United Kingdom Polling

141 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

The 17 most recent polls show the Conservatives leading and Labour wants an election. Not any more they do.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Labour is trailing because its MPs care more about forcing their current leader out and replacing him with a Tory-which is what replacing Corbyn with a "Labour moderate" means, as even nicky would probably have to admit were nicky operating out of any position remotely close to honesty-than it does about getting Boris Johnson out of power and undoing everything the Tories have done since 2010.

Corbyn's done nothing to deserve unpopularity and neither he nor his supporters ever deserved to be falsely accused of a vile prejudice.  And the truth is that NO possible alternative to Corbyn as leader would have handled the EU issue the way the Remain obsessives demanded of Corbyn.

NorthReport

What happened to all the Labour supporters that a few short weeks ago were so hung-ho on having an election?

nicky

Wrong again Ken.

Corbyn has done everything to deserve his breathtaking level of unpopularity.

-incoherence on Brexit

- promoting his own little sect within the Labour Party tothe exclusion of others

- tolerating ant-semitism among his supporters

- lack of political presence and competence

- and, worst of all, pretending (as you endlessly do) that he bears no responsibility for his own unpopularity

it is a great pity that the next election is Labour’s for the taking but Johnson may well be re-elected because the great majority of voters regard Corbyn as ridiculous.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It's been proved over and over that he never tolerated antisemitism among his supporters.  Stop lying about that.  Corbyn and his supporters have only been accused of antisemitism because they want the injustices the Israeli government inflicts on Palestinians to come to an end.  It is never antisemitism to want such a thing.  Virtually every individual accusation of antisemitism has been proven false.

And you know that a party that is split on an issue like Brexit cannot take an all-out Remain position without forever losing the votes of everyone within the party who supports Leave.

It's enough that Corbyn has vowed a second referendum if elected.  A second referendum will never be approved in the current parliament and there can't be a Left case for a second referendum anyway.

And Corbyn has a strong political presence-he is seen as a person who speaks passionately and eloquently against greed, war, and injustice, and who believes that the views of the young should matter in politics as much as the views of the bitter, middle-aged and cynical.

The "sect" Corbyn supports is the paid membership and supportership of the Labour Party-the overwhelming majority of which supported and continues to support a clear break with Blair's policies in every particular.  At some point you at least need to accept that, adn to accept that there would be no popular support for Labour if it went back to Blair's all-but-Tory policies.

The people of the Labour Party want the party to be socialist.  It's only the MPs who don't.

Whatever you think of Corbyn, that is a reality you need to accept.

NorthReport

Actually it is the Liberal Democrats who are now promoting, and leading the fight for a second referendum, and the polls are reflecting it.

josh
nicky
josh
nicky

I agree Josh there certainly is a curious discrepency in the polls, some showing a narrow Con lead, some showing a wide one.

one thing all the polls show however is that Coryn’s approval rating is around 65% negative and 18% positive. He runs well behind his party. One recent poll gave Labour a 10% bounce if he were replaced.

josh

ComRes:

Conservatives 30

Labour 29

Lib Dems 17

Brexit 13

https://mobile.twitter.com/britainelects/status/1171529365848379393

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Actually it is the Liberal Democrats who are now promoting, and leading the fight for a second referendum, and the polls are reflecting it.

If the votes for a second referendum haven't been found in the current parliament, they aren't GOING to be found.  And there is nothing Corbyn or any possible replacement for Corbyn could do or say to change that.

There simply isn't a left case or a socialist case for "Remain".

And hard Brexit would lead to right-wing domination of UK politics for decades.  It could never lead to socialism since Farage would be calling the tune on everything for the next twenty years or so.

Soft Brexit is the only decent option.

NorthReport

Actually the Conservatives are leading in 100% of the 30 most recent polls.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The Liberal Democrats are no longer trying for a second referendum.  They seem to think Brexit can be stopped by a simple act of Parliament, without going to a referendum at all.  Truth is, it can't be.  Truth is the votes to preserve the Remain status quo don't exist in the House and there's nothing Swindon or Corbyn or anyone else could do to MAKE them exist.

JKR

I think what the Liberal Democrats are trying to do is gain the support for the upcoming election of voters who support remaining in the EU. They want to link the LD brand with the Remain brand to get the votes of the group that current polls say now make up the majority of voters. If the LD’s take much of the Remain vote and the Conservatives and Brexit Party take much of the Leave vote, Labour could be greatly squeezed out in the upcoming election. Labour seems to be angling for the soft-Brexit vote. I’m not sure how many voters fit into that category.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

A lot, actually.  There are a sizeable number of people in the UK who fit the "Soft Brexit" profile:  wanting to free the UK from the bad aspects of the EU-everything the EU imposes on economics, taxation, and spending limits-while keeping at least most of the tiny number of humane, progressive components-being able to travel from country to country without endless waits at each border, the humane immigration policies, the tiny but still worthwhile environmental and human rights guarantees.

Since the EU cannot be changed or reformed in any way at all, since every current aspect of the EU is carved in stone for all time, Soft Brexit is the only way to get to something like that.

And there's no way to get a government that can carry out actual Labour policies, or even actual social democratic policies, without at least Soft Brexit.  Social spending cannot be increased in any EU country, taxation on the weatlhy cannot be raised, and nationalization-which is a necessary step in order to getting the economy to worker management through the setting up of co-operatives-is, for all practical purposes unachievable.

Since a humane, egalitarian, empowering economic policy isn't possible within the EU, since ending austerity isn't possible within the EU, why fight to stay in an arrangement that benefits no one but the wealthy?

 

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

And there's no way to get a government that can carry out actual Labour policies, or even actual social democratic policies, without at least Soft Brexit.  Social spending cannot be increased in any EU country, taxation on the weatlhy cannot be raised, and nationalization-which is a necessary step in order to getting the economy to worker management through the setting up of co-operatives-is, for all practical purposes unachievable.

How have countries like Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc., been able to establish systems within the EU that are much more socially democratic than the UK? Would the EU prevent the UK from establishing systems similar to those of other EU countries? Do Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage have social democracy in mind when they lead Brexit? It seems to me that Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage want Brexit in order to move the UK far to the right of the EU.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Those were all started BEFORE the EU came into being.  Those countries would not be allowed to set up such systems from scratch today, and they have all faced EU-imposed spending constraints which have restricted their ability to maintain the systems and forced benefit cuts in most of those countries.

If Corbyn or any possible successor as Labour leader were to become prime minister, it goes without saying they would be forced to abandon much of the current Labour manifesto and impose every cut Brussels demands.

It isn't possible to run a truly anti-austerity government, one committed to putting human need even on a par with profit, let alone above it, under present EU rules.   And it is impossible ever to change those rules.  

Why pretend otherwise?

Why even imagine that non-austerity governance is possible within the EU?

It is now clear that, since the EU cannot be made egalitarian or anti-austerity, that since it exists to impose permanent austerity on all of its members, the only thing for it is to bring it down and create a new pan-European structure which does NOT permanently imposed a discredited and unjust economic/spending model on all of its states.

Social democracy no longer exists, in any but a vestigial sense, in any EU member state.  It is no longer allowed to do what social democracy must do to be worthy of the name...preserve and increase the social wage.

JKR

If the EU does not allow for social democracy why have most people on the left in the UK supported either Remain or a very soft Brexit?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

1) Support for Remain or Soft Brexit is based on the wish to preserve the EU immigration policies, which are the only progressive feature of EU membership-in all other respects, it's a right-wing project and will always be a right-wing project.  A lot of people have been conned into believing that supporting Remain is the only way to fight racism and xenophobia.   

2) Support for Soft Brexit as opposed to Hard Brexit is about opposing the parts of the Brexit idea that are xenophobic.  It's hard to see how anybody who backs Hard Brexit can claim to care about protecting immigrants and refugees from persecution, for example.  

It's an issue filled with ambiguities.  If it were possible to have a Left future inside the EU, I'd be all-out Remain.  Since it isn't, since the EU policies that forbid socialism will never be changed, why even bother staying in that institution if you want a future for whatever country you live in in Europe that is free from greed and exploitation, you're not going to get it within the EU.  And if you're not going to get a socialist future, it's not possible to get a future free of bigotry and social oppression.  Freedom from oppression can't exist in societies run on market values.  That's why Poland and Hungary will always be exactly the way they are now, why the fascists who run those states will never be forced out of power.  Capitalism is why Poland and Hungary are now permanently fascist.

JKR

Why do most socialists in EU countries support remaining in the EU and why don't they support leaving the EU? Have they been duped or do they understand something we don't over here across the Atlantic?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I don't know that "most socialists" in Europe support staying in the EU-members of the dying and now permanently conservative "social democratic" parties on the European mainland(none of whom are able to win more than about 24% of the vote in their countries' general elections-count as socialists.

Those who do are under the delusion that staying in the EU is the only way to fight xenophobia.  They don't get it that the EU's permanent austerity policies are what has caused xenophobia-it's not possible to have strong antiracist, antioppression movements in countries where social benefits are continually being cut, where the unions are powerless, where corporate power now holds total and permanent dominance as long as those countries stay within the EU.

There is little if any support for the EU among parties to the left of the mainland Europe social democrats.  

Why do YOU think the UK should stay in the EU when staying in means giving up on working for a future involving any alternative to austerity capitalism?

We all want to stop xenophobia, it's just that the EU is a dead loss due to its conservativism and unchangeability.

That unchangeability is the only reason Corbyn's opponents within the Labour Party-all of whom are implacably antisocialist and even anti social democracy-want the UK to stay in the EU.  They don't give a damn about immigrants or refugees-they just want to prevent Labour from ever being socialist again.

 

nicky

Ken disingenuously writes:

“There simply isn't a left case or a socialist case for "Remain".”

it seems likely that the Labour Conference will come out pretty clearly for Remain in another week or so.

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
Ken disingenuously writes:

“There simply isn't a left case or a socialist case for "Remain".”

it seems likely that the Labour Conference will come out pretty clearly for Remain in another week or so.

So since Tony Blair came out pretty clear for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, does that all of a sudden mean that supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is now left-wing?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

I don't know that "most socialists" in Europe support staying in the EU-members of the dying and now permanently conservative "social democratic" parties on the European mainland(none of whom are able to win more than about 24% of the vote in their countries' general elections-count as socialists.

Those who do are under the delusion that staying in the EU is the only way to fight xenophobia.  They don't get it that the EU's permanent austerity policies are what has caused xenophobia-it's not possible to have strong antiracist, antioppression movements in countries where social benefits are continually being cut, where the unions are powerless, where corporate power now holds total and permanent dominance as long as those countries stay within the EU.

There is little if any support for the EU among parties to the left of the mainland Europe social democrats.  

Why do YOU think the UK should stay in the EU when staying in means giving up on working for a future involving any alternative to austerity capitalism?

We all want to stop xenophobia, it's just that the EU is a dead loss due to its conservativism and unchangeability.

That unchangeability is the only reason Corbyn's opponents within the Labour Party-all of whom are implacably antisocialist and even anti social democracy-want the UK to stay in the EU.  They don't give a damn about immigrants or refugees-they just want to prevent Labour from ever being socialist again.

 

Well, there is DiEM25. Varoufakis appears to me to be a non-delusional leftist. Also, despite the best laid constitutional plans, nothing is unchangeable. Impermanence is a fundamental characteristic of reality. The only question in each case is how long and what efforts it will take to change any social institution. Now, changing the EU may well not be the most efficient way to achieve socialist aims, but it is one possible way.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

I don't know that "most socialists" in Europe support staying in the EU-members of the dying and now permanently conservative "social democratic" parties on the European mainland(none of whom are able to win more than about 24% of the vote in their countries' general elections-count as socialists.

Those who do are under the delusion that staying in the EU is the only way to fight xenophobia.  They don't get it that the EU's permanent austerity policies are what has caused xenophobia-it's not possible to have strong antiracist, antioppression movements in countries where social benefits are continually being cut, where the unions are powerless, where corporate power now holds total and permanent dominance as long as those countries stay within the EU.

There is little if any support for the EU among parties to the left of the mainland Europe social democrats.  

Why do YOU think the UK should stay in the EU when staying in means giving up on working for a future involving any alternative to austerity capitalism?

We all want to stop xenophobia, it's just that the EU is a dead loss due to its conservativism and unchangeability.

That unchangeability is the only reason Corbyn's opponents within the Labour Party-all of whom are implacably antisocialist and even anti social democracy-want the UK to stay in the EU.  They don't give a damn about immigrants or refugees-they just want to prevent Labour from ever being socialist again.

 

Well, there is DiEM25. Varoufakis appears to me to be a non-delusional leftist. Also, despite the best laid constitutional plans, nothing is unchangeable. Impermanence is a fundamental characteristic of reality. The only question in each case is how long and what efforts it will take to change any social institution. Now, changing the EU may well not be the most efficient way to achieve socialist aims, but it is one possible way.

I'd be a little more open to the prospects of changing the EU were it not for the fact that virtually no one who has been demanding that Corbyn go allout Remain-why isn't pledging a second referendum if elected Remain enough, btw?-has presented any strategy to changing the EU or expressed any real commitment TO changing it.  

Why should Labour go all out Remain if that means accepting the EU status quo for the rest of eternity?  When nothing to the left of austerity capitalism can even be done within current EU rules?

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

Why do YOU think the UK should stay in the EU when staying in means giving up on working for a future involving any alternative to austerity capitalism?

I support the UK staying in the EU because I think Labour could estsblish their anti-austerity socialist policies within the EU. I think that’s why Corbyn as leader of Labour has formally supported and campaigned for Remain. Why would Corbyn campaign for Remain if it supported the cause of austerity? I also think the UK benefits economically from having a very high level of trade with Europe and leaving the EU will likely make the UK poorer which in turn will take money from future socialist programs. I also think a weaker UK economy increases the chances for austerity being implemented in the future. I think the right in the UK support Brexit because they want to turn the UK into a lower tax, lower regulation jurisdiction.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

What matters, more than anything else, is getting the Tories out.  When that is accomplished-and it can only be done if Labour is led by someone who reflects the genuinely socialist values most of the party support and no major group in the party other than the PLP opposes-then the EU issue, one way or another can be sorted out.

It's pointless to obsess on trying to get Brexit stopped by a vote of the current parliament, because there are never going to be any more votes for Remain in that parliament than there are now.  Badgering Corbyn about this or trying to force him out so someone else is not going to change that.

Democratic control over utilities and the rail system matters.  Saving the NHS matters.   Reversing all the Tory cuts matters.  Addressing poverty matters.  Trying to keep the UK in an economic arrangement that benefits no one but rich people in London is trivial compared to that.

NorthReport

When you sit on the fence you usually get splinters in your ass

I agree with the comments that the Lib Dems are vying to be the Remain party and that unfortunately Labour will get squeezed out in the next election and all the polling is starting to show this

Too bad!

The Brits think they know better than the rest of Europe how to govern and unfortunately for the UK they don’t. Basically the UK has been ruled by elitist one percenters who know little about the trials and tribulations of working people

 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

I'd be a little more open to the prospects of changing the EU were it not for the fact that virtually no one who has been demanding that Corbyn go allout Remain-why isn't pledging a second referendum if elected Remain enough, btw?-has presented any strategy to changing the EU or expressed any real commitment TO changing it.  

Why should Labour go all out Remain if that means accepting the EU status quo for the rest of eternity?  When nothing to the left of austerity capitalism can even be done within current EU rules?

I don't say that Labour should go all out for remain. I think the issue is very difficult. Had I been able to vote in the referendum, I don't know how I would have voted. What I object to is the absolutist proposition that the the EU can never be changed, and will remain as it is today for hundreds and thousands of years. That is clearly not true, and has no place in a reasonable argument about the matter.

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

What matters, more than anything else, is getting the Tories out.  When that is accomplished-and it can only be done if Labour is led by someone who reflects the genuinely socialist values most of the party support and no major group in the party other than the PLP opposes-then the EU issue, one way or another can be sorted out.

....

I agree that what matters most in the UK is to get the Tories out of power. I think increased unity within Labour would be the best thing to hspoen to increase the chances of that happening but I have no idea how the deep schism within Labour can be removed.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

JKR wrote:
Ken Burch wrote:

What matters, more than anything else, is getting the Tories out.  When that is accomplished-and it can only be done if Labour is led by someone who reflects the genuinely socialist values most of the party support and no major group in the party other than the PLP opposes-then the EU issue, one way or another can be sorted out.

....

I agree that what matters most in the UK is to get the Tories out of power. I think increased unity within Labour would be the best thing to hspoen to increase the chances of that happening but I have no idea how the deep schism within Labour can be removed.

It can't be removed by putting Remain above all else.  All doing that would do is guarantee that Labour would lose every seat in the North and Northeast of England to the Brexit party for the rest of eternity while gaining Labour no seats or votes anywhere else.

 

JKR

Ken Burch wrote:

JKR wrote:
Ken Burch wrote:

What matters, more than anything else, is getting the Tories out.  When that is accomplished-and it can only be done if Labour is led by someone who reflects the genuinely socialist values most of the party support and no major group in the party other than the PLP opposes-then the EU issue, one way or another can be sorted out.

....

I agree that what matters most in the UK is to get the Tories out of power. I think increased unity within Labour would be the best thing to hspoen to increase the chances of that happening but I have no idea how the deep schism within Labour can be removed.

It can't be removed by putting Remain above all else.  All doing that would do is guarantee that Labour would lose every seat in the North and Northeast of England to the Brexit party for the rest of eternity while gaining Labour no seats or votes anywhere else.

I think that Labour’s current policy of supporting a soft-Brexit and a confirmatory referendum makes the most sense for both the UK and Labour. But unfortunately sometimes what makes the most sense does not win elections. I think Brexit has put Labour in a difficult and possibly a no-win position as it may be impossible to please both pro-Leave and pro-Remain Labour supporters and trying to do so may displease both sides. The best scenario for Labour would be to have the next election after Brexit is determined but that may not be possible.

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
I support the UK staying in the EU because I think Labour could estsblish their anti-austerity socialist policies within the EU. I think that’s why Corbyn as leader of Labour has formally supported and campaigned for Remain. Why would Corbyn campaign for Remain if it supported the cause of austerity?

Tsipras in Greece told everyone he could be anti-austerity while still being on good terms with the rest of the EU. How did that work out for his party?

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Tsipras in Greece told everyone he could be anti-austerity while still being on good terms with the rest of the EU. How did that work out for his party?

Tsipras wanted the EU to give Greece a sweetheart deal to get Greece out of its debt crisis but the EU did not comply because the EU felt it could not favour Greece over the other EU countries. Greece is free to stop using the Euro and they are free to leave the EU but they remain in the EU because they want to continue to have the benefits of being in the EU and using the Euro.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Tsipras in Greece told everyone he could be anti-austerity while still being on good terms with the rest of the EU. How did that work out for his party?

Tsipras wanted the EU to give Greece a sweetheart deal to get Greece out of its debt crisis but the EU did not comply because the EU felt it could not favour Greece over the other EU countries. Greece is free to stop using the Euro and they are free to leave the EU but they remain in the EU because they want to continue to have the benefits of being in the EU and using the Euro.

Which was stupid because it required Tsipiras to abandon not only HIS program but, in theory, commit any SYRIZA government for the next three generations to the same betrayals-he agreed to continuing the austerity program for 50 years.  

As a result, Tsipiras was forced to make cuts so barbaric that pensioners started killing themselves to avoid the certain starvation they faced if they had chosen to try and stay alive on the pitiful remnants of their pensions.

He was forced to let other EU countries import outdated milk and label it fresh for sale in Greek grocery stores.

He was forced to accept massive unemployment with, for all practical purposes, no unemployment compensation.

And at the same time, Germany, the country which pushed harder to force Greece into the utter abandonment of any attempt to create a humane, democratic alternative to capitalism, sent its arms companies in to hard sell the Greek government into buying new weapons it had no possible need for.

What, next to that, could EU membership possibly bring that is of any value at all?
What good did it do for Tsipiras to go against the advice of his own finance minister-mentioned just above-and agree to conditions which make it impossible for a SYRIZA government to BE a SYRIZA government?

What happened to Greece is not that far off from what would happen to the UK if a Labour government got in and actually tried to carry out a Corbyn-style program-I think you'd have to concede that nothing to the right of Corbyn's program would even be worth doing, since anything to the right of it would basically just mean carrying out the rest of Tory manifesto, as the LibDems and the remnants of Change UK wish to do-it means any attempt to create a humane, inclusive, democratic and egalitarian future for the UK would be crushed by the UK.

There is a case for something being created that just has the small number of progressive aspects of the EU, but without the economic restrictions that the EU has no moral right to impose.  It's not possible to get to that within the EU, unless the EU were to be forced to accept that by a massive movement of radical defiance that challenges its survival.  It can't be persuaded to change by any means short of that.

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
It is now clear that, since the EU cannot be made egalitarian or anti-austerity, that since it exists to impose permanent austerity on all of its members, the only thing for it is to bring it down and create a new pan-European structure which does NOT permanently imposed a discredited and unjust economic/spending model on all of its states.

People do not understand basic history. The Eurpoean Union is nothing new. It is simply the latest manifestation of the desire by European elites to have a united European supercontinent, a dream that has been around almost as long as Europe existed. Alexander the Great. The Roman Empire. Napolean Bonaparte. Adolf Hitler. Every time it has come down crashing and burning, because the elites disregard the vast differences in geography, economy, culture, politics, and languages. The EU will be no different than everything else that has gone before it.

josh

JKR wrote:
Why do most socialists in EU countries support remaining in the EU and why don't they support leaving the EU? Have they been duped or do they understand something we don't over here across the Atlantic?

Are they socialists or neo-liberals masquerading as socialists?  At least in the UK, anti-EU/common market has a long history.

More Labour MPs were opposed than in favour (148 against; 138 for) and 32 abstained. 

At a tense special Labour conference, just two months before the referendum, the party voted against Europe by nearly two-to-one, a majority hugely assisted by the fact that 39 of the party's 46 affiliated trade unions voted against. It was a triumph for the left.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33045935

NDPP

Re: "support for Remain and Soft Brexit is based on the wish to preserve the EU immigration policies which are the only progressive feature of EU membership."

The Myth of 'Free Movement' - Len McCluskey (IER, Nov 2016) - 'free movement' of labour is a class question:  A study of the struggle waged by the British working class, Marx wrote in 1867, 'reveals that in order to oppose their workers, the employers either bring in ['cheaper] workers from abroad or else transfer manufacture to countries where there is a cheap labour force.'

'Free movement' in current EU policyand practice is essentially exclusionary and racist (3rd countries, asylum seekers and refugees - eg EU/Turkey deal [For every migrant accepted by the EU Turkey agrees to accept one returned from the EU]

'Free movement' depends on the internal EU economic subordination of the periphery countries (East & South) providing cheap human resources for core member states - 'forced migration'. 'Free movement is only within a specific defined area for a specific defined EU club of member states. It is only free in so much as it excludes workers from the rest of the world. Something that needn't be the case with a clean left Brexit.

'Free movement' depends upon the economic subordination of the periphery by the core countries - mainly by German capital. The East and South provide cheap Labour for the core. That is not freedom in any sense of the word as I understand it. The forced migration of impoverished workers compelled by deep austerity to leave Lithuania or Poland to take low-pay jobs in UK is not 'free movement' it's a form of forced labour and deeply repellent as a concept.'

Brexit, EU & the 'Free Movement of Labour Myth' (and vid)

https://t.co/7Qg5a1wLA7

@41:25 MUST WATCH

"Charles Woolfson, Professor in Labour Studies, Sweden, looks carefully at Brexit and the EU'. Brexit offers the left an opportunity to develop a sovereign popular project based upon working-class internationalism."

NDPP

The Reality of EU 'Freedom of Movement' and 'EU Immigration Policies the Only Progressive Feature of EU Membership.'

https://youtu.be/UP3rWH5RP3g

 

Europe Struggles to Cope With Influx of Migrants

https://youtu.be/v-saRmcwiMw

 

Channel Migrants: Border Force Intercepts 41 On Four Boats

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-49707720

"On Tuesday, 86 men, women and children attempted the journey in small boats, with some managing to land on beaches before being detained..."

'EU immigration policies the only progressive feature of EU membership...' Really?

 

Pages