I wouldn’t describe the leader of the opposition having a position on quite possibly the biggest political question of our lifetimes as gatecrashing.

Edit: ‘Scape.

Take a position that minimises the damage done by Brexit and argue for it.

I don't believe that currently, this is at all likely to result in that position happening. If anything I believe it would result in a hardening of the Brexit extremists (those actually negotiating with the EU remember) position.

If opposing it benefits it, yeah.

Brexit's done at this point. All Labour can do is risk their election chances by interfering, because they're not stopping it. It's too far gone for a second ref that doesn't save the Tories from their years of approaching wilderness.

I'd say that this comes down largely to the divide in circumstances between us. Binning the Tories is far more vital to me than exiting Europe. The latter's a bloody great shame, but it's not going to ravage the NHS and force me to a foodbank.

Whereas if life's relatively normal, this massive outward sign of national racism means far more. I understand that and agree (I hate nationalism of all kinds), but it's not my first priority.

He should have tried not opposing the Iraq War, he could have saved millions of lives.

But less facetiously, nobody is suggesting that Labour try to stop it, but what exactly leaving the EU means is open to interpretation. I want Labour to be arguing for an interpretation which causes the least damage, that’s all.

CU or not CU. Is that still on the table?

I've no idea if it is a strategy or they just can't agree on what the hell they want, but I think if Labour began advocating seriously at this point for the Customs Union, as the least damaging option, any possibility of that will be kicked totally to the kerb and Davies, Fox and Johnson will completely go on the attack against it.

The Tories need to address the impossibility of their current stance before Labour can take a meaningful stance.

Andy wrote:

Escape wrote:

Brexit's done at this point.

Is it?

I'd like to believe otherwise. I've a highly biased take via Somerset, where only Bristol votes for Labour. Any serious fiddling would have my locals choking on their Skips.

Diluted Dante wrote:

The Tories need to address the impossibility of their current stance before Labour can take a meaningful stance.

Yeah, this is key. You don't attack someone until they've committed, else you invite them to pretend to have never considered it. Attacking them in such a way right now would be to put the feelers out on their behalf. Sod that.

Diluted Dante wrote:

I've no idea if it is a strategy or they just can't agree on what the hell they want, but I think if Labour began advocating seriously at this point for the Customs Union, as the least damaging option, any possibility of that will be kicked totally to the kerb and Davies, Fox and Johnson will completely go on the attack against it.

Based on what? Do you really believe that the CU is currently on the table but will be taken off it if Labour start arguing for it, despite the fact that there are a fair number of Conservatives who are also arguing for it?

I really cannot work out the reasoning that gets you to this conclusion.

They (Labour) would definitely be a lightning rod for Brexit hate if they stuck up for remaining or re-referenduming the whole business. So there's electoral advantage in giving the Tories enough rope to hang themselves. Risky though as it might end up hanging everyone.

The Tories are currently run by the hard-right. Anything Brexity must conform to their impossible demands. So what would Corbyn coming out for SM and CU membership do? It's not going to push us even further right because we're already at the extreme.

The advantage is if they don't say anything, then they can say whatever they like when it's crunch time. But if we end up hard-brexiting, it will be in part because the opposition hasn't been oppositioning hard enough. 

This post is all over the place. I don't mind Corbyn's stance really, to clarify, as long as it's dropped the second that an actual decision has to happen. All of May's available options lead to her losing her job and possible govt collapse. He's right to not get in the way of that. There's little he could do to help (come together in the national interest) since it's her own side holding her hostage with their list of impossibilities.

Liveinadive wrote:

Public opinion means nothing if another referendum isn't called. Who will call a second referendum and how would that come about?

My worry's that winning a second ref might mean losing the war to win a battle. Everyone who felt screwed over by Reversit would hunker down as far Right as possible. What if it gave Boris enough of a push to win? He only aligned with Brexit because he expected to lose, and you'd be handing that momentum back to him.

As we are, the current Tories won't be personally credited for Brexit. It's seen as this will-of-the-people bollocks and not them, and that's a small positive.

monkey wrote:

But if we end up hard-brexiting, it will be in part because the opposition hasn't been oppositioning hard enough.

There's little he could do to help (come together in the national interest) since it's her own side holding her hostage with their list of impossibilities.

First bit's true, and the second's pertinent: Corbyn has no-one to negotiate with. Even if he cared to gamble on his leadership for the greater good, he'd be appealing to bastards.

lol

No, you're right. If anyone from the Labour Party suggests we might want to stay in the CU then that's them out of power for decades. Even though Tories are talking about it. Even Aaron Banks is contemplating it.

Bojo speech then.
Seems this week's tactic is to try the softly softly catchy monkey approach to remainers.
Asked about some of the language used by himself and the government he side stepped, claiming the PM has been balanced (easy to be balanced when saying nothing), thus ignoring when he told the EU to swivel.

Just stopping by to say fuck Boris as usual.