Corbyn's days (very) numbered?

[MikeG]

Well he probably agrees that the hundreds of thousands of Brits living in Europe are equally as important as those people in some sort of limbo here in the UK, and that the only way to secure their future is come to an agreement with the other 27 ASAP on both issues. Supporting the rights of those EU citizens here, but not supporting those of UK citizens abroad, is hardly likely to win him many votes. Even he can see that.

Don't forget that we've tried to have this negotiation already (it seems a really straightforward issue to resolve), but a couple of countries including Germany said they wouldn't even begin discussions until Article 50 was triggered.

I'll declare an interest, as I've 2 daughters living in Europe.

 

[dudalb]

That could well be the case, but the point I'm making is that if Corbyn can't forcefully protest this highly important issue that is having a negative effect on tens of thousands of people, families and businesses in the UK right now, then what is he good for?

Making the Tories look acceptable in comparasion......

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Or maybe the hard left simply does not have that much support with the British public?

That doesn't really relate to what I said but there are no hard left parties in the UK of any note. My complaint is with Labour adopting morally bankrupt positions because they think it will make them popular. Even if it did make them popular it would be no less morally bankrupt. Popular != Right.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yet here we have a situation where the government had just been defeated on pushing through A50 at this time on the grounds that there needs to be an amendment securing the futures of existing EU citizens in this country, something that the left and most of the right agree with. Now maybe Corbyn has spoken about this but I haven't seen him do so; I would have expected him to be up in arms about such a serious issue and relentlessly putting pressure on the government and speaking publicly to garner support, but what do we get? ...tumbleweed. What a pathetic man he is.

A curious thing. If the left and right agree why was it left to the lords to make the amendment? And why did I see so many Tory faces opposing it?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Making the Tories look acceptable in comparasion......

Do you honestly believe this?

If so I can only think it's not driven by policy. Are there three current labour policies you can name that make the Tories look better?

 

[baron]

Well he probably agrees that the hundreds of thousands of Brits living in Europe are equally as important as those people in some sort of limbo here in the UK, and that the only way to secure their future is come to an agreement with the other 27 ASAP on both issues. Supporting the rights of those EU citizens here, but not supporting those of UK citizens abroad, is hardly likely to win him many votes. Even he can see that.

I've heard that a lot and it's a false dichotomy. What country is going to be threatened by the return of their hard-working, native citizens? "Now you give us the deal we want or we'll make sure you have to accommodate your own citizens!" Bizarre. The only people who stand to lose out are the individuals and no government factors individuals into their negotiations.

 

[baron]

A curious thing. If the left and right agree why was it left to the lords to make the amendment? And why did I see so many Tory faces opposing it?

Because they seem to have bought into this peculiar argument that by not guaranteeing these rights they will weaken the government's negotiating position. One of the Lords (Digby-Jones?) was just on TV saying he voted against the amendment but also saying he would see it as a 'nice gesture' to guarantee these immigrants' rights immediately. When asked why he didn't then vote for the amendment he said he didn't want to tie the government's hands in the negotiations.

 

[ceptimus]

It's really just a matter of principle. The British government wanted to guarantee rights for Europeans living here in exchange for a similar guarantee for Brits living on the continent. The Germans blocked the deal saying they wouldn't even discuss the matter before Britain invokes Article 50.

There are many more continentals living in Britain than vice versa. You would expect that the EU would be happy to accept such a generous offer, but as they have chosen to block it, that makes it absurd for Britain to guarantee their side of the bargain unilaterally.

 

[ceptimus]

Another reason for not supporting the amendment is that it doesn't really apply to the subject matter of the bill - which is only concerned with invoking Article 50. If people were ever to be repatriated from Britain to the continent that would require separate legislation anyway. What the Lords have done is like amending a bill about wine bottles with a clause concerning toothpaste packaging.

 

[MikeG]

I've heard that a lot and it's a false dichotomy. What country is going to be threatened by the return of their hard-working, native citizens? "Now you give us the deal we want or we'll make sure you have to accommodate your own citizens!" Bizarre. The only people who stand to lose out are the individuals and no government factors individuals into their negotiations.

No, it's not a false dichotomy. It is an obvious single case: the rights of citizens left behind the "wrong" side of a newly created international divide. There is no threat about it. Unless the Spanish try to bring Gibraltar into it, these are negotiations which will be over in a matter of a few hours.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Another reason for not supporting the amendment is that it doesn't really apply to the subject matter of the bill - which is only concerned with invoking Article 50. If people were ever to be repatriated from Britain to the continent that would require separate legislation anyway. What the Lords have done is like amending a bill about wine bottles with a clause concerning toothpaste packaging.

What separate legisation would be required to deport people who no longer have a right to live and work here? Even if they can't be repatriated there are other things that can make your life here unpleasant if you no longer have the rights of an eu citizen.

 

[The Don]

Yet here we have a situation where the government had just been defeated on pushing through A50 at this time on the grounds that there needs to be an amendment securing the futures of existing EU citizens in this country, something that the left and most of the right agree with. Now maybe Corbyn has spoken about this but I haven't seen him do so; I would have expected him to be up in arms about such a serious issue and relentlessly putting pressure on the government and speaking publicly to garner support, but what do we get? ...tumbleweed. What a pathetic man he is.

That's because Corbyn and his cronies are absolutely terrified that any attempt to counter a diamond-hard Brexit will mean that voters in the provinces will desert to UKIP in droves. I think it speaks to the character of the man and the weakness of the message that he's pushing (which appears to be a rehash of the message that didn't appeal in the 1970's) that the only way he can see to stop Labour haemorrhaging support is to pander to the xenophobes and bigots rather than to attempt to sell the clear policy differences that Labour must by now have.

 

[Planigale]

No, it's not a false dichotomy. It is an obvious single case: the rights of citizens left behind the "wrong" side of a newly created international divide. There is no threat about it. Unless the Spanish try to bring Gibraltar into it, these are negotiations which will be over in a matter of a few hours.

It is easy for the UK government to negotiate, they have an offer if it is agreed they sign up (just possibly it goes to a vote in parliament, but it would most likely just rely on crown perogative). The EU has to put it through multiple parliaments and sub national assemblies, and perhaps the EU parliament. This is the big problem for the EU, even if the negotiating team come up with a deal it might not get signed off. E.g. Cyprus decides its price for a sign off is some deal on crown bases (as a commonwealth state its citizens are in a better position than the rest of Europe's anyway).

 

[MikeG]

I did say the negotiations. Any ratification process in the EU is always awkward.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's because Corbyn and his cronies are absolutely terrified that any attempt to counter a diamond-hard Brexit will mean that voters in the provinces will desert to UKIP in droves. I think it speaks to the character of the man and the weakness of the message that he's pushing (which appears to be a rehash of the message that didn't appeal in the 1970's) that the only way he can see to stop Labour haemorrhaging support is to pander to the xenophobes and bigots rather than to attempt to sell the clear policy differences that Labour must by now have.

And this goes back to Milliband and Labour deciding to jump on the immigration is a problem bandwagon. They fostered the idea that something must be done while trying to hide that nothing could be done while we stay in the Eu. It was nonsense and nasty nonsense at that. Labour are now reaping the whirlwind.

Decisive moment was around Gordon Browns bigot gate. They lost their backbone and caved in to the tabloids pushing the it's not racist to want the foreigners out line.

 

[baron]

That's because Corbyn and his cronies are absolutely terrified that any attempt to counter a diamond-hard Brexit will mean that voters in the provinces will desert to UKIP in droves. I think it speaks to the character of the man and the weakness of the message that he's pushing (which appears to be a rehash of the message that didn't appeal in the 1970's) that the only way he can see to stop Labour haemorrhaging support is to pander to the xenophobes and bigots rather than to attempt to sell the clear policy differences that Labour must by now have.

Well that's not working out for him either. He just lost Copeland which has been Labour for 80 years since its creation. That constituency is 'next door' to me, I lived there for many years and not long ago you would not find any local who believed that the Conservatives would take it away from Labour.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Well that's not working out for him either. He just lost Copeland which has been Labour for 80 years since its creation. That constituency is 'next door' to me, I lived there for many years and not long ago you would not find any local who believed that the Conservatives would take it away from Labour.

There's a list as long as your arm of Scottish constituencies where you can say the same but with SNP instead of Tory.

 

[The Don]

And this goes back to Milliband and Labour deciding to jump on the immigration is a problem bandwagon. They fostered the idea that something must be done while trying to hide that nothing could be done while we stay in the Eu. It was nonsense and nasty nonsense at that. Labour are now reaping the whirlwind.

The Labour Party under Miliband had a better track record in by elections. While Miliband was a poor leader, Corbyn has taken it to several different levels.

Decisive moment was around Gordon Browns bigot gate. They lost their backbone and caved in to the tabloids pushing the it's not racist to want the foreigners out line.

I still think that there is a big difference between controlled (non-EU) immigration and "wanting foreigners out".

 

[The Don]

Well that's not working out for him either. He just lost Copeland which has been Labour for 80 years since its creation. That constituency is 'next door' to me, I lived there for many years and not long ago you would not find any local who believed that the Conservatives would take it away from Labour.

I agree, he's a terrible leader and leading the party in entirely the wrong direction. Archie Gemmill Goal seems to be advocating that the PLP should fall meekly into line and allow the process to continue - to do otherwise is apparently undermining the party, causing disunity and so on.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The Labour Party under Miliband had a better track record in by elections. While Miliband was a poor leader, Corbyn has taken it to several different levels.



I still think that there is a big difference between controlled (non-EU) immigration and "wanting foreigners out".

Again you seem to be arguing that somehow election results prove something. Milliband was never going to be PM and was happy to pander to populist anti immigration nonsense to get cheap votes. Paving the way for brexit and abandoning what I see as being core labour/left values. No matter how bad Corbyn is it won't make that any better or more correct.

There isn't really a difference between wanting foreigners out and the politically correct dog whistle alternative of controlling immigration. It's clear what it means and the implications people will draw from it. It's also fundamentally dishonest to try to scapegoat immigrants in that way and to promise things that couldn't be delivered.

And making it one of their top priorities was Labour at its worst.