Breaking: clear-cut victory for Corbyn Brexit plan at NEC

Corbyn’s position wins through in spite of left absences

In the last few moments Jeremy Corbyn’s victory at a meeting of Labour’s NEC (National Executive Committee) has been confirmed. Corbyn’s position on Brexit for the party’s European Parliament manifesto won easily, in spite of the unavoidable absence of a number of left NEC members.

The result is a humiliating defeat for deputy leader Tom Watson, who had tried to orchestrate pressure for a switch to support for another public vote.


It’s time for every MP, MEP and candidate to get on-message and campaign hard for the party’s position.

And it’s time for Watson to go.

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.


  1. Good news. Now let’s hope hardline remainers in the party stop causing division and get behind the party position and leader so we can focus on respecting the manifesto commitment to leave the EU.

    That is the only way we will defeat the Tories and win power. If we stick two fingers up to 17.4 million voters the Labour Party will be dead and buried, the Tories will remain in power and austerity will continue killing people.

    1. Some will accept the party position and support the leader, others won’t. Those who won’t have their own agenda – their objective is to demonise/ vilify/ undermine Jeremy Corbyn as much as possible in order to prevent a Socialist, Corbyn led government. It doesn’t matter what Jeremy does or says, how reasonable or decent he is, they’ll condemn him anyway.
      On this occasion Brexit just happens to be their chosen weapon but it could be anything.
      Once they see that their Brexit tactics haven’t worked they’ll be on to the next phase of their character assassination campaign. I wonder what they will find to accuse him of next – cruelty to vegetables on allotment perhaps?

      1. It will be antisemitism of course. That will always be on the back burner to rear its ugly head once Brexiy dies down.

    2. One can hope . BUT, sadly the Labour Right will NEVER get behind Jeremy in any way. They only want to wreck our party and its electoral prospects – delusionally believing that the remaining husk of a party will be then recaptured by them as a vehicle for the return of “business as usual” , ie, their corrupt careerist shenanigans of the last 30 years.

      Well done the NEC in this instance though !

    3. Let’s hope the minority of hard line leavers in the Party respect democracy and realise that because many voters have died and many more have come of age, the referendum result based upon lies and illegality is now defunct, as are IA’s views as previously expressed.

      1. Jack: I’m sure I have shown you this video before, but who is telling lies on the Remainer side, Europe is severely broken, it’s no longer the social democracy so many actually think it is. The trouble is people from both sides ‘believe’ and don’t find out for themselves what the real picture is. We are not an exporter to Europe but a net importer, that means we buy more from Europe than we sell, poverty is rising throughout western Europe, which has led to rise in Fascism, I could go on and on but suffice it to say that this eminent Professor spells it out in detail what Europe actually stands for:

      2. rotzeichen. I’ve not yet watched the video but I will do. Your point about being a net importer is correct but that is not the whole story.

        50% of our exports go to Europe because of the free trade terms we have with each other but only 16% of their exports come to us. In that situation, we obviously need them more than they need us.

        If free trade terms were abolished, our exports to the EU would decrease, further exacerbating the trading imbalance.

        How do the Leavers plan to make up this difference? Even just to break even is going to be difficult with a plan to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world, which according to Liam Fox will be easy, the man is deluded. Because with our partners in the EU we constitute one of the largest trading blocks in the world, we have great bargaining power. This will all be lost if we turn our partners into competitors.

  2. Some of us prefer to reserve judgement until we have the full details. Things can’t have been quite as cut and dried as claimed, the meeting lasted over 2hrs longer than was scheduled.

    1. So the outcome after 5 hours of argument is they’ve just kicked the can down the road again. I’m sure that will go down well with the majority of the Labour Party’s membership.

      1. The can-kicking is laid firmly at the door of the Government. We have a policy designed to deal with a number of potential outcomes. We do not know which outcome will result so we can not promise to implement a strategy designed for 1 particular outcome…simples

      2. andydoc 30/04/2019 at 5:20 pm

        That’s the beauty of a confirmatory referendum on whatever the outcome is. It’s the one policy that really does fit every potential outcome.

      3. I think that about sums it up. Reminiscent of the timidity over facing down Israel. Not a good look giving Watson etc. credibility in this way.

      4. @SteveH No, a confirmatory referendum does not work in all circumstances.

        It could be applied to any Brexit deal. But how acceptable that is to Labour members and supporters varies wildly depending on what that deal is. Some would object in any circumstances. Some would demand one in any circumstance. Many more are in the middle, and would agree with a CV in response to a Tory Brexit but would be OK with a soft Brexit.

        I want Brexit stopped. But I am perfectly happy with Labour’s current position, because it strikes the balance between respecting democracy and trying to stop the damage.

      5. Ultraviolet, a confirmatory referendum doesn’t ‘work’ in that it satisfies everyone but I assume that’s not what SteveH meant – I took him to mean that it ‘works’ in the sense that it’s impartial.

        With Brexit we had too little discussion, too much unsupported assertion and too many outright lies from both sides before the vote – we’ve now had more discussion and different lies, Parliament is divided across party lines and so is the country – effectively it’s stalemate.

        The process has been deeply flawed throughout in that the assertions and soundbites of both sides went largely unchallenged at the time by anyone but activists from ‘the other side’ – same old politicians gaming the same old system.
        Unless one watched, read and took expert advice on everything one was left uninformed – and that’s every last one of us.
        Before any ‘confirmatory referendum’ I’d like to hear acknowledged academic experts in economics, law and politics debate the issues in primetime, particularly including issues and evidence arising subsequent to the original decision.
        Academics have reputations to lose and tend not to view truth and lies as equal tools, to be employed as required by one’s political goals.
        Questions on the debate from the public the following evening I think, with comment from politicians after that.
        Dreamer? Yes I am, and proudly so.

    2. I daresay there was a lot of discussion and the debate ran over as a consequence. Nevertheless it is undeniable that there is overwhelming NEC support for the position put forward by Jeremy Corbyn . This of course amounts to a resounding victory for him. Well done Jeremy, our next PM!

    3. Steve, the fact that the meeting was 2 hrs longer than expected, the result was that the Shadow cabinet decision was upheld.
      SKY News at 15.15 hrs today reported that the NEC meeting was scheduled for 4 hrs.

      1. Aneurin Wynne Davies at 7:08 pm

        I got my info from an article published at 11:35am. I would speculate that we could both be right in that the original schedule was 2hrs but by the time you watched the report on Sky News the schedule may already have been extended .

        But speaking to NEC members paints a different picture. One pointed out to me that the meeting is only scheduled to be two hours long (though it could overrun)

  3. “He’s gotta go”… OK, Skwawkie, message understood.
    Consider it done, Boss.
    Wit’ extreme prejudice, right?

  4. I am having a whip round for a monster sized sick bucket for the Twatson. If anybody has got an old 25 litre paint bucket they can donate it would be much appreciated.

    1. His giga head’d ne’er fit in a 25ltr bucket. A wheelie bin might just about do it. (Same shape, too)

      1. If he loses another fifty pounds and grows a moustache he can audition for Zebedee in Magic Roundabout.

  5. Good stuff but on Brexit this isn’t a cure-all. Leave voters (like myself) are still MIGHTILY dissatisfied at Labour having voted to delay our departure.

    The damage was done immediately after the Referendum when Labour did not put forward socialist “red lines” on issues which ought to matter to the Corbyn-McDonnell regime like public ownership, state subsidies and public procurement. The imposition of such red lines was surely winnable in terms of Labour Party internal politics. The effect would have been to have propelled Labour to a “hard” Brexit.

    Instead the leadership confined itself to far more neoliberal criteria such as its emphasis on seamless trade (not guaranteed by a customs union anyway).

    As a matter of political analysis, therefore, the capitulation on socialism came first, the capitulation in favour of the EU was more in the nature of a consequence:


    1. Unless you are secretly Jacob Rees-Mogg (or someone equally able to profit from it), I cannot see why you want a hard Brexit. I see nothing there for the many, just a few million for the few.
      Labour policy on Brexit recognises that we won’t get all the benefits of membership if we leave, but does seek to get many of them. As a socialist, I reckon that would be far superior to a hard Brexit, which would (as ever) be paid for by those on lower income, while the rich would protect their wealth.

    2. Don’t forget the coincidentally timed hourly quits against Corbyn immediately after the referendum. Tories were on their knees in disarray, and the Labour party decides at that point that it’s time to whine about Corbyn.

      Things that make you go hmmm…

  6. It’s just common sense. Once again the bullying from people like Watson and Blair is wonderfully counterproductive – as was shown in the Referundum itself. Now we just need some common sense from May and to reach an agreement with Labour. If a Deal gets through the EU elections can be postponed and the whole debate in/out will be over! A blessed relief. Then the The idea we could do the whole thing again sometime in the Autumn or the New Year and then come April 2020 we find ourselves in the exact same position we are now, is beyond depressing. First comes, what will the Question(s) be? And who decides?

    1. My understanding is that the Electoral Commission get the final say on this.

    1. Sure, we want a Labour government but one which keeps us in the EU. Outside the EU we will need to virtually start from scratch trying to replace the trade and alliances which will inevitably be lost. A Labour government in the EU could hit the ground running. Out of the EU we would just hit the ground!

      1. … and spend the next generation being blamed for the ensuing economic meltdown. Plus how are Labour going to fulfill their social and economic reforms if there is a significant drop in the tax-take

  7. It’s inevitably a fudge, but one I can live with. I long since lost any hope of walking away. I can accept Labour’s position and I pray this stops the bogus calls for a second/confirmatory referendum and the end of “doublespeak”: the holding of two opposing, conflicting views simultaneously. Love Corbyn, respect the manifesto.

    1. Linda, Labour member’s position, is to remain, therefore even though you are not a member, I’m pleased you now accept our position.

      1. Labour has always respected the referendum result. Party policy has never deviated from that one inch. And all the opinion polls suggest (for what they’re worth) [not much] that the membership still supports that policy.
        Those who pretend otherwise are only deceiving themselves.

      2. Linda, I’ve tried debating with you ad nauseum but you have started to sound as unhinged as ‘Internal Affairs’.

        Perhaps you could tell me why, when you and some other Brexiters, have your arguments challenged you take it so personally and feel you have to respond with insults?

      3. There are no insults in this conversation Jack T, just you changing the subject and turning it into an attack on me.

    2. Why not comment on Costas Lapavitsas thinking instead of attacking me? And why queue up to take shots at me?
      You have no argument of your own, so you pick my comments to bits with the aim of annoying me and obfuscating any serious debate.

  8. No, Lundie, it will not stop that. What makes you think that a Labour Brexit deal will get off the ground? Or any joint Brexit venture by Tories and Labour? Why might you just vote on one, but not a Labour one? And have you not forgot one important participant in that – the EU? And do you really expect remains to campaign for Brexit? And how would you want to get them on board?

    1. I never for a minute expected you to compromise. You informed us before that you are a German. I’m more concerned with the stagnation of social mobility in this country rather than personal ambition or ideology.
      Get off my back Ebert-Forbes and have some courtesy. I expect remains to vote for the party that mirrors their views, not try and take over Labour. If you voted Labour in the last election, you voted for the manifesto that stood by the referendum result.

      1. Lundiel, your point in referring to Ms Ebert-Forbes’ nationality escapes me – what exactly does that have to do with any discussion here?
        “Vote for the party that mirrors their views” implies no discussion and no dissenting voices – ever.
        Democracy requires discussion and disagreement and persuasion or nothing ever changes.
        Now which end of your egg did you say you chopped off this morning?

      2. Oh well we hit sommet there Lundiel. Actually I am European, and happen to be born in Germany, sommet which was completely out of my control.
        I am a very polite person, respecting that other people might have different views to myself. This being able to accept that people may not share your views is what appears lacking in you. Guess you got to do some serious growing up.
        Actually I did not vote in the last general election because had I done so I would have broken the law.
        All I did was ask you some legitimate questions. None of which you even started to answer. Rather disappointing.

      3. lundiel – in what way is Sabine Ebert-Forbes ‘on your back?’ In what way does she show discourtesy? Her posts tend to be a model of restraint. Why is her German birth relevant to anything in this debate? What has social mobility (another debate) to do with the issues she raises?

        There is no ‘take over’ of Labour by Remainers, BTW – they are the majority of the Party.

      4. Where in my original comment did I mention you Ms Ebert- Forbes. That comment wasn’t rude, wasn’t aimed at you at all, so I fail to see why you felt the need to stick your oar in, again. Why did you rudely call me by my surname? More importantly, why are you even using this blog if you can’t vote in our elections?
        Please allow me to state my opinion without trolling my comments, I don’t have anything to say about your contributions, they don’t concern me. Also, I am likely a good deal older than you and I happily accept people with different views, not diametrically opposing views like neoliberalism and Socialism. That doesn’t work for me.

      5. lundiel 30/04/2019 at 10:43 pm

        What a disappointment, and you were doing so well. It has been noticeably more pleasant on here today and whilst I appreciate the effort you’ve made couldn’t you have managed to remain good natured for just a few more hours.

        You seem to be under the misapprehension that you get to personally choose who can and can’t respond to your comments. I’m sorry to burst your bubble but when you post on a discussion blog like this one you are offering your comment up for anyone to comment on.

        Nobody is stopping you from stating your opinion , but when you do anyone and everyone is entitled to agree, disagree or discuss and quote it. Its common knowledge that this is the case and everyone else accepts this is the case so what makes you feel you are somehow exempt. Your attitude just doesn’t make sense.

        Surely at your age you are mature enough not to behave like a snowflake.

        Oh and when are you going to get it into your head that you don’t get to choose who can and can’t post om here. If you want to exist in a ‘safe space’ then start your own blog.

      6. “There is no ‘take over’ of Labour by Remainers, BTW – they are the majority of the Party”
        There’s no evidence to support that wishful thinking, is there?

      7. Andrew Heenan 30/04/2019 at 11:07 pm · ·
        “There’s no evidence to support that wishful thinking, is there?”

        On the contrary all the evidence I’ve seen indicates just that.

        I suppose that only another referendum would give absolute proof BUT all the available evidence from several academic surveys & numerous polls have consistently over a long period of time all indicated that the majority of both Labour Party members and voters support a CV and staying in the EU. As far as I’m aware there is no evidence to the contrary. Are you aware of any.

        I suppose you are entitled to just ignore all the available evidence and believe anything you like but that doesn’t make your beliefs credible to anyone but yourself.

      8. “I suppose you are entitled to just ignore all the available evidence and believe anything you like but that doesn’t make your beliefs credible to anyone but yourself”
        I’ll leave the self-delusion to you, thanks all the same.

      9. ““There is no ‘take over’ of Labour by Remainers, BTW – they are the majority of the Party”

        Andrew – that is simply what *all* the relevant evidence shows. In terms of statistical analysis, I hesitate to say ‘beyond dispute’ in terms of any data set – but the strength of the evidence is clearly so far in that direction that it is at that point.

        The most recent research from UCL is simply confirmation of what is already known :

        ” it is clear that even in heavily Leave voting areas, the majority of Labour voters were Remainers.”

        Even the myth of ‘working class’ leave voters is blown apart in terms of the Party’s vote : supporters in *all* social classes voted more for ‘|Remain’.

    2. There’s no chance of a tory-Labour deal; there never was, as Mrs may was never going to shift her ‘red lines’.
      Until the day of Brexit (?2046, according to Private Eye), there is a chance of a Labour Deal; simply because it’s a much better deal than May’s or No deal.
      Oh, and Europe would bite JC’s arm off for a deal that suits them as well. It’s a win/win situation.
      But it’s still only an outside chance, without a general election. And as the tories have worked that out, it ain’t too likely, alas.
      If Remainers have to choose between a Labour Deal and No Deal / May’s Deal, I suspect many WILL support it. people aren’t stupid, you know.

    3. You’re demanding answers to questions it is impossible to ask.

      Labour has set the precedent: they are firmly opposed to a Tory Brexit, and have outlined the sort of Brexit they would seek to negotiate if they were leading discussions.

      But as you say, what they would seek to negotiate and what they could actually get may not bear much resemblance to each other.

      What happens to any deal Labour managed to negotiate would depend on what that deal was.

      Why is that so unreasonable or hard to understand?

      1. The problem is that *any* deal is, in the end, a ‘Tory Brexit’ – in the sense that Brexit is a right-wing Tory policy, any version of which achieves their aim (even if the ERG provides a handy foil for pretending that there is only one true religion, thus making the Tories seem temperate).

        It is hardly news that any Brexit outcome leaves the country in a worse position than simply remaining in the EU. Three years has seen every ‘Leave’ argument that has been tested blown out of the water, such that only nebulous ‘what if’ promises about changed public ownership are left – as if that provided a sound base for speculation beyond the more realistic ERG scenario that was the actual rationale for ‘Leave’.

  9. “Many on the British left are trying to minimise the impact of Brexit by campaigning to remain within the European Single Market. This is tragically misguided. The Single Market imposes massive constraints on economic policymaking, which any leftist should reject. The only way to break with the disastrous paradigm of neoliberalism is to quit the Single Market and adopt a radically different set of regulations and policies” Costas Lapavitsas

    This of course is not Labour policy which is very sad. However, the first step is to honour the referendum result, in name if not action. We can modify, leave or negotiate a favourable customs union in the future. One thing’s certain, we’ll never get another chance to leave.

    1. lundiel 30/04/2019 at 8:00 pm

      One thing’s certain, we’ll never get another chance to leave.

      Is this a recognition that if there was another referendum then Brexit would lose.

      1. Prec.isely. The one thing that Lexiteers fear is actual democracy. They are the mirror image of the machine politics of the old right.

      2. Why not comment on Costas Lapavitsas thinking instead of attacking me? And why queue up to take shots at me?
        You have no argument of your own, so you pick my comments to bits with the aim of annoying me and obfuscating any serious debate.

  10. To Lundiel: as this is your callsign/ligin/user name, so I use that. I do not know your name etc. You mentioned my name in your response to my questions I put to you. You reacted quite aggressively to them. This surprised me. You consider me responding to your posts as trolling you, just because I dare to disagree with your views? Well that is your problem nor mine. So you think that only people who can vote in general electipns should be allowed to join groups/forae on the internet? How elitist is that and how discriminatory, just another extension of the hostile environment?

    1. No you didn’t, you called me “Lundie”, my surname. However, I think it is only right and proper that there should be clarity regarding your motivation. I’m very happy for you to post whatever you want as long as it doesn’t involve a concerted attack on me. I’m especially happy now that all contributors understand where you’re coming from.

      1. How would anyone here know that Lundie was your surname?
        Why wouldn’t you just assume the ‘l’ key had been pressed too lightly?
        And why the offence? Surnames are routinely used in many places.

      2. And dearest Lundiel, what is my motivation just out of interest? And where I am coming from? What do you mean by that,please? I am now really curious.

  11. The Labour manifesto, (voted for by the members), is very strong. It is a matter of in whom we put our trust in to deliver the whole manifesto. Tom Watson may deliver a good speech. However, he deviates from the manifesto to try to make his own stamp and in doing so, loses the trust of the members and voters.

    Any future leaders of the Labour party, (after Corbyn, who still remains strong and will be here for some time), will come from those who have stood by this manifesto.

  12. “The Labour manifesto”

    Treating the Labour Manifesto as tablets from Mount Sinai is naive. Apart from the fact that the last manifesto is now ancient history (like the Israeli claim to Palestine), people never – or hardly ever – vote for the word-by-word content of a manifesto.

    In terms of the last election, most people I know held their noses over their disagreement about Europe (as shown by the voting data) in order to stuff the Tories and give Labour a new direction. Clearly, had the manifesto represented Party/supporter views, the ‘honouring the referendum’ chicken run would not have been supported.

    1. “Treating the Labour Manifesto as tablets from Mount Sinai is naive. Apart from the fact that the last manifesto is now ancient history (like the Israeli claim to Palestine), people never – or hardly ever – vote for the word-by-word content of a manifesto.”
      This might have been true under New Labour, when policy would change almost daily in a whirl of opportunism. But we now live in a world where JC respects conference, and where the manifesto reflects democratically chosen party policy.
      Of course policy sometimes had to change as events force a between-conference rethink. But that is not the case here. There’s no reason for Labour to change policy on the basis of a few opinion polls.

      1. Not if your name’s Tony Blair. Luckily, we have a more honest leader now. Polls cannot accurately tell us what Labour members think and want. Only a fool would trust them.

      2. So if all the polls that indicate the vast majority of Labour members and voters support CV and staying in the EU are to be ignored what is the Labour leadership basing its decision on, Mystic Meg’s crystal ball or intransigent political dogma.

      3. Paul 02/05/2019 at 8:07 pm · ·

        Thanks for acknowledging that the majority of Labour’s members and voters want a CV and to stay in the EU.

      4. Because, as you agree, it’s not “vast” how do you know what the majority is, if there is one?

      5. Paul 02/05/2019 at 9:02 pm

        I haven’t admitted anything. If we compare it with the supposedly decisive 4% margin (an average of less than 1000 votes per constituency) that the 2016 referendum achieved how else would you describe – Some 88% of them [Labour members] say their first preference in a three-way referendum would be to remain in the EU, with only 3% saying that it would be to leave the EU with Mrs May’s deal and only 5% saying it would be leaving with no deal. The figures for current Labour voters are 71%, 8%, and 12% respectively.”

      6. That little thing called ‘conference’.
        And no poll had suggested that the vast majority’ of Labour supporters want CV. You just made that up.

      7. Andrew Heenan at 7:08 pm

        I guess you must have missed this.

        “Some 83% of Labour members we surveyed voted Remain in 2016 – a much higher proportion, incidentally, than the 60% of 2017 Labour voters who did the same. And it is clear, firstly, that the vast majority of those members have no regrets about doing so and, secondly, that they would do so again in another referendum – something that they want the party and its leader, Mr Corbyn, to endorse. It’s also clear that if he doesn’t, then a fair few of them would consider leaving the party.
        Some 73% of current Labour voters think – in hindsight and irrespective of what they themselves voted in 2016 – that the UK was wrong to vote to leave the EU. That proportion rises to 89% among Labour members – and is a view shared, too, by 31% of the small minority of members who did vote Leave in the Referendum.
        It may not be too surprising, then, that most Labour members – like most current Labour voters – would like to see the party fully support holding a new referendum on Brexit. But the size of the majority that wants to see that shift is nonetheless striking. Some 72% of Labour members (compared to 57% of current Labour voters and 61% of 2017 Labour voters) want Corbyn to fully support a new referendum on Brexit.

        If such a referendum – a ‘People’s vote’ as some call it – is held, it is clear which way Labour’s rank and file would go. Some 88% of them say their first preference in a three-way referendum would be to remain in the EU, with only 3% saying that it would be to leave the EU with Mrs May’s deal and only 5% saying it would be leaving with no deal. The figures for current Labour voters are 71%, 8%, and 12% respectively.”

      8. I missed it by design. None who really cares about politics would allow themselves to be controlled by opinion polls, especially when they are all owned by Tories, and have s record for being wrong.
        If opinion polls are your idea of democracy, don’t tell me I have a problem. Look in the mirror.

      9. But it wasn’t an opinion poll. These results come from a long term academic research project into the attitudes of political party members and supporters. Can you find any polls or research that support your point of view.

        Ignoring history and treating politics as a religion seldom works out well.

      10. So why are you afraid of another vote, its what the majority of the party and its voters want.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: