Monday 26th September 2016

[adam]

Thornberry says

We have been given our instructions by the British people and we must act on them.

This is nuanced and sensible IMO. We must act. Not we must leave the EU.

My problem with this, despite the fact that I am absolutely and entirely of the belief that the vote to leave was ludicrous, dangerous and completely The Wrong Thing, is that we voted to leave. It's all very well people (not you) making points about 'only actually x% of the electorate' or 'what kind of leaving did we actually vote for' but I don't think any of that matters as much as the fact that we voted to leave. The idea that 'people didn't vote for this or that eventuality if we leave' is irrelevant because those questions weren't put - because of the most appalling political failure by Cameron and his government.

Q: Do you want to leave or remain?
A: We want to leave.

Bigger turn out than any recent general election, more votes for leave than any party of government.

We don't want to give governments a license to ignore democratic mandates - even if the formal position is that it was an advisory referendum. Nobody -nobody - went into the referendum thinking that the government wouldn't have to pay attention to the result.

[Willow904]

But Willow freedom of movement has become the alternative to being workless in Greece and elsewhere rather than an aspiration to build a strong multicultural Europe.

Freedom of movement as a human right yes please. Freedom of movement as a capitalist tool to drive down wages across the contienent, no thank you.

And how do you achieve that? Inside the EU we had influence. Now we have nothing. Perhaps as a member of the single market we could try to build a consensus for change, but much less likely than when we were in the EU. The alternative is hard Brexit. That means being poorer as a country in the short to medium term. That means opportunities for future Tory governments to strip away workers rights, regulations and open us up to the extremes of free market economics. I can't choose between "might be's", all I can do is look at the alternatives right in front of me. Membership of the single market is the least worst option as far as I'm concerned and I can't support a party that will risk taking us fully out.

But we are still a member and will be for ages. We haven't left yet. That's the (huge) space we can work in. Talk about what we want, even if seems unattainable right now. And as things evolve take the opportunities that come along. Wait for the mood to change. It will.

But my original point, in which context I've been commenting, is that Ed wasn't proposing any of these things, he was proposing to listen predominantly to leave voters and leave voters don't want reform of the EU or the single market, they want "their country back". I'm not saying Corbyn or Ed are particularly on the wrong track, they're just trying to sell it to the wrong people. They should be offering to represent those who voted remain in the Brexit negotiations. They should be trying to convince them that Labour can preserve a close and positive relationship with Europe. Because at the moment Labour is in danger of losing a lot of its remain voters to the Libdems, with no guarantees they will be able to win any of the hard Brexit Ukip vote in return. This isn't a criticism of Corbyn, the right wing of the party are alienating remain voters even more, it's just a general point about the levels of anti-immigration, anti-Europe propaganda that the British public has been exposed to and it may not be possible to counter that even over several years. I'm just concerned that if you "listen to leave voters" they will tell you whatever Murdoch and Dacre want them to and that probably won't be in their or our best interests.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Thornberry says

We have been given our instructions by the British people and we must act on them.

This is nuanced and sensible IMO. We must act. Not we must leave the EU.

My problem with this, despite the fact that I am absolutely and entirely of the belief that the vote to leave was ludicrous, dangerous and completely The Wrong Thing, is that we voted to leave. It's all very well people (not you) making points about 'only actually x% of the electorate' or 'what kind of leaving did we actually vote for' but I don't think any of that matters as much as the fact that we voted to leave. The idea that 'people didn't vote for this or that eventuality if we leave' is irrelevant because those questions weren't put - because of the most appalling political failure by Cameron and his government.

Q: Do you want to leave or remain?
A: We want to leave.

Bigger turn out than any recent general election, more votes for leave than any party of government.

We don't want to give governments a license to ignore democratic mandates - even if the formal position is that it was an advisory referendum. Nobody -nobody - went into the referendum thinking that the government wouldn't have to pay attention to the result.

I agree entirely.

I also can't think of many people who felt the EU of 22 June 2016 was anywhere near perfect or was anywhere near capable of advancing left wing
ideals.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

What Ed said was

I see talk that we should become the party of the 48% - that is nonsense. I don't just think it's nonsense electorally, but it is incidentally because more than 400 seats in the country voted for Leave, but it's nonsense in principle because it buys into the same problem people were objecting to in their vote.

[Willow904]

What Ed said was

I see talk that we should become the party of the 48% - that is nonsense. I don't just think it's nonsense electorally, but it is incidentally because more than 400 seats in the country voted for Leave, but it's nonsense in principle because it buys into the same problem people were objecting to in their vote.

This ignores the fact that a very large proportion of leave voters love the social and economic status quo so much they regularly vote Tory. Yes, a lot of working class, potentially Labour leaning voters, have been convinced to blame all their woes on the EU by ex-Tory Farage and how to win those voters back is an on-going conundrum for Labour, but just as going along with Tory welfare cuts because a majority (mostly Tories) voted for it fails democracy because there is no opposition, democracy will also be failed if no one opposes Tory Brexit. My point is simply one of who is going to provide that opposition, because if Labour doesn't, the Libdems and SNP will, even if it does buy into the same problem people were objecting to in their vote. The Tories have been trying to take us out of Europe for years and I'm simply not willing to sit back and let them without a fight.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

What Ed said was

I see talk that we should become the party of the 48% - that is nonsense. I don't just think it's nonsense electorally, but it is incidentally because more than 400 seats in the country voted for Leave, but it's nonsense in principle because it buys into the same problem people were objecting to in their vote.

This ignores the fact that a very large proportion of leave voters love the social and economic status quo so much they regularly vote Tory. Yes, a lot of working class, potentially Labour leaning voters, have been convinced to blame all their woes on the EU by ex-Tory Farage and how to win those voters back is an on-going conundrum for Labour, but just as going along with Tory welfare cuts because a majority (mostly Tories) voted for it fails democracy because there is no opposition, democracy will also be failed if no one opposes Tory Brexit. My point is simply one of who is going to provide that opposition, because if Labour doesn't, the Libdems and SNP will, even if it does buy into the same problem people were objecting to in their vote. The Tories have been trying to take us out of Europe for years and I'm simply not willing to sit back and let them without a fight.

But Labour can provide opposition to Tory plans for Brexit, without opposing the referendum itself (for the time being).

So, rather than saying we should overturn the referendum, Labour should demand that the Tories share their plans, then critique them with the contempt they will undoubtedly merit. Oppose the plans in Parliament because they are not a sensible or fair Brexit, fine by me. But appearing to want to go back on the referendum result I can't live with.

There is a very, very slight risk that the Tories will come up with such an elegant, economically, legally, politically and socially coherent plan for Brexit that Labour has to support it. I'm willing to live with that risk.

[citizenJA]

Thornberry's speech reads well, anyone view it?

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/1509545 ... ortfall-in" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, bar one important thing* I liked it and hope Labour continue making clear Tory government's disastrous handling of the EU referendum is wholly Tory failure, an ongoing catastrophe without coherent plan or policy. Outlandish responses from Tory leadership, former Tory PM bunking off, currently May and her ministers acting behind closed doors, communicating little and seemingly without clear, rational plans for the UK now leaving people and country in an untenable position. Thornberry communicated this and more far better than I.
*The assumptions throughout Thornberry's speech that the UK is undoubtedly leaving the EU, Brexit is happening for sure are alarming to me and any assistance I can have from my friends here to allay my fears are most welcome. The UK leaving the EU, Brexiting, is a done deal? Is that correct?

Thornberry says

We have been given our instructions by the British people and we must act on them.

This is nuanced and sensible IMO. We must act. Not we must leave the EU.

I never forget Labour isn't responsible for the Tory EU referendum disaster. It's Tories handling EU referendum results, Labour
aren't in government. It's Tory government demonstrably not trustworthy or honest and not communicative about their Brexit plans.

Thornberry speaks of the UK leaving the EU and the UK after Brexit explicitly, not in a theoretical sense.

"We cannot turn the clock back and run the Brexit vote again. We have been given our instructions by the British people and
we must act on them. But that does not mean letting the Tory party go into a locked room and take all the decisions by themselves
on the future of our country and the future of our children, without any debate, discussion or explanation.

We will not allow that to happen. We will stand up to the Tories on behalf of the communities we represent, and we will demand to
be heard. We will stand up for EU migrants currently living in Britain, and demand that their continued right to do so is guaranteed.
We will stand up for those UK businesses who depend on trade with Europe, and demand that they can continue doing so freely.

And Conference, we will stand up for workers’ rights, for deprived regions, for environmental protection, for small farm subsidies,
for human rights, for every area where the Tories will look to wield the axe after Brexit. We will stand in their way and demand
that the rights and investment on which our communities depend are protected even after we leave the EU."

"The communities who stand to lose out most from Brexit must be looked after first. And that is what we shall do."

"...let me take the opportunity also to thank Glenis Willmott and all our MEPs for their commitment to the European project:
work that is too often unrecognised, and who we need more than ever as we leave the European Union."

(my bold)

[yahyah]

Am really enjoying the discussion on Brexit here today. Thanks.

[citizenJA]

Thornberry says

We have been given our instructions by the British people and we must act on them.

This is nuanced and sensible IMO. We must act. Not we must leave the EU.

My problem with this, despite the fact that I am absolutely and entirely of the belief that the vote to leave was ludicrous, dangerous and completely The Wrong Thing, is that we voted to leave. It's all very well people (not you) making points about 'only actually x% of the electorate' or 'what kind of leaving did we actually vote for' but I don't think any of that matters as much as the fact that we voted to leave. The idea that 'people didn't vote for this or that eventuality if we leave' is irrelevant because those questions weren't put - because of the most appalling political failure by Cameron and his government.

Q: Do you want to leave or remain?
A: We want to leave.

Bigger turn out than any recent general election, more votes for leave than any party of government.

We don't want to give governments a license to ignore democratic mandates - even if the formal position is that it was an advisory referendum. Nobody -nobody - went into the referendum thinking that the government wouldn't have to pay attention to the result.

Was the referendum conducted legally in accordance with UK law? Are the subsequent results being conducted in accordance to UK law?

[tinybgoat]

Just noticed front page of the i, in whsmiths,
Nice to see newspapers holding back with abusive/inflammatory language.

[StephenDolan]

What Ed said was

This ignores the fact that a very large proportion of leave voters love the social and economic status quo so much they regularly vote Tory. Yes, a lot of working class, potentially Labour leaning voters, have been convinced to blame all their woes on the EU by ex-Tory Farage and how to win those voters back is an on-going conundrum for Labour, but just as going along with Tory welfare cuts because a majority (mostly Tories) voted for it fails democracy because there is no opposition, democracy will also be failed if no one opposes Tory Brexit. My point is simply one of who is going to provide that opposition, because if Labour doesn't, the Libdems and SNP will, even if it does buy into the same problem people were objecting to in their vote. The Tories have been trying to take us out of Europe for years and I'm simply not willing to sit back and let them without a fight.

But Labour can provide opposition to Tory plans for Brexit, without opposing the referendum itself (for the time being).

So, rather than saying we should overturn the referendum, Labour should demand that the Tories share their plans, then critique them with the contempt they will undoubtedly merit. Oppose the plans in Parliament because they are not a sensible or fair Brexit, fine by me. But appearing to want to go back on the referendum result I can't live with.

There is a very, very slight risk that the Tories will come up with such an elegant, economically, legally, politically and socially coherent plan for Brexit that Labour has to support it. I'm willing to live with that risk.

This chimes with my thoughts exactly.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Yes, bar one important thing* I liked it and hope Labour continue making clear Tory government's disastrous handling of the EU referendum is wholly Tory failure, an ongoing catastrophe without coherent plan or policy. Outlandish responses from Tory leadership, former Tory PM bunking off, currently May and her ministers acting behind closed doors, communicating little and seemingly without clear, rational plans for the UK now leaving people and country in an untenable position. Thornberry communicated this and more far better than I.
*The assumptions throughout Thornberry's speech that the UK is undoubtedly leaving the EU, Brexit is happening for sure are alarming to me and any assistance I can have from my friends here to allay my fears are most welcome. The UK leaving the EU, Brexiting, is a done deal? Is that correct?

Thornberry says

We have been given our instructions by the British people and we must act on them.

This is nuanced and sensible IMO. We must act. Not we must leave the EU.

I never forget Labour isn't responsible for the Tory EU referendum disaster. It's Tories handling EU referendum results, Labour
aren't in government. It's Tory government demonstrably not trustworthy or honest and not communicative about their Brexit plans.

Thornberry speaks of the UK leaving the EU and the UK after Brexit explicitly, not in a theoretical sense.

"We cannot turn the clock back and run the Brexit vote again. We have been given our instructions by the British people and
we must act on them. But that does not mean letting the Tory party go into a locked room and take all the decisions by themselves
on the future of our country and the future of our children, without any debate, discussion or explanation.

We will not allow that to happen. We will stand up to the Tories on behalf of the communities we represent, and we will demand to
be heard. We will stand up for EU migrants currently living in Britain, and demand that their continued right to do so is guaranteed.
We will stand up for those UK businesses who depend on trade with Europe, and demand that they can continue doing so freely.

And Conference, we will stand up for workers’ rights, for deprived regions, for environmental protection, for small farm subsidies,
for human rights, for every area where the Tories will look to wield the axe after Brexit. We will stand in their way and demand
that the rights and investment on which our communities depend are protected even after we leave the EU."

"The communities who stand to lose out most from Brexit must be looked after first. And that is what we shall do."

"...let me take the opportunity also to thank Glenis Willmott and all our MEPs for their commitment to the European project:
work that is too often unrecognised, and who we need more than ever as we leave the European Union."

(my bold)

Yes and when those conditions are not met, which they won't be, then Labour can oppose Brexit. For me this is exactly it.

[citizenJA]

What Ed said was

This ignores the fact that a very large proportion of leave voters love the social and economic status quo so much they regularly vote Tory. Yes, a lot of working class, potentially Labour leaning voters, have been convinced to blame all their woes on the EU by ex-Tory Farage and how to win those voters back is an on-going conundrum for Labour, but just as going along with Tory welfare cuts because a majority (mostly Tories) voted for it fails democracy because there is no opposition, democracy will also be failed if no one opposes Tory Brexit. My point is simply one of who is going to provide that opposition, because if Labour doesn't, the Libdems and SNP will, even if it does buy into the same problem people were objecting to in their vote. The Tories have been trying to take us out of Europe for years and I'm simply not willing to sit back and let them without a fight.

But Labour can provide opposition to Tory plans for Brexit, without opposing the referendum itself (for the time being).

So, rather than saying we should overturn the referendum, Labour should demand that the Tories share their plans, then critique them with the contempt they will undoubtedly merit. Oppose the plans in Parliament because they are not a sensible or fair Brexit, fine by me. But appearing to want to go back on the referendum result I can't live with.

There is a very, very slight risk that the Tories will come up with such an elegant, economically, legally, politically and socially coherent plan for Brexit that Labour has to support it. I'm willing to live with that risk.

Yes, thank you, I understand better. The EU referendum result and subsequent plans now must take place in Parliament.
Theresa May and her Tory government are trying to avoid having EU policy subject to Parliamentary oversight.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Out of sight: the orphanages where disabled children are abandoned



http://www.driadvocacy.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PaulfromYorkshire]

This ignores the fact that a very large proportion of leave voters love the social and economic status quo so much they regularly vote Tory. Yes, a lot of working class, potentially Labour leaning voters, have been convinced to blame all their woes on the EU by ex-Tory Farage and how to win those voters back is an on-going conundrum for Labour, but just as going along with Tory welfare cuts because a majority (mostly Tories) voted for it fails democracy because there is no opposition, democracy will also be failed if no one opposes Tory Brexit. My point is simply one of who is going to provide that opposition, because if Labour doesn't, the Libdems and SNP will, even if it does buy into the same problem people were objecting to in their vote. The Tories have been trying to take us out of Europe for years and I'm simply not willing to sit back and let them without a fight.

But Labour can provide opposition to Tory plans for Brexit, without opposing the referendum itself (for the time being).

So, rather than saying we should overturn the referendum, Labour should demand that the Tories share their plans, then critique them with the contempt they will undoubtedly merit. Oppose the plans in Parliament because they are not a sensible or fair Brexit, fine by me. But appearing to want to go back on the referendum result I can't live with.

There is a very, very slight risk that the Tories will come up with such an elegant, economically, legally, politically and socially coherent plan for Brexit that Labour has to support it. I'm willing to live with that risk.

Yes, thank you, I understand better. The EU referendum result and subsequent plans now must take place in Parliament.
Theresa May and her Tory government are trying to avoid having EU policy subject to Parliamentary oversight.

Exactly JA. Most likely because they don't have a plausible policy at all

[adam]

Was the referendum conducted legally in accordance with UK law? Are the subsequent results being conducted in accordance to UK law?

As I understand it (and I'm certainly not an expert), referenda are ad hoc events - they are what they say they are. So the AV referendum in the last parliament produced a result that was binding upon parliament because the act of parliament that set up that particular referendum said so, and this one is advisory simply because it didn't say in the act that set it up that it was binding.

The European Referendum Act 2015, which sets out the terms of the referendum, including who should vote and how the campaign should be conducted, is here.

The point Jack of Kent has been making ( and I hadn't read him on any of this before today) is (very slightly paraphrased)

Had the prime minister purported to trigger article 50 on the day after the result then I cannot see how any court would have injuncted him or quashed his decision: there had been (1) a decisive majority in (2) a dedicated national referendum with (3) the largest turnout in history and (4) the government’s stated position had been to give effect to the result “straight away”. The notification would have been a fait accompli. And the thing about statements of law is that if they're true on Day 1 then they remain true on Day 10 or 100 or so on.

I think in simple terms, the 'constitutional' problem is...

1. The government had a mandate from the 2015 General Election to hold a referendum on the UK's EU Membership
2. The referendum has, albeit officially in an advisory capacity, provided a mandate for the UK to leave the EU.

... and the bigger problems are...

1. The entire set up of the referendum question, and of the campaign, were hopeless, politically and constitutionally inept by a useless Prime Minister who has run away from the problem he has caused.
2. The government, or at least those in the government who are purportedly in charge of arranging for us to leave, have yet to come to terms with the political, economic, social and constitutional realities of the EU, especially when it comes to access the single market and the four freedoms (movement of goods, labour, capital and the other one. Services. sorry, had to look it up).

But those 'bigger' problems don't change the fact that we've voted to leave.

[adam]

Theresa May and her Tory government are trying to avoid having EU policy subject to Parliamentary oversight.

I'm not just a fanboy for JofK, I haven't read it for ages, but as he says about this, we have the Leaver's Paradox

1. We must get out of the EU so that the UK Parliament can be sovereign
2. So let's allow parliament to decide what we do about the referendum result.
1. No!

[AnatolyKasparov]

Am really enjoying the discussion on Brexit here today. Thanks.

Yes, FtN at its best. Maybe a bit more of this now that the stress of the leadership election is over?

[StephenDolan]

Will jess Phillips just stfu. Talk bollocks and act surprised when people disagree with her.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Will jess Phillips just stfu. Talk bollocks and act surprised when people disagree with her.

I thought she said she would be off if Corbyn won again?

[citizenJA]

Theresa May and her Tory government are trying to avoid having EU policy subject to Parliamentary oversight.

I'm not just a fanboy for JofK, I haven't read it for ages, but as he says about this, we have the Leaver's Paradox

1. We must get out of the EU so that the UK Parliament can be sovereign
2. So let's allow parliament to decide what we do about the referendum result.
1. No!

Tory government doesn't care about protecting freedom of movement for people without trust funds. Or freedom of thought, for that matter.

Anti-Brexit group lodges legal challenge over article 50 procedure

"The preliminary legal skirmish comes ahead of next month’s test case over whether parliament – rather than the prime minister –
has the power to notify Brussels, under article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, of Britain’s intention to leave the European Union.

The government is refusing to allow its legal opponents to reveal its explanation of why it ought to be able to use royal prerogative
powers to trigger article 50."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... 0-proposal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

But Labour can provide opposition to Tory plans for Brexit, without opposing the referendum itself (for the time being).

So, rather than saying we should overturn the referendum, Labour should demand that the Tories share their plans, then critique them with the contempt they will undoubtedly merit. Oppose the plans in Parliament because they are not a sensible or fair Brexit, fine by me. But appearing to want to go back on the referendum result I can't live with.

There is a very, very slight risk that the Tories will come up with such an elegant, economically, legally, politically and socially coherent plan for Brexit that Labour has to support it. I'm willing to live with that risk.

Yes, thank you, I understand better. The EU referendum result and subsequent plans now must take place in Parliament.
Theresa May and her Tory government are trying to avoid having EU policy subject to Parliamentary oversight.

Exactly JA. Most likely because they don't have a plausible policy at all

(cJA edit)

Tory policy here will so materially disadvantage most of the population in such an obvious manner polishing it in secret trying to fob it off as benign is taking time.

[AngryAsWell]

Clive Lewis Trident speech changed by Seumas Milne on conference autocue

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... umas-milne" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TR'sGhost]

Will jess Phillips just stfu. Talk bollocks and act surprised when people disagree with her.

I thought she said she would be off if Corbyn won again?

I have wondered if her intention is to be Labour's Louise Mensch.

Sit in parliament for a bit to get being an MP on her resume while constantly attention seeking. Then pronounce herself "thoroughly disillusioned with the racism and sexism" and shift to a hopefully lucrative media career as yet another right wing soundbite-monger, whose constant attacks on anything vaguely left-wingm are supposed to have extra credibility because she was once a Labour MP.

She might take the Labour whip, but she's the leader and sole member of the Jess Phillips Party.

[StephenDolan]

Will jess Phillips just stfu. Talk bollocks and act surprised when people disagree with her.

I thought she said she would be off if Corbyn won again?

I have wondered if her intention is to be Labour's Louise Mensch.

Sit in parliament for a bit to get being an MP on her resume while constantly attention seeking. Then pronounce herself "thoroughly disillusioned with the racism and sexism" and shift to a hopefully lucrative media career as yet another right wing soundbite-monger, whose constant attacks on anything vaguely left-wingm are supposed to have extra credibility because she was once a Labour MP.

She might take the Labour whip, but she's the leader and sole member of the Jess Phillips Party.

The Times Red Box event (@timesredbox) makes me agree with you TR.

[StephenDolan]

Is the Clive Lewis speech amendment really worth the feeding frenzy of the political correspondents? It kinda highlights their priorities.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Milne is a liability though, this merely confirms it. Still hoping for change on that front soon.

[StephenDolan]

Milne is a liability though, this merely confirms it. Still hoping for change on that front soon.

Agreed. He is, but the response?

[Willow904]

Milne is a liability though, this merely confirms it. Still hoping for change on that front soon.

Agreed. He is, but the response?

What response? Not sure I follow. Unless it's normal for speeches to be changed moments before they're given without the speech givers input, it doesn't seem inappropriate to report it. There was obviously some kind of tension. It doesn't sound normal for speeches to be changed in this way, but may be it is. I'm happy to be enlightened.

[yahyah]

Doesn't it link into the complaints of some other MPs, that they didn't get informed/notified etc. ?

Also, the way that Owen Smith's every move or mistake was laughed at, picked apart, repeated and responded to with glee when the MSM reported it means there can't really be complaints when it happens to someone in Corbyn's camp.

That's what I was trying to say a couple of months ago, and got such a pasting for.
If people want politics to be different they will have to act differently.


edited: because had a senior moment and thought Clive Lewis's surname was Smith.

[Willow904]

Doesn't it link into the complaints of some other MPs, that they didn't get informed/notified etc. ?

Also, the way that Smith's [Owen not Clive] every move or mistake was laughed at, picked apart, repeated and responded to with glee when the MSM reported it means there can't really be complaints when it happens to someone in Corbyn's camp.

That's what I was trying to say a couple of months ago, and got such a pasting for.
If people want politics to be different they will have to act differently.

I suppose that's the gist of the reporting but I have to confess confusion. Isn't Clive Lewis keen to ditch Trident. Isn't it more likely he was grumpy that this won't now be Labour's policy, rather than any particular wording of the announcement?

More to the point, isn't Corbyn having to admit defeat on Trident the actual story?

[yahyah]

The other problem is cameras are everywhere these days.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[gilsey]

Am really enjoying the discussion on Brexit here today. Thanks.

I'm not sure 'enjoying' is the right word for my feelings about it, interesting certainly, but depressing.

See this comment under the JoK piece AAW linked?

The referendum was fought on a range of issues but in reality on the street what I found – thinly veiled or not – the real motive of almost all actual Leave voters was racism. A gloss of argument was sometimes added.

So the referendum result was in political reality – which is what you meant – in favour of state sponsored racism. I guess the Government needs to deliver that and a lot of the opposition is saying as much too – ever so politely.

Horrible, but that's what I see too. Would love to be wrong.

[yahyah]

It probably was the wrong word. What I meant was the tone between Willow & Paul was always respectful. I'm trying hard now not to be too negative about Brexit, so seeing Paul's views was useful in helping work a way through how to respond to the mess less pessimistically.

Cameron, the architect of the mess, walks away to live a lucrative life.

[StephenDolan]

Doesn't it link into the complaints of some other MPs, that they didn't get informed/notified etc. ?

Also, the way that Owen Smith's every move or mistake was laughed at, picked apart, repeated and responded to with glee when the MSM reported it means there can't really be complaints when it happens to someone in Corbyn's camp.

That's what I was trying to say a couple of months ago, and got such a pasting for.
If people want politics to be different they will have to act differently.


edited: because had a senior moment and thought Clive Lewis's surname was Smith.

I was referring to how high profile this news is deemed, not that it happened. Joint lead story on PM? Really BBC?

[Willow904]

Doesn't it link into the complaints of some other MPs, that they didn't get informed/notified etc. ?

Also, the way that Owen Smith's every move or mistake was laughed at, picked apart, repeated and responded to with glee when the MSM reported it means there can't really be complaints when it happens to someone in Corbyn's camp.

That's what I was trying to say a couple of months ago, and got such a pasting for.
If people want politics to be different they will have to act differently.


edited: because had a senior moment and thought Clive Lewis's surname was Smith.

I was referring to how high profile this news is deemed, not that it happened. Joint lead story on PM? Really BBC?

And now your comment makes sense.

[yahyah]

I'm glad it wasn't just me that misunderstood.

Sorry Stephen.
I've been trying very hard to embrace the new reality, and to be positive, but it would have been good if Milne hadn't handed out a bad headline quite so easily.
Corbyn's team are going to have to up their game.

[SpinningHugo]

Milne is a liability though, this merely confirms it. Still hoping for change on that front soon.

McDonnell and Milne are the, ahem, brains behind the current leadership. They aren't going anywhere.

[SpinningHugo]

Ed's approach is similar to Corbyn's and both are better than Reeves and Umunna's blunt call for restrictions on immigration, but both ignore the basic fact that you are either in the single market or you are out. You either accept freedom of movement or you accept being poorer as a country. "Listening to leave voters" is akin to listening to the Daily Mail and Express for the most part. Genuine Lexit supporters, like Corbyn, are likely to be a very small minority. I'm not especially keen on our economic future being decided by people who agree with everything they read in the right wing press, even if they are genuine working class voices, their words come straight from the likes of Murdoch. If this is "democracy", its shit and we'll all be the worse off for it.

But Willow freedom of movement has become the alternative to being workless in Greece and elsewhere rather than an aspiration to build a strong multicultural Europe.

Freedom of movement as a human right yes please. Freedom of movement as a capitalist tool to drive down wages across the contienent, no thank you.

And how do you achieve that? Inside the EU we had influence. Now we have nothing. Perhaps as a member of the single market we could try to build a consensus for change, but much less likely than when we were in the EU. The alternative is hard Brexit. That means being poorer as a country in the short to medium term. That means opportunities for future Tory governments to strip away workers rights, regulations and open us up to the extremes of free market economics. I can't choose between "might be's", all I can do is look at the alternatives right in front of me. Membership of the single market is the least worst option as far as I'm concerned and I can't support a party that will risk taking us fully out.

Which means you can't vote Labour (see McDonnell today).

[SpinningHugo]

Bitterite jokes

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57e83 ... d4d862f91b" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;?

[SpinningHugo]

Jonathan "Hard Brexit" Reynolds returning g to the frontbench. Jarvis not.

I suppose Reynolds position on Brexit has some clarity and isn't wifully obscure.

[tinyclanger2]

What Ed said was

This ignores the fact that a very large proportion of leave voters love the social and economic status quo so much they regularly vote Tory. Yes, a lot of working class, potentially Labour leaning voters, have been convinced to blame all their woes on the EU by ex-Tory Farage and how to win those voters back is an on-going conundrum for Labour, but just as going along with Tory welfare cuts because a majority (mostly Tories) voted for it fails democracy because there is no opposition, democracy will also be failed if no one opposes Tory Brexit. My point is simply one of who is going to provide that opposition, because if Labour doesn't, the Libdems and SNP will, even if it does buy into the same problem people were objecting to in their vote. The Tories have been trying to take us out of Europe for years and I'm simply not willing to sit back and let them without a fight.

But Labour can provide opposition to Tory plans for Brexit, without opposing the referendum itself (for the time being).

So, rather than saying we should overturn the referendum, Labour should demand that the Tories share their plans, then critique them with the contempt they will undoubtedly merit. Oppose the plans in Parliament because they are not a sensible or fair Brexit, fine by me. But appearing to want to go back on the referendum result I can't live with.

There is a very, very slight risk that the Tories will come up with such an elegant, economically, legally, politically and socially coherent plan for Brexit that Labour has to support it. I'm willing to live with that risk.

They could, but I'm not confident that they will. That's my worry.

[danesclose]

Also, the way that Owen Smith's every move or mistake was laughed at, picked apart, repeated and responded to with glee when the MSM reported it means there can't really be complaints when it happens to someone in Corbyn's camp.

Have you not read any papers recently? Pretty much everything Corbyn has said is willfully misrepresented, not least by certain concern trolls on here

[tinyclanger2]

Wikipedia:

Following the election the opposition Labour Party withdrew its opposition to holding an in-out EU referendum.[7] On the bill's second reading, on 9 June 2015, MPs voted by 544 to 53 in favour of the principle of holding a referendum with only the Scottish National Party opposing the Bill.[8]

[tinyclanger2]

I hope you're right Paul!

[tinyclanger2]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... s-says-gmb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Labour at least opposed to fracking it seems.

[Willow904]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... s-says-gmb Labour at least opposed to fracking it seems.

A simple decision for a change. Fracking in the UK would always have been quite a short-term venture, with very marginal profit rates, currently pretty unviable with oil at less than $50 a barrel I would have thought, and that's before you even start to consider the negative environmental consequences and risks. It has no prospect to provide more than a small percentage of total fuel needs, for no longer than a couple of decades, at great cost and possible permanent damage to water supplies and the environment in general. Only someone whose dad-in-law stood to make a quick buck would think it a good idea. Don't suppose there's anyone like that in the Tory party, is there? ("innocent face" emoticon).

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I hope you're right Paul!

I hope so too!

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I haven't really followed the Trident kerfuffle, but there may be some interesting compromises being hammered out in the background as Corbyn tries to reshape his shadow cabinet.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... emy-corbyn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

labour-deadlock-shadow-cabinet-appointments-jeremy-corbyn