Forum rules Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
The courts have ruled that Parliament must approve the triggering of Article 50. It needs to take that responsibility seriously and demand the information it needs to ensure that the Government is ready to meet its self-imposed timetable.
I agree - the big win was yesterday in getting them to agree finally to publishing a WP. Now the emphasis needs to be on getting that WP discussed in Parliament before agreeing to trigger A50.
David Liddington today in Parliament said that Labour already voted for triggering Article 50 in March.
Daft thought, but having provoked a predictable rebellion, is it possible Corbyn might resign? That mistake he made in pmq's about the shot police officer, that must have been horrible. Campaigning against austerity, war with the right-wingers in the PLP - I'm sure he's been loving all of that, but this? It can't be pleasant for him as a Eurosceptic leading a pro-EU party that has lost a referendum and has virtually no cards to play and little sign of anything but Brexit on the table for the foreseeable. He's just so not the guy for this and appointing Keir Starmer was smart, but the media always want quotes from the leader and let's face it talking about the EU all day and all night was not what he signed up for. Please tell me if you think that's completely barmy, but blimey, if I were Corbyn I know I'd be looking for an out. Labour leader was a crap job a year ago but now it's truly hideous and the most thankless it's ever been.
"Fall seven times, get up eight" - Japanese proverb
The Labour MP Steve Reed has given an unusually candid justification for his party not blocking the article 50 bill.
Steve Reed (@SteveReedMP)
If Labour blocks Art50 May will call election & on current polls Labour will lose seats to Tories/UKIP who will then make Brexit deal worse
January 26, 2017
(Politics Live, Guardian)
I haven't done the arithmetic on this.
Last edited by PorFavor on Thu 26 Jan, 2017 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PorFavor wrote:48% of a 72% turnout is an awful lot of voters.
(Figures rounded because of memory fail.)
Edited to add -
Stating the bleedin' obvious, I know . . .
Yes it is but you have to recognise that remain lost, and until such time as leaving makes no sense whatsoever because it can be demonstrated that it will permanently damage this country and its citizens, then we're leaving.
I know the "will of the people" is a hackneyed phrase and we can put the blame on that idiot Cameron but those who say that Parliament shouldn't get in the way have a point.
But what it can do is to debate this thing to the n-th degree and if it decides that, actually, what it needs is a 2nd referendum that says "If we leave then x.y.z happens...now are you happy to go ahead?" then that's what should happen.
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
Much as I support very strong opposition on triggering Article 50, I think "second referendum" is too poisonous at the moment. One for backbench kite fliers, not the frontbench.
PorFavor wrote:48% of a 72% turnout is an awful lot of voters.
(Figures rounded because of memory fail.)
Edited to add -
Stating the bleedin' obvious, I know . . .
Yes it is but you have to recognise that remain lost, and until such time as leaving makes no sense whatsoever because it can be demonstrated that it will permanently damage this country and its citizens, then we're leaving.
I know the "will of the people" is a hackneyed phrase and we can put the blame on that idiot Cameron but those who say that Parliament shouldn't get in the way have a point.
But what it can do is to debate this thing to the n-th degree and if it decides that, actually, what it needs is a 2nd referendum that says "If we leave then x.y.z happens...now are you happy to go ahead?" then that's what should happen.
Indeed. Or dare I say it, vote to withdraw our request to leave.
The Labour MP Steve Reed has given an unusually candid justification for his party not blocking the article 50 bill.
Steve Reed (@SteveReedMP)
If Labour blocks Art50 May will call election & on current polls Labour will lose seats to Tories/UKIP who will then make Brexit deal worse
January 26, 2017
(Politics Live, Guardian)
I haven't done the arithmetic on this.
How can she call a General Election? Why would anybody else agree to it? The SNP will be happy with their 56.
Willow904 wrote:Daft thought, but having provoked a predictable rebellion, is it possible Corbyn might resign? That mistake he made in pmq's about the shot police officer, that must have been horrible. Campaigning against austerity, war with the right-wingers in the PLP - I'm sure he's been loving all of that, but this? It can't be pleasant for him as a Eurosceptic leading a pro-EU party that has lost a referendum and has virtually no cards to play and little sign of anything but Brexit on the table for the foreseeable. He's just so not the guy for this and appointing Keir Starmer was smart, but the media always want quotes from the leader and let's face it talking about the EU all day and all night was not what he signed up for. Please tell me if you think that's completely barmy, but blimey, if I were Corbyn I know I'd be looking for an out. Labour leader was a crap job a year ago but now it's truly hideous and the most thankless it's ever been.
No that seems possible.
I toyed with the idea that it was a cunning plan to resign, having set Clive Lewis as heir apparent, with added credentials of rebelling against him.
But have learnt not to trust my own thought processes too much.
The Labour MP Steve Reed has given an unusually candid justification for his party not blocking the article 50 bill.
Steve Reed (@SteveReedMP)
If Labour blocks Art50 May will call election & on current polls Labour will lose seats to Tories/UKIP who will then make Brexit deal worse
January 26, 2017
(Politics Live, Guardian)
I haven't done the arithmetic on this.
How can she call a General Election? Why would anybody else agree to it? The SNP will be happy with their 56.
It's also an entirely fake constitutional crisis.
Given the March timetable put forward by May, there's no way she'll trigger a GE.
I remember reading that EU agreement to UK (or any country) leaving depends on the country having a clear majority (more than 50/50) under their constitution. This was put in to stop dictators taking power and dragging a country out against its wishes. I've look for the clause since and can't find it.
Can anyone throw any light on this?
Willow904 wrote:Daft thought, but having provoked a predictable rebellion, is it possible Corbyn might resign? That mistake he made in pmq's about the shot police officer, that must have been horrible. Campaigning against austerity, war with the right-wingers in the PLP - I'm sure he's been loving all of that, but this? It can't be pleasant for him as a Eurosceptic leading a pro-EU party that has lost a referendum and has virtually no cards to play and little sign of anything but Brexit on the table for the foreseeable. He's just so not the guy for this and appointing Keir Starmer was smart, but the media always want quotes from the leader and let's face it talking about the EU all day and all night was not what he signed up for. Please tell me if you think that's completely barmy, but blimey, if I were Corbyn I know I'd be looking for an out. Labour leader was a crap job a year ago but now it's truly hideous and the most thankless it's ever been.
No that seems possible.
I toyed with the idea that it was a cunning plan to resign, having set Clive Lewis as heir apparent, with added credentials of rebelling against him.
But have learnt not to trust my own thought processes too much.
Lol, (not the Cameron version ) that thought fleetingly passed through my head.
The Labour MP Steve Reed has given an unusually candid justification for his party not blocking the article 50 bill.
Steve Reed (@SteveReedMP)
If Labour blocks Art50 May will call election & on current polls Labour will lose seats to Tories/UKIP who will then make Brexit deal worse
January 26, 2017
(Politics Live, Guardian)
I haven't done the arithmetic on this.
How can she call a General Election? Why would anybody else agree to it? The SNP will be happy with their 56.
It's also an entirely fake constitutional crisis.
Thanks for (sort of) doing the arithmetic for me! My brain's not much in gear today.
RogerOThornhill wrote:I do think it's great that we have a resident legal expert that is picking up interesting posts from elsewhere and sharing them with us...oh wait...
AngryAsWell wrote:I remember reading that EU agreement to UK (or any country) leaving depends on the country having a clear majority (more than 50/50) under their constitution. This was put in to stop dictators taking power and dragging a country out against its wishes. I've look for the clause since and can't find it.
Can anyone throw any light on this?
I wish my brain was working better
The dictator clause could be in A50 withdrawal notice so that a new government could withdraw dictators request to leave.
(To be clear, I'm not say we are in a dictatorship just that that's the wording & reasoning I recall, to which ever bit of the EU bill it applies to - if at all)
Almost the entirety of the Bulletin's statements and reasoning were taken up with references to the new US President. Though he hadn't caused many of the problems that put humanity in danger, he was pushing the world "closer to midnight", it said.
Nick Reeves - 48% @nickreeves9876 now
More
Pharmaceutical manufacture is one our most successful industries. EMA departure will significantly hamper it
But baddie Owen Smith used to work for a pharmaceutical firm.
Clive Lewis has lost any credibility he may once have had if you compare his stance last week, his suggestion earlier today that he would resign the SC but now has issued a statement saying he's voting to trigger A50.
And to think some Labour supporters accuse Andy Burnham of flip-flopping....
pk1 wrote:Clive Lewis has lost any credibility he may once have had if you compare his stance last week, his suggestion earlier today that he would resign the SC but now has issued a statement saying he's voting to trigger A50.
And to think some Labour supporters accuse Andy Burnham of flip-flopping....
Last week we had no promise of a White Paper. Now, as of yesterday, we have.
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
AngryAsWell wrote:I remember reading that EU agreement to UK (or any country) leaving depends on the country having a clear majority (more than 50/50) under their constitution. This was put in to stop dictators taking power and dragging a country out against its wishes. I've look for the clause since and can't find it.
Can anyone throw any light on this?
I wish my brain was working better
The dictator clause could be in A50 withdrawal notice so that a new government could withdraw dictators request to leave.
(To be clear, I'm not say we are in a dictatorship just that that's the wording & reasoning I recall, to which ever bit of the EU bill it applies to - if at all)
I think it's that - as of the 1st of April this year the rules for individual nations to instigate article 50 will change. On that date, then a Qualified Majority Vote ( not 50/50 or thereabouts ) is required in order to action article 50.
An amendment made in 2014.
AngryAsWell wrote:I remember reading that EU agreement to UK (or any country) leaving depends on the country having a clear majority (more than 50/50) under their constitution. This was put in to stop dictators taking power and dragging a country out against its wishes. I've look for the clause since and can't find it.
Can anyone throw any light on this?
I wish my brain was working better
The dictator clause could be in A50 withdrawal notice so that a new government could withdraw dictators request to leave.
(To be clear, I'm not say we are in a dictatorship just that that's the wording & reasoning I recall, to which ever bit of the EU bill it applies to - if at all)
I think it's that - as of the 1st of April this year the rules for individual nations to instigate article 50 will change. On that date, then a Qualified Majority Vote ( not 50/50 or thereabouts ) is required in order to action article 50.
An amendment made in 2014.
That'd explain the rush to get it done in March
Excuse my ignorance, I'm assuming that means 50% of those eligible to vote is needed?
AngryAsWell wrote:I remember reading that EU agreement to UK (or any country) leaving depends on the country having a clear majority (more than 50/50) under their constitution. This was put in to stop dictators taking power and dragging a country out against its wishes. I've look for the clause since and can't find it.
Can anyone throw any light on this?
I wish my brain was working better
The dictator clause could be in A50 withdrawal notice so that a new government could withdraw dictators request to leave.
(To be clear, I'm not say we are in a dictatorship just that that's the wording & reasoning I recall, to which ever bit of the EU bill it applies to - if at all)
I think it's that - as of the 1st of April this year the rules for individual nations to instigate article 50 will change. On that date, then a Qualified Majority Vote ( not 50/50 or thereabouts ) is required in order to action article 50.
An amendment made in 2014.
That'd explain the rush to get it done in March
Ah- on further reading...
'This is not true. The rules do switch from requiring unanimous approval (I.E. everyone has to agree) to QMV (I.E. most people have to agree), but this change applies to the vote on the negotiated deal as opposed to whether or not a country can trigger Article 50 in the first place. There was never any sort of EU vote requirement on triggering Article 50 itself, because lets face it, that would be insane.'
pk1 wrote:Clive Lewis has lost any credibility he may once have had if you compare his stance last week, his suggestion earlier today that he would resign the SC but now has issued a statement saying he's voting to trigger A50.
And to think some Labour supporters accuse Andy Burnham of flip-flopping....
Last week we had no promise of a White Paper. Now, as of yesterday, we have.
But he's voting for the final bill even before the White Paper.
pk1 wrote:Clive Lewis has lost any credibility he may once have had if you compare his stance last week, his suggestion earlier today that he would resign the SC but now has issued a statement saying he's voting to trigger A50.
And to think some Labour supporters accuse Andy Burnham of flip-flopping....
Last week we had no promise of a White Paper. Now, as of yesterday, we have.
But he's voting for the final bill even before the White Paper.
As of now we don't know whether what has been published is the final bill. It might change.
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
AngryAsWell wrote:
I wish my brain was working better
The dictator clause could be in A50 withdrawal notice so that a new government could withdraw dictators request to leave.
(To be clear, I'm not say we are in a dictatorship just that that's the wording & reasoning I recall, to which ever bit of the EU bill it applies to - if at all)
I think it's that - as of the 1st of April this year the rules for individual nations to instigate article 50 will change. On that date, then a Qualified Majority Vote ( not 50/50 or thereabouts ) is required in order to action article 50.
An amendment made in 2014.
That'd explain the rush to get it done in March
Excuse my ignorance, I'm assuming that means 50% of those eligible to vote is needed?
I doubt that would even be possible given that 37% voted to leave, 35% voted to remain, 28% had no opinion.
Cameron should have thought of that before dumping this steaming pile on us.
I've not read the entire thread today. I saw last night's posts included Stoke Central choosing Gareth Snell as Labour party candidate for the by-election. I'm encouraged by this choice.
1. Having had a ridiculous binary referendum on a desperately complex issue, and having completely and utterly failed to take his party with him (or even really try to - he sat back and allowed his ministers and senior colleagues to tell the most ridiculous lies without really slapping them down) Cameron has delivered us a desperately destructive vote to leave the EU, which is a terrible idea.
2. Ignoring the result of a referendum, even one that was clearly set up as an advisory referendum (because unlike the PR referendum act in the last parliament which passed PR into law but made enactment of the law dependent upon a yes vote in the referendum, Cameron's useless referendum bill said nothing about enactment or consequences) is a terrible idea. Even though the Act should have set turnout requirements or enhanced majority requirements or what have you and didn't, even though the result was close. Allowing governments to ignore referenda is a bad thing.
3. I worry that, in as much as it is possible to work out what Labour's stance is, it is perilously close to the lying shits of the leave campaign - it is Labour's 'we are going to have to leave and we are going to make it okay' to the shits' 'we are going to be leaving and it's going to be wonderful'. How is it going to be okay or wonderful? You can't eat your cake and have it - I am a terrible predictor but I would still predict, from now, that our most likely future is as a tax haven because we're not going to get what we claim to want.
4. Labour should have been consistently saying 'we should not be leaving - this is your mess - this is what it's going to mean to people - we will find a way to stay if the electorate will give us the chance'. They still should be saying this.
5. This might well be what the lib dems have been saying but the lib dems are worthless, even if they say worthy things.
6. The problem with a further referendum is that if we had a 'we're leaving, it will mean no single market, a massive hit on immigration, a severely reduced welfare state and low corporate taxation' you are going to struggle to convince me that it wouldn't win.
Lost Soul wrote:
I think it's that - as of the 1st of April this year the rules for individual nations to instigate article 50 will change. On that date, then a Qualified Majority Vote ( not 50/50 or thereabouts ) is required in order to action article 50.
An amendment made in 2014.
That'd explain the rush to get it done in March
Excuse my ignorance, I'm assuming that means 50% of those eligible to vote is needed?
I doubt that would even be possible given that 37% voted to leave, 35% voted to remain, 28% had no opinion.
Cameron should have thought of that before dumping this steaming pile on us.
Thanks for this LS - I knew I'd seen "something"!!
) that thought fleetingly passed through my head.
