FlyTheNest

Jeremy Corbyn has further muddied the waters on Labour’s line on a second referendum by suggesting such a vote may not include the option to remain.

Challenged in Dublin on whether Labour envisioned an in-out referendum, he said: “It would be on the basis of whatever we have succeeded in negotiating.” (Politics Live, Guardian)

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

Jeremy Corbyn has further muddied the waters on Labour’s line on a second referendum by suggesting such a vote may not include the option to remain.

Challenged in Dublin on whether Labour envisioned an in-out referendum, he said: “It would be on the basis of whatever we have succeeded in negotiating.” (Politics Live, Guardian)

He told reporters in Dublin that Labour would negotiate a new Brexit deal with the EU that would be put to the public, the Irish Times newspaper reported.

“The referendum would be on a negotiated deal or alternatives to that. It’s not a re-run of 2016,” Corbyn said.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

Jeremy Corbyn has further muddied the waters on Labour’s line on a second referendum by suggesting such a vote may not include the option to remain.

Challenged in Dublin on whether Labour envisioned an in-out referendum, he said: “It would be on the basis of whatever we have succeeded in negotiating.” (Politics Live, Guardian)

How does that comment imply that remain won't be an option?

Especially since JC is also reported as saying that the ballot *shouldn't* include no deal?

“Faced with the threat of no deal and a prime minister with no mandate, the only way out of the Brexit crisis ripping our country apart is now to go back to the people,” [Jeremy Corbyn] said, speaking ahead of his visit to Ireland.

“Let the people decide the country’s future, either in a general election or through a public vote on any deal agreed by parliament. For Labour any outcome has to work for our whole country, not just one side of this deliberately inflamed divide.”

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

The mixed messages from leading figures must cease. When Corbyn eventually makes his big speech committing Labour to a new stance, it should be done with gusto and it should be unequivocal

Willow904 wrote:

The mixed messages from leading figures must cease. When Corbyn eventually makes his big speech committing Labour to a new stance, it should be done with gusto and it should be unequivocal

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... referendum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So says Owen Jones and he's right, I think.

Picking over the bones of yet another carefully worded ambivalent statement for clues and hints as to intent isn't going to win back voters seduced by the clear cut anti-Brexit / environmental message of the Greens.

McDonnell, Abbott, Thornberry have all come out for a referendum with a remain option very clearly. Those voters who really want to leave aren't going to be voting Labour now, if they ever were (which I doubt). So why is Corbyn still prevaricating? I would suggest it's because he's an honest man and in his heart he wants to leave and that, to be frank, is the problem and has always been the problem.

It’s clear that Labour is now pivoting to a pro-referendum stance in backing a public vote on any deal parliament agrees. Corbyn privately knows it must be done. While there is some internal resistance within both his machine and the parliamentary party – and it’s easy to empathise with those who fear another referendum – the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, is among those pushing for a decisive shift in political strategy. That will surely succeed – the game is up here – even if there remains no majority in parliament for a referendum, but a political reorientation must be spelt out in primary colours, or the party might as well not bother.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... referendum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Owen Jones

citizenJA wrote:I like Jones's Ed Miliband suggestion

PorFavor wrote:

citizenJA wrote:I like Jones's Ed Miliband suggestion

But would Ed Miliband still have time for his "Chaos" website and his "Podcast"? They're brilliant.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@Willow

I can't fully agree with your analysis. There are plenty of areas across Yorkshire that voted over 50% for Labour in 2017 and over 50% Brexit last week.

citizenJA wrote:Current events are exhausting and unproductive. Effort could be better channeled in worthy projects requiring attention. This is time and resources none of us get back. I resent the hell out of it.

PorFavor wrote:Israel is to have another election.

citizenJA wrote:I like Jones's Ed Miliband suggestion

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

citizenJA wrote:I like Jones's Ed Miliband suggestion

Which was?

Willow904 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@Willow

I can't fully agree with your analysis. There are plenty of areas across Yorkshire that voted over 50% for Labour in 2017 and over 50% Brexit last week.

Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry weren't openly supporting a referendum with a remain option in 2017. The political landscape has changed. With the Tories, always the far more Eurosceptic of the two main parties, struggling to deliver Brexit, Labour, with many more pro-EU MPs, are not likely to attract support from those for whom Brexit is a top priority, especially with a customs union policy similar to that which destroyed May. Meanwhile there are surely leave voters for whom Brexit isn't a top priority who can be persuaded to stick with Labour for other reasons even if Labour offer a referendum with a remain option. If not, if Corbyn sticks with his 2017 Brexit policy, I think there's a good chance a lot of those votes lost to the Greens and Libdems in the EU elections won't come back. Abbott, McDonnell and Thornberry clearly feel a change of stance is vital and they will have access to private polling we don't see. I think their instinct that a big, bold move is necessary is right and that Corbyn dragging his feet is damaging. I guess we'll just have to wait and see who wins out and if Corbyn gives the big, unequivocal speech Owen Jones now thinks is needed or whether he sticks with the convoluted waffle.

Either way, Labour are in trouble. The divide between leave and remain has grown, not shrunk, leaving their mission to bring the two sides together in tatters. Exactly why I was never a supporter of the "people's vote" campaign. Once the possibility of remaining after all becomes set in people's minds, as the push for a further referendum has done, we are left with a situation where we are all forced to pick a side and I don't think Labour can avoid doing so any longer. If they'd tried from the beginning to forge a middle-way, outside the EU but inside the single market, it may have been possible to forge a consensus among those not polarised to the extremes of no deal Brexit or no change remain, but Labour's policy was always too skewed towards the hard leave vote to appeal to the largest range of voters in the middle. And besides, it would probably have only been possible for a party in power. So it's May's failure to find that consensus that has ultimately brought us here. And, boy, what a mess 'here' is!

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Would a Referendum still make sense? And if so would it be the e.g. Hunt Deal vs No Deal or vs Remain?

citizenJA wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:

citizenJA wrote:I like Jones's Ed Miliband suggestion

Which was?

A cabinet position

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
As ever we basically agree.

It will be a lot easier for Labour if the Tories choose, say, Johnson. Then, surely, Labour come out for Remain as the least worst option for their supporters. No ifs no buts. And I agree at that point voters who ditch Labour for Brexit are probably unreachable.

If a "moderate" Tory leader emerges, Labour may still have a decision to make. The talks could resume and agreement could be achieved within hours if the will were there. The WAB could be through the House within days. Would a Referendum still make sense? And if so would it be the e.g. Hunt Deal vs No Deal or vs Remain?

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:snip Then, surely, Labour come out for Remain as the least worst option for their supporters.

adam wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:snip Then, surely, Labour come out for Remain as the least worst option for their supporters.

I see absolutely nothing at all in what is going on at the moment to suggest any possibility of that happening.

I've kind of had enough, after what he's saying today. I completely support the idea that whilst you are not in power you will do everything you can to limit the government to the least worst solution. I completely reject the idea that you can't seek a mandate in a new general election for what you actually want. If Labour go into a General Election actually wanting to take us out of the EU - now we are here and push has definitely come to shove and this is it - then I think something like last week's vote will happen again. I'd be amazed if they didn't see mass desertions from their candidate base.

I also think that they are legitimising the delusional nonsense of the leave campaign by saying we can achieve things that are really, really not on the table. It might be cake and eat it light but it's still cake and eat it.

If they become the reality party - this is the deal take it or leave it -and propose to put that to the electorate in a confirmatory vote then that's a way forward. There's no problem, within that, of saying 'if you vote for the withdrawal agreement then we will proceed with our plans for a closer association than the Conservatives had envisaged'. That's the only way I can see to try to continue to walk the tightrope.

If they pursue what he's saying today they are going to be the third party of leave.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Afternoon all.

Another morning without power as a new fusebox where all the gubbins that accumulates over the years is incorporated into one neat box.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Would a Referendum still make sense? And if so would it be the e.g. Hunt Deal vs No Deal or vs Remain?

Only if it was stipulated that a result would be valid if one option got > 50% otherwise we could have a 40/30/30 result (or worse) where a minority got their wish.

I could foresee a situation where we leave with a not particularly good deal, and then then have another referendum to stay left vs rejoin in another few years.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: If a "moderate" Tory leader emerges, Labour may still have a decision to make. The talks could resume and agreement could be achieved within hours if the will were there. The WAB could be through the House within days. Would a Referendum still make sense? And if so would it be the e.g. Hunt Deal vs No Deal or vs Remain?

gilsey wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: If a "moderate" Tory leader emerges, Labour may still have a decision to make. The talks could resume and agreement could be achieved within hours if the will were there. The WAB could be through the House within days. Would a Referendum still make sense? And if so would it be the e.g. Hunt Deal vs No Deal or vs Remain?

It would make sense to MPs who don't want to leave the EU, surely, and make them more likely to vote for it. Would there be a majority without them?

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I mean, one gets the impression now that quite a lot of remainers want any referendum to be a straight choice between no deal and staying in the EU.

That is.........one hell of a risk, especially if the remain campaign is no better than in 2016

Willow904 wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I mean, one gets the impression now that quite a lot of remainers want any referendum to be a straight choice between no deal and staying in the EU.

That is.........one hell of a risk, especially if the remain campaign is no better than in 2016

If that's what they're saying, but I'm pretty certain no one on the Labour frontbench, like Starmer, has been saying that and have, indeed, been very clear about the choice being between a deal or remain. We already have a WA agreed, that MPs won't pass. Putting it to a referendum against remain makes more sense than continuing to pretend we can make the Irish problem go away.