This particular talking point was kicked off and repeated frequently by the two newspapers who are owned by notorious tax avoiders - mail and telegraph. It then filtered down to the rest of the population.
I have watched Brexit avidly but comfortably from across the pond for the last two years. Every PMQs Corbyn has got up and, in the earlier days, ignored Brexit entirely, and now, he complains about lack of clarity and progress by the Government. While he and his party have never had any clear position on it, by design. The Tories' current position of hard Brexit or bust may be insane, but at least it is a position. The Lib Dems and SNP have one too. But not Labour.
So while this "talking point" may have been noticed by the Mail and Telegraph, it has been apparent to many of us for some time.
If Labour had kicked Corbyn out for, say, Starmer, and taken a clear soft Brexit or even Remain position, they could have long ago taken Government from the Tories, who have obviously badly screwed up everything in Brexit that it is possible to screw up.
On the other hand I am keeping my fingers crossed for the incredibly unlikely event of a unity government under Ken Clarke.
>While he and his party have never had any clear position on it, by design.
Their position is to negotiate another deal (if possible) and put it to a public vote, and put the existing deal to a vote if not. It's pretty clear albeit not so easy to understand for the perennially simple minded (for whom simple messages like "remain at all costs" and "we must execute the glorious brexit revolution on october 31st" appeal).
Unfortunately it isn't possible to make promises about what will be possible to negotiate with the EU.
>If Labour had kicked Corbyn out for, say, Starmer, and taken a clear soft Brexit or even Remain position, they could have long ago taken Government from the Tories
This is a theory that's quite popular in the London remainer bubble. Unfortunately London forgetting that the rest of the country exists is partly what got us into this mess, and it's not a winning strategy to keep doing it.
> Their position is to negotiate another deal (if possible) and put it to a public vote
That's not really much more information - revoke if the deal is not accepted? What do they actually want from the deal? What is the party's true desired outcome, being in the EU or not being in the EU?
It's very hard to form an accurate picture of Corbyn. I can't think of anything impressive he's done, and he's doing tremendously badly in the polls against a disaster government - but all the media coverage is so heavily slanted against him that I'm reluctant to form a negative opinion that's clearly being indoctrinated into me.
>That's not really much more information - revoke if the deal is not accepted?
If the deal is not accepted, then referendum on may's deal vs remain, and they will campaign to remain. As I said.
>What do they actually want from the deal?
Single market and customs union as per the manifesto.
>What is the party's true desired outcome, being in the EU or not being in the EU?
Soft brexit.
>It's very hard to form an accurate picture of Corbyn
It's really not, but it's really easy to hear on the news that "it's confusing" and form an opinion that "it's confusing" even if it's actually, y'know, not
Watching from the US, I agree that it is unreasonably being called confusing.
However, you are leaving out the part where Labor has said they will end freedom of movement and the EU has said they will not agree to single market but no freedom of movement. So while the Labor position seems clear, it doesn't seem realistic and it is also unpopular with a large portion of the party (as would be any brexit position).
Antisemitism is also a major issue in Labor (not just Labor), although I get the strong sense that fewer UK voters care about that than one might hope. It still seems likely that some people who might otherwise be strong supporters of Corbyn do not enthusiasitically support him because of this.
Corby also seems to have a bit of an authoritarian streak, although it is hard for me to tell for sure since UK politics seem to be structurally more publicly heavy handed from the party leadership than US politics. It seems to affect how he responds to various issues and might make them have more negative effect than they might otherwise.
Another huge issue seems to be the raging battle between the human friendly side vs the business friendly side of Labor that should really be two different parties but can't because of the voting system (same issue in the US). I would agree that much of the vitrol against Corbyn seems to be due to him being on the human friendly side.
As a Brit watching from France, I have been a bit perplexed how the antisemitism issues have kept being brought up in the news. It reminds me a lot of Hilary's email server issues. Yes, there is a problem that needs addressing but it feels like some group is working hard to keep it in the news.
Corbyn and the people around him do seem to have a hardline feel to them. He seems unpragamatic and has had to fight against the more centralist elements of his own party, as well as being character assassinated relentlessly in the press. It's very unfortunate timing given how desirable it would have been to have a strong opposition during the last 3 years.
> the part where Labor has said they will end freedom of movement
Yes, and it is still in their manifesto, live today. That is completely incompatible with the SM. In fact, that is precisely the issue that led TM to the WA that is currently on offer. Barnier's slides, linked above, show exactly what tier of EU association is on offer without FoM. Hint: it is a very, very low tier.
So the idea that JC will eliminate FoM and achieve any agreement substantially different than what TM already got is utter pixie dust.
> Antisemitism
The antisemitism stuff is utter hogwash, as in these days it is 95% of the time. Labour says, maybe Israel possibly isn't treating Palestinians in the most ideal way, and maybe annexing large swathes of territory and building settlements could be less than the greatest possible good. Result: they're antisemitic, want the destruction of Israel, and are basically Nazis. Just like in the US. Heaven help anyone who supports BDS. At bare minimum they won't be allowed to visit the free and democratic country of Israel.
I agree about the deal; I think brexit would look different under Labor but that would mostly be in terms of UK law and less the agreement with the EU. In terms of the future relationship it seems like Labor would aim for customs union plus whatever they can get (as you say not much, although maybe something due to closer regulatory alignment in some areas). The withdrawal agreement seems unlikely to change.
I support BDS but I don't agree that is the main issue with Labor. The main issue I see is bullying personal comments that MPs make to each other and sometimes in public (similar to sexism, also a major issue) and the particularly bad way Corbyn has responded to it. In general, even when BDS is involved it is often the particular language used that is the issue (and many people who support BDS are also antisemitic). Some people argue that BDS is inherently antisemitic, but I don't see that being much of the issue with Labor (or in the US).
The conventional wisdom is that the party is split between Remainers and Leavers, and that Corbyn himself is a closet Leaver who wants to leave so he can get out from under EU rules on state aid and bring about a glorious socialist revolution.
If this is remotely true, then Corbyn's personal aim is to help the Tories to a no-deal Brexit, or even a hard Brexit under the WA, but in such a way that Labour does not get the blame. However, much of the party wants a soft Brexit or Remain so he cannot be seen to be doing this.
Hence why he does not want, and never has wanted, to obtain Government until Brexit has been sorted (badly) by the Tories, and to come along and pick up the pieces. The entire Labour strategy has been to completely disassociate themselves from Brexit and this latest non-proposal is just a continuation of that.
> What is the party's true desired outcome, being in the EU or not being in the EU?
In short, they do not know and are split. The only thing they agree on is not being blamed for either Remain, soft Leave, or hard Leave. And whoever is in power when the final decision is made most certainly will get blame for any decision taken.
>The conventional wisdom is that the party is split between Remainers and Leavers, and that Corbyn himself is a closet Leaver who wants to leave so he can get out from under EU rules on state aid and bring about a glorious socialist revolution.
More of an absurd conspiracy theory than conventional wisdom, that.
>If this is remotely true, then Corbyn's personal aim is to help the Tories to a no-deal Brexit
Which I suppose he would achieve by passing a law that prohibits the tories from achieving a no deal brexit?
If he truly didn't want that he probably wouldn't have whipped for it.
Wouldn't be the first time his position was completely misrepresented though... and the motive for the various parts of the media owned by tax avoiders to do this is pretty obvious.
>he cannot be seen to be doing this.
How convenient for the conspiracy theory that he does and says the exact opposite of what he truly "wants" to do because he can't be "seen" to be doing it.
OK, I confess that no one really knows what is going on in the mind of Jeremy Corbyn, possibly not even the man himself. What is unquestioned fact is that the party is split on Brexit. Known facts about Corbyn are:
- He has opposed expansion of the EU throughout his political career
- After the referendum, he urged rules on state aid to be jettisoned on the grounds they would no longer be valid after Brexit anyway
- He is a self-identified socialist and is far left, even by Labour standards
My take is that overall, he is anti-EU but has been forced into a publicly neutral or pro-EU (during the referendum) position because that is the position of the majority of his party. What are his precise motivations for this, I do not know.
Thus I read his whipping against no-deal and his new stance on a referendum as more of a forced concession to his party, and as a tool to beat the Tories over the head with, than as something arising out of his personal convictions. Especially because of how long it took him to arrive at those positions. But no one can know for sure.
Keep in mind "no no-deal", which was JC's only position for so long, is not really a position, as pjc50 pointed out. This was made painfully obvious during the series of indicative votes during the spring.
>OK, I confess that no one really knows what is going on in the mind of Jeremy Corbyn, possibly not even the man himself.
It's fairly plain from the people who listen to his words and watch his actions but I can imagine it would be fairly confusing understanding him through the UK media filter. That is entirely deliberate.
>What is unquestioned fact is that the party is split on Brexit.
Depends what you mean by "split". If you mean they actually split - no (bar the tinge lot) - the tory party DID split themselves on brexit though, and they will do again very soon.
If you mean that there are differences of opinion, yes. Like every party they have that. Yet they still have an agreed policy.
>He has opposed expansion of the EU throughout his political career
Note the part that says "Jeremy Corbyn generally voted for more EU integration". If you're wondering who gave you the impression that the exact opposite of the truth was true, the answer is likely "tax avoiders".
Note that the Lisbon treaty was about tax avoidance... not integration.
>He is a self-identified socialist and is far left, even by Labour standards
By European or UK historic standards he is pretty mild. The fact that the overton window has shifted in this country does not make him extreme.
If you divorce personality and ask people about policies... most people agree with Labour's. You'll find that the country is actually "far left". It's why a lot of media tries to avoid talking about his policies and focus on scandal, personality and lies.
>My take is that overall, he is anti-EU
Of course, that's the take that most people who listen to the media and don't look at the voting records take.
>Thus I read his whipping against no-deal and his new stance on a referendum as more of a forced concession to his party, and as a tool to beat the Tories over the head with, than as something arising out of his personal convictions. Especially because of how long it took him to arrive at those positions
He changed this positions largely because circumstances changed. Our relationship with the EU has changed and our negotiating position has changed and sensible parties react to that.
I do wonder why only Labour gets criticized this when every other party has also changed their positions - multiple times.
> "Jeremy Corbyn generally voted for more EU integration". If you're wondering who gave you the impression that the exact opposite of the truth was true
To get a neutral source on this before I posted my last post, I went to Wikipedia, where it says JC voted against:
- The 1975 EC referendum
- Maastrict treaty
- Lisbon treaty
In addition to these very important votes, there are an awful lot of absences and no votes on the link you sent. I am really not sure how that site drew the conclusion it did. If it was simply by tallying votes without weighing their importance, that is a bad way to do it.
I am well aware British media is awful, possibly even worse than US media, so I don't really get most of my information from there. When I do read it, I take it with a huge grain of salt. Most of my opinions about Corbyn himself come from watching him in PMQs and in Parliament debates.
> If you divorce personality and ask people about policies... most people agree with Labour's
Entirely possible and I take no issue with any of Labour's positions except on Brexit. If Brexit weren't happening and I were a UK citizen, I could easily see myself voting Labour. As it is, I would probably vote LD.
As for Corbyn, I was merely saying he was on the left side even within his own party in the current day. You are not wrong about the Overton window but it does not change this reality.
The party hasn't split in the manner of the SDP's creation, but the views are split in the sense that the majority of MP's are remain, but the majority of membership appear to be heavily toward leave.
The whole official stance on Brexit is a clusterfuck, and while "negotiate another deal, referendum and campaign on one side depending on negotiation" may be an attempt to sound pragmatic, it hardly translates into an election winning policy or slogan. Quite apart from which the available wiggle room for negotiating a different deal has been very clearly laid out by the EU from the start. That hasn't changed. That can't change without UK compromise. He isn't getting his supposed left-Brexit.
There we get to the sticking point: The MP's would mostly like to remain, Corbyn speaks of the systemic problems of the EU and the UK would have more options out. Allegedly he was on the remain campaign for the referendum, yet did nothing. He disappeared, and was notable by his absence and silence. Is it any wonder no one is clear? Including those who might vote for him? Including his own MP's?
In historic terms he's not the most left they have been, but he's the furthest left since Foot. He shares some views with Kinnock and probably occupies a place in the political spectrum somewhere between the two. He may not be an old school sixties or seventies Labour Militant Tendency socialist, but he leans old-school left. To anyone of the Blair era, he's unrecognisable. Though that is more that Blairite Labour was Tory-Lite.
Still, despite the awful stance on Brexit, their election policies resonated with the electorate, and were a chance to get away from the dogmatic, idea-free Tory austerity. With a sensible, temporary stance on remain they could easily have been running the country by now. Dogma comes first.
Then politicians ask why people are sick of politics and politicians, and vote for the lunatic options.
> Their position is to negotiate another deal (if possible) and put it to a public vote, and put the existing deal to a vote if not.
Yes, but even this very unclear proposition is a recent invention (last 3 months IIRC). Before that they had nothing. For 2+ years.
> Unfortunately it isn't possible to make promises about what will be possible to negotiate with the EU.
True enough -- to a point. But he could say what the general outline of the UK's goals in the negotiations will be and how the strategy/objectives/redlines will differ from TM's and Boris's.
At this point without specifics, we can all be forgiven for assuming it is more unicorn horns and pixie dust. Does "I'm going to go to Brussels and get a deal, a great deal" sound at all familiar by now? I am surprised anyone buys it at this point.
He cannot say for certain how the EU will respond to any proposal, although honestly Barnier has been crystal clear about what is required of the UK and what the options are.
And does Corbyn even know the difference between the Single Market and Customs Union? I have seen no indication that he does.
> Unfortunately London forgetting that the rest of the country exists
Going for a soft Brexit would be a compromise between the rural areas of England and Wales, who want to leave the EU entirely at any cost, and Scotland and NI (and Gibraltar), who want to remain. I would say it is the strategy that takes most into account the rest of the country in its entirety.
Whether or not such a stance would be to Labour's electoral advantage is anyone's guess. They have apparently concluded it would not be.
In fact the EU has been essentially forcing England to listen to the rest of the country -- NI, specificially. Which is quite ironic.
This is simply not true. They made it perfectly clear that they wanted a deal with the customs union and single market.
>True enough -- to a point. But he could say what the general outline of the UK's goals in the negotiations will be and how the strategy/objectives/redlines will differ from TM's and Boris's.
Could and did. The media has done a grand job of obfuscation about this despite the fact that it was right there in the manifesto.
>He cannot say for certain how the EU will respond to any proposal, although honestly Barnier has been crystal clear about what is required of the UK and what the options are.
What Barnier has been less clear about is whether they are prepared to negotiate a new deal at all after May's deal. The EU actually has flip flopped on that issue and its mind probably still isn't made up even now.
>And does Corbyn even know the difference between the Single Market and Customs Union? I have seen no indication that he does.
I suppose you have seen an indication that he doesn't?
> They made it perfectly clear that they wanted a deal with the customs union and single market.
I see. How does this square with whipping against the SM and CU in 2017? How is declaring an intention to "keep the benefits" of SM and CU without being in them anything but unicorns in light of Barnier's very clear explanations on the matter?
I am trying to find a clear timeline of Labour's ever-changing positions on these matters. [1] is the best I've found so far. What I can say is that after watching PMQs almost every week I found his position anything but clear.
But possibly I can agree with you so far as to say that it is not so much that Labour has had NO position whatsoever, as that their position has changed every 3-6 months and none of those positions were ever very fleshed out with detail.
> What Barnier has been less clear about is whether they are prepared to negotiate a new deal at all after May's deal. The EU actually has flip flopped on that issue and its mind probably still isn't made up even now.
I agree with this. In my reading, Barnier wants the WA to be accepted as is if possible, but would probably reopen negotiations if Labour took power. But it is indeed unclear.
> I suppose you have seen an indication that he doesn't?
Yes, for the longest time he was talking about a CU (THE CU? or something else, unclear...) and not mentioning the SM. Numerous public statements which I can find if requested. As in, for example, Clarke's proposal during indicative votes. This is nonsensical because a CU without the SM does virtually nothing.
We have a divided country, and the only party capable of bridging the gap is Labour. The Tories position is as divisive and unhelpful as the Lib Dem's.
I'm not a particular Corbyn fan, but I'd like an intact nation at the end of this.
If he keeps sitting on that fence, his bum's going to be full of splinters...