United Kingdom 2

UK, YouGov poll:

European Union membership referendum Scenario: If Britain has not agreed a deal by 12th April

Leave with no Deal: 51% (+9) Remain: 49% (-9)

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1113822734465798144

 

NorthReport wrote:

So, is this factual? Why can't Corbyn and the rest of the Labour PMs come to consensus?

Well, Tony Blair will be happy. 

Jeesh!

Brexit: Labour heading for bust-up as top party figures demand Jeremy Corbyn secure referendum in talks with Theresa May

Exclusive: Eleven MPs including four frontbenchers have said it is ‘untenable’ that Labour does not make a public vote a fixed demand from the prime minister

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/may-corbyn-brexit-talks-labour-demand-referendum-a8853466.html

 

The only reason they're pushing for Corbyn to demand a public vote is to force him to split the party.  There's no other valid justification for it.  
They never accepted that he won the leadership and that his ideas are what most of the party and a large section of the country want.  And they still haven't given up on a Blairite Restoration, even though they know the party doesn't want that and that it wouldn't gain Labour any votes.

Cross-party Brexit talks, Rupa Huq’s probing of the PM and a ‘flextension’

Talks between the government and Labour continued yesterday, with Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey visiting the Cabinet Office for “technical discussions” lasting four and a half hours. Almost everyone has been highly doubtful about the chance of a cross-party deal being reached: many in Labour say it’s a trap that Jeremy Corbyn wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) fall into, while Tory Brexiteers are naturally furious about the idea of a soft Brexit winning the day.

While there are risks for Labour, two crucial factors have been overlooked: Corbyn has always wanted to shape Brexit, not stop it, and Theresa May, who is desperate to pass her withdrawal agreement, has run out of options. The biggest impediments are Labour MPs who only want another referendum and advisors to the Prime Minister who – incredibly – still hope that a ‘Malthouse Compromise’-style arrangement or no deal are viable. Can the party leaders get away with ignoring them?....

83 Labour MPs: Make a public vote your bottom line, Jeremy

83 Labour MPs have written to Jeremy Corbyn urging him not to agree any Brexit deal without laying down another referendum as a condition of his support.

quote:

The letter signed by 83 Labour MPs and sent to Corbyn reads: “It is not Labour’s job to rescue Theresa May and usher in her successor. We need a general election to kick out the Tories. It is our job to find a find a way to break the deadlock. In our view, the only way to do that is with a public vote.”

The original signatories of the letter form part of ‘Love Socialism, Hate Brexit’ group of pro-EU, left-wing MPs, including shadow ministers Marsha de Cordova and Clive Lewis. It is designed to show that parliamentary party pressure comes from members across all factions, not exclusively Corbynsceptics.

It contends that any compromise deal would only be “legitimate” if signed off by the public, and that insisting on another public vote would increase the likelihood of an early general election, which is the leadership’s top priority.

 

epaulo13 wrote:

To survive in Scotland, Labour must back another vote on Brexit

Having seemed unlikely for three years, the prospect of another EU referendum is now firmly in play. Across the labour movement, there are many who, understandably, have reservations about the idea. But from a Scottish perspective, it is critical that Labour backs a second public vote on Brexit. Indeed, the move is essential to Labour’s survival in Scotland – and, by extension, to our prospects as a future party of government.

Support for Remain was strong in Scotland, with all local authorities voting for it, and support for a public vote is high too. This is particularly the case in the towns and cities, and in Scotland’s central belt. Critically, these are the areas where Labour is most competitive, and where we need to make progress if we want to see a Labour government. 

Yet a customs union deal without a public vote will not fly in Scotland. Unlike England, Scotland faces significant demographic challenges, and our projected population growth is entirely based on migration. A Brexit deal that does not include free movement would have long-term ramifications for the Scottish economy. If the deal does not include exactly the same benefits as before, then it must be put back to the people. Labour facilitating a customs union deal without a public vote would dismay exactly the voters in Scotland to whom we need to be reaching out.

You could argue that there never was an alternative. Brexit meant too many different things and the politicians were not going to be willing to lay their necks on the line guessing which one the people could get behind. Once recognizing that this was a matter for the people to decide, the people ought to have been allowed to make a direction of what Brexit means. They should not be forced to reject it becuase they do not like a reduced choice.

I have long felt that a second vote would be required and actually is a good thing. The problem is that another binary choice is not respectful of the people. No, not becuase it is a redo without any progress, but becuase a binary option is clearly not what Parliament has been looking at and a Remain win, were it to occur in a binary vote would be inconclusive.

It may be that the plurality first choice may be Remain and that it still be a minority. The only fair choice would be to allow instant runoff in the vote to allow voters to decide if ANY form of Brexit can get a majority and instruct the Parliament to pursue that. If Remain were to win an instant run-off, at least people would see that it had been up against every available option. If the options are restricted and Remain wins, people will never know if another version of Brexit could have won.

Having parties shred themselves over guessing instead of putting a fair vote to the people where they can choose among the Brexit options is crazy.

The referendum result with the Leave option winning means that the government owes the people all leave options on the ballot if it could not manage to get consensus on one now. It is natural progress for the people to have the opportunity to instruct their government on what kind of Brexit they want from a vote opting for it. Even though a withdrawel from the process can remain one of the options the Leave vote, in my view, morally compels the government, if another vote is needed, to not restrict possible options in order to engineer either a specific Brexit that might not be the most popular one or a Remain that the public could be forced to take only becuase the option that would have won is not provided.

None of what I saw has anything to do with what I think is best in terms of Brexit: that is for the UK people to determine. It is a response to the situation the UK is in and what I think are moral imperatives around any new vote.

There is also the issue of healing. No matter if a Brexit vote wins or a remain vote wins in a new referendum, without having the very different options put to the people, another vote will be every bit as divisive as some people are claiming.

By the way -- since we are in Canada and have had discussions regarding referenda here where the issue is negotiation, I  have always thought the same type of voting process is proper:

1) referendum on mandate to negotiate YES/NO -- 50 plus one wins

Negotiation and determination of options

2) referendum on results of negotiation. If there is a single option than a vote on that deal. If is more than one option, then instant runoff (preferential ballot) to see which option gets majority support. Again 50% plus one for any option.

Restricting options is not democratic.

I also think that it is not democratic to ask the people to vote on an unknown and then tell them they will not get a vote once those unknowns become known.

It is true that people complain that 50 plus one is too low a bar. I totally disagree with playing with the numbers so that a majority lose and a minority win. Having two votes with a negotiation between resolves all issues about having a low bar and potentially unclear question without the disgusting contortions of the clarity act.

Even your computer asks a second time when you want to do something truly significant but it is supposed to respect your choice (unless it is  #$%@ windows).

 

While I support a second test of the public mood, I  don't know if the multiple choices will make it an easy task for a referendum.  I mentioned earlier that I think an election is maybe the best choice.  Let the people select a new parliament and let the next parliament decide.

Avoiding no deal means both sides must stick with Brexit talks for now

quote:

Talks will continue today, joined by John McDonnell and Philip Hammond, but no breakthrough is imminent. It seems probable that no big decisions will be made either way until after the extension issue is resolved.

That brings us to the only real change over the past 24 hours, which comes in the form of the Cooper bill. Passed into law last night, it aims to ensure that the government can’t renege on its promise to request an Article 50 extension, which Theresa May will do at the European Council summit in Brussels tomorrow. (It does not actually take no deal off the table, as tweeted by Starmer.) As a result of the bill, the Commons will debate a government motion today that sets the next exit date as 30th June. MPs could try to change that, but ultimately we’re still at square one in that this is all up to the EU. And according to Alberto Nardelli, the likely proposal for EU leaders to consider is a nine- or 12-month (fl)extension, with the ability to cut that short as soon as a parliamentary majority is found for a deal.

Pogo wrote:

While I support a second test of the public mood, I  don't know if the multiple choices will make it an easy task for a referendum.  I mentioned earlier that I think an election is maybe the best choice.  Let the people select a new parliament and let the next parliament decide.

Two problems with this --

First the next parliament might be just as deadlocked and if it went against Brexit without a vote just as out-of-touch and if it went for a Brexit option still declared illegetimate for all who considered another version to be the real one.

Second, A new vote with a ranked ballot would allow the order of preference to create the closest to a majority result for any option.

Further it does not ignore the first result -- it builds on it by seeking clarification that is obviously needed since among Brexit supporters nobody can tell which is the preferred option.

Lastly -- if you want a third -- it provides negotiators on the British side with the most clear mandate to bring to Europe.

 A new Brexit extension is the moment for Labour to finally champion Remain

In the next 24 hours we are about to find out exactly how powerless Theresa May’s Brexit strategy has rendered our country. When she enters the European Council meeting in Brussels on 10 April she will be confronted with one of three potential outcomes.

The one she wants is the postponement of Britain’s leaving date until 30 June (from 12 April), making the UK’s participation in next month’s European elections obligatory but pointless. The one she thinks she’s going to get is an open-ended extension until at least the end of the year. This would destroy May’s administration, probably split the Conservative Party and – crucially – leave time for either a general election or a second referendum.

But there’s a third outcome which, until now, people assumed was a bluff: that president Macron of France, supported by European liberal leader Guy Verhofstadt, decides to teach not only the Brits but everybody else a lesson. Using the veto power of one or more states, this alliance could force May to confront the possibility of a no-deal Brexit, declaring immediate emergency measures to soften the crunch, which would happen on Friday night, just as the pubs are closing.

As they decide what to do, the 27 heads of government will have an eye not primarily on May, but on the potential response of British politics and civil society. Hence what we do and say – in the streets, on talk radio, in the op-ed pages and on Twitter – actually matters.

With this in mind, let me run through what I think Labour – a significant force in civil society, with half a million members – should do in response to each scenario, and which one we should support.

First, in response to the nuclear option of no-deal, we need to plead – and I mean plead – with the EU not to do it. It would trigger major trade disruption, massive financial uncertainty and tank economic growth in the space of a few weeks. Businesses would go under – and in an atmosphere of chaos, the xenophobic nationalism being stoked by the tabloids and the Tory right would run riot.

If May comes home from Brussels with a clear no-deal ultimatum, parliament would have less than 48 hours to unilaterally revoke Article 50. That means cancelling Brexit. As Labour’s shadow business secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey intimated on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday, the party would have to short-circuit its own internal divisions over a second referendum or a Norway-style deal and simply stop Brexit.

Second, what if May comes back with a short, final extension to 30 June? It would make a mockery of participation in the European parliamentary election, unless Labour made clear that its aim was a further extension beyond that. Any idea that we can sign an amended political declaration, at the point where May is due to be replaced by Boris Johnson, who could then rip it up, should be rejected.

Finally, what if the EU offers a flexible extension, ending for certain in nine months’ time or longer, removing the UK’s vote over budgets until matters are resolved?

For Labour – indeed for British democracy and the European project itself – this is the best option. Because time will allow two sets of people to have a say in the crisis who have been up to now excluded: the wider electorate, and Labour’s active membership....

At last, Brexit explained in two words: Basil Fawlty

Brexit: Theresa May's hopes dashed as EU targets delay of up to a year

Theresa May’s request for a short Brexit delay has been torn up, putting the EU on track to instead extend Britain’s membership until 2020.

Despite the prime minister’s desperate dash to Paris and Berlin to convince leaders of her plan to break the Brexit impasse, the European council president, Donald Tusk, signalled EU politicians’ lack of faith in her cross-party talks.

Against a backdrop of growing support among the EU27 for a lengthy Brexit delay, Tusk picked apart May’s appeal for a shorter delay to 30 June in a letter to the leaders inviting them to Wednesday’s summit, where they will agree the new end date.

An EU diplomat said on Tuesday, following a late-night meeting of ambassadors, that the two end dates crystallising in EU capitals were the end of December or the end of March 2020.....

More smears against those who voted for Brexit.  Including over 1/4 of Labour party supporters.

Neo-liberalism forever!

Really?  Then I guess I read this wrong:

This is the bulk of the pro-Brexit movement.

The statement was clearly not restricted to the demonstration.

Clinging onto a position that might have made sense in 1974 doesn’t take account of that changed reality. That is the fundamental sectarian, dogmatic weakness of the Lexiteers.

It makes more sense now than it did then.  Then, it was only the common market.  And that was before Thatcherism and Blairism.  The EU is far more extensive, and stands for Thatcherism and Blairism.

..the very first proposal is

1. A left-wing government must disobey the European Commission in a very transparent manner and in line with its prior commitments.

..so first the labour gov with the current manifesto must be in power. not a blairite labour. since this is not possible at the moment a process has to play out. this process has to include bringing the people along from the bottom up. included in the decision making. onside. not the chaos presented in the brexit vote. 

Theresa May agrees to October Brexit as Donald Tusk warns UK 'don't waste this time'

Britain will remain as a member state of the EU until 31 October, with the option to leave earlier if Theresa May can secure Commons support for the Brexit deal, after a Franco-German carve-up of the UK’s future.

A marathon six-hour debate among the EU leaders concluded with the prime minister being offered a longer extension than she had sought but providing a new Halloween no deal cliff-edge to focus minds in Westminster.

“This extension is as flexible as I expected and a little bit shorter than I expected but it is still enough to find the best possible solution,” the European council president, Donald Tusk, told a media conference that began after 2am local time. He said of the extra six months of EU membership. “Please do not waste this time.”.....

George Galloway, TMOATS, April 12, 2019 (talkshow)

https://talkradio.co.uk/radio/listen-again/1555092000

Brexit betrayal and the anger of the north, Assange arrest, Black Holes and more!

@7:00

NDPP wrote:

Brexit is Necessary To Protect NHS From TTIP, Says David Owen

https://t.co/eVVAL62ftj

"Former health secretary claims proposed trade deal between the US and the EU could make any privatisation irreversible..."

Never mind. Rah Rah EU Neoliberalism!

Article is from April 2016.

Labour on track for victory in European parliament elections that could hand EU commission presidency to socialists, polls show

A strong result for Labour in the European parliament elections could be enough to hand the European Commission presidency back to the continent’s centre-left, according to the latest polls.

With the latest polling showing a Labour landslide in the UK, Britain’s 73 MEPs could be enough to tip the balance of power in Brussels and clinch victory for the socialists – shifting the priorities of the whole EU leftwards.

With the latest polling showing a Labour landslide in the UK, Britain’s 73 MEPs could be enough to tip the balance of power in Brussels and clinch victory for the socialists – shifting the priorities of the whole EU leftwards.

The latest survey by Hanbury Strategy shows Jeremy Corbyn’s party coming top with 38 per cent of the vote, with the Tories trailing far behind on 23 per cent. The result for Labour would be the highest achieved by any UK party in European parliament elections in history. Other polls also show Labour in the lead in the contest.....

Opposing Brexit and winning party democracy are part of the same struggle

THIS critical stage in the Brexit debate is a time for the Labour left to present a united front. If you listen to some on the pro-Leave side, you would think most remainers in the Labour Party are neoliberals, longing for a return to some sort of pre-2016 utopia when the members kept quiet and party policy was dictated by centrist triangulation, instead of our democratic membership.

But in recent weeks, as the Brexit chaos has turned into a government meltdown, the left-wing opposition to Brexit — a quiet majority within Labour — has finally come to the forefront of the debate in the party and in the country. This is the perspective voiced by the Love Socialism Hate Brexit group of MPs, of which I am proud to be a part.

Love Socialism Hate Brexit was formed to oppose Brexit because it is a right-wing Tory project — an assault on the environment, migrants and the working-class communities that Labour exists to represent. Brexit is draining our politics, drowning out the real issues that we need to be dealing with.

quote:

We recognise that the European Union requires urgent and radical democratic reform if it is to be sustainable, but if Brexit goes ahead, we face a decade of further political disruption, with TTIP-style trade deals being negotiated, and yet more austerity.

This would be a disaster for Corbyn’s Labour. Failure to oppose Brexit, or working with the Tories to get it through, would also play into the hands of the Lib Dems and Change UK, embolden the far right, and damage the left within Labour.

Ahead of the party’s annual conference last September, an unprecedented 119 Constituency Labour Parties passed motions that explicitly called for a public vote on Brexit.

The final composite mandated MPs to oppose any deal that doesn’t meet our six tests, and called on us to “support all options remaining on the table, including campaigning for a public vote.”

The polling is also clear on this. Over 80 per cent of Labour members have consistently said they support a final public say on Brexit and think Brexit will be bad for Britain.

We also know the vast majority of Labour voters supported Remain at the referendum, while Labour leavers in the north of England have shifted to Remain in huge numbers.

Corbyn won two leadership elections comfortably. Large majorities of Labour members support Corbyn and oppose Brexit. The conclusion should be crystal clear: if we are serious about building a democratic, member-led party, we should be campaigning for a confirmatory vote on any Brexit deal and, if and when that referendum comes, campaign to remain and democratically transform the neoliberal biases of the European Union single market institutions and elites, in the best traditions of international democratic socialism. This is the will of the membership.

Theresa, EU’ve Done It Again

quote:

May’s keenness for a short extension stemmed mostly from a desperate attempt to avoid fighting the European elections: partly because her party and candidates hate the idea of having to battle for seats they will only hold for a very short period; but also because the Conservatives will almost certainly be wiped out at the polls. The United Kingdom Independence party (UKIP), Nigel Farage’s erstwhile political home, are also expected to poll terribly, leaving Labour with a huge boost. A Labour landslide in the European elections will naturally help Corbyn, but it has far wider implications: under the rules of the EU Parliament’s Spitzenkandidat system, if Labour wins seventy-three seats, it will tip the balance of the European Parliament from center-right to center-left, likely handing the presidency of the European Commission to the socialists for the first time since the 1994 European elections.

It is a myth to describe the North as Brexitland and why it is time to face facts over People’s Vote

If you are an MP in the North of England, as we are, ‘published opinion’ (and Nigel Farage) tells you we are surrounded by shouty people who all voted for Brexit; whose entire lives are dominated by anger that the “elites” are betraying them.

‘Published opinion’ states that we Northern Labour MPs live in constant fear of losing our seats, unless we repeat that mantra that Leave means Leave and – if we don’t deliver ‘the will of the people’ – we are all heading for the political scrapyard.

Journalist after journalist writes it. Broadcaster after broadcaster says it out loud. The London-based metropolitan media has declared it so. The North is Brexitland.

On the rare occasion when they venture outside Westminster, they depict ‘the North’ with films of chimney pots and run-down mills and find a few angry men who warn that there will be riots on the streets if Brexit is not delivered immediately.

Of course such people do exist, but they exist in London too. And Brighton. and Cambridge. And Glasgow. But these are ‘Remain’ cities. How dare the media use our constituents to reaffirm Brexit stereotypes of 2016? They were stereotypes then and they still are.

quote:

Earlier this year, the biggest poll done so far of more than 6,000 voters across three Northern regions – the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber – showed they would now split narrowly in favour of staying in the EU if they were allowed another say.

josh wrote:

Brexit Party takes the lead in the European elections.

https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1118484121209253894

Truckload of salt please.

This poll  may look different from Canadian eyes but these elections are proportional and so smaller parties are not eliminated or downsized as they are in FPTP. Therefore party splits are less meaningful.

Let's look at the numbers again:

Brexit party 27

Ukip 7

=34

Left parties

Labour 22

Green 10

= 32

Conservatives (whatever that means now) = 15

Liberal Democrats 9

Change UK 6

 

So barely more than a third in the hands of firm Brexiters. The Conservatives are probably quite split and most of the others (although not all) are against.

In short the European elections really indicate that the UK is as split as ever. Any majority that might be constructed is narrow and subject to deep internal division.

The reality for the UK is that  there really has been no significant majority on any one side from the start. A leave majority was created when leave meant anything people wanted it to mean. Remain also is a coalition of people that may include remain as is and remain with certain reforms that also may not be agreed upon.

Both sides have claimed clear direction but the country is very close to evenly split without either side having enough to create a majority path in any one direction beyond the heading of leave or reamin. No wonder they seem so incapable of getting past the original referendum question to move to a more detailed "how" question.