Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

Silva said:
Labour is opposing a hard Brexit. The Stage 1 and 2 agreements are both the soft-Brexit option that make all but full regulatory alignment impossible and Labour is opposed to a no-deal exit*. There's a lot of huffing and puffing from Johnson, Mogg and co. that has entered the public consciousness and lead to the idea that they're backseat driving every facet of the country and every detail of the exit but that's not what the signed papers say.
Click to expand...

But this isn't strictly true. To fully oppose a hard Brexit, Labour must fully commit to remaining within the single market and customs union, and must commit to the continuation of freedom of movement.They haven't done this, and continually say they want the benefits of the single market. That's essentially the Tory policy, where they want to be able to have their cake and eat it. This, for example, is how it's worded on the Labour website:

We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first.
Click to expand...

Again - benefits is the key word there. Labour want the pros of the EU but like the Tories continue to refuse in committing to the terms required for that. Hence why every time a Labour MP's on QT they give some long-winded speech about how they want to have some sort of regulatory alignment or something while not stating outright they want to remain within the single market.
 
Silva said:
This hasn't borne out in recent years.

For the record, Scottish Labour has consistently campaigned for greater devolution and it hasn't lead to much electorally.
Click to expand...

I just don’t think increased devolution is enough of a clear message, especially when Scots keep seeing the Tories just ignoring Scottish issues whenever they feel like it. Federalization would be a very clear separation which locks in rights permanently. It’s a big offer.
 


The relevant info on the devolution controversy. Labour were all for it at Holyrood but ignored it down south. Which makes Scottish Labour's faux outrage (if there is any) fairly laughable considering they're always going to fall in behind the main lot anyway.
 
Cheesy said:
At Holyrood. Didn't bother their arses at Westminster.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that was a dumb move, especially considering they voted on the other Brexit bills. It wouldn't even have changed the result (as their other votes didn't) so they should have just turned up.


Cheesy said:
But this isn't strictly true. To fully oppose a hard Brexit, Labour must fully commit to remaining within the single market and customs union, and must commit to the continuation of freedom of movement.They haven't done this, and continually say they want the benefits of the single market. That's essentially the Tory policy, where they want to be able to have their cake and eat it. This, for example, is how it's worded on the Labour website:



Again - benefits is the key word there. Labour want the pros of the EU but like the Tories continue to refuse in committing to the terms required for that. Hence why every time a Labour MP's on QT they give some long-winded speech about how they want to have some sort of regulatory alignment or something while not stating outright they want to remain within the single market.
Click to expand...
They're in opposition, I'm okay with them being vague about Brexit. Especially in light of the stage 1 and 2 making it impossible to end freedom of movement and goods.
 
Kentonio said:
I just don’t think increased devolution is enough of a clear message, especially when Scots keep seeing the Tories just ignoring Scottish issues whenever they feel like it. Federalization would be a very clear separation which locks in rights permanently. It’s a big offer.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Labour have always offered us enough to (try) and stem off the SNP but have never exactly been keen proponents of the strongest forms of devolution. It was originally implemented with the aim of killing off the SNP, and the entire parliamentary system (while decent) was designed with the specific intention of ensuring the SNP never gained a majority.
 
Silva said:
Labour is opposing a hard Brexit. The Stage 1 and 2 agreements are both the soft-Brexit option that make all but full regulatory alignment impossible and Labour is opposed to a no-deal exit*. There's a lot of huffing and puffing from Johnson, Mogg and co. that has entered the public consciousness and lead to the idea that they're backseat driving every facet of the country and every detail of the exit but that's not what the signed papers say.

*
Click to expand...

I think if you genuinely believe that Labour are opposing a hard Brexit it kind of makes the insipid non-opposition even worse.

It's one thing to argue that Labour are basically going along with the Tories because they agree, it's entirely another to argue that they don't agree and this is the extent of the 'opposition' they can muster up.
 
Silva said:
They're in opposition, I'm okay with them being vague about Brexit. Especially in light of the stage 1 and 2 making it impossible to end freedom of movement and goods.
Click to expand...

For the moment. There's a possibility May's government could collapse and if Corbyn gains power he's going to have to make himself clear on this issue, and that will involve committing to the continuation of freedom of movement even if it alienates some Labour voters.
 
NinjaFletch said:
I think if you genuinely believe that Labour are opposing a hard Brexit it kind of makes the insipid non-opposition even worse.

It's one thing to argue that Labour are basically going along with the Tories because they agree, it's entirely another to argue that they don't agree and this is the extent of the 'opposition' they can muster up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, should also be noted that whenever people argue against Brexit, I've seen plenty of Tories turn around and say the two main parties campaigned on a mandate of a hard Brexit last time out, and that their mandate was validated. Labour backing a soft Brexit fully certainly won't have rural Englanders parading EU flags on their doorstep but it might at least give some validation of views held by a significant portion of the country that are mostly being marginalised to a couple of smaller parties right now. Especially if (as is being argued enough) Labour is basically backing a soft Brexit anyway.
 
NinjaFletch said:
It's one thing to argue that Labour are basically going along with the Tories because they agree
Click to expand...
This hasn't happened though, Labour has voted against most of the Withdrawal Bills. The criticism of "what even is your policy" is fine, but the criticism that they're just following Davies lead doesn't match the parliamentary votes.
 
Silva said:
This hasn't happened though, Labour has voted against most of the Withdrawal Bills
Click to expand...

They disagree on the means of how we withdraw, and how that withdrawal should be conducted etc, but for the time-being their practical, official policy position remains largely the same - departure from the single market while trying to somehow retain its benefits. Even if this is now impossible.
 
Silva said:
Well, yeah, isn't that the whole point here? That, if we are leaving, this isn't the way to do it.
Click to expand...

The point @NinjaFletch was making wasn't about the withdrawal bills, but about the hard/soft Brexit positions of each party. For the time-being Labour still (officially) hold the same policy position as the Tories in that regard. The rest seems fairly minor by comparison to that fundamental issue.
 
Silva said:
Well, yeah, isn't that the whole point here? That, if we are leaving, this isn't the way to do it.
Click to expand...

Does it not concern you that Labour's position on Brexit involves the same make-believe ideas that the Tories get criticised for? I would have thought the least you would want from an opposition party is a lack of delusion in regards to what is possible from Brexit?

That would strike me as a rather more pressing point than disagreeing with the way the Tories try to implement said fantasy Brexit.
 
Cheesy said:
The point @NinjaFletch was making wasn't about the withdrawal bills, but about the hard/soft Brexit positions of each party. For the time-being Labour still (officially) hold the same policy position as the Tories in that regard. The rest seems fairly minor by comparison to that fundamental issue.
Click to expand...
The only thing they really have in common is that the policies are all over the place an purposefully incomprehensible.

sullydnl said:
Does it not concern you that Labour's position on Brexit involves the same make-believe ideas that the Tories get criticised for? I would have thought the least you would want from an opposition party is a lack of delusion in regards to what is possible from Brexit?
Click to expand...
Not really. There's no version of Brexit that's better than EU membership if you lean toward liking the project or a no-deal exit if you lean toward skepticism. Neither major party can outright oppose it for obvious reasons and neither party can go ahead with a no-deal exit so here we are. If you actually read the signed agreements that have come from the negotiation they point to the UK having the same relationship with the EU sans Veto.
 
Silva said:
The only thing they really have in common is that the policies are all over the place an purposefully incomprehensible.
Click to expand...

But that's more or less my argument in the first place with the generous interpretation that Labour's incompetence is actually part of a genius play.

And, I'm sure I've written this on this subject before on here, Corbyn was also sold on, and defended with, the idea that he was somehow an alternative to politics as usual and didn't play those games. That what you saw was what you got with him.

It strikes me as incredibly convenient to defend Labour's record on Brexit as an example of political savvy, when people will use the exact opposite argument to defend him next time he scores a huge own goal.
 
Last edited:
NinjaFletch said:
But that's more or less my argument in the first place with the generous interpretation that Labour's incompetence is actually part of a genius play.

And, I'm sure I've written this on this subject before on here, Corbyn was also sold on, and defended with, the idea that he was somehow an alternative to politics as usual and didn't play those games. That what you saw was what you got with him.

It strikes me as incredibly convenient to defend Labour's record on Brexit as an example of political savvy, when people will use the exact opposite argument to defend him next time he scores a huge own goal.
Click to expand...
So, what could labour do instead? Back EEA membership? A second in/out referendum? Freedom of movement/labour/goods? There isn't enough difference between those options and simply becoming a remain party. Surely option 1 would require a referendum. So in options 1 and 2, labour is backing a referendum where they could be the losing side for no good reason. And option 3 is the inevitable final deal.
 
Silva said:
So, what could labour do instead? Back EEA membership? A second in/out referendum? Freedom of movement/labour/goods? There isn't enough difference between those options and simply becoming a remain party. Surely in options 1 would require a referendum anyway. So in options 1 and 2, labour is backing a referendum where they could be the losing side for no good reason. Option 3 is the inevitable final deal anyway.
Click to expand...

Well this depends on your point of view of what the point of Corbyn's Labour is, doesn't it?

Yes, it would have been difficult to come out and say 'Brexit is clearly absurd, doesn't work, and will make our country poorer, hindering our ability to help the most vulnerable', but feck, he'd have been proven right and I've seen a huge number of clearly unpopular policies defended by Corbyn supporters because it's the right thing to do – again, I rather thought that was the point of the enthusiasm for Corbyn.

If we're now going to argue that Corbyn should pick policies based on what's electable, not what's right, then I'm struggling to see what the point of wrestling the party away from the Blairites was.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Well this depends on your point of view of what the point of Corbyn's Labour is, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
To establish economically and socially left wing policies in one of the two parties that often rule the country and implement those policies when in power.

NinjaFletch said:
Yes, it would have been difficult to come out and say 'Brexit is clearly absurd, doesn't work, and will make our country poorer, hindering our ability to help the most vulnerable', but feck, he'd have been proven right and I've seen a huge number of clearly unpopular policies defended by Corbyn supporters because it's the right thing to do – again, I rather thought that was the point of the enthusiasm for Corbyn.

If we're now going to argue that Corbyn should pick policies based on what's electable, not what's right, then I'm struggling to see what the point of wrestling the party away from the Blairites was.
Click to expand...
This doesn't work post-referendum, everyone having agreed there would one referendum and that's it. And it's not about being politically savvy, there's just no good options. I've listed the alternatives a couple of times in this thread and all of them would get both internal party criticism and criticism from the wider public, much as is happening now because there's no real way to satisfy any majority of the country on Brexit.
 
Silva said:
To establish economically and socially left wing policies in one of the two parties that often rule the country and implement those policies when in power.
Click to expand...

Well quite, but now you're defending Corbyn's support for a policy that is directly antithetical to that aim. Yes, I'm aware of so called 'Lexit' arguments about the EU, but let's just ignore them as the fantasy that they are.

This doesn't work post-referendum, everyone having agreed there would one referendum and that's it. And it's not about being politically savvy, there's just no good options. I've listed the alternatives a couple of times in this thread and all of them would get both internal party criticism and criticism from the wider public, much as is happening now.
Click to expand...

We don't know if it would or wouldn't have worked, but 'everyone' in this case really means that Brexiteers retroactively claimed it to be the case, and there was a lack of voice from prominent Remainers to counteract it because Labour decided to go along with it.

Besides, I'm not arguing that it's easy for Labour, but it isn't for the Conservatives either, and that hasn't (and shouldn't) stopped them from being criticised for their clearly insane Brexit policy. I'm simply pointing out that the only possible defences of Corbyn's actions on Brexit are directly contradictory to the arguments traditionally used to defend Corbyn. It is, rather ironically, an attempt to have your cake and eat it.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Well quite, but now you're defending Corbyn's support for a policy that is directly antithetical to that aim.
Click to expand...
The European Union is a trading block not a bastion of socialism. Euroskepticism does correlate with right wing nationalism more often than not but that's a coincidental result of nationalistic protectionism and ethnic isolationist policies. There are plenty of left wing criticisms of the European union. The economic liberalism that has disproportionately hurt southern countries comes to mind.

NinjaFletch said:
We don't know if it would or wouldn't have worked, but 'everyone' in this case really means that Brexiteers retroactively claimed it to be the case, and there was a lack of voice from prominent Remainers to counteract it because Labour decided to go along with it.
Click to expand...
Almost everyone then. The only person entertaining the idea of a second referendum was Farage when he thought they'd lose.
 
Silva said:
The European Union is a trading block not a bastion of socialism. Euroskepticism does correlate with right wing nationalism more often than not but that's a coincidental result of nationalistic protectionism and ethnic isolationist policies. There are plenty of left wing criticisms of the European union. The economic liberalism that has disproportionately hurt southern countries comes to mind.
Click to expand...

As I said, I'm aware of the left wing arguments against the EU. It's simply a fantasy, however, to argue you can square leaving the EU with left wing progressive policies in the UK for a whole host of reasons I'm pretty sure you actually agree with. It's the realm of fantasy, and if Corbyn believes in that fantasy (as he may well do), then we've just come back to the point about him being incompetent.


Almost everyone then. The only person entertaining the idea of a second referendum was Farage when he thought they'd lose.
Click to expand...

Well exactly, that's a fairly important caveat to note. It was only retroactively that Brexiteers argued that the referendum should have been the end of the process, and I'm not sure we can consider the dereliction of duty by prominent Remainers (of which Corbyn masqueraded as one), or Labour's abandonment of Remainers, as the only possible way things could have gone after the referendum.
 
NinjaFletch said:
As I said, I'm aware of the left wing arguments against the EU. It's simply a fantasy, however, to argue you can square leaving the EU with left wing progressive policies in the UK for a whole host of reasons I'm pretty sure you actually agree with. It's the realm of fantasy, and if Corbyn believes in that fantasy (as he may well do), then we've just come back to the point about him being incompetent.




Well exactly, that's a fairly important caveat to note. It was only retroactively that Brexiteers argued that the referendum should have been the end of the process, and I'm not sure we can consider the dereliction of duty by prominent Remainers (of which Corbyn masqueraded as one), or Labour's abandonment of Remainers, as the only possible way things could have gone after the referendum.
Click to expand...
Which brings me to my original question, what else is he meant to do? Even ignoring the electoral maths of being a remain party - is ignoring a referendum a good idea? If yeah, fine, we'll just disagree. If not - what's the alternative to simply criticising the government and over-promising?
 
Silva said:
Which brings me to my original question, what else is he meant to do? Even ignoring the electoral maths of being a remain party - is ignoring a referendum a good idea? If yeah, fine, we'll just disagree. If not - what's the alternative to simply criticising the government and over-promising?
Click to expand...

Well at this point, if you genuinely believe Corbyn is a remainer, then I'm not sure Labour's policy could be any worse. At least that scenario would remain true to the ideals that Corbyn supposedly embodied.

More realistically, I feel that Labour should have strongly come out in favour of EEA. Yes, that would have been unpopular with hardcore Brexiteers, but they were never going to vote for Labour anyway, and didn't have to be convinced. It would also technically have respected the leave vote whilst recognising that 48% of people also did not vote to Leave. At the very least, it's a consistent coherent policy that would have given Labour the actual authority to oppose the batshit policy of the Tories so when things did go tits up for them, Labour would have come across as a safe pair of hands that actually understand the issue. You might claim that that would see Labour seen as effectively a Remain party, but it's the lack of voices in favour of a Soft Brexit that's allowed the gradual hardening of the medias Brexit stance. On the 24 June Hard Brexit was seen as a ludicrous interpretation of the referendum result.

Anything is better than the policy that has had the Daily Mail penning effusive op-eds congratulating Corbyn for his success in shutting down Remainers.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Well at this point, if you genuinely believe Corbyn is a remainer, then I'm not sure Labour's policy could be any worse. At least that scenario would remain true to the ideals that Corbyn supposedly embodied.

More realistically, I feel that Labour should have strongly come out in favour of EEA. Yes, that would have been unpopular with hardcore Brexiteers, but they were never going to vote for Labour anyway, and didn't have to be convinced. It would also technically have respected the leave vote whilst recognising that 48% of people also did not vote to Leave. At the very least, it's a consistent coherent policy that would have given Labour the actual authority to oppose the batshit policy of the Tories so when things did go tits up for them, Labour would have come across as a safe pair of hands that actually understand the issue. You might claim that that would see Labour seen as effectively a Remain party, but it's the lack of voices in favour of a Soft Brexit that's allowed the gradual hardening of the medias Brexit stance. On the 24 June Hard Brexit was seen as a ludicrous interpretation of the referendum result.

Anything is better than the policy that has had the Daily Mail penning effusive op-eds congratulating Corbyn for his success in shutting down Remainers.
Click to expand...
This is good debate on the EEA.

 
NinjaFletch said:
More realistically, I feel that Labour should have strongly come out in favour of EEA. Yes, that would have been unpopular with hardcore Brexiteers, but they were never going to vote for Labour anyway, and didn't have to be convinced. It would also technically have respected the leave vote whilst recognising that 48% of people also did not vote to Leave. At the very least, it's a consistent coherent policy that would have given Labour the actual authority to oppose the batshit policy of the Tories so when things did go tits up for them, Labour would have come across as a safe pair of hands that actually understand the issue.
Click to expand...
EEA membership doesn't solve the Irish border question as you would still require customs checks. The proposed "Norway plus" type model that some people have proposed is what's most likely to happen anyway.
 
Silva said:
Which brings me to my original question, what else is he meant to do? Even ignoring the electoral maths of being a remain party - is ignoring a referendum a good idea? If yeah, fine, we'll just disagree. If not - what's the alternative to simply criticising the government and over-promising?
Click to expand...
Just be honest about what he really wants and stand by the consequences, it's not that hard a principle to understand. He could start by explaining why he's moved on from being a brexiter to a remainer, that story might get him a lot of support and change a few minds on the subject as well. Assuming he has moved on, of course.
 
Silva said:
EEA membership doesn't solve the Irish border question as you would still require customs checks. The proposed "Norway plus" type model that some people have proposed is what's most likely to happen anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying EEA is a perfect solution, or a magic wand. All Brexit policies are inherently shit because Brexit is a shit idea, but it comes closest to a coherent policy which, if Labour had, would have given them greater ability to oppose the absolute nonsense that that Tories are pushing. Pushing their own nonsense policy has just seen Labour's arguments dismissed.

Sweet Square said:
This is good debate on the EEA.

Click to expand...


Is that available as a podcast anywhere? Seemed interesting from snippets.
 
There's a contradiction with the idea that he's an unashamed, principled, conviction politician but somehow has to hide what he really thinks about leaving the EU because it'd be politically disadvantageous not to. And that's not what's happening. He'd be supporting the hardline Tories on this if he was sat on the back benches and that's why the party he leads has come up with this compromise that satisfies nobody.
 
NinjaFletch said:
I'm not saying EEA is a perfect solution, or a magic wand. All Brexit policies are inherently shit because Brexit is a shit idea, but it comes closest to a coherent policy which, if Labour had, would have given them greater ability to oppose the absolute nonsense that that Tories are pushing. Pushing their own nonsense policy has just seen Labour's arguments dismissed.
Click to expand...
Would have been a replacement to amendment 51 on the EEA. It stated that a negotiating objective should be “to ensure the United Kingdom has full access to the internal market of the European Union, underpinned by shared institutions and regulations, with no new impediments to trade and common rights, standards and protections as a minimum.”

Proposer: Labour frontbench.
Click to expand...

This is the amendment that labour proposed instead of EEA fwiw, which seems fair enough - and had fewer pro-government votes than the EEA amendment had
 
Silva said:
This is the amendment that labour proposed instead of EEA fwiw, which seems fair enough - and had fewer pro-government votes than the EEA amendment had
Click to expand...

How is that different from the cherry picked nonsense that the Tories are after?

Everyone agrees that they want 'access' to the single market. No one agrees that that access should come at a price actually acceptable to the EU, which is why we're here.

Lets not forget that it was exactly that amendment that EU sources dismissed as cakeism last week.

"The starting point is not a bad one in that amendment. It's one of alignment rather than divergence. It also proposes some form of customs union. That's much better. That's all good," the Commission official said.

"But the problem is, the single market is a legal order, so you can't pick and choose from it. It's like every other proposal we've had. We've been here before."

They added: "Labour's proposal frontloads the idea of possible divergence and frontloads the idea of not wholly accepting the four freedoms, specifically the free movement of people. It looks like exceptionalism."

"If you want it in a nutshell, the single market isn't divisible."
Click to expand...
 
We shouldn’t underestimate the influence the main political parties and leading politicians have on public opinion. When the policy of the government is ‘Brexit must happen regardless’ and the policy of the opposition is ‘Brexit must happen regardless’ and the opinion of the majority of the influential media is ‘Brexit must happen regardless’, it’s hardly a surprise that Brexit still enjoys a relatively high level of support. Most people aren’t fully engaged on these issues and will be led by those who they trust and if they’re hearing no real alternative from any of the mainstream political stakeholders then the outcome isn’t a surprise.


When you look at the polling and drill down what people think about Brexit once it’s presented to them what it could mean even among the 52% there’s a very soft underbelly that i refuse to believe wouldn’t have been extremely easy for any opposition to exploit and use to their advantage. Even an opposition that did unashamedly back Brexit could have exploited this for no other reason than to make the govt of the day sweat. What’s been disappointing is that Corbyn’s Labour don’t seem even interested in doing that.
 
NinjaFletch said:
How is that different from the cherry picked nonsense that the Tories are after?

Everyone agrees that they want 'access' to the single market. No one agrees that that access should come at a price actually acceptable to the EU, which is why we're here.
Click to expand...
Because it actually puts it in legislative writing rather than speeches or opinion pieces. If those points are met, it will come with all the things remains also want - namely freedom of movement, goods and labour.
 
Silva said:
Which brings me to my original question, what else is he meant to do? Even ignoring the electoral maths of being a remain party - is ignoring a referendum a good idea? If yeah, fine, we'll just disagree. If not - what's the alternative to simply criticising the government and over-promising?
Click to expand...

If I was a UK voter I could accept the inevitability of Brexit, as well as the need for Labour to accept the inevitability of Brexit.

Surely I shouldn't have to accept Labour indulging in delusions in regards to things like the single market and FOM though?

Is it really too much to ask that if they're going to hold a position on an issue that approximately half the population don't support, they at least do it with enough principle, coherence and competence to avoid the exact same bullshit cherry-picking that the current government is roundly criticised for.

Yet I see people who presumably hold the same distaste as I do for these fictions wholeheartedly supporting a party who indulge in them freely.
 
Last edited:
Silva said:
Because it actually puts it in legislative writing rather than speeches or opinion pieces. If those points are met, it will come with all the things remains also want - namely freedom of movement, goods and labour.
Click to expand...

And yet is still rejected by the EU source I copied in as unworkable. All it's doing in reality is arguing over the arrangement of the deckchairs on the titanic.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Where in either of those agreements does it state that the UK can have its cake and eat it?
Click to expand...
Page 12, line 8.

It obviously doesn't say that. But both sides have agreed to no border in Ireland and no difference between NI and the rest UK. And the only way to do that is a hella soft Brexit which is why Labours major soundbites have been about no deal being the worst possible option, because everyone who's read agreements knows those are the only 2 options. If you're criticising the Freedom of movement lie everyone keeps telling, alright, fair enough. But I'm not sure what other cake people are trying to dive into.
 
Amendment 25 said:
MPs nod through government amendments to the Lords amendment, which required no changes to Irish border arrangements without the agreement of both the UK and Irish governments. The government amendments propose that the bar on border changes refers only to physical infrastructure.

Proposer: Chris Patten, Conservative peer and former minister who chaired a commission on policing in Northern Ireland.
Click to expand...
It's worth noting this was also agreed in parliament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.