Brexit Thread VI - The Knockout Phase ?!?

[Kyriakos]

This is very much shortsighted. Yes, it is true that it would not make an immediate difference. But as an EU vassal (which is what "Norway-plus" is), the UK and its PM would have much less influence on EU politics than as a member. There would be little Corbyn could do to stop the EU from raising new barriers for socialist reforms. As we have seen in the example of Switzerland, the EU has shown little restraint in strong-arming associated non-member countries to fall in line with EU policy. As a member, the UK would have considerable power to stop such attempts and might even be able to negotiate lowering the existing barriers.

Norway and Switzerland are the euro countries with the highest level of life. Strong-arming doesn't seem that strong, or (h)arming.

 

[Takhisis]

Varoufakis (…) a former "liberal" icon

Would you mind explaining your use of the word ‘liberal’? Because I know you're a Trump fan, but this is a new step if you're using it with the meaning I think you are.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/05/brexit-european-parliament-election-labour-party

This is, I think, a good piece on the current situation, I would welcome anyone's thoughts on it.

a) several people inside Labour are more concerned with taking over the party leadership than with the state of the country vis-a-vis brexit,
b) Brexit helps create a new tribal divide and distract the people (i.e. the voters) from addressing real issues:

the most strident partisans on either side are deeply complicit in the effort to transform Britain’s political life into a US-style culture war. Europhile liberals and Brexiteer nativists both want to polarize the country along lines that will be toxic for any kind of left-wing project: young vs old, cities vs towns, center vs periphery, Scotland vs England, London vs the North — anything but the most important line of cleavage, between the working-class majority and a ruling class that will be insulated from the consequences no matter what happens in the years to come.​

c) back to the point where there's still voices of reason but the actual party officials are a bunch of idiots

tl;dr it's like people having a go at Bernie Sanders or Elisabeth Warren while Donald Trump energises his base (after a certain Republican said that the party was running out of angry white men, or something like that, a few years ago) with a wall that will be postponed until Kingdom come.

Norway and Switzerland are the euro countries with the highest level of life. Strong-arming doesn't seem that strong, or (h)arming.

But they are not ‘euro’ countries, either in using the euro or being members of the EU.

 

[AmazonQueen]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/05/brexit-european-parliament-election-labour-party

This is, I think, a good piece on the current situation, I would welcome anyone's thoughts on it.

I'm sure that in the long run its more important to elect a left-wing government than defeat Brexit.
That doesn't make Corbyn's tactics correct or successful nor are all who want to stop Brexit and/or support a 2nd referendum centrists.

 

[Ironsided]

It is a good piece. The situation is not far from that of the US Democratic Party or we have in social democracy elsewhere. It’s an identity crisis. Who are we and where do we want to go, and how far are we prepared veer from our ideological foundations to compromise and “get things done”? The Danish general election is today if I’m not mistaken and it’s leaning social democratic now that they turned more openly anti-immigration which is another questionable move if not only for the message is sends Danish society about who is riding first, second and third class.

 

[Hrothbern]

Will Boris Johnson be protected to face Parliament before the summer break ?
To avoid an immediate vote of no-confidence ?
To avoid the scenario with a new election in time for a Labour government to take control before October 31 ?

And was the ridiculous amount of PM candidates part of the objective to burn as much time as possible before the summer break ?

Mel Stride, the new leader of the House of Commons, aroused suspicions that the Conservatives are plotting to put off a confidence vote for their new leader until September, as he refused to confirm when the recess would start.
He said it was “not necessarily” the case that the new Conservative leader would have to appear in front of parliament before MPs go off on holiday until the autumn.
Labour sources said they believed the government whips were planning recess to start potentially as early as 19 July – almost a week earlier than last year – while the Conservatives will not say exactly when the winner of their leadership contest will be announced, other than it will be in the week of 22 July.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-leader-could-avoid-immediate-confidence-vote

 

[tjs282]

Will Boris Johnson be protected to face Parliament before the summer break ?
To avoid an immediate vote of no-confidence ?
To avoid the scenario with a new election in time for a Labour government to take control before October 31 ?

And was the ridiculous amount of PM candidates part of the objective to burn as much time as possible before the summer break ?

But May is due to resign tomorrow, IIRC...?

Does that mean that the UK could technically be without a PM for the next couple of weeks/months? Is that legally possible?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Talking with Brussels on what ?

Well that is what I am wondering.

I suspect each candidate for conservative leader has their own odd ideas.

Everyone seemed to take me as a lunatic

I know that feeling, they think I am mad too.

You'll have PM Farage.

I am not sure about that, not everyone who wants to Leave likes Nigel Farage.
Besides which I note that in this world revolutionaries often get assassinated.

According to Farage, 2/3 of the Tories are dirty Remoaners, anyway, so why would he make any sort of deal to protect those incumbents. The only deal I can imagine would be to not contest the seats of Tories which pledge to support a Farage-approved Brexit. This doesn't even need to be a deal, because Frage can just delcare this unilaterally. It would pressure Tories to take that pledge in order to save their seat, so the Brexit party can focus their resources on other seats.

Quite so.

There is no benefit in the Brexit Party campaigning against committed Leave candidates, splitting the Leave vote and letting a Remainer in.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/05/brexit-european-parliament-election-labour-party

This is, I think, a good piece on the current situation, I would welcome anyone's thoughts on it.

The author understands the Labour party, but he does not understand Nigel Farage.

But May is due to resign tomorrow, IIRC...?

Does that mean that the UK could technically be without a PM for the next couple of weeks/months?

It is what happened the previous time the Prime Minister (David Cameron) resigned.

Is that legally possible?

Yes, it is an unintended consequence of the fixed term parliament act combining with conservative party leader election rules.

 

[Hrothbern]

But May is due to resign tomorrow, IIRC...?

Does that mean that the UK could technically be without a PM for the next couple of weeks/months? Is that legally possible?

When the new PM is chosen by the internal Tory election, there is a PM.
Up to that time AFAIK Theresa May is formally still the PM, but should not do much.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/05/brexit-european-parliament-election-labour-party

This is, I think, a good piece on the current situation, I would welcome anyone's thoughts on it.

The article starts with:
"Centrists insist that Labour’s electoral fortunes depend on it taking a hard stance against Brexit. But their own behavior tells us their top priority is to stop Corbyn from becoming prime minister".

Centrists... Blairites... whatever.
Ofc there will be a faction in Labour that is against the more leftish agenda of Corbyn, and I think the article does show that these centrists are happy to use any argument at any time and also the current Remain-Leave divide in Labour to undermine Corbyn. The article describing that internal fight.
As far as I can judge the situation Corbyn's agenda is still well supported by a majority of Labour (MP's + members).
=> there are many that support the Corbyn agenda but do want to Remain.

The article only talks about the second referendum as if it is a new IN-OUT referendum.
There are in fact two other referendums possible within Labour party context:
1. Only a referendum between Leave, Remain and a "botched" Tory deal as last ditch defense when elections cannot be forced.
2. A confirmatory referendum between Leave, Remain and a soft Brexit Labour deal (when Labour would be in charge after a new election).


2. assumes the soft Brexit that Corbyn and Labour had as goal once the 2016 referendum vote was a fact.
Farage outflanked that by his U-turn away from his earlier positive Norway deal statements: only a clean Brexit would be good enough.
Good tactics as always by Farage: If the 2016 referendum would have been lost by a small margin he could have kept his position of a something Norway Brexit, to keep the rebels alive like a gadfly. But now the referendum was won, and to stay the untouchable gadfly he moved to a "clean Brexit". May legitimised that "clean Brexit" with her "no deal is better than a bad deal" stance at the beginning of her struggle as PM.
In that polarised context any deal is treason, certainly a soft Brexit deal.

Corbyn never moved from the position of a soft Brexit as answer to the 2016 referendum Leave vote.
I still believe that a soft Brexit deal is the best way forward for the UK to respect all UK voters of that 2016 referendum.
But if Farage and Rees-Mogg with their buccaneer hard Brexit do not respect the majority of the Labour voters and the interests of all current and potential Labour voters, why is Corbyn breaking his back to cater his arch enemies ?

And I do not see how wanting to have a confirmatory referendum on a Labour soft Brexit deal is undermining Corbyn and his general agenda or the electoral perspective of Labour now or in 5-10 years from now.
Any soft Brexit will for many, many years be under attack of Farage and Rees-Mogg.
To have them marginalised again to some 10-20% of the vote rebels in a corner of the Tory party needs a lasting Labour base (the young voters) and a renewed legitimation of a soft Brexit deal by the people.

 

[Lexicus]

But I think it is a mistake to think that all potential Labour voters think so as well.

This is what I interpret the piece as lamenting: the fact that the real goal has been lost in the moralizing over Brexit.

As a member, the UK would have considerable power to stop such attempts and might even be able to negotiate lowering the existing barriers.

Hmm. Well, that is at least a consistent position, but I am not sure I really agree with it. As I have said before I am pessimistic about the ability of the EU to reform "from within."

a) several people inside Labour are more concerned with taking over the party leadership than with the state of the country vis-a-vis brexit,
b) Brexit helps create a new tribal divide and distract the people (i.e. the voters) from addressing real issues:
the most strident partisans on either side are deeply complicit in the effort to transform Britain’s political life into a US-style culture war. Europhile liberals and Brexiteer nativists both want to polarize the country along lines that will be toxic for any kind of left-wing project: young vs old, cities vs towns, center vs periphery, Scotland vs England, London vs the North — anything but the most important line of cleavage, between the working-class majority and a ruling class that will be insulated from the consequences no matter what happens in the years to come.c) back to the point where there's still voices of reason but the actual party officials are a bunch of idiots

tl;dr it's like people having a go at Bernie Sanders or Elisabeth Warren while Donald Trump energises his base (after a certain Republican said that the party was running out of angry white men, or something like that, a few years ago) with a wall that will be postponed until Kingdom come.

I am not really sure what you mean by this. Is a) and b) your summary of what the article is saying or is it your views?

 

[Kyriakos]

When the new PM is chosen by the internal Tory election, there is a PM.
Up to that time AFAIK Theresa May is formally still the PM, but should not do much.



The article starts with:
"Centrists insist that Labour’s electoral fortunes depend on it taking a hard stance against Brexit. But their own behavior tells us their top priority is to stop Corbyn from becoming prime minister".

Centrists... Blairites... whatever.
Ofc there will be a faction in Labour that is against the more leftish agenda of Corbyn, and I think the article does show that these centrists are happy to use any argument at any time and also the current Remain-Leave divide in Labour to undermine Corbyn. The article describing that internal fight.
As far as I can judge the situation Corbyn's agenda is still well supported by a majority of Labour (MP's + members).
=> there are many that support the Corbyn agenda but do want to Remain.

The article only talks about the second referendum as if it is a new IN-OUT referendum.
There are in fact two other referendums possible within Labour party context:
1. Only a referendum between Leave, Remain and a "botched" Tory deal as last ditch defense when elections cannot be forced.
2. A confirmatory referendum between Leave, Remain and a soft Brexit Labour deal (when Labour would be in charge after a new election).


2. assumes the soft Brexit that Corbyn and Labour had as goal once the 2016 referendum vote was a fact.
Farage outflanked that by his U-turn away from his earlier positive Norway deal statements: only a clean Brexit would be good enough.
Good tactics as always by Farage: If the 2016 referendum would have been lost by a small margin he could have kept his position of a something Norway Brexit, to keep the rebels alive like a gadfly. But now the referendum was won, and to stay the untouchable gadfly he moved to a "clean Brexit". May legitimised that "clean Brexit" with her "no deal is better than a bad deal" stance at the beginning of her struggle as PM.
In that polarised context any deal is treason, certainly a soft Brexit deal.

Corbyn never moved from the position of a soft Brexit as answer to the 2016 referendum Leave vote.
I still believe that a soft Brexit deal is the best way forward for the UK to respect all UK voters of that 2016 referendum.
But if Farage and Rees-Mogg with their buccaneer hard Brexit do not respect the majority of the Labour voters and the interests of all current and potential Labour voters, why is Corbyn breaking his back to cater his arch enemies ?

And I do not see how wanting to have a confirmatory referendum on a Labour soft Brexit deal is undermining Corbyn and his general agenda or the electoral perspective of Labour now or in 5-10 years from now.
Any soft Brexit will for many, many years be under attack of Farage and Rees-Mogg.
To have them marginalised again to some 10-20% of the vote rebels in a corner of the Tory party needs a lasting Labour base (the young voters) and a renewed legitimation of a soft Brexit deal by the people.

Didn't Norway itself have its representative speak publicly against a british "Norway-style" plan?
Of course that was before even the ECJ ruling, so by now maybe Norway can be "asked" to not "insist". Though i doubt the current Eu is in much of a position to strong-arm Norway.

 

[Arakhor]

Putting Parliament into a recess requires MPs to vote on the matter, I believe. I can't imagine that they will prorogue Parliament just to avoid the new Tory leader having to face Parliament.

 

[Kyriakos]

prorogue

I had to check to see if that was a pun using "rogue".
TIL.

 

[Hrothbern]

Didn't Norway itself have its representative speak publicly against a british "Norway-style" plan?
Of course that was before even the ECJ ruling, so by now maybe Norway can be "asked" to not "insist". Though i doubt the current Eu is in much of a position to strong-arm Norway.

Yes
Norway will not be happy when the UK would join the EFTA (where the EFTA members do have to cooperate very well !)..
* The style of negotiating is too different
* Norway is happy where it is: why having changes at all ?

But having a "something Norway deal" does not necessate being member of the EFTA.
The UK is a big enough economy and trade partner to justify its own set up.

 

[Takhisis]

But May is due to resign tomorrow, IIRC...?

Does that mean that the UK could technically be without a PM for the next couple of weeks/months? Is that legally possible?

Remember that, legally speaking, there is no such thing as a constitution.

I am not really sure what you mean by this. Is a) and b) your summary of what the article is saying or is it your views?

My summary of the article ('s main points), with which I happen to agree.

 

[uppi]

Hmm. Well, that is at least a consistent position, but I am not sure I really agree with it. As I have said before I am pessimistic about the ability of the EU to reform "from within."

Whatever you think the chances are to reform the EU "from within", they're surely better than from a "not a member, but still having to follow the rules" Norway-like position. All these "Norway plus" models would require the UK to give up influence on the course of the EU while gaining nothing but the ability to call themselves not a member of the EU - technically at least. If that is the necessary compromise to overcome the divisions in the UK, then so be it, but that doesn't change that it's stupid.

If you think that the EU cannot be reformed from within, then the consistent position would be to argue for a clean break. It needs to be acknowledged that this will come at a heavy price at first: a (at least temporary) economic downturn and the loss of Northern Ireland, but it might be worth that. Personally, I don't agree, but I can see the argument for that.

 

[innonimatu]

I think that the EU can't be reformed from with, and more it will end in strife, with more of it if it drags on longer. Disband it and negotiate a new association unhindered by existing treaties. Those were designed to constrain democracy and be impossible to reform into something good.

But is is not incoherent to consider strategies for brexit other than leaving right now. I still prefer that, but destabilizing the EU from within to hasten its demise is viable for a country as large and resourceful as as the UK. If only they had a competent government...

 

[AmazonQueen]

Labour have narrowly won the Peterborough byelection with 31% of the vote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48532869

Its a good result for them considering the trouble they've had with candidate & former MP, it being a very pro-Leave constituency, and a Tory seat between 2005-2017

 

[Kyriakos]

Labour have narrowly won the Peterborough byelection with 31% of the vote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48532869

Its a good result for them considering the trouble they've had with candidate & former MP, it being a very pro-Leave constituency, and a Tory seat between 2005-2017

It was pretty close, though, and if the tories had a deal with the brexit party the seat would be certainly lost for Labor:

 

[AmazonQueen]

It was pretty close, though, and if the tories had a deal with the brexit party the seat would be certainly lost for Labor:

Yep, this is the problem Labour has.
Areas like this its losing votes to the Brexit Party, areas like London, Scotland, and cities like Bristol and Cambridge (both of which currently have Labour MPs) its losing votes to the Remain parties.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Labour have narrowly won the Peterborough byelection with 31% of the vote

Its a good result for them considering the trouble they've had with candidate & former MP, it being a very pro-Leave constituency, and a Tory seat between 2005-2017

And a vindication for Jeremy Corbyn's strategy of not turning Labour into a near single issue pro Remain party.