minininja wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

minininja wrote:And Labour's work fighting for a different version of Brexit is the only reason we haven't already had a Tory Brexit or possibly a 'no deal' Brexit.

Can you expand on this a little? I think my brain just tried to violently extricate itself from my skull.

If Labour hadn't committed to implement a soft Brexit in 2017, allowing them to instead focus on domestic issues in the election campaign, the Tories would have had a majority and pushed through whatever they liked. Since then Labour have made sure that parliament and not the government gets to decided what happens, and from the indicative votes you can see a significant chunk of Tories backing a customs union Brexit. It's because of Labour persuading many moderate Tories that a soft Brexit is a viable political option that has prevented May from having greater numbers either for her deal or if she were to submit further to her backbenchers.

Or, to put it another way ... May threw away her majority in a 2017 GE, but still won the election, and Dominic Grieve (Conservative) proposed Parliament should approve the deal preventing the government (Conservative) from being able to push through a deal without approval.

There's so much in your post that seems to assume Labour caused all this to happen, I am somewhat dubious. You think moderate Tories were persuaded by Labour that soft brexit was an option? Okay, sure. Grieve Clarke and Soubry etc must be so grateful that Labour made them see the error of their brexity ways. Support from young people undoubtedly pushed up Labours GE vote, those people were still labouring under the misapprehension that Labour were a pro EU remain party. Some probably still are lol, but not many.

If Labour was successful in anything in 2017 it was playing both sides of brexit opinion.

minininja wrote:
The *only* test that was arguably not possible was the one to deliver the "exact same benefits", but this test was more about calling the Tories' bluff, because *they* had claimed we would get all the same benefits without the costs. But even this test is open to interpretation of which parts of our membership of the EU are actually benefits. Regardless, I believe this has now been dropped.

But there is nothing "unicorn" about Labour's plans. They are entirely workable, unlike May's three contradictory red lines.

Which ones have been dropped?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45640548

Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
Does it deliver the "exact same benefits" as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?

Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU?
Possible.
Does it deliver the "exact same benefits" as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?
Can't. And Corbyn knows it. We need to remain in the Single Market and Customs Union to have those benefits. Corbyn even LIES that it's not possible to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union and leave the EU. That's a lie.
Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities?
Can't. Ending free movement.
Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?
Possible.
Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime?
Possible.
Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK?
Nope. Scotland needs free movement, Scottish and Welsh farmers for example will be decimated after brexit.

Unicorn.

In November:
Corbyn sets out Labour’s plans for a “jobs-first” Brexit

A jobs first brexit is impossible.

GrahamH wrote:

minininja wrote:
But there is nothing "unicorn" about Labour's plans. They are entirely workable, unlike May's three contradictory red lines.

Can you tell me what the plans are?

I am also very interested plus the fact how does the EU look upon them?

Brexit here is a dead as a Dodo. Who really thinks anything will happen before October? It is the same old shit that keeps on being stirred. Both Corbyn (as I forecasted at the time of his election) and May are washed up. The Brexiteers are laughing their boots off.

Just who is going to pay for all this shit?

Sorry partially in the wrong thread. They are turning into one theme.

Jesus fucking christ, here is Jess Philips saying exactly what I have been thinking and saying. There's a video clip in the thread:
https://twitter.com/LittleGravitas/stat ... 6481275904

Jess Phillips to Diane Abbott just now:

"As much as we want an election, I want to be a size 10 but I keep eating cake. You don't just get what you want. An election is not what's in front of us. Brexit is the thing that is in front of us. We have to show courage & leadership."

"Its (Labour) meant to be principled, it's meant to be outward facing, it's meant to be internationalist"

"Let the Tories play with the brexit ball, and let it wreck them. We are allowing it to do the same to us as it's done to them for 40 years"

Good god.

I dont know how Labour party members and supporters can watch that and not know that's the correct thing.

ronmcd wrote:

"Let the Tories play with the brexit ball, and let it wreck them. We are allowing it to do the same to us as it's done to them for 40 years"

Good god.

What sort of shitty principle is that? Fuck the vote and Let the country go to hell for our political gain? You'd contemplate voting for someone like that?

The tories were voted in.

I feel we're in two different conversations

ronmcd wrote:I dont know how Labour party members and supporters can watch that and not know that's the correct thing.

Unfortunately I can't watch anything with Jess Phillips in it without wanting to poke my own eyes out, so I won't be able to tell you.

ronmcd wrote:

Jess Phillips to Diane Abbott just now:

"As much as we want an election, I want to be a size 10 but I keep eating cake. You don't just get what you want. An election is not what's in front of us. Brexit is the thing that is in front of us. We have to show courage & leadership."

That is remarkably hypocritical of Phillip's. She's not really a democratic socialist is she? She opposed the elected leader and his moderate socialist policies and she opposes the result of the referendum. It is Jess that is in denial of current realities. However much she may want another Tony Blair and brexut it to disappear that's not what is in front of us. Is not going to happen.

GrahamH wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Jess Phillips to Diane Abbott just now:

"As much as we want an election, I want to be a size 10 but I keep eating cake. You don't just get what you want. An election is not what's in front of us. Brexit is the thing that is in front of us. We have to show courage & leadership."

That is remarkably hypocritical of Phillip's. She's not really a democratic socialist is she? She opposed the elected leader and his moderate socialist policies and she opposes the result of the referendum. It is Jess that is in denial of current realities. However much she may want another Tony Blair and brexut it to disappear that's not what is in front of us. Is not going to happen.

Oh, I've got it. When a political decision is made, that's it, no argument, no dissent, no second chances. No campaigning on principle after you've lost.

That's democratic socialism, is it?

ronmcd wrote:]
Oh, I've got it. When a political decision is made, that's it, no argument, no dissent, no second chances. No campaigning on principle after you've lost.

That's democratic socialism, is it?

Perpetual dissent is paralysis, not leadership.
If a party vote yes to a referendum and yes to art 50 and pledges to implement the decision in their manifesto I don't think part of the party should fight the rest to overturn those decisions. Conference did not agree an anti Brexit policy. It is highly doubtful such a policy would be anything but a disaster electoral.

Debate, decide (vote), act.
Not
Debate, debate, split, debate ...

Collective responsibility seems to be dead in both main parties.

Well I've said before, I've no clue how we go from where we are now to anywhere good. It's too late for Labour to oppose brexit, in that I agree.

They should have though.

ronmcd wrote:Well I've said before, I've no clue how we go from where we are now to anywhere good. It's too late for Labour to oppose brexit, in that I agree.

Or, put another way, it's possibly not late enough, yet.

I also can't really see a "way" as such to anywhere good, but I see two indicators of what to look for:

1) A second referendum, if it's going to happen, needs to emerge out of some kind of cross-party consensus or gridlock-breaking mechanism, by broad agreement, rather than being something that Labour imposes on the Tories as a condition for something else. There needs to be shared responsibility for it as the only way forward, so that it can't be used as evidence that Labour Stole Brexit From The People.

2) The longer this drags on before such a referendum happens (if it happens at all), the better. I know people find it painful, but public opinion is very slowly moving towards Remain. A lot of polls now point to an extremely narrow Remain victory. I think that would be a disaster and worse than no referendum at all, for reasons I've described before. But if it can get towards a Remain majority of 55% or 60%, it becomes easier to justify both holding the referendum and observing its result above the last one.

Meanwhile, what's the betting Labour and Tories are going to quickly make an agreement on the deal, before the EU elections. And then both pro brexit parties can avoid the whole messy business of asking us.

ronmcd wrote:Meanwhile, what's the betting Labour and Tories are going to quickly make an agreement on the deal, before the EU elections. And then both pro brexit parties can avoid the whole messy business of asking us.

Well the Brexiteers wont be in a hurry as they are determined to wreck the EU anyway they can.

ronmcd wrote:Meanwhile, what's the betting Labour and Tories are going to quickly make an agreement on the deal, before the EU elections. And then both pro brexit parties can avoid the whole messy business of asking us.

We've already been asked. Did you miss that part?

Beatsong wrote:

ronmcd wrote:Meanwhile, what's the betting Labour and Tories are going to quickly make an agreement on the deal, before the EU elections. And then both pro brexit parties can avoid the whole messy business of asking us.

We've already been asked. Did you miss that part?

My comment about "And then both pro brexit parties can avoid the whole messy business of asking us" was in response to your immediate previous post detailing how it wasn't quite late enough YET for Labour to support a referendum.

Whatever.

Which has been a labour tactic, hasn't it? Oh yes, yes, peoples vote, sure, just not yet. Dont worry, there's a plan. Just ... not yet.