Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s the one that’s most out of line with his party on Bre
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s the one that’s most out of line with his party on Brexit
YouGov Aug 1 2017 poll
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Corbyn has not said 'right to leave', merely 'I accept the will of the majority;. Important difference.
So how does this become an issue for him, exactly? I can see that disappointed remainers would like to have Labour leading the charge against Brexit but it seems to me that a significant minority of those who voted remain have also moved on. Corbyn will attack the government on the detail, not the principle and most Labour supporters will struggle to tell the difference.
He just needs to make sure the Tories continue to own Brexit, which he can do in exactly the way you describe. Win/win for him.
Really, it`s just a cop out.
Corbyn's position will be whatever is best able to achieve a government defeat at the time.
If Corbyn can continue when over 85% of his MPs sign a motion of no confidence, I don't see why he can't continue now.
Don't get me wrong, replacing Corbyn with a non-demented MP would be a fantastic result for both Labour and the country (assuming they didn't kowtow to the socialist Three Pounders), I just don't see it happening.
I think this is the point that should inform all thinking on the possibility of a Corbyn/old Left GE win, at any point in the future. The debate about how economies and societies work had been largely silent for 25 years, Corbyn raised it but he was deemed unelectable so nobody actually bothered to make the argument for liberal economics and the restriction of state power/interference - as they once had successfully in the 80's.
With that argument back in swing, and the thought that Corbyn could actually be elected, I don't see anywhere for Labour to improve their vote share, or any Conservatives who would sit on their hands and abstain.
When was it agreed, and by whom?
Asking for a friend, of course.....
Belgium has admitted it knew in June that eggs from Dutch farms might be contaminated with an insecticide - a month before the issue became public.
The information was not shared because of a fraud investigation, a spokeswoman for Belgium's food safety agency said.
Tests found the chemical fipronil, which can harm people's kidneys, liver and thyroid glands, in Dutch eggs.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40841411?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook
https://twitter.com/MikeGapes/status/889796005981544449
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/new-5-coin-unveiled-to-mark-duke-of-edinburghs-retirement-from-royal-duties-a3603246.html
A Labour approach to Brexit also means legislating to guarantee that Parliament has a truly meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal.
http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017/brexit
Maybe the theory that "they thought Labour were the best possible shot of preventing Brexit" would make some sense in Lab-Con marginals where people were tactically making sure the Tories didn't get in, but the theory really falls down in those Lib-Lab marginals - Sheffield Hallam, Cambridge, Hornsey, Bermondsey, Manc Withington, Cardiff Central, etc. - all seats which voted Remain by massive margins and where there was no chance of the Tories winning, and therefore where Remainers could theoretically have voted LibDem on principle to express their views on Brexit without risking the Tories getting in. But instead, there were huge swings to Labour in every one of those seats.
There are more people like daodao than I would have expected!
http://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-article-50-lord-kerr-john-kerr/
Should we leave the EU? Not even thought about it. I suppose we could.
Now I've thought about we probably shouldn't.
Blimey - didn't think the vote would go that way.
Hang on, things are getting serious. Better vote Lib Dem.
Actually this is going to affect me personally. I really need to be heard on this. Voting Labour is the only thing that will scare the government.
I haven't got to the working out the optimum vote to cast to stop Brexit/start the rejoin process yet.
Peter Hitchens is veering close to converting to Remain.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2017/08/my-position-on-the-norway-option.html
"I have also concluded that government which *wants* to limit immigration( as our does not) could use the special provisions of the EEA to obtain it. Maybe I am kidding myself, but in any case, the consequences of an abrupt departure from the Single Market are so serious that they overcome all other arguments for me."
It's only the same as a one-time bribe to the Wehrmacht guard on the prison camp gate.
As soon as he trousers the cash we've escaped and we're off into the rolling hills of freedom.
However, party positions are much less entrenched, as Leavers have moved to the Conservatives and Remainers have moved to Labour. You can see why a residue of socialist Leavers would stay with Labour. It's harder to see why a residue of Conservative Remainers would stay with the Tories while they're positioning themselves as the Brexit party except for football club loyalty reasons.
For that, among other reasons, I'm expecting the Conservatives to drift down slowly in the polls.
On the whole, their view has been that nobody will really know until the matter is tested, and then it will probably depend on political will as much as anything. The Articles themselves, as I understand it, were drafted in a way that encourages staying in the club rather than leaving it.
On what basis would you contest that?
That's a dramatic shift in position.
Those who are more modern, cosmopolitan, internet savvy, pro feminist and LGBT etc. are Remainers. Those who are more traditional, culturally conservative, more concerned about sovereignty, more prone to isolationism and economic protectionism are Leavers. (there was a really good survey on this post-Ref but I can't find the link atm.) This explains why it wasn't simply a party vote during the Ref. But it also explains why Remainers can still vote with Corbyn's Labour: he is, for all the negatives thrown at him, the epitome of cosmopolitan life. Whereas the LDs (with Farron at the last election) were viewed with increased scepticism on those issues.
Corbyn is threading the needle between a not-too-hard-stance on Brexit (which is actually a good place to start negotiating from) to keep some Leavers happy (and because of his own economic plans, which are more in line with economic protectionism / populism) whilst being a social cosmopolitan that appeals to those who can't vote for "The Nasty Party" (Fox Hunting, Dementia Tax, Austerity, Oh My).
David Cameron did the same for the right; kept the base happy with right wing red meat, shrinking the government and (eventually) presenting the referendum, but passing things like equal marriage and not bringing up fox hunting to seem more cosmopolitan.
I don't think Remainers will leave Labour until / unless: a) LDs come across as more cosmopolitan post Farron b) Tories come across more cosmopolitan post May or c) Corbyn loses cosmopolitan credibility.
My Careers Master at 6th form would have tried to talk me out of that as being just a little too narrow for a career option.
Mr Quirch would have been right as well. Thirty years hanging around doing nothing and then 100% of my life's work crammed into two short years.
...and only 599 days 2 hours 50 minutes of it left before I get early retirement. Cool!
Nor will they
so maybe we should all drop the Brexit crap for a month and enjoy whats left of the summer
We do have a ten year window for interim agreement - this is allowed under the WTO while negotiations are continuing. So you could see a very short EEA shadow, or maybe nearly a decade. But it would take the pressure off, and as the EU further integrates it would take the political sting out from the other side.
http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86563
Having not had a plan from the very start, the government is now faced with a task way beyond its capability. Had the people currently involved known what they were doing, and immediately set about executing the only effective plan available, we might have stood a chance. But they left it too late.
"If you leave a club without checking the exit conditions first, you can't be too surprised to find yourself stuck with a bill."
A good simile. However, what are the written rules about the cost of leaving? if you leave a club with no written exit conditions, I suspect you can just go. There may be a moral issue here, but who's got the clout then?
Anyway, it's all to be argued about. We're leaving and that's the important thing.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-brexit-resolution-article-50-can-be-revoked-2017-3
But the ECJ is supreme in this matter and so it would have the right to make a final ruling.
From the Uk side I think it reasonable to assume that since the invoking of A50 required legislation then its revokation would likewise require legislation.
On the other hand it is clear Theresa May will be willing to pay a Brexit divorce bill.There has to be a question whether all hardline Brexiteer Tory MPs will accept that.
Welcome. May I inquire if there is any significance to your username? It seems a little unusual.
Although the sidebar of models in bikinis would of course be unaffected by the editors making total tits of themselves.
Either we accept the deal offered, or we exit without any deal at all. Westminster has no power to force Brussels to renegotiate. That is the only "meaningful vote" possible.
Voting a deal down to score points off the government, with the result that we exit without one, strikes me as something that could easily blow up in Labour's face. For ever after, adverse consequences of Brexit will then be pinned on Labour for refusing a better deal.
It strikes me as a minefield for all parties. If I were Labour I would just abstain.
JRM has already been lamenting on Sky
Therefore they would probably accept a moral duty on things like pensions and agreed current spending, because it would fit their image of themselves as 'sound' people to do business with. Especially as much of that money would be taking on liabilities rather than making upfront payments and if say £45 billion were agreed it's still at least a 25% reduction on what the EU were demanding.
And if it was put to them that they were showing how far superior they were to a lot of dodgy continentals, they would absolutely lap it up.
The reason? It's often easier to argue against something than for something. By arguing for Brexit pre-referendum, they were challenging the status quo. They will want to continue arguing against, rather than for. I therefore expect many talking heads to show slight reversals in their position, albeit rarely to remain.
The rhetoric in the papers would suggest the second.
PS The problem with a Brexit Betrayal narrative is that it implies Brexit has failed.
If it's unconditional the EU will treat it as they did Blair's rebate for CAP reform approach.
One idiot bit.
It's easier to argue against real problems and for potential wonderfulness than against theoretical problems and for real positives.
Similarly, at school I remember reading (forget which chap wrote it) that religious thinking was more likely to come about due to running away from something bad (fear of death, for example) than embracing something good.
Peter Hitchens in particular I think rather enjoys playing a Cassandra role, and to me seems a bit put out when it appears that the government intends to do some of the things he suggests.
That should sort it out. Amazing that most people saying that we need to pay the EU a huge bill don't want to accept the fact that we don't have any money for it as we are running a budget deficit. If people actually had to pay the bill (rather than just borrow the money and screw over the next generation) I suspect there would suddenly be a total re-evaluation of whether we think it is worth paying for SM access.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/landtage/berlin.htm
That said, I think Merkel is a shoo-in as Chancellor as suggested on a previous thread.
Bit like Leavers here!
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/07/27/labour-talks-about-student-debt-butcrisis-debt-is-what-reall
In general I agree with the majority of posters that Corbyn neither wants nor needs to dig into any particular position on this at the moment - the sensible thing is to say the result needs to be good for Britain Cabinet should stop squabbling and get on with it, and whatever the Government is saying is not adequate. A crunch will come, but right now there are no political prizes for tying ourselves to any particular position. If Corbyn was passionately pro or anti, that would be a problem, but he really isn't. Nor are most Labour MPs - they are overwhelmingly *mildly* pro-EU.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461
As an aside, I'm reading The Wonder Book of Aircraft (from 1919), which is rather good. It's also got a small amount on the mechanics of flight, which I've just realised can apply in reverse to F1 quite nicely.
A young boy is telling his grandmother what life will be like when Communism is achieved.
'We will all have nice houses to live in, and schools and work, and eat meat three times a day.'
His grandmother sighed ecstatically.
'Just like it was under the Tsars!'
As you know him better than people on here - how likely is it that he waters down his redistributive policies?
When the Cons were competently running the country, there was no merit in Lab positioning itself as a "me-too" centrist party. Now that the Cons have blown themselves up, I would have thought there would be great appetite for such a party of the type that perhaps the other three leadership candidates exemplified.
Gutierrez did that once too, but he only gets half-points as it was Maldonado-assisted.