Forum menu
Labours ambiguity on Brexit
what ambiguity ?
Corbyns leading - Corbyn wants hard Brexit - it has always been pretty clear and now it is even clearer with the recent sackings.
He does not want hard brexit but he does certainly want it
How you can assume he wants hard or soft based on this is lost on em coudl you explain your reasons?
I think it's always been obvious corbyn is after some sort of brexit. Which type is unclear, I think he's trying to play games at the moment though.
I agree i think he has always been a leaver but towed the party line for unity and campaigned [ weakly] for remain.
I dont think the MP's or the membership are as anti as he is
I dont think the MP's or the membership are as anti as he is
He's taken, however reluctantly, the party line for Remain and Trident, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect shadow cabinet colleagues to support him.
My biggest problem with Labour is they are just as unclear on what kind of Brexit they want & how to acheuve it.
Fing shambles.
Give the janitor the keys!
He does not want hard brexit
He wants to leave the EEA and has campaigned to do so since long before it was fashionable. So if we want to convert that into needlessly wooly terms that's a deffo a very hard Brexit.
It's pretty much beyond dispute that the Tories have a largely Remain leadership with a strong Leave presence on their back benches whereas the Labour Party have a largely leave leadership and a strong remain presence on their back benches.
I agree i think he has always been a leaver but towed the party line for unity and campaigned [ weakly] for remain.
not convinced, hes spent his entire life voting as he feels he should, If he really wanted to Leave he'd have campaigned for it
If he really wanted to Leave he'd have campaigned for it
Nope. Alan Johnson lead the Labour "remain" campaign which involved interation with the Labour leadership throughtout the campaign and he's on record as saying Corbyn and McDonnall were Leavers going through the Remain motions. Which is consistent with what they've been saying over their entire careers.
Alan Johnson discusses it in some detail in the documentary the BBC did on Corbyn a year or so back. It's sure to be on iPlayer still.
Party leaders don't have the luxury of folling their conscience on every issue. Having said that Corbyn's played a blinder on the EU, He's got exactly what he wants. He's had 3 line whips supporting Leaving with the excuse that it's what the public have voted for. All the time he can claim to be supporting remaining. When the dust settles on his career I think he'll consider getting the UK out of the EU was the biggest contribution he made with some justification.
I don't think there's any ambiguity.
Nor do I think it's about what they 'want'.
It's that they recognise that the number 1 reason for brexit was controls on immigration and that the EU have been clear that you can't have [i]membership[/i] of the common market without freedom of movement.
They do want access to it though.
I don't think there's any ambiguity.
Nor do I think it's about what they 'want'.
It's that they recognise that the number 1 reason for brexit was controls on immigration and that the EU have been clear that you can't have membership of the common market without freedom of movement.
They do want access to it though.
Interesting perspective and has the real ring of truth to it.
It would certainly explain why the vast majority of Politicians openly say leaving is a bad idea, yet they mostly still vote for it in spite of the obvious opportunities/pretexts they have available to get out of it. (Narrowness of the result, hung parliament etc.) I've always wondered if they knew something we don't and maybe that's it.
It would certainly explain why the vast majority of Politicians openly say leaving is a bad idea, yet they mostly still vote for it
No. That is explained by the fact they feel compelled to respect the referendum result despite not agreeing with it personally.
not convinced, hes spent his entire life voting as he feels he should, If he really wanted to Leave he'd have campaigned for it
Yes, but until recently he was a backbencher. Now he represents the views of the Labour party, which is why he's not proposing unilateral nuclear disarmament or abolition of the monarchy.
not convinced, hes spent his entire life voting as he feels he should, If he really wanted to Leave he'd have campaigned for it
Yes, but until recently he was a backbencher. Now he represents the views of the Labour party, which is why he's not proposing unilateral nuclear disarmament or abolition of the monarchy.
Yet
No. That is explained by the fact they feel compelled to respect the referendum result despite not agreeing with it personally.
2pc spread? That's not a result at all, it's lost in the noise. A 1pc swing would reverse it.
There was ample excuse to do nothing. Now there's a hung parliament there's another excuse. Corbyn and May could simply both state that they both agree Brexit needs to be halted until there's a new administration with a proper majority.
The fact none of this has happened makes me suspect one of threee things:
-There's something they know that we don't.
-They think Brexit won't be too bad.
-They think there will be a better excuse not to leave in the future.
If the UK voted to nuke Holland the MPs wouldn't vote for it "because democracy".
No. That is explained by the fact they feel compelled to respect the referendum result despite not agreeing with it personally.
nah politicians respect only power
what they are is scared of the grey vote, and they are mostly brexies
Yes, but until recently he was a backbencher. Now he represents the views of the Labour party, which is why he's not proposing unilateral nuclear disarmament or abolition of the monarchy.
he's learnt to keep quiet and bide his time and hope no-one notices what he really wants - then he can't be accussed of a U-turn later.
There was ample excuse to do nothing
Except both sides would lose to UKIP if they did.
Welcome to democracy.
He's taken, however reluctantly, the party line for Remain and Trident,
Yeah but in private he's still saying he'd scrap Trident as soon as he can. The guy is shady as ****.
Can we expect the tories stressing how much he is a leaver to discredit him with the new found your vote?
I love him for kicking Enola in the slats but hate him for being a leaver.
Why exactly does he want to leave?
I can't see they are the same reasons as the Sunderland knuckle draggers or the dacre appeasers.
How you can assume he wants hard or soft based on this is lost on em coudl you explain your reasons?
because he has just sacked people for supporting a soft brexit - why would he do that if he actually wanted a soft brexit ?
Why would Chuka have to go out on a limb to propose the amendment, surely JC would be proposing the amendment if he himself wanted a soft-brexit.
How much more obvious does it have to be?
The guy is shady as ****.
and that is also obvious as well...
Except both sides would lose to UKIP if they did.
Maybe that's the thing they know that we don't then.
Why exactly does he want to leave?
Google: youtube "tony benn" europe
Corbyn's an old fashioned Bennite. Objects to the EU on the basis that it's undemocratic and a Neo-liberal rich Nation's club. Which is probably all true. It's just most people think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
I suspect part of his objection also stems from "If you want to tax the most mobilie entities in an economy - business and the rich - you'd better make sure you can legally stop them leaving.". Plus I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that some some of the nationalizations in the Labour manifesto were illegal under EU rules so leaving the EEA is essential to fullfil his manifesto commitments.
Yeah but in private he's still saying he'd scrap Trident as soon as he can. The guy is shady as ****.
I expect he would, if it was solely up to him. However, he has acknowledged his responsibilities as leader and is acting accordingly.
dragon - Member
He's taken, however reluctantly, the party line for Remain and Trident,
Yeah but in private he's still saying he'd scrap Trident as soon as he can.
Weird take on it. Re trident he's quite open that he'd scrap it, but that it's an argument he needs to win within the Labour party.
The fact people don't get the concept behind that speaks volumes about our democracy.
I expect she would, if it was solely up to her. However, she has acknowledged her responsibilities as leader and is acting accordingly.
Works both ways.
I expect he would, if it was solely up to him. However, he has acknowledged his responsibilities as leader and is acting accordingly.
ha
ha
ha
i think Corbyn will continue to say he wants the same basic brexit agreement as the tories whilst hinting at slightly softer edges.
Brexit is too divisive an issue for him to take the opposite stance it would give the tories some area in which they can attack him and weaken his position. Adopting the same basic position nullifies the tories and leaves him free to emphasise the differences in the parties approach to public services and austerity. Which after 7 years of stagnation are areas the public are happy to buy into.
because he has just sacked people for supporting a soft brexit
No, he sacked his cabinet for going against policy. Seems to have been a necessary option. One of them resigned before the vote.
However, he has acknowledged his responsibilities as leader and is acting accordingly.
LOL, an irregular verb, there.
"The leader I like acknowledges his responsibilities as leader acts accordingly"
"The leader I don't like is unprinicpled"
going against policy
Much like Mr Corbyn's earlier work!
Brexit is too divisive an issue for him to take the opposite stance it would give the tories some area in which they can attack him and weaken his position. Adopting the same basic position nullifies the tories
If they're going to adopt the same position then why not make it 'Halting the leave process for this parliament'.
The Tory leadership would bite his hand off to kick the Brexit headache into the long grass.
The reason he's supporting leaving the EEA is because he wants to leave the EEA.
Much like Mr Corbyn's earlier work!
He wasn't a shadow minister, was he? So not like it at all.
Except for the going against policy bit....
Yes, but going against policy when you're a backbencher is not the same as doing it when you're a shadow minister.
Is it?
But that's perfectly normal for backbenchers. Many MPs refuse front bench positions because of this.Except for the going against policy bit....
As a frontbencher, you follow the whip, or resign.
LOL, an irregular verb, there."The leader I like acknowledges his responsibilities as leader acts accordingly"
"The leader I don't like is unprinicpled"
My concerns about him as a leader included his (in)ability to set aside his personal views and act for the party. I'm pleased that he has proven me wrong.
because he has just sacked people for supporting a soft brexit
No, he sacked his cabinet for going against policy. Seems to have been a necessary option.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Every now and then in a Leader's career the thing he has to do is also the thing he wants to do.
In this case I think he was compelled to sack the Front Bench rebels, but I suspect he wanted to as well.
No, he sacked his cabinet for going against policy
the policy that he so enthusiastically appears to want to follow - a hard brexit. The rest of the party aren't forcing him to support hard brexit at all, most of them would want a soft brexit.
He could easily have a soft brexit as party policy - and if he had pushed it as policy then he would probably be in number 10 now - but he didn't as that is not what he wants.
It is so obvious I can't believe anybody is argueing against it.
It is so obvious I can't believe anybody is argueing against it.
I'm also amazed it's up for debate.
1) He's been arguing for it all his career.
2) His policy objectives require leaving the EEA.
3) The people in his party who work with him say he wants to leave the EEA.
4) His chosen policy for the party is hard brexit in the face of opposition from his back benchers.
5) His faction of the party is Eurosceptic.
6) He was positively beaming on the day the result was announced and immediately called for the triggering of Article 50 in spite of a 50/50 split in the vote.
Where's the evidence he's a remainer?
Have you got a source for this. It's the first time I've heard this2) His policy objectives require leaving the EEA.
So we can rewind to before the election and I can think he's a waste of space.
For me the only thing that matters is staying in europe.
Some of the other stuff he says is good.
He's a **** but just a lot less of a **** than the tories.
Would it have been ethical for all pro EU MPs to have defected to the libs?
Where's the evidence he's a remainer?
He voted Remain.
Next!
He voted Remain
Did you see his ballot paper?