous, but emotionally charged phrases that have dominated this poisonous and intemperate debate for more than three years. They haven’t come into our language by chance they have been carefully placed by the propagandists of Brexit to bamboozle the gullible economic cannon fodder. We’re getting ‘traitor’ and ‘treachery’ creeping into the Fb comments. Aswell as the WW2 redolent imagery. MSM peddles this stuff unconsciously for the most part.
I agree we seem to be largely singing from the same hymn sheet. Next time someone does think I’m cool will probably be a first 🙂
Granted I missed some of the nuance you were conveying in your contribution. For which I apologise. But I didn’t say YOU were stupid…now did I ? 🙂
The problem is that we are now in thrall to two extreme positions, the Brexit ultras — the Brexists — and the Remain ultras — the Remainists. Both sides seek to repudiate the other and both sides seek to dehumanise the other. By saying that “the people” voted to leave, Brexists are saying that those who voted remain are no longer part of the people. No doubt, the no-deal Brexists will take this characterisation to an even greater extreme, especially if the Supreme Court ruling goes against the Government. Those Remainists demanding revocation without a further referendum, such as Jo Swinson, are saying that the people who voted leave no longer count as people. Even those demanding a “People’s Vote” are implicitly saying that the people who voted leave in 2016 are no longer people. Each side — Remainist and Brexist — effectively create an excluded other, not fit to be citizens or part of the polity, and both of these extreme positions might well lead us into civil war.
In this context, leadership is not about taking up one of these extreme positions and moving it forward. It is not about becoming yet another Remainist. This stance will only entrench the polarised positions even further. Your description of the Labour position set out by Jeremy Corbyn as “rudderless” suggests drift whereas in fact he is seeking to steer a middle course, as you also say. He has to hold steady against the Scylla of the Johnson regime and the Charybdis of Swinson’s cynical political manoeuvring.
We seem to be at that moment of stasis, of civil strife or civil war, so well described by Thucydides in his history of the Peloponnesian War in the section on the city of Corcyra. Stasis is an internal conflict that is completely self-destructive, where all collective and individual action is driven to extremism. It is the moment of the immanent collapse of the universal where laws and customs are traduced and overthrown. Institutions remain in place but their function and meaning is utterly perverted and, through this perversion, destroyed. When stasis becomes a fact of political life people will go to ever greater extremes in inventing clever forms of attack and outlandish counterattacks. All values become inverted: “Men assumed the right to reverse the usual values in the application of words to actions. Reckless audacity came to be thought of as comradely courage, while far-sighted hesitation became well-disguised cowardice; moderation was a front for unmanliness; and to understand everything was to accomplish nothing. Wild aggression was a mark of manhood, while careful planning for one’s future security was a glib excuse for evasion. The troublemaker was always to be trusted, the one who opposed him was to be suspected. The man who devised a successful plot was intelligent, the one who detected it still cleverer; but the man who thought ahead to try to find some different option was a threat…the way to be praised was to be the first in planning an outrage and the cheerleader for others who had never considered it.”
I’m not saying that Corbyn has read the relevant passage on stasis (Book III, Chapters 82-86), but I’ve yet to find a better or more succinct description of our current impasse and the middle course he is trying to steer than the one written by Thucydides almost 2500 years ago. One must hope that we don’t descend into savagery the way Corcyra did.
Labou’s strategy does not seem a vote winner. Vote Labour and you have no idea what you are eventually voting for. See Britain Elects (http://britainelects.com/polling/westminster/). Conservatives 33% Labour 25% LibDem 19% Brexit 13% Green 4%. I expect Labour policy this weekend will be decided by Len McCluskey, who after all has 1 million votes, compared to only 500,000 for the members
I don’t find Britain Elects weighing average very useful right now – the ground has moved to quickly.
The Labour position has been improving vis-a-vis the Tories – though marginally – since start of September; if you look polster by polster, e.g. ComRes
Date Con Lab LD Brex
12 Sep 19 28 27 20 13
08 Sep 19 30 29 17 13
06 Sep 19 31 27 20 13
YouGov
Date Con Lab LD Brex
10 Sep 19 32 23 19 14
06 Sep 19 35 21 19 12
29 Aug 19 33 22 21 12
I am not sure they are much use at all right now though (and they did not get it so right last time). Things are too fluid and the relationship between what was once the Conservative party and Nigel’s lovely gang is going to be crucial.
(Rory or Phil standing in Henley and/or Labour standing aside in East Dumbartonshire may also have some impact 🙂 )
“More by default than by judgement.” It doesn’t matter how genius happens, just that it does.
This policy protects Labour’s electability and therefore its rediscovered moderate democratic socialism, reconciles division and, most importantly, allows Labour’s sensible strategy to move the discussion on. Like the hero in a 1940s British film featuring maniacal people (well, a hysterical woman), Labour is gently slapping the face of brexit-obsessed hysterics to restore calm so we can properly address the real issue, unnecessary austerity and the harm it has inflicted on our people, government and economy – including some of the 17m votes erroneously given to leave in the mistaken belief it made tories and their malevolent malice magically disappear.
This gives me a flashback to the 2015 Conservative Manifesto which said:
Real change in our relationship
with the European Union
Our commitment to you:
For too long, your voice has been ignored on Europe. We will:
give you a say over whether we should stay in or leave the EU, with an in-out referendum
by the end of 2017
commit to keeping the pound and staying out of the Eurozone
reform the workings of the EU, which is too big, too bossy and too bureaucratic
reclaim power from Brussels on your behalf and safeguard British interests in the Single
Market
Not much has changed from that to what Labour are now offering.
The translation of the Conservative option there into a Norway option is possible and looks better than the current iteration of the Labour Party which looks more like offering a choice again between staying in the Customs Union, and staying in the whole shebang. Four wasted years.
It is interesting to note that, in light of the above, all four wasted years have been in the hands of Conservative governments.
Discussion on and around Labour’s position serves to distract from that point.
Until recently, the Conservatives had the parliamentary majority to oversee and execute a Brexit process.
Until we have a general election campaign, perhaps the only question that needs to be answered concerns the lack of success of recent Tory administrations to carry out the “mandate” of the referendum.
I would assert with confidence that they would then have no hiding place.
You almost make drifting mastless and rudderless in a vacant sea, just as the weather is about to turn much for the worse – appear plausible seamanship. It isn’t.
I doubt if the people of England really wish to be in the EU, or will ever be more than reluctant and potentially disruptive members. I think it a tragedy because, as Mr Hunt argued in another thread, Britain could have exercised the role of a major nation representing the ‘peripheries’ against over-centralising tendencies within the EU, for which it was uniquely equipped; but I suspect that opportunity is lost. There it is.
Very well; the EU, however flawed is still the vital Union for Europe, and for peripheral states within it; and ‘a fortiori’ for Scotland, now obliged to recognise an unrecognisable and transmutating UK that is throwing off all restraint and revealing itself as an unapologetic, piratical Little England.
@John D Warren
The result in England was 47% remain /53% leave (OK I’ve rounded that so it looks a bit better). So not a resounding victory for leave, even given the various lies that were told.
Opinion polls now consistently show (over the whole UK) a majority both for remaining in the EU and thinking that the original vote was wrong – I would therefore suspect that the above has moved to a more 50/50 proposition. This could be changed further over time by more positive engagement with Europe by government.
Our politicians may have annoyed the EU beyond measure by their infantile behaviour but don’t give up on the whole English nation!
I am quite happy to take your point, but here is my problem. Even if public opinion has shifted to a pro-Remain majority, I suspect it is nevertheless a narrow majority (unlike Scotland). The problem with the continuing divisions, and the ferocity of the Leave ideology is that it is revealing of the underlying nature of Britain’s detachment from and indifference to the EU, and this has real consequences that cannot be fudged forever. Our detachment from the EU has a long history and it has left a discernibly truculent trail in its wake. It provides an unavoidable and permanent reminder that Britain has never been a sincere member of the EU (I had an extensive discussion with Mr Hunt on another thread that touched on this issue). The problem is deeper and more enduring than Brexit.
It seems to me clear that Government tactics (or is it ‘strategy’?) is not actually directed at the EU at all, even when it is “negotiating” with the EU (the empty podium is therefore heavy with symbolic meaning): the Government’s permanent and sole negotiating target throughout is the British electorate (and Dominic Cummings’ strength is shaping perceptions and exploiting well understood prejudices in mass campaigns). Nobody else matters.
We cannot go on like this forever. The cost of Brexit, however is quite possibly the British Union itself. So be it.
@John,
Nothing much to disagree with there. Depending on what happens I may eventually head North of Hadrian’s Wall to escape the insular nation that England seems to have become!
Oh Jeremy Corbyn not sure I want to vote for you. It’s not your a Marxist deep inside, it’s the fact you can’t decide what it is your really gonna do.
Hard sell as you point out. Not sure that non position is rallying Labour support here in darkest Brexit Central.
Labour spent some weeks trying to get a joint approach with Mrs May’s team and it failed.
Many or most of the Brexiteers would reject a customs union/single market deal. Probably enough to undermine the credibility of the referendum. It gos back to their failure to present a common agreed objective.
I think this from Ian Dunt, decidedly worthy of note:
“By staying neutral, Corbyn also gets himself out of the bizarre problem of having to negotiate a deal and then campaign against it.”
Yes….
if we did end up having a referendum on BINO or Remain I think you could sweeten the pill for Remain if you added some caveat that no further major treaties would be signed without the voters approval.
it would have been sensible to ask the British public how they felt about TTIP, but no, we had Cameron saying he wanted to ‘put rocket boosters up it’ and asking ‘where do I sign?’
it’s stuff like this that added to the sense of alienation, not so much that we had no control over the EU, but that we had no control over how Westminster would leap at the chance to sign up for things we didn’t fancy but block stuff that seemed pretty sensible,
Richard, there have been financial and taxation reforms proposed by the EU that you would have approved of but our government of the day blocked or watered down?
There have been many such proposals
The common consolidated corporate tax base and public country-by-country reporting for starters
I wish the Labour party well and the British people too.
But two things spring to my BREXIT addled mind:
1) Corbyn’s ‘let the people decide’ mantra is only going to weaken the idea of parliamentary representative democracy. All of a sudden we seem to have changed our system over night. All this might only be tactical but it may have longer run consequences.
2) Relying on the ‘people’ to sort this out is just enabling the stupid, self interested main opposition based parties (Labour, Lib-Dems) NOT to work together – to duck the obvious answer of a national Government to not only attempt to address the BREXIT issue but the awful state this country is in because of Tory rule.
This failure to work together for the people of this country has really upset me and although I am thinking of voting tactically I am also considering having nothing more to do with any of it.
From what I’ve seen, the opposition care more about power in splendid isolation than people like me. In a strange way they deserve the contempt that Johnson and Cummings heap upon them. BREXIT has broken the FPTP model. That model can only be changed by Parliament – but those in Parliament like it the way things are because they are being opportunistic or tribal and exclusive and even worse – personal (people not wanting to work together because of personal clashes – like Clegg and Brown in 2010 – and look what that got us!). That is just being unprofessional in my view.
Parliamentarians on nearly £80K a year are failing us – this is why the Supreme Court is now involved. Parliament is a big self reverential, self obsessed mess. I am disgusted by far too many of them whom I no longer respect.
The only ray of sunshine is this marvellous woman:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2019/sep/18/owen-jones-meets-caroline-lucas-lib-dems-brexit-position-is-massively-dangerous-for-uk
@Pilgrim
I have long shared your admiration for Caroline Lucas.
I find myself substantially agreeing with much of what she has to say; well beyond what the media portrays as a tree-hugger green activist spokesperson. Commentators, and opponents, only diminish themselves by treating her that way.
Political tribalism casts her in the role of a lone voice on the fringe. But her positions on so many issues deserve mainstream support.
We desperately need more people of her calibre in politics, with her serious attitude to politics, even if they were not singing from the same green hymn sheet. We have some, but not nearly enough of them.
And, I can say this because I do know her, quite well, she is also a really decent person
But I guess that shows
Richard, is Caroline also a good friend of yours?
If you are referring to caroline Lucas we have known each other, co-authored and met often for more than a decade
What’s your definition of friendship?
I am not the only one to note how the other parties/commentators have piled in on the Lib Dems:
http://blog.spicker.uk/how-democratic-are-the-liberal-democrats/
@Pilgrim
Quite.
But there is a feeling that that is exactly what the Lib Dems are FOR; pouring scorn upon. And they’ve brought some of that upon themselves in recent years by appearing to be overly pragmatic to the point of being unprincipled.
Offering to stand for an election as the ‘Revoke Party’ seems entirely legitimate to me. They may, or may not get hammered for that at the polls. More than six million people were prepared to sign an online petition demanding precisely that not so long ago so they have at least some backing for such a position (in addition to their somewhat fickle regular following). Quite a lot actually, though tactical voting means it will not all turn out for them.
Media commentary is febrile as ever, and in some cases as puerile as ever.
So they’ve changed their stance on Brexit. So what? The Brexit proposition has changed beyond recognition since 2016, and the two big parties have been nothing if not inconsistent.
Hurrah, for the media circus. (Not)
The point for me is that the reluctance of the Lib Dems to work with Labour is unforgiveable. No doubt the Umunna’s and Berger’s and defected Tories in the Lib Dems will all exercise their desire not to work with Corbyn and influence matters.
As Lucas has said – the accusation that Corbyn is the biggest threat to the UK is pure rubbish compared to what the Tories have done to the country and what Johnson and Farage will do.
Both Labour and the Lib Dems seem to be using marketing principles – emphasising small differences – to make them stand alone parties. It’s bollocks. Johnson and Co know this and this will only encourage them to keep going for a hard BREXIT.
@Pilgrim
“The point for me is that the reluctance of the Lib Dems to work with Labour is unforgivable.”
I’m inclined to agree. But the Lib Dem/Con coalition told us a lot about where they stand in the political spectrum, so it’s not surprising really, is it ?
We needed to have spent the past three years re-aligning our domestic politics instead of disappearing down the Brexit rabbit hole and arguing about fantasies. This little Lib Dem surge doesn’t cut it. I don’t think it will even start the process in any meaningful way.
I don’t really care how unsurprising the Lib Dems are.
I’m still going to say what I believe they should do – and more of us should say it everywhere so that they get the message. Swinson has a letter in the post from me telling her how disgusted I am. She and her ‘party’ could have done something great, instead they took Chukka U route towards political opportunism. History will not be kind to them and me and thee Andy will suffer for it.
All that is unfolding before our eyes is that Parliament is in the process of making itself redundant again and we ALL know very well who is going to benefit from that.
What’s worse is that it is not actually Parliament or the idea of Parliament that is the cause of it: it is the fuck wit MPs and leaders who will not work together. It must be hard though walking away from nearly £80K a year plus expenses and exclusive tea rooms and rights.
It is hard to know sometimes who is worse – Johnson, Cummings, Baker et al or the gutless witless twerps in opposition who are sleep walking us into yet another impasse – in effect justifying the extinguishing of democracy – signing their own death warrants and in the long run – ours.
I’ll paraphrase Sid Vicious’ words to Keith Richards in a reposte to some criticism and say that as far as too many MPS are concerned I wouldn’t pee on them even they were on fire, I am that mad with them.
Shame on them – eternal shame I say.
As for a GE, I’m going Green – I will waste my vote in the big scheme of things but at least I will be voting for a party with a real, noble and capable stateswoman at its helm.
Caroline – you’re the gal for me.
Isn’t this exactly the position Wilson took in 1975? It is the perfect moment to appeal to his affection in the mind of the British populace and to use that for the wider policies in the upcoming election manifesto.
The inevitable position of Labour is the only viable and winning one – and now is the exact moment for it, as the fauxdems have declared their impossible position (guaranteed to fail and push brexiteers towards the tories whilst attempting to split labour voters – to enable the hard brexit, which the Tories will inevitably have to declare the as their outcome.
Yes the EU is a bitter drink formed of decades of cronyism appointments to poison it with our perfidiousness from the inside – think Brittain / Kinnock/ Mandelsson etc just from our end, yet it is evolving and the Aqus is a valuable project that aims to provide the same laws and regulations across the whole space – it is not a finished project, it will only get better.
It is only 7 out of 10 good.
We can stay involved, we can have the single market, the customs union and the various regulations and rights yet still be out to honour the 2016 referendum or change our minds.
The truth is the main two parties both got votes in 2017 to respect the Leave but only one party decided the terms of leaving with their RED lines.
And that party and its masters or the controlled opposition, which claims to REMAIN, only went through the charade of negotiating the WA – knowing they would reject it – because they only ever wanted a HARD brexit.
That the recent events and actions of the government are only fully explained by that hypothesis should be clear to all now.
As to why we are having brexit and why only a hard brexit was the only plant Merkel put it as clearly as possible last week – and it seems everyone in the msm has completely turned a blind eye to it.
Even as she actually shot with the truth right between the eyes.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/11/angela-merkel-stresses-danger-of-britain-becoming-singapore-on-thames-no-deal
I question whether the inevitable position of Labour is a winning one, but I am not sure what would be, and who could win for Labour. With Scotland lost to it, and I think it is for now, it has to be aware that compromise is inevitable. Is it ready for that?
The overwhelmingly evidence is that Brexit in pretty much any form is going to be massively damaging to the UK – not just economically but socially, diplomatically, security – its long list. How can you be ‘neutral’ about that? You might as well be neutral about climate change…
No – the job of political leaders is to lead public opinion, especially where those opinions result from a dishonest media and politicians, and a corrupted referendum. To do otherwise is not to be a leader. It reflects a lack of courage – or an underlying belief which he is not prepare to openly admit but reflects his lifetime views.
Johnathan Cook has managed to put into words, quite well, the broad picture of where we currently stand,
I see things very similarily, I think many others are reaching the same view,
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2019-09-12/brexit-reveals-corbyn-to-be-the-true-moderate/
but, alas, such nuance will never be aired in the mainstream, the media is only interested in representing either of two camps within the elite class,
ordinary people and the planet we share, as usual, are just cannon fodder in their ‘great game’