You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I don't understand what's supposed to be hard about this at all.
I'm not clear on what point it is that you are making here, it seems to be that Corbyn should not oppose Brexit because to do so would be undemocratic, and even if he ignored that aspect he isn't in government so opposition is futile and therefore should not be attempted, and that the only thing that matters, and must over-ride everything else, is to get to a GE?
To be clear - I, who have voted Labour my whole life, will not vote Labour if they are committed to Brexit, as they give every sign of being. I doubt that I am alone, and this will mean that they are likely to lose the GE they are staking everything on.
Dammit
@Oliver Schick
I don't understand what's supposed to be hard about this at all.
As I said before, Labour cannot say that they want another vote to potentially reverse the result of the previous referendum, which is, of course, the motivation of many of those suggesting it. That would indicate (or could easily be spun into) contempt of democracy, giving the Tories a simple attack line against Labour in the event of a possible general election (which, as I've said, I'm convinced the Tories won't want to risk until boundaries have changed in their favour) and mobilise the protest vote again.
Corbyn's view it's quite easy to find--he's said several times, including post-referendum, that he's in favour of Remain, but with a clear intention to reform the EU. Nonetheless, Labour is bound by the referendum result (much as it's since been overcooked from its supposed 'advisory' status), as are all political parties if they want to be seen as responsible once in government, and the Lib Dems were very foolish in imagining that disdaining the referendum result would pay off for them electorally.
As for 'zero opposition', Corbyn can't do much if (a) he doesn't have a majority in Parliament, (b) the not-quite-legitimate 'majority' in Parliament are very scared of a Corbyn government, (c) the Tory rebels ('led' by the comically inappropriate 'rebel' Dominic Grieve) are so timid that the opposition can't exploit the divisions in the Tory party (with a weak May playing the factions off against one another, her main aim being to remain Prime Minister)--it's the Tory rebels who are the real culprits in not providing opposition, British ruling parties being in 'elected dictatorships', and (d) when there's a slim chance in a close vote, four Labour MPs vote against Corbyn despite the urgency (for Labour) of the occasion.
The only thing that can make a difference for Labour is a general election. Protests are a pointless waste of time, continuing to reinforce the divisions over Brexit and trying to pivot an electoral fight on that would cause Labour to lose the election for certain, and great intellectual debates won't work in the public arena.
The tl;dr of the whole situation is: Millions of people have been treated like shit for decades, for some reason the EU was set up as the bogeyman rather than the real culprits (conservative or conservative-leaning (i.e., Blair, Schröder, Jospin) governments without any real correction by an interstitial left-leaning government), and the attempt to damage the EU is evidently steered by interests like Russia's kleptocracy.
Not that I like the EU wholeheartedly--like the UK, it has been dominated by predominantly conservative governments of the larger countries for too long. Those countries have impoverished large swathes of their populations, too, leading them to become over-reliant on exports, and in turn coming to damage the economies of smaller, more import-reliant countries (e.g., Greece). Also, you've had different conservative governments across Europe evidently being at loggerheads with one another as the supposed capitalist Internationale of 'globalisation' hasn't really worked for some funny reason. Nonetheless, it is worth supporting the EU as the supranational organisation evolving out of the post-war settlement and a guarantor of peace in Europe. It just needs better input and a better balance of governments represented in it.
Note that I'm not trying to be in any particular political corner here. If you have a generally accepted 51/49 (or 52/48) decision-making process, then as no political party gets it all right you need change every once in a while. It's clunky but the only method we have. It just has to be prevented that one side becomes over-dominant for too long, which the conservatives have evidently been.