The Brexit Thread

[E10 Rifle]

Yeah TAB's "What you stupid people need to understand …" schtick is getting a bit laboured, and not notably a good political communication strategy. Good points lost in rhetorical flourishes.

[San Bernardhinault]

But TAB is correct that there's no merit to Corbyn's triangulating, and there's no reason for Labour to take their bizarre position when they could spend their time actually opposing the idiocy that is Brexit. They don't need to pay lip service to "The People Have Told Us They Want Us To Hurry It Along At Get Brexit Done" lies that come from people like Teresa May. Why are they effectively saying "Yeah, the Tories are right"?

[Nefertiti2]

No they are acknowledging that the leavers won a referendum and there is no easy route or parliamentary majority to turning that round.

It may be clear what to do in Ireland or California- but here on the ground there is no easy answer.

[johnr]

Corbyn and Labour did oppose Brexit - 'Remain and Reform' was the slogan, now echoed by Lucas, Kyle, Lammy and other Remainers. Unfortunately, 'along with 'Stronger In' - led by Johnson, Cameron etc - Leave won. Corbyn and Labour then unexpectedly destroyed the Tory majority, partly by pledging to respect the referendum result (though mainly alongside a whole bunch of other stuff) meaning that the type of Brexit May was going for has had to be watered down until, well, we are where we are, and a lot to play for.

A lot of (not yours, SB) 'Labour should be opposing Brexit' seems to stem from a wish to turn the clock back, and wish it never happened. I do too, I campaigned for Remain, but Corbyn and Labour are trying to get the best from an absolute shitshow.

[San Bernardhinault]

There'd be a much easier route to a parliamentary majority to revoke article 50 if Labour was in favour of revoking article 50. And if parties who are in favour of revoking article 50 win large numbers of votes in European elections, you can make a pretty clear case that the public are fed up with the chaos and damage of Brexit. You can particularly make this case as the referendum was (a) shown to be corruptly influenced by outside money; (b) disenfranchised huge numbers of UK residents; and (c) was only won by a small majority.

[Nefertiti2]

There'd be a much easier route to a parliamentary majority to revoke article 50 if Labour was in favour of revoking article 50. And if parties who are in favour of revoking article 50 win large numbers of votes in European elections, you can make a pretty clear case that the public are fed up with the chaos and damage of Brexit. You can particularly make this case as the referendum was (a) shown to be corruptly influenced by outside money; (b) disenfranchised huge numbers of UK residents; and (c) was only won by a small majority.

You can "make all the cases"you want. there's still no parliamentary majority for revoking article fifty.

and there's no route to a general election- not least because the Conservatives and DUP will not vote with Labout he ChangeUK group have explicitly said they will vote with the May government.

So lets attack Jeremy Corbyn

[San Bernardhinault]

We can get much closer to a parliamentary majority to revoke - to within single digits, I think - if Labour unanimously supported revoking.

But, whether we can do anything or not, is there any reason for Jeremy Corbyn to be saying "Yes, Teresa May's interpretation was spot on, the local election results mean we must get on with Brexit"? There seems to be no electoral or political benefit in the current Labour position. Labour aren't winning the Leavers anyway, but they're also losing the Remainers, which they don't need to do.

[Nefertiti2]

We can get much closer to a parliamentary majority to revoke - to within single digits, I think - if Labour unanimously supported revoking.

But, whether we can do anything or not, is there any reason for Jeremy Corbyn to be saying "Yes, Teresa May's interpretation was spot on, the local election results mean we must get on with Brexit"? There seems to be no electoral or political benefit in the current Labour position. Labour aren't winning the Leavers anyway, but they're also losing the Remainers, which they don't need to do.

But there are about 25 Labour Mp's who won't, almost entirely on the right. What are you proposing- that Corbyn has a Night of the Long Knives?

You're just producing fantasy figures. If the US didn't have an electoral college Hillary Clinton would be president.

[NHH]

Indeed. Brighton Council should have gone Labour majority on Thursday, but Labour were lucky to hang on in first place in a continuing NOC to the Greens by a couple of hundred votes in a couple of key wards, and this seems to be all about Brexit. The trouble with constructive ambiguity is that they've run out of road. Elections force you to either take a shit of get off the pot.

[San Bernardhinault]

But there are about 25 Labour Mp's who won't, almost entirely on the right. What are you proposing- that Corbyn has a Night of the Long Knives?

You're just producing fantasy figures. If the US didn't have an electoral college Hillary Clinton would be president.

So, you're still not explaining to me what the point of Corbyn's current position is. What is to be gained from even stating that "these results mean we have to get on with Brexit" apart from making sure that Labour lose all their seats in Southern England and London in the upcoming Euro elections?

[San Bernardhinault]

And, one more ... You've told us that Corbyn can't change government policy on Brexit. If this is true, if Labour are powerless, then there's even less reason for triangulating "pragmatism". You aren't going to change things so argue for the morally defensible position instead. Which is: staying in the EU.

[Nefertiti2]

Indeed. Brighton Council should have gone Labour majority on Thursday, but Labour were lucky to hang on in first place in a continuing NOC to the Greens by a couple of hundred votes in a couple of key wards, and this seems to be all about Brexit. The trouble with constructive ambiguity is that they've run out of road. Elections force you to either take a shit of get off the pot.

And Brighton is entirely representative of the rest of the country

[Nefertiti2]

So, you're still not explaining to me what the point of Corbyn's current position is. What is to be gained from even stating that "these results mean we have to get on with Brexit" apart from making sure that Labour lose all their seats in Southern England and London in the upcoming Euro elections?

And you've still not explained any practical route to reach your desired outcome.

[Nefertiti2]

And, one more ... You've told us that Corbyn can't change government policy on Brexit. If this is true, if Labour are powerless, then there's even less reason for triangulating "pragmatism". You aren't going to change things so argue for the morally defensible position instead. Which is: staying in the EU.

So how is overturning a referendum "morally defensible"? I agree it's politically desirable, but that's a very different matter.

[Lang Spoon]

This strategy will also doom Labour in Scotland even more than before. Trying to shore up the midlands and the north of England and hoping London/SE remainers hold their nose in the GE (I'm guessing the euros are written off already) seems pretty risky. Young folk are either going to vote for someone else or not bother their arse. Why should The do otherwise, when the likes of Fuckin Gardiner is more concerned with the supposed core racist Salt of t'earth vote?

[San Bernardhinault]

And you've still not explained any practical route to reach your desired outcome.

I don' t think there is one. The least ridiculous route would be overwhelming electoral evidence (which would be helped by all the non-maniac parties supporting the obvious non-maniac position)

Just because something terrible is almost certain to happen, that doesn't mean you shouldn't oppose it.

So how is overturning a referendum "morally defensible"? I agree it's politically desirable, but that's a very different matter.

Staying in the EU is morally defensible. Leaving isn't. Obviously the referendum is subservient to the actual goal. Fealty to a dodgy referendum with a relatively marginal result where the people most affected by the result were disenfranchised from the referendum doesn't seem like the right hill to die on when the alternative hill is actually protecting peoples' rights (and the economy).

[Nefertiti2]

I don' t think there is one. The least ridiculous route would be overwhelming electoral evidence (which would be helped by all the non-maniac parties supporting the obvious non-maniac position)

Just because something terrible is almost certain to happen, that doesn't mean you shouldn't oppose it.



Staying in the EU is morally defensible. Leaving isn't. Obviously the referendum is subservient to the actual goal. Fealty to a dodgy referendum with a relatively marginal result where the people most affected by the result were disenfranchised from the referendum doesn't seem like the right hill to die on when the alternative hill is actually protecting peoples' rights (and the economy).

I guess in Californai ignoring a referendum with a "relatively marginal result" appears an entirely feasible strategy.

Why don't you ignore the Presidential election results too, given that there is considerable evidence that the voting was dodgy and the Democrats won by a margin of over three million.

[Nefertiti2]

And, one more ... You've told us that Corbyn can't change government policy on Brexit. If this is true, if Labour are powerless, then there's even less reason for triangulating "pragmatism". You aren't going to change things so argue for the morally defensible position instead. Which is: staying in the EU.

That's why Corbyn was campaigning for a General Election. Unfortunately too many people in the country and even in his own party didn't want that to happen.

[San Bernardhinault]

You think we shouldn't oppose Donald Trump as President, because he won the election as it was configured. That we shouldn't try and obstruct and block, but should just get on with letting him do his Trumpy stuff? That we shouldn't say "This is a fucking ridiculous result, and he's disastrous and will continue to be disastrous and we should try and make sure he stops being President as quickly as possible"? That we should instead say "Oh well, Donald Trump won. Let's get on with letting him be Trumpy".

Every member of the opposition here is happy to say that Donald Trump (and almost all his policies) is disastrous. Why can't the UK opposition say that Brexit is disastrous and silly?

I think it's a really weird argument that you have to show utter fealty to the referendum result.

[Nocturnal Submission]

That's not what Nef is saying. He's not saying that you shouldn't oppose Trump. He's saying that you aren't declaring the last Presidential null and void and demanding that they give Hillary the gig. Which indeed you aren't. But you are saying that we should declare the Brexit referendum null and void, principally, it seems, because you didn't like the result.

[San Bernardhinault]

So, Labour shouldn't point out that Brexit's a terrible idea? Even though they almost all campaigned against it?

[NHH]

And Brighton is entirely representative of the rest of the country

There are few places that are 'representative of the country', as you well know. I wasn't - again as you well know - suggesting it was, but pointing out that there was real and direct evidence about how the party's policy on Brexit had impacted on its ability to win seats in non-heavy leave voting areas, and that the Labour Party's policy - which I've hitherto had some sympathy for in this thread - was reaching a crucial point where it could no longer run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

[ad hoc]

When Corbyn was elected leader of the labour party (or in fact before that, when it was clear he was going to be), the argument put about by labour-voters-who-hate-Corbyn (I'm trying to be charitable by not just calling them centrists) was that he had some positive ideas but that ultimately he was completely unelectable, and that this was the reason to oppose him. Now, that group seems to be most exercised by the attempts he and his team are making to sacrifice principles for the goal of electability. Now it quickly became apparent in the original instance that in fact they hated his principles too, and electability was simply the front on which they felt best positioned to attack him, but it's a bit rich that they are now mostly after him on the basis that he's trying to finesse some form of way of getting elected on the back of the chaos of Brexit.

FWIW I can see that they (the Corbyn team) are trying their best to work out some way through this morass of political chaos, but I think they have failed (or at least they have realised that the road they've taken has turned out to be a cul-de-sac), and I think the only way forward now is to choose one option and push it as hard as they damn well can. (I'd prefer that option to be remain, but if it's some form of Norwayish model then so be it). And I think basically giving up on overarching principles for the goal of electability has been a huge error. Not least because I think the principles they held are the thing that got them this far in the first place and got them the surprisingly high vote they got in 2017. Whereas "triangulating" and "listening to legitimate concerns" is not only unprincipled, but it is turning out to be electorally damaging too.

Still I read one of the l-v-w-h-C yesterday saying that he was one of "those who had been right all along" so you know, I don't expect there'll be much soul searching over there.

[johnr]

There are few places that are 'representative of the country', as you well know. I wasn't - again as you well know - suggesting it was, but pointing out that there was real and direct evidence about how the party's policy on Brexit had impacted on its ability to win seats in non-heavy leave voting areas, and that the Labour Party's policy - which I've hitherto had some sympathy for in this thread - was reaching a crucial point where it could no longer run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

Just for clarity, in 'Remain Central' here in Brighton, Labour ended up with one more Councillor than we had before, and the closest vote was not between Green and Labour, but Labour coming within 4 votes of getting another couple of seats off the Tories. And in neighbouring Worthing, Labour gained 10 seats from a starting point of none.

The local elections are being read in all different ways to justify different pre-existing narratives. I think that they tell us very little.

[NHH]

Come on John. The talk a year ago was how the momentum dominated Labour Party was finally going to achieve the holy grail of Brighton politics and win a majority. The Greens felt embattled too. Going into the campaign, that was a buzz, until people actually started canvassing and it became clear that this wasn't likely to happen. Labour haven't increased their numbers in Brighton in any meaningful way - at the last council elections, you won 23 seats. This time, 20. You might have almost won a seat in Hangleton with 3 more votes, and Woodingdean with another 80 votes but by the same token Labour held on in Central Hove by 40, Queens Park by 150, Goldsmid by 50. This was not the election result Labour wanted, hoped for, or expected.