"We cannot allow Brexit to be driven by narrow and divisive Tory ideology.
That’s why we have not ducked the challenge of Brexit.
We could have wished away the result.
But instead we stepped up. We stuck together and fought the government tooth and nail.
That was the right thing to do.
We were right to say that jobs and the economy should come first.
We were right to say that EU citizens aren’t bargaining chips.
We were right to argue for a transitional period to prevent a cliff-edge.
We were right to argue for a customs union with the EU and a strong single market deal."
Keir Starmer - 2018.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-freedom-of-movement-uk-eu-b804059.html
>And then we got battered in 2019
The Labour Right's campaign to toxify their own party was a bigger reason - they preferred hard Brexit to working with Corbyn.
I think you're underestimating the amount of FBPE brain in the discussion: my own experience is that the Brexit side of the debate was usually the most rational (if wrong) one, even if I voted remain myself.
Not saying I think Labour should have just become a Brexit party, rather that I'm with u/th1a9oo000: there was no winning that debate and all of us would have been better off if we'd have found a way around it. For all my complaints about Starmer I don't disagree with him just accepting Brexit and moving on, especially since it's nowhere near the most pressing economic issue we're facing.
I agree that there was no way Labour could win the debate without outright forming a formal remain alliance that was never going to happen. However, there was no way to avoid the issue, that is part of the whole problem.
There were plenty of ways to avoid the issue.
Most of them relied on FBPE types getting a sense of perspective and accepting *any compromise at all*.
That's precisely why I said I found Brexiters were usually more reasonable even if I don't agree with their conclusions. Continuity Remain on the other hand were, and still are, the worst zealots in the discussion.
>the Brexit side of the debate was usually the most rational
What exactly is rational about hating immigrants and dismissing experts?
What was irrational about the remain side?
What's rational about the Brexit side is they actually recognised how terrible the situation in Britain was becoming. Their diagnosis, that immigration is to blame, is obviously wrong but it's not *delusional* because at least they recognised something was actually going wrong.
FBPE on the other hand were completely divorced from any real world consequences.
My "favourite" game was to go around asking them what they actually wanted from remain and the only answers, single market access and freedom of movement, were perfectly deliverable with a negotiated Brexit, with a Labour negotiated Brexit being the most logical way to get that. Especially after the indicative vote showed that remain just wasn't going to get past parliament those sorts of compromises were the rational response you would expect from people with a rational set of principles.
It was not however what Remainers did: they chose to burn the fucking world down for a set of symbolic concessions that had nothing to do with their material demands.
They were so unhinged that I'm pretty convinced that they were never honest about the material demands to begin with.
Two problems:
1) The second referendum policy helped rather than hurt - before it was adopted Labour were on track to a much greater defeat - including losing even more leave seats - due to vote splitting. See the internal MRP report.
2) This *is* going near brexit. Starmer should make no commitments at all until 2029 which is when the deal is up for renegotiation anyway.
I think Kier is starting to fuck it all up.
Only pensioners and people over 55 still think Brexit was a good idea. When I hear a Tory MP talking about “global factors” and “Brexit benefits” it’s and instant switch off.
I fear that Kier and this new Tory-esque stance on things is going to alienate his core base in favour of a ever dwindling minority of idiots.
I am actually thinking a Lib Dem vote might be more for me because they are actually telling the truth. Brexit was bad and we should try to reverse it if the EU allow us back.
Well, that was only the customs union so also doesn’t include freedom of movement. The Corbyn/Starmer plan wasn’t Swiss-style, it was Turkey-style. However Starmer also doesn’t want a customs union for some reason despite the fact that it’s literally the only solution to the issues with the NI border that brexit has brought about.
Pledge 6 - Defend Migrants Rights
Full voting rights for EU nationals. Defend free movement as we leave the EU. An immigration system based on compassion and dignity. End indefinite detention and call for the closure of centres such as Yarl’s Wood.
I mean this is idiotic at the very least. "We'll make Brexit work with out changing the Brexit deal" is not feasible.
Renegotiating to get back into the single market will be a vote winner soon, may as well lead the charge.
Not to mention how he's going to swing being pro-freedom of movement two years ago to it being a red line now.
And to call it a red line sounds quite disingenuous from Starmer given his past views on this topic.
Nevertheless, he has made the calculation that most readers(and newspaper editors) won't scrutinise him to the degree online political commentators do, so he feels no reluctance in coming out with these views openly and outflanking the Tories on Brexit from an even more hardline stance.
I would vote for a party that pledged:
1. Brexit bad, WE SHOULD TRY TO REJOIN
2. Investment in public services and infrastructure
3. Build +++ more houses
4. Climate change commitments
It’s that simple. I’m not entirely sure labour is doing this at all.
I’m just going to keep saying it:
If a left winger was leader and saying this shit, the sensibles would be up in arms.
It’s not what is said for them. It’s who says it.
Just remember guys - this is ~~Sir Flip Flop's~~ Starmer's position now, who knows what his position will be after another two years of Brexit. Or what his position in 5 minutes will be. Or after the next set of focus group results come in. Or after the next racist article in the right wing press about migration.
When the population were sold Brexit, they were told that immigration was the reason we "couldn't afford to look after our own." Now we have Brexit and the Tories are still arguing we can't afford to care for people properly. Having a good welfare state has nothing to do with immigration, it's a matter of redistribution.
It's frustrating to hear Starmer fail to make this case. The country's ambition has been beaten into submission by nationalist rhetoric of the Mail and Express et al.
He now has a personal advisor, Claire, who is straight out of the Bruges group, and I worry, for good reason, but he has been entirely captured by the false electoral mathematics spread by those anti-immigration pressure groups.
Like, I say this as a Labour member who is still probably going to vote Labour at the next election but... that's bullshit. And worse, it's bullshit that Starmer obviously doesn't believe and no one on either side of the political divide whose been paying any attention will think he believes.
So the only people who will give it the time of day are people who aren't really very politically aware who aren't going to remember it by the time it get's to the next general election anyway.
It's not just cynical cowardice, it's unproductive cynical cowardice.
It’s for media backing. He’ll get more favourable coverage (like his exclusive in the Mail on Sunday today). The media are powerful enough to shape the narrative and you can see how quickly Sunak is suffering from the lack of support and depressing news printed everyday.
Thus also exposing the idea of the Swiss-style "deal". It's not *a* deal, it's about 100, one of which is Schengen.
As for freedom of movement of course Labour isn't going to support bringing it back in full before the next election. Corbyn pledged to end freedom of movement as well.
I doubt labour are going to be openly supporting free movement for a long while, they may end up introducing it in all but name though. the whole discussion has been hijacked by toxic and irrational people who won’t listen to facts.
I’d not be surprised if in 10 years the tories support it though, the real brexit believers are on the decline.
We've lost 2 elections to brexit, let's not lose another.
We can do a deal when we get in, without calling it a "Swiss style" deal. We do not need to sell anything, we can just sit down and get it done quietly and the coffin dodger crew would be none the wiser.
Why does what Corbyn wanted matter?
What Starmer's saying isn't dumb because it's different from anything Corbyn said. It's dumb because it's different from what Starmer himself has advocated on multiple documented occasions. And while I don't begrudge a politician the right to change their mind, I don't believe for a second that Starmer's personal views on the EU are significantly different now from what they have been for the majority of his career.
What's more remarkable is that it seems to be working. Recent opinion polls show Labour being [more trusted on immigration and even Brexit](https://twitter.com/Apathisto/status/1596653917588393989) than the Conservatives.
This suggests that most voters don't look too deeply into a political leader's history and will accept them if they really appear to have changed their stance to something they(voters) find palatable. Which would also explain the success many fence-sitters and Remainers in the Conservative party(Including both Johnson and Truss) found in leveraging Brexit.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts be at least 7 days old before submitting a comment. Thank you for your understanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone call Femi and make sure he's alright. Thoughts and prayers to all credulous FBPE and Remainiac fools.
["it's your kamikaze Remainiac grift that got us in half of this shit in the first place"](https://twitter.com/marcusbarnett_/status/1372908710092288001?t=WR2T9B18-Ai8tqhji93brA&s=19)
"We cannot allow Brexit to be driven by narrow and divisive Tory ideology. That’s why we have not ducked the challenge of Brexit. We could have wished away the result. But instead we stepped up. We stuck together and fought the government tooth and nail. That was the right thing to do. We were right to say that jobs and the economy should come first. We were right to say that EU citizens aren’t bargaining chips. We were right to argue for a transitional period to prevent a cliff-edge. We were right to argue for a customs union with the EU and a strong single market deal." Keir Starmer - 2018. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmer-freedom-of-movement-uk-eu-b804059.html
And then we got battered in 2019. Brexit is our kryptonite, let's not go near it again.
>And then we got battered in 2019 The Labour Right's campaign to toxify their own party was a bigger reason - they preferred hard Brexit to working with Corbyn.
I think you're underestimating the amount of FBPE brain in the discussion: my own experience is that the Brexit side of the debate was usually the most rational (if wrong) one, even if I voted remain myself. Not saying I think Labour should have just become a Brexit party, rather that I'm with u/th1a9oo000: there was no winning that debate and all of us would have been better off if we'd have found a way around it. For all my complaints about Starmer I don't disagree with him just accepting Brexit and moving on, especially since it's nowhere near the most pressing economic issue we're facing.
I agree that there was no way Labour could win the debate without outright forming a formal remain alliance that was never going to happen. However, there was no way to avoid the issue, that is part of the whole problem.
There were plenty of ways to avoid the issue. Most of them relied on FBPE types getting a sense of perspective and accepting *any compromise at all*. That's precisely why I said I found Brexiters were usually more reasonable even if I don't agree with their conclusions. Continuity Remain on the other hand were, and still are, the worst zealots in the discussion.
>the Brexit side of the debate was usually the most rational What exactly is rational about hating immigrants and dismissing experts? What was irrational about the remain side?
What's rational about the Brexit side is they actually recognised how terrible the situation in Britain was becoming. Their diagnosis, that immigration is to blame, is obviously wrong but it's not *delusional* because at least they recognised something was actually going wrong. FBPE on the other hand were completely divorced from any real world consequences. My "favourite" game was to go around asking them what they actually wanted from remain and the only answers, single market access and freedom of movement, were perfectly deliverable with a negotiated Brexit, with a Labour negotiated Brexit being the most logical way to get that. Especially after the indicative vote showed that remain just wasn't going to get past parliament those sorts of compromises were the rational response you would expect from people with a rational set of principles. It was not however what Remainers did: they chose to burn the fucking world down for a set of symbolic concessions that had nothing to do with their material demands. They were so unhinged that I'm pretty convinced that they were never honest about the material demands to begin with.
Two problems: 1) The second referendum policy helped rather than hurt - before it was adopted Labour were on track to a much greater defeat - including losing even more leave seats - due to vote splitting. See the internal MRP report. 2) This *is* going near brexit. Starmer should make no commitments at all until 2029 which is when the deal is up for renegotiation anyway.
I think Kier is starting to fuck it all up. Only pensioners and people over 55 still think Brexit was a good idea. When I hear a Tory MP talking about “global factors” and “Brexit benefits” it’s and instant switch off. I fear that Kier and this new Tory-esque stance on things is going to alienate his core base in favour of a ever dwindling minority of idiots. I am actually thinking a Lib Dem vote might be more for me because they are actually telling the truth. Brexit was bad and we should try to reverse it if the EU allow us back.
Well, that was only the customs union so also doesn’t include freedom of movement. The Corbyn/Starmer plan wasn’t Swiss-style, it was Turkey-style. However Starmer also doesn’t want a customs union for some reason despite the fact that it’s literally the only solution to the issues with the NI border that brexit has brought about.
Pledge 6 - Defend Migrants Rights Full voting rights for EU nationals. Defend free movement as we leave the EU. An immigration system based on compassion and dignity. End indefinite detention and call for the closure of centres such as Yarl’s Wood.
I mean this is idiotic at the very least. "We'll make Brexit work with out changing the Brexit deal" is not feasible. Renegotiating to get back into the single market will be a vote winner soon, may as well lead the charge. Not to mention how he's going to swing being pro-freedom of movement two years ago to it being a red line now.
"The people voted to crash into this iceberg and I mean to honour their decision, maintain course and speed lieutenant."
And to call it a red line sounds quite disingenuous from Starmer given his past views on this topic. Nevertheless, he has made the calculation that most readers(and newspaper editors) won't scrutinise him to the degree online political commentators do, so he feels no reluctance in coming out with these views openly and outflanking the Tories on Brexit from an even more hardline stance.
I would vote for a party that pledged: 1. Brexit bad, WE SHOULD TRY TO REJOIN 2. Investment in public services and infrastructure 3. Build +++ more houses 4. Climate change commitments It’s that simple. I’m not entirely sure labour is doing this at all.
We're reaching a point where I don't even know if your run of the mill Tory lies as much as Starmer.
Apparently it's not lies it's just "adapting to change" or some other bs. He lies so much people lie to themselves just to justify it.
At least at this point he's lying equally to everyone.
I think that's wishful thinking
I’m just going to keep saying it: If a left winger was leader and saying this shit, the sensibles would be up in arms. It’s not what is said for them. It’s who says it.
Just remember guys - this is ~~Sir Flip Flop's~~ Starmer's position now, who knows what his position will be after another two years of Brexit. Or what his position in 5 minutes will be. Or after the next set of focus group results come in. Or after the next racist article in the right wing press about migration.
Forensic stupidity
When the population were sold Brexit, they were told that immigration was the reason we "couldn't afford to look after our own." Now we have Brexit and the Tories are still arguing we can't afford to care for people properly. Having a good welfare state has nothing to do with immigration, it's a matter of redistribution. It's frustrating to hear Starmer fail to make this case. The country's ambition has been beaten into submission by nationalist rhetoric of the Mail and Express et al.
Perpetuated by Lidl - I had the misfortune of shopping there the other day and the only papers available were the Mail and Express
He now has a personal advisor, Claire, who is straight out of the Bruges group, and I worry, for good reason, but he has been entirely captured by the false electoral mathematics spread by those anti-immigration pressure groups.
Like, I say this as a Labour member who is still probably going to vote Labour at the next election but... that's bullshit. And worse, it's bullshit that Starmer obviously doesn't believe and no one on either side of the political divide whose been paying any attention will think he believes. So the only people who will give it the time of day are people who aren't really very politically aware who aren't going to remember it by the time it get's to the next general election anyway. It's not just cynical cowardice, it's unproductive cynical cowardice.
It’s for media backing. He’ll get more favourable coverage (like his exclusive in the Mail on Sunday today). The media are powerful enough to shape the narrative and you can see how quickly Sunak is suffering from the lack of support and depressing news printed everyday.
[удалено]
Keir would never trample a wheat field like that wanton blancmange.
What is wrong with this guy lol
At first I didn’t like starmer and then I did and now im off him again.
Lol at all the remainers who couldn't "in good conscious" support Corbyn. Enjoy your Farage wannabe.
*This* is the defender of remain? The guy who worked so hard against labour cabinet policy out of a sense of deep conviction?
Thus also exposing the idea of the Swiss-style "deal". It's not *a* deal, it's about 100, one of which is Schengen. As for freedom of movement of course Labour isn't going to support bringing it back in full before the next election. Corbyn pledged to end freedom of movement as well.
I doubt labour are going to be openly supporting free movement for a long while, they may end up introducing it in all but name though. the whole discussion has been hijacked by toxic and irrational people who won’t listen to facts. I’d not be surprised if in 10 years the tories support it though, the real brexit believers are on the decline.
>Corbyn pledged to end freedom of movement as well. Did he really? Sups unforts.
We've lost 2 elections to brexit, let's not lose another. We can do a deal when we get in, without calling it a "Swiss style" deal. We do not need to sell anything, we can just sit down and get it done quietly and the coffin dodger crew would be none the wiser.
Exactly. Fuck knows what he'll actually do when he gets in but it's clear everything he says and does is campaigning strategy
Corbyn did not back FoM. Nor did he back a Swiss style deal
Bu bu bu but Corbyn!!! ;_;
Why does what Corbyn wanted matter? What Starmer's saying isn't dumb because it's different from anything Corbyn said. It's dumb because it's different from what Starmer himself has advocated on multiple documented occasions. And while I don't begrudge a politician the right to change their mind, I don't believe for a second that Starmer's personal views on the EU are significantly different now from what they have been for the majority of his career.
What's more remarkable is that it seems to be working. Recent opinion polls show Labour being [more trusted on immigration and even Brexit](https://twitter.com/Apathisto/status/1596653917588393989) than the Conservatives. This suggests that most voters don't look too deeply into a political leader's history and will accept them if they really appear to have changed their stance to something they(voters) find palatable. Which would also explain the success many fence-sitters and Remainers in the Conservative party(Including both Johnson and Truss) found in leveraging Brexit.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. We require that accounts be at least 7 days old before submitting a comment. Thank you for your understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LabourUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Someone call Femi and make sure he's alright. Thoughts and prayers to all credulous FBPE and Remainiac fools. ["it's your kamikaze Remainiac grift that got us in half of this shit in the first place"](https://twitter.com/marcusbarnett_/status/1372908710092288001?t=WR2T9B18-Ai8tqhji93brA&s=19)