Wednesday 12th July 2017

[refitman]

Morning all.

[Willow904]

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/ ... t-internet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trump's 'war on the open internet': tech firms join activists in day of protest
Amazon, Facebook and Netflix among companies demonstrating on behalf of net neutrality, in what supporters say will be biggest online protest in history

[NonOxCol]

Morning.

And a very good morning to all those people who said, back in January, that the checks and balances of the world's most advanced democracy meant that people like me were being overly alarmist about T***p.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[citizenJA]

Morning.

And a very good morning to all those people who said, back in January, that the checks and balances of the world's most advanced democracy meant that people like me were being overly alarmist about T***p.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Weren't we all freaked out about Trump? Who here called you 'alarmist'?

[citizenJA]

Good-morning, everyone

[NonOxCol]

Morning.

And a very good morning to all those people who said, back in January, that the checks and balances of the world's most advanced democracy meant that people like me were being overly alarmist about T***p.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Weren't we all freaked out about Trump? Who here called you 'alarmist'?

I was talking more generally.

[adam]

Morning.

And a very good morning to all those people who said, back in January, that the checks and balances of the world's most advanced democracy meant that people like me were being overly alarmist about T***p.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Weren't we all freaked out about Trump? Who here called you 'alarmist'?

I was talking more generally.

I think one of the problems with checks and balances in the US constitution is that the founders didn't consider either the current level of partisan divide between parties or the likelihood of all branches of federal government and so much of state government being dominated by one party.

[Willow904]

Helen Barnard, head of analysis at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), is deeply concerned by the drop in real wages

“Britain’s employment has climbed ever higher and it is encouraging to see more people in work. Yet the number of people struggling to make ends meet despite being in work has also increased.

“Real wages have seen an alarming slide. This is the third month in a row that real earnings have fallen. In real terms earnings are no better than they were 12 years ago: total pay in real terms is the same as it was in August 2005.

“With benefits and tax credits frozen, there is little respite for families just about managing. Some 3.8 million workers are trapped in poverty, many with few qualifications and precious little opportunity to retrain.

And this is before we've even left the EU.....

Without a change in domestic economic policy, Brexit is going to be extremely painful.

[SpinningHugo]

Helen Barnard, head of analysis at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), is deeply concerned by the drop in real wages

“Britain’s employment has climbed ever higher and it is encouraging to see more people in work. Yet the number of people struggling to make ends meet despite being in work has also increased.

“Real wages have seen an alarming slide. This is the third month in a row that real earnings have fallen. In real terms earnings are no better than they were 12 years ago: total pay in real terms is the same as it was in August 2005.

“With benefits and tax credits frozen, there is little respite for families just about managing. Some 3.8 million workers are trapped in poverty, many with few qualifications and precious little opportunity to retrain.

And this is before we've even left the EU.....

Without a change in domestic economic policy, Brexit is going to be extremely painful.

Brexit dwarfs everything.

The clowns who voted for us to exit Euratom now saying it isn't a good idea are, in microcosm, the problem.

What did you think you were voting for when you voted to trigger are 50 without conditions. It was quite explicit that this included Euratom.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Weren't we all freaked out about Trump? Who here called you 'alarmist'?

I was talking more generally.

I think one of the problems with checks and balances in the US constitution is that the founders didn't consider either the current level of partisan divide between parties or the likelihood of all branches of federal government and so much of state government being dominated by one party.

Yes, the GOP are now close to the "super-majority" of state legislatures that would make fixing the US Constitution to entrench them in power a scarily viable prospect.

We should all perhaps thank our lucky stars that Trump *is* unpopular for that reason alone.

[HindleA]

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2017/ ... ocialshare" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Chickens coming home to roost: local government public health budgets for 2017/18

[Willow904]

Helen Barnard, head of analysis at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF), is deeply concerned by the drop in real wages

“Britain’s employment has climbed ever higher and it is encouraging to see more people in work. Yet the number of people struggling to make ends meet despite being in work has also increased.

“Real wages have seen an alarming slide. This is the third month in a row that real earnings have fallen. In real terms earnings are no better than they were 12 years ago: total pay in real terms is the same as it was in August 2005.

“With benefits and tax credits frozen, there is little respite for families just about managing. Some 3.8 million workers are trapped in poverty, many with few qualifications and precious little opportunity to retrain.

And this is before we've even left the EU.....

Without a change in domestic economic policy, Brexit is going to be extremely painful.

Brexit dwarfs everything.

The clowns who voted for us to exit Euratom now day by it isn't a good idea are, in microcosm, the problem.

What did you think you were voting for when you voted to trigger are 50 without conditions. It was quite explicit that this included Euratom.

Withdrawal from Eurotom isn't mentioned in the article 50 bill as far as I'm aware, so unless it's a condition of withdrawing from the EU as a whole (which I'm not aware it is?), it seems to me that Parliament has never given permission or assent to our withdrawal from Eurotom. So did Theresa May have the necessary legal authority to notify our withdrawal? And having already notified the EU of our withdraw, how would Parliament be able to reverse the decision? Would we have to reapply?

[adam]

Withdrawal from Eurotom isn't mentioned in the article 50 bill as far as I'm aware, so unless it's a condition of withdrawing from the EU as a whole (which I'm not aware it is?), it seems to me that Parliament has never given permission or assent to our withdrawal from Eurotom. So did Theresa May have the necessary legal authority to notify our withdrawal? And having already notified the EU of our withdraw, how would Parliament be able to reverse the decision? Would we have to reapply?

I think it is. I think Labour got things wrong after the referendum, but I think Hugo's pretence that Labour are just as much to blame as the conservatives for this is tiresome in the extreme.

[citizenJA]

Withdrawal from Eurotom isn't mentioned in the article 50 bill as far as I'm aware, so unless it's a condition of withdrawing from the EU as a whole (which I'm not aware it is?), it seems to me that Parliament has never given permission or assent to our withdrawal from Eurotom. So did Theresa May have the necessary legal authority to notify our withdrawal? And having already notified the EU of our withdraw, how would Parliament be able to reverse the decision? Would we have to reapply?

(cJA edit)

The Euratom Treaty does not have its own provisions on withdrawal.
However, it has been amended to state that Article 50 TEU applies to
the Euratom Treaty, with the substitution of the words Euratom and
Euratom Treaty where appropriate.

[Research Briefing content]

It is hard to envisage how the UK could continue as a Member of
Euratom, even for a transitional period, once it has left the EU. Because
Euratom uses the EU institutions, the UK would have to find a way to
remain part of those institutions where Euratom was concerned. And
also the Euratom Treaty states that it applies only on the territory of the
EU Member States (Article 198).

- European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Published Monday, January 30, 2017

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... y/CBP-7884" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/ ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Household income plays crucial role in determining a child's prospects – report



http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/case/_new/rese ... report.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpinningHugo]

That withdrawal included withdrawal from Euratom was expressly stated in the (very short) explanatory notes to the withdrawal Bill.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... JptqfF7PTQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Hope link works, am on phone).

[citizenJA]

Have a good day, everyone

[SpinningHugo]

Withdrawal from Eurotom isn't mentioned in the article 50 bill as far as I'm aware, so unless it's a condition of withdrawing from the EU as a whole (which I'm not aware it is?), it seems to me that Parliament has never given permission or assent to our withdrawal from Eurotom. So did Theresa May have the necessary legal authority to notify our withdrawal? And having already notified the EU of our withdraw, how would Parliament be able to reverse the decision? Would we have to reapply?

I think it is. I think Labour got things wrong after the referendum, but I think Hugo's pretence that Labour are just as much to blame as the conservatives for this is tiresome in the extreme.

47 Labour MPs aren't responsible for invoking Art 50 without conditions.

(I've not checked whether all 47 are still in the Commons. The new MPs are similarly off the hook. The party collectively isn't as there was a 3 line whip to do so.)

My judgement of Labour is they're playing Brexit for political advantage. That involves being ever so fractionally more Remainy than the Tories. Has worked very well.

But the idea that Corbyn, Milne, McDonnell, Lansman, Fisher and Murray are proEU is a joke. They want us out, preferably with the Tories taking the blame for he resultant chaos, so as to be free to pursue the fantasy economics they believe in.

Most of the PLP don't agree, but they don't matter any longer.

[Willow904]

So it seems, from various replies, that all MPs knew they were voting to give assent for the PM to notify our withdrawal from Eurotom alongside our notification to leave the EU and that leaving Eurotom appears to be a necessary element of leaving the EU (or, at least, was presented as necessary by May's government, I'm still not entirely clear if it is considered necessary by the EU or is a mandatory part of the article 50 process). Given all this happened some months ago, why is there a fuss being made over it now? Or are our MPs so incompetent they didn't even know this was what they had willingly voted for?

[SpinningHugo]

So it seems, from various replies, that all MPs knew they were voting to give assent for the PM to notify our withdrawal from Eurotom alongside our notification to leave the EU and that leaving Eurotom appears to be a necessary element of leaving the EU (or, at least, was presented as necessary by May's government, I'm still not entirely clear if it is considered necessary by the EU or is a mandatory part of the article 50 process). Given all this happened some months ago, why is there a fuss being made over it now? Or are our MPs so incompetent they didn't even know this was what they had willingly voted for?

The MPs who voted for it, who are now making a fuss, deserve nothing but contempt. That includes the shadow health secretary. It embodies Labour's position. Vote for it, then blame the Tories for the consequences.

If you want to leave the jurisdiction of the Parliament and CJEU, Euratom goes. That it originally had its origins in a different treaty is of only historic interest.vthere is a piece by Steve Peers in this if you Google it.

[Willow904]

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... ework.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In practical terms, this would mean that if the UK left the EU but not Euratom, it would still have Members of the European Parliament, a Commissioner, a role on the Council, judges on the EU courts, and so on. From a legal perspective, it’s hard to believe this odd scenario was intended by the drafters of the Treaties; from a political perspective, this prospect would surely dismay those who voted to Leave.

So, if leaving Eurotom is a necessary part of leaving the EU but is considered undesirable, the only way forward is to "reapply" or, in effect, negotiate a new agreement, pretty much as we would need to if we also wanted to remain in the single market. So I'm really not sure what all the fuss is about at this point. This should have been debated much, much earlier, preferably before the EU referendum was even held, but at the very least before the article 50 bill was passed (as doubtless it possibly was?). There really is no point in the media bringing this to our attention now, it's way, way too late.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ieter-helm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Critic of renewable power to head government energy costs review

[Willow904]

From the G live blog:

The Labour MP Pat McFadden asks if the supply of radioactive isotopes will be affected by Brexit and leaving Euratom. Will cancer patients by affected?

Green says he is glad to have the chance to address this. There has been “scaremongering”, he says. He says the supply of isotopes won’t be affected.

The main culprit is his former Conservative colleague George Osborne, who as editor of the Evening Standard splashed on this earlier this week.

But surely George Osborne also voted for the article 50 bill to trigger Brexit and thus for us to leave Eurotom? No one in Labour comes close to his hypocrisy imo.

I've been looking for a list of MPs who voted against the EU referendum Act in 2015, but can't find one which lists by party. I believe, however, there was 1 Labour MP who joined the SNP and voted against. They were right to oppose a referendum on such a big decision without proper safeguards and a proper plan to enact either result. Cameron was a pathetic PM and should have been actively opposed in every sorry, pathetic policy he ever proposed and Osborne should take his share of the blame for the sorry mess he helped to create.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Of course, as Labour leader Ed Miliband consistently opposed an EU referendum.

This was changed within days of the 2015 GE by his acting successor Harman. Almost as big a success as her order to abstain on the welfare bill.

[Willow904]

Of course, as Labour leader Ed Miliband consistently opposed an EU referendum.

This was changed within days of the 2015 GE by his acting successor Harman. Almost as big a success as her order to abstain on the welfare bill.

I don't remember much resistance from Labour MPs over changing position on the holding of an EU referendum, as they did over the welfare bill, though. Corbyn was happy to rebel on the one, so one can only infer he supported the other. Indeed, I remember a lot of pressure on Ed Miliband over his opposition to a referendum from many in the party when he was leader. I still think he was right. The sorts of changes that many on the left want to see are achievable through changes to domestic policy and are far more likely to have happened without Brexit getting in the way. Despite May's reduced majority, a change for the better feels further away than ever.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Of course you are right that Euro-sceptic Labour people like Corbyn had long supported a referendum. I've never claimed he is right on everything

[Willow904]

Of course you are right that Euro-sceptic Labour people like Corbyn had long supported a referendum. I've never claimed he is right on everything

The problem, for me, is that from my perspective he was so wrong on this that I can't trust his judgement on anything else. Though the same applies to a lesser degree to every Labour MP who voted for Cameron's simple majority EU referendum bill, with no caveats or safeguards. It's hard to have much faith in any of them. Too worried about how it would look to a section of the voting public to do their duty and oppose a government bill that was presented in a way that wasn't in the best interests of the country. And yes, Harman has the main responsibility for it, but the lack of rebels on such a crucial topic as the democratic deficit inherent in a simple majority vote on such a complex decision is still very disappointing to me.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Withdrawal from Eurotom isn't mentioned in the article 50 bill as far as I'm aware, so unless it's a condition of withdrawing from the EU as a whole (which I'm not aware it is?), it seems to me that Parliament has never given permission or assent to our withdrawal from Eurotom. So did Theresa May have the necessary legal authority to notify our withdrawal? And having already notified the EU of our withdraw, how would Parliament be able to reverse the decision? Would we have to reapply?

I think it is. I think Labour got things wrong after the referendum, but I think Hugo's pretence that Labour are just as much to blame as the conservatives for this is tiresome in the extreme.

Here here!

[PaulfromYorkshire]

*Suddenly realised I don't know how to spell here hear or what it means

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Of course you are right that Euro-sceptic Labour people like Corbyn had long supported a referendum. I've never claimed he is right on everything

The problem, for me, is that from my perspective he was so wrong on this that I can't trust his judgement on anything else. Though the same applies to a lesser degree to every Labour MP who voted for Cameron's simple majority EU referendum bill, with no caveats or safeguards. It's hard to have much faith in any of them. Too worried about how it would look to a section of the voting public to do their duty and oppose a government bill that was presented in a way that wasn't in the best interests of the country. And yes, Harman has the main responsibility for it, but the lack of rebels on such a crucial topic as the democratic deficit inherent in a simple majority vote on such a complex decision is still very disappointing to me.

But Labour's position is also (even mainly) defined by Thornberry, outstanding as stand-in at PMQs today, and Starmer.

Corbyn has happily put these top notch politicians in charge of Brexit and he deserves IMMENSE respect for that IMHO.

Can you imagine a better pair to sort out the Brexit mess? Really?

[AnatolyKasparov]

*Suddenly realised I don't know how to spell here hear or what it means

And you still don't, it seems. Maybe third time lucky??

[PorFavor]

*Suddenly realised I don't know how to spell here hear or what it means

There, there. Never mind!

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

[Willow904]

Of course you are right that Euro-sceptic Labour people like Corbyn had long supported a referendum. I've never claimed he is right on everything

The problem, for me, is that from my perspective he was so wrong on this that I can't trust his judgement on anything else. Though the same applies to a lesser degree to every Labour MP who voted for Cameron's simple majority EU referendum bill, with no caveats or safeguards. It's hard to have much faith in any of them. Too worried about how it would look to a section of the voting public to do their duty and oppose a government bill that was presented in a way that wasn't in the best interests of the country. And yes, Harman has the main responsibility for it, but the lack of rebels on such a crucial topic as the democratic deficit inherent in a simple majority vote on such a complex decision is still very disappointing to me.

But Labour's position is also (even mainly) defined by Thornberry, outstanding as stand-in at PMQs today, and Starmer.

Corbyn has happily put these top notch politicians in charge of Brexit and he deserves IMMENSE respect for that IMHO.

Can you imagine a better pair to sort out the Brexit mess? Really?

I don't find Thornberry very impressive, myself and Starmer has gone from "Labour will seek to stay in the customs union" to "Labour won't rule out staying in the customs union" so not much to get excited about for a Europhile like myself, but largely irrelevant anyway because Brexit is going to be negotiated by Boris Johnson and David Davis and I can't think of a worse pair to sort out the Brexit mess. Though there is that glimmer of hope that the Tories are much more liable to ignore the "will of the people" at the end of the day, if it suits them, and thus more likely to abandon Brexit completely than the principled, long time Eurosceptic Corbyn who would be far more trusted to honour his commitment to act on the result of the referendum.

[HindleA]

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Lessons for the Grenfell Tower Inquiry

[Willow904]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/keir-st ... 56210.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Euratom is a successful co-operative agency that works for Britain. That’s why Labour tried to amend the Article 50 Bill to keep Britain in Euratom and it is why the Nuclear Industry Association has made it ‘crystal clear’ to the Government that they want Britain to retain membership. But like so many sectors of the economy, the nuclear industry has been ignored by the Prime Minister and when she triggered Article 50 she also gave notice of her intention to leave Euratom.

Keir Starmer in the Huffington Post. I agree Theresa May's opposition to the ECJ is a real block to a decent soft Brexit, but some of what he says seems to conflict with what others have said. He talks as if we could leave the EU but not Eurotom, but others have suggested that's not possible. We could arrange some kind of agreement with Eurotom but leaving the EU means no longer being a member, according to some, so is Starmer not being completely straight here?

[Willow904]

https://amp.theguardian.com/environment ... ter-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Green groups call for overhaul of repeal bill to safeguard environment after Brexit
Campaigners from organisations including Greenpeace, the National Trust and Friends of the Earth highlight major risks to environment if EU protections are dropped or diluted

[Willow904]

Here we go. This is pretty comprehensive from Buzzfeed. We have well and truly stuffed up big time and our MPs are seriously compounding the situation by burying their heads in the sand:

In reality we couldn’t have triggered Article 50 without leaving Euratom as well," Catherine Barnard, a professor of European Union law at the University of Cambridge, told BuzzFeed News. That's because Article 106a of the Euratom treaty makes it clear that several EU treaty provisions, including Article 50, apply directly to Euratom as well as the EU.

"Even if [MPs] voted to reverse the decision to authorise the PM to leave the EU and Euratom," she said, "which they gave when they approved the Article 50 withdrawal bill, there are two major problems. One, we've said we're leaving and Article 50 makes no provision for changing your mind. And two, Euratom membership is intimately linked to EU membership through shared institutions," such as the parliament and council of ministers.

We should never have started this. At the very least, the government should have been asked to produce a white paper outlining how it would handle withdrawal of the EU so people understood what it would entail before they voted, just as the SNP did for an independent Scotland. This whole referendum has been so ineptly handled it's surreal. Scotland should probably have voted "yes". It couldn't possibly have been worse than this.

[tinybgoat]

Lots of reasoned articles like this (January), suggesting leaving Euratom, at this point wasn't necessary.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Bre ... 11701.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Given that there is no legal necessity to trigger a Euratom exit now, arguably there is little to gain and much to lose by doing so. That is not to say that long term UK participation in EU institutions solely for the purposes of Euratom would not itself present challenges, but there is no need for the UK to back itself into a corner and face a cliff edge created by an immediate two-year Euratom exit timetable. Neither is there any need to add nuclear law and cooperation to the already vast list of issue to be dealt with in negotiating terms for withdrawal from the EU.

[Willow904]

Lots of reasoned articles like this (January), suggesting leaving Euratom, at this point wasn't necessary.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Bre ... 11701.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Given that there is no legal necessity to trigger a Euratom exit now, arguably there is little to gain and much to lose by doing so. That is not to say that long term UK participation in EU institutions solely for the purposes of Euratom would not itself present challenges, but there is no need for the UK to back itself into a corner and face a cliff edge created by an immediate two-year Euratom exit timetable. Neither is there any need to add nuclear law and cooperation to the already vast list of issue to be dealt with in negotiating terms for withdrawal from the EU.

Yes, that's a very good point. There was no need to leave Eurotom immediately. Indeed, our remaining in Eurotom after 2019 would surely have increased the case for a reasonable transition arrangement and period. Labour are a bit stuck when trying to hang this mis-step on the Tories solely, though, as they do appear to have knowingly voted for this timetable. As I said before, being seen not to "block" Brexit took precedence over responsible opposition in the nation's best interests. Too late now. Hopefully the response from Labour to the Repeal Bill due tomorrow will be more robust.

[Willow904]

Just to say, I put my hand up to not spotting Eurotom was specifically mentioned in the article 50 bill. I thought it had simply been added to the withdrawal letter by the government. As such it's just another reason why voting for the article 50 bill unamended was such a poor position to take. Surely backing Brexit as the expressed will of the people didn't have to involve actively voting to completely stuff everything up? Or maybe it did.

[tinybgoat]

Just to say, I put my hand up to not spotting Eurotom was specifically mentioned in the article 50 bill. I thought it had simply been added to the withdrawal letter by the government. As such it's just another reason why voting for the article 50 bill unamended was such a poor position to take. Surely backing Brexit as the expressed will of the people didn't have to involve actively voting to completely stuff everything up? Or maybe it did.

I thought Labour more kind of passively voted to let the Tories stuff everything up. (Yuck, that was a horrible sentence)

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Just to say, I put my hand up to not spotting Eurotom was specifically mentioned in the article 50 bill. I thought it had simply been added to the withdrawal letter by the government. As such it's just another reason why voting for the article 50 bill unamended was such a poor position to take. Surely backing Brexit as the expressed will of the people didn't have to involve actively voting to completely stuff everything up? Or maybe it did.

It was exactly the right position to take IMHO. You NEVER listen to any other point of view and come on here day after day droning on about how Brexit is all Labour's fault and I for one am sick of it.

What's the point of joining a Forum, a Forum, when you don't listen to a word anyone else says and repeat your own position endlessly?

Sorry to be grumpy but I've tried and tried to engage and debate with you and it feels to me like you have no respect for my point of view, or anyone else who thinks that the team that just collected nearly 13 million votes might have half an idea what they are doing.

If Labour had voted against Article 50, where would we be now Willow? Seriously, where?

I know where. We'd be in exactly the same position on Brexit except thatLabour WOULD have been trounced in the GE and May WOULD be charging on unhindered.

Please just take a step back and LISTEN to some of your fellow FORUM members. Otherwise what's the point of being here?

Rant over.

Have a good evening all

[tinybgoat]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/bl ... 1877b39534" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cameron government considered scrapping fire regulations for nightdresses and furniture, former minister reveals

[AnatolyKasparov]

There are drawbacks to Labour (mostly) voting for A50, even those who think it was on balance the right decision can see that might be the case.

Against that, there is a good case to be made that it finally destroyed UKIP as a significant force and made Brexit much less of a Tory trump card last month than it might have been.

Labour did not choose to be in this situation and had no painless, problem-free option available.

[SpinningHugo]

From the G live blog:

The Labour MP Pat McFadden asks if the supply of radioactive isotopes will be affected by Brexit and leaving Euratom. Will cancer patients by affected?

Green says he is glad to have the chance to address this. There has been “scaremongering”, he says. He says the supply of isotopes won’t be affected.

The main culprit is his former Conservative colleague George Osborne, who as editor of the Evening Standard splashed on this earlier this week.

But surely George Osborne also voted for the article 50 bill to trigger Brexit and thus for us to leave Eurotom? No one in Labour comes close to his hypocrisy imo.

I've been looking for a list of MPs who voted against the EU referendum Act in 2015, but can't find one which lists by party. I believe, however, there was 1 Labour MP who joined the SNP and voted against. They were right to oppose a referendum on such a big decision without proper safeguards and a proper plan to enact either result. Cameron was a pathetic PM and should have been actively opposed in every sorry, pathetic policy he ever proposed and Osborne should take his share of the blame for the sorry mess her helped to create.

Jon Ashworth is worse.

Osborne isn't an MP.

[AnatolyKasparov]

He was then, and he did (of course, the one and only K H Clarke was the sole Tory MP to vote against and just a handful even abstained)

[Willow904]

Just to say, I put my hand up to not spotting Eurotom was specifically mentioned in the article 50 bill. I thought it had simply been added to the withdrawal letter by the government. As such it's just another reason why voting for the article 50 bill unamended was such a poor position to take. Surely backing Brexit as the expressed will of the people didn't have to involve actively voting to completely stuff everything up? Or maybe it did.

It was exactly the right position to take IMHO. You NEVER listen to any other point of view and come on here day after day droning on about how Brexit is all Labour's fault and I for one am sick of it.

What's the point of joining a Forum, a Forum, when you don't listen to a word anyone else says and repeat your own position endlessly?

Sorry to be grumpy but I've tried and tried to engage and debate with you and it feels to me like you have no respect for my point of view, or anyone else who thinks that the team that just collected nearly 13 million votes might have half an idea what they are doing.

If Labour had voted against Article 50, where would we be now Willow? Seriously, where?

I know where. We'd be in exactly the same position on Brexit except thatLabour WOULD have been trounced in the GE and May WOULD be charging on unhindered.

Please just take a step back and LISTEN to some of your fellow FORUM members. Otherwise what's the point of being here?

Rant over.

Have a good evening all

I've just been trying to get my head around why Labour are complaining only now about Eurotom and struggling to understand, tbf, because it's been portrayed as a Tory decision, only for it to appear that it wasn't a decision at all but had to happen anyway only for the point to come up that although it has to happen it didn't have to happen straight away but May decided to and Labour voted for it having failed to win an amendment.

I can only apologise that I didn't know all this already and have annoyed you by raising it when you may prefer to talk about something else, but I do post about stuff other than Brexit and the Labour leadership and I do agree with others on other things so I'm a little surprised by the suggestion that it's all I come on here to talk about.

[PorFavor]

There are drawbacks to Labour (mostly) voting for A50, even those who think it was on balance the right decision can see that might be the case.

Against that, there is a good case to be made that it finally destroyed UKIP as a significant force and made Brexit much less of a Tory trump card last month than it might have been.

Labour did not choose to be in this situation and had no painless, problem-free option available.

The difficulty I have with Labour's position on "Brexit" is that, even if (for me) the ideal situation should arise - ie "Brexit" became almost universally unpopular - I feel that they (under Jeremy Corbyn) might still try to pursue it anyway. Although I understand why they have acted as they have under the present circumstances.

[refitman]

*Suddenly realised I don't know how to spell here hear or what it means

Play from 35 seconds:
[youtube]E4HHaspKL_4[/youtube]
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;