Corbyn’s Brexit betrayal

Jeremy Corbyn has written to Theresa May offering to help her make Brexit happen. In a  letter delivered yesterday he has shifted his red lines and offered May a Commons majority to leave the EU if she accepts his “negotiating objectives”. It’s enraged some Labour MPs and will certainly enrage and/or demoralise the majority of the party’s membership who want Corbyn to stop helping the Tories push through Brexit – and back a second referendum: his letter promises to discuss his proposal with May in a “constructive” way to secure a “sensible agreement”.

The Stalinists and nativists who run Corbyn’s office say “compromise” is now needed to satisfy both the EU and the House of Commons, which voted down the 585-page Brexit deal by a record majority last month.The letter means Labour’s leadership has ditched the “six tests” it used to say a Brexit deal would have to meet in order to receive Labour support. The tests were based on Tory promises about Brexit, but included ambitions that were obviously impossible, such as securing “the exact same benefits” the UK currently has. They were derided as “bollocks” by Shadow Trade Secretary Barry Gardiner.

Today the very same Mr Gardiner told the BBC: “It’s not about tests now.

“What we are doing is saying we believe that these are the options that are available that would actually secure a majority in the House of Commons.”

The letter confirms that Team Corbyn is putting calls for a second EU referendum firmly on the back burner – something the Stalinists and nativists who form his inner circle had intended to do all along.

Labour is theoretically committed to keeping a second EU referendum as an “option on the table” under the terms of policy passed at the party conference last year.

Labour’s anti-Brexit rank and file is already saying the party should be campaigning for a new public vote now, having failed to force a general election but Jeremy Corbyn and his inner circle of pro-Brexit advisers have worked continuously to undermine the conference policy on a further referendum..

Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer has tweeted that the letter does not take the prospect of a public vote off the table, but this claim has been immediately met with derision.

There is no mention in the letter of even delaying Brexit. Labour has said extending the March 29 date may be inevitable. But this shows the Corbyn leadership is aiming to help May get a soft Brexit through as soon as it can.

The incoherent buffoon Barry Gardiner has said: “Jeremy is trying to set out what we believe is needed to make a success of Brexit.”

If she accepts the offer, Corbyn’s people claim Theresa May won’t need Tory Brexiteers to get a Commons majority and the Corbyn proposals will partially solve the question of the Irish backstop (which Corbyn opposes on the same grounds as the Tory Brexiteers).

The idiot Gardiner said: “What we’re saying is actually you can do this another way …”What you can do is say let’s look at the future political framework, and if the future political framework were agreed now between the EU and ourselves to be a customs union, then actually there’s no problem at that point when you get to the end of the transition period, because you’re already in a customs union and therefore you don’t need the backstop.”

 

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Corbyn’s Brexit betrayal

  1. It’s all a massive conspiracy from those Stalinist’s. Uncle Joe would be smiling in his tomb. Not only did they convince David Cameron to call for the second referendum in 2016 (the first being in 1975), they’ve now managed to get Corbyn to drop his plans for a third referendum. How do they get away with it?

    Like

  2. They ‘get away’ with it because Corbyn shares their politics from Venezuela, to anti-semitism to anti-Europeanism. Then there’s the fact that his closest advisors are Stalinist…Murray and Milne. Then there’s the fact that Corbyn is as thick as two short planks leaving heavily dependent on his Tankie posh boy advisors for any ‘intellectual’ effort. Doesn’t really need a ‘conspiracy’ big or small, does it.

    Like

  3. They ‘get away’ with it because Corbyn shares their politics from Venezuela, to anti-semitism to anti-Europeanism. Then there’s the fact that his closest advisors are Stalinist…Murray and Milne. Then there’s the fact that Corbyn is as thick as two short planks leaving him heavily dependent on his Tankie posh boy advisors for any ‘intellectual’ effort. Doesn’t really need a ‘conspiracy’ big or small, does it.

    Like

  4. Momentum are Stalinists now? Please, cease trotting out the word ‘Stalinism’ for every blunder, betrayal and ideological dead-end, on the left. So, if Trotskyists walk up an ideological dead-end and make a pact with the lumpen and mob folly, they are of course, no longer Trotskyists, but suddenly ‘Stalinists’, right? Milne is an old style Oxord Brezhnev worshiper with a bit of silly ‘trade union communism’ (whatever that was) thrown in. However, the idea that this latest farce is down to a Stalinist clique is laughable. Corbyn is a failure. He is a good ‘campaigner’ for left causes, that is it. As a poltical leader he is simpleminded, lacks true Marxist critical subtlety, is slow to manoeuvre (a trait Lenin despised) and a rubbish debater. Please do not fall into the childish fantasy of claiming that your ‘true prince’ is being manipulated by sinsiter courtiers. You made an error, at least now, try and see why.

    Like

    1. If any of that is directed to me:
      I’m not a Trot.
      I never voted for Corbyn and was appalled at his election. I think I was right to be. Who said Momentum are Stalinists?And plenty of people recognise Milne, Murray’s and others influence in old dead head. Sorry you’ve lost me with the distinction between a ‘Brezhnev worshiper’ (‘old style’) and a Stalinist. Admiration of the USSR in all its fucked up ‘glory’ will do for me.
      And then with get reference to ‘true’ Marxist critical subtlety ( possessed I take it by yourself) and the inevitable reference to the dead Bolshevik Lenin. Here’s the thing Corbyn’s problem on this score isn’t what Leni said back in 1905 or whenever, I wouldn’t let Jezza draw up a shopping list.

      Like

    2. If any of that is directed to me:
      I’m not a Trot.
      I never voted for Corbyn and was appalled at his election. I think I was right to be. Who said Momentum are Stalinists?And plenty of people recognise Milne, Murray’s and others influence on old dead head. Sorry you’ve lost me with the distinction between a ‘Brezhnev worshiper’ (‘old style’) and a Stalinist. Admiration of the USSR in all its fucked up ‘glory’ will do for me.
      And then with the reference to ‘true’ Marxist critical subtlety ( possessed I take it by yourself) and the inevitable reference to the dead Bolshevik Lenin. Here’s the thing Corbyn’s problem on this score isn’t what Leni said back in 1905 or whenever, I wouldn’t let Jezza draw up a shopping list.

      Like

    3. Momentum, are those cock-suckers still going? Blimey, I thought they’d disbanded years ago. I mean no one listens to them anymore so what is the point.

      Like

  5. Dave,
    None of what I wrote was ‘directed’ at you. It is merely an outline of the current Momentum, Left Unity and SWP ‘defence’ of Corbyn’s blundering.
    There are a large number of tremendously persuasive, subtle and critical Marxist thinkers, activists and writers: Adorno, Gramsci, Althusser, Caudwell, George Thompson, Fromm, even Sartre retained some Marxist categories, etc, etc. These are valuable. I admire their work and seek to apply some of it. I admit to being weak in critical dialectical social analysis, my readings of Hegel and Simmel are shallow. I claim no status for myself whatsoever.
    If you think something Lenin claimed was wrong or worthless just becasue he claimed it, you are just as dim as those that think everything he claimed was correct, just because he claimed it. You seem to be one of those rather shallow fellows who enjoys moral pontification about the former Soviet state, but know little or nothing about the former USSR or Russian history. The Soviet system before WWII and the Cold War had significant differences to when the Cold War was at its height. If you can prove that you are in fact, well informed in Russian history, I will detract.
    You may well enjoy using the term ‘Jezza’, but I have to tell you that I regard such phrases as an index of the vulgar cultural ignoramus. It only takes one less key-stokes to write ‘Jezza’ than to write ‘Corbyn’. So why indugle in such childishness? If it is an attempt at humour, it is a poor one.

    Like

  6. From Robert Peston,

    Apparently, the omission (of a further referendum in Corbyn’s letter) was the result of it accidentally being forgotten to be included!!

    ‘And by way of further evidence, if such were needed, I am told that the original draft of Corbyn’s letter to May, which was written by Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary Starmer, contained reference to the party’s fallback position of a referendum. And this was struck out by Corbyn’s office before the letter was sent. ‘

    ****

    ‘No matter how many times Theresa May reminds us, it is easy to forget that Labour’s manifesto committed it to delivering Brexit.

    Equally it is hard to remember that the notorious motion passed by the last Labour conference that opened the door to the party’s possible support for a Brexit referendum – as a last resort – was also a restatement of the party’s pledge to deliver its own vision of how to leave the EU.

    So it was rational for the prime minister to respond in good faith to Jeremy Corbyn’s written offer to negotiate Brexit terms that he and his party could support.

    And quite apart from the convention that manifesto commitments should be honoured, she will presumably know – since almost everyone else in the UK does – that Corbyn is less attracted to a referendum than he would be to a job offer from Goldman Sachs.

    And by way of further evidence, if such were needed, I am told that the original draft of Corbyn’s letter to May, which was written by Labour’s shadow Brexit secretary Starmer, contained reference to the party’s fallback position of a referendum. And this was struck out by Corbyn’s office before the letter was sent.

    But none of that means there is a deal to be done between Corbyn and May – because the scale of compromise for both may well be beyond what their parties can wear and bear.

    To get Corbyn and Labour on board, May would have to sacrifice some of the putative freedoms – such as the ability to ever diverge from the EU on Labour or environmental rules, or to negotiate free trade deals with non-EU countries – that for many Tory Brexiter MPs represent the whole point of Brexit.

    And to get his party on board, Corbyn would have to explain why he would be doing a deal whose effect could be to sustain the Tory government in office till 2022.

    But as I have said before, there is a deal to be done between May and Corbyn that would command parliamentary support – it would be a version of what some Remainy MPs have styled Common Market 2.0 – so long as neither mind that their respective parties would fracture as a price of that deal.

    The point is that May’s and Corbyn’s visions of a tolerable Brexit are much more aligned than the views of the Brexiter and Remain wings of their own respective parties.

    So it is May’s and Corbyn’s resolve to deliver Brexit and damn the consequences for the institutions that have sustained and nurtured them throughout their entire adult lives that will determine how and even whether the UK leaves the EU.

    For both, it is all about whether their perception of the national interest trumps party interest.

    PS I am told Starmer is not the happiest member of the frontbench, to put it mildly – according to multiple sources.

    He had agreed that the final part of Corbyn’s letter to May would say “if you do not accept this [Brexit offer] there will be a People’s Vote”.

    A source tells me “LOTO [the leader of the opposition] agreed to this. But then Keir discovered after the letter had been sent and published that the People’s Vote para had gone”.

    Starmer “called LOTO and was told ‘oh we must have forgotten that paragraph’”.

    Apparently Starmer’s reaction has not been one of unbridled joy.

    And even erstwhile Corbyn loyalists are becoming grumpy at what they see as his refusal to follow the revealed will of Labour members and supporters that their should be a referendum.
    One said: “the only interest” of Corbyn and his aides is “seeing a Tory Brexit through so they can wash their hands of it”.’

    Like

    1. Blimey! I can see what Marx meant when he said the workers don’t need leaders!

      Ask Glesga for evidence on how the Labour party betrayed the workers over the years.

      Like

      1. Steven, Labour would not call it betrayal but pragmatiism as they like the Tories and indeed all parties follow the dictat of the markets, stock exchanges, bankers etc. We now have the EU beaurocracy dictating to 27 countries. The workers are not an issue any more and if they do raise their heads as they did in Greece and now France then it is tear gas, smoke grenades and rubber bullets all round. I recall the left being up in arms during the last Irish Troubles because of such methods. But how silent they are now when it is their wonderful EU that is dishing it out.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s