The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[ml1dch]

29 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Anyone who said there wouldn't need to be a customs union who are considered sensible by the commentariat. e.g.

https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-may-not-considering-jeremy-corbyns-customs-union-plan-on-brexit-11634539

No-one who opposed or even some who supported a customs union warned that the current state of play was going to happen. Corbyn was the only one so forthright to say that "obviously there will have to be a customs union" as if it's unconscionable any other way.

Maybe we're taking at cross purposes then. I can't imagine anyone describing Theresa May's Brexit positions from 2016 - 2019 as sensible. 

But the idea that "all the sensible people ignored" the fact that being outside a customs union would cause border problems and Corbyn was the lone canary in the mine is ludicrous.  Even if you are limiting the claim to MPs only, which your original post didn't. 

See every single DEXEU Select Committee meeting for starters.

Edited January 15, 2021 by ml1dch

[blandy]

36 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Corbyn was the only one so forthright to say that "obviously there will have to be a customs union" as if it's unconscionable any other way.

I haven't been following this closely, and could be wrong, but I believe that the customs union is about tariffs (primarily) and the Single Market about non-tariff barriers (e.g. food standards) and that it's the single market (or not being in it any more) that is more the cause of the current situation with delays around checks of goods and paperwork etc.

Politically, both Labour and the Tories (or most of them) decided they didn't want the Freedom of Movement of People that comes with the freedom of movement of Goods. So Corbyn's "warning" about May's deal was as much political positioning as genuinely spotting the current situation would arise - or TL:DR it's not about tarriffs (CU), it's about standards (SM).

But I could be mistaken.  

[darrenm]

8 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Maybe we're taking at cross purposes then. I can't imagine anyone describing Theresa May's Brexit positions from 2016 - 2019 as sensible. 

But the idea that "all the sensible people ignored" the fact that being outside a customs union would cause border problems and Corbyn was the lone canary in the mine is ludicrous.  Even if you are limiting the claim to MPs only, which your original post didn't. 

See every single DEXEU Select Committee meeting for starters.

OK. My frustration is that as usual Corbyn (I'm honestly no big fan, I just hate revisionism) is being portrayed as a lexiter when he clearly wasn't. In fact, he was pushing everyone towards the softest brexit we could get away with that amounted to BRINO but everyone else split into either 'nothing but remain via a 2nd ref' or 'independent trade deals'. While Corbyn is maligned, his was the only position that would work and made sense. A 2nd referendum came with a huge amount of insurmountable problems and leaving as we have has caused massive disruption. 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, darrenm said:

While Corbyn is maligned, his was the only position that would work and made sense.

It's all opinions, but I really don't think so. All kinds of viable options existed - Norway, Switzerland...etc. and they each had pros and cons, but were seen by many as making sense (depending on the viewers individual views around loss of trade/free movement/the economy/etc.).

[ml1dch]

4 minutes ago, darrenm said:

OK. My frustration is that as usual Corbyn (I'm honestly no big fan, I just hate revisionism) is being portrayed as a lexiter when he clearly wasn't. In fact, he was pushing everyone towards the softest brexit we could get away with that amounted to BRINO but everyone else split into either 'nothing but remain via a 2nd ref' or 'independent trade deals'. While Corbyn is maligned, his was the only position that would work and made sense. A 2nd referendum came with a huge amount of insurmountable problems and leaving as we have has caused massive disruption. 

And on all that, I agree. Apart from the bit in italics. His wouldn't have worked either. And also didn't really make sense. 

The rest of it I'm on board with though!

[darrenm]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

I haven't been following this closely, and could be wrong, but I believe that the customs union is about tariffs (primarily) and the Single Market about non-tariff barriers (e.g. food standards) and that it's the single market (or not being in it any more) that is more the cause of the current situation with delays around checks of goods and paperwork etc.

Politically, both Labour and the Tories (or most of them) decided they didn't want the Freedom of Movement of People that comes with the freedom of movement of Goods. So Corbyn's "warning" about May's deal was as much political positioning as genuinely spotting the current situation would arise - or TL:DR it's not about tarriffs (CU), it's about standards (SM).

But I could be mistaken.  

I think you're right about the current delays being also related to rules of origin as well as tariffs. But as I said the other day, Labour's later policy was nigh on EEA so single market. The only sticking point was freedom of movement which was clear was going to be a negotiation point had Labour been doing the negotiating. The FoM bit was already worked out by EU law profs that the EU would accept fair movement e.g. 

 

[bickster]

Jeez, why is it the left has all the comedians but no-one with a sense of humour

It. Was. A. Joke.

[darrenm]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's all opinions, but I really don't think so. All kinds of viable options existed - Norway, Switzerland...etc. and they each had pros and cons, but were seen by many as making sense (depending on the viewers individual views around loss of trade/free movement/the economy/etc.).

 

14 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

And on all that, I agree. Apart from the bit in italics. His wouldn't have worked either. And also didn't really make sense. 

The rest of it I'm on board with though!

I should leave this because I'm not sure we'll come to more of a consensus than this  but what do you think 'his position' was?

Assuming his position was the policy of the Labour Party, then it couldn't be any more precise than a customs union, close ties with the EU, alignment everywhere but keep quiet about FoM could it? I mean, you can't say exactly what you're going to get from the EU until you actually start negotiating. You can only state aims. And the aim was 'softest brexit possible'. I'm assuming you're both thinking of quite specific things if you're saying what he wanted wasn't possible. But I don't think those specifics existed.

[ml1dch]

15 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I think you're right about the current delays being also related to rules of origin as well as tariffs.

Rules of origin (predominantly) is tariffs. And would largely be fixed by a customs union.

"Was this widget in your lorry made somewhere that means it doesn't qualify for our no-tariff trade deal? Show me the proof or pay me the tax"

You don't even need to get your "nearly EEA" arguments out of the box for this one 

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, darrenm said:

but what do you think 'his position' was?

Just make sure you use plenty of lube, Len

[darrenm]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

Jeez, why is it the left has all the comedians but no-one with a sense of humour

It. Was. A. Joke.

which prompted a discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

[darrenm]

Someone needs to make a strategy game around Labour's options with brexit until now. I'd say it would be unwinnable. I came to the conclusion a while back that the best strategy was to go full out for as many remain votes as possible and just offer full on revoke and remain. Better not listen to me about anything because look how that turned out for the Lib Dems.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

I cant access some of the betting things I like from yesterday.

I am on with customer support on the betting site. I have some things saved up in the games so I will lose all of them.

Just asking them if they can help me as its not good becasue I cant access it anymore to use them.

Not a big thing but a pain,  I hope they can come up with an idea.

[ml1dch]

7 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I should leave this because I'm not sure we'll come to more of a consensus than this  but what do you think 'his position' was?

Assuming his position was the policy of the Labour Party, then it couldn't be any more precise than a customs union, close ties with the EU, alignment everywhere but keep quiet about FoM could it? I mean, you can't say exactly what you're going to get from the EU until you actually start negotiating. You can only state aims. And the aim was 'softest brexit possible'. I'm assuming you're both thinking of quite specific things if you're saying what he wanted wasn't possible. But I don't think those specifics existed.

Through the whole process, there has been far too much focus on what is possible in the sense of getting a number of political factions in a number of different countries to come to an agreement on what was mutually acceptable for them. Across the board, there has been virtually no discussion of what will (actually) change for good and bad under the variety of different options and whether those consequences means it "worked" or not. 

If Corbyn had come to power, had the opportunity to put in place what Labour's policy was then I'm positive that both his governing coalition and the EU would have been able to quickly agree to something that was perfectly acceptable to a majority of UK MPs, the European Commission, the European Council and a majority of MEPs. No doubt at all. 

But it still doesn't "work" because (like May's, Johnson's and Starmer's as well) it's a solution to a political triangulation problem, not a real-world problem. The good - nobody notices any difference and life carries on, broadly, as before. The bad - nobody notices any difference and life carries on, broadly, as before. What are the chances in that scenario that the next election is not fought on the terms of "give us our proper Brexit, everything would be great if only we hadn't signed up to Labour's surrender-deal, the wide world is desperate to trade with us and Corbyn and Starmer have chained us up in the dungeons of the Berlaymont"? It's just not a sustainable position. Hence me saying it wouldn't work. 

This isn't a unique criticism of Labour's policy as 'twas - it's the same with pretty much any policy, including both the current arrangements and membership itself.

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

16 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Better not listen to me about anything because look how that turned out for the Lib Dems.

I don't think it was all your fault to be honest.  An influence certainly.

[blandy]

35 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I'm assuming you're both thinking of quite specific things if you're saying what he wanted wasn't possible.

That's not what I'm saying. I was denying that "his was the only position that would work and made sense".

Labour's / his position changed quite a bit, but regardless (though I can't access Twitter from my work computer), Barnier laid out the positions which could exist and were viable in a tweet, several years ago

Here's the article about it

And here's a summary in pic form, from the article

 

and here's where Corbyn sat - you can see other viable options

[darrenm]

18 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's not what I'm saying. I was denying that "his was the only position that would work and made sense".

Labour's / his position changed quite a bit, but regardless (though I can't access Twitter from my work computer), Barnier laid out the positions which could exist and were viable in a tweet, several years ago

Here's the article about it

And here's a summary in pic form, from the article

 

and here's where Corbyn sat - you can see other viable options

Surely Corbyn sat here? Norway+ (EFTA + a customs union)

[bickster]

8 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Surely Corbyn sat here? Norway+ (EFTA + a customs union)

He was against EU State Aid Rules which ultimately put him exactly where stated, the Turkey Step

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Surely Corbyn sat here? Norway+ (EFTA + a customs union)

Whatever - that's not meant to be dismissive - the point I was making is that there were multiple feasible credible positions, not just the one(s) Corby took, which was the comment you made where I joined the convo.

Going back over the detail of Corbyn's position(s) "a customs Union, not the Customs union" won't really add anything to the debate - it's done and dusted, nationally. We left with a really very bad version of Brexit.

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

Someone needs to make a strategy game around Labour's options with brexit until now. I'd say it would be unwinnable. I came to the conclusion a while back that the best strategy was to go full out for as many remain votes as possible and just offer full on revoke and remain. Better not listen to me about anything because look how that turned out for the Lib Dems.

That's why I voted Dem (that and I could not live with my conscious if I had voted for Boris the Buffoon) but I would probably have voted for any party who said they would stop or reverse Brexit.  I knew it was a wasted vote but I was shocked at just how badly they did.