Uncategorized

Follow-up to viral Corbyn/FBPE-takedown thread is just as much a must-read

SKWAWKBOX (SW)by
15 Comments on Follow-up to viral Corbyn/FBPE-takedown thread is just as much a must-read
One of many key tweet’s in Shaun Lawson’s follow-up thread

On New Year’s Day, the SKWAWKBOX published a Twitter thread by writer and academic Shaun Lawson in which he dismantled, brick by brick, the perverse misdirections used by the ‘FBPE’/remain-obsessive arm of the Establishment to try to pin the blame for the government’s Brexit chaos on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Lawson has now posted a follow-up thread to fill in a gaps, answer questions posed and, even more crucially, to lay out the realities and prospects of a Labour-led post-Brexit future.

It’s just as much a must-read – and a must-share – as the first one. The Mike Hind thread linked in tweet 14 is well worth a read and share too, while tweet 37 shows why GDP-based scare stories about Brexit don’t mean the vast majority of us would be worse off.

It’s not merely a must-read for now. Both threads are a vital resource to bookmark and return to whenever the false arguments of those who don’t want to see a Corbyn-led government are regurgitated. The new thread is reproduced below with Shaun’s kind permission:


The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

15 comments

  1. Great post. I agree with everything he has written. PV detracts from the real issues in this country and those who want a PV have to realise the beneficiaries will be the Tories.

    Reply

  3. Brilliant simply brilliant , covers for me every base and how I feel about it all , and puts into perspective the PV and how it’s being hijacked by anti Corbyn MPs ( yes that’s you Chukka ) forces to try and ( fail ) bounce Labour into agree to it.
    It’s down to the timing of it all and going full on PV now would IMO be disastrous. Anyway thanks to Shaun for all his remarkable efforts and to SB for as usual publicising it .Won’t see this in the MSM for sure .

    Reply

  4. Re tweet 14. Brexit has so divided the country that a few refuse to compromise, they’ve convinced themselves that the referendum result was through cheating, they think enough leave voters were influenced by the £350ml on the red bus to alter the result. They think that Russian money caused people to vote leave and they rant about “only a third of the electorate voted leave”. They’ve devoted their lives to overturning the result and believe that the economy will collapse if we leave. I’ve been following btl comments in the Guardian and Indy for 2 years and the anger is astonishing among those who won’t accept leaving and demand another referendum and the worst of it comes from people who claim to be Labour supporters who hate Corbyn more than May. Whatever happens in the end, this tiny minority of very angry people need to understand they are not Labour, they are not Liberals, they’re fanatics.

    Reply

    1. ” those who won’t accept leaving and demand another referendum and the worst of it comes from people who claim to be Labour supporters who hate Corbyn more than May. ”

      Have you considered the blind idiocy of claiming that the majority of the Labour Party can be described in this way?

      It’s a sort of apotheosis – of disappearing up your own fundamental orifice as a sublime act of political rectitude.

      The irrational fear and panic at the *principle* (not the practicalities) of another referendum after the last split vote demonstrates the essential contradictions and shallowness of Leftoryism’s babbling about ‘democracy’.

      Reply

  5. Good post until perhaps the end.
    Think if Labour goes for another peoples vote Leave voters may think you are all the same and we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
    Neo-Liberalism started in US in late 1950’s, First took hold in Callaghan’s Labour Govt then captured Tories with Thatcherism (Reaganism in US) then bonus prize Blair Govt then via Blairism Scotland (opportunist SNP stole old Labour’s clothes) and influenced social democratic parties Western Europe (they accept capitalism but want to secure crumbs for working people) then captured the ultimate prize the EC.
    With a Corbyn Govt we could break the Neo-Liberal Chain.
    I was quite lukewarm about the Refetendum, I reluctantly voted Remain (to try EC wide to break Neo-Liberalism) but my question was: How can we build a left wing democratic socialist society as an example to the World?
    Via the EC or independent nation states and option 2 won.
    Perhaps time to blow away the EC Neo-Liberal cobwebs and for left wing democratic socialists to start dreaming again.

    Reply

  6. The Tories are ramping up the scare stories to pressure MPs to vote for the crap May deal…deploying troops…etc. When May’s deal gets voted down then that alone should count as a No Confidence Vote as it demonstrates that this government is incapable of passing a crucial piece of legislation. This should trigger the 14 day period allowed for this failed Tory/DUP pack to regroup before an election becomes the inevitable default.

    I think there will be so little time to act after the meaningless vote that the only way to avert chaos is for parliament to insist on a unilateral withdraw of Article 50 to allow time for the political crisis to be resolved. We have now been told this is within our gift if it is a democratic decision made for a legitimate reason. Asking for an extension puts us at the mercy of the EU27 with the possibility of dropping out by default due to the slightest error or delay: this is too greater risk.

    A sensible stance for Labour in an election manifesto would be to reassure the voters that Article 50 will not be resubmitted until a fully considered plan has been agreed through a committee representing all sectors of the UK and including cross party support. This is the only sane solution to resolve all of the feasibility issues before restarting a deadline countdown that will always put us at a disadvantage.

    At the same time as one Labour led committee would work on the “Jobs First Brexit” plan a second committee could be working out concessions and pledges that we might reasonably ask of the EU in order to pursue the possibility of Remain and Reform. This was Labour/Corbyn policy before the referendum. However, these should not be special treatment sweeteners purely for UK benefit, but changes that are needed to benefit all member states. This is how we regain respect as we put the EU on notice regarding their neoliberal policies that have caused such distress to a number of Eurozone countries.

    This is about letting the EU know just why a member state wants to jump ship and the warning that other members might also decide to leave the block if they do not take this opportunity to reform. I am a strong advocate of the free movement if people, but the damage done to certain EU states drives desperation as young people are forced to desert their country after the economy crashes and there are no jobs. Equalizing and further democratising the EU will end this desperation and the one way migration it promotes.

    We need to create ways in which the “left behind,” who felt so badly abandoned by Tory austerity that they voted for Brexit, might actually see opportunities for training or retiring on the continent. These concepts for establishing “Collaborative Circular Migration” that benefits everyone would totally negate the desire for Brexit, but no one is even reviewing these options. This strategy would be acceptable to the EU as it respects freedom of movement which is one of the big sticking points right now.

    I am not screaming for a “Peoples Vote” while the Tories hold all the cards, but I do believe there should be a Final Say once all of the options are sorted out and we are clearly ready for implantation. As someone noted regarding Union negotiations, after a deal has been reached the Union return to their members to vote on the best offer that has been achieved, this is no different. I don’t believe that that a Final Say vote disrespect those who voted Leave.

    I am so sick of hearing politicians who routinely ignore public sentiment endlessly harping on about “the will of the people” like they suddenly grew a conscience! Despite certain groups being among the most seriously impacted by Brexit they were excluded from voting in the referendum. A final say vote must include all those who were excluded from voting last time.

    No taxation without representation; EU citizens who have paid tax in the UK for a number of years should be allowed to vote. The expats living on the continent were promised a change in the law so that their voting rights would not end after 15 years away: a promise is a promise! The 16 and 17 year olds should be enfranchised as they will need to live with this decision for the longest time. Excluding these sectors from the EU referendum last time was a serious injustice and this must be corrected.

    I am familiar with MMT and totally agree that we need to invest to turn things around and build a better future for our young people. I am deeply saddened by Brexit as I see this as life limiting for young people. I did a huge amount of travelling, sailing and working overseas when I was younger, not as a spoilt rich kid, but as a hard working, bold adventurer. The Tories have done so much harm exploiting this forgotten generation and we need to increase their opportunities not narrow their horizons. I worry that extricating from the EU is so complex that it will cause significant harm to the UK despite a better deal under Labour.

    Reply

    1. ” the only way to avert chaos is for parliament to insist on a unilateral withdraw of Article 50 ”

      Yes. Not a solution – but the only way forward in this dog’s dinner where the country is totally split.

      The one thing you can guarantee is that it will smoke out all the frauds who rabbit on about the ‘people’s will’ etc.when no such entity exists.

      Reply

  7. Despite this blog’s justified dislike of The Guardian, Professor Lawson’s disdain for No Deal suggests that much of the Labour Left do not have political beliefs which go much beyond Guardianista left-liberalism.

    The Labour Left cannot have the EU deal of its dreams since the other negotiating party is the completely-neoliberal European Commission as mandated by the Council of the EU. The Commission, I suspect, is not particularly concerned at the prospect of a post-EU Johnson or Rees-Mogg Conservative government. It is undoubtedly concerned however that a Corbyn government may distort the European market through state aid to British industry as it tries to build up a manufacturing base and rebalance the economy.

    The Commission’s top priority in any deal therefore is to keep Britain in the EU competition regime, restricting British use of state aids and prohibiting the extension of public ownership. This is actually an open secret:

    https://www.thefullbrexit.com/single-post/2018/07/30/The-real-fear-is-state-subsidies-under-a-Jeremy-Corbyn-government

    So what would a Corbyn government do in the face of Commission and Council insistence that the country accepts the neoliberal competition regime? Well, if No Deal is entirely unacceptable the Labour Government would have zero bargaining power making a Syriza style capitulation the only option. This would leave Corbyn and the few parliamentary Corbynistas to preside impotently over neoliberalism until they are discarded.

    Reply

    1. I see you align with the Tory backwoodsmen – those scions of socialist politics. They also think that ‘No Deal’ is ‘No Problem’.

      Thus my term ‘Leftoryists’

      Reply

  8. Maybe they know something that we don’t know, but Danny’s final paragraph describes my own default view of the position that Corbyn has been forced into by Starmer and others – aided and abetted by the establishment’s demonising of a world trade rules deal as a “no deal” maelstrom. A free trade agreement would have been better, but the fact is, countries trading with Europe under WT rules seem to have done significantly better in terms of growth than the 12 founder members within the 27 and 4 times better than the the UK (Burrage, 2017) Obviously the establishment and the CBI will kick up a fuss about businesses footing a little extra for the tariff (some more than others); one would expect them too. But, it was the CBI who also described a custom’s union deal as one of the least favourable options.

    Reply

    1. Some good points Paulo and agree with your facts referring to the Burrage 2017 report , which does indeed seem to indicate this.
      I personally wouldn’t have an issue with staying in a EU that was fundamentally Socialist in nature and deeds , but the present iteration of it is Neo-liberal through and through as factually evidence in the treatment to Syriza and Greece.
      Thus IMO it would not be possible for Labour to carry out its reforming manifesto and thus I agree with Danny on that point

      Reply

  9. After all the debate, there is a simple question behind what is a dichotomous choice :

    How does Labour set about trying to achieve what the majority of members and supporters clearly want, (and what the Tory faithful clearly don’t want) i.e. to remain in the EU?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: