It appears Corbyn and his acolytes managed to hold the line yesterday in the NEC meeting. Essentially, they restated the earlier conference decision of trying to get a Labour designed Brexit, including a permanent customs union and close regulatory alignment, or short of that a general election and failing that the option of a confirmatory vote. It has all the hallmarks of a fudge designed to get the party intact through the next few weeks of election campaigning.
Some are seeing it as a victory for Len McCluskey, head of the Unite union, who later tweeted:
Labour's Barry Gardiner was on Channel 4 last night also trying to explain his party's position in a similar fashion. It is apparently to 'try and deliver Brexit' but not damage people's livelihoods. This is the same oxymoron.
People's livelihoods are being damaged now. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) have warned that Brexit , especially a no-deal type, will damage the car industry which is already suffering a severe drop in sales (HERE), with output declining for ten months in a row and potentially falling to a million units by 2021, about half what was expected in 2016.
Yesterday's NEC meeting was certainly a defeat for the pro-EU faction of the Labour party, that is to say about 70-80% of the membership and MPs. Still you don't become the head of Unite for nothing do you? It's one man one vote in Labour - but what a vote it is, it's the only one that matters apparently.
Labour need to be very careful not to become entangled in the Brexit car crash. They do not want their fingerprints on the steering wheel when the inquiry begins its work.
Meanwhile back at the cabinet office where talks were continuing yesterday between Labour and the government, it appears the government might be about to move some red lines. In cabinet, Gove apparently tried to smooth the way by telling colleagues an 'unpalatable' outcome was better than a 'disastrous' one, at least this is what The Telegraph are reporting this morning (HERE). I don't actually remember that choice being offered in 2016 - perhaps I missed that particular bus. Wherever are those sunlit uplands?
The Telegraph claim that Mrs May is preparing to capitulate to Labour demands for a permanent customs union and close regulatory alignment. It's a case of any port in a storm for her. Brexiteers will see things differently I think. They would probably remain at sea in a hurricane. If Rees-Mogg thought her deal was the equivalent of a slave state temporarily, if and when the backstop came into force, he is hardly likely to believe a permanent customs union will make it acceptable. In those circumstances one can easily imagine a few Tory MPs shipping over to Farage's Brexit party. Steve Baker, on the provisional wing of the ERG, would probably lead them
Downing Street is denying any changes are afoot but I suspect there is some truth in it. Mrs May is desperate to avoid the European elections taking place at almost any cost.
If indeed some sort of fudged deal is eventually agreed, with the loss of a few cabinet ministers and shadow ministers, it will never be a lasting settlement that's for sure. We would simply be following EU rules and regulations with no influence over them. Corbyn is on record saying that UK would want to have some sort of say in EU trade negotiations which I don't think for a second the EU will conceded, so the deal may be rejected by Brussels anyway.
The Telegraph continues:-
"Sources said Mr Gove argued that if a Withdrawal Agreement Bill - the legislation needed to achieve Brexit with a deal - contained a promise to deliver the 'benefits of a customs union' it would allow a Tory Government to pursue an independent trade policy while leaving a future Labour government room to pursue a full customs union".
How this would work is a mystery to me. Being in a full customs union and pursuing an independent trade policy? If a Conservative government started talks on a trade deal, I imagine the first question asked by our putative trade partner will be: what happens to the deal if a Labour government ever comes to power and rejoins the EU customs union? Presumably, the answer is it gets thrown in the waste bin. I bet the EU will be fascinated to know how the UK will negotiate trade deals, cutting tariffs for example, while enjoying the benefits of the EU customs union.
I think I once posted that Labour could spike Liam Fox's guns at the Department of Trade by confirming they would join a customs union if and when they came to office - as they probably will at some future date. This would absolutely kaibosh any potential trade deals. Nobody is going to waste years discussing the excruciating details of an agreement that may never come into force.
Here we are after three wasted, fractious years still going round in circles trying to find a way out of the Brexit insanity.
I hear leave voters, and even some remainers, keep saying we have to go through with leaving the EU because 'it's democracy 'innit?'. This is not only to misunderstand Brexit but also democracy itself. To begin with nobody actually knows what Brexit means anyway, even after two years of hard negotiations our finished relationship is as much a mystery now as it was in June 2016.
Democracy is often described as government of the people, for the people, by the people. It must be about delivering what the majority of the people want or it's nothing. Yet the deal, if it goes through at all, will be cooked up by a small group from the two main parties. It will probably be based on the WA and a slightly revised political declaration. Polling shows consistently this is not popular, with no more than about a quarter of the populace believing it's acceptable. Most people, if they don't realise it already, will come to see the deal as worse than the one we have now. Dominic Raab, the former Brexit secretary has said as much in clear terms and so has Jacob Rees-Mogg.
There is clear evidence of a change in the public mood on Brexit.
Is it really democratic to go ahead in those circumstances without a confirming vote? I don't think it is.
Some are seeing it as a victory for Len McCluskey, head of the Unite union, who later tweeted:
If this is what he thinks he is just as deluded as Boris Johnson and the Brexiteers. Respecting the result of the referendum and defending jobs and standards is an oxymoron. You simply cannot do it. We can have one or the other, not both. You feel like shouting at McCluskey that this is the problem the government and parliament have been trying to resolve for nearly three years. For Heaven's sake!Good meeting today with Labour MPs from Leave seats who want result respected but jobs and standards defended. Normally I hear from Remain MPs so good to get full picture. Confirms @jeremycorbyn’s approach is the one to unite the country.— Len McCluskey (@LenMcCluskey) April 30, 2019
Labour's Barry Gardiner was on Channel 4 last night also trying to explain his party's position in a similar fashion. It is apparently to 'try and deliver Brexit' but not damage people's livelihoods. This is the same oxymoron.
People's livelihoods are being damaged now. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) have warned that Brexit , especially a no-deal type, will damage the car industry which is already suffering a severe drop in sales (HERE), with output declining for ten months in a row and potentially falling to a million units by 2021, about half what was expected in 2016.
Yesterday's NEC meeting was certainly a defeat for the pro-EU faction of the Labour party, that is to say about 70-80% of the membership and MPs. Still you don't become the head of Unite for nothing do you? It's one man one vote in Labour - but what a vote it is, it's the only one that matters apparently.
Labour need to be very careful not to become entangled in the Brexit car crash. They do not want their fingerprints on the steering wheel when the inquiry begins its work.
Meanwhile back at the cabinet office where talks were continuing yesterday between Labour and the government, it appears the government might be about to move some red lines. In cabinet, Gove apparently tried to smooth the way by telling colleagues an 'unpalatable' outcome was better than a 'disastrous' one, at least this is what The Telegraph are reporting this morning (HERE). I don't actually remember that choice being offered in 2016 - perhaps I missed that particular bus. Wherever are those sunlit uplands?
The Telegraph claim that Mrs May is preparing to capitulate to Labour demands for a permanent customs union and close regulatory alignment. It's a case of any port in a storm for her. Brexiteers will see things differently I think. They would probably remain at sea in a hurricane. If Rees-Mogg thought her deal was the equivalent of a slave state temporarily, if and when the backstop came into force, he is hardly likely to believe a permanent customs union will make it acceptable. In those circumstances one can easily imagine a few Tory MPs shipping over to Farage's Brexit party. Steve Baker, on the provisional wing of the ERG, would probably lead them
Downing Street is denying any changes are afoot but I suspect there is some truth in it. Mrs May is desperate to avoid the European elections taking place at almost any cost.
If indeed some sort of fudged deal is eventually agreed, with the loss of a few cabinet ministers and shadow ministers, it will never be a lasting settlement that's for sure. We would simply be following EU rules and regulations with no influence over them. Corbyn is on record saying that UK would want to have some sort of say in EU trade negotiations which I don't think for a second the EU will conceded, so the deal may be rejected by Brussels anyway.
The Telegraph continues:-
"Sources said Mr Gove argued that if a Withdrawal Agreement Bill - the legislation needed to achieve Brexit with a deal - contained a promise to deliver the 'benefits of a customs union' it would allow a Tory Government to pursue an independent trade policy while leaving a future Labour government room to pursue a full customs union".
How this would work is a mystery to me. Being in a full customs union and pursuing an independent trade policy? If a Conservative government started talks on a trade deal, I imagine the first question asked by our putative trade partner will be: what happens to the deal if a Labour government ever comes to power and rejoins the EU customs union? Presumably, the answer is it gets thrown in the waste bin. I bet the EU will be fascinated to know how the UK will negotiate trade deals, cutting tariffs for example, while enjoying the benefits of the EU customs union.
I think I once posted that Labour could spike Liam Fox's guns at the Department of Trade by confirming they would join a customs union if and when they came to office - as they probably will at some future date. This would absolutely kaibosh any potential trade deals. Nobody is going to waste years discussing the excruciating details of an agreement that may never come into force.
Here we are after three wasted, fractious years still going round in circles trying to find a way out of the Brexit insanity.
I hear leave voters, and even some remainers, keep saying we have to go through with leaving the EU because 'it's democracy 'innit?'. This is not only to misunderstand Brexit but also democracy itself. To begin with nobody actually knows what Brexit means anyway, even after two years of hard negotiations our finished relationship is as much a mystery now as it was in June 2016.
Democracy is often described as government of the people, for the people, by the people. It must be about delivering what the majority of the people want or it's nothing. Yet the deal, if it goes through at all, will be cooked up by a small group from the two main parties. It will probably be based on the WA and a slightly revised political declaration. Polling shows consistently this is not popular, with no more than about a quarter of the populace believing it's acceptable. Most people, if they don't realise it already, will come to see the deal as worse than the one we have now. Dominic Raab, the former Brexit secretary has said as much in clear terms and so has Jacob Rees-Mogg.
There is clear evidence of a change in the public mood on Brexit.
Is it really democratic to go ahead in those circumstances without a confirming vote? I don't think it is.
