UKH

Labour back a second ref.

Could it be true?

Whatever Corbyn’s motives this gives me some hope for a way out of this stupidity.

Not sure about the Parliamentary procedure involved but I doubt JC will have to deliver on this.

Maybe still hoping for a vote between May's deal and his own Unicorn dream. I'll believe it will include an option to remain when I see it, although I do think it will be forced upon them eventually.

Presumably his motion will be defeated tomorrow, but a welcome step none the less.

jcm

Oh for f*ck sake.

and what next if the results of a second referendum are the same as the first ?

I don't suppose anyone could whinge about it then, could they?

You seem a little gruntled, I thought you'd be happy

The deal is that Labour pass May's deal but it is put to a referendum with Remain as an option. The membership of the party overwhelming want a second referendum and apparently Tom Watson has a lot of resignation letters lying in his drawer waiting to be activated depending upon what direction the party leadership takes. It looks like they're acceding to the demands of many back benchers and members not only by backing a second vote but by bringing in Lord Falconer to sort out the anti Semitism mess.

Maybe the Brexit enthusiasts can come up with an actual workable plan?

You would hope at the very least, it would set out a proper question. If an informed public still want to shoot themselves in the bollocks, so be it!

I'm fairly sure the referendum would be May's deal or Remain and it would be binding. After all Parliament will have voted for May's deal so if the public want it, there's no way left to oppose it.

If there was a second ref, I'm not sure what would be worse - crashing out of Europe and all the upheaval and pain that would ensue or living alongside 17 million gammon's with a chip on their shoulder for the next fifty years.

Then we leave the EU for the future we choose.

Jk

Not leaving looking a little more likely makes me happy. The continued political pantomime dismays me.

About time if that's the case. We'll see.

Jk

Surely gruntled and happy are much the same thing if disgruntled means 'angry or dissatisfied'?

You forgot to include fried egg/pineapple ring

I cannot answer your question properly without knowing what the question or options on the ballot paper would be. My guess is that May’s deal will be an option, there could be several others, leave with no deal, remain, leave but renegotiate. It’s a can of worms.

If a leave option was voted for by a majority then I would accept that, now knowing the detail and range of consequences that were missing when the first referendum happened, that the electorate of the U.K. have voted to leave the EU with their eyes wide open.

It wouldn’t make me happy at all if that was the result but there you are. When Brexiters talk about betraying the electorate and worry about the danger of voters losing faith in politicians I fear they are already trying to bolt the stable door long after the horse has galloped off.

Looks like just as vague a referendum as before. May's "deal" has no outlined trade relationship, just a vague commitment to discuss this. No detail.

This referendum idea has not to loose sight of the objective- real detail for people to judge.

Maybe 21 months is a good delaying time to flesh out the true nature of any deal put on that referendum paper,

Vagueness cannot be judged by the electorate or deemed to be a true decision- otherwise it is just another opportunity for  minority loud mouths  to contort the result and say they can define our box ticking and are the "true" interpreters ...... and we've had that problem for 2 years,

And never being able to say ‘we won, deal with it’.

Nail on head.

The deal is no such thing. The real dealing hasn’t even started yet.

Its an interesting point. We really don't know where we're going though the WA does point us to an expected mutually agreeable way forward, however hard that will prove in reality. If we think we might likely back out of leaving we should do it sooner rather than a later. If we expect to ratify whatever deal we ultimately agree then that needs to be weighed against the cost to business of another 3-5yr of uncertainty.

Personally I think the result wold be close again either way, I think given that and the cost to business we shouldn't delay our decisions, were never going to unite the nation on this, its been built up into something almost mythological.

Jk

Its a real problem with the negotiating timetable the EU pushed - without knowing the end point the WA has to have a back stop. Without knowing the end point the backstop is unacceptable.

It makes no difference.    There are three options:

Hard Brexit -> chaos -> intense economic pain -> begging to get back in

Soft Brexit -> not much changes but no benefit -> eventually asking nicely to get back in.

Remaining.

The end point will be the same, the only thing that will change is the level of pain along the way because the economics and geography aren't going to change no matter how many referendums we have.  

Bollocks to Scotland - time to vote for London's independence.

jcm

It's a remarkable coincidence that Corbyn announced this on the same day as the release of the Times/yougov poll showing Westminster Voting intention if TIG field candidates...

CON: 36% (-2)
LAB: 23% (-3)
TIG: 18% (+4)
LDM: 6% (-1)

Via @YouGov.
Changes w/ 18-19 Feb.

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1100158795894980610?s=09

​​​​​​The announcement is welcome news, though I'm still pretty much expecting to hear a '... but ...'

It is not mainly a timetable thing. Almost any possible deal requires the backstop (the original NI version at least) whatever endpoints will emerge. The only acception is the UK staying in both the single market and the custom union. This has been ruled out by both T. May and by J. Corbyn. So there has to be a backstop.

Corbyn is putting amendment tomorrow for Customs Union type of deal but again it isn't much formed cause what about freedom of movement of people which I presume he thinks is negotiable. Maybe he's negotiated it this week??In one week??

So that idea could be rapidly dismissed. And if passed Corbyn hasn't linked it to a referendum on his idea has he? Bit dictatorial.

A referendum for those in favour of Remain should consider if they don't win, what that deal will be very very carefully. Cause that is what, I personally think, we will have to live with- despite the polls.-, which can be inaccurate.

Personally, I think Eu has been complacent in pleading its advantages and Brexit is full on in British psyche.

He was in Brussels only a few days ago talking to European leaders.

It was widely reported, don't you take an interest in these sorts of things?

Hence my reference above to Corbyn's own "Unicorn dream". I wonder at what point the UK public will wake up to the fact that promising ill-defined and probably undeliverable outcomes is not a positive character trait.

I blame Disney.

None of this is the EU's idea and idI say the benefits of membership are obvious. It's not their fault we're politically illiterate.

Will Corbyn be backing Remain or Leave in a second referendum, I was never sure what side he was actually on.

Are falcons good at targeting anti-Semites?

I did notice that but it has taken two years for May to negotiate her deal and Corbyn must not have a very formed deal alternative but it could be dismissed in its infancy outright tomorrow. A bizarre process but that is what is happening. Now that a referendum those choice{s} are essential and necessarily should be detailed.

Since Corbyn or Labour aren't involved in the negotiations, what exactly would you have expected him to have negotiated?

Since the EU are negotiating with the British government, not the Labour party, just what would want the EU to do, break off negotiations with May and come and talk the Jeremy? Seems a very strange thing to expect from anyone, to be honest.

All of which is beside the point. He isn't in charge of negotiations, he can't agree a deal. He can only, like all of us, choose between achievable outcomes and try to influence the likelihood of each. Going on about his Unicorn Dream is at best a pointless distraction. At worst, it could make the most damaging outcome - WTO crash-out - more likely. Either way, it's still feeding the narrative that there's something positive to be gained by exiting, while still being unable or unwilling to specify quite what form such a benefit would take it practice.

But this was always what Labour said they'd do, if the deal would harm jobs or income they'd vote against it, they confirmed this at conference too. I did predict this a number of months ago, because it seemed the most likely outcome.

Labour couldn't get involved in the negotiations, for fear of the Tories, complaining Labour had ruined the perfect deal they were going to bring back from Brussels, they had to let May comeback with the best she could, which most of us knew would be shit, in order to give her that chance.

I don't understand how they could have done anything else.

It looks like we're in agreement then, I must have mis-read your post.

It should hardly have come as a surprise though. David Davis with his laughably short lived 'fight of the summer' rhetoric clearly recognised the strategic advantage the EU would gain by sequencing talks. It'd be interesting to know whether behind all the bombast he was realistic about Britain's relative strength in these negotiations or whether this came as a horrible surprise to people who've lived in a privileged little Westminster bubble too many years.

jk

I think it's dawning too late for Labour that their weak leadership and lack of coherent principled position on brexit has alienated their voters, leave *and* remain. They were always going to lose one of those but they're well and truly on the back foot now.

jk

Do you mean the 17.4 million who voted Leave that included large numbers of right-wing racists, left-wing Labour activists (who voted against Cameron and to hell with the result), a goodly number of old codgers who are now dead, the Leave activists who have been convicted of offences breaching electoral rules, and those idiots who believed what they were told by a group funded by Putin. And it wasn't helped by those who assumed that Remain would win staying at home and not bothering to vote.

I've had enough crap from them already. Also I'm damn certain that the only reason that the Brexit leaders don't want another referendum is because they know full well that the result would be quite the opposite.

Another Referendum - bring it on.

I saw a Survation poll last night where the new group had taken pretty well equal numbers if voters from the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems. A cohort of the electorate are just hoping for something different, anything, just something.

 And it wasn't helped by those who assumed that Remain would win staying at home and not bothering to vote.

Not all the stay-at -homes assumed Remain would win. Some just weren't bothered enough to vote.

This number gets banded around like the fact that it’s quite a big number is significant in itself.

For some reason nobody puts it in the context that there are 49.4 million people in the country who didn’t vote for it.

It's certainly impressive him not grimacing with his arm twisted so forcefully by the TIG and his voters leaving in their droves and stating Brexit as the main cause when asked.

I hope Seamus Milne's chucking a proper wobbler about it.

Keir Starmer has spent much of the last two years talking to EU leaders. Corbyn's proposals weren't just scribbled down on the back of a beer mat at last orders on Sunday night.

I don't think the 'splitters' for want of a less pejorative word are an electoral threat per se (unless more go and they can agree a coherent set of policies), more that Labour has failed to satisfy either group of it's more engaged voters with the non-policies of the last two years, they won't go anywhere en masse, they'll just fritter away to parties vocally backing or opposing brexit leaving a politically disengaged but loyal rump of voters. It's understandable Labour with a polarising leader demonised by the press aren't taking votes from the Conservatives but to be actually going backward in the polls, loosing them under these conditions faced with just about the worst, most self serving and incompetent government possibly imaginable... it's truly shocking!

I agree people want change (though remain deeply divided on the nature of that change). I can imagine the next election could return a real rainbow result very different from the last red/blue one. Or not, it could just return red and blue MP's with dangerously little support, that is after all what the system is evolved to do.

jk

Including 13 million registered voters who did not exercise their right to vote.

They're still a ridiculously ambitious* starting point which would have to be rowed back from very significantly upon collision with reality. Starmer doubtless knows this but does not expect to have to deliver.

* if one considers giving up our freedom of movement ambitious

jk

Keir Starmer has also spent much of the last two years fighting for Corbyn's ear on this with Seamus Milne seeming to definitely win out until this announcement yesterday. I hope Milne sods off and we start to get some more sensible politics from the Labour leadership.

As a remainer I'd accept the result. For me its important what the country wants now, which may or may not be the same as two years ago, with the pros and cons at least more apparent. I'm tired of hearing from politicians that they must do "what the country votED for" when the obvious omission is  "but what the majority may not want NOW".

To be fair if I was a committed Leaver I would be annoyed, but in their hearts hopefully they can see that a another referendum is the truly democratic, most practical, and possibly least divisive solution (especially with a repeated leave win).

If you had the option to vote but didn't, then there can't be any expectation that your views should be considered. If you weren't eligible to vote then that's no different to any other election. A remain vote, surely, only has any force at all if it was actually cast. 

Funny how it was in their conference, and agreed upon, sometime ago then isn't it?

Yep, I agree, if you don’t vote then you forfeit your chance to have your opinion heard. 

That doesn’t make it any more accurate to keep repeating statements to the effect that over 50% of people want to leave the EU. They don’t. 

~17.4 wanted to leave

~16.5 wanted to stay

~33m weren’t asked, or didn’t care enough to say. 

To put it another way, assuming the vote hasn’t changed in the slightest in the last 2 years and every single leave voter cares passionately enough to protest in the event Brexit doesn’t happen, they’d still be outnumbered 3:1 in the population by people that are either pleased with the reversal or aren’t bothered either way.

Not that funny, considering how the leadership was trying their hardest to not have it debated at conference, showed no signs of actually implementing the will of conference despite failing in the vote of no confidence or to win a GE, and only acted after the biggest split in the party for 40 years and increasing pressure from the membership and within the remainder of the party. Maybe it was 4D chess and a masterclass in political positioning by the leadership, or maybe they've been forced into a corner. I'll let everyone come to their own conclusions - I know what yours will be.

Oh, incidentally, they only want to go for a 2nd referendum after they've tried and failed to deliver Brexit themselves, but I'm sure that's all part of this Machiavelli-esque politico-magic spiderweb Corbyn is weaving as well.

Oh come on, you can see as clearly as the rest of us that this is forced by circumstances.

Corbyn has until now barely even been paying lip service to the conference policy and that has cost Labour both MPs and several points in the polls. I'd be furious. As is I've long since concluded he's failed to do what I hoped he might as leader which is broaden and deepen the discussion about how we run our country and who it is run for. He has also miserably failed to pull people back together and lead which was admittedly always a risk.

jk

Indeed, however for some reason these people (or WE as I would prefer us to be known) don't appear to have any rights according to far too many politicians - including May.

Sorry but I've just pointed out that the new group are taking votes from all parties, not just Labour.

Probably because those who did would have just had it pointed out to them that more than that didn’t want to stay.  The great noise that remainers make doesn’t make you the majority, you’re a minority however you play with the figures.

Eh?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-latest-poll-shows-record-12-point...

*were a minority.

I’m not 100% sure what you’ve just said there, but I think you’re objecting to a statement I haven’t made. 

I did not say there was a majority vote to remain, I pointed out that the people who want to leave the EU are very keen to act like they’re a majority of the populace when actually they’re more like 25%. 

Not quite ‘the will of the people’ when you put it in context, is it?

edit: typo

Polls aren’t votes, they’re just polls.

I think you'll find that poll is over a month old, and in the context of today's politics, not very relevant. Of more interest would be the more recent Survation poll which has: 

Leave: 48% (+3)

Remain: 52% (-3)

https://www.survation.com/what-does-the-public-think-about-the-new-independ...

A majority of voters is what matters, of course.  Just like every vote everywhere - and just like every vote they represent the will of the people as much as that can be done, whether you lot like it or not.

Do you seriously think a couple of % of voters haven't changed their mind in the last two year?

Frankly, I'm suprised the swing hasn't been more dramatic but there you go. I'd still be confident in predicting that LEAVERS are now in the minority...

Most remainers though that prior to the vote too.  Then we actually voted.

True, I was in that camp and didn't bother to vote.

You'll not be too worried then if it is decided to have another vote.

If given the opertunity to vote again I shall not make the same misstake. I wonder how many there are like me...?

That’s not automatically corrext. You can sample a small population to gauge the opinion of a large population, but only if you choose your sample carefully. If you do a survey of food preferences outside the door of a McDonalds you’re going to get a disproportionately strong vote in favour of shitty burgers. 

The vote did indeed return a result for leave, but if you consider the groups that were disenfranchised (young people, non-British residents, etc) then it’s pretty clear that the group of people polled did not represent the populace, or ‘the people’, if you prefer. 

The reason the pro-Brexit faction are clinging to this blurring of the truth is because ‘it’s what ‘everyone’ wants’ is the only justification they’ve got left for implementing something that has overwhelmingly been shown to be a terrible idea. 

But if you are going to believe polls and surveys, then we'd have never voted out in the first place, Corbyn wouldn't be leader of the Labour Party, and the Labour party would have been wiped out with it's worst defeat in history, at the last election.

They're plenty of other examples, and reasons not to put your faith in polls and surveys.

Out of my group of close friends, lets say about 20 people, one spoilt his paper, two couldn't be arsed to vote because they both thought is was a forgone conclusion, one voted leave and would now change his mind, the rest would do what they did previously.

Obviously, this won't translate to the rest of the country, but it's an indication of what people did, and they thoughts since.

I completely agree. I was merely pointing out that one poll cited was over a month out of date, and that a more recent poll showed a significantly different set of numbers. 

You seem to suggest Labour simply cast aside all the Labour leave voters, and once again, you seem to forget, they have had no input to the "negotiations".

the worst thing they could have done, both politically and as a party itself, would have to dropped this bomb months ago.

I could see this happening last year, and there's probably a post with my predictions somewhere, it's not high level 4D chess is, pretty obvious what their options were and the route they had to take.

They've not got people threatening to leave because they're suggesting a second referendum, so damned if you do damned if you don't from Labours point of view. As for the Labour TIGs, if I knew this was going to happen, then I'm pretty sure they did too. They might well have jumped ship early, so they could take the glory of "forcing" the Labour change of direction, except in reality the course was always the same.

I clocked that and I wasn't disagreeing, at least I wasn't meaning to. I don't think for now they're a threat to any party except perhaps the LibDems who may have to agree a non-aggression pact to avoid mutual destruction at the hands of FPTP if TIG do form a party, can agree a coherent policy platform, can rally local support and can stand decent candidates in addition to those peeled off the other parties. There are a lot of hurdles to clear.

jk

**were a minority according to an illegally financed ballot.

Without the polarising influence of brexit I think that could easily have happened. Inspiring the young is all well and good but the young as usual didn't actually bother to vote, they didn't prop Labour up, hopeful remainers with nowhere else to go did. Problem is those of us who voted for a monolithic muscular opposition willing to listen to its membership and electorate feel pretty let down that they have since singularly failed to do so. There is a very real risk for Labour this is too little too late, that the usual rainbow spread of red, blue, yellow, orange, green and purple votes return next election. If we're very lucky it returns a rainbow of MP's but of course our rotten system is much more likely to return equal numbers of very weakly supported red and blue MPs and seething public resentment.

jk

Yeah, one of the problems of TIG is that splitting the left-wing vote near enough guarantees Tory Government for the foreseeable.

Brexit-era politics says that burning everything down is fine if future generations can build something in the ashes. 

Maybe a few years in a fascist hellhole are necessary to get the population to take their democratic responsiblities seriously? 

(tongue in cheek. Mostly)

Sorry, I though Labour were simply enacting what was agreed at conference, which was to pursue a 2nd referendum if a vote of no confidence and getting a GE had both failed. Now you're saying that they are trying to get Brexit through to appease their leave voting supporters, despite that not being what was agreed at conference. Could it be that the leadership were dragged into giving support to a 2nd referendum, but were merely paying it lip service?

If it's pretty obvious to you, do you think the leave supporting Labour voters will be hoodwinked? I'll be honest, I've been pretty convinced by Corbyn wanting us to leave the EU since the day after the result. He's a very good actor, I'll give him that.

Again, if everyone knew this was going to happen all along then why bother with the charade at all? I'd say the more realistic explanation is that Corbyn wants out of the EU, thought Labour could suffer a reduction of large majorities in Remain supporting seats more than potentially losing small majorities in Leave supporting seats, but has been warned off by the TIG defections and the disillusion in his leadership by Remain supporting Labour voters evident in the polls.

Labour managed to lose my membership and my vote over the past year. The only real hope in our politics now is that this disruption will ignite into a real change. Voting Green next GE, for whatever good it might do.

But once again you're discounting the Labour voters that voted to leave, aren't they some of the electorate that should be listened to, there was quite a number you know?

So should Labour have simply dumped them in favour of the ones the voted remain, this is especially daft considering they would have still had no influence in the negotiations.

We'd have arrived at where we are today, but with the Tories telling everyone, "without the Labour party interfering and obstructing our deal, we'd be in a much better place and we'd have achieved a very good Brexit for everyone, not just the people who wanted to leave. It's Labours' fault this has all turned to shit".

So Labour would lose an credibility with it's own leave supporters (because they're not listening to their wishes), some remain supporters might also see this as Labour fault too, ( they knew we might have to leave and Labour have f*cked the best of a bad thing up).

Labour's only option was to wait and see what May came up with, they knew that, May knew that, hence the prevarication on her part, and her attempt to take it up to the wire.

The problem with Chuka an his mates, from the Labour side, is they've gone off too soon, a little later this week or early next week might have been enough, to time this perfectly.

Labour would then have had the real possibility of saying to their Leave voters, "we tried our best to let the Tories sort out a good deal, but they're shit and what they've come up with will hurt you and our economy so much, we feel we needed to step in. With this in mind, we're going to give the people the choice of accepting this deal, with all it's problems by giving you a second referendum. We can either leave with this deal or we can withdraw article 50 altogether." To the remainers they can truly say, "we consider, given the shit option TMs come up with, we agree with what you are asking us for and fully support a second referendum". 

Job done, there's no need to take sides, they've not let anyone down, and most importantly they're doing the best for their country, and for the people they represent, there's no need for talk of integrity or principles, because they'll have demonstrated they have both.

So in summary you are happy for Labour to sit back and do nothing, the UK get a bad deal, as the main goal is making sure Labour can't be blamed? 

I think some of them will think that, and so would I if I was a leaver, the mantra "we voted leave so let's leave", isn't being bandied about for nothing is it?

I like to hope that it might be explained why they've taken this course of action, considering the magnificence of the deal we've been give, a number will hopefully understand.

The beauty of a second referendum is, everyone has the opportunity to reaffirm their original decision, or not.

Once again though I need to point out, that Labour saying they wanted a 2nd ref. 6 months ago would have interfered with negotiations, and they'd now bet getting blamed for having to have it, if we do get one, not being praised for championing having one.

FFS!! Can you read? They had no choice, they had no voice in the negotiations, I've been telling you this for 6 months and you keep, coming back with the same old cack!

The EU weren't negotiating with Labour, but with the GOVERNMENT.

Does this not just seem like Corbyns entire career, 40 years of doing nothing, blamed for nothing. 

Perhaps when mps are elected to represent, it shouldn't be about making sure you can't be blamed for anything, but doing what you think is right, regardless of what side you are on.  

A strong opposition can influence the party in office, not just sit back thinking how they might get in power in a decades time. 

They stand in the commons opposite the Tories, they can challenge them meaningfully every day of the week. 

Corbyn could discover national media and propose better ideas etc.. sell his plan. Allow it to be tested and defend it. 

If the polls suggest the Tories would lose voters, that will influence the policies they make in the UK and the deals they negotiate with eu.

Negotiations don't happen in isolation and without influence.  

So, what Corbyn's being saying this last 2 years about us leaving has been with a nudge and a wink that only Remain supporting Labour voters could see and essentially was lying. What was agreed at conference (ignoring that the leadership did everything they could to keep it off the order of debates) was a clear statement of their intentions, so the truth. Now, we have a statement saying that they want to first try and deliver their own Brexit deal (but this bits another nudge and a wink to Remainers) and would then support a 2nd referendum (back to truth-mode). What signals did you get to tell you when they were being clever and when they were telling the truth?

You say interfering with negotiations, I say holding the government to account. Y'know, being an opposition.

It would have simply been seen as interfering, as destroying her negotiations.

Labour could have suggested anything, and we'd have known nothing about what the EU thought of it, because they wouldn't have said, and rightly so because they are negotiating with the government.

And let's just suppose they came up with a cunning and magnificent plan, that not only delivered Brexit, but delivered a great Brexit, one even the Remainers could be proud of, who would get the thanks and more importantly the votes for it? It's still the Tories doing the deal, it's then that would receive the adulation.

Or the other option is to fully back a withdrawall of article 50 and our remaining within the EU, what do you think the Labour Leavers would think of that?

You seem to be expecting something from someone you hate, that you wouldn't expect from anyone else.

Brexit isn't a Labour V Tory contest, Labour have said all along unless it's good for jobs and the nation they won't support it. Since we STILL don't know what we're getting, how are they to make that decision? It's looking more and more likely it's going to be good for either, but who knows what were getting? Without knowing, how do you go against it?

Last go! There hardly anything to hold the government to account against though, apart from the wasting of time, which I think they've commented on plenty. There no substance to the deal, to oppose, because there is no deal!!

I'm not discounting them. I want and expect the party to represent them, not pander to them. The Labour party does not exist to knowingly make it's voters worse off, certainly not after it becomes apparent a majority of those voters don't want to be worse off and don't support the tories making them worse off by leaving the EU.

They have to decide what they stand for at some point, they've been haemorrhaging leave and remain support by pretending to be everything to everyone while standing for nothing coherent on brexit, while lacking the courage to lead, to inform their voters of the risks and costs or to clearly support it in spite of them.

I don't believe in faeries and I don't believe Corbyn had any intention of following the policy Labour agreed at conference. I'm suspicious still. It's not a masterpiece of expertly timed and deeply principled political theatre spoiled by the lily livered quitters, Labour's hand has been forced not just by those MPs that could no longer stand by while the leadership prevaricated but by their voters threatening to abandon them in disappointed droves.

jk

10

Tories, "We going to get a deal from the EU, that'll work for everyone."

Labour, "We oppose your deal because it's shit!!"

Tories,  "But you don't know what the deal is yet."

Labour, "No you're right, but neither do you."

GOTO 10

We're still in the loop.

So what was Labour's position? To deliver Brexit (just not Theresa's Brexit), have a 2nd referendum, or just not be blamed for whatever happened and be all things to all men to help get them some votes at a GE? 

You've also failed to answer how we were and are supposed to know when Labour were being honest or disingenuous when they say they want to deliver Brexit and when they say they want a second referendum.

Where's your evidence for this majority? The last bloke to resign from Labour reckons his constituents have increased in their wishes to leave.

I'd be surprised if it isn't true, because I'm pretty convinced there was a massive Labour protest vote against Cameron, but I've got no proof of that.

Polls and surveys, aren't much us considering there usefulness in predicting where Labour are and who their leader is. So where are we to get a valid figure from?

From the manifesto

"Labour respects the result of the referendum, and Britain is leaving the EU. But we will not support any Tory deal that would do lasting damage to jobs, rights and living standards."

Or,

Tories, "We're going to get a deal from the EU that will work for everyone"

Labour, "Here is the deal we would ask for, we spent more than half an hour on it, it's not just some unachievable 'tests', and here's why we believe it is good"

Labour, "And here's why our deal is good"

Labour, "And also for this reason. Why doesn't your deal exist yet Tories, you're wasting too much time"

Labour, "Our deal also has this going for it. Tories, your red lines don't work and the EU will never accept them. Ours do though"

Public/EU, "Tories, your deal is shit/doesn't work/doesn't exist/destroys the UK, but the Labour one looks good"

Tories, "Well maybe we'll have to make ours a bit more like Labour's one then"

Y'know, opposition.

Seems like May is still not so keen but she has put "delay Brexit" on the table...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47373996

So they don't support a second referendum now? Or is that bit a nudge-nudge to Remainers that the Leavers won't pick up on?

Tories, "We're not interested in your deal, and we're not even going to put it to the EU, stop interfering, you're destroying our bargaining position, just as you are asking us to take "no deal" off the table. We've created more job since the Bloody Queen died and look how good we are."

Haven't Labour come up with plenty of ideas, that the Tories have ignored, committing to a permanent customs union, for one.

You're right, what if the nasty Tories disagreed. Best not bother then.

And for two?

I don't hate him, or anyone for that matter. 

But Corbyn is out of his depth, as an mp; as party leader, as leader of the opposition. He isn't benefiting the Labour party, politics, the UK or even his supporters. 

Even this current move is really just more vague fence sitting, trying to be all things to all voters, without actually having a precise stance. It's no different to their Brexit policy of 'what is best for jobs '... which says bugger all really. 

You've still not answered my question: Which Labour policy is the lie?

1) That they want to deliver Brexit

2) That they will seek a second referendum having failed to secure a GE or win a no confidence vote in May

3) Both/neither of the above, because they either don't know what they're doing or are waiting to see how this lands, i.e. have no principled stance on the Brexit

There's still a massive ignorance effect at play and whilst I will campaign to remain if there is a vote and to re-join if we do exit, I'm very nervous about factors like a third of Leavers think "No Deal" means remaining in the EU. When you talk to them it really is gob smacking how little people know about what's going on. Also an ability not to join up dots by saying things like "The  Doom mongers promised all sorts of bad things, but see, nothing has happened." 

Most Leavers have absolutely zero idea about the havoc the referendum has already brought about on individuals' lives and jobs,  on national security and on global finances. They don't realise that we're not a big enough country tp boss everybody else around but we are big enough to bring about a global recession. 

We owe erope nothing. Drunken junker is and asshole and him and eu should be told to fo its all the remaners causing the trouble by not understanding the result of the refrendem

No hard Irish border.

No restriction on NHS staff.

There's a few more, but you can do your own homework from now on.

A bit like your attitude to Labour your expecting them to do all the work for May so she can deliver Brexit.

Read it and work it out for yourself, it's not that difficult.

Not exactly detail-rich is it?

Don't be a silly Billy.

Well, neither, obviously. They want leave on their terms; if not then a referendum. I don’t see your difficulty.

jcm

So in you're saying that 2), which was agreed at conference, is not what they're immediately pursuing. They're only pursuing that in the event that something that is purely the wish of the leadership fails. It's simply disregarding the wishes of the membership.

This is the motion, or the meat of it anyway.

"Should Parliament vote down a Tory Brexit deal or the talks end in no-deal, Conference believes this would constitute a loss of confidence in the Government. In these circumstances, the best outcome for the country is an immediate General Election that can sweep the Tories from power.

If we cannot get a general election Labour must support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote. If the Government is confident in negotiating a deal that working people, our economy and communities will benefit from they should not be afraid to put that deal to the public."

Full text here: https://labourlist.org/2018/09/labours-brexit-composite-motion-in-full/

I'm not sure what you think isn't in accordance with what was agreed.

The bit where Labour have a go at tabling their Brexit deal after the government's fails and before a potential second referendum. I suppose "all options" are useful words to use if you're going to just do what you want.

When we get our quasi-remain fumble, I'm still hoping for our cake and eat it.

Mayhap - but its put the EU in a position it does not want to be in. They were strong enough to force it, but the widely derided Davis was correct on the best timetable for the negotiations.

Love it, the spelling really adds to the parody!

About a third of British people, surveys have revealed, are not aware that the Earth revolves around the Sun. 

These people have votes.

What percentage of the population think the earth travels in a straight line within a curved space time. 

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/ 2015 Labour voters also voting in the referendum split 63/37% for remain, that is the majority I refer to.

Anecdotes are interesting but they aren't and don't sum to evidence.

I'm not quite understanding this. You think the leave vote last time was swelled by Labour voters wanting to give a hated remain leaning tory government/PM a kick in the balls (totally agree, very much my experience from campaigning). You also think that effect is now strengthened despite the fact we have a pro-leave tory government/PM? Nowt as queer as folk.

Why don't you trust polls? Even if you don't believe the absolute figures can you explain why you think the trends are also incorrect?

jk

I'll whinge. Everybody will whinge. This great country will become Whinge Britain  then, eventually, Whinge England . The Tories have finally gone and done it; "each man kills the thing he loves..." 

But polls often don't either

Yes

You also think that effect is now strengthened despite the fact we have a pro-leave tory government/PM? Nowt as queer as folk.

No, I suspect a good number have changed their minds, but I also wouldn't be surprised if there are other who've dug their heals in and more that have seen what's happening and don't like being ignored, or discounted.

Because I seen plenty that have been very wide of the mark, the original Brexit was supposed to be a shoe in for remaining, Corbyn's election to leader, Labours annihilation in the last election, the list goes on. They can be useful, but it depends how they've been carried out, and more to the point who's doing them.

The figures in the link I provided are from exit poll data. I don't doubt they're wrong, I just wonder how wrong you think they are and why? Do you believe there wasn't actually any 2015Labour-Remain correlation, that they're fully 26 points in error for some reason?

I think I'm misunderstanding what you meant initially. I don't see how this voting leave to kick a tory-remain government group is strengthened (increased in number) now we have a tory-leave government. I get the argument that some people will be too stubborn or proud to change their expressed opinion (though perhaps not their secret vote) but they are a subset of a subset. What I think we're saying here is if anything the 63/37 remain split in Labour voters actually overestimates how many Labour voters want to leave the EU because it lumps in kick-the-tories protest voters who we can safely assume hold a range of opinions on the merits of EU membership?

Again, I accept for unusual events and where things are changing fast the absolute result predictions derived from opinion polling are likely to be wrong, or more to they point they lie within reasonably small rarely reported error bands meaning some races remain realistically too close to call. What I don't understand is, where you have the same organisations commissioning and conducting polling over time, why you wouldn't trust the trends in that data to reflect trends in opinion? These prove particularly interesting where we have hard data points to peg those trending lines to, such as with the 2016 referendum for example.

jk

Most of them will not live another 50 years

Do they also back a third EU membership referendum after a second or is that only if the plebs vote the wrong way again? 

If the people didn't 't vote the way the ruling classes wanted, then the ruling classes over rule that result and demand another vote. 

The ruling classes should never have asked them a question that had no practical or constructive answer.

ha ha yes well done, keep trotting out the BS reason for not letting the people decide, you'll be telling me it's an affront to democracy next!

Since we now have some idea of what we are about to receive, don't you think we should have a say in whether this is what we really want or not. After all we know for certain now we're not getting £350m a week for the NHS don't we, or are you  telling us that's still on the cards?

What or who are the "ruling classes"?

we no longer simply send the local landowner / magistrate to parliament - we elect representatives - and the "plebs" are the ones that elect them.

It's an affront to democracy BTW and was it not " People", who voted in EU membership referendum? 

We knew back then what we would be getting for example - leaving the EU and that is what we will get. 

The ruling class are the establishment and the old and new money as well as the Labour aristocracy who overwhelmingly want to be members of the EU gravy train. 

If you wake up shortly after Brexit to find out that working conditions and job security have been made more 'flexible' and that environmental safeguards have been 'adjusted' to help make business more 'competitive', will you be:

a) delighted at getting exactly what you've been pushing for, or

b) outraged at being mis-sold a dream?

Great - so you'd be happy with EFTA membership then?

Pefa appears to live in West Virginia, so I guess it will have limited impact.

He (or she) actually appears to be a John Denver or Olivia Newton John fan.

I imagine (s)he's also a "stranger to blue water".

FactorXXX reckons Shona - could well be right.

Anti Semitic, far left, lexiteer. Certainly ticks a lot of boxes nut somehow I think not.

I think a large proportion of leave voters have such precarious financial and social problems already and that is why they thought it can't get any worse than this. 

No.

Problem is, it can.

I'm not anti-semitic that would be ridiculous. 

What you are highlighting is that referendums, at the scale of a large and diverse country are undemocratic, and do more harm than good.

They were wrong. Thankfully they may well get the chance to rethink.

It could but if the ruling class let the economy slip to extreme conditions then that would threaten their privileges so they won't let that happen. Not here. They will very happily inflict it on many other countries (see previous records) but not on old Blighty. 

They know well how far they can push the British working classes before they snap. 

My definition of democracy is not the same as yours but I will go along with yours for the sake of this debate.

The ref was won by a majority and therefor the ayes win. Simples. 

It is painful to watch people try to squirm around this fact because it doesn't suit them. It doesn't suit me either tbh but it's what your fellow Brits voted by a majority for. 

"Let". Heh heh heh.

I'm sure you are right there. The fact is that they are/were tragically wrong and, if they looked around most of the rest of the world or thought back to our own history, they'd soon realise that there are much worse things than living under the rule of law in a peaceful democracy that can afford to fund decent (yes, I'd like it to be better too) free education and heath care out of general taxation, along with a welfare safety net.

A hard Brexit won't bring a Socialist utopia - it will bring a broke Britain with less money to spend on any of those things. As well as being a disaster for (employment in) the automotive and aerospace industries, we'll be left taking whatever trade deal crumbs Prime Minister Mogg gets from President Trump, to the detriment of UK farming and the NHS.

Sorry did I mix you up with the person who said that there was a Jewish conspiracy to attack Jeremy Corbyn?

Swore it was you.

Good points and I think you maybe right with respect to some of these industries and other you didn't mention. 

There is a mentality though which seeks a freedom to make your own decisions that appears to supercede some material benefits.

I read somewhere of the overwhelming response of ordinary people in a former African colony when asked on the street if they would swap their current political set up and economic conditions for British rule again and more prosperity. To which each and every one sneered in a derogatory way that they would never swap their present independence even for more prosperity. 

No not a Jewish attempt to keep JC out of power because he said once in power he would recognise Palestine but a concerted Israeli effort to smear the LP to keep them out of power and Palestine unrecognised  

"some material benefits" makes it sound like a minor inconvenience. The pesky experts are pretty unanimous that a no-deal Brexit will be absolutely catastrophic and even a more controlled hard Brexit would be seriously economically damaging, particularly to lower paid workers outside London. Not easily dismissed as foregoing "some material benefits".

Given that the vast majority of people in most societies are coping, one way or another, in their existing environment, they have the luxury of turning down potentially increased prosperity for very sound ideological benefits (such as being able to vote for their own decision-makers), already knowing and being comfortable with the alternative status quo. It's a very different situation asking people to risk everything that makes their current lifestyle just about tolerable (job security, health cover, food and environmental safety, etc.) on the basis of a poorly defined ideological concept such as "independence" (when the UK is already independent by all reasonable measures.)

Wanting freedom and autonomy is fine and noble, IMHO. The trouble is that it is false choice here and I'm not convinced it was a major motivation for most Leave voters: not compared to hostility to immigration, that notorious £350m a week for the NHS and your earlier point about 'things could hardly be worse'.

There are no simple absolutes here. We are free to make national, sovereign decisions now - to a degree. Post Brexit, our autonomy will be severely limited by having to negotiate with much bigger economic and military powers that have no great love for the UK: Trump's isolationist "America First" USA; a hostile and increasingly assertive China; post break-up EU and an India very conscious of past colonialist ills. We've had an early insight this last week into how our future solo negotiations with the first two will go from the US publishing their trade negotiating principles and China putting us in our place by cancelling a visit by the Chancellor at the last minute because of plans to send a UK carrier to the Pacific, whilst similar visits by the French carrier, Charles de Gaulle, pass without comment.

No unfortunately it’s not “simples”

Jondo ?

This could change the process

- The government are defeated on Labour’s amendment 13 in the House of Lords. The amendment makes it an “objective” of the government during negotiations to pursue a free trade deal allowing the UK to stay “in a customs union” with the EU after Brexit.

- The government was defeated on amendment 12 which called for parliamentary approval of future trade agreements.

This means these ideas are now going back to the Commons.

It seems to be a mechanism to discuss another Brexit option with cross party input rather than one party input. It is forming a structure for the nature of the time used if  the departure date is extended. Hilary Ben said recently that is what the extension time should be used for. This Lord's result seems the means of achieving it.

It doesn't add in a 2nd referendum, though.

So to be clear, despite saying they would now, finally, back a second referendum, it's basically their option of absolute last resort. Such huge respect for their members.

Just seen John McDonnell on Andrew Marr  Show and he did confirm that a referendum  is a last resort option and not directly linked to any new Bexit option. But then he did add that any new option would possibly only get through Parliament with the support of MPs who would only link it to a referendum. 

So it is not a principle for them to hold a referendum per se on a detailed deal, in my view. 

That annoys me. I personally would like one and I don't think it relates to people just wanting to remain. I think it is a precedent for these sort of large "constitutional" changes {- defining being part of the Eu as a constitutional / sovereignty pact}

I think the details of May's polished turd are pretty well known to Parliament.

As a matter of principle it seems right to me that people have the chance to ratify the final deal whatever the details turn out to be. What is problematic in going back and checking people are happy with what they're going to get?

Their members or their constituencies?

Although Labour voters voted 65% to 35% (YouGov poll of 5,000), many of "Labour" constituencies voted to leave. I'm pretty convinced many Labour votes were a protest against Cameron, and not to leave the EU, but I have no proof of that other than talking to people I know.

I think Labour have been caught in the middle ever since the referendum, for my point of view unless they end up going back to the electorate, they will fall foul by upsetting one side or the other.

My worry is we end up somehow falling through the gap and dropping out no deal.

There's massive support for just crashing out by the people I work around, even though many of them might lose jobs because of it, it's very surreal.

There's that famous phrase about over estimating the intelligence of the public. In my view MPs need to show leadership on this and be blunt with people that if they really want to put themselves on the dole they can hand in their notice themselves because there's no way that the MP is going to vote for anything that's going to put their constituents on the dole.

FPTP means even solid Labour constituencies often have a high and stable fraction of conservative voters. It's not safe to assume there is a Labour voting majority for Brexit even in solidly Brexit voting Labour constituencies, there probably is in some but not others. In short it's a mess.

Labour were always going to disappoint one side or the other over Brexit. Their truly astonishing feat has been to so comprehensively alienate both!

Jk

From what I recall of all the polls there are no Labour constituencies with a majority of Labour voters in favour of leaving.

The fear is that enough Labour Leavers would stay at home at the next election that in marginal seats Labour would lose to the tories. It works the other way as well of course. Don't support Remain and you probably lose a lot more Labour voters, certainly this is the case in Scotland. That leaves Labour losing seats and probably the next GE whichever option it might go for and why taking the issue out of the hands of MPs and leaving it to the public may well be the least damaging option for Labour.

There is an interesting possibility that I think I detected in last night's defeat of May Deal. Her hard Brexiteers didn't bother supporting her [their votes would  not have affected the result anyway}. They were predicting defeat and an EU extension. Also they were predicting an Eu consent to extension, only if Uk can predict an outcome with certainty. That essentially means EU will grant extension on condition of referendum. There is also a prediction by all MPs of all persuasions that there is no overall majority for WTO rules Brexit, May Brexit, Corbyn Brexit, EU full membership. The only amendment that will eventually get through is "this house will hold a referendum with all 4 options on the ballot paper using a preferential counting system. "That is why the Hard Brexiteers are now standing firm on their views, and May on her views. They are predicting this procedure and now making a referendum happen which still incorporates their thinking.

Corbyn has to argue his thinking and depending on the number of votes on his amendments, even  if his idea doesn't get a majority, a large number of support will ensure his idea  will be on the ballot paper too.

There’s no point putting on the ballot a proposal (Corbyn’s) which we have no reason to think is remotely possible. I think we’ve all seen enough unicorns.

jcm

The Labour brexit is just a continuation of the unicorn dream, it shouldn't be indulged and I don't see it will be. Only clearly deliverable options should be put back to the public if and when it comes to that.

A referendum is probably the only route to a very hard exit that won't collapse in panic, if there is explicit public support when the hardship comes the harsh medicine (the right-wing coup and state asset firesale) will be easier to deliver. I'm not so sure the public will stand for it if it comes about by accident/failure or shenanigans.

The hardliners stand their first real chance at no-deal in a couple of weeks when the extension terms become known, they won't be easy to swallow and parliament may continue playing chicken with May and the EU to disastrous effect. Their best shot comes after we've squandered a short extension having ceded the right to withdraw a50 unilaterally to secure that extension. Then we genuinely are painted into an almost inescapable corner by three years of reckless poulticing and rabble rousing.

jk

snap!

Maybe a Hilary Benn idea of Norway style Brexit will be that "alternative" to May's. I suspect that this will be discussed and voted on in amendments, perhaps pitting Corbyn's Brexit view against Benn's views on a viable Bexit option.

It is not that Benn would vote for that, he is a Remainer, but the Referendum of 2016 does present the possibility that Brexit may win again and that Brexit option should be realistic- remebering Brexit may win again and we have to live with it . That was Benn's point recently. It is then up to electorate to decide if it is the best option. 

This is a process that also exposes and may well create new parties in British potiltics as well. Conservatives especially.

I think any party was, there's no option really since brexit cuts across party lines.

I was trying to point out the difference between voters, constituents and party members, they aren't they same thing.

To move on a bit, I think it is a rule of Parliament that the same deal cannot indefinitely be out to ameaningful vote and the Speaker can stop that. May is now talking to Labour politicians to factor in new aspects to her deal because she is now forced to by this ruling. Also all other options {eg Norway plus etc}  never got voted for on Thursday and so are off the menu.

So May's deal becomes Cross Party May/Labour Deal .

Eu demands referendum as assurance of a final solution.

So 2 options on  referendum ballot paper:    CrossPartyMay/Labour Deal and Full Membership of EU?????

I hope for a referendum, but still think it unlikely ( Labour dragging its heels over supporting one and apparently its not supported by a majority of MPs).

I agree with the basic premise of three referendum options, though it might well have to be an unmodified May deal as EU has repeatedly insisted no further changes, but think there should be a second preference on the form, thus there would be little need for tactical voting and there would be a final absolute majority. The referendum result might  well not be what Remainer's want however.

Bercow is in a very difficult position, I don't envy him this weekend.

I fail to see what Labour can add to May's withdrawal agreement, it's a treaty between the UK and the EU who say it's settled. I know it's fashionable to scoff at that but I believe them. All Labour can add is their backing and I can't see why they would until all other alternatives have been killed off. Nobody believes they have yet and I don't see how that changes really, it's a project built on delusional and sustained by delusion.

Jk

The May deal is the only one on the table that the EU will agree to that's also consistent with May's "red lines".  If we don't insist on May's red lines then I believe there are lots of other options the EU 27 would consider, including something pretty like the current Labour proposal.

To be honest, if you remove the Irish backstop, and agree in advance that the outcome of the next phase of negotiations will be a relationship at one end of the "spectrum of options" - the end which includes a UK/EU customs union and single market alignment making the backstop unnecessary - then there's not much difference between the May deal and Labour's proposal. The trouble is that the DUP/ERG "tail that wags the dog" would have nothing to do with that interpretation. They want no customs union AND no backstop - which means reneging on the Good Friday Agreement. 

One of the biggest omissions from both 2016 campaigns was not telling us that Brexit is incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement. I wonder if Major and Blair realised that when they were negotiating the Agreement. I suspect perhaps they did.

Martin

But that really isn't true, is it? It's only incompatible with the red-line destructive Brexit (i.e. no SM, no CU), not with the kind of pointless Brexit that leave campaigns were extolling the virtues of before the referendum, but that Leavers now swear blind wasn't what they voted for.