EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

Any kind of Brexit cannot pass the six tests, but the manifesto states that Labour are committed to leaving.

Then (if you don't believe in Olivers "yes means no" contortions) we have the manifesto which is stuffed full of as many unicorns as Chequers.

Could this all be marketing, designed to allow the Tories enough rope to hang themselves?

Potentially, yes.

But equally it could be the same kind of exceptionalist, muddled thinking that we see in Chequers, but without the scrutiny of the EU to expose it.

As it stands we have no clarity from Labour, unless you're 100% convinced that your tea-leaf reading trumps what they've actually written in their manifesto.

I acknowledge that the Tories are currently committed to the hardest of hard Brexits- but I think it's fantasy to suggest that May will survive through November when she has failed to get a withdrawal agreement and therefore the UK has no transition, and all contingency plans must be executed.

At that point, what does the Tory party do? In a GE they must beat Corbyn, and they won't do that by holding the line that has caused the UK economy to crash.

If they do, well - polls currently show them ahead of Labour, but post-crash that's likely to change.

At which point (I suspect) Labour will be handed the EU's preferred withdrawal agreement and asked to "sign here".

Labour then have 21 months of transition to negotiate what happens next, as a third country.

That sentence read in full:

Clutching at straws with this sentence doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of things in there that explicitly rule out a hard 'Brexit': rejection of a 'no deal' scenario, etc.

As Mrak says, very politely, it seems 'unusual' for Labour to become a party of a hard 'Brexit'.

'Labour accepts the referendum result' => Labour will take Britain out of the EU per their manifesto => 'Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union' => Freedom of Movement (and the other inseparable freedoms) ending means Hard Brexit

Can see where @Dammit is coming from

No, too many gaps in these inferences and too much ignoring the other things Labour have said.

Sure, like the Tories they won't be able to square the circle with this total nonsense that 'Brexit' is, but they are not committed to a hard 'Brexit'.

What, to your mind, is a hard Brexit Oliver? Maybe, very politely, we are coming at this from different definitions.

Any kind of Brexit cannot pass the six tests, but the manifesto states that Labour are committed to leaving.

If we take that for a given (which I'm happy to do), then something must give. I see zero reason to believe it would mean a hard Brexit, something labour has been pretty explicit about not supporting, rather than a soft Brexit (if it were possible to get parliamentary support for one) or second referendum.

Where, on Barnier's staircase, does current Labour policy land the UK?

1 Attachment

Any kind of Brexit cannot pass the six tests, but the manifesto states that Labour are committed to leaving.

This I agree with, provided the EU were to behave towards Labour as they are towards the Tories. There's no reason to believe they wouldn't. It's unlikely that Labour know something they're not telling us there.

The manifesto doesn't actually say 'Labour are committed to Brexit' or anything that can be interpreted as such. It merely says that it accepts the referendum result and talks as if Labour would continue to leave the EU.

Then (if you don't believe in Olivers "yes means no" contortions) we have the manifesto which is stuffed full of as many unicorns as Chequers.

I don't make any contortions. I merely say that the sentence about Freedom of Movement ending doesn't mean what you think it does (see previous post, which I stand by), and that it therefore doesn't lead to what you want to infer from it. In my opinion, it's as far as Corbyn is prepared to go to tackle one of the bêtes noires of xenophobes (FOM) while approaching it from a completely different angle, that of worker exploitation between different countries.

Could this all be marketing, designed to allow the Tories enough rope to hang themselves?

Potentially, yes.

I think many of the positive noises are genuine, but there is definitely the kind of ambiguity in it that Labour need at the moment to communicate with their various audiences.

But equally it could be the same kind of exceptionalist, muddled thinking that we see in Chequers, but without the scrutiny of the EU to expose it.

Yes, the current lack of being at the coalface is definitely important in reading it.

As it stands we have no clarity from Labour, unless you're 100% convinced that your tea-leaf reading trumps what they've actually written in their manifesto.

I agree that there's a lack of clarity, but I do think it's deliberate. You really don't need to read tea leaves to divine soft 'Brexit' intentions, but what it obviously isn't drawn on is what the Labour leadership really thinks of 'Brexit'--we've just had Starmer saying to conference that he wouldn't rule out 'remain', but the manifesto doesn't say.

There are obviously degrees of it. The hardest is 'no deal'/sabre-rattling/'we won't pay the precious £39bn' and so on. Most often I've seen it defined as pivoted on rejecting a customs union and single market membership. That's probably too 'thin' an account and you need to say a few more things about other aspects to fully define it, e.g. what will be put in the place of the aspects of those two, which new things then become separate aspects, e.g. an immigration policy to replace freedom of movement.

Then it becomes a bit of a Sorites problem where you draw the dividing line--which conciliatory or collaborative element that you add to that tips it over into becoming 'soft'? Remaining in a customs union? Guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens? Remaining in the single market? I think Labour have enough good ambitions in there to signal very clearly that they want a soft 'Brexit', but as above their position is probably not one they could successfully negotiate with the EU (much though I think they would gain some small advantage by coming to it with a better attitude than David Davis, and Starmer would be far better than Davis at leading negotiations, they would still face an uphill struggle given the EU's insistence on single market aspects etc.).

I think it's too early to try to place it there.

I met someone last night who unfortunately I didn't get the chance to talk to for long. He'd worked in Brussels (on something to do with engineering standards if I understood that right). He was absolutely crestfallen about the whole thing. 'They're destroying my life's work.' I hope to meet him again the next time the event is on to ask him more.

And this just in:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/sep/24/labour-conference-liverpool-brexit-no-deal-papers-cbi-claims-investment-would-flee-country-under-labours-plan-to-make-firms-give-shares-to-workers-politics-live?page=with:block-5ba8c183e4b0a9b970678761#block-5ba8c183e4b0a9b970678761

Full text of the Labour composite on Brexit

Here is the full text of the composite motion on Brexit agreed last night. It will be debated tomorrow. It is the text that was available last night, although not officially published by the party. I have taken out just three words, which seemed to be there as a result of a drafting mistake.

I’ve hightlighted the key paragraph in bold.

Conference welcomes Jeremy Corbyn’s determined efforts to old the Tories to account for their disastrous negotiations. Conference accepts that the public vote to leave the EU, but when people voted to ‘take back control’ they were not voting for fewer rights, economic chaos or to risk jobs. Conference notes the warning made by Jaguar Land Rover on 11.9.18, that without the right deal in place, tens of thousands of jobs there would be put at risk.

Conference notes that workers in industries across the economy in ports, food, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, energy, chemicals, in our public services and beyond are worried about the impact of a hard Brexit on livelihoods and communities.

Conference believes we need a relationship with the EU that guarantees full participation in the single market. The Brexit deal being pursued by Theresa May is a threat to jobs, freedom of movement, peace in Northern Ireland and the NHS. Tory Brexit means a future of dodgy trade deals and American-style deregulation, undermining our rights, freedoms and prosperity. This binds the hands of future Labour governments, making it much harder for us to deliver on our promises. Conference notes Labour has set six robust tests for the final Brexit deal. Conference believes Labour MP’s must vote against any Tory deal failing to meet these tests in full.

Conference also believes a no deal Brexit should be rejected as a viable option and calls upon Labour MP’s to vigorously oppose any attempt by this government to deliver a no deal outcome. Conference note that when trade unions have a mandate to negotiate a deal for their members, the final deal is accepted or rejected by the membership. Conference does not believe that such important negotiations should be left to government ministers who are more concerned with self-preservation and ideology than household bills and wages.

Stagnant wages, crumbling services and the housing crisis are being exacerbated by the government and employers making the rich richer at working people’s expense, and not immigration. Conference declares solidarity and common cause with all progressive and socialist forces confronting the rising tide of neo-fascism, xenophobia, nationalism and right-wing populism in Europe. Conference resolves to reaffirm the Labour party’s commitment to the Good Friday agreement of 1998 including no hard border in Ireland.

Conference believes that there is no satisfactory technological solution that is compliant with the Good Friday agreement and resolves to oppose any Brexit deal that would see the restoration of a border on the island of Ireland in any form for goods, services or people ...

Should parliament vote down a Tory Brexit deal or the talks end in no-deal, Conference believes this would constitute a loss of confidence in the government. In these circumstances, the best outcome for the country is an immediate general election that can sweep the Tories from power.

If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote. If the government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public.

This should be the first step in a Europe-wide struggle for levelling up of living standards, rights and services and democratisation of European Institutions. Labour will form a radical government; taxing the rich to fund better public services, expanding common ownership, abolishing, anti-union laws and engaging in massive public investment.

Proposer – GMB

Seconder – Exeter CLP

I haven't read it yet.

Leaver Gisela Stuart's take on Starmer's speech (this must have been written before the motion was passed):

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/25/labour-betray-leave-voters-brexit-keir-starmer-second-referendum

can we have a schick vs dammit cage fight? Or royal rumble with everyone on this thread.

Apparently, that motion is the distillation of 150 separate motions. I don't think it says that much that is new, only that if there's no general election, Labour will campaign for a 'People's Vote'. It doesn't say anything new about what Labour would do once in power.

A Corbyn-led Labour government would not be starting from TMay's Lancaster House speech and it's 'red lines'.
Even during the pre-referendum debates arch-Leavers like Gove were claiming the UK would remain within the CU & SM, (not that it was a coherent message).

Dishwater will be the Belgian beer in that place in Ramsgate.

^^Yes- that's rather my point. Pre-referendum a soft Brexit was pretty much Brexit in name only, Norway is the closest point on the staircase chart.

Based on what Labour have said, and put in their manifesto, we'd end on Ukraine.

Which of course doesn't meet the six tests, but as they can't be passed short of remaining they always struck me as a sop to Starmer.

Of course, with the Oliver interpretation nothing is as it seems so their actual policy is unknowable.

Handy.

Now now, be nice.

Or royal rumble with everyone on this thread.

Fixehs at dawn

Wait it's 2018 and we are all old now

That place is closed down :(((

Publife N16.