Comments on: Labour is set for a battle between members and Union bosses on Brexit

By: Craig Mackay

Craig Mackay — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 11:07:47 +0000

There has long been an imbalance in the influence at the top of the Labour Party. Len McCluskey is a very strong left-wing leader of Unite. For many years he and Jeremy Corbyn have been very close. Corbyn does not have the drive or indeed intellect of McCluskey. Both share a view of the European Union that is seriously out of date. In particular they worry that a left-wing policy involving significant nationalisation is not allowed under EU rules. That is simply not true. There is nothing to stop the UK doing exactly what is already the case in many other countries. Both however are clear that they really want the UK to leave the EU to leave it free to operate its economy as it wishes. The economic policies of John McDonnell and others are claimed to be hard left but they are entirely mainstream in many European countries already. They would transform this country for the better and this can be done so much more effectively while part of the EU. Indeed I am confident that our experiences will be so positive that it may have a substantial influence on the way other EU countries run their economies in the future.

One of the biggest problems on the left and indeed with some of the comments above is that there is a sycophantic respect for the result of the referendum. It is not “The Will of the People”. It is the will of Cambridge Analytica, it is the Will of Nigel Farage, and the Will of Aaron Banks and his dodgy millions possibly from diamond mines in Africa. After three years the British population have a rather different appreciation of what “leaving the EU” might actually mean for them and to assert that the original (purely advisory) referendum was so sacred that it had to be implemented no matter what the cost and certainly without a confirmatory referendum is simply preposterous.

By: BobB

BobB — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 05:55:52 +0000

Gary says “90% of the public fully accept the result …” [of the 2016 referendum]
Have you got any evidence for this, Gary?
I ask this because polls show consistent majorities now think (1) it was a mistake to vote leave and (2) that leaving (especially without a deal) will cause significant economic damage and hardship. So despite thinking it was the wrong decision that will lead to serious damage, 90% of people still think we should respect the 2016 result. What amazing belief in democracy! Then again, maybe you made it up.

By: Susan

Susan — Wed, 18 Sep 2019 05:49:21 +0000

Trade Unions should always have a say in the Labour party decisions as if it was not for the Trade Unions we would not have any workers rights. They are a window into the line of work. They should also have a say as it is their role to do the best for their members . Labour was created from the Trade Unions and I for one welcome their input.

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:39:43 +0000

No, you can’t seriously advocate for a referendum (second one) on a matter which the FIRST referendum’s result has yet to be implemented. The ONLY democratic referendum that could be run is one where it gives a choice on the MANNER in which we leave. Currently there are TWO choices. May’s Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal. Neither of these deals with ‘Future Relationship’ but obviously, even in the event of ‘No Deal’ a future relationship would be negotiated AFTER leaving instead of during a two year implementation period. Something that the press are too lazy to point out.

Whilst you, and many others to be fair, say that the LibDems are pointless I have to remind you of recent events. Corbyn, with their support, COULD have won a no confidence, became PM on a temporary basis, delayed Brexit and then called a GE. But, as they wouldn’t support Corbyn, even for a period of weeks, this couldn’t happen. This looked like the LibDems had seriously shot themselves in the foot, but maybe not. By taking what can only be called a hard line on Brexit and bringing in a policy of revoking Article 50 without reference to the public (I’m not counting a GE win as they COULD win a GE with a minority of votes courtesy of our FPTP system) they are ‘shifting the conversation’ To counteract this and ensure they don’t lose the ‘Remain’ vote Labour will likely take a more hardline view on this themselves, thus the LibDems have achieved their aim. This is much the same way in which the Green Party have been able to exert undue influence in Scotland despite being the smallest party at Holyrood.

But make no mistake, this is a terrible idea. A second referendum, never mind revocation, would lead to a complete loss of faith in politics by the general public. Not just rabid Leavers either. 90% of the public fully accept the result and this manufactured ‘anger and division’ we hear of is only to suit the extreme ends of both arguments. The public simply wants it to end and that is all.

I’ve yet to see a balanced piece of writing on this. Arguments on both sides are polemic, condescending and frankly undemocratic. We, the public, are not stupid and won’t tolerate being treated as such…

By: Tom Sacold

Tom Sacold — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:09:11 +0000

The Trade Unions have always been, and continue to be, the life blood of the Labour Party. They have always provided the core of MPs that understand how to manage and coordinate political organisation. They have provided stability and coherence through out good times and bad times. Even under the Tory-lite leadership of Blair and Brown, they provided the solid base for the work of the party.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 17 Sep 2019 13:38:10 +0000

” leave with a deal, leave without a deal, or remain. ”

The three option referendum is an Establishment stitch-up – intended to divide the Brexit vote produce the ‘right result’: remain.

This approach will only lead to the deepening of the divide within the UK