Advanced search

So what about the parliamentry debate on Artice 50?

(31 Posts)
Corcory Sun 25-Sep-16 21:07:51

So labour won't even discuss Brexit at their annual conference! It wasn't high enough up the list so not important enough!
How on earth would that work were there to be a parliamentary debate so many of you want if the official opposition won't even discuss it?

Corcory Mon 26-Sep-16 08:58:19

So 12 hours on and not one remainer interested in discussing their thoughts on the opposition's stance on discussing Brexit!
I will repeat - What is the point of having a parliamentary debate, how on earth would that be more constitutionally correct than going ahead with the royal prerogative? What would be gained by it?
Says it all really.

twofingerstoGideon Mon 26-Sep-16 09:11:45

So 12 hours on and not one remainer interested in discussing their thoughts on the opposition's stance on discussing Brexit!

Maybe we were asleep, it being night time and all!

I'm disgusted with Labour's stance on Brexit and very disappointed that JC hasn't spoken out every time those incompetent 'Ministers for Brexit' come out with yet more bullshit. Theresa May is presenting more opposition to the so-called 'Three Wise Men' than the Labour party.

I heard yesterday that Labour wouldn't discuss Brexit at their conference, but my Facebook feed today says: The Labour Party conference is debating an EU-related resolution today (followed by long list of what is up for discussion). I can't find a source for this, though.

Peregrina Mon 26-Sep-16 09:14:58

I saw a facebook feed to, and can't now find it again - which is to do with the vagaries of facebook, I think. So it looks as though it is being debated.

twofingerstoGideon Mon 26-Sep-16 09:17:42

Apparently it's being debated under 'employment rights'.

Corcory Mon 26-Sep-16 09:17:43

Twofingers - plenty of people were writing on other treads so not everybody was asleep.
Would be interested to see a link to these 'EU-related resolutions' they are debating today.
I just think that labour lead by the Corbynesta crowd is just a complete shambles. I'd love to hear from a Corbynesta about their views!

twofingerstoGideon Mon 26-Sep-16 09:18:51

Sorry... this is long, but this is what I've seen:

....Conference believes:
1. Article 50 should not be triggered until we know the exact details of the deal the UK will get upon departure from the EU;
2. Negotiations on Brexit must: be open and transparent, not be conducted behind closed doors, involve our Party and other social and economic stakeholders including trade unions.
Conference notes:
• that David Davis' statement to Parliament shows that the Government has no plan for the UK to leave the EU and that this endangers jobs and growth;
• notes with concern the adverse reaction to the UK at the recent G20 meeting, especially the letter from the Japanese Government outlining concerns; notes with concern that Nissan has suspended investment in its plant in Sunderland;
• considers that full access to the single European market for British goods and services is vital for jobs and prosperity in Britain;
• calls for the rights and workplace protections enshrined in EU law to be maintained in the UK;
• insists that the rights of residence of EU citizens already living in Britain and the rights of British citizens already living in other EU countries should be preserved;
• recognises that many of those who voted to leave the EU were expressing dissatisfaction with EU or national policy and were voting for change, but believes that unless the final settlement proves to be acceptable then the option of retaining EU membership should be retained. The final settlement should therefore be subject to approval, through Parliament and potentially through a general election, or a referendum.
Conference resolves that:
1. Our Party Leader, PLP and EPLP work with the Party of European Socialists and other progressive forces in Europe to ensure the terms of our exit are concluded before Article 50 is triggered;
2. Talks dealing with Brexit are subject to democratic scrutiny and accountability with terms that must be democratically endorsed or revoked;
3. Our Party has clear red lines to protect worker and human rights, our economy, industry and environment.
4. Our Party will not support any new neoliberal trade deal(s) promoting policies such as further privatisation,deregulation, erosion of workers or human rights or reduction in environmental protection.
5. Our Party will campaign to protect employment rights which depend on legislation at the European Union level.Equally, pensioners must not pay a Brexit premium and the trade union movement must fight to retain the “triple lock” on the state pension.

twofingerstoGideon Mon 26-Sep-16 09:26:08

Not sure I know what you mean by ' Corbynesta crowd' personally. I went to hear him talk at a rally and voted for him last year. I went to the rally because I was interested in hearing what he had to say. I was in broad agreement with him on housing, transport, education, employment etc., but was unimpressed by his failure to talk about Brexit. Was also unimpressed by his response to the Brexit-related questions on the MN webchat (and his avoidance of the 'prostitution question' for that matter). I was eligible to vote in this round of leadership elections but did not vote for him. Brexit is the most important constitutional issue of my lifetime and I want to see some proper opposition to it.

twofingerstoGideon Mon 26-Sep-16 09:26:34

^That was in response to Corcory's question.

Corcory Mon 26-Sep-16 09:50:02

Twofingers - I wouldn't count you as a Corbynesta then. There are people who blindly seem to be following him though or he wouldn't have been voted in again. as for the list of resolutions 1. The EU have stated categorically that they will not negotiate until we have triggered article 50 so they have very little idea of the basics of Brexit if they think they can suggest this.
2- Negotiations must be open and transparent - how on earth does that work? How on earth would we ever have a consensus on what we want within 2 years if we had to debate everything and get it past labour and the trade unions. There are already 27 other countries to get the O.K. from. Then the negotiators go back to labour and ask them if they like it? then of course they won't so they have to start all over again. Ye right!
They are living in cloud coco land if they think we would get back into the EU if they don't like the deal!
All this is presuming that you can negotiate before enacting article 50 you can't the EU won't. Idiots!
I'm sorry this just makes me so mad that they are so naïve and haven't a very basic understanding of Brexit.
Obviously they want to ensure that worker rights are protected and that is the field they should concentrate on but they seem to be mixing everything up. Their second resolution seems to have a complete mash of everything in it and they really need to debate these issues separately.
Very poor. Very poor indeed.

Marmitelover55 Tue 27-Sep-16 17:33:09

I seem to remember reading that even after A50 is triggered we don't have to leave. So if we have a referendum on the actual deal v staying in the EU and the vote is to remain, we can withdraw a50 and not leave. So we don't have to rejoin as we haven't left smile. I hope I've remembered this right.

tiggytape Tue 27-Sep-16 19:09:23

There's certainly a legal argument to be made to say Article 50 can be retracted but it is not definitely the case.

Politically though it would be awkward.

If we sprung a referendum on the issue following 2 years of protracted and potentially heated debates, it is not going to be popular in the EU. After all the upheaval, putting citizenships and investments on hold and waiting for a resolution, for us just to throw it up for debate again right in time to mess up their 2019 elections is going to cause chaos.

If the vote was that the deal wasn't good enough, it would also not resolve anything. It would leave us in a weird limbo of wanting out but not with the deal on offer or remaining only until a better deal is on offer?
Any General Election that followed would potentially also include a party vowing to take us straight out of the EU again. If that's UKIP - no problem. If that's the Tories - potentially we would be very badly off.

Whereas, if we went into negotiations vowing publicly right from the start to put any resulting offer to the vote, the EU would concede little and hope the vote would be to remain after all.
The risk with that is the EU go overboard promising all sorts of nasties and conceding nothing - their equivalent of the "Punishment Budget" - but people still vote leave anyway angered by the UK's treatment in any such process so we leave with an absolutely awful deal.

RedToothBrush Tue 27-Sep-16 22:01:53

I seem to remember reading that even after A50 is triggered we don't have to leave.

Not a legally established fact - we could be sorely disappointed if the converse was deemed to be true.

And as tiggytape says we would be politically even further up shit creek with regard to EU and diplomatic relations. We'd have to be insane or there be a momental change that suddenly gives us good reason to change direction.

Even thinking this is a possibility is foolhardy to say the least. It is the action of desperation after a crisis nothing else.

Marmitelover55 Tue 27-Sep-16 22:14:40

Let's just hope that the legal challenge to a50 is successful.

Peregrina Tue 27-Sep-16 22:24:08

Politically though it would be awkward.
Can you envisage any scenario which is not going to be awkward and upset a considerable number of people? I can't.

Nightofthetentacle Wed 28-Sep-16 12:50:20

On the legal challenge- the Govt had refused to release their case, but have now been ordered to following successful legal application on behalf of the People's Challenge. Their case is here, and has been summarised on twitter as "this is a matter too complex for parliament" but apparently not for referendum.

Nightofthetentacle Wed 28-Sep-16 12:53:10

And I see the Westministenders thread is WAY ahead of me!

RedToothBrush Wed 28-Sep-16 13:15:37

Sorry, I really should be doing other things today as it is!

Equally, the appropriate point at which the UK should begin the procedure required by Article 50(2) to give effect to that decision (that is, the notification) is a matter of high, if not the highest, policy; a polycentric decision based upon a multitude of domestic and foreign policy and political concerns for which the expertise of Ministers and their officials are particularly well suited and the Courts ill-suited.

These experts we are sick of? Or the Davies, Johnson or Fox type ones who keep dropping unprofessional clangers which their European counterparts are actually laughing at?

Oh dear god, we truly are in the land of unicorns unless we can be saved by the courts.

Peregrina Wed 28-Sep-16 16:10:02

On the legal challenge- the Govt had refused to release their case, but have now been ordered to following successful legal application on behalf of the People's Challenge.

This is important, since one of the Leave promises was to 'Take back control' - not let a cabal in Government act as a dictatorship.

If there is a case for Brexit, then it should be discussed and robustly defended.

Nightofthetentacle Wed 28-Sep-16 16:39:44

I srlsy wonder what the hell they are up to - (relatively) inexperienced lead barrister Jeremy Wright, not releasing (a fairly muddled) case to the public eye...

Nightofthetentacle Wed 28-Sep-16 16:44:03

And YY - with this new commitment to democracy and sovereignty, giving the people visibility if not actually a bloody say on the reasoning, and the people's elected representatives a chance to shape and agree the decision, seems entirely consistent.

But no....

RedToothBrush Wed 28-Sep-16 16:59:13


1) they want to win, but have figured out they probably can't especially since most lawyers didn't want to touch the case with a bargepole
2) they don't want to win, but are pursuing the court case to protect May from the political fall out of simply declaring it will go through Parliament and therefore run the very real risk of watering down Brexit.
3) they are fucking clueless

Take your pick.

Peregrina Wed 28-Sep-16 17:02:49

I go for option 3) myself.

Nightofthetentacle Wed 28-Sep-16 17:10:12

Ooh! I like 2. Or 2 and 3 together. 3 is definitely true for some of them.

Mistigri Wed 28-Sep-16 21:30:32

If we sprung a referendum on the issue following 2 years of protracted and potentially heated debates, it is not going to be popular in the EU.

And yet Sarkozy, who could be the next French president, seems to favour something not entirely dissimilar to this.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now