Brexit Thread VI - The Knockout Phase ?!?

Status
Not open for further replies.
People can have opinions on new developments. Just because they voted for someone does not mean that they will follow them when that person starts to act against their interests. The majority of Labour MPs do not support Corbyn. If he decides to support Brexit rather than fence sit he will loose Momentum support. Then the Labour MPS can call a leadership election which he will loose because he will not be backed by Momentum. His only hope is to fence sit so that he does not loose the pro leave voters or his foot soldiers.

From Independent



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ndum-deal-corbyn-theresa-may-eu-a8621431.html

yes
Fence D-Day is near.
Considering the developed mood of Momentum, I think committing to a Brexit deal by Corbyn is only possible when attaching the confirmatory referendum to it.

Officially the Labour party had in its 2017 Manifesto "to accept the referendum result" and decided officially at the Labour conference in September 2018 that confirmatory referendum as "an option" (under high pressure of Momentum to commit unconditionally to a confirmatory referendum).
Here BTW the Brexit text of the Manifesto:
NEGOTIATING BREXIT Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a meaningful role to Parliament throughout negotiations. We will end Theresa May’s reckless approach to Brexit, and seek to unite the country around a Brexit deal that works for every community in Britain. We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single 0arket and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first. A Labour government will immediately guarantee existing rights for all EU nationals living in Britain and secure reciprocal rights for UK citizens who have chosen to make their lives in EU countries. EU nationals do not just contribute to our society: they are part of our society. And they should not be used as bargaining chips. It is shameful that the Prime Minister rejected repeated attempts by Labour to resolve this issue before Article 50 was triggered. As a result three million EU nationals have suffered unnecessary uncertainty, as have the 1.2 million UK citizens living in the EU. A Conservative Brexit will weaken workers’ rights, deregulate the economy, slash corporate taxes, sideline Parliament and democratic accountability, and cut Britain off from our closest allies and most important trading partners. Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option and if needs be negotiate transitional arrangements to avoid a Ȇcliff-edge’ for the 8. economy. The issues that affect our continent now will continue to do so in the future – and Labour will continue to work constructively with the EU and other European nations on issues such as climate change, refugee crises and counter-terrorism. :e will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf


The Brexit secretary Stephen Barclay commented on the situation of Corbyn:
"I think [Labour leader] Jeremy Corbyn is someone who poses serious risks as to his economic policy, but his manifesto on Brexit said he wanted to respect the [Leave] votes of many of his own voters, so we need to test that because the numbers in the House of Commons dictate that that is the only way at present we can find a way forward."
https://www.politico.eu/article/stephen-barclay-remorseless-logic-pushing-uk-to-softer-brexit/

If Corbyn now came out for brexit, putting himself up as the person with the one different plan for post-brexit UK, he would split Labour, lose a lot of votes to the LD. But he'd also split the tories, their members already fuming at "betrayal of brexit" and moving to deselect MPs.

yes
I think both May as Corbyn want to avoid a no-deal and want to avoid being blamed for an accidental no-deal. By lack of other choices both need an extension and "something" that can justify that (whether they state that in those words or not)
And both May as Corbyn seek the best comparative position for a future election of their party, to the benefit of their faction as well. Damaging the other party more than your own party to some or more degree viable.

Complex
 
Working with May is a trap. Corbyn should decline and let the Tories be blamed for all the following mess.
 
Working with May is a trap. Corbyn should decline and let the Tories be blamed for all the following mess.

Sure it is a trap

The oh so furious and vocal on that Brexiteer Ministers did not resign after that long Cabinet meeting yesterday.

But I think Corbyn cannot just decline the talks... and cannot afterwards when it would fail just say "no common ground".
 
Imo the worst thing in this is that apparently the blairite & tories will remain secure and not risk a Corbyn gov. Thank the blairite clowns and goons.
I know that it's popular to blame Labour for everything, but many of the sitting Tory MPs will vote against a new election to avoid losing their meal ticket.
 
It reduces the power of the monarch (president) to indicate that if this Parliament is determined to continue to be stupid, she (or he) can
simply dissolve it, thereby requiring its members to justify themselves to the voters in their constituency again before returning.
 
It reduces the power of the monarch (president) to indicate that if this Parliament is determined to continue to be stupid, she (or he) can
simply dissolve it, thereby requiring its members to justify themselves to the voters in their constituency again before returning.

Hm, is that actually so? I mean would HM King Charles III be bounded by this law if he would try to dissolve parliament? (not that i think there is any chance of that happening).
 
It reduces the power of the monarch (president) to indicate that if this Parliament is determined to continue to be stupid, she (or he) can
simply dissolve it, thereby requiring its members to justify themselves to the voters in their constituency again before returning.

It shouldn't be in the power of the head of state anyway (see Germany, early 1930ies).
 
Hm, is that actually so? I mean would HM King Charles III be bounded by this law if he would try to dissolve parliament? (not that i think there is any chance of that happening).

In my opinion that might be more likely than you might think, although he might first need to get himself appointed as regent.

It shouldn't be in the power of the head of state anyway (see Germany, early 1930ies).

Oh yes, and comparing elderly President Hindenberg with elder Queen Elizabeth II.

The thing is the UK Fixed Term Parliament Act 2011 was designed to reduce the power of the Prime Minister to surprise their opposition and allies,
but in practice; it is resulting in a Prime Minister that has lost the confidence of the House remaining because the MPs are scared of an election.
 
but in practice; it is resulting in a Prime Minister that has lost the confidence of the House remaining because the MPs are scared of an election.

How would it change anything in the situation right now, if the prime minister still had the power to call elections on her whim? She still wouldn't call them. If she wanted elections right now, she would get them one way or another.

If the House has lost confidence in her, the only thing they would have to do is pass a motion of no confidence.
 
How would it change anything in the situation right now, if the prime minister still had the power to call elections on her whim? She still wouldn't call them. If she wanted elections right now, she would get them one way or another.

If the House has lost confidence in her, the only thing they would have to do is pass a motion of no confidence.


(1) The way it used to work was that:

(a) if the Prime Minister lost the confidence of the House of Commons

(b) His/her Majesty would look for an alternative leading MP to form a government (eg H MacMillan replacing A Eden).

(c) If no alternative MP could be found capable of forming a goverment, HM would dissolve Parliament.


(2) This has been replaced by two mechanisms:

(a) if the Prime Minister lost the confidence of the House of Commons,

(b) the majority Party elects a new leader (e.g. T May replacing D Cameron - OK he jumped - but that process applies)

(c) Irrespective as to whether that leader can form a government, by default parliament continues until its five year term is up.


They seem to want another extension, but that might be vetoed.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/03/emmanuel-macron-britain-eu-france-president
 
If the House has lost the confidence in the Prime Minister they can simply say so and they get a new election. If they refuse to say so, why should anybody else decide that this loss of confidence has occurred?


The second short extension is nonsense and should be rejected by the EU - and probably will be. The only question is, whether May will be able to schedule a final "My deal or no deal" vote and what the outcome would be. That might have been her plan all along and the UK Parliament has proven to unable to stop her.
 
Both France and Austria have said that they currently see no reason to grant a new extension, as nothing has changed in the UK Parliament.
 
If the House has lost the confidence in the Prime Minister they can simply say so and they get a new election. If they refuse to say so, why should anybody else decide that this loss of confidence has occurred?


The second short extension is nonsense and should be rejected by the EU - and probably will be. The only question is, whether May will be able to schedule a final "My deal or no deal" vote and what the outcome would be. That might have been her plan all along and the UK Parliament has proven to unable to stop her.

What Theresa May is doing is threatening the House of Commons with a Remain in the EU, and
Remain in total uncertainty, until the House of Commons acquiesces to Martin Barnier's vassilage plan.
 
If the House has lost confidence in her, the only thing they would have to do is pass a motion of no confidence.
The real problem is that nobody trusts May, but above that nobody wants her job. That's why the Parliament keeps voting down her proposition, but voting up her place as PM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom