Jeremy Corbyn tears into the Tories over incoherent Brexit bumbling

Originally published at:


It’s a trainwreck, and it now looks like the Tories are preparing to leave without a deal with the EU. They’ve just earmarked £3-billion that might have been better spent elsewhere to paying for their own versions of the EU programmes that would be lost in a unilateral exit and to re-establish border controls (who knows, maybe a bloody wall if Scotland secedes).

Meanwhile, the Little Englander morons who voted for Brexit and sold out their children’s futures are now complaining that it’s the EU that’s “forcing them out” into a hard Brexit.

As for Corbyn, better late than never on taking the occasion of May’s (very predictable) bumbling to see the bloody obvious. He didn’t have to stay relatively silent during the referendum and could have instead offered a full-throated alternative vision of an EU that included the UK well before 2016. Have a cookie for your brave stance against the Tories, Jeremy.


This is the same Jeremy Corbyn who did bugger/all during the referendum campaign after decades of opposing the EU? The same Corbyn who wanted to invoke Article 50 the day Britain left the EU, and who is still committed to bringing about Brexit - the most disastrous economic policy of the last century?

Yes the Tories are incompetent and must take the majority of the blame for this unfolding catastrophe, but by continuing along the same path Labour is just as guilty of selling us all out.


You mean the Jeremy Corbyn who made 122 speeches in support of Remain, which were grossy underreported by a press determined to discredit him as an out-of-touch socialist who didn’t stand a chance?


I’m US-ian, so I can’t say I really understand what’s going on, but I have to ask about the discourse itself. Watching about 10 minutes of the video, it seemed like Corbyn was asking very pointed questions, while May began several of her responses with irrelevant jabs (something about stealing a question from another party?).

Is this usually how discussions go in the parliament (sorry if that’s the wrong word)? Am I misunderstanding the dialogue? Just struck me as very childish/immature of May, but I fully admit I don’t have enough context to know if Corbyn was doing the same in a drier way.

1 Like

Except he didn’t give 122 speeches.

That’s a deliberate distortion by Labour of a study by Loughborough University’s Centre for Research in Communication and Culture which said that Corbyn was mentioned by, or appeared on television, 123 times in 33 days.

Corbyn actually gave 10 speeches.


Welcome to Question Time, where the discourse on both sides of the exchange is often just as childish as you describe (complete with heckling from the peanut gallery). Corbyn’s questions here are pointed and accurate, but they’re launched first in the service of partisan politics and only second (at best) in service of exposing the truth. Which is to say that, yes, he’s needling her.


It’s Prime Minister’s Question Time (PMQs) which is a hideous invention that is pretty much guaranteed to be the only part of Parliamentary proceedings to make the main news broadcasts.

Each week, now on a Wednesday lunchtime, the Prime Minister responds to questions by other Parliamentarians. Although the questions are meant to be unseen, questions from the PM’s own bench are often planted to allow them to make a political point about what a wonderful job they’re doing. The PM will also have been briefed on likely questions by the Leader of the Opposition (who asks up to six questions) and the leader of the third largest party (currently the SNP) asks another two.

The first question is always of the form ‘will the PM list their engagements for the day’ - which elicits a stock response of a list of engagements. The questioner is then free to ask a second question on any topic that can be debated in Parliament (things like the Security Services and ongoing legal cases are not usually permitted). This formality may be preceded by the Prime Minister offering congratulations or condolences following major news events.

The problem with PMQs is that since Margaret Thatcher’s time it has been seen as a way of portraying strong leadership. She was an appalling PM, but an excellent performer at PMQs where she usually bested her opponents. The same went for Blair who demolished a series of Conservative leaders on the strength of his ability to be witty and quick footed at the dispatch box. Backbenchers are encouraged to cheer their side on and drown out their opponents, so there is no chance for discussion of serious points, rather it is there to score points.

The majority of debates in the Commons are much more sparsely attended, but have a better quality of debate. But the real inquisitorial work is done by Select Committees in the Commons and Lords and the standard of debating in the Lords is much higher than that in the Commons.


Backbench MP: “Does the Prime Minister agree that she is the greatest thing since sliced bread?”

PM: “The Hon. Gentleman raises a good point which is that sliced bread is a good thing and indeed the policies of this government have ensured that sliced bread is now more affordable for hard working families than at any previous time in history. As for whether I am better than sliced bread, it is not for me to say but it is clear that the leader of the opposition is not better than sliced bread, in fact he is more of a stale muffin.”

Government laughter and Opposition cries of “Shame”.


"His activity included:

10 EU rallies, with speeches and meetings in London, Bristol, Stroud, Newquay, Perranporth, Cardiff, Blackpool, Bournemouth, Liverpool, Runcorn, Manchester, Truro, Sheffield, Widnes, Doncaster, Rotherham, Hastings, Brighton, Dundee, Aberdeen and Birmingham.
These included a meeting with student nurses in Birmingham, a factory in Runcorn, a clean beaches event in Truro and campaigning with activists in Scotland.
Launched the Labour In bus and the Ad Van.
A debate on Sky News with Faisal Islam, also talked about the EU on the Agenda and the Last Leg. Appeared on the Andrew Marr show twice and on Peston on Sunday.
Written two op-eds, one in the Observer and another in The Mirror.
Reached more than 10 million people on social media.
Six statements to the House of Commons and 10 PMQs on the EU.
He has been consistent on this issue from day one of his leadership, issuing a statement in September that “Labour will be campaigning in the referendum for the UK to stay in the European Union”."


I have to admit that it sounds a bit empty given that he had the ability to stop it before:


You say unlimited cruelty to real people in the real economy, they say return to Victorian values and standards…
Potato, tomato…


No, they don’t say that. They mean it but they call it ‘deregulation’.


Thank you for the link to Chris Grey’s blog. I had not come across that before, and it seems to contain some of the most cogent, non-emotional analysis of the facts, fictions and pathologies of the Brexit Tendency, and their real-world consequences. Extremely highly recommended.


For a politician who had a reputation of being a Eurosceptic and a reluctant supporter of remain he didn’t do a very good job of convincing people otherwise.


Oz has some unusual terminology for those…


That blog really articulates my thoughts about this clusterfuck and the strangely negative, passive aggressive attitude of brexiteers. He’s right, shouldn’t they be happy and positive about the wonderful future we’re seemingly heading into or, more likely, is the reality setting in? It really fucking grinds my gears when us remainers are shouted down for daring to voice our own opinions on this, like how dare we undermine the will of the people! They seem to think the result of the referendum should therefore end all debate and the 48% of us who voted remain should shut the hell up, well i say to that they can fuck right off.

Also, for those of you looking for answers from May to simple questions then keep looking because she is unable to answer any questions on anything ever.


He did more than any Tory remainer

He is not convinced staying in the EU is clearly and universally consistent with his other policies.

He had some credibility. Unlike whinners like Blair etc who would like to keep the UK safe for their investment banker constituency.

Dont believe everything Laura Kuensberg writes. Scratch that. Dont believe anything she writes. Best to consider the source.