Corb Blimey!

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

That's ludicrously reductive

It's not reductive. It's actually that simple. It's always been that simple. Anyone making it more complicated either doesn't understand what is going on here, or is being dishonest with you.

Lets just make this very clear. This is a very straight forward process.

1. The UK holds perhaps the stupidest, worst run referendum in a notional first world democracy, Ever
2. The UK govt Tells the EU that they want to leave the EU, and set the clock ticking.
3. The EU tells the UK what outstanding obligations it has to meet before leaving. The "Or Else" is silent. This is the withdrawal agreement. It's a list of shit that the EU is making the UK do, because the UK said it would do it. No more, no less. This has nothing to do with a customs union whatsoever. There is now a branch depending on what happens next

4. The UK passes the Withdrawal agreement and does everything that the EU wants, and leaves on good terms.
5. The EU offers the UK a series of horrendous economic choices, ranging from Political castration (EEA), Economic ruin (leaving SM), Humanitarian crisis (leaving CU)
6. The UK picks one of these terrible choices and things start to spiral out of control.

7. The UK doesn't pass the withdrawal agreement, doesn't want to meet the EU's terms, breaks a whole bunch of outstanding obligations and agreements, including one pretty important international treaty.... and then we have a short sharp economic war,

It's not that complicated. This is not a negotiation, this is a long list of situations where the UK does as it is told, and picks from a list of bad options. The sooner people in the UK get their heads around the fact that this is what Brexit means, then the sooner we can get this whole unpleasant business over with.

For a party that ostensibly is in favour of brexit, to vote no in step four, because it doesn't contain step five is madness, and is essentially a vote for no-deal. We wouldn't be having any talk about no deal now, if labour had voted for the withdrawal agreement, as their pro-brexit position would seem to logically dictate. The Withdrawal agreement would have been safely passed.

[Nefertiti2]

Imagine as Boris Johnson takes the UK towards No Deal, badmouthing Ireland and the Irish Government at every opportunity, rejecting the backstop which he voted for in 2017, that you decide to attack the real villain Jeremy Corbyn for opposing a deal which he had no part in negotiating s based on the Conservative Party red lines he and his party disagreed with.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Again, the WA being "passed" on its own would have had zero effect.

[Moonlight Shadow]

With FoM as a red line for labour (here is hoping Nef does not try to deny this again), Labour bold new plan could never be that different from the WA. Labour rejected the WA because it was a Tory thing. Party politics above all.

[Nefertiti2]

It wasn't a red line for Labour. it was clear that Labour wanted to be pressured into accepting it in response to concessions, and I indicated what they could be.-

[Moonlight Shadow]

It wasn't a red line for Labour. it was clear that Labour wanted to be pressured into accepting it in response to concessions, and I indicated what they could be.-

'clear'...of course, another strategy.

[DCI Harry Batt]

I hate being in a position of defending Labour, which I can't stand. And they have been appalling in so many ways, and will always continue to be, such is their nature.

However, pretending the Withdrawal Agreement stands alone just...well, it's not true.

[Nefertiti2]

It was politics, an attempt to hold an anti far right coalition together and to get in the position to negotiate the best solution possible given that the Conservatives had called, and Leave had narrowly won, a referendum. It's easy to wish those things away, of course.

Labour's position was based on the IPPR report

[Moonlight Shadow]

Not a clue what that compromise between CH and EU is, there the has been a truckload of talks since the 2015 ref in CH, the EU position has been 'FoM or the whole bilaterals are rescinded' ;the one with Liechtenstein is based on the size of that tiny country, irrelevant to UK. In the meantime Labour has held a firm and unambiguous public line that FoM was over.

The foremost consideration of Labour on FoM has been holding onto marginals in areas where legitimate concerns are in significant number. Which is fair enough but please stop with this 'not a red line'....

[Snake Plissken]

Not a clue what that compromise between CH and EU is, there the has been a truckload of talks since the 2015 ref in CH, the EU position has been 'FoM or the whole bilaterals are rescinded' ;the one with Liechtenstein is based on the size of that tiny country, irrelevant to UK. In the meantime Labour has held a firm and unambiguous public line that FoM was over.

The foremost consideration of Labour on FoM has been holding onto marginals in areas where legitimate concerns are in significant number. Which is fair enough but please stop with this 'not a red line'....

Actually, they were ambiguous about that and it wasn't a red line.

The phrase was always "Freedom of movement ends when we leave the EU". They have never said "We want freedom of movement to end". What they have said (gnnrgh) "respects the referendum result" and all that and has always been stated as fact and not policy. A stated policy saying "all EU citizens will be guaranteed the same rights that they have now" also - well, that preserves the right to move between countries to live and work, doesn't it?

It was constructive ambiguity - which can be both justified and completely justifiably criticised. Personally, I've always read Labours statements as "Freedom of movement will end. And be replaced by our negotiated deal which will include the unrestricted right for UK and EU citizens to live and work anywhere in the EU and UK."

[Snake Plissken]

I'll try and be equally reductive, see where it gets us:

'As it can only be the Tories or Labour that form the next government, whichever party you're an MP or vote for, unless you support Corbyn in a VONC and subsequent general election, you support No Deal.'

AKA this weeks stated Lib Dem position.

[Etienne]

Personally, I've always read Labours statements as "Freedom of movement will end. And be replaced by our negotiated deal which will include the unrestricted right for UK and EU citizens to live and work anywhere in the EU and UK."

Yes, that's what I thought too. I can understand SB's frustration that Labour haven't made the case for FoM or Remain (though I remain sceptical whether them doing so would have helped convince people) but I don't think he'd have been unhappy with the policy they'd have put in place. Better than Ed Miliband surely:

Ton Ton is absolutely right that Labour have never had the opportunity to approve the Withdrawal Agreement without it resulting in a Brexit based on May's red lines.

[Flynnie]

The government of national unity, but not with Corbyn at the helm, is at least as delusional as anything I’ve seen so far. The Liberals’ delusion that they have more than a baker’s dozen MPs is most unhelpful.

This idea that Corbyn is playing 4D chess to get no-deal, but also that the PLP are basically his minions, but actually we can also stop Brexit and hope isn’t lost as long as we get a national government without Corbyn, is obviously contradictory.

If for anything else, I’m sure there’s plenty of PLP members who don’t like Corbyn but are completely uninterested in voting for a government helmed by someone not endorsed by Labour.

[Flynnie]

Yes, that's what I thought too. I can understand SB's frustration that Labour haven't made the case for FoM or Remain (though I remain sceptical whether them doing so would have helped convince people) but I don't think he'd have been unhappy with the policy they'd have put in place. Better than Ed Miliband surely:

Ton Ton is absolutely right that Labour have never had the opportunity to approve the Withdrawal Agreement without it resulting in a Brexit based on May's red lines.

Labour whipped for the Wilson-Kyle amendment, which would have passed the WA in exchange for a second referendum, and it failed because almost no Tories voted for it.

[Nefertiti2]

Labour also whipped for Ken Clarke's Proposal for a custom union against No Deal. The abstention of the Lib Dem's ensured it failed

[Snake Plissken]

The current press for a Government of National Unity can be viewed through the lens of who the people pushing it think should be in charge. Hilary Benn. Yvette Cooper. Margaret Beckett. Decent people. Pragmatic.

You call almost call them... "Sensible".

Incidentally, the best suggestion I've seen is that Parliament hold a vote to send nominate their own person to Brussels to negotiate on behalf of it, rather than letting the executive do it. Which neatly solves several things at the same time.

[Ginger Yellow]

Well, other than the main one, that Parliament can't agree on what it wants.

[johnr]

Labour also whipped for Ken Clarke's Proposal for a custom union against No Deal. The abstention of the Lib Dem's ensured it failed

And if we continue in the absurdly reductionist mode upthread, Lucas's vote against means that she also voted for No Deal.

[Nefertiti2]

Simon Wren Lewis

As a result, those who say (like the leader of the LibDems) that people cannot vote for Labour because Labour are not led by a Remainer are either dishonest or haven't understood that Labour cannot achieve Brexit. But either way it is an extremely dangerous thing to say, because it is a likely to end up allowing No Deal. If parliament does vote against No Deal every Remainer in the subsequent General Election has to vote tactically.

It means in England voting for LibDem candidates in LibDem/Tory marginals, but it also means voting for Labour candidates in Lab/Con marginals. That is the only clear way a Johnson victory can be stopped. It doesn’t even matter if the Labour MP is pro-Brexit, because every Labour MP deprives the Conservatives of government.

So every Remainer telling you that you cannot vote Labour is telling you to vote for a No Deal outcome. Everyone who says you cannot vote for Labour because “Corbyn is evil” in various ways is telling you to vote for a No Deal outcome. Everyone telling you that you cannot vote Labour because Labour “is an antisemitic party” is telling you to vote for No Deal. And when it comes to a General Election, there will be some who will say you cannot vote Labour because they want Boris Johnson and No Deal to win.

[Lucy Waterman]

Sensible is a good thing to be when something’s on fire. The antonym of sensible is not “brilliant and clever”.

[Snake Plissken]

The problem with those Marxist types is that they have no idea how to make money.

https://twitter.com/Trickyjabs/status/1159419179084210176

https://twitter.com/Trickyjabs/status/1159423237635395585

[Nocturnal Submission]

Plaid Cymru must have found a hell of a savings account for their money.

[George C.]

If you don't campaign for a second referendum, and if you vote against the withdrawal agreement, what are you actually in favour of?

A change of direction after the UK was supposed to leave the EU doesn't really count. We all saw what happened when it mattered.

If that was a response to my last post, it has to be a lot more nuanced than the simplistic scenario you're suggesting.

[San Bernardhinault]

Labour whipped for the Wilson-Kyle amendment, which would have passed the WA in exchange for a second referendum, and it failed because almost no Tories voted for it.

Labour also whipped for Ken Clarke's Proposal for a custom union against No Deal. The abstention of the Lib Dem's ensured it failed

I think these two facts reinforce what I wrote yesterday: Labour is a party of softish Brexit, but not a party of Remain. At least in terms of Labour's parliamentary actions and stated policy goals. It is possible that Corbyn is playing Secret 4D Remain Chess by taking Brexity positions.

If you want Brexit to happen in a much less damaging way than the Tories are implementing, then Labour is your vessel. If you want Brexit to not happen at all, putting your hope in Labour is very much trusting that the Labour front bench has been playing a secret game and doesn't mean what it says.

[San Bernardhinault]

And if we continue in the absurdly reductionist mode upthread, Lucas's vote against means that she also voted for No Deal.

The "absurdly reductionist position" is that there are three possibilities - No Deal Brexit. Deal Brexit. Remain. There are three possibilities, not two. If you wanted to remain, you'd have voted against the WA. If you wanted a soft Brexit (or a hard Brexit with a deal), you'd have voted for the WA. It would make no sense for someone who wanted to remain to vote for the WA.

If you took Labour's position at face value, they should have been voting for the WA. As I said upthread, I fully understand why they didn't - they are playing domestic politics and implementing the WA under a Tory government would have resulted in a Tory hard-Brexit. So they did the right thing by voting against. But if Labour return to power and implement their stated policy position, then they would be voting for the WA next time (with, at most, very marginal changes). It appears that they were opposed to what the Tories would do after the WA was passed, not opposed to the WA itself.