Stamer is laying out it as we speak, so far:
- Guarantee rights of EU citizens
- Keep parts of Erasmus
- Tarrif free trade with the EU
- Controlled migration
General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Stamer is laying out it as we speak, so far:
Labour's plan seems likely to lead us to the best compromise possible. Its a sensible, grown up approach in a world of children.
Torys offer nothing but complete separation, lib dems want to ignore the referendum result. Neither solution can work and will lead to poverty in the first instance and civil unrest in the second.
Take it from someone who may have to move to the European mainland to keep earning a living after brexit, Starmer has actually given me some hope here.
Torys offer nothing but complete separation, lib dems want to ignore the referendum result. Neither solution can work and will lead to poverty in the first instance and civil unrest in the second.
Take it from someone who may have to move to the European mainland to keep earning a living after brexit, Starmer has actually given me some hope here.
Karmer is great on detail, but good politicians are able to convey the big picture, Starmer isn't very good at that.
Compliance gave him a nudge then.
He amazingly still has that ease of lying though.
They haven't decided yet. No kidding.
Not even the colour? What about the texture? Density?
So Labour have changed their position on free movement. From a personal point of view I think this is right. The party has conflated free movement and high levels of immigration for too long. Just because you manage migration doesn't mean you're anti-migration (see Canada).
However from a political point of view they're going to have a few issues. The main one is that, as with immigration in 2015, there's no sense that Labour are doing this because they support it. Rather they give the impression doing it against their will just because they have to to win votes. That's never a winner in politics.
The other problems are that it makes them susceptible to attacks by the Lib Dems, and that its going to be hard for Corbyn to stick to the party line when he probably doesn't agree with it. We'll see if they turn out to matter or not.
For what its worth, Im not sure there's much difference in Labour's basic position compared to the Tories. Their approach to the negotiations is vastly more adult for sure, but they're still moving straight towards a hard Brexit. Assuming they didn't get reform of free movement (which they wouldn't) then they're committing to leaving the single market, not just the EU. I'd expect Starmer to get a better deal than May when measured on the details of any deal, but I don't expect it would satisfy extant remainers.
However from a political point of view they're going to have a few issues. The main one is that, as with immigration in 2015, there's no sense that Labour are doing this because they support it. Rather they give the impression doing it against their will just because they have to to win votes. That's never a winner in politics.
The other problems are that it makes them susceptible to attacks by the Lib Dems, and that its going to be hard for Corbyn to stick to the party line when he probably doesn't agree with it. We'll see if they turn out to matter or not.
For what its worth, Im not sure there's much difference in Labour's basic position compared to the Tories. Their approach to the negotiations is vastly more adult for sure, but they're still moving straight towards a hard Brexit. Assuming they didn't get reform of free movement (which they wouldn't) then they're committing to leaving the single market, not just the EU. I'd expect Starmer to get a better deal than May when measured on the details of any deal, but I don't expect it would satisfy extant remainers.
They haven't even got that far!
Corbyn is still trying to figure out his arse from his elbow.
It's a shame that they haven't picked half a dozen easily swallowed but bullshit soundbites to win your vote on the matter. Brexit means Brexit and it is blue and hard. Or soft and red. Or white and neither.
Does anyone have a clear and concise explanation of what Labours message is?
Things can only get worser
Hard-Brexit but nicer.
They want to work on compromise not confrontation, placing the things they want to retain at the front of negotiations rather than let the minor stuff dictate the entire position. He said no trade tariffs and retaining all worker rights legislation is key. The other significance is allowing a free vote in parliament on the deal they come back with, with the option to reject and return to negotiations, and the creation of an interim deal that gives us more time and stops us falling off a cliff through sudden trade tariffs and border controls for goods.
While that may on the surface suggest they would retain free movement of labour to get the tariff free trade, I suspect that they hope to negotiate some form of EU immigration control that allows movement for people with confirmed jobs to retain access. Corbyn hinted at some sort of compromise like that afew weeks back when he said he had been speaking to various groups in brussels on the options available to him.
Labour's stance on Brexit seems to be pretty clear now, although it wasn't a few months ago.
I really appreciate your response, but i honestly don't understand
So no trade tarrifs - great
All worker rights - what does this mean? Including free movement? So what we have now?
Interim deal - right
Free vote in parliament at the end - blimey. That will be fun if the some how get in with the lib dems help
Lib Dems struggling to rebut Labours proposals, Farrons only attack is asking why they didn't block brexit.
Whilst the tories stick to soundbite attacks like parrots and UKIP claim Labour won't deliver a brexit at all.
Whilst the tories stick to soundbite attacks like parrots and UKIP claim Labour won't deliver a brexit at all.
A kinder, gentler Brexit (stolen off twitter)
So Labour's Brexit approach is remain but end free movement!!!!
So basically hard Brexit.
Nice try Corbyn.
So basically hard Brexit.
Nice try Corbyn.
I really appreciate your response, but i honestly don't understand
So no trade tarrifs - great
All worker rights - what does this mean? Including free movement? So what we have now?
Interim deal - right
Free vote in parliament at the end - blimey. That will be fun if the some how get in with the lib dems help
Workers rights was, in my understanding, retaining current legislation such as the working time directive and so on, no plans to change any legislation involving workers rights. Basically he played it that they did not want employees to lose any benefits of the EU as we leave, and the rights they have now would be the rights they have after we leave.
His problem will be free movement of course, to retain tariff free trade will have to have some form of worker movement, I guess they think openly admitting that when none of the others are offering detail at all would be foolish. He is probably right.
Corbyn's been openly critical, and open to toppling, pretty much every leader Labour have had since he entered parliament. The handy Private Eye collation:I feel like this post would make more sense in my head if it was in random capitals.
Corbyn never actively worked to oust Blair or Brown, there's no comparison between Corbyn voting against policies to actively sabotaging the party leadership because of power battles. Secondly people had no problem moaning about the media influence during Brown, Milliband but suddenly because you don't like Corbyn we're not allowed to mention it??
The idea that people no longer like Labour because it has a systemic antisemitism problem
Yeah, I'm thinking exactly this. There is no way the Tories would admit to doing away with workers rights, so that's a null argument.
I don't see any difference in Labour's position, and the position the Tories will end up in. In fact the Tories position might be better.
Being explicit on EU nationals, but I don't think there's much danger the Tories won't end up with that as well.
The biggest new thing is controlling immigration. Maybe they really will get the mugs back out!?
It also puts an end to the dwindling thought that they're trying to remain members of the single market.
They are trying to appease both their traditional working class support that have a high number of Brexiteers among them and their more modern cosmopolitan supporters that voted remain.
The thing is the policy for Brexit they have come out with this morning is impossible to achieve.
The question is, if they get in which set of supporters get mugged off
I think they are very different. I made a point of watching his speech as it affects me personally, but I have to say I don't think starmer is good at explaining complex things in a way that lets us all follow his thoughts, and I am not the best at explaining what he said either.
In general though, here is how I see it right now. The tory party comes at brexit from a point of things they do not want. No movement of people, no EU laws effecting us seem to be the bits they must have.
Labour are approaching it from a point of things they do want. They want to retain EU worker legislation, tariff free trade as key points to start negotiations from.
I think that approach is much more likely to achieve something useful than the tory one, which cannot get us anything but a complete hard brexit.
The labour push for an interim deal that retains tariff free trading as the ngotiations continue, he spoke of three year interim arrangements, is alone something that could make all the difference to small businesses.
It doesn't matter how you dress it up. The EU have been clear time and time again that you don't get single market access without FoM,
I don't think we really know do we?
my guess = ''respecting the will of the people & seeing what happens later on''
It doesn't take a tin foil hat to see that billionaire media moguls don't want Corbyn elected.
Even The Guardian are anti-Corbyn.
Even The Guardian are anti-Corbyn.
We're fecked. Let Jeremy get on with it. See what happens after.
Membership. Everyone has access, it's a fairly meaningless term.
Corbyn's been openly critical, and open to toppling, pretty much every leader Labour have had since he entered parliament. The handy Private Eye collation:
I did say Blair and Brown specifically as opposition to Kinnock is well known. I don't really think those quotes prove otherwise, i never said he only said nice things. Corbyn didn't escalate a power battle to the extents we're seeing now lets not pretend the party has been through a very public power battle for the last 3 decades. 99.9% wouldn't have even known his name two years ago.
I accept this is Labour's position (that of others too) but how they imagine it working is beyond me. I don't believe the EU will play ping-pong with the Commons like the House of Lords do. They will expect the UK government to agree a deal or reject it, they won't keep changing their minds every time the Commons vote.
I dont think those claiming it isnt clear have actually read stamers briefing.
He was clear on freedom of movement and membership. There's not a huge difference to the Tories but its a less cnuty version as Labour don't have to placate UKIP.
There's certainly a principle of trying to gain more and the vote and guarantee for EU citizens are noteworthy.
He was clear on freedom of movement and membership. There's not a huge difference to the Tories but its a less cnuty version as Labour don't have to placate UKIP.
There's certainly a principle of trying to gain more and the vote and guarantee for EU citizens are noteworthy.
He said there are "discussions" about mounting a stalking horse campaign and said there should be an annual leadership election. I'm not sure how you can portray those in any way other than actively trying to bring him down, but there you go. They never went anywhere because he had no sway or influence in the party beyond a handful of MPs.
I really don't know the context of that quite but it was a question about the possibility and that frames it very differently. He's also pushed the principle of annual leadership elections whilst he's been in power.
Im not saying he's never been disloyal he clearly had, just saying the posters argument that Mandelson is no worse is ridiculous. A coordinated campaign against a leader whilst the party is out of power and struggling is very different then pusbinf5the lefts agenda whilst in power.
Anyway getting off topic
Labours position in regards to Brexit is fairly meaningless. They have no influence on the negotiations, parliament plays almost no role in the process and they also failed to claim any public space that could shift public opinion. All they can do now is a mix of pie-in-the-sky talk, while pivoting towards the government position. They also need to be careful at finding the right tone to oppose the Tories or they’ll get accused of being a 5th column. The Tories already decided, that the uk will leave the common market. It is too late to change that. Considering that Brexit is the all-dominating topic that’s a pretty shitty situation to be in for a opposition party.
The whole referendum process didn’t allow a slightly more nuanced position and that is Labour’s downfall. The Tories completely defined how the topic is discussed in public.
It is also worth remembering that the 4 freedoms of the EU run against parts of traditional policy of Labour.
The whole referendum process didn’t allow a slightly more nuanced position and that is Labour’s downfall. The Tories completely defined how the topic is discussed in public.
It is also worth remembering that the 4 freedoms of the EU run against parts of traditional policy of Labour.
Yaaaas. Dan Jarvis and Marine A for leader and deputy is on! Shuffle off to the polling booths you cnut.
Exactly what i was thinking.
It's actually Tory-lite, is what it is.
At a time when the Tories themselves have basically gone UKIP-lite...