Jeremy Corbyn

[Havors]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the evidence for that is him backing away from all attempts to stop it.

Gove and Liddington (acting as May's secret agents) asked Vince to provide them with his detailed plans for another ref the other day, while Corbyn says no one in Labour is allowed to speak to them (this is the guy who says it's always worth talking to terrorists, don't forget).

He's asking may to promise the impossible as his reason to refuse talks.
(I agree that May is playing games around it too, tho).

But anyway, I wouldn't say "desire". i'd say "preferred option" - as long as he feels the responsibility for it falls on May.

Technically she can take no deal off the table by guaranteeing that they either, fix her deal, make a new deal involving Labour, there is a second referendum or she revokes article 50. She can take no deal off but she wont, half her party are creaming their pants for no deal.... so in that sense she "cant".

Saying that.... Corbyn knows she wont (cant) do any of them. So is definitely playing the game... I think he wants to keep forcing a no confidence vote hoping someone rebels or the DUP give up on May. 

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

But whether that legislation was in place or not, no deal would be the default so it changed nothing. 

No, it's not the same thing. It's 2 distinct things.

There's revoking a50 which May could do at any time up to the deadline by writing and sending a letter, and then there's passing a new law in Parliament in order to not leave at the deadline anyway.

I believe it's the case (I might be wrong*) that only the govt can propose a law to overturn that existing primary legislation.

* decent chance that I am, I think there's some amendments designed to deal with this part in the next day or 2.

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, Havors said:

I think he wants to keep forcing a no confidence vote hoping someone rebels or the DUP give up on May. 

you might be right - but that risks taking us over the cliff as much as any stubborness from May.

(Corbyn's blown that strategy anyway I think, as both the snp and libdems said they wouldn't support further no-confidence motions due to corbyn's game playing).

[Scott129]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

No, it's not the same thing. It's 2 distinct things.

There's revoking a50 which May could do at any time up to the deadline by writing and sending a letter, and then there's passing a new law in Parliament in order to not leave at the deadline anyway.

I believe it's the case (I might be wrong*) that only the govt can propose a law to overturn that existing primary legislation.

* decent chance that I am, I think there's some amendments designed to deal with this part in the next day or 2.

But practically speaking if article 50 was revoked/extended then the withdrawal act wouldn't be given direct effect because of the supremacy of European. (And i know the act itself says that direct effect ends on 29th March but constitutionally speaking that wouldn't have any impact because we would still be in the EU and bound by the treaties. 

Lets be fair, if article 50 is extended then we're not going to be forced into no deal by the Withdrawal Act. It couldnt happen because of the way our constitution works

[Havors]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you might be right - but that risks taking us over the cliff as much as any stubborness from May.

(Corbyn's blown that strategy anyway I think, as both the snp and libdems said they wouldn't support further no-confidence motions due to corbyn's game playing).

Yeah I agree its a risky tactic, but worth trying. I would like to think he would go for a vote or anything to extend article 50 at the last minute. 

The SNP and Lib Dems can do one.... not supporting more no confidence votes is disgusting. They cant do a thing either way without Labour so they need to help Labour, its in their best interest. I really don't think Corbyn would let it go to a no deal, he would whip the party to support anything with an extension to article 50 first or a peoples vote first. Letting it go to a no deal would be the end of his career and he knows it. 

Vince would sell all our kids to the devil just to get a second vote... or sign off on austerity, or up tuition fees.... oh wait...  ?

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

But practically speaking if article 50 was revoked/extended then the withdrawal act wouldn't be given direct effect because of the supremacy of European. (And i know the act itself says that direct effect ends on 29th March but constitutionally speaking that wouldn't have any impact because we would still be in the EU and bound by the treaties. 

Hmmm. Opinion in Westminster appears to be different, and that we leave unless the specific law is repealed.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Havors said:

They cant do a thing either way without Labour so they need to help Labour, its in their best interest.

without Labour having it's own workable brexit policy - and i don't believe it has -  then it's just more unicorns no different to Rees Mogg unicorns.

[Scott129]

17 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

(Corbyn's blown that strategy anyway I think, as both the snp and libdems said they wouldn't support further no-confidence motions due to corbyn's game playing).

The Lib Dems won't back further no-confidence motions because they want Corbyn to give up on getting a GE and support a second referendum. That's their prerogative but its certainly nothing to do with alleged game playing

You want a second referendum, but there isn't the majority for one in the commons at present even if Corbyn backs one. 

5 minutes ago, Havors said:

 I really don't think Corbyn would let it go to a no deal, he would whip the party to support anything with an extension to article 50 first or a peoples vote first. Letting it go to a no deal would be the end of his career and he knows it. 

Vince would sell all our kids to the devil just to get a second vote... or sign off on austerity, or up tuition fees.... oh wait...  ?

Completely agree, he'll back a second referendum if its the only way to avoid a no deal. 

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, Havors said:

Vince would sell all our kids to the devil just to get a second vote

if we don't get a vote on some realistic options we ARE selling our kids.  

 

[Mr.Tease]

1 hour ago, Scott129 said:

Its difficult to tell, as it depends on what the options are against. No deal seems to be more popular than Mays deal, with remain ahead of both. A straight remain v leave poll puts remain slightly ahead, but not much. 

Not helped by that sky poll that showed 26% of people asked thought no-deal means we remain in the EU. That does actually make sense but these polls are a head f***! ?

[Havors]

Just now, eFestivals said:

without Labour having it's own workable brexit policy - and i don't believe it has -  then it's just more unicorns no different to Rees Mogg unicorns.

Well numerous times now EU officials have said they would be in favour of Corbyns plans... A customs union etc.. Whether they have a policy as a whole im not sure as they dont give much away...

 its may that hasn't got a workable policy we know that for sure.... she may as well just quit. 

[Scott129]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Hmmm. Opinion in Westminster appears to be different, and that we leave unless the specific law is repealed.

I'm not going to pretend to be a constitutional expert but I don't see how that works. The EU is at the centre of our constitution and that provides a specific exit mechanism. You can't leave without that

For the same reason, we couldnt have just passed some primary legislation saying we're leaving the EU without triggering article 50

[Havors]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

if we don't get a vote on some realistic options we ARE selling our kids.  

 

haha or our souls 

[eFestivals]

Just now, Scott129 said:

You want a second referendum, but there isn't the majority for one in the commons at present even if Corbyn backs one. 

and there never will be unless there's some leadership for one. 

[Mr.Tease]

1 minute ago, Scott129 said:

The Lib Dems won't back further no-confidence motions because they want Corbyn to give up on getting a GE and support a second referendum. That's their prerogative but its certainly nothing to do with alleged game playing

You want a second referendum, but there isn't the majority for one in the commons at present even if Corbyn backs one. 

Completely agree, he'll back a second referendum if its the only way to avoid a no deal. 

Which I think gives a second vote the best chance of success (if its a last resort) - genuinely don't get the logic of those demanding he back a second vote now (and I don't mean that as a criticism, I just genuinely don't understand why it makes sense tactically to call for one now) 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, Scott129 said:

No deal seems to be more popular than Mays deal

 

[eFestivals]

Just now, Mr.Tease said:

I just genuinely don't understand why it makes sense tactically to call for one now

because he can't offer a brexit enough MPs would support.

Firstly it would still have a backstop, and keeping FoM and EU rules isn't a version of brexit anyone voting leave voted for.

[Mr.Tease]

Just now, eFestivals said:

 

? I just posted about that. If you haven't been following brexit, I suppose it does make sense that you'd think 'no-deal' meant we'd stay in. It's a good reminder to take the polls with scepticism. 

[Scott129]

2 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Which I think gives a second vote the best chance of success (if its a last resort) - genuinely don't get the logic of those demanding he back a second vote now (and I don't mean that as a criticism, I just genuinely don't understand why it makes sense tactically to call for one now) 

The only problem is at this point in time there isn't the majority for it, so as you say tactically it makes no sense to jump the gun on it. 

I agree if May refuses to compromise and no deal becomes the only possibility then Labour has to call for a second referendum.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

I'm not going to pretend to be a constitutional expert but I don't see how that works. The EU is at the centre of our constitution and that provides a specific exit mechanism.

the EU mechanisms defer to the member states constitutional arrangements for these things.

If we have constitutionally said we've left (by passing a law at Westminster to say we have) then the fact that the paperwork might be out of step at the EU counts for nothing.

[Mr.Tease]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

because he can't offer a brexit enough MPs would support.

Firstly it would still have a backstop, and keeping FoM and EU rules isn't a version of brexit anyone voting leave voted for.

I just think leaving a call for a second referendum until the last minute makes you more likely to win round those who think the first one should be respected (because they'll see that everything was tried to respect it) 

[Scott129]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

because he can't offer a brexit enough MPs would support.

Firstly it would still have a backstop, and keeping FoM and EU rules isn't a version of brexit anyone voting leave voted for.

There is more chance of getting a soft brexit through the commons than a second referendum, yet you're calling for one of those. 

You don't need to keep freedom of movemrnt with a customs union.  Admittedly it is a compromise. 

[eFestivals]

Just now, Mr.Tease said:

I just think leaving a call for a second referendum until the last minute makes you more likely to win round those who think the first one should be respected (because they'll see that everything was tried to respect it) 

I'd say we're at the last minute already.

May's deal can't get the support it needs or the changes it needs to be supported, and no deal is supposedly nothing the HoC will stomach.

Which means that remaining or having 'the people' choose an option are the only options left.

[Scott129]

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the EU mechanisms defer to the member states constitutional arrangements for these things.

If we have constitutionally said we've left (by passing a law at Westminster to say we have) then the fact that the paperwork might be out of step at the EU counts for nothing.

I don't think thats  true. As i said if we simply passed legislation saying "we're out" we still wouldnt be out. You would still have to go through the process set out in the treaties

Because constitutionally EU is supreme to UK law. So a law that said "we're out" would be nullified by the EU law that says you have to go through a specific process to leave

Edited January 21, 2019 by Scott129

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Scott129 said:

There is more chance of getting a soft brexit through the commons than a second referendum, yet you're calling for one of those. 

why would anyone support remain-and-lose-all-say? Remaining in the EU is clearly better (cos we keep a say), while remain-and-lose-all-say is nothing of what leavers voted for.

A compromise is meant to make most people happy about some things. That would make no happy about anything.

 

1 minute ago, Scott129 said:

You don't need to keep freedom of movemrnt with a customs union.  Admittedly it is a compromise. 

But it's nothing that's agreed or that the EU have indicated would be agreed.