UKC

Has anyone a clue what they are doing?  The options now seem to be crashing out or something like EEA.  Labour have given no indication they would vote with the government if it went for the latter. Do they really prefer UK to crash out than do this?

FFS!! Vote on what? We still don't know what we're being offered.

I don't know how many times you posted the same question, it's the same as having a second vote, until we know what we're voting for, it's simply re-running what we had originally.

Surely, it pretty obvious we need to know what we going to get, or lose, out of the "negotiations" before we decide.

"Labour respects the result of the referendum, and Britain is leaving the EU. But we will not support any Tory deal that would do lasting damage to jobs, rights and living standards."

Since we don't know if what we're being offered will, do lasting damage to jobs, rights and living standards, because we don't know what the offer is, we stick with the referendum, until such time we do know.

Apparently the latest line of thinking is that they want the tory brexiteers to vote with labour against May’s deal(whatever that will be), which would cause all kinds of chaos and probably lead to an election. But if labour come out now to support a referendum, they think that the brexiteers would not vote against the deal for fear of a corbyn governement and losing a referendum. What horrors!!

We know what the likely possibilities are.  I want to know which Her Majesty's  Loyal "Opposition" support.  And if we really don't know the possibilities, what do they propose.  It is their job, after all, to propose alternatives to the government.  That's why we have them.

So what will they do?  Reject the deal and cause a no deal exit?  I think wanting knowing what the opposition's position on this crucial event is is entirely reasonable.

There was some labour person on Question Time last night who thinks that the government should hold a general election so that the people could elect a party that could do the deal.

I presume he meant labour.

But without Labour telling us what kind of a deal they would be seeking to make, why on earth would voters want to support such a policy of blind faith? Especially when a great many people are justifiably convinced that no worthwhile deal is even possible, without retaining at least SM and CU membership, and then there'd be little or no point to it anyway.

Offered by who? Surely the object of political party is to have policies it wants to implement, it has ideas it offers to the electorate and it has views it wants to force on the govt of the day. You seem to be saying it should sit back and react in which case, how quickly can it react? If the govt said it was going for EEA how long would it take Labour to decide whether to support or not?

Keir Starmer said that Mrs May had failed because she had used no customs union and no single market as redlines.

So it’s probably safe to say that labour won’t make the same mistake.

How labour intends to form a new customs union and remain in the single market while still honouring the referendum result hasn’t yet been explained.

It was pointed out on This Week the the EU rejected the Chequers deal as it was cherry picking and didn’t meet the EU’s four freedoms. So any labour proposal would meet the same fate.

No deal looms ever larger.

Brexit will be discussed at length at the 2018 Annual Labour Party Conference which starts Sunday 23rd September. So you should get answers next week.

So Labour want to retain SM membership, or CU, or both? Well, which is it? And why won't they, as HM opposition, tell us what they think is in the best interests of the nation?

That would be easy, since neither SM nor CU require EU membership. But the question then would be: what are we still getting out of such a nonsense 'deal'?

Agreed. That much has been obvious for over 2 years.

... which virtually nobody wants. In which case we need a chance for the People to stop something that virtually nobody wants from being forced upon us all against our will.

The phrase "crashing out" is beginning to get on my tits. The BBC love it because its so emotive and adds to Project Fear but I just feel annoyed that people are unable to say "leave", "leave without a deal" or even "revert to WTA".

Please stop the hyperbole

Given the shock that would result, I don't thinking "crash" is hyperbolic.

Sorry, I have no real idea what Labour’s plan is, only what I read or hear. 

It won’t help the campaign for a second referendum to have some EU leaders telling the UK that’s what they should do.

It sounds too much like ‘make them vote till they reach the right decision’.

The Chequers proposal does not meet the six conditions set by Labour to support a Brexit deal. It's thus pretty certain that any deal that TM comes out with will be opposed by Labour.

Labour's annual conference is coming up and there is a lot of pressure for within the party to support a second referendum. Of course explicit support is probably not in the national interest at the moment and so this puts the leadership in an awkward position.

crashing out is pretty good, has been referred to as making an emergency move when there is an imminent threat, leaving antennas, cables and other stuff littered round your position.

Norway managed (though without having to add the 'a'). Norway is not in the EU.

Not saying 'Norway' is a good deal, it isn't, it's ridiculous but it does meet the dual criteria of being out of the EU and not ending up an asset stripped basket case.

Yes, inevitably until people like you start acknowledging the seriousness of the situation and writing to your MP's en masse. This was a horribly foreseeable risk and it will be devastating if it plays out as the ERG vultures want.

Labour's dereliction of duty is becoming unforgivable.

jk

What deal ??? We still have no idea, what the deal is, do we?

So you're asking people, and Labour, to vote for something which no one knows whether it's good or bad.

I really can't get my head around what you're asking, apart from let's do the referendum again, and let's do it again without any more information than we had the first time.

Since it's the Tories, doing the negotiations, even if Labour had the "greatest Brexit plans in the world" how do you propose they have any influence on the negotiations?

Didn’t crashing out often involve staggering around in a drunken stupor trying to remember what you were supposed to be doing and all the time trying to cover up the state that you were actually in?

Offered by the EU, I was being facetious, as it's negotiations, but the point still stands, until negotiations are complete, how does any one know if it's going to be worthwhile or not?

It doesn't really matter what policies it wants to implement, it's the EU who'll more likely decide what we come away with, it's no longer got anything to do with what the electorate want, they made that decision based on lies.

Labour have said if it's shit, they oppose it. I don't see what's wrong with this, considering they have no input into the negotiations.

If they said anything, then this allows the Tories to blame Labour for deal we end up having, should it turn out to be shit, or no deal at all.

I've said all along, at the end of the day , we'll end up with a ball of shite, Labour will call for a people's vote on what we then know we're voting for, without the £350m a week bullshit.

Most immediately, I am asking what Labour would do in the following likely scenario: Something like Chequers is agreed between the EU and UK but without sufficient backing of Tory MPs.  Will they vote for it (avoiding a chaotic, hard brexit) , or against it (ensuring one).  Saying we don't know the details, we want an election, we want jobs etc etc is an absurd excuse for not doing their job.

More generally, given the rapidly approaching deadline I want to know what Labour would do if they win an election.  Platitudes about wanting jobs etc again don't cut it.

That's not what I am asking. I haven't mentioned a second referendum.

By offering well thought through alternatives. By arguing and advocating for them.  By being clear and honest about their vision for the UK.  Basically by being a credible opposition.

Even if the alternative is no deal (which is worse than any imaginable deal)?  If so Labour are committing to a deliberate policy of damaging the UK

So Labour are so timid and devoid of convincing ideas they would rather not say anything in case the Tories criticise them.  Great, just what's needed in an opposition!

Then they'll oppose it. FFS!! No they'll oppose the no deal, what else can they do?

Like I said, the best idea in the world, makes no difference, they can't do anything , they aren't involved in the negotiations.

The Tories are in charge, as much as I hate this, and you obviously do too, you can't blame Labour for what the Tories are doing.

So exactly why are they the opposition?

THey could vote for it as the least-worst option  They could do this while laying out what they would do if elected, for example re-negotiate entry to CU and SM, for example.  I would possibly vote for them in they did that. I certainly won't if they vote down a deal just because they are so tribal they can't support something some Tories do.

It's like complaining to me, that the car you've just bought was really expensive and you got a shit deal and then blaming me, when I wasn't involved in the negotiations.

Labour can say whatever they like, they'd then be blamed for weakening the Tories negotiating position, and the shite storm would be dumped on them, by people like you!

Which is what? We don't have any options yet to vote on?

And what vote? when is this happening? and What's the question?

As I said, Chequers vs no deal.

Should the UK adopt a Chequers style agreement.  Around November if things go to plan.  I suggest you read some news (hint: The Canary isn't news).

We don't know what Chequers is, no one has decided it's a good idea or not, because we haven't got details, have we? We have a proposal, but since it's only our proposal, it could well turn out to be complete shit worse than no deal, by the time the negotiations have finished.

They've already said they fight against a no deal, because it'll affect "jobs, rights and living standards"

It's like asking someone for Foie gras, and caviare, they offer you some dog food and cod row contaminated with mercury.

So which is best, no food or do you take what's on offer?

It's worse than that though because at the moment, we don't know if the best we can get is dog food, dog shit or a tin of corned beef!!

We want Foie gras, but we don't know where we can get to and Labour can't change what we get out of it, if they aren't involved.

At the current state the deal is defined by the EU's response to the UK red lines written in the A50 notification (which LAB voted in favor off). It is generally known what the deal will be because the EU27 has more power and a huge leverage in the process. So the final deal will be very close to the EU council negotiation guidelines that have been available online for a long time.

If labour does not like this deal, it should make an alliance with a number of conservative MPs and use the power of parliament to force the government to drop the "no freedom of movement" red line. And then the EU will adjust its offer towards a better deal.

This week has felt like a typical Labour Groundhog Day. The country is going up Sh1t Creek, Tories in disarray, Corbyn is staring at an open goal, every poll tells them that backing a People's Vote would hand them the keys to Downing St  and what is Labour spending its time doing? Having internal wrangles about procedure and whether it should have a second Deputy Leader! Do they never learn?

Say what they'd do, say why it's better and put pressure on the government to move towards it.

As above, offer an alternative plan, sell it to the public and use public pressure to force the government to move.

No, but we can blame them for what Labour aren't doing. Just sitting there twiddling your thumbs and not offering any policy because you're worried it might not be popular with some of your voters  is cowardice. I ended my membership over this. I can't see how an intelligent person can defend them having no position as their position.

It's not the public whose the customer though, it's the EU. They won't listen to Labour because they're dealing with May. So who does it actually help?

They've stated their intentions, what more can they do?

I realise you frustration, but it's really nowt to do with them. The Tories are negotiating, not Labour.

I agree, but we need to know the deal first, there isn't one at the moment, so who do you either condemn or approve?

Yep, but you know he  needs 8 hours to decide how to deselect unbelievers. It's for the greater good of the forthcoming utopia. 

Yes, but they could gain many brownie points by showing what they would do, and showing the tories up for what they are; utterly split and incompetent. Arguing about anything else at the moment is a waste of breath.

Which deal do you mean? Withdrawal agreement or future trade/security/etc deal?

Labour can either wait for the deal to be finalized or work to shape the deal by setting negotiation guidelines (together with moderate CON). This is what the European parliament did.

Why should I approve or condemn anybody here?

Question: what is the opposition for?

Given Labour are trailing the Tories (yep, the Tories who have been in govt. 8 years, who undermined the health services so much junior doctors went on strike, who have cocked up the Brexiters negotiations by everyone's standards, who have the weakest, least charismatic leader in living memory, those Tories) by 4% in the latest YouGov polls it might be time to rethink this strategy. 

Surely by now it must be obvious to anyone that we are so much better off remaining  in the EU.

Telling people what they would do is pointless, because whatever they suggested is dependant upon it being acceptable to the EU so it's all pie in the sky bullshit, something that hopefully Labour are trying to move away from.

So if you're talking about a waste of breathe saying anything is just that.

Obviously they are pointing out the Tory split and incompetence, but anything else it just daft. Let's find out what's on the table first.

It's not an anybody, it's the deal, what we end up with, and as we know next to nothing about what this is likely to be, and the fact everything is intertwined, how do you approve any of it, it's not even anything concrete to like or not like.

And let's not forget, there were plenty of Labour voters who voted leave too, do you propose Labour simply abandons these people, without any tangible information to make this decision on?

It is actually totally easy.  The situation is the exact same now as it was before the referendum when the Cameron government published its advice on Brexit options and said the EU had never accepted anything that undermined the 4 freedoms in the single market.

Labour just needs to choose between one of 5 options: Stay in the EU, Norway, Switzerland, Canada and WTO.

Canada and WTO are far too disruptive for any sensible person.

They don't have the balls to just say chuck it in and stay in the EU.

So Corbyn gets to choose between Norway and Switzerland and there's not much difference between them.

Labour could easily just call it and say they would get us pretty much the same deal as Norway and they would have a three-line whip to vote against any Tory attempt to go for Canada or the WTO options.   Labour + SNP + Lib Dems + a handful of Tories could block the Canada or WTO options getting through parliament and Theresa May would quite likely use this as an excuse to go for the EEA option herself.   The whole country would breathe a sigh of relief.

My bad; not clear enough - what I meant was that its a waste talking about anything other than brexit; they are getting themselves tied up in all sort of knots on other trivial (in comparison) issues.

If there was a GE tomorrow we wouldn't know what Labour would try to achieve in regards to the imminent, absolutely most important negotiation this country has been in since WWII. And they expect me to vote for them? What is the "government in waiting"s f*cking plan?

I expect them to do what's right for the country, which I think is what 70-ish percent of Labour voters incidentally voted for in the referendum. The cognitive dissonance coming from Corbyn's hardcore currently is deafening.

The European parliament is a much more collaborative organisation than Westminster. The EU doesn't have a single party in charge of negotiating, which would accuse anyone else trying to get involved of undermining their negotiating position, so you can't really compare labour's position with European parties in this regard.

That's a bit of a gamble though, isn't it? If May didn't use it as an excuse to go for EEA, we'd be heading for WTO - you can't block WTO going through parliament; it's the inevitable outcome of failing to come to an agreement before the clock runs out.

Why would an an announcement of policy now help you decide how to vote in a GE and better than an announcement of policy on the day the general election was called?

Surely either they offer something you can vote for at the time, or they offer something you can't?

Because they're not just (supposedly) a government in waiting, they are the opposition and defining their own policy puts pressure on the government to improve theirs. See "Being the Opposition for beginners".

They have 257 MPs, the Tories have 315 and are divided. They have power, they should be rallying opposition, they should be a siren call for Tory remainers to embolden them. They should be providing a counter point to this "no deal better than a bad deal" lunacy which is going pretty much unchallenged while the Labour leadership dithers. It will be too late by the time of the next election if we continue on the current trajectory. Make no mistake, Brexit is the fault of the Tories, UKIP, the right wing press and 17 million voters but, as a life long Labour voter, I will never forgive them for the part they have played in this with their f*cking toy town politics.

They had an open goals to oust the Tories at the last election, they've had ample time to sort their shit out around anti-semitism and they have an opportunity to step up and put out a Brexit policy that is not the catastrophuck we are currently heading for and instead they have behaved like a bunch of sixth formers in debating club.

Model answer.

It sounds you like you want Labour to say they'll abandon Brexit? But that's not their policy.

However, as already mentioned, the issue will be discussed at the Conference this week so you (and the rest of us) will have a better picture after that.

I do but if it's not their policy then they should at least be attacking this idea that no deal is something to even contemplate. Change the narrative, at the moment they seem as cowed by the ERG as much as May. Make it clear that even if you support Brexit no deal is not in your interests and the ERG are not acting in your interest. Hammer home the message thst EEA is not a betrayal of Brexiter, remind everyone that even the swivel eyed loons were not contemplating leaving the EEA at the time of the referendum. 

We'll see, although I can't help thinking we'll have a new policy on bus nationalisation and whole load of passive aggressive speeches attacking different wings of the party.

F*ck me. What are they doing? Wittering about deselecting MPs. Clearly of vital importance right more.

And eulogising Militant

Defining their position allows the government to accuse them of undermining the government's negotiating position, and emboldening the EU to refuse to cooperate with the government's plans. Which would of course be bollocks - the EU doesn't need labour's help to stick to their guns, nevertheless the  "traitors" line has served the Tories quite well thus far with a large portion of the English electorate, and I don't see much reason to suppose it won't continue to do so.

If something changes, and there is a possibility they can have an influence on direction, the minute they take a more positive position on single market membership they'll get everyone who's desperate to avoid the abyss were headed for back on side, so they have little to lose by waiting, and potentially a lot to lose by announcing a policy that would allow the Tories and a hostile press to play the enemies of the people card.

Perhaps that was covered in the intermediate volume?

If that's the case it's utterly pathetic. If Labour can't articulate a convincing alternative to the government's position they shouldnt  be the opposition. That they can't with this government is staggering. 

Cowed or just renderered impotent by circumstance? As a nation we are utterly polarised on brexit. We've had years of UK politicians using the EU as a convenient scapegoat for their failings, and a large section of the English electorate believes it; they believed the guff the leave campaign spouted and despite the overwhelming evidence that they were lied to, and that brexit will be a nightmare, they still believe those who are telling them no deal is better than a bad deal. If all the evidence isn't changing minds, what makes you think the labour party's voice would? Rallying those who are against brexit won't change anything for the Tory party - they only care about those who are for it. If you can't influence Tory voters, you won't influence Tory policy. I hate the idea of sitting back and watching the Tories wreck the country as much as anybody (as a SNP member, we get to voice our opposition without the same concerns as labour), but I'm really not sure it would do any good for labour to try to fight the Tories on this the way other parties can.

The election that the Tories called in order to increase their majority, and pretty much everyone believed would do just that, was an open goal for labour? 

I think you're missing my point... It's not a case of whether they can or can't - it's a case of whether they should or shouldn't.

The purpose of the Opposition is to present an alternative.

Let's see. We can take up the conversation in a week's time.

Btw you wrote: 'a life long Labour voter, I will never forgive them for the part they have played in this.' Are you a member, or just a voter? Labour policy is formed by the members: if you want to (try to) make a difference, get involved.

Not necessarily - the world is not as binary as that. You don't oppose for the sake of opposing, you oppose for a purpose.

Whatever, I think we all know that the real reason is that Labour have nothing to say, or in fact want a hard Brexit Corbyn's case

Well thank you for that insightful critique of the points I raised. "Whatever" brings so much meaning to the table 

I wasn't dismissing your points as such (although I don't agree)  I just.dont think they are relevant here. 

They're having a conference to decide what the members want from their party and in what direction they want Labour to go moving forward.

One might say it's democracy.

Why should they, and to what f*cking point? It's aboslutely pointless, if they might influence things the fair enough, the only thing they can do is weaken any negotiations, so why would you want then to do that?!?!?!

Surely, you want the best outcome we can get?

When you know that, I personally would like to vote on whether that's worth having or we stay as we are.

Labour are doing what's best for the country.

If they say were going to have a second reforendum, then it weakens our already shit bargaining position and makes the outcome even worse.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I think you need to put you hatred of Corbyn to one side think about the situation and then reassess what you want.

That's bullshit and a narrative peddled by the government to avoid being challenged.

Do you think that's best achieved by the government doing whatever they want without challenge?

They're transparently doing what they think best preserves their vote-share.

Again, to hear Labour supporters parroting one of the shitter mind-games put forward by the brexiters is sad indeed.

You need to stop believing every word Corbyn says and apply some critical thought.

I wasn't dismissing your points as such, I'm just dismissing them??!!?

Labour obviously want a general election but if they have to negotiate Brexit, they would still have to persuade Barnier etc that their plan for some sort of compromise is better than May's ...and there is no guarantee that that will happen. Sadly, I just don't see any way out of this chaos whether Labour or the Tories (under May or Boris) are in charge or whether we have another full referendum or people's vote on the proposed deal. ( Who knows what precise wording would be used or how many options given ? There could be three options and basically 33.3 % for each .) Positions are so entrenched and cross party boundaries.  The fact that the implications will be felt for ages is even more worrying.

Errr... the government seem to be quite challenged at the moment, what with the negotiations being between the government and the EU, not the government and the UK opposition.

The EU have literally offered them no meaningful concessions (as expected from the outset, given its a game of chicken between a family saloon and a truck), the Tories are tearing themselves apart over which fanciful proposal to put to the EU (when none of their plans are going to be acceptable to the EU), so it's going to come down to one of three things: the Tories U-turn on all their red lines and we get some kind of soft-brexit deal acceptable to the EU, we flounce out with no deal, or the government collapses and we have a general election. The EU will ensure the Tories are not going to successfully negotiate something in-between involving cake (if there was a chance of that it would certainly be worth Labour fighting it).

No amount of pressure from labour would move the Tories towards a soft brexit - that is an internal Tory battle, and labour simply will not, at this stage, be able to significantly swing Tory voters in this regard. They are fighting each other. If anything, external pressure will entrench hard brexit support IMO. If sense wins out somehow that will be great. Otherwise...

... we are left with the Tories preparing to leave with no deal, or a government collapse and a general election. When it comes to the crunch, in either of these scenarios, if anything is to change the opposition will need as much support as possible. If labour doesn't carry on "transparently doing what they think best preserves their vote-share.", they run the risk of not having the support to do anything when it matters.

So you think Labour are siding with the government?

It's best done by the negotiating team, they can only do the best they can. If you're outside of that, you really have no idea what's being proposed. The challenge comes afterwards, "you wanted caviare, we got you dog food", we then should have the chance to decided, given what we've been able to negotiate, whether we still want to leave.

I disagree, I don't, and possibly they're the same, see who anyone, especially people on the fence, can decide what's best since we don't know what's on offer. You don't go shopping and say here's £200 without knowing what you getting, even though you think you need some shopping.

See above, there has to be something you can make you're mind up on, one will be better than the other for most people.

It also might be useful if some people thought about what was happening instead of blindly criticising, because of intense dislike. Critical thought goes both ways, I've stated why I think Labour are right not to get involved. I'd like to see a people's vote, but everyone needs to know what they're voting for, not £350m on  bus, and not world war III. I can't see what's not critical about that!

There are people on here criticising Labour and Corbyn, whom I suspect haven't and would never vote Labour. Their real dichotomy is voting Labour might be the only way they can get what they want, and it's not a nice feeling for them.

Yes, they are just staying vague and plan to let the tories deal with it. Their sights are on the next GE.

Can anyone explain to me why all Labour seem to be talking about is general elections?  I would have thought Brexit is the current pressing concern and unless they offer something different from the Tories on this, all the general elections in the world are of minimal relevance to anyone right now.

... but if Labour are prepared and hope everything goes disastrously wrong for the UK just to increase their chances of power, are these the sort of people with the right attitude to be in or deserve to be in power in the first place?

Rather than stepping forward with some bold leadership, fighting the Tories etc.. they just hope the Tories screw up enough so the current incompetent opposition look comparatively better. It's more like Labour are prepared to sell the uk down the river just for a sniff of power. What a shit state UK politics is in. 

Because if any one cast a critical eye they'd see Labour are just as, if not more divided over the eu. Hence their mantra of 'doing what is best for jobs' as they daren't say what their stance is. 

Seems so.  What is mindblowing is that, once again, non-Tory voters will likely cast their vote for them on the assumption that they represent a remain/leave position and will be utterly let down. 

I am sympathetic that they are stuck between a rock and a hard place, with their support base seemingly split (and stridently so) on Brexit.  But at least take a position and be open and honest about it.  Their non-committal stance from even before the referendum is cynical and hard to judge.  Listening to R4 this morning, they seem to be outspoken that a democratic decision was made at the referendum so there is no stopping it....but that we can also have a people's vote.  WTF does that mean?

I'm surprised that no-one I've heard so far in the media has said what is self-evident I would have thought. If there are 3 options (May's deal, No deal or Remain) then the voting would have to be on an alternative or single transferable vote system (which are identical I think in this case). Votes for the option in third place after the first count would be re-allocated according to second preferences. One option would then have more than 50%.

Of course, some pundits are arguing that Remain shouldn't be on the ballot paper at all. I can't see any justification for that. 

Martin

I've voted Labour of late and I joined to vote for Corbyn to broaden the political choice available. Their non-position on brexit and the use of delusional slogans like 'jobs first brexit' when what the country needs is frank conversation about the facts we face to and a stiff cup of coffee to sober up before we do something we really regret is now unforgivable. I understand the merit of the 'wait and see' position while brexit becomes something but it has now become a nightmare with damage limitation and maximum damage vying for position. They're running scared of leadership when that is the one thing the country needs right now. Getting elected is not leading, all the good stuff they want to do and the populist fluff, that all hinges on brexit not shafting the economy. The Tories aren't shouldering their responsibilities and I see no sign Labour has the stomach for it either. We deserve better.

jk

The way it's going, May's Deal won't be on any ballot paper, given that she's yet to propose anything she hasn't already known in advance would be justifiably rejected.

The problem is that Labour have been taken over by Trotskyite Brexiteers, the Tories have been taken over by Tea Party Brexiteers and the Lib Dems have basically given up and gone home.   People want at least one of the parties which have a chance of forming a government to have policies which won't result in economic catastrophe.  

In Scotland we have the SNP but it does us no good at Westminster because there are 10 x as many MPs from England.    I think as soon as the Tories and Labour have played out their hands and it is absolutely clear the only outcome is going to be no-deal or a Canada style deal Indy Ref 2 is inevitable and the SNP should do it immediately and unilaterally.

It not that hard to understand, we press ahead with the referendum, because that's what the majority who voted for was decided by it. A people's vote, (which they haven't really agreed to yet AFAIK) is a vote on what has been negotiated.

In other words we wanted to come out and based on what we were told at the time, £350m a week for the NHS and WW III. But none of that's going to happen by hte looks of things, so a people vote will allow people to vote on what's on offer after the negotiations. A vote on what we're actually presented with.

Labour announcing they'll back another referendum can only weaken the bargaining position of the UK, leaving themselves open to accusations of sabotaging the negotiations, therefore angering the Labour pro Brexit voters.

Except that if you listened to the news this morning, it's been taken over by the Trotskite Remainers.

So which is true?

I suspect none of it.

Is see your point, but as I see it.

Labour have no input into the negotiations, it matters not what they say the best they can achieve is people see MAy's proposals as shite. They won't influence what we get out of it, besides making things worse, as in a a poorer deal the May can negotiate.

So there are two scenarios.

Labour discredits everything May says or even demonstrates what she's negotiating is crap for the UK.

This then gives power to the EU, so May actually gets a piss poor deal because given the division in the UK and Labour speaking out gives more power to the EU.

Since Labour have no "real" input to the negotiations, besides shouting suggestions from the sidelines, isn't it better to let the Tories do the best they can, which looks like it's going to be pretty shite, but we still don't know.

When they have something tangible to actually debate against, then that's the time to do it.

I think Labour are in a very difficult position, because by doing nothing it looks like they are weak but I really can't see how do more would help any more. They'd end up being blamed for f*cking up the negotiations, manna from heaven for the Tory leavers, and a stab in the back for the Labour leavers.

For me tactically, they're doing the best for the country and for their supporters.

I'm not one for wining at any cost, which is one of the reasons I vote for Corbyn in the first place. We were being told if we voted for Corbyn we'd lose, and if we wanted to win we needed to keep the Blairite ethos, or we stood not chance of winning, winning was everything, not how you got there! I saw, and still do, see Corbyn as a way out of that mindset.

If you want to avoid brexit then Labour isn't going to save you. The labour leadership and momentum want brexit to happen because they see the EU as the neoliberal enemy. The tory leadership want brexit because otherwise the party will implode and they'll never stay in power. The lib dems are irrelevant.

The people (like me) who want a second referendum to try to stop this disaster are not the people with the political power to make it happen. Taking about it on the net doesn't do anything. The people who do have power are just concentrating on getting over the finishing line in March so that they can get it locked-in for a generation or two. On the whole they're putting their effort into doing, not talking.

In my view the only way to stop brexit would be to somehow create the conditions where the people who forced it to happen could see that they would be severely punished, at some future point, for the disaster that it will inevitably turn-out to be. But I suspect that they know that the country will just be too damaged and atomised for anything like that to happen in their lifetimes.

This is how the social contract gets changed. In the medium term I think we're going to end-up like Italy or maybe Turkey. Some of the appearance of a modern, democratic, first-world-ish state - but underneath a lot of stuff just doesn't work anymore and everyone knows it and the leaders don't care and precarity everywhere.

Which if the SNP won would leave us outside the EU with no deal and outside the UK. 

But they aren't doing anything for the country. Their current agenda seems now to be how to remove Tom Watson, as he spoke out against McCluskey's dubious re-election. 

The EU has the power, they always did. This don't oppose because it'll make things worse argument doesn't add up. The EU knows Britain is a right mess at the moment, that we are very likely to cut our nose of to spite our face if offered bad or worse there is a very real risk we will pick worse and while the loss will be worse for us it will be bad all round, ver bad. The deal we get if we do actually pursue it with realistic goals will be the best we and they can get, it will be mutually beneficial because if it's not, for all that May does not want to crash out wrecking her reputation and her nation the choice will be taken out of her hands.

For the same reason it is reasonably safe to assume for now that any climb-down will not be punished.

But they still aren't being realistic, McDonnell this morning saying if they backed a ratification referendum it would only ever be between leave on tory terms or renegotiate which will not happen, the answer will be 'Non!'. No recognition of the fact circumstances have changed, opinions appear to have changed, they would be facilitating the delivery of what fewer than half the electorate, fewer than 1:3 of their voters wanted, something that will disproportionately harm those they exist to represent, something the generation which have to patch up what is left after the vultures have picked over the bones do not want. It's delusional. It's cowardly. Most of all it's just bloody stupid.

They look weak because they are being weak. They need to start talking honestly about the costs of brexit, build a groundswell of public support or at least confirm the public is as apathetic and careless as they appear. They are the official opposition, clearly failing to oppose what has become a complete train-wreck, one which likely lacks public support, which will deliver nothing of value and harms their voters first and hardest. If that isn't weakness I don't know what is. The messages from the polls are clearer by the day, the unrepresented majority needs a voice.

For me they are in clear dereliction of their duty, the time for dithering and talking to themselves has passed.

jk

I'd be interested to know what other areas Krikoman thinks the "opposition" should remain silent on for fear of attracting negative comments from the Tories:

e.g. Budget - "Labour shouldn't state their plans here or the Tories might accuse them of being reckless. Anyway, we can't affect what the Chancellor plans in the next budget and don't know all the details so what can we do?"?

Rail nationalisation - "Labour shouldn't state their plans here or the Tories might blame them for the timetable chaos"?

Are you sure it lacks public support, I think a lot of people have changed their minds, but that could be wishful thinking on my part.

The trouble is I can see the Tories using any Labour "interfering" to their advantage later, "we'd have achieved a much better deal if Labour hadn't sabotaged what we were about to achieve" type bollocks. Some people would discount it, but some would believe it, worse some Labour Brexit supports might believe it, causing even more of a rift than Labour have now.

I've said all along Labour will eventually acquiesce to a People's Vote (which they can't do now for the reasons above), one in which we'll all know what the consequences are, and hopefully put this bollocks to bed for ever.

I don't think they have, unless you've not been listening, maybe it's the screeming in you're head.

They talking of giving us a state energy supplier, getting rid of QE and austerity, increasing spending on police and NHS and reversing some of the backdoor privatisation that's been going on.

They're going to increase taxes, and build more council housing.

What more do you want? Cake!?!?

I was asking whether you think it wise of them to announce these things, given you think silence is the best opposition to Brexit.

Promising the world, then when they fail to deliver without borrowing another trillion or three, they blame Brexit... a cunning plan. 

Because it's true. A divide government is much weaker than a united one. The same applies to the eu, if half the eu nations were siding with the UK, the eu negotiating stance would be weaker.

And yes, Labour is in government, it's not just the Tories. Labour and the snp have almost half the elected mps, all being paid to work in parliament for the electorate, regardless of if they think they may get power next time. They have been elected and are being paid THIS time.  

No, far from sure and well aware we're fickle, a string of well pitched stories at the right moment could open or close the gap but we're two years on, things have changed, we deserve an informed and a complete choice.

In some ways it doesn't matter if it lacks public support today, it certainly will when the factories start closing, the tax base shrinks and austerity is torqued up further. Labour will be held just as accountable for their spineless complicity then as they will be if they press ahead in the full knowledge the people have lost faith in brexit before its even signed and sealed.

Personally I'm not interested in the country brexit seeks to build but I am keen to see us choose that if that is what we want, I will then with sadness leave the implementation to others. I would be happier if we rejected it.

They already have this morning but they're still not being realistic about the choice they need us to make and the options practically available. If they're to deliver brexit (and there is every chance the tories will harpoon them with it) they'd better be bloody sure the people want exactly what they're getting or they'll be decimated like the Lib-Dems in 5 or 6 years. We have a re-run of 2008 coming, another long period of ratcheting down living standards and asset stripping, the difference last time it was an accident of sorts, this time both main parties are limping headlong toward it cheering weakly for want of a better plan.

jk

I was a Labour member until two months ago. I chucked in my membership because of their spineless non-opposition specifically on Brexit.

For me this is hard to understand as there is a position which I thought would fit within Labour's remit; that the referendum was non-binding, that public opinion has maybe changed substantially since the referendum, that to go ahead now with any form of Brexit may very well be following minority rather than majority opinion.

As one Lord put it, if I asked my aunts what they wanted to do tonight and they all said "see a film", then it turns out only Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday The 13th are on show, do I have to tell them that they had their democratic choice and now they must see it through?  A people's vote seems pretty much pointless to me if all it offers is a choice between the two films most of us don't want to see anyway.

That is true.  But I think our bargaining position is so compromised that it can't get much weaker.  And I'm sure the EU are aware anyway that pro-Brexit voters exist in both Labour and Tory parties.

Seems like you're confusing Government with Parliament. Two very different things.

Neither Labour or Tories come out of the EU debacle with any credit. Both parties are clearly split internally and are desperately papering over divisions.

Unfortunately the only politicians capable of pulling this together for Labour are now either not interested ( Brown) or pariahs in the eyes of die hards ( Blair). Both speak with alarming common sense at the moment when you listen to them.

What a mess.

Ah yes. That's the tired, old argument for first-past-the-post, isn't it? Can't possibly allow a hung-parliament -- how ever would decisions get made?

The only thing that's weakened by dissent in parliament is the opportunity to feather one's own nest as a politician. Debate and disagreement is a requirement as long as all people aren't of one mind and that means forever. Politicians should be debating and disagreeing and, ultimately, making an informed and educate choice of the course of action that is best for the country. Whether it is proposed by a minority party, an independent MP, a tory, or labour.

Ultimately, whoever proposed anything should be completely irrelevant once the final decision is made. If not, then the task of researching, evaluating and comparing the options wasn't done properly, was it?

But half the EU nations aren't siding with the UK because they have absolutely no reason to do so. Why would they? The UK leaving doesn't put them in any better position. Helping the UK leave with a better deal doesn't help them in any way. In fact, encouraging the UK to jump ship is actively disadvantageous -- they would be undermining the very union of which they are and shall remain members.

In fact, the agreement amongst the remaining 27 is sure evidence that variety and diversity of representatives does not hinder or weaken such a group.

Furthermore, if the UK's MEPs had played their hand differently, perhaps the UK could have achieved changes from within and all of this mess need not have come about. The behaviour of the UK's own MEPs is, perhaps, the strongest case against division in government.

While harsh, this seems like the best option.  It already seems to me that the key proponents of Brexit are entirely happy with a piss-poor or no-deal Brexit.  They don't seem content with anything less and will be whinging forever if we make any kind of concessions.

Why not then give them what they want and reduce the people's choice down to two clearly defined decisions on which a majority opinion can be reached - either a complete, no strings attached, Brexit, or deciding to ditch the whole thing. 

I don't think they are intrinsically weak.  They are just hamstrung and unwilling to state outright a position that they know will likely cut their support almost in half.

What are Brown and Blair's specific proposals?

Blair's

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/we-need-a-second-brexit-vote-so-...

Nope.

Yep. In comparison the EU political system almost look competent. Doesn't it ?

Brexit support among self identified Labour voters was 1:2 when brexit was still all milk and honey and funding the NHS, that support can be weakened further with honest conversation and leadership. There are also a lot of homeless conservatives right now looking for a voice, Labour isn't talking to them. They may not be able to.

jk

No.

What exactly is Corbyn doing to justify his title of leader of the opposition, the greater salary it brings and greater access it allows,  like the privy council? I'd suggesting nothing. 

... in which case you're quite simply and demonstrably wrong.

Edit: I completely agree that in matters concerning the greatest threat to the UK in many decades, the leader of HM Opposition has been virtually and shamefully invisible. But HM Opposition is still not in any way a part of HM Government.

PMSL

Well quite.

The equivalent os scraping shit off your shoe and smearing it over your face.

He seems to be asking for another referendum; although he confuses the matter by also referencing the 'People's Vote' which is a vote on the final proposed deal (or no deal). He's not unique in supporting either of course.

I don't see how that ties in with neilh's claim that  "the only politicians capable of pulling this together for Labour are now ... Brown [or] Blair ..."

What would you say to all the Labour voters who voted to leave?

My point was there are life long Tories here, who rather than accept the problem was with Cameron and his over inflated ego, would rather blame Labour, or more precisely Corbyn, than admit, it's anything to do with the Conservative party at all.

Maybe I'm a bit thick, but I really don't see what Labour could be doing at the moment, it's being presented as Tory v Labour, but it so obviously isn't. I can't see that Labour "interfering" in the negotiations, from the outside, can benefit anyone.

Better to wait see what's on the table, put it back to the country, and have done with it. Everyone knows how important it is they vote, everyone knows not to vote in protest, but for what they really want, most know we'll not end immigration (because we need it) and everyone knows there'll be no £350m for the NHS on a weekly basis; out of all the bullshit on both side this is the one I see as being the one that swayed most people.

If you want to predict what the EU would do look at what is in the best interests of the EU.  Not what would suit unionist politicians in the UK.   Pushing out a country that wants to stay in is not in the best interests of the EU.

I'd explain the situation they face as clearly, as honestly and openly as I could then I would accept some will find new homes. We need a cold hard dose of reality, by the time the fantasy crumbles it will be too late.

Does the labour movement exist for the benefit of the workers or to merely do their bidding? Great leadership does not involve placating all the people all of the time if that were ever even possible, it is not easy, it is not always popular.

They could be opposing the disaster that is happening before their eyes, they may be able to do that in parliament, they may need us but either way it starts with honesty and integrity and courage, with acceptance of reality. I see none of that today on brexit.

Yes but the opposition to that democratic choice from those intent of delivering fudge to save party and those seeking chaos to loot in will be intense. They are doing their ground work, it started years ago. The opposition are not even off the fence and in the game yet, they're uming and ahing, pretending it will be fine and talking about fripperies they will never be able to afford when we torpedo our economy.

jk

Labour aren't the majority party, but they still vote on key issues including Brexit. They sit on cross party committees. They get a weekly slot that they can challenge the PM directly on; that other smaller parties don't enjoy the benefit of. Being a large party leader Corbyn could easily get a slot on question time, or any questions etc.. 

They are part of the government. Labour has a couple of hundred elected members representing their electorate, who are doing very little to challenge the Tories. The few that are, are ironically the ones Corbyn doesn't want in his shadow cabinet. 

The best interest of the eu is stopping another net contributor leaving, not necessarily what is right for any countries population. They are quite happy to use Ireland/ni population as pawns etc.  They've stitched Greece up a treat until at least 2060, they don't care what really happens to the Irish next March. 

It's not a question of predicting what the EU would do or a question of anybody being pushed out. 

Scotland is not a member of the EU other than as part of the UK. 

If Scotland leaves the UK it leaves the EU, if the UK leaves the EU Scotland leaves the EU. 

You don't see how persuading people of alternatives, highlighting the problems, shouting about the incompetence etc. can do any good? You don't think that could alter the debate at all? 

The likes of Gina Millar and even Tony Blair (see link about) have done more as individuals to affect the nature of debate and likely outcomes than the entire Labour party.  A second referendum of some sort is now a remote possibility rather than not considered at all in large part due to them.  Similarly the likes of David Allen Green have shown all the  obvious policy flaws in the Tories plans, with nothing from Labour.  Even now they are spending hours squabbling over the precise wording a motion on a motion rather than actually doing their job of being an opposition.

It's precisely because it could alter the debate, that they should keep quiet, the influence would only be bad, it would weaken the negotiations in favour of the EU.

I think I've explained my reasoning enough times, you may no like them or simply disagree, but I can't make it any clearer.

None of the people you've mentioned have any responsibilities to their constituents, I'm grateful for Gina Millar, as for Blair I fear, he's getting people's backs up and making their original decisions more entrenched. He has, in my opinion, the ability to ensure a repeat of the protest votes from the people who original voted out as a vote against Cameron. He'd do better to keep his gob shut and disappear.

Did you mean "part of the Legislature" - because that is correct?.   They are not currently part of the government. That is totally wrong, formally, though you could argue that their impotence and ineffectiveness, which has catastrophically let the country down, means that they are contributing to the government's power.

Then I can only suggest you look up HM Government or similar online and cure yourself of your misunderstanding. You've had plenty of opportunities to do so and you have so far insisted on repeating your mistake.

Arguably part of government; definitely not part of *the* government.

This thread is so very corbinsta... let's discuss a meeting, about a motion, to decide internal policy on the wording of draft policy, for a possible manifesto pledge... whilst ignoring the Tories. 

I don't care how precisely or loosely folk want to define in government, parliament, legislature.  There are a lot of mps being paid a lot of money that should be holding the Tories to account but aren't. It's not like the Tories are a formidable foe, even some of the shadow cabinet could probably do a better job than Corbyn given half a chance and that's saying something. 

My predictions:

An act of parliament is needed to set up another referendum, something that can't happen this side of a GE.  There's no chance of an early GE, the Tory's and DUP will hang on until the death (May 2022!)

A sizable but diminishing group of core Labour voters would still vote for Brexit if a referendum were held now, some would go back to UKIP if  they thought Labour was now for remaining splitting the Labour vote and risking a GE win.  A large number will only change their mind post Brexit when Project Fear becomes reality

There won't be time for a referendum this side of the official Brexit vote.  A referendum has to be  binary choice, it won't work with Remain/Chequers/No deal exit.

Later this autumn chequers will die, Teresa May will fall and the Government will be committed to a no deal Brexit.  This will result in a de-facto border between NI and the Republic.  But still the DUP will put up with it rather than give Corbyn chance of a GE

So unfortunately we are committed to 3 years of hell.  At least during this period Labour can establish a government in waiting, negotiate with EU countries and establish a firm plan for Re-entry to the EU.  Hopefully this may slow down the exit of pan-European manufacturing industries from the UK

Simply that both are powerhouses compared with the current lot. I voted for both, would not touch the current lot. Brown and Blair are  centrist politicians and pro Europe.

This has often been said lately without any authority quoted, which makes it simply an assertion.  Is there any authority for the idea?  Referendum is from latin - meaning that which should be referred (carried back, literally) - No Binarii.

Even so it could be phrased Accept or Abort entirely

I'm sure the Pound will suffer and some people will make a load of money while others lose everything in this escapade.   The Guilty Will Go Unpunished is my only prediction.

I can tell you the very simple reason why Labour doesn't oppose the Tories: Parliament is doing pretty much nothing of significance but brexit, and on brexit, Corbyn is essentially aligned with the Tories.

I wonder why you say this. As I posted above there is no reason in principle why a 3 option referendum can't be run on the alternative vote principle where voters list the options in order (1, 2, 3) and the votes for the option with least first preferences are re-allocated according to second preferences. 

That may be inconsistent with current electoral law (PPERA) but parliament can amend the legislation.

Martin

Not true.

Here's the way a new vote would happen:  https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/in/pages/15721/attachments/original/1...

You are right, a divided government is a weak goverment. The Tories are in government and are certainly divided, that gives them a weak negotiating position. If they were a strong united government, they wouldn't need the DUP, nor be worried about Labour.

Labour is not in government. Yes, they are currently a piss poor excuse of an opposition (imho) but the weakness of the UK's negotiating position is not their fault.

.....and now Corbyn is evasive and refuses to say how he would vote if there were another referendum, which according to Starmer is on the agenda and with the possible option of remaining featuring.

I despair.

I thought Labour had made everything crystal clear. They've made a decision to keep all options open to change!! 

I am sure Barnier will be looking forward to negotiations with another set of wriggling eels.

I presume option c. On the peoples vote they are neither for or against will be 'whatever is best for jobs'. 

What do you think are the good and bad points of the current deal?

Easy. The goods bits are what help jobs, the bad bits are those which don't. Look I'm a closet Labour mp. 

It's becoming increasingly clear (to me anyway) that Brexit is an issue that unites the centre ground (for Remain) and divides the centre ground from both extremes. Our two party, first past the post system of democracy can't handle that. Neither party can afford to alienate the half of their voters that voted Leave. So we have this hopelessly confused non-leadership from both of them.

Martin

That's been obvious for ever.

Both parties agreed in advance to honour the result of the referendum. The tension is in finding some way to do that, or, if it's looking to be unfeasible, to sort out how best otherwise to proceed.

A first past the post system might be just workable for governments who can be dismissed at the next election but I think we have the problem here with a permanent change that cannot be just "undone" in that we have not :

A) Established a sufficient overwhelming majority in favour

B) Established that such an intention is the Settled will of the majority

C) Made clear to the choosers what the options mean

D) Given properly researched likely outcomes and consequences for the choosers before the Referendum

E) Had a fair and honest campaign.  I cannot in all honesty regard the Remain side as lying though I thought its campaign was terribly executed.  The worst excesses and mob stirring were definitely on the Brexit side. "Britain First!"

Very well debated, it's great what you bring to these discussions.

In other words you can't, which was exactly the point, thanks

I'm just keeping all options open to change, bit like Labour is doing. I have made a decision that I'm 100% certain I'm keeping my opinions open of what will be good or bad. 

Much like you have nothing to discuss with my comment, the average Labour voter has absolutely no idea what the Labour Brexit/eu stance actually is. 

Nonsense!  Their stance is to bluster and obfuscate whilst revealing absolutely no alternative plans except their ludicrous '6 tests', the second of which is "Does it deliver the "exact same benefits" as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?" which effectively negates any negotiations as this is an unobtainable objective unless we remain in the EU.

Much as I detest the Tories I will never vote for the Labour party while Corbyn is king, as he is the person I hold most responsible for this whole debacle (yes, even more than the spineless Cameron), he wanted to leave and he's got what he wanted so he can just lie in his own midden.

Simply using different words and saying the same thing doesn't really contribute, it just shows you up as a fool to be honest.

The point is, which I'm sure you're aware of, there is nothing  to comment on because we don't have deal to comment on, or in fact anything solid you can say the Tories have negotiated.

Which is why you keep posting the same posts over and over and aren't able to answer the question, seem familiar at all?

But that is exactly what Labour are doing, it's their big annual event, before the biggest change the UK has seen in 43 years and what is Labour's precise position. They've decided to do what, keep all options Open. 

Is Corbyn pro Brexit? Is Labour favouring what type of trade deal? Are they for open borders? 

If a person decides to vote Labour are they pro eu like the lib dems or against like the Tories... what is Labour's stance? 

I agree with all of that (though I'll point out that the Remain side certainly did lie), however: here we are. The question is how to proceed now.

No nothing happening at all.  It's all really boring.  So, what shall we talk about?  Ah! Deselecting MPs, and general strikes, with casual anti-Catholic bigotry as spice.  Excellent plan for an opposition hoping to govern.

The point is that when you set a condition that states that nothing must change when we leave the EU for the negotiation to be considered successful, you are just pretending to be engaged with the process whilst absolutely certain that it will fail (in your eyes).  

With your bonkers pre-condition, not even Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and King Sololmon would have a chance of returning with an acceptable deal, so you banging on about not knowing what the deal is totally disingenuous.

There are apparently "six test" unfortunately no one in Labour knows what they ar

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1044705681683697664

They could have a hundred tests and they would all be utterly pointless as long as there is one that states that nothing must change!!

I'll have one last go, it doesn't matter what Labour want, they could want golden unicorns that shit pound coins for everyone. They aren't part of the negotiations, the Tories took us into this, they are the government, they are negotiating with the EU. That's just how it is, you might not like it, I don't like it, but Labour would be merely sniping from the sidelines, their only influence would be to weaken what May can negotiate for the country.

You seem to be annoyed they aren't doing this, but you'd then be complaining Labour are f*cking up our Brexit deal, by giving ammunition to the EU. The EU would be given even more strength in their negotiations, because they could see that a new Labour government might end up staying in the EU (presumably what the EU want), so let's f*ck May over and there'll be a general election, Labour will win and we'll all be back to normal. But that's not helpful, to anyone is it?

Labour would be blamed by the Tories for f*cking the deal up, everyone who wanted out would then vote Tory, it would be easy for everyone on both sides of the Brexit fence to Labour don't listen to the "will of the people" and they can't be trusted. So where would that leave them?

You are of course still conflating two issues, What Labour should be doing, and "the deal".

You still can't give me any good or bad points about TM's "deal" because there isn't one, no one knows what it's going to be like at the end. So how do you expect Labour, or anyone with a modicum of sense to condemn or praise it, it Schroedinger's cat incarnate.

You, like a few others are quite happy to blame Corbyn, for something that's the fault of the Tories, because is suits you to do so. I understand your anger, you've been betrayed by the people you support, but come on look who took us into this and look who's f*cking it up now? Two years just about and I'm struggling to find one tangible fact of what Brexit is going to mean.

I do know that, it's already cost me money, and it's going to cost me more, certainly for my business, as there's going to be greater paperwork for items we import from the EU.

That's a lot of words but I still don't know their eu position.

Regardless of the negotiation result, Labours view on the eu shouldn't really change. You are pro eu, regardless of the eu negotiation your view won't change, but your level of contentment or dislike of the eu negotiation will. 

The same with Labour they must have a position, a goal and ideal, with which to bench mark the negotiation result.

Labour pro eu?

Labour pro worker migration? Open borders?

Etc .. of course you can't answer because they won't admit that Corbyn and the unions are anti eu. If they went public their momentum 'activists' would abandon them. The likes of McCluskey, McDonnell etc.. are using momentum to gain power, but over the eu they are utterly divided. 

Apparently they are going to create nirvana, thousands of new green jobs, a million new homes, nationalise everything, free every else and on the list goes..

Just one problem.. They seem to think they can fund it too...  Diane Abbott said so. 

There is no statement that nothing must change, only a set of conditions designed to ensure that ordinary people, people like you and me, do not lose out as a result of the Brexit deal.

Yes, the conditions are extremely difficult to meet so you need to ask yourself what is likely to happen when the deal is put before parliament. Now, if you're a tory in favour of hard Brexit I can see why you're making things up to criticise Labour. If you're not and you just don't want phuqed over by Brexit like the rest of us then I don't understand what you have to complain about.

They are going to fund it by taking 10% of all companies off shareholders. It will be great because workers will be given £500 each. So a company like BP (£117b market cap) with approx 15,000 UK employees will raise approx £11billion for the government (giving £7.5m to the workers) 

I have probably completely misunderstood this policy because it does seem a bit simplistic.  I am struggling to work out why shareholders of companies like BP will not opt to move to another country to avoid this ?

edit - looking into it a bit more, it seems the govt and employees share the dividend revenue of the shares that are commandeered

Condition #2

"Does it deliver the "exact same benefits" as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?" 

You might as well have asked for golden unicorns sh1tting pound coins, its equally imaginary. 

Sounds like a great plan if you want to crash the markets. Of course any company in the future would just register elsewhere and avoid the UK. It's as though they don't think there will be a knock on effect to millions of private pensions etc.. not that they care, promise anything to get into power. 

Sorry but what's your point? Labour will support implementation of a Brexit deals that means that ordinary people are no worse off.

You may consider that unrealistic but isn't that what the pro Brexit lobby have promised to deliver? I, along with Keir Starmer happen to think that the promises are a load of bollocks and thus it seems most unlikely that ordinary people will benefit from whatever the final deal might be so it is extremely unlikely that Labour will vote for Brexit.

It also seems likely that elements of the tory party will vote against the deal as well so the chances of it getting through Parliament are pretty slim. Thus the pressure for a people's vote if no general election is called.

Let me enlighten you then, although the Tories are an utter shambles intent on tearing the country apart while a couple of multi millionaires squabble over the remains of the country, I still hold Corbyn to blame as he could of prevented the whole sh1tstorm in the first place by simply campaigning to remain rather than crawling under a stone for the duration of the referendum. He's a brexiteer, he's got what he wanted so he can stop whining about the poor job the Tories are doing.

You do realise their tests are built directly on the promises of the Leave campaign? The wisdom of that we can debate (quite clever IMO) but if we're saying the tests obviously can't be met (debatable, depending how we interpret the immigration test EEA/Norway-ish delivers but not cannot be delivered by May having drawn her red lines) we are also admitting brexit was mis-sold.

jk

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion but here again we stray into also wanting alternative facts. Corbyn did campaign for Remain. He wasn't very effective at reaching a wide audience but then nor was I. For that we may choose to criticise him. We may also choose to temper our criticism given the position he found himself in in 2016, a lifelong sceptic of the union reluctantly taking a pragmatic position to respect and protect his electorate while defending the one thing which makes him electable, his perceived integrity.

What we shouldn't do is criticise him for things that simply are not true.

jk

I'm not usually one to argue that the opposition party should oppose every issue as a matter of principal.  But this issue is clearly an extremely divisive one and the Tories are very clearly in the Brexit camp.  Labour is the main opposition party and until such time as they take an oppositional view on the referendum, upwards of 48% of voters are unrepresented.

At the moment the Tories can proceed full-steam in whatever vague direction they want with no substantial political voice of a similar scale out there saying the whole idea is wrong.   They are unhindered to bollocks the whole thing up as much as they want.

It's about political party grand narratives rather than detail.  There is no opposing party-level grand narrative saying Brexit is wrong, that there is no legally binding reason for us to even have triggered article 50, that the pain will be immense, and we will resist and offer a credible voice in the other direction.  The Lib Dems are doing it of course.  But they are so marginal and the general public appear to have such a revulsion to them that it seems unreasonable to expect them to fly the flag alone for half the population.  Labour appear entirely willing to conflict their own core values - it claims to the be the touchy feely, migrant-friendly, maximal state-funding and state heavy party....yet it is kowtowing to an anti-EU viewpoint that essentially argues all those things are bad.

Simply put, they are in a position to constrain, guide or direct the debate and the public narrative.  Instead they aren't going near it.  "Remain", as a political force, instead has to rely on the likes of Tony Blair and Gina Miller. 

Momentum aside, I could far more easily bring myself to vote Labour than Conservative and I quite like Corbyn as a person.  But in this Battle of Britain moment, Labour has pretty much waved their white handkerchief.  And to top it off they appear to have just announced if they get an early election then they won't bother putting a "remain" option on any people's vote - that basically says, all we care about is getting elected.  For me, this is right up there with the Iraq War in terms of an "I'm not going to vote for Labour again" moment.

Jeremy did campaign to remain, just not very effectively. Possibly because he's lukewarm about the EU as I am. However, Jeremy is not the Labour party, he is one of 550000 members and is bound to do what the party decides to do.

Plenty of Labour party members campaigned and are still campaigning, to remain in the EU and the party does have a properly thought out position on the matter.

What they don't have is a magic wand which seems to be the reason some people are blaming Brexit on the party that didn't initiate it and isn't negotiating the exit.

If you're looking for someone to blame then look no further than David Cameron.

He was invisible for the entire campaign, he refused to stand alongside 'fellow' remainers because they belonged to a different political party, how very mature. He made it known that although the official party line was remain, he did not believe in it and would prefer to leave. That is not campaigning, that is trying to avoid the blame which is exactly what he is continuing to do now.

You, I presume, have no pretensions to being Prime Minister, he has no excuse.

Simply not true. I appreciate it's a couple of years ago and that your definition of invisible may just about reasonably be constricted down to 'I didn't see him' but he did travel, did campaign. As I said, he was IMO quite ineffective talking to small loyal audiences rather than fighting for prime time exposure as Farage and others did. Criticise him for that by all means but don't just make stuff up.

Source please.

jk

That is utter rubbish by the way. Corbyn campaigned for remain more than any other Labour politician, more than Theresa May and, this is the kicker, more than Nicola Sturgeon.

Labour voters were pretty much unanimously remain overall.

There figures are easily searchable.

It was a national referendum, potentially one of the most important in this country's history and he, as the 'leader' of her majesty's opposition chose to campaign at the equivelent of the local allotment society ??? Did he not understand what 'national' means ?

If the labour party had any other leader in 2016 we would not be leaving the EU now.

Citation needed. Corbyn campaigned more than ANY other Labour politician.

The Labour vote was unanimously remain. 

Yet we're still leaving.  No one politician could have changed it.

Except Dickhead Cameron.

At the very least, the general public seemed pretty confused by him.  I remember him "always being a leaver" was a line trotted out by Labour rank-and-file to justify his acceptance of the referendum result. 

Regardless, if you asked a random sample of 10 people today, "What does Jeremy support?", I suspect you would get an even split.  Or, if he's a "remainer" and the opposition leader, he's doing a sh1t job of at least one of those things.

Ask Alan Johnson who was in charge of Labours remain campaign . He is/was a well recognised figure in Labour at the time, and post Brexit was scathing about JC's contribution.

I wonder why? Could it be because the Labour centrists were trying to get Corbyn by any means necessary? If the Blairites hadn't been busy trying to stab Corbyn in the back rather than doing their job we may not have been leaving the EU.

Incidentally, Corbyn put in more appearances than Alan Johnson.

Possibly true given the fairly small swing required, possibly not.

The support for brexit was and is not predominantly from Labour voters, 2/3 of them already voted remain, that's already quite a striking success for remain in that group, you're arguing someone like Ed Milliband (decent man but he wasn't really Mr public-connection was he) could have achieved much better than that because just a little better in that already well won over sub-group doesn't get you to a remain win and he's unlikely to have won over many tories... I'm dubious.

Anyway, arguing about alternate realities is pointless, we have a problem to solve in the present.

jk

He may well be, probably with some justification but it doesn't change the fact Corbyn did publicly back remain and he did campaign.

jk

Touched a raw nerve there.

Let us not kid ourselves, JC always has been against the EU.Just like his mentor Tony Benn.

Can you list all the pro/anti  Europe votes he supported in the HofC?

What is the tally?

No nerves touched whatsoever you're just incorrect, as is Alan Johnson. Who did bugger all campaigning.

Not my problem.

err ... let me think. Staying in EU ... tick. Non-Tory government ... tick. Everything back to normal ... tick.

Nope, can't see a problem.

Don't play that game, leave that to others, it's beneath you. Corbyn's campaign is what is being discussed and you're deflecting to something else entirely. His skeptical position on the EU was and is well known and documented but when it came to the crunch he like many others took a pragmatic position.

jk

Labour's test #2 - "exactly the same benefits" is surely nonsense. We simply can't expect the EU to grant the same benefits as EU membership affords without the equivalent responsibilities (eg accepting free movement, accepting ECJ jurisdiction). The Labour leadership must realise this.

The problem for Labour is that without the votes of current Labour supporters who voted Leave they can't expect to form a future government.

Yes, we can blame Cameron, Corbyn, May, Johnson etc all we like, but at the end of the day those primarily responsible for this mess are the 52% of us who voted Leave. Fortunately it seems a small number of those 52% have now seen the light and changed their mind. This together with two year's worth of new young, predominantly Remain, voters replacing a similar number of predominantly Leave voters who have died, might just offer a way out of the mess provided the parliamentary arithmetic will steer us towards a People's vote with Remain on the ballot paper.

I live in hope.

Martin

Exactly! It's then their hot potato to deal with then, at present the EU won't and shouldn't have anything to do with Labour or what they think would be best for our Brexit.

Well...... 65% to 35% actually.

But he's the messiah, at least that's what a lot of people like to assume people think, except when it comes to elections, where he's unelectable. You only have to read a number of posts here to see, they'd rather blame Corbyn than accept the facts, Cameron started this shit, the populous voted and made their choice (based on lies, from both sides). I think it's the betrayal by their party they're angry with, but can't face up to the truth.

"Corbyn never campaigned to remain", he did! "Yes but not hard enough!". Nothing is, or would have been enough, for some people.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/  What's more a protest vote against Cameron, which no one thought would end up getting through.

Yes, but that's not good enough!! Corbyn should have done more, the lazy bastard!!

This is interesting, if the figures are right. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-supporters-turn-against-brexi...

Anger is tangible because it looks like Labour are going to be the only party capable of reversing this cluster fook, of course that rubs a number of people up the wrong way, it's a quandary for sure

Well apparently 52% is the overwhelming will of the people so using Tory maths 65% is unanimous.

A view from Europe...."Afterwards, the leader of the Greens in the European parliament, Philippe Lamberts, told the Guardian: “I have zero trust in Labour, I am afraid to say. The Labour position is not to do with principles, but about tactical considerations. It is all about getting the government out of power whatever the cost.”

According to May etc "The People voted to Leave" - no mention of quantities - implication, if you didn't vote to leave you are not a one of The People, certainly not one whose wishes and interests are to be represented in any way.   Even Farage admitted that such a result was open to dispute, what better Brexit authority can I quote than that?

According to May etc "The People voted to Leave" - no mention of quantities - implication, if you didn't vote to leave you are not a one of The People, certainly not one whose wishes and interests are to be represented in any way.   Even Farage railed that such a result was open to dispute, what better Brexit authority can I quote than that?

is there an echo in here or have I been walled up in a cave?

Yeah? That's one guy.  I'm sure his party have never tried to get into power. 

Cameron didn’t start this.  We should have been able to hold a referendum every decade for the last 50 years and still reliably win a Remain outcome if Remain was really that strong.  But Remain was losing arguments, whether it was in the tabloid newspapers, or in the lack of honest pro-EU rhetoric from both political parties.  The referendum result points to something a bit more fundamental in British society rather than a shortcoming in David Cameron.

Remain had more than enough time to prepare for a referendum and ensure public support. Instead they/we buried heads in the sand with repeated resistance to even putting it to the public test, an automatic response to immigration concerns being to cite bigotry, and to argue the Pro-EU case almost entirely on tenuous economic arguments. Helped by healthy doses of pro-Brexit lies we were given a Leave victory.

Fortunately for Remain supporters, a chaotic Brexit-Britain has now been on display for two years and its likely a fair few Leavers have concluded the grass may be brown on the other side.  So this has maybe ultimately been a good exercise.  

Blame Cameron all you want.  But what is worse than a referendum is putting a lid on years of pretty clear Brexit sentiment by simply denying people the vote at all.  That is all the more hypocritical when right now we Remainers are complaining about being denied a referendum....something we didn't seem to care much about when the will of the people was different.  It was perfectly right that we had a referendum then.   Its perfectly right we have a referendum again, when the actual choices are known.  The only thing you could maybe blame Cameron for is not introducing a threshold for a referendum result, but that's probably not his fault.

It's an interesting point this, the 'years of anti EU sentiment'. For most of those years that sentiment was largely confined to to the back benches of the Conservative party, to a small bunch of English nationalists and lassaiz faire free-marketeers. Then we have the recession of the 90's the Major government's infighting raising the profile of Europe somewhat but it is not until the far worse the collision of 2008 and an until then nearly irrelevant protest group, UKIP who are able to latch onto ill directed public anger that the issue starts to increase in importance for voters. That anger at our poor governance and the wealth transfer which occurred in the aftermath of the crash was very successfully redirected into anti EU anger blaming the privations of the last decade, some crash related, some tory related, some technology related on the big bad EU. Sure, public support for the EU as indicated by polls has fluctuated and it has never been clear cut but for most until UKIP entered the post crisis world of the last decade it was not a priority issue.

Personally I'd prefer parliament dealt with this responsibly but they have in the last two years tied their hands to the extent they no longer politically have all the options available to them without further reference to 'the people' that they require to discharge their duty.

Cameron f***** up bad. I don't subscribe to the belief his hand was forced, we are the victim of his careless hubris. History will not treat him kindly.

jk

Who cares what some unknown Belgian, co-chair of some 6.9% group in the EU Parliament thinks about Labour?  I certainly do not!

I disagree.  In reflection its been there from the days of butter mountains, wine lakes and bent bananas.  Remember "up yours, Delors" headline, 1990 ?

In all the time I've seen drip-drip negative press, I don't think I've ever seen the admittedly more mundane and boring pro EU arguments - what has the EU done for us ?  All the fiendishly complex legal and regulatory work that makes the EU trade comparatively smoothly and easily, with protected rights and freedoms for its citizens, with globally recognised standards and specification bodies run collaboratively by countries that were at war only just over half a century ago.  All for the cost of peanuts.

Did he ? really ? I totally missed that.

Totally agree with your Cameron comment, how could he possibly hand it over the public to vote on such a complex issue, whilst he holidays in Nice sunbathing in the sun to avoid public view this year. Worst decision in UK political history.

Anyone with half a brain can see the benefits of having free trade, goods and services between European nations flowing in and out without hassle, not just logistical but also financial. Others think immigration, well yes that is an issue, but I blame the UK mostly for having such an easy benefit system for not working or arriving from abroad unemployed, UK is the best place on earth for freebies, I blame the UK government for this part. 

Been from NZ I have seen Europe transform from the depressing early 90's when I arrived in a lot of EU countries to things blossoming but especially Britain being quiet run down generally. So blaming EU for all the problems is a poor excuse generally when it's our UK governments to blame for most of it.

EU parliament is not a great outfit as we know but the end of the day when we are out of the EU nothing will improve I see things getting a lot worse. I wouldn't trust EU politicians nor would I would trust UK politicians. We are all slaves period, make the most of it, get up and do something.  I don't live to survive I live to be alive!

Are you are correct there?

Since Harold Wilson had to renegotiate terms from the EEC and then hold a referendum to deal with a split in the Labour Party has it not been an issue of both the left and right?

It was certainly the case in the 1970s,  Tony Benn and Enoch Powell campaigned on the same side with the slogan 'Out of Europe into the World' in the 1975 referendum campaign. 

Did  opposition by the left to the EEC /EU cease at that point? 

Yes he did, poorly. Apparently you did.

Frankly I've been disappointed by Corbyn despite having voted for him (to articulate his ideas more than to lead), I'm no whooping 'Oh Jeremy...' fan-boy but this winds me up, arguably the most serious problem we have in our politics today is the fact we don't even try to deal in facts any more. There are a 1001 serious and trivial things Corbyn can be criticised for but here you are insinuating something untrue instead of dealing with that reality. We can do better than this.

jk

Probably not completely, it was a short post.

Sure but it has been more of a driving issue on the far right of parliamentary politics for the last couple of decades, more of a difficulty for the Conservatives than Labour at least for the last 2 or 3 decades.

Public support has fluctuated with parliamentary political interest/power games and economic conditions, it's never been very strong or weak (40/60, 60/40 ish) but then nor have the public really been very interested in it either, it was something people had an opinion on if asked but not that drove them to the polls for a certain party or policy in any great numbers. That is until UKIP appropriated public anger at the aftermath of 2008 and twisted it, that is a turning point. Support for the EU didn't actually shift much but it became the scapegoat for austerity, it weirdly became the prime driver of a large minority of voters.

Clearly not but it's been pretty muted and fringe through the 90s, 00's and into this decade. It still is comparatively. I'm sure in any Labour meeting be it in the local pub or in the palace of Westminster you can still hear plenty of anti EU voices but it hasn't been dividing the party, driving policy as it has for the Conservatives.

jk

Thanks.

You left out 'until now'...

You forgot to mention immigration. A far bigger factor than the 2008 financial crisis in a lot of peoples negative perception of the EU IMO

86% of the membership favour a second referendum. Unfortunately a significant number of MPs in Leave voting seats feel threatened by this, hence the reluctance of (some of) the leadership to go along with the wishes of the party as a whole.

I thought Jeremy's offer to the government in his speech yesterday was clever in that respect. A way of showing that the party still wants to respect the original vote but will only do so if the deal doesn't damage the lives of ordinary people. Of course such an agreement with the tories will never happen and so we can look forward to Labour et al voting down the final deal. Whether that results in a general election or a second referendum is anyone's guess.

I didn't forget. I don't believe the immigration actually impacted people's lives anywhere near as radically as the recession and the tory austerity 'medicine'. It was however visible especially after the new states joined and a very handy EU related target for UKIP to hook peoples genuine grievances and normal prejudices onto. For obvious reasons the government was not interested in challenging that 'immigrants are your problem' narrative until it was too late and UKIP had them on the ropes.

There's probably no point arguing over it, we've been round the loop several times before and I doubt either of us has got any more convincing since we last did it.

jk

Fair point, brexit has broken both parties but FPTP will not reward a common ground party built of the bits splintered from them. It's a mess, we hobble on with ineffective inward looking government and a lame toothless opposition.

jk

I thought the whole point was that they're holding the government to its own promises - the "exact same benefits" line was originally from David Davis, no?

But that only means you didn't see / hear it, it doesn't mean he didn't do it, does it?

I don't want to argue. I'm not saying you are wrong, just think you omitted a vital point. The "years of anti EU sentiment" after the GFC focussed far more on open borders and immigration than austerity, regardless of impact on the individual.  If there was anger at "privations of the last decade directed at the EU" it was the perception that open borders and immigrants were undercutting wages, taking jobs and pushing up house prices that was the real bogeyman blamed on the EU and where UKIP got all their traction to wag the dog.

That's a fair point, anti immigrant sentiment was a tool used and fostered by both UKIP and the government to transfer anger at austerity and the failings of neo-liberal economic policy onto the minorities and by association the EU. I don't dispute that, I just want to be very clear that immigrants were never the root cause of most of that legitimate anger and that no amount if dicking about with immigration policy will make school or hospitals or busses or job centers work better. It might make housing cheaper but cheaper and more affordable are not the same. We've had significant unused control of immigration for as long as we've had missed nonsensical immigration targets. If you want to cut immigration, damage the economy. If you want to control it long term you have to radically restructure the economy and public services. Brexit does the first, it might do the latter but not with immigration management or popular welfare as the goal.

jk

You might find Neal Lawson's piece on how our democracy is broken, and how a simple Remain victory in a 'People's Vote' would not fix it, interesting:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/neal-lawson/people-s-vote-on-brexit-be-car...

A grown-up view, with consideration of difficulties and ambiguities in all directions. I don't agree with everything here (in particular parts of his proposed solution would take far too long) and you probably won't either but it's a good contribution. 

yes, indeed. he could have been doing it every evening of the campaign, in the comfort of his own living room, with the curtains closed, and the phone off the hook,  to whatever audience happened to see him...

Yet presumably the public can be trusted to vote in general elections and can be trusted with a people's vote?

So it's not actually a complex issue?

It's a very sensible piece. There isn't much to disagree with for me but for the fact towards the end it does somewhat neglect the fact politics is 'the art of the possible', the aims are laudable, the processes reasonable but in my rather jaded opinion we do not as a nation have the drive, tools or the time to get there.

Ultimately I know full well a future remain vote kicks issues which desperately need addressing down the road (as does brexit) and I would dearly love a more collaborative political process putting pragmatism and evidence ahead of ideology as guiding principals, fairer representation, a discussion of what our economy exists for and what it should exist for, how we shape and regulate it to keep it healthy, what kind of world we want to pass on. I'm under no illusion the answer is simple or that I have it.

I'm not an optimist or a dreamer, I believe whatever happens in or out I won't live to see that debate about building a different better country, region and world. This episode is not the trigger we need for that though it should be. We as a population are not politically or economically literate, our media does not act to counter that, ultimately we're not interested in the long slog toward messy compromised but functional solutions, we want our opinions. I fear in reality we are going to have a rancorous divided nation racing to the bottom which ever path we take, it needn't have been this way we could have talked ourselves down but the die is cast now.

Our choice as I see it is whether we spend the next 20 odd years fighting back to where we are today economically so we have the ability (if not perhaps the will and tools) to tackle these problems. Yes, a change of course while the electorate remains heavily polarised and near evenly split carries risks, huge ones. Both options do. We are however now committed to a damage limitation exercise in the first instance. Ultimately I do think the problems we face are significantly easier to address if we as a nation decide not to leave the EU, it is a powerful tool to both moderate extremes of domestic politics and to address of our issues many of which transcend borders. We must engage though, choose to use it. We cannot be held hostage to the fury of a vocal minority (yet to be tested) of the electorate though we should hear, understand and try to address its causes.

I think that starts in earnest with electoral reform and with the repair of our now threadbare and mean-spirited judgemental social security safety net which must be built on built on a foundation of a well regulated outward looking market economy managed with both public and private good as driving principals. Our future and the solutions to our problems do not lie in the callous laissez faire swashbuckling nor a wealth grab (re-distributive or not) that brexit is poised to deliver. None of this is easy, in fact from where I'm sat today some of it looks impossible but it isn't, it is slow and dull, it is very very hard and progress will be faltering but it is possible.

jk

Corbyn probably gives dozens of talks a year. But these are to people who are already his core supporters and will lap it up.

How many times has he been on question time or any questions? Where his views will be challenged and he will have to justify his stance. 

Correct of course, or like my mam who switches the telly over whenever he's on and then complains he talks shite, this is of course after it's been through the DM interpretor which is where she learns about what Corbyn thinks

Well I'm not deliberately insinuating something untrue - I still genuinely don't believe that Corbyn campaigned to remain.  I actually don't believe he campaigned for anything.

With respect when discussing facts what we believe has no bearing on those facts.

jk

I'm still to be convinced they are the facts.  Campaigning is more than muttering some ambivalent comment.

One things for certain the Brexiteers want us to crash out so they can reduce workers rights across the board allowing them to exploit the masses to the benefit of their rich mates. Its simply a carefully planned and executed takeover bid with only the rich profiting.

You don't remember, for example, his 8/10 comment? Or does saying that you're 8/10 in favour of the EU count as ambivalent?

It's tempting to see things like this when we see the disaster capitalists hovering like vultures, but nothing about Brexit suggests to me that anything carefully planned and executed is going on. Quite the opposite really. The people you're talking are certainly hoping to take advantage, and have been making efforts to see their dreams come true, but they're only one element. 

Here's the quote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36506163/corbyn-i-m...

Additionally, his reasons for staying in the EU seem to be based more on Workers Rights, etc. than economic. 

That really is not a campaign speech !  Its about as luke warm as it gets.

It's more about wanting a socialist state of Europe, not the EU.

Here's another interview where he dismisses the Free Market in favour of Workers Rights, etc:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-34274933/jeremy-corbyn-would-not-...

Um..no.

He wants the EU to be democratic socialist. WTF else would you expect the leader of the Labour party to want?

He made the point in another interview that the EU used to focus a lot more on issues of rights for its citizens but since Maastricht it's become more laissez faire capitalist. He's like to shift focus back to improving the lives of ordinary Europeans, hardly an extreme view.

Wouldn't it have been f*cking great if he had made that point more clearly  while campaigning to remain?

In the event he has delivered the UK to the likes of NF, AB and JRM stitched up like a kipper.

Oh absolutely Rob, I just think it's a bit rich to blame the leader of the Labour party for Brexit when the referendum was called by David Cameron and the negotiations are being overseen by Theresa May while being scuppered by members of her party. 

I don't blame Cornyn for Brexit. He just didnt help prevent it either. Which was disapointing

What so wrong with that? I think many people have a wide range of reasons for wanting to stay or leave. Why should the only reason people think the EU is s good idea be economic ones, mine isn't, though I can see it will affect me economically.

Some might say as honest as it gets. I know people who switched to Labour, precisely for this statement, as weak as you think it was, it was his opinion, not "what he was supposed to say", there was no WW III hyperbole, just a simple honest answer to a simple question.

Its honest in that it makes clear that Corbyn is after a socialist republic of Europe.  That's fine in its own way  but is not the same as campaigning to stay in the  non socialist republic EU, alongside Cameron, Major, Blair etc.

I think a lot of the Tory panic is from the rich tax evading bastards and institutions, who if we stay in the EU will very shortly have be a bit more transparent about where their money is and where it's hiding. Of course this will hit them in the pockets and lay them open to accusations of hypocrisy, so it's an obvious no no for them