The Brexit process

[bimble]

What's he saying all this for then, if it is an impossibility or likely all round disaster for him to actually act on it, is it to please the labour membership ? Confused.

 

[teqniq]

Farage continues to shit stir for all he's worth.

An angry Nigel Farage is urging Brexiters to 'get even' after legal judgment

 

[andysays]

Which kind of implies that he's under the impression that Labour (as a unified Parliamentary party!) could effect such an outcome.

In typical Guardian stylee, the headline exaggerates/distorts what the story below it actually says

The opposition will join forces with Conservative remain supporters and other parties to block article 50 if the prime minister does not guarantee access to the single market, the Labour leader told the Sunday Mirror.

I'm not a Corbyn/Labour supporter, but even if the idea that they can influence the negotiating terms in this way is a bit fanciful, the logic of Corbyn's position surely suggests he trys something along these lines.

The only other realistic option would be to admit that he and the party he leads are an impotent irrelevance on this issue at this point, and however true this might be, he's hardly likely to come out and say it.

 

[butchersapron]

Farage continues to shit stir for all he's worth.

An angry Nigel Farage is urging Brexiters to 'get even' after legal judgment

ugh:

"This is about creating legal certainty and actually, everyone in the country should be my biggest fan because I've used my own money and a few of us we have used our own money to create legal certainty for Mrs May to move ahead."

 

[bimble]

If 'guaranteed access to the single market' means that free movement has to continue then it kind of looks like Corbyn's just done the Tory party a massive favour, positioning himself so as to draw all the ire of people who voted out because of their feelings about immigration control.
eg)

 

[WouldBe]

Which kind of implies that he's under the impression that Labour (as a unified Parliamentary party!) could effect such an outcome.

I think that as the population have spoken, that any MP that votes against their constituents wishes should be voted out at the next general election.

 

[Raheem]

I'm not a Corbyn/Labour supporter, but even if the idea that they can influence the negotiating terms in this way is a bit fanciful, the logic of Corbyn's position surely suggests he trys something along these lines.

I'm not sure why you think this is fanciful. If Labour or another party were to propose an amendment forcing the government to prioritise membership of the single market in negotiations, is seems like simple HoC maths that it would probably pass. It would also cause big internal problems for the Tories. Corbyn doesn't get the full force of the blame if May is forced to pull her punches over it - she would have let it happen.

 

[stethoscope]

Looks like whatever Corbyn was mooting has been quashed anyway...

Labour will not block the triggering of article 50, the formal process for leaving the European Union, and will instead seek to put pressure on Theresa May to bring more detailed negotiating terms to the House of Commons, Jeremy Corbyn’s allies have said.

The Labour leader appeared to suggest in an interview with the Sunday Mirror that his party would be prepared to vote against the government invoking article 50 unless Theresa May signed up to his Brexit “red lines”, including pressing for full access to the EU single market and safeguarding workers’ rights.

“These must be the basis of the negotiations – and it doesn’t necessarily cause a delay. The court has thrown a big spanner in the works by saying parliament must be consulted,” he told the Mirror.

“We accept the result of the referendum. We are not challenging the referendum. We are not calling for a second referendum. We’re calling for market access for British industry to Europe.”

The Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats are thought to be willing to vote down any legislation on article 50 unless they receive reassurances, adding to Corbyn’s tough language that suggests the government could be defeated, triggering an early election – something Corbyn said he would welcome. “It would give us the chance to put before the British people an alternative economic strategy for this country,” he told the Mirror.

Senior Labour sources insisted the Mirror interview had overstated his words, as he had only intended to reiterate Labour’s previously agreed position on Brexit. “We have always been clear that we will not block article 50. What we are talking about is the government bringing its negotiating terms to parliament. We will maintain that clear distinction,” the source said.

 

[andysays]

I'm not sure why you think this is fanciful. If Labour or another party were to propose an amendment forcing the government to prioritise membership of the single market in negotiations, is seems like simple HoC maths that it would probably pass. It would also cause big internal problems for the Tories. Corbyn doesn't get the full force of the blame if May is forced to pull her punches over it - she would have let it happen.

I didn't say it was fanciful, I said even if the idea that they can influence the negotiating terms in this way is a bit fanciful, but if you think it seems like simple HoC maths that a Labour (or any) amendment of the type you propose would probably pass, I for one would be interested to see some argument and some figures to back that up.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If 'guaranteed access to the single market' means that free movement has to continue then it kind of looks like Corbyn's just done the Tory party a massive favour, positioning himself so as to draw all the ire of people who voted out because of their feelings about immigration control.
eg) View attachment 95047

This is the biggest danger at the moment, imo, that the UKIP version of what 'brexit means brexit' means will drive negotiations - anything that doesn't end free movement of people and goods across the EU (particularly people) is not true brexit. Neither of these things was on the ballot paper. Neither is a necessary condition of leaving the EU. One or other is probably something a majority of brexit voters do want, but that doesn't make it a majority opinion among everyone.

 

[Anju]

The term liberalism doesn't appear in the document and the only time 'globalisation' is used is on an into of p18 and in reference titles.

This is the first bullet point in the summary of recommendations
So a general acceptance of spending cuts

Sorry, wrong doc. I have looked this morning but can't find the one I referred to.

 

[Anju]

Which is all very well and good if you believe that the institutions claiming to be running things are actually doing that.

True, but if you look at how easily Nissan managed to get strong enough assurances from the government on their post brexit position to OK new investment it looks like we will be more susceptible to being manipulated by corporations.

 

[Pickman's model]

True, but if you look at how easily Nissan managed to get strong enough assurances from the government on their post brexit position to OK new investment it looks like we will be more susceptible to being manipulated by corporations.

more susceptible than...

 

[Anju]

more susceptible than...

Than the EU. Two meetings over a couple of weeks was all it took for Nissan to get assurances that they would not suffer any additional costs or admin. Seems like a good indication of how the brexit process will be handled. Politicians and business making deals on how to divide what will almost inevitably be a smaller pie.

 

[Raheem]

Than the EU. Two meetings over a couple of weeks was all it took for Nissan to get assurances that they would not suffer any additional costs or admin. Seems like a good indication of how the brexit process will be handled. Politicians and business making deals on how to divide what will almost inevitably be a smaller pie.

I wouldn't read too much into the Nissan deal without knowing what it is they got. It might have been our balls on a plate for all eternity. But they might not have been serious about upping sticks. It wouldn't really have made sense pre-Brexit. In which case, they were just being opportunistic, and may have settled for much less.

Your main point is right in principle, though. The main effect of Brexit would be to make the UK significantly less able to resist the demands of capital.

 

[pocketscience]

Your main point is right in principle, though. The main effect of Brexit would be to make the UK significantly less able to resist the demands of capital.

Like Greece is...?

 

[Pickman's model]

Than the EU. Two meetings over a couple of weeks was all it took for Nissan to get assurances that they would not suffer any additional costs or admin. Seems like a good indication of how the brexit process will be handled. Politicians and business making deals on how to divide what will almost inevitably be a smaller pie.

no, do you mean there has been an increase in the susceptibility of the government to corporations?

 

[Raheem]

Like Greece is...?

No, like Greece would be, not that the two situations are all that comparable.

 

[brogdale]

labour are fucked whatever they do though. to try and block brexit would leave them wide open for a UKIP assault in their heartlands. If they support brexit half of their mps, most of their membership and big chunk of their voters will go ape. Which leaves trying to ride both horses at once as the only politically viable option - but its still a really shit option.

An option effected through the leader and deputy leader offering diametrically opposed interpretations of the party's policy. Kind of genius.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

no, do you mean there has been an increase in the susceptibility of the government to corporations?

As the current government is generally pro-corporate this is hard to judge. However I'd say that brexit, or the threat thereof, definitely means that this government is _freer_ to be susceptible.

 

[brogdale]

As the current government is generally pro-corporate this is hard to judge. However I'd say that brexit, or the threat thereof, definitely means that this government is _freer_ to be susceptible.

I think that's the reasoning behind global capital's assault on supra-national groupings; they (the globalised, financialised corporations) can exert their hegemony over 'sovereign' nation states without the inconvenience or impediment arising from another, bigger level of governance. It isn't for no reason that Trump keeps on about Brexit; it's all of a piece with his anti-NAFTA narrative. Capital wants to fully let rip now and the corporatists have seen their moment.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I think that's the reasoning behind global capital's assault on supra-national groupings; they (the globalised, financialised corporations) can exert their hegemony over 'sovereign' nation states without the inconvenience or impediment arising from another, bigger level of governance. It isn't for no reason that Trump keeps on about Brexit; it's all of a piece with his anti-NAFTA narrative. Capital wants to fully let rip now.

It reflects the assault on unions on a more micro scale. Collective bargaining is dangerous when it's your opponents doing it. Many aspects of the EU have proved to be frustrating to the interests of both local and multinational capitalists, despite the overall "pro-business" thrust.

 

[bimble]

This is the biggest danger at the moment, imo, that the UKIP version of what 'brexit means brexit' means will drive negotiations - anything that doesn't end free movement of people and goods across the EU (particularly people) is not true brexit. Neither of these things was on the ballot paper. Neither is a necessary condition of leaving the EU. One or other is probably something a majority of brexit voters do want, but that doesn't make it a majority opinion among everyone.

Yep. That's the talk that May is talking, claiming that putting an end to free movement is the number one priority, presumably because that's what she thinks leave voters most want to hear.

"The prime minister also made clear that she would not compromise over the issue of immigration, which she saw as a red line when it came to her “end goals” in Brexit negotiations.
“I think the people spoke on 23 June and I think it was an important aspect that underpinned people’s approach to that was a concern they had about control of movement of people from the EU into the UK. I believe it is important for the UK government to deliver on that.”
Theresa May defends newspapers over attacks on article 50 judges

 

[FridgeMagnet]

May has had a distinct racist agenda for a while, way before the referendum.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It reflects the assault on unions on a more micro scale. Collective bargaining is dangerous when it's your opponents doing it. Many aspects of the EU have proved to be frustrating to the interests of both local and multinational capitalists, despite the overall "pro-business" thrust.

The time it takes for the EU to make trade deals is surely an example of that. The boast of Johnson, Fox, Davis and others that the UK will be able to strike deals quickly is not a good thing. It's a very dangerous and bad thing.

 

[Anju]

no, do you mean there has been an increase in the susceptibility of the government to corporations?

Yes and have more opportunities to make mutually beneficial deals if not subject to EU law / scrutiny.

 

[Raheem]

I think that's the reasoning behind global capital's assault on supra-national groupings; they (the globalised, financialised corporations) can exert their hegemony over 'sovereign' nation states without the inconvenience or impediment arising from another, bigger level of governance. It isn't for no reason that Trump keeps on about Brexit; it's all of a piece with his anti-NAFTA narrative. Capital wants to fully let rip now and the corporatists have seen their moment.

More-or-less agree, except capital doesn't have "reasoning". What you're talking about is the logic of some wealthy individuals.

 

[03gills]

I speak to people all over the world as part of my job and I am sick and tired of having to explain that not everyone in Britain is a fucking idiot, quite the reverse. We have had decades of anti-European propaganda from an establishment looking for a scapegoat to cover their own failing and yet 48% voted the right way.

Oh, fuck off.

 

[salem]

This is the biggest danger at the moment, imo, that the UKIP version of what 'brexit means brexit' means will drive negotiations - anything that doesn't end free movement of people and goods across the EU (particularly people) is not true brexit. Neither of these things was on the ballot paper. Neither is a necessary condition of leaving the EU. One or other is probably something a majority of brexit voters do want, but that doesn't make it a majority opinion among everyone.

This x 100. It's scary how quickly 'hard brexit' has become the face of negotiations when brexit won by a fairly small margin.

You'd only need a small number of those who voted leave (3-4%) to want to remain in the single market and the whole mandate for 'hard brexit' is on it's arse. It just has no credibility beyond the fact that some members of the 'leave' camp will whinge forever more if they don't get their closed borders at any cost.

 

[gosub]

This x 100. It's scary how quickly 'hard brexit' has become the face of negotiations when brexit won by a fairly small margin.

You'd only need a small number of those who voted leave (3-4%) to want to remain in the single market and the whole mandate for 'hard brexit' is on it's arse. It just has no credibility beyond the fact that some members of the 'leave' camp will whinge forever more if they don't get their closed borders at any cost.

Can you bolt on thems that prioritised things like democratic accountability, who look on aghast whilst an unelected PM thinks that would unacceptably tie her hands, and Farage calls for 100,000 to march on London to back her up. Ta.