Final Say Referendum appears to be gaining support

150 posts / 0 new
Last post
Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

WWWTT wrote:

Sounds reasonable Michael Moriarity. Up until I pull a coin out of my pocket and I see the queens face on it.  The queen of England is the official head of state for Canada. So therefore, the royal family is also a parasite onto Canadians. 

I agree with your point, and if we ever have a chance to vote on monarchy vs. republic, I will be loudly on the republican side. On the other hand, I consider the environment, income and wealth inequality, proportional representation and many other issues to be much more urgent than getting rid of the monarchy.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
So therefore, the royal family is also a parasite onto Canadians.

Because the Queen is on your toonie? 

What does the Crown take from Canada (aside from your pride, evidently)?

cco

More, per capita, than from the Brits. And that article's from 10 years ago, before the recent Clarkson expense scandal.

Mr. Magoo

Was that back when the GG's husband was stockpiling wines, tho? 

It's kind of hard to think of the royal family as "parasites" if the money they're supposedly sucking us dry of isn't even going to them.  How much tithe do we give Prince Harry, for example?

WWWTT

Michael Moriarity wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Sounds reasonable Michael Moriarity. Up until I pull a coin out of my pocket and I see the queens face on it.  The queen of England is the official head of state for Canada. So therefore, the royal family is also a parasite onto Canadians. 

I agree with your point, and if we ever have a chance to vote on monarchy vs. republic, I will be loudly on the republican side. On the other hand, I consider the environment, income and wealth inequality, proportional representation and many other issues to be much more urgent than getting rid of the monarchy.

Wealth inequality? Now don’t get me wrong, agreed on all counts, but I believe proper representation and equality would or at the very least should include in Canada becoming a people’s republic. 

I think it all boils down to money (and really, what doesn’t?)

To get rid of the monarchy would cost Canada probably billions and several years in legal work. I’m guessing it’s cheaper to just give them 10M a year in the short term 

Same with everything else you mentioned. And probably with the EU

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
So therefore, the royal family is also a parasite onto Canadians.

Because the Queen is on your toonie? 

What does the Crown take from Canada (aside from your pride, evidently)?

Me? Really I give a fuckin ratts ass. My parents came to Canada way back because Portugal was a dictatorship at the time and had no jobs. I’ll probably move to China in the next couple years so I’ll let you guys figure it out. 

In the meantime, I wonder what how Indigenous people’s feel about the monarchy?

NDPP

Theresa May's Conservative Government Survives No-Confidence Vote

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/01/17/noco-j17.html

"...The Blairites were only ever supportive of a no-confidence vote in May so that its defeat would clear the decks for pressing Corbyn to openly support their demand for a second 'People's Vote.' What should have been a day of reckoning for May therefore turned out to be a humiliating verdict on every capitulation made by Corby to his party's right wing since he became leader in September 2015..."

No surprise given the nature of NDP politics that we should see significant sympathy for the Blairite tendency here. 

Sean in Ottawa

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/saturday-uk-remain...

 

Article:

On Saturday the UK turns remain. Parliament must force a second referendum

kropotkin1951

On a lighter note.

NorthReport

Excellent krop!

NDPP

Brexit: Opportunity for Irish Reunification?

https://youtu.be/P28lHDxdYdc

RT's Manila Chan speaks with former UK MP George Galloway on what's next..

josh

NDPP wrote:

Theresa May's Conservative Government Survives No-Confidence Vote

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/01/17/noco-j17.html

"...The Blairites were only ever supportive of a no-confidence vote in May so that its defeat would clear the decks for pressing Corbyn to openly support their demand for a second 'People's Vote.' What should have been a day of reckoning for May therefore turned out to be a humiliating verdict on every capitulation made by Corby to his party's right wing since he became leader in September 2015..."

No surprise given the nature of NDP politics that we should see significant sympathy for the Blairite tendency here. 

 

Probably so.  But as to Corbyn, it's easy to sit in the peanut gallery and throw stones, to mix a metaphor I guess.  He's trying to hold a divided party together in order to be in a position to form the next government.  While I'm sure his inclination is to support leave, he's tried to massage the situation by supporting a softer Brexit.  It's the only way he can pilot things and still remain true to his opposition to neo-liberalism.  The problem is that the division has become more cultural than economic.  Neo-liberals are willing to be progressive as possible when it comes to things like identity issues, just as long as you embrace austerity, etc.  That's how they suck the "left" in.

cco

NDPP wrote:

Theresa May's Conservative Government Survives No-Confidence Vote

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/01/17/noco-j17.html

"...The Blairites were only ever supportive of a no-confidence vote in May so that its defeat would clear the decks for pressing Corbyn to openly support their demand for a second 'People's Vote.' What should have been a day of reckoning for May therefore turned out to be a humiliating verdict on every capitulation made by Corby to his party's right wing since he became leader in September 2015..."

No surprise given the nature of NDP politics that we should see significant sympathy for the Blairite tendency here. 

So if I understand WSWS's and your position, real socialists should be supporting Theresa May's continuing in office. If a Tory government got replaced by a Labour one, Corbyn would be so in thrall to the Labour right wing that the Blairites might trick the British people into changing their mind about Brexit. But as long as a Tory government remains in office, nothing so sneakily right-wing will happen. For true left-wing policies, we must look to the right.

NDPP

Brexit Future:

https://twitter.com/BrexitFutureUK/status/1086220071712800768

"The social Europe agenda was always a smoke screen to fool the organized working class that we had something in common with big business. We didn't then and we don't today when unelected EU institutions, directly representing Europe's biggest banks, are removing elected governments and imposing mass unemployment, social dumping and unending austerity everywhere."

josh

NDPP wrote:

Brexit Future:

https://twitter.com/BrexitFutureUK/status/1086220071712800768

"The social Europe agenda was always a smoke screen to fool the organized working class that we had something in common with big business. We didn't then and we don't today when unelected EU institutions, directly representing Europe's biggest banks, are removing elected governments and imposing mass unemployment, social dumping and unending austerity everywhere."

 

Yep.  Similar to what I said above.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Socialism beyond borders

quote:

A different Europe

Long before the current EU, before even the Treaty of Rome, there was another, different vision of a united Europe. The origins of European integration lie 16 years earlier, in 1941, with a group of socialist and communist anti-fascists, imprisoned by Mussolini on the island of Ventotene. Led by Altiero Spinelli, they produced the Ventotene Manifesto (see box on next page), a strategy for a united socialist Europe as ‘the only way out of their common predicament of domination by Hitler’.

In today’s context of a new ‘common predicament’ – of austerity and the corporate-driven market – this socialist European tradition needs to be retrieved in a modern, pluralist form. Certainly, it is needed to counter the decline of social democratic parties across Europe, where only the Portuguese Socialists under António Costa (in coalition with parties to its left) and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour, with its unique success in re-building the party’s membership and voter base, have bucked the trend.

His fullest statements on Europe – shockingly under-reported – clarify that being in the EU does not necessarily prevent public intervention in industry, and show a well-informed commitment to European social regulation. In February 2018, for example, he said we should not abandon ‘rules that have served us well, supporting our industrial sectors, protecting workers and consumers and safeguarding the environment’.

Corbyn himself, while opposed to the neoliberalism of the current EU, has also pledged himself to work for an ‘anti-austerity Europe’, most recently at the Durham Miners’ Gala. This was well-received even in the predominantly Brexit-voting north east. And it was more than a rhetorical flourish: it is a signal that Corbyn is more pro-European than the press conveys, albeit not in conventional terms.

There is significant UK support for these regulations – crossing the Remain-Leave divide. Some 73 per cent of the public either support the working time directive or feel it should go further, while four-fifths back a bankers’ bonus cap and oppose any lowering of food safety standards. Anecdotally, I found confirmation of this view at the Durham gala, where it was clear that trade unionists who support leaving the EU do not want to lose regulations covering areas such as employment protection, food and health and safety at work.

As these and many more protections need to be on a European scale to counter the power of transnational corporations, now as large as countries, it means a new approach to Europe could prove very popular. Its fundamental ingredient would be a new relationship of  an anti-austerity Britain in an anti-austerity Europe: an alternative to both a deregulatory, free-market Brexit and to a neoliberal EU.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..interesting piece.

Ten reasons I came round to a People's Vote

“If Scotland had voted Yes in the independence referendum, and you’d told me we’d have to vote again, I’d have told you to fuck right off.”

That was my reaction when, the Monday after the European referendum, the idea of a People’s Vote was first put to me. I was in Parliament, chatting to Caroline Lucas and her staffer, my friend Matthew Butcher. While the country had been in shock they’d been strategising.

In two years’ time, they explained, the Tories would come back with a deal. It would be a deal which would prioritise the needs of bosses over workers, which would do nothing to address the concerns of many of those who had voted Leave, and which wouldn’t get the support of a majority of MPs. It would deliver a parliamentary stalemate.

At that point, they argued, the conundrum should be resolved in public. It should be up to the people who voted for Brexit to decide whether to accept the deal, not a backroom stitch-up.

The case had its internal logic. But for a long time, I stuck to my initial reaction. No matter how much I disliked Brexit, making people vote again before doing what they decided seemed a democratic travesty. People had voted Leave, and Leave we must. The democratic way to change our mind, if we do, would be to then rejoin, if they'd then have us. Had Scotland voted Yes to independence in 2014, and ended up staying in the UK, the democratic damage would have been deep and long-lasting.

quote:

It may have been bad then but today the British political system is utterly broken. Mending it now requires a bottom-up convention, as I argue in my pamphlet “Trying to milk a vulture: if we want economic justice we need democratic revolution”.

Right after the Brexit vote, we should have held such a convention. In parallel to the negotiations with the EU, we should have had a process in which a jury of citizens drafted a new constitution, and put it or each element of it to public vote. Such a constitution would, I hope, shift the UK from the broken and elitist notion that the “crown in Parliament” is sovereign to grounding our democracy on the people's sovereignty. And the first stage of the creation of that constitution would be putting it, or key elements of it, to the people of the country.

If we had such a process, and if direct democracy was to become a more normal tool in the UK – as it is, for example, in Ireland – then allowing the public a say on something as big as the final deal with the EU would seem much more normal. The reason that Westminster is aflame right now is that there is no real agreement about where power ultimately lies – as Anthony Barnett and I explained back in 2017, the Gina Miller case was a contest between four sources of sovereignty: government, Parliament, people and courts.

NDPP

Only a Rupture with the EU Will Alter the Failed Status Quo

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/17/rupture-eu-brexit-...

"The let's case for Brexit has always been based on the following notions: The current economic model is failing; socialism is needed to fix it; and the free-market ideology hardwired into the EU via the European Central Bank, judgments of the European court of justice and treaty changes will make that process all but impossible without a break with the status quo..."

NorthReport
NorthReport
NDPP

CrossTalk: What Kind of Brexit?

https://youtu.be/osbR6BZjYjo

"With Brexit looming it is clear what members of parliament are against. What is not clear is what they support. Time is running out. Is a compromise still possible?"

NDPP

The Labour Brexit Letter the Guardian Wouldn't Publish

https://skwawkbox.org/2019/01/20/the-labour-brexit-letter-the-guardian-w...

"As the SKWAWKBOX showed at the beginning of January, the Guardian claimed that Jeremy Corbyn was 'under pressure' from Labour members to come out in favour of a so-called 'people's vote'. This was apparently part of of the ongoing centrist propaganda attempt to create a perception that Labour under Corbyn is losing support - a perception that is entirely fake news..."

josh

People’s vote?  Didn’t people vote in 2016?

JKR

Shouldn’t people be allowed to change direction when they feel they have made a mistake? 

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

People’s vote?  Didn’t people vote in 2016?

Actually they have voted many times in many places. So?

Brexit is a different question today than it was then -- when won by a hair. The demographics suggest that the vote would be different today even if nobody changed their vote. However, it seems that many have. No suprise either given that there is so much more information available and that a number of distortions have been exposed.

The vote was nonbinding and nobody said that it was a one time deal and people would never get to vote on the issue again even if they learned a lot more and there was significant demand for it.

Why shouldn't they get a do-over given these circumstances.

It does not matter which side you are on but it is extremely cynical to pretend to like democracy and respecting the principle of voting and then seek to deny a second vote in this case.

I much like the principle the PQ often used which was to vote for a mandate to negotiate followed by a vote on the result. This was more popular than when they suggested just one vote.

NDPP

British PM May to Reveal 'Plan B' as Brexit Infighting Continues

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/01/21/brex-j21.html

"...The Blairites follow the Tories in their fear that an election could bring a Corbyn-led government to power that could be unable to control a resurgent movement of the working class, pressing the the demands that Corbyn make good on his professed anti-austerity and anti-militarist policies..."

 

It's Austerity, Stupid

https://www.counterfire.org/articles/opinion/20095-its-austerity-brexit-...

"Austerity has ruined working class lives for a decade. The damage caused by Brexit is futurology. Whether we leave or remain Austerity will continue unless we get the Tories out. Austerity is more important than Brexit..."

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Shouldn’t people be allowed to change direction when they feel they have made a mistake?

Or when they feel everyone else has.

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Brexit is a different question today than it was then

Evidently, it was a "different question" 48 hours later.

Of course some people want a do-over.  They wanted it immediately, and not because they felt they voted the wrong way, or because things had somehow changed in two days, or because the government hadn't started funding the NHS.

And they still want that do-over, except now it's ginned up with talk of demographics and political sea changes and the impossibly perfect Brexit that pleases everyone and was apparently was the one people were "really" voting for.

josh

JKR wrote:

Shouldn’t people be allowed to change direction when they feel they have made a mistake? 

I was commenting more on the presumptuousness of calling it a “people’s vote.”  But if there’s to be a revote, I assume those now calling for a revote will have no objection to a revote on the revote should remain win.

Pogo Pogo's picture

 The question comes down to whether the push for a revote is justified because of new information, changing opinions and such or whether it is the losers trying to change the result based on little more than that they didn't like the original result.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Brexit is a different question today than it was then

Evidently, it was a "different question" 48 hours later.

Of course some people want a do-over.  They wanted it immediately, and not because they felt they voted the wrong way, or because things had somehow changed in two days, or because the government hadn't started funding the NHS.

And they still want that do-over, except now it's ginned up with talk of demographics and political sea changes and the impossibly perfect Brexit that pleases everyone and was apparently was the one people were "really" voting for.

Come on. You know that is not true.

Polls showed that it was quite some time before a majority wanted a do over. The support for it is much much higher than what you are pretending -- that it was the same people unhappy  with the result on that day.

But nice try.

Sean in Ottawa

Pogo wrote:

 The question comes down to whether the push for a revote is justified because of new information, changing opinions and such or whether it is the losers trying to change the result based on little more than that they didn't like the original result.

Lots of evidence that there is new information and changed opinions. Desperate leavers want to pretend something different so they oppose the re-vote becuase they know that it would be a different result. It is not about  some BS like wasting money on a re-vote or respecting people who voted in the past by never voting again. The issue is clear -- the result would not be what they want so they want to never go back and ask again.

Absolutely none of the leavers predicted what we know now is true: that a deal is this hard and that no deal is as likely. Suggesting that everything we know now we knew then is a lie.

NorthReport

This is what’s most sad about this whole freakin’ Brexit mess!!!

Politics is serious business and unfortunately the Conservatives under Cameron were playing games

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/21/donald-tusk-warned-david-cameron-about-stupid-eu-referendum-bbc

NorthReport
bekayne

Pogo wrote:

 The question comes down to whether the push for a revote is justified because of new information, changing opinions and such or whether it is the losers trying to change the result based on little more than that they didn't like the original result.

Does "the fantasy you voted for that has no way of being implemented in the way you thought it would" quality as new information?

josh

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Brexit is a different question today than it was then

Evidently, it was a "different question" 48 hours later.

Of course some people want a do-over.  They wanted it immediately, and not because they felt they voted the wrong way, or because things had somehow changed in two days, or because the government hadn't started funding the NHS.

And they still want that do-over, except now it's ginned up with talk of demographics and political sea changes and the impossibly perfect Brexit that pleases everyone and was apparently was the one people were "really" voting for.

Come on. You know that is not true.

Polls showed that it was quite some time before a majority wanted a do over. The support for it is much much higher than what you are pretending -- that it was the same people unhappy  with the result on that day.

But nice try.

What Magoo posted is correct.  People were calling for a revote within 48 hours.  Wasn’t aware that everyone waited until a poll showed remain in the lead before such calls were made.  

NDPP

Brexit 'Plan B' Won't Fly - Galloway

https://youtu.be/aTIy_vtokIw

"Former MP George Galloway on why PM Theresa May's proposed Brexit Plan B won't fare any better than the original rejected deal."

Pogo Pogo's picture

bekayne wrote:

Pogo wrote:

 The question comes down to whether the push for a revote is justified because of new information, changing opinions and such or whether it is the losers trying to change the result based on little more than that they didn't like the original result.

Does "the fantasy you voted for that has no way of being implemented in the way you thought it would" quality as new information?

 

I think that there has been a significant swing in public opinion and the original poll is outdated.  Of course there are now multiple options.  Hard Brexit, Brexit Lite, and Remain.  I don't think any of those options now hold a majority of support, so any binary referendum will be tainted and any multi choice referendum has the likelihood of just muddying the waters.  Far better is to have an election, discuss the issue in depth and let the new Parliament sort through the mess.

NDPP

Morning Star: Will Parliament Turn on the People?

https://t.co/FLXepjjBSZ

"We fought long and hard for a democracy we could fully participate in - only to have the Tories devolve the nation's economic sovereignty to the EU. Brexit puts us back on track, but that too is facing a subversion of democracy. The Parliament our predecessors in the movement fought and died to democratise is in danger of rejecting our strongest ever demand on it. For those of us in the trade union movement who are internationalists and democrats these are disturbing times..."

Sean in Ottawa

josh wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Brexit is a different question today than it was then

Evidently, it was a "different question" 48 hours later.

Of course some people want a do-over.  They wanted it immediately, and not because they felt they voted the wrong way, or because things had somehow changed in two days, or because the government hadn't started funding the NHS.

And they still want that do-over, except now it's ginned up with talk of demographics and political sea changes and the impossibly perfect Brexit that pleases everyone and was apparently was the one people were "really" voting for.

Come on. You know that is not true.

Polls showed that it was quite some time before a majority wanted a do over. The support for it is much much higher than what you are pretending -- that it was the same people unhappy  with the result on that day.

But nice try.

What Magoo posted is correct.  People were calling for a revote within 48 hours.  Wasn’t aware that everyone waited until a poll showed remain in the lead before such calls were made.  

the part I was saying is not true is the main point of the post and how it ended not the emphasis on a moniroty at the time wanting a revote. Yes some people wanted a revote right away. That would be true of the losers after every vote. However, to say that what is happening today is only an extension of the losers of the time wanting a revote is what is not true.

A lot more information came out

Many legitimate questions have been raised about the process and what was said before the vote

Things did not go according to what proponents predicted was the basis of support for their proposal and the project is mired in a situation where no agreement exists on what Brexit would look like among those who still favour it and there is no path to an agreement with Europe. The idea of crashing out never ever had majority support and still does not.

Fantasies of what Europe would agree to have not proven true

Estimates about the so-called savings of brexit have been called into question and lacked evidence anyway

demographics have shifted from what was a tight vote already such that the result would be different even if nobody who voted leave changed their minds

On top of this -- the polls have shown that support among those who voted leave has declined

Then there is the fact that there is no option now recognized as possible that has anywhere near majority support

...

After all this you have despereate leavers wanting to pretend that there is some huge reason not to go back to the people and that the only people asking for a new vote are sore losers rather than people who have seen some or all of the above and believe that was not the bargain on offer when they voted in the first referendum

I think that leavers are playing shell games with three empty shells now when suggesting that there are not good reasons to seek new direction from the people. The post was trying to ignore all the substance of the recent calls for a revote pretending that nothing has changed since two days after the vote. That is the part that is untrue: a lot has changed and everyone knows that -- otherwise there would be a deal.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pogo wrote:

bekayne wrote:

Pogo wrote:

 The question comes down to whether the push for a revote is justified because of new information, changing opinions and such or whether it is the losers trying to change the result based on little more than that they didn't like the original result.

Does "the fantasy you voted for that has no way of being implemented in the way you thought it would" quality as new information?

 

I think that there has been a significant swing in public opinion and the original poll is outdated.  Of course there are now multiple options.  Hard Brexit, Brexit Lite, and Remain.  I don't think any of those options now hold a majority of support, so any binary referendum will be tainted and any multi choice referendum has the likelihood of just muddying the waters.  Far better is to have an election, discuss the issue in depth and let the new Parliament sort through the mess.

Maybe but parliament is distorted by bogus claims of holding up this result as if it were carved on tablets from a sky fairy.

If parliament can recognize that it was not binding, tainted, based on assumptions that have not borne out to be true and open itself to a real discussion about options then parliament ought to be able to deal with it. So long as parliament is kicking the can down the road pretending that there is some unavoidable obligation to respect this vote no matter the result, a revote is the only option.

Certainly a representative parliament aware of its mandate and responsibility is a way forward.

Absent an imperative from the vote, a parliament could actually determine, and take responsibility for, a solution that could involve either a brexit or remaining in the EU based on current knowledge of the facts and options.

Parliament is completely hopeless until it accepts that it has a responsible mandate. This whole thing started becuase parliament did not want the responsibility of a decisions - shifted it to the people and got an unclear result due to a badly managed referendum and frequently misinformed and misled population.

Parliament really has an obligation -- given the spit vote especially -- to put to the people well reasoned and factual reasons to leave and to remain and then make a decision. If they do not want to do this, instead of demanding some kind of BS respect for the people, they should ask the people to vote again, given all that has transpired.

Setting aside all the bullshiut about having no option but to follow the vote: parliament ought to debate the merits on both sides and take responsibility. There is a lot more information, no shortage of advocates on both sides and a meaningful discussion would be possible if parliament wanted one. As well, if such a discussion resulted in an informed decision to leave by parliament following a public debate, Britain might well get a better deal than what is currently on offer. Frankly Europe probably is punishing Britain for leaving by making it difficult but is also responding to a parliament that is too gutless to accept responsibility and be clean to the people about what that parlaiment wants and why. Now the parliament, still unable to take any responsibility is hiding from a new vote behind the shambles it created of the last one.

The only reasons why the world is not laughing at Britain is becuase many fear the chaos that they are running into (of those not already too busy laughing at Trump.

Britain has successfully botched arguments on both sides of this farce.

NDPP

Moonwalking With Theresa May: Unboxing Brexit 'Plan C' - George Galloway-

https://on.rt.com/9mrp

"...Difficult? Enormously difficult."

NorthReport

British lawmakers' bid to stop no-deal Brexit gathers momentum

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/british-lawmakers-stop-no-deal-brexit-1.49...

NorthReport

It's hard to believe May has been able to hang onto her job.

Corbyn needs a public relations firm to make him appear a bit more palatable to the British voters

Brexit deal: EU will never accept Theresa May's 'plan-B', Michel Barnier says

Chief negotiator also ruled out 'managed no-deal' and calls for revisiting of future relationship

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-deal-eu-theresa-ma...

NorthReport

Far right may exploit Brexit tensions, says UK counter-terror chief

Neil Basu is also concerned at possible inability to share intelligence with EU partners

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/23/no-deal-brexit-incredibl...

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

May will try to hang on to the bitter end, and there is no doubt it's going to be, well it already is very, very bitter.

Brexit: Philip Hammond refuses to rule out resigning over no-deal Brexit

Pressure mounts on Theresa May to take a no-deal scenario off the table

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-latest-philip...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

It’s time to smash the Tories, stay in the EU and deliver the Corbyn project

THE myth on the left that European Union (EU) state aid rules will prevent Jeremy Corbyn’s nationalisation programme is still too pervasive.

Yet, when Chris Grayling — Secretary of State for Transport Incompetence — renationalised services on the East Coast Main Line last year, the EU did not raise an eyebrow, never mind a finger to stop it. Twelve months on there’s still no EU sanction over this.

In June last year, in these pages, I was the first to say that a general election was a solution to Britain’s Brexit problems. Our country’s biggest division remains the gap between the gilded Gatsbyesque 1 per cent and the rest of us.

With the possibility of a general election inching ever closer, it’s time for the Corbyn-supporting left to rally behind him. Remainers and Leavers alike must build the electoral momentum needed to defeat the nasty Tories. Winning power is now the prize.

The publication of a myth-busting briefing by the respected Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) on state aid rules provides a platform on which we on the left can come back together. It clearly shows we can have Labour’s radical policies for the many while staying within the EU — a win/win scenario which will unite our voters and our country.

While Westminster buzzes with every twist and turn of the Tory Brexit disasterclass, our people continue to suffer....

Pages