UKC

Even thought I voted remain, and accept that we are leaving the EU next year, at least the Conservatives are trying to do something about Brexit. 

Over the last year or so, I've heard Labour saying that the Conservatives are stuffing up Brexit at every turn, but do they have a credible plan themselves?

Or are they just grateful that they don't have to even think of an exit strategy?

Maybe they have a 5th Column within the Tories?

Boris?

Actually, they have 2. One, which will work, ,which is to rerun the referendum and see where that leaves us - in the EU, at a guess. Two, Jeremy Corbyn's. Which is much the same as JR-M's.

Nobody has a Brexit plan!

The whole business is absurd.

Of course they have a plan. A better one than the tories' plan.

https://labour.org.uk/issues/labours-plan-brexit/

Why not have a read and tell us what you think of it?

That's not a plan. It's a kicking of the can down the road followed by a negotiating stance that conclusively and from the outset prohibits us entering into independent trade agreements with third parties. If you're going to Brexit at all (I'd rather not), then surely the point is to enjoy some independence in trade.

May's plan, convoluted though it is, does steer a careful course to protect jobs while preserving some self-determination. That it doesn't please anyone suggests that she's got the balance about right

It's pointless though as Labour aren't in a position to implement it.
If Corbyn/Labour believe it is the best Brexit and also believe that they could convince Parliament and the UK as a whole, then maybe they should force a Vote of No Confidence and make it the key pledge in the subsequent General Election if they win that vote.
They might well lose the vote and/or the election, but at least Corbyn/Labour would have actually tried to do something about Brexit instead of fannying about in the background. 

With all due respect that really isn't a plan. It may be a hope, or perhaps a strategy on which to base planning, but it's roughly equivalent to the kind of 'plan' that May and Davis had about 18 months ago, which remained almost unchanged until a few weeks ago. There's absolutely no reason to believe that Corbyn's Labour would be more successful in delivering a Brexit that's acceptable to both UK voters and EU partners than has been May's Tories. It appears to be an intractable problem.

Of course, Corbyn's supporters will believe otherwise, just as May's, Johnson's or JRM's supporters have continued to believe otherwise, up until such time as inconvenient but inescapable facts block their path.

Or a Yankee infiltrator trumping all over the place?

Why do they need one? They are in no place to implement it. The Tories are in power, it's up to them to come up with something. other than snipe at each other.

They can't because they have the collective IQ of a racist sea urchin but it's their job to do it.

What are you talking about? The Tories have come up with TWO plans!

Yes but not one that will work for Labour or their supporters.

The only plan which gets us out of the EU which doesn't leave us deeply harmed and vulnerable is one that leaves us very closely aligned with the EU. One which is ridiculous. It's ridiculous for Norway despite their significant fisheries but it's as close as they can manage for now, it's even less sensible for us since we've almost nothing to gain by it and much to lose but if we're doing this it's the survivable choice. It's also the one almost nobody will support in parliament or the polling booth so here we are, stood on the brink waiting for the rush. Wondering if against all reason we might actually soar, hoping that the end will be painless, pushing aside thoughts of the path at our heels.

jk

So pretty much exactly like May's plan then ? 

There is no such thing as independence in trade in the 21st century as a mid size economy, you just accept the rules as set but the powers at be (that is, if you actually want to trade)

May's plan is completely unworkable, in practical terms first, and also in political terms. It's a fantasy solution to try to bridge an unbridgeable gap. In effect, another can kicked down the road.

The Labour plan isn't a plan, it's two incredibly bland  paragraphs of nothingness and sitting on the fence. Maybe there is a secret place and I'd guess, from the complete absence of anything from Labour, it is along the lines of "keep well out of it and let the Tories self-destruct".  If this isn't the plan then there is just a great big nothing.

tick rock tick tock not long to go.....,

Exactly this, it's not Labour's baby to sort out, and they can't anyhow. They can only appear to be negative about May's "efforts" (whatever they are).

So let's find out what the Tories are suggesting, because they really don't have anything concrete we can say yes or no on, and then either support or denounce that.

Why would Labour get involved when they have no influence, and it's turning into a pantomime, keep well away until we know what's on offer. Labour aren't involved in the negotiations are they?

They need a plan because it's still quite possible the tories implode in an orgy of infighting and brexit is dumped in Labour's lap at the 11th hour.

As there'll be no time to actually negotiate anything before the Article50 clock runs out and an extension seems vanishingly unlikely their plan should be focused on preparing the public and positioning themselves to make the unpopular but necessary move of rescinding Article50 to keep our economy on the rails, the true 'jobs-first' brexit. As is their plan is to pretend there is a version of brexit which works for their voters, this convenient lie might have saved them from electoral disaster but it is now the opposite of what they need to be doing, it risks leaving them unable to do what is needed and us in ruins when the responsibility is palmed off onto them at the last moment.

jk

It's simple really, Labour's plan is to have no plan, because it actually doesn't matter for them, they can just let the Tories deal with the hot potato, wait for the disaster, and then take over - and then they have the opportunity to build their protectionist, socialist Britain.

That could be a Secret Backbench Tory plan.  Let the whole fekup land in Labour's lap, sit back for a painful 5 years of turmoil, regroup with a new leader and win the next two elections once the dust has settled.

I think you are rather missing the idea and purpose of the Opposition. 

I think you're rather missing the point of choosing your battles.

If Labour voted against every Tory proposal, it would be easy for the Tories to "blame" Labour for the resulting fuck up, they fucking up themselves so why get involved.

At least until we have a definitive idea of what we're going to end up with, at present it's all fluff and bullshit, no one knows what were getting or likely to get, so how the fuck can you vote either for or against anything?

I fail to see why this is so hard to understand.

I personally believe that Corbyn doesn't really care about Brexit one way or the other and is just hoping that he can become PM in the aftermath of it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/url-jeremy-corbyn-brexit-eco...

That's great, another round of peddling again the same falsehoods and myth (foreigners keep wages low etc etc..).

I'll sum up the Labour Party official line in two works: Britain first.

Sad times, why don't people wake up, I don't know.

Name me one country that doesn't put itself first!

You don't agree we should be building our future navy in the UK then?

Surely, creating jobs in the UK and not spending money outside the country if we can spend it "in house" is best.

No, I don't, I think we should necessarily get it built in the UK.

No, not necessarily, in fact it's really bad, as you give an unfair advantage to domestic workers and companies . Not only it would prevent us from trading with others, but it would insulate us from competition - which ultimately would make us uncompetitive.

Critical security yes, just plain sensible.Warships would be one as long as your technology keeps up.Clearly we do in this field.

Otherwise you need to open up to the outside world as it simply makes your manufacturing business more productive and better.

If labour had a workable alternative plan for brexit, it would make them look like a government in waiting, which might concentrate the Tories minds. Just saying

If Labour have a workable plan for Brexit - alternative for otherwise - there's a whole lot of people in for a huge surprise, given that nobody has yet managed to propose anything even close to workable.

Well they wouldn't be hamstrung by the Mogglodyte's red lines.

Staying in a customs union would be a start...

A sensible Brexit will become possible when the UK can physically relocate to the Pacific Rim or the Southern Hemisphere.

Until then we will remain part of Europe, just with less and less power and influence.

That's Trump economics is it not?

Protectionism doesn't work.

Trump introduces steel tarriffs and as a result, increases cost for US manufacturers (and, into the bargain, starts tit-for-tat trade disputes), Harley Davidson open offshore plants to sidestep tarriffs, Trump becomes enraged on Twitter. And so it goes.

Still, I don't have to worry as I'm a party member and I'll be able to get my name on the waiting list for a brand new Austin Metro before the rest of you.

They may not have be responsible for Brexit however the current Labour leadership have allowed this mess to grow without providing any real opposition. Outside of Scotland and Wales the 48% of the population who voted to remain have no political voice. I would trust the likes of Anna Soubry and Dominic Grieve far more readily than I would JC and I'm a life-long Labour voter.

Are you for real? 

How can you spin this entirely designed and executed mess that is Brexit on Labour just because they don't know how to solve the Tory shitstorm that has engulfed all of Europe?

No.

Trump is erecting barriers to free trade.

Absolutely I'm for real!

And I'm not spinning anything for Chrissakes: I'm a lifelong Labour voter (who voted Labour in the last election - after some heart-searching - given that there was no other credible alternative because of our electoral system).

Whilst this game of identity politics is being played out we're seeing our kids' futures being pissed down a drain and frankly it ain't good enough. Of course the primary blame can be directed at Cameron's clumsy attempt to stop Tory voters defecting to UKIP but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else is above criticism.

From Labour's website, "Labour would seek to negotiate a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union to ensure that there are no tariffs with Europe, and help avoid any need for a hard border in Northern Ireland. Such an arrangement would need to ensure the UK would have an appropriate say on any new trade deal terms."

Is that a start?

I did look through the web site, TBH it's a wish list, but it is a start. Not what I would call a plan but a start. 

I think labour have deliberately missed the boat here, which is depressing, had they come up with something before the election, I reckon we would have a labour govt now and be heading for a Norway type deal. Since JC is as much a hard brexiter as any of the ERG we are going to crash out.

The Tories want to blame the EU for the crash, labour are just as obviously setting up to blame the Tories, rather than avoiding the crash in the first place. 

The trouble is that Labour aren't at the negotiations so can't make anything happen. Many Labour constituencies voted Leave so there are risks in being too strident on the subject. If they took a line closer to the Lib Dem line would they end up gaining or losing seats at the next GE and would their stance on Brexit have actually changed anything?

As ukip proved, the Tories can be "nudged" a credible plan from them and the fear of losing seats might have been some use.

A bit more here

https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/negotiating-brexit/

However the reality is that the referendum cut right across party lines with remainers and leavers in both camps. meaning that a united party front was always going to be difficult for both parties.

Not really, Look at Corbyn speech. Trumponomics and completely incompatible with no NI border.

Economic nationalism of the worst kind is now the official mainstream policy in the UK (on both sides of the House of Common) and in the US.

Worrying times.

It's simply factually incorrect to imply that Labour is split down the middle. Last month, an astonishing 87% said they were Remain:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/18/jeremy-corbyn-leftwin...

An opinion poll in January 2018 showed that 87 per cent of the Labour membership thought Britain should remain in the single market, 85 per cent that Britain should remain in the customs union, and 78 per cent that there should be a second referendum on any Brexit deal. https://labourlist.org/2018/01/labour-members-poll-over-75-per-cent-of-want...
 

As a Labour party member, I'm obviously not one of the 0.7% of the members who were asked.

With a membership of over 550,000, a survey of 4,000 doesn't really cut it for me. I'm no statistician, but 4/550 ...

The leadership don't care about Labour *members'* views on Brexit; they care about Labour *voters'* views on Brexit. I think you'll find the split a lot closer in that larger demographic.

I'm assuming that the pollsters have some skill. Of course, it'll be a sample and of course polls can be incorrect, sometimes by as much as 10% ... but these figures seem to be rather overwhelming. And, no, I'm not going 'to research the numbers'. I'm simply taking this to be a quite strong indication of the truth. (A nasty word that for some people, I know.)

Yet May doesn't seem to think this is important, and wont commit to building them in the UK

Yes, of course that must be true. 'A lot closer' as you say. But it seems a very foolish line for JC to be taking. (For lots of other reasons too ... some of the other things he's said today.) 

Behave yourself, G!
Going on the last few General Elections, polls have been shown up as complete nonsense.
You may as well ask Mystic Meg.

I was talking about the political field as a whole not just the membership. The supporters of both parties seem split down the middle.

The poll makes a strong argument but the Labour leadership is being driven, not so much by the sum of its members, as by electoral mathematics which are demanding that excessive deference is given to leave voting Labour supporters in the north of England*. These are the seats that today are key to an election victory. Take the poll there and see how differently it reads.

*And by Corbyn’s hatred of the EU, of course.

Not really no, why would you put your military production in the hands of a foreign power?

It simply doesn't make sense to put out to tender and then choose on lowest price, there are other "costs" you should take into account, for instance the receipts of tax from the employment within our own country, the receipts from Capital Gain tax we'd also receive, the saving on benefits we might be paying, add them into the mix and it automatically make our proposal cheaper, a simple bottom line analysis is stupid and short sighted.

It's very similar to privatising parts of the NHS, with services in house the money stays within the NHS system once you start spending outside, it never comes back. So although you might not be able to match price for price, the money isn't leaving the group, it's there for future use and profit is retained within the NHS not given away to investors.

I get where you’re coming from krikoman but the economic illiteracy of your analysis encapsulates most people’s fears of Labour’s incompetence. Capital Gains on shipbuilding, for example? No such thing.

Large capital decisions are about delivery and technology more than price and if the capability isn’t there then no amount of housewives’ economics will resolve it.

If you regret the loss of that capability, then you have me for a co-believer. But don’t gloss over the complexities.

As for the NHS, public or private, the overall cost to the government (ie taxpayers’ money) shouldn’t significantly vary whichever route is taken. The same proceeds from PAYE, benefit reduction etc flow back to the UK state whether a nurse works in the private or public sector, for UK or US provider.

You analysis implies that the NHS is a business run by the state for profit. Nonsense.  It’s a pure expense, the benefit of which is measured by the quality and quantity of outcomes against the budget allocated for that purpose. If a private provider delivers better outcomes for the same cost then it is a better choice for the patient and a better choice for the taxpayer.

Edit to add that I’m a big fan of the NHS. Just a hater of bad economics!

I heard MacDonald taking this line this morning and I'm afraid it's nonsense. If you start taking into account all the benefits - direct and indirect - of placing government business to home grown suppliers, then very quickly you end up with a command economy - and we know how well THAT works out. 

It's embarrassing to hear MacDonald talk this stuff, I want rid of the Tories more than most but when you hear such economic and practical illiteracy I just despair.