• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Brexit: Now What? Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.

Craig B

Penultimate Amazing
C
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
22,841
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
McHrozni said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
McHrozni said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!)
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...
I hope you filled it out in black ink, they're fussy.
 
Greebo said:
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?
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Unfortunately, further down that section we have

"Under no circumstances may an expulsion decision be taken on economic grounds."
 
McHrozni said:
Sure, but they had ample grounds to deny this particular bill.
Click to expand...

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)
 
commandlinegamer said:
Very interesting. Unfortunately, further down that section we have

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

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.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
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)
Click to expand...

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
 
McHrozni said:
Maybe, but the referendum in itself wasn't a bad thing.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Well it represents at least a consistent position.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
catsmate said:
I hope you filled it out in black ink, they're fussy.
Click to expand...
I've been told about this fussiness, by my many friends engaged in the same undertaking. For example, get professionally done photographs, from someone familiar with Republic of Ireland passport portraits (and such expertise is now not hard to find) because there's no way they'll accept the products of coin in the slot machines in railway stations.
 
Tolls said:
Ken was always going to vote against it, so you can't use him as an example.
Click to expand...

If there was a Labour three-pointed whip to vote against the bill, and he would vote against it anyway, only five more Tory rebels - just over 2% of all their MPs - would have to rebel with him for the bill to be in serious doubt. I daresay this isn't "beyond speculation", but a realistic scenario. I can't say the bill would win the necessary support for sure, but chances would be fairly good it would happen.

McHrozni
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
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...
Click to expand...


Even though it's a fixed-term parliament there are ways to do it. So I suppose it's an option that's always under consideration. It's a bit of a nuclear option though and I think we're a very long way from it actually happening.
 
Rolfe said:
Even though it's a fixed-term parliament there are ways to do it. So I suppose it's an option that's always under consideration. It's a bit of a nuclear option though and I think we're a very long way from it actually happening.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the First Minister can find ways to do it. She has the absolute majority and shortening your term isn't usually considered to be anti-democratic.

The election that brought about SNP can be interpreted as embracing independence. This is as valid reading as a reading Tories are doing on Brexit referendum.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
The bill for referendum for EU membership did not put you here.
Click to expand...

No it absolutely did. The Tories and Labour shouted from the roof-tops 'Let the people decide!' and then the people did decide. If they weren't prepared to live with the consequences of that then perhaps they should have exercised better judgement initially?

Of course it's entirely possible that Corbyn has the result he wanted anyway.

There is no series of failures. Everything is playing out exactly as the referendum bill suggested it would and should. The people vote, government implements that decision.

There was no suggestion that Parliament could block Brexit prior to the vote. There was no suggestion that anyone from Remain would try to scupper the process if it went the wrong way.

As such Corbyn's position has as much, if not more, validity as anyone else's at this point. Labour have reaped what they sowed now.

What they should have done was oppose the referendum. Others did. But they wanted to pander to the racists. Well done Labour.
 
Rolfe said:
Even though it's a fixed-term parliament there are ways to do it. So I suppose it's an option that's always under consideration. It's a bit of a nuclear option though and I think we're a very long way from it actually happening.
Click to expand...

Not sure if it's a nuclear option in so much as there could be no complaints about the mandate for IndyRef 2 if its a manifesto pledge. Otherwise no doubt there will be much bumping of gums.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Not sure if it's a nuclear option in so much as there could be no complaints about the mandate for IndyRef 2 if its a manifesto pledge. Otherwise no doubt there will be much bumping of gums.
Click to expand...
I think there might still be complaints about the validity of a Declaration of Independence based on an election manifesto, because it would be argued that some people vote SNP regardless of that party's manifesto, who would have voted No in an Indyref. I don't see that as a valid objection, but I know that argument is advanced in opposition to the Election idea.

However, if a referendum was refused, the election manifesto might be the only recourse - always assuming a clear majority in favour of such a strategy. Did that happen in Ireland in 1918?

The subsequent events there are not propitious. Irish MPs constituted themselves as an Irish assembly in Dublin instead of going to Westminster; the assembly was declared illegal by the U.K. Government, and years of conflict ensued, ending in partition of the country and the establishment in most of it of a "Free State". But the Empire is now deceased, and I don't think the UK has the stomach for that sort of thing any more.
 
McHrozni said:
If there was a Labour three-pointed whip to vote against the bill, and he would vote against it anyway, only five more Tory rebels - just over 2% of all their MPs - would have to rebel with him for the bill to be in serious doubt. I daresay this isn't "beyond speculation", but a realistic scenario. I can't say the bill would win the necessary support for sure, but chances would be fairly good it would happen.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

You need to know who Ken Clarke is to realise that him voting against is representative of nothing. That's all I'm saying. You cannot extrapolate anything from his vote. He would have voted against even if the Nays exit involved walking past man-eating tigers.
 
ddt said:
This cunning plan misses an essential element. Turnips.


I think Baldrick has more political acumen.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem with this Brexit is that historically London has never been an industrial city, like Birmingham. There used to be things like leather making and clock making, and perhaps a big Bryant and May match factory in London. In late Victorian times many people were employed in transport, and women in domestic service in London.

The disastrous result is that the public and House of Commons think England consists of London and the Home Counties. They are only interested in banking and insurance and football and fashion and tourism and rock music, and the charity business. The politicians are only interested in trying to outsource the vital matter of housing, and education, and libraries, and healthcare and prisons in order to cut public spending, and so-called balance the budget, and trying to attack Iran.
 
London may not have been quite as industrial as Birmingham, but there were a huge number of manufacturing jobs up until the 60s. It was a major manufacturing hub of the country, partly down to the port links.

So no, that's not why.
 
Craig B said:
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.
Click to expand...

Although it would ignore the democratically expressed opinion of the Scottish people to remain in the UK. (I do not know if you actually voted but it definitely did not say remain in the EU it said remain in the UK!)

Why are pro-independence posters so opposed to democracy?
 
McHrozni said:
I'm sure the First Minister can find ways to do it. She has the absolute majority and shortening your term isn't usually considered to be anti-democratic.

The election that brought about SNP can be interpreted as embracing independence. This is as valid reading as a reading Tories are doing on Brexit referendum.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

No SNP is a minority government - at least in my Scotland! (63/129)
 
Craig B said:
I think there might still be complaints about the validity of a Declaration of Independence based on an election manifesto, because it would be argued that some people vote SNP regardless of that party's manifesto, who would have voted No in an Indyref. I don't see that as a valid objection, but I know that argument is advanced in opposition to the Election idea.

However, if a referendum was refused, the election manifesto might be the only recourse - always assuming a clear majority in favour of such a strategy. Did that happen in Ireland in 1918?

The subsequent events there are not propitious. Irish MPs constituted themselves as an Irish assembly in Dublin instead of going to Westminster; the assembly was declared illegal by the U.K. Government, and years of conflict ensued, ending in partition of the country and the establishment in most of it of a "Free State". But the Empire is now deceased, and I don't think the UK has the stomach for that sort of thing any more.
Click to expand...

But rather like what happened in Ireland, the Northern Isles which are likely to vote against SNP and independence might remain in the UK. This has a disproportionate effect on the oil / gas and fishing income for Scotland. Locally there is even support for putting the Trident submarines in Scappa.
 
Planigale said:
Although it would ignore the democratically expressed opinion of the Scottish people to remain in the UK. (I do not know if you actually voted but it definitely did not say remain in the EU it said remain in the UK!)

Why are pro-independence posters so opposed to democracy?
Click to expand...
I did indeed vote, and last time I looked, we were still in the U.K., and the independence supporters were not indulging in armed rebellion, but campaigning to remain in the EU by peaceful methods. The withdrawal from the EU indicates that Scottish voters were offered a false prospectus during the independence referendum. Nobody has suggested that this justifies undemocratic acts. Nothing could be a clearer expression of democracy than the last Westminster election results in Scotland.
 
Planigale said:
But rather like what happened in Ireland, the Northern Isles which are likely to vote against SNP and independence might remain in the UK. This has a disproportionate effect on the oil / gas and fishing income for Scotland. Locally there is even support for putting the Trident submarines in Scappa.
Click to expand...
You are suggesting that Scotland should be partitioned in the event of its having the temerity to secede from the Empire? This indeed happened in similar circumstances Ireland, in India, in Palestine. The history of that strategy doesn't really inspire confidence in it, however. On top of that, I really don't think, in post imperial days, there's much enthusiasm for a return to these practices.

When you remind people that such partition is "like what happened in Ireland" I think little more needs to be said. We recall "what happened in Ireland". We're only now getting over "what happened in Ireland".
 
Craig B said:
You are suggesting that Scotland should be partitioned in the event of its having the temerity to secede from the Empire? This indeed happened in similar circumstances Ireland, in India, in Palestine. The history of that strategy doesn't really inspire confidence in it, however. On top of that, I really don't think, in post imperial days, there's much enthusiasm for a return to these practices.

When you remind people that such partition is "like what happened in Ireland" I think little more needs to be said. We recall "what happened in Ireland". We're only now getting over "what happened in Ireland".
Click to expand...

I am not recommending it. I am warning that the suggestion of UDI as is suggested by some pro-independence campaigners my have unintended consequences. Some parts of the present UK may not wish to be part of an independent Scotland, the proposal seems to have been accepted that a sub part of referendum can be separately argued. If there is a case for Scotland not having voted to leave the EU; the case could be argued that other parts did not vote for leaving the UK.

The Scottish independence referendum was on remaining in the UK it was not on whether the UK was or was not in the EU.

If a Scottish referendum on independence was successful on the basis that Scotland would be part of the EU then could not join would that invalidate the independence referendum?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom