For me, the bottom line is that we get these things back under sovereign control or we walk. By that I mean, even, I am not averse to any given UK government making a deal, including one I may personally not like, with the EU on any of the above. But, that deal should be reversible by parliament. So, for example, I may dislike, but could democratically live with, a government being elected on a ticket of continued mass immigration, so long as any future government could be elected on a ticket to reverse such a policy. Thus, any policy that is not democratically reversible by act of UK parliament is not acceptable because this goes to the heart of the issue for me.UndercoverElephant wrote:...For me, the bottom line is the ending of freedom of movement. Any "brexit" that doesn't include this might as well not be brexit at all. If we can't get rid of freedom of movement, I do not want the UK to leave the EU. Same goes for control of fisheries - if we can't get that back, then there's no point in leaving.
I am a nation state democrat and, the more fundamental the issue vis a vis the nation state, the more nation state democratically inclined I am. There is clearly nothing more fundamental than who gets to decide who makes the laws that govern us. It's as a simple as that for me, in the end.
I also suspect my position on this is not too dissimilar to the vast majority of those Labour voters, certainly from the North, who have just come back to Labour. But, their loyalty can now no longer be assured. I think Corbyn understands this well enough. Hence his public acceptance of Brexit. But, in any event, whatever else is true, in the period leading up to and including another election, assuming it comes in the next 6 to 12 months, the territory of debate needs to remain firmly on internal political issues because, on those, Labour will win hands down with the electorate.
