UKC

... Sound like you've finally been forced to adopt a realistic and workable version of Brexit.

Now, if you'd just step aside to allow a more credible leader to take over, we might just see the glimmer of a possibility of a Labour government to get us out of this omnishambles.

Not really, a customs union won’t save you, what matters for the U.K. economy is services and movement of people. Besides, it won’t happen.

Interesting isn’t it, we have a hard left opposition leader who is essentially more in favour of a frictionless trade policy than the tories.

The tories see the single market as a Franco-German evil plot, Corbyn sees it as a evil capitalist plot

Of course, the only plot is the one they’ve all lost.

Wow when did they elect this hard left opposition leader and who is he/she?

Hmm not sure about your analysis. I take it that old lefties reservations about Europe were objections to market doctrine being embodied in the conditions of membership. E.g. should all sectors be subject to a market or is there a place for state monopolies in, for example, water supply or postal services.

A second objection is to the limitation in state support for national industries or sectors.

Both are very important aspects of any political union.

Yes, a market economy is a condition, but there is obviously a place for national utilities and public services. This should be very obvious given the large number of EU countries who chose to spend a lot on high quality public services and have national utilities.

Helping industries in one country to screw it somwhere else is just counterproductive. What you should seek is a level playing field, we have more or less one in the EU, outside of course not everybody wants to play fair, but in such case the EU does not shy away from protecting its interests. Fair game.

Important but by no means the first.

People tend to forget, the main idea is to have a democratic platform where European countries can resolve differences through compromise and consensus, instead of doing through threat, bargaining, and coercion. Something that cruelly lack in the past.

Unfortunately Rom, I do not think that is a view widely held in the UK.

I don't think many of them do, do they ?

Yeah!! bring back Tony Blair, he was good wasn't he?

Or we could go back to the "good" Tories, David Cameron was good, he let us vote on the referendum in the first place.

Probably just the hard-core Brexiters - 35 or so? I don't know if they see it as an evil plot but they hate and fear it, and a lot of that is based on historical fear of German power and of the strength of the Franco-German alliance at the heart of the EU. (Margaret Thatcher is supposed to have asked Michail Gorbachev to clamp down on the civil rights demonstrators learning down the Berlin Wall because she was so scared of a united Germany).

Sounds like Liam Fox is being to see the light as well, now we just need him to out put two and two together....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43204460

"The UK would find itself in a "worse position" than it is now, he said, if it left the existing arrangement but negotiated a similar new one"

And it is ironic that Germany does not want that power. I heard they repeatly asked the UK to join the euro because they were afraid that Germany would become too dominant.

Another irony: UK wanted to enlarge the union to reduce Franco-German dominance. The inclusion of the eastern countries places Germany geographically in the center of the union. Now assuming political change between countries is relatively smooth, this places the compromise position of union politics without the Germans generally close to the German point of view. Giving Germany the power to shift it around.

I heard most of his speech and, tbh, if he thinks that the EU are going to cut a special deal customs union which meets all his requirements I think he's dreaming. Still if we end up in *the* customs union it will at least minimise the damage. Until the mogglodytes get into no. 10, when we can expect unilateral withdrawal with a side order of total chaos.

I don't think anyone in British politics actually believes there will ever be two customs unions, but there's still a bit of public opinion massaging to be done for anyone who wants to keep us in the existing one. "A customs union" will sounds a bit more self-important to those who think we're too special to be in "the customs union" - once we're committed to that course of action, the EU will maintain there's only one way to go about it so we'll be left with "the customs union" or hard brexit.

Being in a customs union with the EU is pretty much hard brexit. This is the same as Turkey. They have huge lines of lorries waiting at the border.

The whole brexit positioning from both party is so ridiculous, and so obviously directed inwards. Everybody knows that none of what is suggested by either either labour or the conservatives is even remotely acceptable to the EU. Or even desirable or strategically sensible.

At some point someone is going to have to tell the truth or there will be a crisis. So a crisis is probably inevitable. They will kick the can down the road, but it won’t go away, and in the meantime, the economy is seriously subdued, the country is working flat out. But going nowhere.

Actually Rob, this is the first time I've ever heard Jeremy sound like a Prime Minister in waiting.

He was fluent and confident for once. 

Regarding Labour's position on Brexit I think they've got it just right. This was the speech Teresa May should have made ages ago except that she can't because the tories are tearing themselves apart over whether to go for a soft Brexit and limit the economic damage or jump off a cliff and hope that something will turn up. Whatever she says one faction or the other in her party will spit the dummy out. It's certainly satisfying for labour that Liam Fox and Boris were both wetting themselves in public this morning over Labour's position and amazingly, leading figures from industry were saying nice things about Labour's preferred position.

I think he pitched it well. Firstly it's a negotiating position, if you don't ask you don't get. I sense the hand of Union leaders, skilled in the art of negotiation in this. Secondly, the content is specific enough to let everyone know what Labour want without being so specific they'll get nailed to wall about it in a few months time. Thirdly the approach is right, they want to safeguard jobs, a customs union would do that, they want to solve the Irish border issue and a customs union would address that and they want to respect the result of the referendum so no outright opposition which would alienate many in the Labour constituencies in the Midlands and North of England. In other words, they're looking after people, they're looking after the UK and they're respecting democracy. Finally, if it all does go pear shaped and we end up with a crap deal then this does allow Labour to push for a vote in Parliament or a second referendum over whether we actually go through with it or not.

If only the tories were as clear thinking as Labour.

I agree with all of the things you say, I'm ready with my popcorn for the three (so far) dislikers to post their counter views...

If only the tories were as clear thinking as Labour.

Then they wouldn't be Tories would they? However, it's a pity Mr Corbyn didn't set out on the road to Damascus a bit earlier! 

Still waiting?

We can't change the past, any positive developments should be welcomed without qualification IMO. We wouldn't want the "remoaner" tag to ring true

Pity then Frank Field's comments which show that it is not as clear cut in the Labour Party as your post makes out. And Frank Field is from one of those pesky northern seats where the localss voted leave.

I still find it amazing that the Tories seem to be basically ignoring business ( since when have the Tories told the CBI etc that they do not know what they are talking about).

The one advantage Labour has is Starmer who has been able to portray a strong postion all the way through this and must have been able to talk JC round to his view point.

JC seems to be wearing a suit with a bit more pride these days.

Bourgeois sell out !

with implosion of UKIP and Lib Dems it seems we are returning to a two party system for the next election.  Can't imagine a majority of Frank Field's constituents voting Tory. 

Labour's constructive ambiguity over Brexit has not only helped them electorally, it provided air cover while they began to organise their thinking on Brexit. The Tories, since they are in power, didn't have as much time to come up with a coherent plan. But, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, Theresa May did make some decisions far too quickly, which have tied her hands - triggering article 50 so soon was one (although to be fair to her, pre-the snap election the chances of a leadership bid were much higher) and so was setting up Liam Fox's department. She now needs freedom to negotiate her own trade deals to avoid a huge climb-down. Whereas Corbyn's Labour, never a great fan of trade deals in the first place, can settle for "influencing" trade agreements negotiated by the EU.  

It didn't make sense to do it earlier, the Tories would have just attacked him as going against the people. Now more people realise what we're losing it makes more sense to do it now. People are beginning to realise bullshit on buses don't mean its true.

Deus volens. But that seems to be a bit of an ex post facto rationalization of Corbyn's coming to his senses. The issues were plain before the vote and he was as wishy washy as they come then. 

He could perhaps have done a bit more pre-referendum, then we might not have been in this mess in the first place.

I'd argue that the issues weren't plain before, most people thought we were getting £350M a week for the NHS.

It's not about him coming to his senses, and that's not what I wrote. It was about going against the government earlier was anyone starter, in the first instance nobody know what the government were suggesting we might do or how they intend doing it. to be honest, it's still not clear now. Can you tell me?

How do you argue against something, when there's nothing to argue against. Unless of course you mean argue about not having a Brexit, in which case I refer you to the opening sentence about £350M for the NHS!

Once again, it was David Cameron who gave us the chance to f*ck things up, when he could have so easily, still had a referendum and we could have still been in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000559

Neither can I. It's fair that he is sensitive to local Labour voters who supported brexit but most Labour voters (by a large margin) supported remain and Frank's constituency is hardly marginal and I'd be very surprised if a majority of his Labour voters supported leave. There are Northern seats that look natural Labour territory that are likely to go blue over this sort of approach, especially with a popularist local tory candidate,  but for how long? The Ben Bradley Mansfield 'experiment' doesn't seem to be going so well.

Did they? Not in the north-east they didn't, the only constituency to vote remain was Newcastle it was very narrow margin, on the whole large margins for Brexit.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/election...

Have to agree with Kirkoman. I think you are wrong. I would be very surprised if Frank Field's constituency voted remain. I know Liverpool city areas voted remain, but he is over on the Wirral.

Actually the Scandinavian countries who have a more balanced view of politics would regard Jeremy Corbyn as slightly left of centre.

I wish he had bitten the bullet and opted to unambiguously stay in the European free market as well.

How much difference do you think the local candidate really makes vs the leadership and the national level broadcast/print campaigns? It's a genuine question, I'd like to think it did matter, that a good candidate could make a difference but outside of the campaigning party faithful who will vote for the rosette anyway I doubt the majority of voters know their major-party candidates' names let alone what they stand for, where they differ from the party or how likely that is to matter once the whips get to them. I suppose the difference a good candidate can make is engaging more of the politically aware but not yet involved to campaign for them.

jk

It's not necessarily a majority of Labour voters voting brexit in previously safe Labour and now 'Leave' seats, there are always plenty of Conservative voters in even the most deprived constituencies, many of whom polls indicate will have also voted Leave. It's not a safe assumption to make that a Labour seat which Voted Leave indicates strong Labour voter Leave preference in that region, only that it is stronger than elsewhere.

jk

On the economic dimension only.

At risk of reprising old arguments, a hell of a lot of the brexit vote WAS a protest vote against 'the Establishment', as in, 'well if toffs like Cameron and Osborne think it's so great, there can't be anything in it for me'... and Corbyns pathetic  '7/10' response gave absolutely no weight to the fact that the EU has delivered an unprecedented run of peace, prosperity, social interchange, environmental protection and human rights unprecedented in world history.

It's massive for some long standing candidates, Tony Benn was the best example I knew where even some natural Conservative voters voted for him as he was so well known and admired as a great constituency problem solver and thoroughly honest. Many big names do better than say local council election voting patterns would indicate they should.

I agree, it was partly a protest vote, but at the time I don't thin anyone could have changed things around £350m was a large flag to wave for many people, at a time when the NHS is dying on it's arse.

I'm still not convinced we won't end up with another referendum, after the Tories have come out of negotiations achieving next to nowt.

I know we've done this before but I prefer JC's 7/10 honesty to 10/10 bullshit.

Agreed but Offwidth stated most Labour voters were Remainers, if most of them where Remainers, then I don't think there'd be almost blanket Pro-Brexit support in the NE.

I'm convinced if we had the referendum again, it would be a very large Pro-Brexit in most places, but it's not likely to happen.

There's a version of the ecological fallacy going on in some of this thread. Take a north-east consituency splitting 60% exit/40% remain, and 60% Lab/40% Con+UKIP. It doesn't necessarily follow that 60% of the Lab voters are Brexiters. It could just as well be 60% Lab remainers but 90% con+UKIP brexiters, or many other combinations.   

There is no logic in that at all. The majority remain vote amongst Labour voters was undeniable... all the analysis showed this. The party then decided to collectively back brexit after the result, hence the NEC position. A large minority of labour voters are still firmly remain, especially younger metropolitan labour voters, most of whom I'm sure would be delighted to see the vote reversed, irrespective of the party position.

An example of the pesky facts that showed older, less well educated, right-wing voters won the vote.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/

65% of Labour voters in 2015, backed remain in the referendum / 35% backed leave

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/

Missed your post earlier:

The Birkenhead constituency was only about 51.7% leave.

http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/14582313.Detailed_breakdown_of_how_Wirral...

Assuming  3/4 tories votes leave and all greens and lib dems remain,  labour would be majority remain in Birkenhead at 50.4%.

Fair point. I was thinking of challengers rather than well liked incumbents.