You are reading a single comment by @bens0n and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Oh, but Labour wants "the benefits of the SM" with no freedom of movement. Well, maybe they can budge on this and they already suggested. But then why put that message out there. I think that wasn't really a good move.
This for me is the biggest problem with Labour's Brexit policy. Firstly, as you say it has—justifiably—been denounced as 'cakeism'; secondly, and more importantly from a moral perspective, the left should be defending freedom of movement.
bens0n
Howard
I knew he was going to lose this, and that is pretty obvious. Since it is Labour policy to try for a GE, he tried, he failed. I think the timing was right, but the Tories just have more MPs so...
Now he doesn't want to talk shop unless a No Deal is off the table. Perhaps...perhaps...that will draw some anti No Deal tories out of the woods and help them manoeuvre. Nobody seems to want that.
That still leaves the cakeism. Nobody wants the backstop. OK, stay in the CU and SM. Done. It is shite, but not so harmful you can't pretend it isn't a big deal if you spin it right.
[it sorta is, become a rule taker, lose more banking, lose other things...but ok...facts and the truth are the first victim in Brexit it seems]
Oh, but Labour wants "the benefits of the SM" with no freedom of movement. Well, maybe they can budge on this and they already suggested. But then why put that message out there. I think that wasn't really a good move.
Because informed Remainers are now rightly being able to say "CAKEISM", not all union members are very happy with this stance either, the TUC wants to stay in the SM too. I am not impressed with McCluskey at all.
So, again, we wait and see... tick.tock.