Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Corbyn on Brexit: UK can be better off out of the EU Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    First speech of 2017 will make clear that Labour is not wedded to free movement and supports ‘repatriating powers’ from Brussels


    Jeremy Corbyn will use his first speech of 2017 to claim that Britain can be better off outside the EU and insist that the Labour party has no principled objection to ending the free movement of European workers in the UK.

    Setting out his party’s pitch on Brexit in the year that Theresa May will trigger article 50, the Labour leader will also reach for the language of leave campaigners by promising to deliver on a pledge to spend millions of pounds extra on the NHS every week.

    He will say Labour’s priority in EU negotiations will remain full access to the European single market, but that his party wants “managed migration” and to repatriate powers from Brussels that would allow governments to intervene in struggling industries such as steel. Sources suggested that the economic demands were about tariff-free access to the single market, rather than membership that they argued did not exist.

    Corbyn’s speech and planned media appearances represent the first example of a new anti-establishment drive designed by strategists to emphasise and spread his image as a leftwing populist to a new set of voters. They hope the revamp will help overturn poor poll ratings across the country, particularly with a looming byelection in Copeland, Cumbria.

    Speaking in Peterborough, chosen because it is a marginal Tory seat that voted heavily in favour of Brexit, and which Labour is targeting, Corbyn will lay into May’s failure to reveal any Brexit planning, and say that Labour will not give the government a free pass in the negotiations.

    After comparing the prime minister’s refusal to offer MPs a vote on the final Brexit deal to the behaviour of Henry VIII in a Guardian interview, Corbyn will say: “Not since the second world war has Britain’s ruling elite so recklessly put the country in such an exposed position without a plan.”

    In a town that has experienced high rates of change in terms of migration, he will use his strongest language yet on the subject.

    “Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle. But nor can we afford to lose full access to the European single market on which so many British businesses and jobs depend. Changes to the way migration rules operate from the EU will be part of the negotiations,” he will say.

    “Labour supports fair rules and reasonably managed migration as part of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU.”

    Corbyn will also say, however, that there will be no “false promises on immigration” and that his party will not echo the Conservatives by promising to bring the numbers down to the tens of thousands.

    Instead, he will repeat an argument that action against the undercutting of pay and conditions, closing down labour loopholes and banning jobs being exclusively advertised abroad could bring down the amount of people travelling to the UK.

    “That would have the effect of reducing numbers of EU migrant workers in the most deregulated sectors, regardless of the final Brexit deal,” he will say.

    The speech comes as tensions grow within the Labour party as a number of high profile MPs, including the deputy leader, Tom Watson, and home affairs committee chair, Yvette Cooper, suggest that the party has to change its position on free movement.

    This weekend two MPs – Emma Reynolds and Stephen Kinnock – suggested the time had come for a two-tier system under which highly skilled workers such as doctors could travel to Britain for confirmed jobs, while there would be quotas for lower-skilled workers. They argued that the EU referendum “was a vote for change on immigration”, an argument that May has also made.

    Reynolds, who is a member of the select committee on leaving the EU, said she welcomed Corbyn’s commitment to managed migration but that the party had to understand what that meant.

    Corbyn has been criticised from within the party for failing to talk about free movement reform, often stressing the positive impact of migration instead. Some MPs fear the position could cost the party votes across the north of England and the midlands where voters have been deserting Labour over the past decade.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...aged-migration

    Holy ****. I didn't expect that. Guardian readers feel betrayed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Holy ****. I didn't expect that. Guardian readers feel betrayed.
    It would have been nice for him to mention it during the campaign when he was supposedly a remainer. :rolleyes: Especially since it was widely suspected that he wasn't.

    I get where he's coming from on cheap labour being imported to challenge the pay and conditions of British workers, but the on-the-ground reality is that many British people simply do not want to do the jobs in sectors like agriculture, restaurants and hospitality that are increasingly done by E. Europeans, Africans and others and (as the evidence shows) will not do them at any reasonable price. The result of total border closure would be extensive closures in many of these sectors, tipping white British managerial workers into unemployment.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It would have been nice for him to mention it during the campaign when he was supposedly a remainer. :rolleyes: Especially since it was widely suspected that he wasn't.

    I get where he's coming from on cheap labour being imported to challenge the pay and conditions of British workers, but the on-the-ground reality is that many British people simply do not want to do the jobs in sectors like agriculture, restaurants and hospitality that are increasingly done by E. Europeans, Africans and others and (as the evidence shows) will not do them at any reasonable price. The result of total border closure would be extensive closures in many of these sectors, tipping white British managerial workers into unemployment.
    If these jobs were better paid, the British would do it, but would they exist if salaries were higher? Are "white British managerial workers" worth importing poverty?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    If these jobs were better paid, the British would do it, but would they exist if salaries were higher? Are "white British managerial workers" worth importing poverty?
    Generally the trend has been towards higher paid jobs in the UK, albeit leaving behind a tail of chronically unemployable people. It is this latter group that are the concern. Of course if industries with low wages like hotels or farming were to up the wages sufficiently, they might (emphasis on might) be able to get some of this group to work for them, but costs would sharply rise, causing closures in the sector. These would negatively affect poorer workers too, I just chose the white managers as an example.

    I don't think we've been importing poverty so much as servicing our high wage earners with net transfers from their servants to Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Well like his long time friend Galloway he never particularly liked the EU so it's not really that surprising. He wanted to stay in the EU as much as Boris Johnson wanted to leave it.

    It won't be enough though. Even if he said he was going to build a wall around Calais and deport ethnic minorities he wouldn't be trusted on immigration.

    Corbyn will be trashed in 2020 and Dan Jarvis will become leader.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    If these jobs were better paid, the British would do it, but would they exist if salaries were higher? Are "white British managerial workers" worth importing poverty?
    The Tories are already planning especially for farming 'seasonal migration'

    If it's s choice between automation and paying workers more business is going to go full pelt for the former.

    The only alternative is to abolish the welfare state, slash low skill immigration, drastically cut corporation tax and abolish the minimum wage and abolish tariffs.

    Good luck implementing that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Even if he said he was going to build a wall around Calais and deport ethnic minorities he wouldn't be trusted on immigration.
    Nor will anyone ever be really, apart from the UKIP types who can afford to make vague general impractical promises because they'll never be tested on them anyway. Because the public's attitude to immigration is hopelessly contradictory and unfulfillable.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    An old fashioned socialist advocating market protectionism and interventionism? Whatever next?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    He was a leaver for decades before reluctantly toeing the party line during the referendum. At least now he's being true to his real opinion of the EU.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    Well like his long time friend Galloway he never particularly liked the EU so it's not really that surprising. He wanted to stay in the EU as much as Boris Johnson wanted to leave it.

    It won't be enough though. Even if he said he was going to build a wall around Calais and deport ethnic minorities he wouldn't be trusted on immigration.

    Corbyn will be trashed in 2020 and Dan Jarvis will become leader.
    Dan Jarvis or bringing back David Miliband is their best hope of being elected in 2025. The problem is the fact that the Corbynistas are so wrapped up in the guy that he either won't step down or they'll choose a like for like replacement(like John Mcdonall or Diane Abbott).

    The inevitable electoral losses will be blamed on "the establishment" rather than their own failings.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyn has always disliked the EU.
    His 'pro eu' speeches in the referendum campaign were 90% slating the EU before saying at the end 'they do a few decent things on workers rights'.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Corbyn has always disliked the EU.
    His 'pro eu' speeches in the referendum campaign were 90% slating the EU before saying at the end 'they do a few decent things on workers rights'.
    One suspects that its too little, too late. The time to go after Leave voters was after Brexit, May has already firmly grabbed those voters by the balls.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Corbyn has always disliked the EU.
    His 'pro eu' speeches in the referendum campaign were 90% slating the EU before saying at the end 'they do a few decent things on workers rights'.
    He is at root a Bennite, and Tony (not Hilary obviously) was always viscerally opposed to the EU.

    You should see the interview he gave to a Sky news anchor bimbo on Labour's proposed wage cap.

    It is on the Guido Fawkes website if you didn't catch it.

    The bimbo babe is literally laughing at Corbyn, asking him what will happen to Arsenal (his supposed team) if it is introduced. It is cringe making.

    The whole Labour Party has become a laughing stock under Corbyn. I am no friend of the party, indeed I wish it ill, but even I am beginning to feel a bit sorry and embarrassed.

    If this were a boxing match it would have been stopped long ago.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The result of total border closure would be extensive closures in many of these sectors, tipping white British managerial workers into unemployment.
    We'll see.

    But if this is the case so be it.

    Sucking hundreds of thousands of dirt poor Eastern European workers into the country (many of whom subsequently never left by the way) to pick raspberries on starvation wages was never a sensible business model.

    The people who will mostly suffer from the collapse of this ridiculous (and immoral) business will be the vile, exploitative gang masters and a handful of multi millionaire fruit farmers.

    What' not to like about that, exactly?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I get where he's coming from on cheap labour being imported to challenge the pay and conditions of British workers, but the on-the-ground reality is that many British people simply do not want to do the jobs in sectors like agriculture, restaurants and hospitality
    That's a right-wing, neoliberal fallacy.

    Yes, many British people do not want to work in a freezing field at the crack of dawn for £7.25 an hour. Fact is, if they paid £25,000 to do cleaning work or agricultural work then you wouldn't have any problem finding British workers to do it.

    The solution to this is to increase wages, rather than bring in large numbers of foreign workers who will work for low wages in crap conditions, who don't join trade unions, who are less likely to complain about wages and conditions. And wages would naturally rise in those sectors so that the wages would be competitive, if it weren't for the neoliberal policy of having a "reserve army of labour", of itinerant workers who move wherever the work is thus creating huge profits for the capitalist rentier class

    Frankly, it's shocking how willing middle-class liberals are to buy into this right-wing neoliberal crap about "lazy" British workers and how we need to compete with the third-world in a race to the bottom.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The result of total border closure would be extensive closures in many of these sectors, tipping white British managerial workers into unemployment.
    So you're saying if we closed the borders, we wouldn't need restaurant managers anymore? That demand would just collapse in those sectors?

    I think you're confused about how supply and demand works.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Right-wing nutjobs cheering for Corbyn. That's how I know I'm correct in deeply disliking his protectionist and socialist views.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    but costs would sharply rise, causing closures in the sector. These would negatively affect poorer workers too, I just chose the white managers as an example
    Do you actually have evidence for this claim, or are you just assuming that not allowing vast numbers of poor foreigners in must be axiomatically bad?

    The fact is that the sectors where low wage foreign workers are exploited are ones which are, (a) hugely profitable, (b) competitive and (c) buoyed by substantial underlying demand.

    If you are Tesco and you have high profit margins but also exist in a competitive market, and the flow of cheap foreign workers slows to a trickle, then you have two choices; reduce your output and let your competitors take your market share, or maintain output to keep market share (and pay higher wages) and accept a lower profit margin.

    Businesses will accept a lower profit margin rather than a smaller market share because with a lower margin they're still making money. The claim that if we don't make available large numbers of cheap workers then the service industries and agriculture will collapse is ********. In competitive markets, prices won't rise; instead, profit margins will be squeezed. Where you do have price rises, they are offset by increasing wages and overall (because of market competition), you will see more profit squeezing than price rises and thus it is the workers and the consumers that win.

    I still can't get over how lazily some left-wingers accept the neoliberal mentality and lies about "lazy" British workers, and fearmongering about collapsing markets if we don't allow them a large exploitable low-wage workforce.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    He is at root a Bennite, and Tony (not Hilary obviously) was always viscerally opposed to the EU.

    You should see the interview he gave to a Sky news anchor bimbo on Labour's proposed wage cap.

    It is on the Guido Fawkes website if you didn't catch it.

    The bimbo babe is literally laughing at Corbyn, asking him what will happen to Arsenal (his supposed team) if it is introduced. It is cringe making.

    The whole Labour Party has become a laughing stock under Corbyn. I am no friend of the party, indeed I wish it ill, but even I am beginning to feel a bit sorry and embarrassed.

    If this were a boxing match it would have been stopped long ago.
    I think they're going for the Donald Trump trick. Say controversial things to get media exposure.
    It won't work.

    Having said that, while I do not support a wage cap at an arbitrary figure, I would be more open to the idea of a cap on the ratio of executive pay to the average worker at that company.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I think they're going for the Donald Trump trick. Say controversial things to get media exposure.
    It won't work.

    Having said that, while I do not support a wage cap at an arbitrary figure, I would be more open to the idea of a cap on the ratio of executive pay to the average worker at that company.
    That won't work either.

    Just as Premier League footballers (highly mobile, skills scarce and in great demand, a global market for their talent) would leave for La Liga, Serie A, and the Bundesliga once their contracts were up, if there were a wage cap, so would the best CEO's.

    The obscene amounts footballers (and CEOs) make sticks in my craw as much as the next man's but there is no way of stopping it without killing the goose that lays the golden egg.



    .
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    That won't work either.

    Just as Premier League footballers (highly mobile, skills scarce and in great demand, a global market for their talent) would leave for La Liga, Serie A, and the Bundesliga once their contracts were up, if there were a wage cap, so would the best CEO's.

    The obscene amounts footballers (and CEOs) make sticks in my craw as much as the next man's but there is no way of stopping it without killing the goose that lays the golden egg.



    .
    I'd be in favour of ratios. Say that if the execs got a pay rise over a certain amount, then his staff were also to be given a pay rise of a certain amount.

    There are huge draws to the UK and London in particular and this policy wouldn't make businesses flock, just like the minimum wage didn't.

    The Premier League football example would be a good example of why a continental approach of countries working together and having the same policy would work. They couldn't just go to Spain if their was the same cap there.

    I do however think that a wage cap would make football less dominated by a handful of clubs.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.