UK General Discussion: 2019 and onwards, The End of May

[Antonio the Sixth]

Labour and the Tories should negotiate a softer Brexit than the one May was trying to ram through, one that still respects the will of the voters in 2016 while taking into account the wishes they have expressed in 2019. Which seems to be exactly what Corbyn and May are trying to do. I hope to God that the Remoaners and Brexit fanatics don't sabotage this genuinely commendable effort.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Remain-mourners have decimated/will continue to decimate the UK left.  What is their thinking? Get a 2nd referendum to fuel even further cultural divisions, have leave win again, or have half of the country accept what they perceive to be an illegitimate vote, decimating the labour leave vote and having the two major parties be base on cultural-lines, full on French style (Liberal Democrats vs Brexit).

Yeah, I've been resisting this conclusion for a long time but now it really seems like Labour is bent on pissing away any remaining (no pun intended) support it has among the post-industrial working class. This is heartbreaking.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But if a place like Hartlepool is *really* determined on voting like West Virginia, there is ultimately little a left wing party can realistically do but seek support elsewhere.

Losing vast numbers of anti-Brexit voters to the LibDems and Greens isn't a route to a Labour win either, just in case you haven't noticed that yet.

(statement of interest - my own seat voted 60% leave so I find the Remainiac fringe as tiresome as you do)

Well, yeah, I'm not saying Labour has any great option here. The thing is simply that, if the choice is between a rump Labour centered on old-left working-class strongholds vs a rump Labour centered on hip and dynamic middle-class seats, I think the former is much more valuable in its identity and a culture. If you have to be a permanent-minority party, at least be a permanent-minority party that stands with the downtrodden.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I mean French politicians are not so mind-numbingly stupid as to call a referendum on leaving the EU (and that's saying something, because French politicians are pretty damn stupid). It's not my fault you elected a craven pigf**ker who took a risky bet to unify his party without a care for the potential consequences.

If we somehow had a referendum and people voted to leave (which would still be unlikely because another thing France doesn't have is a massive Murdoch-based propaganda empire spreading lies and nonsense), then I'd want the people's will to be respected, yes. Even more so if traditional leftist strongholds like the Northern mining basin or the Southwest were among the strongest Leave regions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'll also note quickly, because this is often missed, that a lot of the public dissatisfaction with the two big parties on this issue stems from irritation that they have not 'solved' it yet. This isn't the most coherent of sentiments, but it is widespread.

Which is exactly why I'm convinced that the best move for Labour, no matter how crazy that sounds, would have been to back May's deal. Sure, it would have made it a little more unpopular in the short term, but then everybody would have moved on from Brexit and the discussion could have shifted back to economic issues.

Instead, by sinking a deal that, while flawed, represented the only practicable middle ground between no deal and a second referendum, it has all but ensured that polarization on the issue will continue - something that, as we're seeing, spells doom for a party like Labour.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'll also note quickly, because this is often missed, that a lot of the public dissatisfaction with the two big parties on this issue stems from irritation that they have not 'solved' it yet. This isn't the most coherent of sentiments, but it is widespread.

Which is exactly why I'm convinced that the best move for Labour, no matter how crazy that sounds, would have been to back May's deal. Sure, it would have made it a little more unpopular in the short term, but then everybody would have moved on from Brexit and the discussion could have shifted back to economic issues.

Instead, by sinking a deal that, while flawed, represented the only practicable middle ground between no deal and a second referendum, it has all but ensured that polarization on the issue will continue - something that, as we're seeing, spells doom for a party like Labour.

Genuinely interesting because this is argument that makes sense if you present it as a simple vote but as I said before Brexit is much bigger than that.

1.) Wouldn’t have solved Brexit- it would have moved us onto round 2 of trade deal talks which we expect to take 5 years, and seeing how well we handled this round....

2.) If labour signed the deal, May still would have left. We then have Raab/Johnson as PM who would seek some kind of awful deal which wouldn’t give us the economic relationship we want with the EU whilst scrapping workplace rights- Tories have openly said they want the working time directive gone. How do we stop that one we’ve signed the cheque?

3.) ignore the above; the discussion would not shift. We’d still be talking about Brexit; Farage would call the deal a betrayal, and every Lib Dem leaflet would be pre-written. Have you seen the EU results in London/Bristol/Brighton etc would be a bloodbath for labour.

4.) It would have ended JC’s leadership; half the shadow cabinet would have quit, and we’d have another summer coup.

All fair points (especially #4 which I don't dispute at all - then again, Corbyn has shown he can survive summer coups and actually use them as opportunities to consolidate his leadership). Still, I think you're missing how the dynamic would change if Brexit actually happened and negotiations moved on to the next stage. First of all, a second referendum would be out of the picture. I doubt a movement to reenter the EU after having formally left could garner nearly the same support as a movement to cancel the whole project while it's still in limbo. This would mean that one of the core sources of polarization over Brexit would disappear, making it a lot easier for Labour to stake out a position that caters to Remain interests while being more palatable to Brexiteers (eg, going all in on a strong customs union). Further, with much longer deadlines in sight, the debate would lose its intensity, and there would be more focus on day-to-day issues in the 3-5 years before a full deal is agreed. Things would probably heat up again once the next round of talks is finalized, but by then the situation should be a lot easier for Labour. Having a hard-right Tory try to sell out workers' rights would actually play right into Corbyn's hand, since he could criticize the government's Brexit strategy in a way that appeals to people's livelihood rather than on symbolic culture war bullsh*t. And given the kind of timeline we're talking about, it's highly likely that such a debate would feature prominently in the 2022 election, meaning that Labour could win it and then proceed to scrap that deal and enact one that's much more consistent with its priorities.

I'm going to stop posting now, because I'm about to hit my 50k ceiling again, but I hope that explains where I'm coming from with this. Obviously if you care more about Brexit itself as an issue in its own right, as opposed to the bread-and-butter issues I'm interested in, I don't expect you to agree that this is a desirable outcome. But I hope you understand why it would for me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can't the Tory leadership stuff stay in its own thread?

In other news, Change UK is changing its name again.  They now want to be "The Independent Group for Change"; this is apparently because of confusion with change.org but you suspect also that they are no longer so keen on their name being abbreviated to ChUK since Umunna left the party.

These clowns are a gift that keeps on giving