EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Just another case of robbery of the public purse by another name, isn't it?

Hearing Cummings has been reported/being investigated for political and intelligence links to Russia. Thornberry received info and has written to cabinet office and MI6.

Now found a source: Sunday Times Home Affairs journo on tw@tter...

https://mobile.twitter.com/TomJHarper/status/1190756919427915777

Slightly sceptical. But an interesting turn of events.

I didn’t see the episode in question, but it’s linked in this thread.

1 Attachment

They’re trying to ride two horses, of course, and who knows what they will do. But that’s the point- a big vote for Labour could be taken as a mandate for Leave, given the statements of those like Long-Bailey.

Hence the lack of trust.

Corbyn did announce that they want to put the vote to the people, a choice of deal or remain.

on brexit, a vote for labour is a mandate for a second referendum. unfortunately remain ultras are like the ERG on this in that they can’t take yes for an answer. imo they are actively jeopardising the one policy goal they are after. in the world of political reality, the only route to (1) a second referendum and (2) therefore potentially remaining in the EU, runs through a labour govt

I think there is already a pretty big democratic mandate for leave - but I’m willing to countenance arguments about how long that mandate endures (I’m less interested in the stuff about its legitimacy).

interesting that marr didn’t ask john mcdonnell one question about brexit

A Labour SNP coalition is really the only route to a second referendum. Which would probably come loaded with Indyref2.

I can't see a sensible and achievable route to anything other than a Tory govt and the Boris deal.

So therefore ignore LB saying Labour could campaign for Leave and vote for them anyway?

Yes. Labour could campaign for the deal they negotiate if they decide as a party that it is a deal worth campaigning for. This isn't new.

A vote for Labour is not a mandate for leave. It's a mandate for a second referendum, with the options on the ballot tbd following discussions with the EU. Again, not new.

I generally don't make wild guesses as to what the future holds in this thread, but I will make one: regardless of what would be on that ballot, both options are likely to be a lot better than what the Tories are offering and will push forward with a majority.

majority labour govt would deliver a second referendum. tho I concede you can argue the toss on whether that is feasible given the polls

if ‘remain’ is your overriding concern of the election (ie bigger than climate change, austerity etc) it’s probably best to: vote LD in CON/LD marginals; labour in LAB/CON marginals; SNP in SNP/CON marginals. and if you’re not thrilled about the dissolution of the UK, vote LAB in SNP/LAB marginals.

they’re not likely to campaign for the best brexit tho, I’d reckon given:

1 how they campaigned last time (under the same leadership);
2 where the membership are on this topic; and
3 the fact that there is no brexit deal that is better than remain.

I'm not sure what "campaign for the best brexit" means. Hard? If so, then I agree entirely. But obviously that won't be a certainty without a Labour government.

by “best brexit” just mean whatever labour soft brexit starmer and co have already presumably pre-negotiated with the EU last year. I think it’s highly unlikely, though not impossible, they’d campaign for any form of brexit. it would utterly demoralise their whole activist base. that’s all conjecture tho - we’d have to see the deal.

what we do know is that a vote for labour in the GE is a vote for letting the people have the final* word on the whole sorry saga

*lol

Ah, yeah, I don't know. And to be honest, I'm not that worried. A very soft Brexit would be like winning the lottery at this point. And there may be something there in terms of placating a large portion of the population who would be quite upset by remaining (even if we were only leaving in name).

I'd still prefer to remain.

Sorry I missed this at the time. I wasn't thinking of a specific candidate - I've been following GnasherJew on Twitter and it seems that there's a new one every week. If you google you'll see what I mean.

Funny how corbyn is painted as the fanatic while offering a sensible middle-ish ground way out of an issue splitting the country in two.

Funny how corbyn is painted as the fanatic while offering a sensible middle-ish ground way out of an issue splitting the country in two.

I think the two things are separate though aren't they. People recognise Labour's Brexit position as nuanced and complex and balanced - it's one of the reasons those of us who are unashamedly pro or anti Brexit get so worked up about it.

When people call Corbyn an extremist they aren't referring to his Brexit strategy but all the other policies. And there's some truth to it. Even pro Corbyn thinkers regularly talk about how Corbyn's programme would 'transform' Britain, and that he shouldn't be dragged back to the centre ground etc. You don't transform a country without a vision, and you don't have a vision without some degree of fanaticism.

This is all said without any malice towards or approval of Corbyn, btw. I've made a vow not to bait or argue with anyone going in the same direction of travel as me re: Brexit. If you're going to vote Labour or Lib dems or Green or SNP, we're on the same side. If you're going to vote Tory or Brexit, that's when I'm going to start getting argumentative.

Extremist and fanatical is wrong though, it paints a picture of him that's just not true and the use of those words is meant to stick in peoples heads alongside the IRA smears etc. He's a pretty middle of the road, left leaning socialist politician by a lot of standards, being so shouldn't be considered extreme.

When people call Corbyn an extremist they aren't referring to his Brexit strategy but all the other policies. And there's some truth to it. Even pro Corbyn thinkers regularly talk about how Corbyn's programme would 'transform' Britain, and that he shouldn't be dragged back to the centre ground etc. You don't transform a country without a vision, and you don't have a vision without some degree of fanaticism.

Linking policies to a transformative vision to fanaticism is also nonsensical. Some of the people who support Corbyn are certainly fanatics (as are some of the people who support Johnson or Farage). But trying to confuse this with the policies which one can be critical of doesn't compute.

This is all said without any malice towards or approval of Corbyn

Absolutely. I'm no fanatic fan either, though my rare contributions often seem to be in his defence. I just figure he's what we've got now, at least until this election.

What frustrates me is that, yes, he's had some extreme views and probably still holds some, but his policies are a lot more moderate, and even more importantly than that, his approach has been moderate.

Lots of articles about government spending as a percentage of GDP today, Labour is 2% above the Tories, which (IIRC) is 41% of GDP vs 43% of GDP. One of the most common anti-Labour jibes is "love to see how they'll pay for it all!"

Serious question:
renationalisation - what would it work for/how would it work/why would it work?

I mean. it's fairly emotive.
gut instinct is "yes. good move. bring those services back into serving the whole population rather than a board"

but....
I'm not sure how this will solve any energy problems (keeping the lights on as well as making them energy efficient/clean), solving the problems of "late trains" within the course of a parliament or two.

So much this, was on the phone to my mum who gets the DM every day, supposedly a Corbyn gov will turn the UK in to the worst days of the Soviet Union, completely ignoring the absolute shit show of the Tories brexit. She told me not to vote Labour, I told her I'm voting SNP, she didn't know what to do with that! #tacticalvote. I asked my mum not to vote Tory this year, I don't think I'll ever get her to vote Labour in her constituency which would be the tactical vote but a vote for say the Lib Dems would be one less for the Tories, she currently has Theresa Villiers as MP.

My folks are Telegraph and Express reading tories. During a recent boozy dinner we strayed onto politics briefly. Wasn't good - ABORT ABORT!

Linking policies to a transformative vision to fanaticism is also nonsensical. Some of the people who support Corbyn are certainly fanatics (as are some of the people who support Johnson or Farage). But trying to confuse this with the policies which one can be critical of doesn't compute.

I think the point I was trying to make - rather badly, I have to admit - is that you can't have it both ways.

EITHER Corbyn is a moderate with moderate centre left policies which wouldn't be out of place anywhere else in Europe; in this analysis, any accusations of extremity are merely a smear to prevent a socialist government. I hear that quite a lot. You'll hear it in this thread.

OR Corbyn is a transformative politician, with a radical, far reaching, once-in-a-lifetime agenda to change British society for good, which I've also been hearing a lot - and in which case I think you can probably call him an extremist, if only in the sense that it represents a break with the political traditions of the last 40 or so years.

I'm not saying either is true. I'm just saying both can't be true at the same time.