Brexit - the next steps

[jeremyp]

Why would it result in open warfare

The leadership - Corbyn specifically - is Euro-sceptic. He wants Brexit to happen although he may disagree with the government on the specifics. I don't think the Labour party could change course without another leadership battle.

[ProfessorDavey]

The leadership - Corbyn specifically - is Euro-sceptic. He wants Brexit to happen although he may disagree with the government on the specifics. I don't think the Labour party could change course without another leadership battle.

I think Corbyn is euro-conflicted rather than euro-sceptic. I think there are many aspect to the EU project that resonate greatly - remember left wing politics has always considered itself to be inherently internationalist.

But he is also, at heart, a believer in 'bottom-up' politics - in other words that the membership decide and the leadership are custodians of the decisions of the members. The best example of this is Trident renewal. This is an area where Corbyn is much more passionate (and vehemently opposed) compared to the EU - yet he went into the 2017 General Election as leader of a party that had committed to Trident replacement in its manifesto. Why? Because that is what the membership decided.

[jeremyp]

I think Corbyn is euro-conflicted rather than euro-sceptic.

Historically he is Euro-sceptic. That's why he was almost invisible during the referendum campaign.

But he is also, at heart, a believer in 'bottom-up' politics - in other words that the membership decide and the leadership are custodians of the decisions of the members. The best example of this is Trident renewal. This is an area where Corbyn is much more passionate (and vehemently opposed) compared to the EU - yet he went into the 2017 General Election as leader of a party that had committed to Trident replacement in its manifesto. Why? Because that is what the membership decided.

I think that is why he is very quiet about what his personal EU views are.

[Nearly Sane]

Historically he is Euro-sceptic. That's why he was almost invisible during the referendum campaign.

I think that is why he is very quiet about what his personal EU views are.

Don't understand that last point. Seems to say Corbyn is keeping quiet about the EU because he is getting his way?

[jakswan]

I think Corbyn is euro-conflicted rather than euro-sceptic. I think there are many aspect to the EU project that resonate greatly - remember left wing politics has always considered itself to be inherently internationalist.

The centre left/right are inherently internationalist, the extremes of the left and right are not.

But he is also, at heart, a believer in 'bottom-up' politics - in other words that the membership decide and the leadership are custodians of the decisions of the members. The best example of this is Trident renewal. This is an area where Corbyn is much more passionate (and vehemently opposed) compared to the EU - yet he went into the 2017 General Election as leader of a party that had committed to Trident replacement in its manifesto. Why? Because that is what the membership decided.

No at heart he is a socialist, he did give a little bit of pragmatic ground on Trident but even then was promising an early defence review, which I felt clearly meant the policy would change should Labour get into power.

How many times has JC voted against the Labour party?

If JC gets into power it will be socialism and that can't happen EU, I know it, you know it and most importantly JC knows it.

[jakswan]

Why would it result in open warfare - it would be quite the reverse as a change in policy would align policy with the views of the vast, vast majority of the party both in Westminster and amongst rank and file members. A change in policy would create a party much more comfortable with itself on policy rather than the current extremely uneasy situation where the vast majority don't agree with the policy (and it is pretty clear too when you hear even those at the top that they aren't really comfortable with the situation).

The picture you paint of JC is that he is a pragmatic politician, he isn't, he is an idealist and has rebelled against his own party many many times.

You said yourself 'Why they aren't is, frankly, beyond me' I offered an explanation, Occams?

[ProfessorDavey]

The centre left/right are inherently internationalist, the extremes of the left and right are not.

Absolute rubbish - the extreme left have always been extremely internationalist - seeing their politics as a movement that has no truck with traditional national borders - indeed they are typically very dismissive of the very notion of the nation state.

The extreme right, I freely accept are nationalist, not internationalist, but not the extreme left. Think about the 30s when those on hard left joined international brigades to fight for their political views in wars that didn't come close to involving the UK - that's because of their internationalist outlook.

[ProfessorDavey]

No at heart he is a socialist, he did give a little bit of pragmatic ground on Trident but even then was promising an early defence review, which I felt clearly meant the policy would change should Labour get into power.

Sure he is a socialist - and one of his most firmly held views, expressed time and time again over decades is his opposition to nuclear weapons and the UK nuclear deterrent.

Yet he included renewal in his manifesto - that goes beyond 'pragmatism' - he did so out of another massively firmly held view of his - that the leadership of the party accepts the views of the membership - that the membership holds the power, not the leadership. And sure, he might call for a review, but that review would be subject to endorsement by the membership and Corbyn will accept their view, regardless of whether he likes their decision - just as he did in 2015 and 2016.

[Nearly Sane]

As a quick question, has Corbyn reversed his statement about not suggesting HoL candidates because of a party decision?

[ProfessorDavey]

If JC gets into power it will be socialism and that can't happen EU, I know it, you know it and most importantly JC knows it.

Really - I don't think Corbyn's are any more 'extreme' than those regularly adopted by many EU countries, notably Sweden, Denmark and Finland regularly over the past few decades. They seemed to manage it pretty comfortably while remaining members of the EU.

I don't agree with Corbyn on a range of issues, and my biggest problem with him is that I do not believe that he is able to actually run anything, rather than simply being a occasionally effective campaigner. However I cannot see how anything in the 2017 Labour manifesto is somehow incompatible with being in the EU (except the required bits on Brexit which the party did not support in the referendum).

[ProfessorDavey]

As a quick question, has Corbyn reversed his statement about not suggesting HoL candidates because of a party decision?

Context please?

[SusanDoris]

The logical part of my brain tells me that is a wild conspiracy theory, but I can't think of an  alternative that doesn't involve him being a snivelling pathetic idiot using "dog ate my homework" style excuses.

[jakswan]

Absolute rubbish - the extreme left have always been extremely internationalist - seeing their politics as a movement that has no truck with traditional national borders - indeed they are typically very dismissive of the very notion of the nation state.

The extreme left like the Soviet Union, China are extremely internationalist?

Some debate about the Nazi's - the National Socialist party were left wing but don't think I need to go there.

[Aruntraveller]

I think you two are arguing over different interpretations of the extreme left.

Prof was talking largely about the "extreme left" in a European context in response to your comments about Corbyn. To then drag in the state communism of the former USSR and the current China is not really relevant.

As for bringing in the National Socialists - go read William L Shirer.

Totalitarianism is not a synonym for socialism.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you two are arguing over different interpretations of the extreme left.

Prof was talking largely about the "extreme left" in a European context in response to your comments about Corbyn. To then drag in the state communism of the former USSR and the current China is not really relevant.

As for bringing in the National Socialists - go read William L Shirer.

Totalitarianism is not a synonym for socialism.

Indeed - I suspect Jakswan doesn't really understand the difference between a democratic socialist and an authoritarian communist - they are chalk and cheese - but to him I guess they are just 'lefties'.

[jakswan]

Indeed - I suspect Jakswan doesn't really understand the difference between a democratic socialist and an authoritarian communist - they are chalk and cheese - but to him I guess they are just 'lefties'.

Of course they are chalk and cheese mainly on a different axis (liberal - authoritarian) but I'm not making claims about the extreme left, you were. 

[ProfessorDavey]

... but I'm not making claims about the extreme left, you were.

Really?!? Am I imaging post 12026 in which you make the following statement (direct quote):

"The centre left/right are inherently internationalist, the extremes of the left and right are not."

If that isn't making a claim about the extreme left (i.e. that they are not internationalist) then I have no idea what it is.

[ProfessorDavey]

The extreme left like the Soviet Union, China are extremely internationalist?

Actually yes, in theory, although in practice global factionalism kicks in, in which 'my version of left wing politics is better than your version' prevails.

But the inherent political philosophy underpinning most left wing ideologies (whether socialist, communist etc) is internationalist - 'workers of the world unite', perhaps the most famous phrase from the communist manifesto is inherently internationalist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_of_the_world,_unite!

The whole development of left wing politics is imbued with the idea (ideal perhaps) that workers are involved in the same struggle regardless of where they live in the world and that change happens when those workers unite and support each other where-ever they may be.

By contrast most right wing politics, on the extreme margins, is inherently nationalist focussing on people in one country or race etc. So while Hitler may have considered Mussolini or Franco as pragmatically useful allies, they weren't fighting the same battle as for Hitler the focus was Germany and the German people, while for Mussolini it was the Italian people etc. That isn't internationalist in the way that 'workers of the world unite' inherently is.

[ProfessorDavey]

The centre left/right are inherently internationalist, the extremes of the left and right are not.

A little learning may do you some good:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics)

Read the article and you will see that the history of internationalism is effectively completely aligned with the development of left wing politics from the mid 19thC onwards, and involves those with both moderate and more extreme left wing political positions.

Internationalism and left wing politics (across the political spectrum of the left) are basically intertwined.

If you had ever spent any time as a member of a left wing political organisation, talking to those across the left you would get that - internationalism runs through those on the left like 'Blackpool' runs through a stick of rock.

[jakswan]

Really?!? Am I imaging post 12026 in which you make the following statement (direct quote):

"The centre left/right are inherently internationalist, the extremes of the left and right are not."

If that isn't making a claim about the extreme left (i.e. that they are not internationalist) then I have no idea what it is.

The extreme left can be internationalist, in fact my statement there was partially wrong. Neither the centre left or centre right are inherently internationalist.

This is from Wiki on JC:-

In the 1975 European Union referendum put forward by the Labour Party in the United Kingdom, Corbyn opposed Britain's membership of the European Union (EU).[197]

Corbyn also opposed the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, saying: "... the whole basis of the Maastricht treaty is the establishment of a European central bank which is staffed by bankers, independent of national Governments and national economic policies, and whose sole policy is the maintenance of price stability[.] That will undermine any social objective that any Labour Government in the United Kingdom—or any other Government—would wish to carry out. ... The Maastricht treaty does not take us in the direction of the checks and balances contained in the American federal constitution[.] It takes us in the opposite direction of an unelected legislative body—the [European] Commission—and, in the case of foreign policy, a policy Commission that will be, in effect, imposing foreign policy on nation states that have fought for their own democratic accountability".[198][199][200]

Corbyn also opposed the Lisbon Treaty in 2008[201] and backed a proposed referendum on British withdrawal from the European Union in 2011.

Again you seem to have been puzzled why Labour haven't changed policy, I've given you a reason

[jakswan]

A little learning may do you some good:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_(politics)

Read the article and you will see that the history of internationalism is effectively completely aligned with the development of left wing politics from the mid 19thC onwards, and involves those with both moderate and more extreme left wing political positions.

Internationalism and left wing politics (across the political spectrum of the left) are basically intertwined.

If you had ever spent any time as a member of a left wing political organisation, talking to those across the left you would get that - internationalism runs through those on the left like 'Blackpool' runs through a stick of rock.

Inherently - in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.

First I would suggest 'inherently' is too strong a term, secondly I don't see why an internationalist would necessarily support Remain. The EU is a free trade area but retains barriers to trade for non-member states.

Corbyn on Scotland, United Ireland, EU, is generally to support independence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Inherently - in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.

Absolutely - it's how left wing politicians think in my (rather extensive) experience.

First I would suggest 'inherently' is too strong a term

Nope - see above - I really don't think you have spent much time in the company of Labour party activists/members and those of the more extreme left (e.g. SWP) - if you had you would get it.

, secondly I don't see why an internationalist would necessarily support Remain.

I never said they would - actually what I said was that Corbyn is euro-conflicted - the essential element of internationalism inherent in the EU is highly attractive, but its implementation less so to him (effectively not because it is international, which he likes, but because he perceives it not to be socialist) - indeed the quotes from Corbyn that you 'quote-mined' seem to imply this. His issue isn't EU in theory, but EU in practice.

[ProfessorDavey]

Again you seem to have been puzzled why Labour haven't changed policy, I've given you a reason

They have changed policy - don't forget that just over 18 months ago Labour supported remaining in the UK, a policy supported by the vast majority of its MPs, the vast majority of its members and activists and the vast majority of its voters.

They now have a policy that isn't supported by the vast majority of its MPs, the vast majority of its members and activists and the vast majority of its voters.

Actually this has plenty of time to run, as (I gather) Labour's actual policy is to keep all options open.

[jakswan]

Absolutely - it's how left wing politicians think in my (rather extensive) experience.
Nope - see above - I really don't think you have spent much time in the company of Labour party activists/members and those of the more extreme left (e.g. SWP) - if you had you would get it.
I never said they would - actually what I said was that Corbyn is euro-conflicted - the essential element of internationalism inherent in the EU is highly attractive, but its implementation less so to him (effectively not because it is international, which he likes, but because he perceives it not to be socialist) - indeed the quotes from Corbyn that you 'quote-mined' seem to imply this. His issue isn't EU in theory, but EU in practice.

With quote mine slur I'll leave you to it. 🙄

[ProfessorDavey]

With quote mine slur I'll leave you to it. 🙄

Why did you not quote the full thing rather than a string of partial quote interspersed with multiple ... and [.] - whatever the latter means. Also I note no link to the original source. Classic quote miners techniques.