So what about the parliamentry debate on Artice 50?

[Corcory]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

^That was in response to Corcory's question.

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.

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 . I hope I've remembered this right.

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.

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

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.

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.

waitingfortax.com/2016/09/28/article-50-challenge-the-governments-defence/

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

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.

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.

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...

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....

Nightofthetentacle,

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.

I go for option 3) myself.

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

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.

One other point on holding another EU referendum- part of the identified problem with the EU ref was the rushed period of the campaign over 9 weeks. So unlike the very extended Scottish independence campaign and public debate (which I think was 2 years), which gave time for issues to be proposed, publicly debated, and rubbished as bollocks (where applicable), we had about 9 weeks of shouting about the economy, immigrants and Turkey.

So how would a pause in negotiations to hold a (say) 1 year 2nd EU ref campaign Work?

Anyway, while trying to confirm me facts for this, I found one Dominic Raab, Leave campaigner, suggesting that following a close Remain Victory:

I think the sensible thing, if it’s very close – within a couple of points – would be to take pause, respect the verdict of the British people and effectively shelve this debate until that point, which I hope is going to be as close to the 2020 election as possible.

This “pause for breath” would give the public the chance to see if membership of the EU was as good for the country as the Remain camp are currently claiming.

Raab adds: “I think the public would expect us to accept their verdict, but of course things change. I’m just realistic and I’d like people to acknowledge that whenever the Tory leadership election is, I think it’s obvious that it will be part of that.

“If the verdict is to stay in the EU, and it’s close, I think those that do want to revisit it should just pause for a few years and shelve it.”
www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/house/75976/dominic-raab-remain-are-getting-jittery-–-were-winning-debate