Brexit: Now What? Part III

[Craig B]

There seems to be anti-Corbyn dissidence from the Labour Party leader in the Scottish Parliament. We may recall that every single constituency in Scotland voted Remain. This from the "Herald"

KEZIA Dugdale has delivered a humiliating rejection of Jeremy Corbyn’s approach to Brexit by announcing she will vote against the triggering of Article 50 at Holyrood today.

Despite Mr Corbyn ordering his MPs to back the UK Government’s EU Withdrawal Bill in the Commons, his Scottish leader said it left too many unanswered questions to support.

Ms Dugdale said Scottish Labour accepted the UK was leaving the European Union, but not the terms of the “hard Brexit” currently being proposed by Theresa May.​

The previous thread was running slowly so here's a nice new shiny thread. As is usual, the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote from posts in the previous thread into this one.

Posted By: zooterkin

 

[McHrozni]

There seems to be anti-Corbyn dissidence from the Labour Party leader in the Scottish Parliament. We may recall that every single constituency in Scotland voted Remain.

Considering what happened since, I find it amazing they aren't giving him the ultimatum: resign and leave politics to adults, or we'll leave Labour and form a new political party.

His treasonous cheerleading for Theresa May and her cabinet of clowns deserves nothing less.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Considering what happened since, I find it amazing they aren't giving him the ultimatum: resign and leave politics to adults, or we'll leave Labour and form a new political party.

His treasonous cheerleading for Theresa May and her cabinet of clowns deserves nothing less.

McHrozni

if Scottish Labour did defect on this issue, the argument for a Brexit-inspired Indyref2 and a Scottish Labour Yes vote for independence would be overwhelming. That would be too much of a policy reversal to be as yet contemplated by the ex-Better Together unionists of the Labour Party.

It would be a shock policy reversal comparable with the Nazi-Soviet Pact. "All the 'isms' are 'wasms'".

But it might yet come. Or at least I very much hope so. Personally, I've nearly completed my Irish passport application.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

if Scottish Labour did defect on this issue, the argument for a Brexit-inspired Indyref2 and a Scottish Labour Yes vote for independence would be overwhelming. That would be too much of a policy reversal to be as yet contemplated by the ex-Better Together unionists of the Labour Party.

It would be a shock policy reversal comparable with the Nazi-Soviet Pact. "All the 'isms' are 'wasms'".

But it might yet come. Or at least I very much hope so. Personally, I've nearly completed my Irish passport application.

My sense is that it might well take a Labour Yes campaign before any Indyref would get over the line. Not convinced it will ever happen but if it is going to happen now would be as good a time as any.

 

[McHrozni]

if Scottish Labour did defect on this issue, the argument for a Brexit-inspired Indyref2 and a Scottish Labour Yes vote for independence would be overwhelming. That would be too much of a policy reversal to be as yet contemplated by the ex-Better Together unionists of the Labour Party.

I'd personally expect most of Labour to act in this manner. Brexit was a terrible mistake, Theresa May and her clowns are making it worse and the leader of the opposition is ... cheerleading - in a way that will harm his party in the long run, no less. If he was throwing the country under the bus for political gain there would be logic behind it, if the Don is right this is precisely what the Tories are doing, and I would understand if Labour would be fine with it. This however has no logic behind it.

There is only one word that describes his actions accurately: treason.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

My sense is that it might well take a Labour Yes campaign before any Indyref would get over the line. Not convinced it will ever happen but if it is going to happen now would be as good a time as any.

I think you're right. But where will Scottish Labour go? Is there any point in maintaining subservience to the Labour leadership in Westminster?

But to those who say, if Scottish Labour doesn't break free, it will be destroyed in Westminster, the response (and it is unanswerable) is: Scottish Labour has already been destroyed in Westminster.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'd personally expect most of Labour to act in this manner. Brexit was a terrible mistake, Theresa May and her clowns are making it worse and the leader of the opposition is ... cheerleading - in a way that will harm his party in the long run, no less. If he was throwing the country under the bus for political gain there would be logic behind it, if the Don is right this is precisely what the Tories are doing, and I would understand if Labour would be fine with it. This however has no logic behind it.

There is only one word that describes his actions accurately: treason.

McHrozni

It should be noted that Labour voted in favour of the referendum bill when it was proposed. Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think you're right. But where will Scottish Labour go? Is there any point in maintaining subservience to the Labour leadership in Westminster?

But to those who say, if Scottish Labour doesn't break free, it will be destroyed in Westminster, the response (and it is unanswerable) is: Scottish Labour has already been destroyed in Westminster.

I guess it depends on whether they see that as a temporary situation or not. Most serious Labour politicians have their eye on Westminster rather than Holyrood - though there are a diminishing number of them left. The Holyrood lot are mostly diddies and I doubt they'd have the gumption to go against their southern string-pullers.

Dugdale will probably have changed her mind by tomorrow.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think you're right. But where will Scottish Labour go? Is there any point in maintaining subservience to the Labour leadership in Westminster?

But to those who say, if Scottish Labour doesn't break free, it will be destroyed in Westminster, the response (and it is unanswerable) is: Scottish Labour has already been destroyed in Westminster.

Given where we are now I really wonder whether Nicola could play a joker here and call a Scottish election - can she even do that?

Run a straight election based on support for independence given a hard Brexit with a second referendum explicit in the manifesto. Force Labour's hand to commit one way or the other, capitalize on anti-Tory sentiment post Brexit and Trump.

Could they even have the balls to simply put independence in the manifesto?

Sadly I think the Scottish parliament is fixed term...

 

[Darat]

I think you're right. But where will Scottish Labour go? Is there any point in maintaining subservience to the Labour leadership in Westminster?

But to those who say, if Scottish Labour doesn't break free, it will be destroyed in Westminster, the response (and it is unanswerable) is: Scottish Labour has already been destroyed in Westminster.

Obviously you are politically naive and uninformed, it is all part of a very clever and cunning plan, inspired by another ancient pop song "the only way is up". They've cleverly got themselves into a position were anything will be viewed as a success. Imagine if they got 3 MPs next time, I mean how many parties manage to triple their number of MPs in a single election? (Discounting of course the not proper parties like the SNP!)

 

[McHrozni]

It should be noted that Labour voted in favour of the referendum bill when it was proposed. Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.

Sure, but they had ample grounds to deny this particular bill. The strategy for exit wasn't published yet, and given that's the biggest bill in a generation, it's something that should receive ample discussion before being made into law.

They could simply state they don't oppose invoking A50, but they do oppose invoking A50 before the government comes clean on what it actually means. Then later, when the White Paper came out, they should also say it's not a strategy but a letter to Santa, and that it's high time Theresa May stops believing in him. I mean seriously, 8 months after the referendum (and a year after the last reasonable time to publish the White Paper) they held an all-nighter to come up with a document they call describes the strategy, but only states their campaign promises based on lies and Corbyn still supports them?

Which part of the word "opposition" does he need explained?

McHrozni

 

[catsmate]

if Scottish Labour did defect on this issue, the argument for a Brexit-inspired Indyref2 and a Scottish Labour Yes vote for independence would be overwhelming. That would be too much of a policy reversal to be as yet contemplated by the ex-Better Together unionists of the Labour Party.

It would be a shock policy reversal comparable with the Nazi-Soviet Pact. "All the 'isms' are 'wasms'".

But it might yet come. Or at least I very much hope so. Personally, I've nearly completed my Irish passport application.

I hope you filled it out in black ink, they're fussy.

 

[Tolls]

... it is all part of a very clever and cunning plan...

So Corbyn is Baldrick?

 

[commandlinegamer]

Neither were the electorate told of:-

Straight from the here - my bold. Neither May, nor her predecessors mentioned this when calls of "we don't want immigrants and their families sponging off the state" were raised. Equally despite years of complaints, no real measures were taken to curb immigration from outside the EU when it could be done. Still, what should we expect from politicians? the truth?

Very interesting. Unfortunately, further down that section we have

"Under no circumstances may an expulsion decision be taken on economic grounds."

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sure, but they had ample grounds to deny this particular bill.

They had ample grounds to deny the referendum bill as well but they were also playing the 'pander to the racists and hope it doesn't come back to bite us' game. It seems increasingly clear that Corbyn is all for a hard Brexit anyway.

'Opposition' only works when you have two competing views. Tory/Labour lines are a mess on this particular issue (and others)

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Very interesting. Unfortunately, further down that section we have

"Under no circumstances may an expulsion decision be taken on economic grounds."

Unfortunately?

I think 'you can't deport someone just because they lose their job' is a very good idea.

It doesn't change the fact that there are means to stop them coming if you really are small-minded enough to want to do that.

 

[McHrozni]

They had ample grounds to deny the referendum bill as well but they were also playing the 'pander to the racists and hope it doesn't come back to bite us' game. It seems increasingly clear that Corbyn is all for a hard Brexit anyway.

'Opposition' only works when you have two competing views. Tory/Labour lines are a mess on this particular issue (and others)

Maybe, but the referendum in itself wasn't a bad thing. It lacked substance, because it was simply in-out, but that isn't necessarily what it meant in this case - it's clear that in such case there should be public debate how the result would be interpreted.

Instead what you got was basically the government deciding what it is going to mean without seeking any approval whatsoever. That's where loyal opposition would have to step in and call the government out on what is a blatant power grab.

Instead, Corbyn ensured there would be as little rebellion among Tories as possible, by issuing his own three-lined whip to vote for it, making passing of the bill a done deal. Even so there was a single Tory rebel. If he had issued a three-lined wihp to vote against there could well be forty. With Labour voting against you'd only need ten or so Tory rebels out of some 340 to vote against and the bill would fail.

In other words, the initial sin of voting for the referendum in the first place does not mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean actions Corbyn has taken since are good or necessary.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Maybe, but the referendum in itself wasn't a bad thing.

Oh but it was. It was that act which puts us where we are now. It was clearly a stupid move by Cameron and it was backed by Labour.

It lacked substance, because it was simply in-out, but that isn't necessarily what it meant in this case - it's clear that in such case there should be public debate how the result would be interpreted.

No it wasn't really clear at all. Nobody really seemed to know what an Out vote would actually mean because nobody expected it.

Instead what you got was basically the government deciding what it is going to mean without seeking any approval whatsoever. That's where loyal opposition would have to step in and call the government out on what is a blatant power grab.

Which is exactly what the initial bill allows them to do. In fact it stipulated it.

Instead, Corbyn ensured there would be as little rebellion among Tories as possible, by issuing his own three-lined whip to vote for it, making passing of the bill a done deal. Even so there was a single Tory rebel. If he had issued a three-lined wihp to vote against there could well be forty. With Labour voting against you'd only need ten or so Tory rebels out of some 340 to vote against and the bill would fail.

I think this is beyond reasonable speculation. Corbyn didn't cause Tories to lose their bottle.

In other words, the initial sin of voting for the referendum in the first place does not mean anything. It certainly doesn't mean actions Corbyn has taken since are good or necessary.

McHrozni

Well it represents at least a consistent position.

 

[McHrozni]

Oh but it was. It was that act which puts us where we are now. It was clearly a stupid move by Cameron and it was backed by Labour.

The bill for referendum for EU membership did not put you here. A series of failures did, and voting for the referendum was just the first in a cascade of failed checks and balances.

No it wasn't really clear at all. Nobody really seemed to know what an Out vote would actually mean because nobody expected it.

Yes. Clearly in such cases an open public debate is necessary. This is just another in the cascade of failures, it wasn't just the initial problem with the referendum.

Which is exactly what the initial bill allows them to do. In fact it stipulated it.

Initial bill being the referendum bill? It does not explicitly allow them to do as they please based on the referendum. The Supreme court said so. That's why there was this another bill pushed through, FFS.

I think this is beyond reasonable speculation. Corbyn didn't cause Tories to lose their bottle.

He gave Tories a reason not to rebel, because there was no hope for victory. It's not too far to speculate that if there was a victory within sight, more would defect to the sane side. Forty Labour MPs did so and in spite of everything one Tory did. Only ten or so Tories would be necessary anyway, it could well be the bill would fail in the Commons, forcing the government to come up with something coherent for a change.

McHrozni

 

[Tolls]

... and in spite of everything one Tory did.

Ken was always going to vote against it, so you can't use him as an example. He voted against the referendum bill after all.