Simple straight question. Have you seen or even heard Richard Burgon in "action"?
For your information, he is the Shadow Justice Minister. He was hand-picked by Corbyn.
Yvette Cooper is a back-bencher.
It’s tragic isn’t it. We do have to take into consideration though that with one or two exceptions there is no one of any calibre willing to serve in Corbyns shadow cabinet. Doesn’t really inspire confidence does it.
I'm confident that both Labour and Conservatives are equally capable of screwing things up. Useless across the board...
I think I'll back labour. Part of me refuses to believe it could be any worse. The other part of me (the part that licks 9v batteries) thinks that if it could get worse, I think I'd like to see it.
Appalling as Labour's handling of this whole mess appears to be on the surface, the mere idea that the Tories should get anywhere near government for another decade is terrifying.
No doubt about it, Labour have some right plums fronting up for them, like that Burgon bloke mentioned above for example, but they also have others like Starmer, Umanna, Jess Philips, Cooper, Chris Leslie, etc. who surely, even if they tried, could not be any worse than what we're currently lumbered with. I know as "centrists" they are out of favour with the political environment across the UK and Europe at the moment but I would expect that to be short lived and in time we'll see a move away from any left or right wing extremism.
Anna Soubry summed it up last night when she told Richard Burgon that Labour was being presented with an open goal against her own party but had taken the Nicky Bailey* approach instead.
This, "they're all as bad each other" approach to politics is maybe why we end up re-electing such miserable politicians year after year rather than considering the alternatives.
*well, she probably would have said that if she'd seen his penalty.
I have my own personal opinions, but I rate Keir Starmer very highly, also Rebecca Long-Bailey, Jon Ashworth and Angela Rayner. I do also think Emily Thornberry would make a good foreign secretary.
In terms of a second referendum, the burning issue is going to be the questions to ask. I had favoured an in/out and then an if out soft or hard out, but that isn't going to be likely as the view seems to be that is too complicated for the people to get their heads around. So my suggestion would be, we know which MPs voted for Remain and which ones Brexit. Arrange for Westminster Central Hall to be booked and let all the known Brexit MPs who keep telling us what the people voted for to agree what that is amongst themselves and that can go on the ballot paper with remain.
I don't rate many politicians very highly, and fully take Prague's Student Union point. However in terms of generality when making comparisons, weakly expressed ideological positions, or impractical or illogical positions, are as nothing when lined up alongside the naked evil mendacity of the likes of Priti Patel, Michael Gove, Boris, McVey and other Tories. It is usually about the least worst, like another referendum is the least worst next Brexit option or Diane Abbott is not as bad as that Attorney General Cox (who came across to me as a complete Prince of Darkness last week).
"The ECJ is clearly signalling that membership of the European Union, and the rights and responsibilities which come with it, is voluntary. States exercise their sovereignty to choose to join the European Union and the Court emphasises that when states join the EU using the Article 49 TEU process they ‘freely and voluntary’ commit themselves to the values underpinning the EU. The discipline of EU membership – including acceptance of the primacy and direct effect of EU law – is something which states can accept voluntarily by joining, or reject voluntarily by leaving the EU. If a state decides to change its mind and not to leave but to remain a Member State, it must be free to do so voluntarily and can neither be coerced into leaving or be authorized to remain by the other Member States. In short, the Union is a voluntary association of sovereign and equal Member States. As political messages go, that is a pretty big message.
That big message also comes with a more specific message for the UK. If the UK were to decide to remain in the EU it would do so ‘under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State’. Given that the UK’s membership of the EU entails a range of opt-outs, these would not be up for renegotiation as a condition of remaining an EU Member State. In other words, the status quo of remaining in the EU would be the status quo of the UK’s current terms of membership."
"All of which leaves open the question of what democratic requirements might be required by UK law. As we saw with the original Article 50 withdrawal notification, it may not be entirely apparent what rules UK law imposes. Phillipson and Young contend that an Act of Parliament would be required given that the will of Parliament – expressed in the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 providing for the UK’s departure from the EU – would be frustrated by a revocation of the UK’s Article 50 notice. A referendum prior to that decision would not be required although it could be undertaken if the UK so chose. But whether a referendum occurs or not is being driven by the somewhat chaotic domestic politics of Brexit rather than being a product of the Court’s Wightman ruling. Indeed one way of reading the judgment is that the best way of securing an unconditional and unequivocal decision to revoke the notified intention to withdraw from the EU is for the UK Parliament to legislate accordingly.
If the political message of the Wightman ruling is that the EU is a union of sovereign states, then the legal message is that it is up to the sovereign UK Parliament to decide whether the UK leaves the EU or remains a Member State. But as the Prime Minister’s decision to postpone a vote on her deal reveals, it is not obvious that there is any consensus within Parliament to move one way or another. The Court of Justice has left open the possibility for the Brexit bullet to be returned to the chamber. It is not obvious that the Chamber of the House of Commons knows whether it wants the bullet back."
Simple straight question. Have you seen or even heard Richard Burgon in "action"?
For your information, he is the Shadow Justice Minister. He was hand-picked by Corbyn.
Yvette Cooper is a back-bencher.
It’s tragic isn’t it. We do have to take into consideration though that with one or two exceptions there is no one of any calibre willing to serve in Corbyns shadow cabinet. Doesn’t really inspire confidence does it.
Ironically, Corbyn, who is considering when to call a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, lost a vote of confidence in his own leadership by 172 to 40 and yet rather than resign he chose to hide behind the skirts of the membership. What you're left with is 40 Corbyn apologists to make up the opposition front bench. The Labour party is exactly the jokeshop it deserves to be.
To be honest, what I read yesterday was that as it stands, any vote of no confidence right now would not only almost certainly fail, but would actually give Teresa May an unexpected pat on the back. The DUP would not back Labour to topple the governmenmet, and the Tories, for all their bickering, won't vote themselves into opposition. As a labour voter, I would like to like Corbyn. A lot of what he stands for regarding the decrepit state of the Uk with it's failing social services, strikes a real chord. However, Idoubt the reality of his economics, and since staging a relatively great result at the last election, he seems hell bent on demonstrating that he would be another joke prime minister to stand alongside May. The Tories have served up open goal after open goal during this legislature - Labour have cheerfully chosen to see not only the goal, but the ball too, as irrelevant. All this suggests that if Labour are waiting for the correct moment to trigger a confidence motion, they badly need someone with a bit of nous the front bench don't collectively possess to tell them when to do it. And both the SNP and the Libs seem equally unable to wait until they have a real shot at making it count. It's been said over and over, what a collection of idiots we have. The Tories are a genuinely nasty bunch, while Labour seem to front line with student union politics which sound great but really aren't grounded in the real world. Where are Monty Python when you need them - the Life of Brexit is crying out for a decent lampoon.
If ERG feel that there is a real risk that should Labour call a vote of no confidence and the government loses with the DUP still unable to support whatever deal May brings to the house next time so votes against the government then they will put forward an alternative leader and call a contest. If they don’t and the scenario I describe plays out then there will have to be a general election and Brexit could then theoretically be in jeopardy. They won’t allow that possibility. The problem ERG have is that they have to go for broke before any no confidence vote is tabled. Have they the numbers and have they the balls ? I think they are very close to pressing the button.
If ERG feel that there is a real risk that should Labour call a vote of no confidence and the government loses with the DUP still unable to support whatever deal May brings to the house next time so votes against the government then they will put forward an alternative leader and call a contest. If they don’t and the scenario I describe plays out then there will have to be a general election and Brexit could then theoretically be in jeopardy. They won’t allow that possibility. The problem ERG have is that they have to go for broke before any no confidence vote is tabled. Have they the numbers and have they the balls ? I think they are very close to pressing the button.
The ERG couldn’t even drum up 48 no confidence letters when their head priest made his move a couple of weeks ago. I don’t understand why people pay them so much attention.
I'm curious whether anyone here thinks any of the political parties are capable of delivering a Brexit that will satisfy those who voted to leave and not completely fuck over this country for years or decades to come? Personally I don't think such a deal even exists!
If ERG feel that there is a real risk that should Labour call a vote of no confidence and the government loses with the DUP still unable to support whatever deal May brings to the house next time so votes against the government then they will put forward an alternative leader and call a contest. If they don’t and the scenario I describe plays out then there will have to be a general election and Brexit could then theoretically be in jeopardy. They won’t allow that possibility. The problem ERG have is that they have to go for broke before any no confidence vote is tabled. Have they the numbers and have they the balls ? I think they are very close to pressing the button.
The ERG couldn’t even drum up 48 no confidence letters when their head priest made his move a couple of weeks ago. I don’t understand why people pay them so much attention.
I’m forming my opinion based on what was in many of yesterday’s newspapers. I think they lacked the numbers a couple of weeks ago because many of the disgruntled Tories were prepared to wait and see what May could do more. I do not think that “assurances” and changes to the language used in the WA will appease many and certainly not the DUP. That ensures the deal will fail when eventually voted on. Can ERG and the Tory brexiters risk a vote of no confidence directly following the vote and despite all Tories rallying to the flag still losing because the DUP are still pissed ? That would mean a General Election. If that happens the Brexit the Tory party want is unlikely to happen. Far less risky to get a new leader in now to steady the good ship Brexit.
If ERG feel that there is a real risk that should Labour call a vote of no confidence and the government loses with the DUP still unable to support whatever deal May brings to the house next time so votes against the government then they will put forward an alternative leader and call a contest. If they don’t and the scenario I describe plays out then there will have to be a general election and Brexit could then theoretically be in jeopardy. They won’t allow that possibility. The problem ERG have is that they have to go for broke before any no confidence vote is tabled. Have they the numbers and have they the balls ? I think they are very close to pressing the button.
They have already pressed the button.
Rees-Mogg called for MPs to submit letters, presumably in the belief that he had the numbers when the May deal was announced but the coup flopped when they didn't get the 48 letters required.
It maybe that the numbers are now there but will they risk another embarrassing failure?
If ERG feel that there is a real risk that should Labour call a vote of no confidence and the government loses with the DUP still unable to support whatever deal May brings to the house next time so votes against the government then they will put forward an alternative leader and call a contest. If they don’t and the scenario I describe plays out then there will have to be a general election and Brexit could then theoretically be in jeopardy. They won’t allow that possibility. The problem ERG have is that they have to go for broke before any no confidence vote is tabled. Have they the numbers and have they the balls ? I think they are very close to pressing the button.
They have already pressed the button.
Rees-Mogg called for MPs to submit letters, presumably in the belief that he had the numbers when the May deal was announced but the coup flopped when they didn't get the 48 letters required.
It maybe that the numbers are now there but will they risk another embarrassing failure?
See my post above.
I’m forming my opinion based on what was in many of yesterday’s newspapers. I think they lacked the numbers a couple of weeks ago because many of the disgruntled Tories were prepared to wait and see what May could do more.
If ERG feel that there is a real risk that should Labour call a vote of no confidence and the government loses with the DUP still unable to support whatever deal May brings to the house next time so votes against the government then they will put forward an alternative leader and call a contest. If they don’t and the scenario I describe plays out then there will have to be a general election and Brexit could then theoretically be in jeopardy. They won’t allow that possibility. The problem ERG have is that they have to go for broke before any no confidence vote is tabled. Have they the numbers and have they the balls ? I think they are very close to pressing the button.
The ERG couldn’t even drum up 48 no confidence letters when their head priest made his move a couple of weeks ago. I don’t understand why people pay them so much attention.
I’m forming my opinion based on what was in many of yesterday’s newspapers. I think they lacked the numbers a couple of weeks ago because many of the disgruntled Tories were prepared to wait and see what May could do more. I do not think that “assurances” and changes to the language used in the WA will appease many and certainly not the DUP. That ensures the deal will fail when eventually voted on. Can ERG and the Tory brexiters risk a vote of no confidence directly following the vote and despite all Tories rallying to the flag still losing because the DUP are still pissed ? That would mean a General Election. If that happens the Brexit the Tory party want is unlikely to happen. Far less risky to get a new leader in now to steady the good ship Brexit.
Let’s see, do the letters that were sent in previously when JRM got all excited still stand or do they expire after a set time period?
Maybe. Just maybe this whole sorry charade will bring about a desperately needed new band of politics and political parties that are actually fit for purpose in the 21st century. Doubtful. But you never know.
Just when I thought Burgon was as bad as it gets, I am reminded of the existence of Rebecca Long-Bailey. Breathtaking, almost heroic levels of incompetence
If ERG feel that there is a real risk that should Labour call a vote of no confidence and the government loses with the DUP still unable to support whatever deal May brings to the house next time so votes against the government then they will put forward an alternative leader and call a contest. If they don’t and the scenario I describe plays out then there will have to be a general election and Brexit could then theoretically be in jeopardy. They won’t allow that possibility. The problem ERG have is that they have to go for broke before any no confidence vote is tabled. Have they the numbers and have they the balls ? I think they are very close to pressing the button.
The ERG couldn’t even drum up 48 no confidence letters when their head priest made his move a couple of weeks ago. I don’t understand why people pay them so much attention.
I’m forming my opinion based on what was in many of yesterday’s newspapers. I think they lacked the numbers a couple of weeks ago because many of the disgruntled Tories were prepared to wait and see what May could do more. I do not think that “assurances” and changes to the language used in the WA will appease many and certainly not the DUP. That ensures the deal will fail when eventually voted on. Can ERG and the Tory brexiters risk a vote of no confidence directly following the vote and despite all Tories rallying to the flag still losing because the DUP are still pissed ? That would mean a General Election. If that happens the Brexit the Tory party want is unlikely to happen. Far less risky to get a new leader in now to steady the good ship Brexit.
Let’s see, do the letters that were sent in previously when JRM got all excited still stand or do they expire after a set time period?
If a letter is submitted, the MP is contacted before it's counted, to establish whether the MP still requires his/her letter to stand.
If ERG feel that there is a real risk that should Labour call a vote of no confidence and the government loses with the DUP still unable to support whatever deal May brings to the house next time so votes against the government then they will put forward an alternative leader and call a contest. If they don’t and the scenario I describe plays out then there will have to be a general election and Brexit could then theoretically be in jeopardy. They won’t allow that possibility. The problem ERG have is that they have to go for broke before any no confidence vote is tabled. Have they the numbers and have they the balls ? I think they are very close to pressing the button.
The ERG couldn’t even drum up 48 no confidence letters when their head priest made his move a couple of weeks ago. I don’t understand why people pay them so much attention.
I’m forming my opinion based on what was in many of yesterday’s newspapers. I think they lacked the numbers a couple of weeks ago because many of the disgruntled Tories were prepared to wait and see what May could do more. I do not think that “assurances” and changes to the language used in the WA will appease many and certainly not the DUP. That ensures the deal will fail when eventually voted on. Can ERG and the Tory brexiters risk a vote of no confidence directly following the vote and despite all Tories rallying to the flag still losing because the DUP are still pissed ? That would mean a General Election. If that happens the Brexit the Tory party want is unlikely to happen. Far less risky to get a new leader in now to steady the good ship Brexit.
Let’s see, do the letters that were sent in previously when JRM got all excited still stand or do they expire after a set time period?
If a letter is submitted, the MP is contacted before it's counted, to establish whether the MP still requires his/her letter to stand.
James Kirkup I started my first job at Westminster in 1994, more than half a lifetime ago. Almost all of my career has been spent watching politicians, talking to politicians, writing about politicians. I covered the case for war in Iraq and the war’s dismal descent into failure. I was part of the Telegraph team writing about MPs expenses. I’ve written about more ministerial resignations, scandals, failures of public policy and abdications of leadership than I can remember. None of those failures has ever left me quite as bewildered and despairing as I am today, pondering the latest act in the national farce that is Brexit. Bewildered, despairing and surprisingly angry.
Surprisingly because I don’t often get angry with politicians. One of my many failings as a political writer is a reluctance to condemn. Maybe I’ve been captured after years of proximity and familiarity, but I generally see politicians as just as weak and flawed and human as anyone else – no better than the rest of us, but no worse either. But while we all make mistakes, all sometimes lack a little courage, I find it hard to forgive lying. Especially deliberate, persistent and – most of all – consequential lying. And that is really what the Brexit mess is all about: lying. Pretty much everyone involved in this whole sorry mess is lying about something, and sometimes about more than one thing.
It’s hard to know where to begin with the list of lies and liars, but I suppose my old chum David Cameron is as good a start as any. He lied about Europe and immigration: he knew very well it wasn’t the poison that the liars of Ukip said it was. But instead of challenging the lies, he went along with them, then lied by suggesting he believed Britain’s EU relationship was fundamentally flawed, when in fact he knew it worked fairly well. Then he lied about how much he could achieve by renegotiating that relationship, and lied about how much he’d actually achieved in that renegotiation. Then he fought an election offering an end to the EU membership that he’d just (falsely) told the electorate was rubbish.
In the referendum campaign, he faced colleagues and friends who cheerily lied throughout: the “£350m for the NHS” lie was deliberate, intended to put a row about EU contributions in the headlines for days. Lies that Turkey was joining, which implied that migrants from Syria and Iraq would soon have free access to Britain, just gilded the decisive lie about immigration being bad for Britain. Special mention here for Boris Johnson, who lied about actually wanting Britain to leave the EU: he wanted to lose the referendum well enough to become Cameron’s inevitable successor.
Instead, Leave won. After Cameron proved he was lying when he said he wouldn’t quit if he lost, the country ended up with Theresa May. Now, I’ve been relatively kind about May of late, and I stand by that: I think her deal is the least bad option open to Britain, and I think her conduct in the Brexit negotiations since June 2017 has been far more sensible and responsible than that of the various colleagues who have resigned over it or just carped from the sidelines without offering viable alternatives.
But she too lied. As home secretary and then as PM, she bought into and promoted the grand lie about immigration, and based her entire approach to Brexit in 2016 on the premise that European immigration was a scourge on Britain that must be stopped at all costs. That led her to make ending Freedom of Movement the conditio sine qua non of Brexit, and from her decision to insist on leaving the Single Market, another of the major lies of Brexit descends: the lie that leaving could make us better off.
Over the last couple of years, sometimes even sensible people like Philip Hammond have said things like “no one voted to be poorer”. Well actually, yes they did.
Leaving the EU will be bad for the UK economy. It will mean we are poorer than we would otherwise be. That means less money in our pockets, less tax in the Exchequer, less health, wealth and, quite likely, happiness. Why? Because we have chosen to leave a first-class free trade deal with our biggest trading partners in the hope of contracting (at best) second-rate free trade deals with (at best) second-order trading partners.
So if you voted for Brexit, you voted to be poorer. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. They’re either lying unwittingly, because they somehow don’t understand that simple economic truth above, or lying deliberately because they aren’t willing to tell people that truth. May is one of many to fall into that second category; she wouldn’t have become PM otherwise, I suppose.
Perhaps it would have been better to have had a true Brexit believer in No 10, because a Leaver might have been able to be more candid about the realities and compromises of leaving. But then, when you consider the record of prominent Leavers in office, that idea seems optimistic, to say the least:
Consider David Davis in the House of Commons in January 2017:
“What we have come up with is the idea of a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have, but also enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade to go and form trade deals with the rest of the world, which is the real upside of leaving the European Union.”
Davis and his fellow Tory unicorn-traders aren’t the only subscribers to such fantastical lies, of course. Jeremy Corbyn’s dishonesty over Brexit takes many forms. He too has suggested it’s possible (and desirable, even) to leave the Single Market while retaining frictionless trade, to stay in the customs union and have a British say on trade policy. He too has blamed imported “cheap labour” for pushing down wages, and inveighed against Freedom of Movement. He’s even talked about the “benefits” of Brexit. But of course, his biggest lie is the one he tells to the supporters who want to stay in the EU, possibly by way of another referendum. Because, of course, he wants Britain to leave.
What about those who don’t want to leave, who want to reverse the referendum result and ensure British membership continues? Aren’t they being honest, at least? If only they were. One of the common lies on the Remain side is that this is all May’s fault, that the PM somehow singlehandedly and secretly led Britain to its current brink. In the age of lies, even events less than two years ago cannot be recalled honestly. So MPs who voted in favour of the most consequential decision of the Brexit process now brazenly complain that May did not take more time and care over her negotiation. I politely suggest that if you’re one of the 498 MPs who voted in February 2017 to authorise May to invoke Article 50 – even though neither she nor the country had settled on clear objectives for our exit – you should now think long and hard before rejecting the deal that she brought back from Brussels after following the process you endorsed. Or at least, be honest enough to say you played a part in setting the conditions for what you now say is a shambolic disappointment.
The biggest lie of the Stop Brexit side is the one about respect. Not about respecting the 2016 referendum result – which is no more sacred than any other vote – but respecting the people who cast the majority of votes in it. They, not the constitutional status of the referendum itself, are the reason Britain has to leave, even though leaving is a bad idea. And – no matter how hard Remainers try to misrepresent marginal shifts in polling data, those voters haven’t changed their minds. Which is hardly surprising, given the lack of honesty some Stop Brexit campaigners show about listening to them and respecting their views.
Me, I agree with Chuka Umunna of the People’s Vote about a second referendum. More precisely, I agree with what he said, honestly and truthfully, in December 2016:
‘I really have no time for calls for a second referendum because I think it comes across as disrespectful to those who voted to leave. Those calls reinforce what I feel is a false stereotype — of a bunch of people in London who think they know best. We are going to leave — it hurts me to say that — but we have got to move forward and work out how to get the best possible deal.’
Which is, at least in terms of the negotiation process since the 2017 general election, what Theresa May has done. Her deal is, more or less, the best possible deal that could have been negotiated within the conditions she and political consensus have imposed: leave the Single Market; end Freedom of Movement; no hard border on the island of Ireland; no customs border in the Irish Sea.
“Best possible deal” doesn’t mean “good deal”, of course. It isn’t a good deal, in the sense of one that delivers significant benefits. But it is better than all the alternatives – or more correctly, less bad than all the other bad alternatives.
Not that May will put it that way. She’d be much more persuasive if she did. But here we come to another dishonesty. Having voted to Remain, May thinks she honours the referendum result and Leave voters by adopting the falsehoods that underpin the Leave cause, especially the notion that Brexit is some sort of opportunity to be seized. Nor has she ever spelled out clearly enough the compromises that those conditions above would necessitate. That contributed to Westminster’s surprise at her perfectly predictable deal, surprise that helped make that deal unsellable.
Though to be fair, May’s lack of candour was a less significant factor in that surprise than simple carelessness: people who sit in Parliament and – especially – who served in her Cabinet before last December really shouldn’t be allowed to get away with claiming they weren’t informed about the implications of May’s approach. There are only two possible explanations for Johnson and Davis suggesting they were surprised by the Chequers deal in the summer: incompetence or dishonesty. Neither quality is a recommendation for the premiership they both still seek.
In short, many of the people who advocate Brexit are lying about the economic harms it will do, while many who advocate no Brexit are lying about the political harms that would do. How many? Enough to leave May’s deal stalled in Parliament, and Britain drifting ever closer to the precipice of a No Deal exit. (I haven’t bothered to even mention the lies of the No Deal crowd: what’s the point?)
And where do all these lies leave us? In today’s mess. The Prime Minister has negotiated the least bad deal possible under the circumstances, but she won’t be honest enough to say it’s a bad deal because delivering Brexit can only mean some sort of bad deal. Nor will enough MPs face up to that difficult fact. Partly that’s because May hasn’t been honest enough about the compromises she’s had to make. Partly it’s because they haven’t paid enough attention to the process to understand that this bad deal was inevitable. But mostly because they don’t have the courage and honesty to say to the electorate that in June 2016, the British people – in a democratic vote, with the facts available to them if they chose to study them – made a decision that leaves the country with the unavoidable task of choosing between bad options.
No one wants to tell the 52 per cent the truth that they voted for bad choices; no one wants to tell the 48 per cent that means we have to pick one of those bad choices. The result is that the least bad option can’t go forward because too many people still believe there’s something better on offer.
And the country, this country that could once claim to set the standard for political stability and solid common sense, is ruddlerless and bereft of leadership. Because so many politicians, the politicians I’ve spent my adult life talking to, writing about and often defending, have failed in their first responsibility: to tell people the truth. And that is where this column ends, because I have no idea of what follows on from that failure.
Perhaps more dishonesty will see us out of this mess. Perhaps the EU will pretend to compromise on the deal, May will pretend she’s won some great victory, and MPs will pretend that their efforts enabled that victory. Perhaps it would be a fitting resolution: if lies got us into this trap, maybe lies can get us out. But sooner or later, lies have consequences.
Comments
Appalling as Labour's handling of this whole mess appears to be on the surface, the mere idea that the Tories should get anywhere near government for another decade is terrifying.
No doubt about it, Labour have some right plums fronting up for them, like that Burgon bloke mentioned above for example, but they also have others like Starmer, Umanna, Jess Philips, Cooper, Chris Leslie, etc. who surely, even if they tried, could not be any worse than what we're currently lumbered with. I know as "centrists" they are out of favour with the political environment across the UK and Europe at the moment but I would expect that to be short lived and in time we'll see a move away from any left or right wing extremism.
Anna Soubry summed it up last night when she told Richard Burgon that Labour was being presented with an open goal against her own party but had taken the Nicky Bailey* approach instead.
This, "they're all as bad each other" approach to politics is maybe why we end up re-electing such miserable politicians year after year rather than considering the alternatives.
*well, she probably would have said that if she'd seen his penalty.
However in terms of generality when making comparisons, weakly expressed ideological positions, or impractical or illogical positions, are as nothing when lined up alongside the naked evil mendacity of the likes of Priti Patel, Michael Gove, Boris, McVey and other Tories.
It is usually about the least worst, like another referendum is the least worst next Brexit option or Diane Abbott is not as bad as that Attorney General Cox (who came across to me as a complete Prince of Darkness last week).
That big message also comes with a more specific message for the UK. If the UK were to decide to remain in the EU it would do so ‘under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a Member State’. Given that the UK’s membership of the EU entails a range of opt-outs, these would not be up for renegotiation as a condition of remaining an EU Member State. In other words, the status quo of remaining in the EU would be the status quo of the UK’s current terms of membership."
https://brexittime.com/2018/12/11/putting-the-bullet-back-in-the-chamber-could-parliament-exit-from-brexit/
"All of which leaves open the question of what democratic requirements might be required by UK law. As we saw with the original Article 50 withdrawal notification, it may not be entirely apparent what rules UK law imposes. Phillipson and Young contend that an Act of Parliament would be required given that the will of Parliament – expressed in the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 providing for the UK’s departure from the EU – would be frustrated by a revocation of the UK’s Article 50 notice. A referendum prior to that decision would not be required although it could be undertaken if the UK so chose. But whether a referendum occurs or not is being driven by the somewhat chaotic domestic politics of Brexit rather than being a product of the Court’s Wightman ruling. Indeed one way of reading the judgment is that the best way of securing an unconditional and unequivocal decision to revoke the notified intention to withdraw from the EU is for the UK Parliament to legislate accordingly.
If the political message of the Wightman ruling is that the EU is a union of sovereign states, then the legal message is that it is up to the sovereign UK Parliament to decide whether the UK leaves the EU or remains a Member State. But as the Prime Minister’s decision to postpone a vote on her deal reveals, it is not obvious that there is any consensus within Parliament to move one way or another. The Court of Justice has left open the possibility for the Brexit bullet to be returned to the chamber. It is not obvious that the Chamber of the House of Commons knows whether it wants the bullet back."
Not only is Sturgeon not in dialogue with Corbyn, she is openly and publicly quarrelling with the Labour front bench.
@MuttleyCAFC - I’d love to believe your predictions (which apparently are always correct) but the truth on the ground seems to contradict them.
For me the path to a sensible Brexit outcome requires a change at the top of the Labour Party even more than the top of the Tory Party.
All this suggests that if Labour are waiting for the correct moment to trigger a confidence motion, they badly need someone with a bit of nous the front bench don't collectively possess to tell them when to do it. And both the SNP and the Libs seem equally unable to wait until they have a real shot at making it count. It's been said over and over, what a collection of idiots we have. The Tories are a genuinely nasty bunch, while Labour seem to front line with student union politics which sound great but really aren't grounded in the real world.
Where are Monty Python when you need them - the Life of Brexit is crying out for a decent lampoon.
No idea how many are in so far.
Rees-Mogg called for MPs to submit letters, presumably in the belief that he had the numbers when the May deal was announced but the coup flopped when they didn't get the 48 letters required.
It maybe that the numbers are now there but will they risk another embarrassing failure?
I’m forming my opinion based on what was in many of yesterday’s newspapers. I think they lacked the numbers a couple of weeks ago because many of the disgruntled Tories were prepared to wait and see what May could do more.
Doubtful. But you never know.
This is excellent.
The lies and liars of Brexit
James Kirkup
I started my first job at Westminster in 1994, more than half a lifetime ago. Almost all of my career has been spent watching politicians, talking to politicians, writing about politicians. I covered the case for war in Iraq and the war’s dismal descent into failure. I was part of the Telegraph team writing about MPs expenses. I’ve written about more ministerial resignations, scandals, failures of public policy and abdications of leadership than I can remember. None of those failures has ever left me quite as bewildered and despairing as I am today, pondering the latest act in the national farce that is Brexit. Bewildered, despairing and surprisingly angry.
Surprisingly because I don’t often get angry with politicians. One of my many failings as a political writer is a reluctance to condemn. Maybe I’ve been captured after years of proximity and familiarity, but I generally see politicians as just as weak and flawed and human as anyone else – no better than the rest of us, but no worse either. But while we all make mistakes, all sometimes lack a little courage, I find it hard to forgive lying. Especially deliberate, persistent and – most of all – consequential lying. And that is really what the Brexit mess is all about: lying. Pretty much everyone involved in this whole sorry mess is lying about something, and sometimes about more than one thing.
It’s hard to know where to begin with the list of lies and liars, but I suppose my old chum David Cameron is as good a start as any. He lied about Europe and immigration: he knew very well it wasn’t the poison that the liars of Ukip said it was. But instead of challenging the lies, he went along with them, then lied by suggesting he believed Britain’s EU relationship was fundamentally flawed, when in fact he knew it worked fairly well. Then he lied about how much he could achieve by renegotiating that relationship, and lied about how much he’d actually achieved in that renegotiation. Then he fought an election offering an end to the EU membership that he’d just (falsely) told the electorate was rubbish.
In the referendum campaign, he faced colleagues and friends who cheerily lied throughout: the “£350m for the NHS” lie was deliberate, intended to put a row about EU contributions in the headlines for days. Lies that Turkey was joining, which implied that migrants from Syria and Iraq would soon have free access to Britain, just gilded the decisive lie about immigration being bad for Britain. Special mention here for Boris Johnson, who lied about actually wanting Britain to leave the EU: he wanted to lose the referendum well enough to become Cameron’s inevitable successor.
Instead, Leave won. After Cameron proved he was lying when he said he wouldn’t quit if he lost, the country ended up with Theresa May. Now, I’ve been relatively kind about May of late, and I stand by that: I think her deal is the least bad option open to Britain, and I think her conduct in the Brexit negotiations since June 2017 has been far more sensible and responsible than that of the various colleagues who have resigned over it or just carped from the sidelines without offering viable alternatives.
But she too lied. As home secretary and then as PM, she bought into and promoted the grand lie about immigration, and based her entire approach to Brexit in 2016 on the premise that European immigration was a scourge on Britain that must be stopped at all costs. That led her to make ending Freedom of Movement the conditio sine qua non of Brexit, and from her decision to insist on leaving the Single Market, another of the major lies of Brexit descends: the lie that leaving could make us better off.
Over the last couple of years, sometimes even sensible people like Philip Hammond have said things like “no one voted to be poorer”. Well actually, yes they did.
Leaving the EU will be bad for the UK economy. It will mean we are poorer than we would otherwise be. That means less money in our pockets, less tax in the Exchequer, less health, wealth and, quite likely, happiness. Why? Because we have chosen to leave a first-class free trade deal with our biggest trading partners in the hope of contracting (at best) second-rate free trade deals with (at best) second-order trading partners.
So if you voted for Brexit, you voted to be poorer. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. They’re either lying unwittingly, because they somehow don’t understand that simple economic truth above, or lying deliberately because they aren’t willing to tell people that truth. May is one of many to fall into that second category; she wouldn’t have become PM otherwise, I suppose.
Perhaps it would have been better to have had a true Brexit believer in No 10, because a Leaver might have been able to be more candid about the realities and compromises of leaving. But then, when you consider the record of prominent Leavers in office, that idea seems optimistic, to say the least:
Consider David Davis in the House of Commons in January 2017:
“What we have come up with is the idea of a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have, but also enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade to go and form trade deals with the rest of the world, which is the real upside of leaving the European Union.”
Davis and his fellow Tory unicorn-traders aren’t the only subscribers to such fantastical lies, of course. Jeremy Corbyn’s dishonesty over Brexit takes many forms. He too has suggested it’s possible (and desirable, even) to leave the Single Market while retaining frictionless trade, to stay in the customs union and have a British say on trade policy. He too has blamed imported “cheap labour” for pushing down wages, and inveighed against Freedom of Movement. He’s even talked about the “benefits” of Brexit. But of course, his biggest lie is the one he tells to the supporters who want to stay in the EU, possibly by way of another referendum. Because, of course, he wants Britain to leave.
What about those who don’t want to leave, who want to reverse the referendum result and ensure British membership continues? Aren’t they being honest, at least? If only they were. One of the common lies on the Remain side is that this is all May’s fault, that the PM somehow singlehandedly and secretly led Britain to its current brink. In the age of lies, even events less than two years ago cannot be recalled honestly. So MPs who voted in favour of the most consequential decision of the Brexit process now brazenly complain that May did not take more time and care over her negotiation. I politely suggest that if you’re one of the 498 MPs who voted in February 2017 to authorise May to invoke Article 50 – even though neither she nor the country had settled on clear objectives for our exit – you should now think long and hard before rejecting the deal that she brought back from Brussels after following the process you endorsed. Or at least, be honest enough to say you played a part in setting the conditions for what you now say is a shambolic disappointment.
The biggest lie of the Stop Brexit side is the one about respect. Not about respecting the 2016 referendum result – which is no more sacred than any other vote – but respecting the people who cast the majority of votes in it. They, not the constitutional status of the referendum itself, are the reason Britain has to leave, even though leaving is a bad idea. And – no matter how hard Remainers try to misrepresent marginal shifts in polling data, those voters haven’t changed their minds. Which is hardly surprising, given the lack of honesty some Stop Brexit campaigners show about listening to them and respecting their views.
Me, I agree with Chuka Umunna of the People’s Vote about a second referendum. More precisely, I agree with what he said, honestly and truthfully, in December 2016:
‘I really have no time for calls for a second referendum because I think it comes across as disrespectful to those who voted to leave. Those calls reinforce what I feel is a false stereotype — of a bunch of people in London who think they know best. We are going to leave — it hurts me to say that — but we have got to move forward and work out how to get the best possible deal.’
Which is, at least in terms of the negotiation process since the 2017 general election, what Theresa May has done. Her deal is, more or less, the best possible deal that could have been negotiated within the conditions she and political consensus have imposed: leave the Single Market; end Freedom of Movement; no hard border on the island of Ireland; no customs border in the Irish Sea.
“Best possible deal” doesn’t mean “good deal”, of course. It isn’t a good deal, in the sense of one that delivers significant benefits. But it is better than all the alternatives – or more correctly, less bad than all the other bad alternatives.
Not that May will put it that way. She’d be much more persuasive if she did. But here we come to another dishonesty. Having voted to Remain, May thinks she honours the referendum result and Leave voters by adopting the falsehoods that underpin the Leave cause, especially the notion that Brexit is some sort of opportunity to be seized. Nor has she ever spelled out clearly enough the compromises that those conditions above would necessitate. That contributed to Westminster’s surprise at her perfectly predictable deal, surprise that helped make that deal unsellable.
Though to be fair, May’s lack of candour was a less significant factor in that surprise than simple carelessness: people who sit in Parliament and – especially – who served in her Cabinet before last December really shouldn’t be allowed to get away with claiming they weren’t informed about the implications of May’s approach. There are only two possible explanations for Johnson and Davis suggesting they were surprised by the Chequers deal in the summer: incompetence or dishonesty. Neither quality is a recommendation for the premiership they both still seek.
In short, many of the people who advocate Brexit are lying about the economic harms it will do, while many who advocate no Brexit are lying about the political harms that would do. How many? Enough to leave May’s deal stalled in Parliament, and Britain drifting ever closer to the precipice of a No Deal exit. (I haven’t bothered to even mention the lies of the No Deal crowd: what’s the point?)
And where do all these lies leave us? In today’s mess. The Prime Minister has negotiated the least bad deal possible under the circumstances, but she won’t be honest enough to say it’s a bad deal because delivering Brexit can only mean some sort of bad deal. Nor will enough MPs face up to that difficult fact. Partly that’s because May hasn’t been honest enough about the compromises she’s had to make. Partly it’s because they haven’t paid enough attention to the process to understand that this bad deal was inevitable. But mostly because they don’t have the courage and honesty to say to the electorate that in June 2016, the British people – in a democratic vote, with the facts available to them if they chose to study them – made a decision that leaves the country with the unavoidable task of choosing between bad options.
No one wants to tell the 52 per cent the truth that they voted for bad choices; no one wants to tell the 48 per cent that means we have to pick one of those bad choices. The result is that the least bad option can’t go forward because too many people still believe there’s something better on offer.
And the country, this country that could once claim to set the standard for political stability and solid common sense, is ruddlerless and bereft of leadership. Because so many politicians, the politicians I’ve spent my adult life talking to, writing about and often defending, have failed in their first responsibility: to tell people the truth. And that is where this column ends, because I have no idea of what follows on from that failure.
Perhaps more dishonesty will see us out of this mess. Perhaps the EU will pretend to compromise on the deal, May will pretend she’s won some great victory, and MPs will pretend that their efforts enabled that victory. Perhaps it would be a fitting resolution: if lies got us into this trap, maybe lies can get us out. But sooner or later, lies have consequences.