> 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.
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.