Labour ?

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Resignations and Sackings, I thought that was all in the past for JC .....? 

Surely its correct that the front bench represents and votes for party policy?

In which case Jeremy Corbyn should be supporting the retention and renewal of Trident.

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Resignations and Sackings, I thought that was all in the past for JC .....? 

Surely its correct that the front bench represents and votes for party policy?

I agree, it can't be that difficult to back party policy, so why rock the boat.

For some I believe them that it was a matter of conscious when presented with the amendment ... but I'm pretty such Chuka Umunna was deliberately trying to undermine JC and cause division.

Eloise,

I voted for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour this time round and was encouraged by his campaign and its (relative) success.

However, I am dismayed by his decision to 'sack' the Brexit rebels. In my opinion they were simply voting with their conscience and expressing a genuine view that Britain would be better off within the single market - a view that is shared by myself and many other Labour supporters. I have always suspected that Jeremy Corbyn was a very reluctant supporter of the 'Remain' campaign, and recent events appear to bear this out. He likes to think of himself as someone who has high ideals and principles, which he is not slow to express whether or not his views are in line with those of his party. However, he and John McDonnell appear to have very little regard and tolerance for others who vote according to their principles, but who do not agree with his own views.

The decision to sack the Brexit rebels, in my opinion, reflects very badly on Jeremy Corbyn, and brings back some of mo own reservations about the way that Corbyn and his close allies behave from time to time. I had become a bit of a Corbyn (and McDonnel) convert over recent months, but I will consider my options very carefully before voting for him again.

Now if Chuka Umunna were to become a contender for leadership of the Labour party, my enthusiasm would be rekindled.   

Hmack posted:

Eloise posted:

For some I believe them that it was a matter of conscious when presented with the amendment ... but I'm pretty such Chuka Umunna was deliberately trying to undermine JC and cause division.

However, I am dismayed by his decision to 'sack' the Brexit rebels. In my opinion they were simply voting with their conscience and expressing a genuine view that Britain would be better off within the single market - a view that is shared by myself and many other Labour supporters. I have always suspected that Jeremy Corbyn was a very reluctant supporter of the 'Remain' campaign, and recent events appear to bear this out. He likes to think of himself as someone who has high ideals and principles, which he is not slow to express whether or not his views are in line with those of his party. However, he and John McDonnell appear to have very little regard and tolerance for others who vote according to their principles, but who do not agree with his own views.

I'm no dismissing your point of view, but expressing those views as a back bencher is very different from failing to present a united front as a front bencher.  

As I commented above, some of those who voted with Chuka Umunna's amendment I will accept voted as a matter of their conscious, but I believe that Chuka Umunna's motivation in presenting the amendment was as a way to undermine JC and cause division.  He could have worded the amendment in a way that could have been supportive of the "official" Labour position; but to put in the part about remaining in the single market when repeatedly that has been ruled out was designed (IMO) to sew discord and meant the amendment was destined to fail.

Having said that, Bercow chose two very divisive amendments to debate and vote on ... IMO deliberately.

The decision to sack the Brexit rebels, in my opinion, reflects very badly on Jeremy Corbyn, and brings back some of mo own reservations about the way that Corbyn and his close allies behave from time to time. I had become a bit of a Corbyn (and McDonnel) convert over recent months, but I will consider my options very carefully before voting for him again.

Labour are struggling to present a clear Brexit policy though and to allow those opponents to remain part of the Labour "spokes force" would muddy the waters even further.  I regret the result of the Brexit referendum, but Labour can't win back support and power by debating it endlessly, they need a clear position to challenge the government on and that the people know what they stand for.

I'm not sure that Corbyn's position is really a secret ... he accepts the EU has good parts and bad parts but that overall the good outweighs the bad. 

Oh and I'm not unquestioning of Corbyn and his close allies and the way they behave (not that you were suggesting I was).  During the actual election I did say it was pointless to carry on the criticism of Corbyn, but that doesn't mean that after the result that he should be allowed to carry on without criticism.

The point I'm trying (in a round about way) to make, is that following the front benchers voting for the amendment they were instructed to abstain on; Corbyn was damned whatever he did ... and I believe certain parts of the Labour party liked that he was in a no win situation.

Now if Chuka Umunna were to become a contender for leadership of the Labour party, my enthusiasm would be rekindled.   

Now if Chuka Umunna was to be leader of the Labour Party and the Labour Party's official position changed then that would be a different matter.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Resignations and Sackings, I thought that was all in the past for JC .....? 

Surely its correct that the front bench represents and votes for party policy?

In which case Jeremy Corbyn should be supporting the retention and renewal of Trident.

I thought he had, Strat. The point he wouldn't be drawn on was, if he were PM, whether he would press the button.

JamieWednesday posted:

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Eloise posted:

 

Let's hope.

After JC's surprising rise in popularity, reflected in his Nuremberg like appearance and posturing at Glasto, I feel he needs to be reigned in somewhat. He's starting to show he believes too firmly in his Messiah like properties and it's still the people behind and rising with him that worry me. Lots.

Maybe following his experience from the general election campaign during which the Tories and right-wing Press tried to crucify him, and he still came through stronger, he has grounds for that belief! 

Are you suggesting we nail him to a cross?

JamieWednesday posted:

Are you suggesting we nail him to a cross?

I always look on the bright side of life, Jamie. 

Apparently Corbyn has had a busy day, he's been washing the feet of his disciples ...

And May's been looking for her brain. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

And May's been looking for her brain. 

I wasn't convinced she had one to lose.

Usually the vitriol is spewed by the losers aimed at the victors.

Yet here we have the opposite. It’s bizarre.

fatcat posted:

Usually the vitriol is spewed by the losers aimed at the victors.

Yet here we have the opposite. It’s bizarre.

It's the way of post Brexit Britain

It was a close result skewed by promises of 350m/day/week/month/bugger we'll finish the fire sale for the NHS, the "Great British Press" and an incompetent Camonan renegotiation. 28% didn't vote at all. In terms of winning, they lost and now we're all likely to lose.

I have just been listening to latest debate, with the Conservatives wanting to push through legislation to keep continuity after Brexit, appealing to all parties to get behind it.

Labour suspect something sinister is involved with the details,  but is it not reasonable to just get on with the leaving process ? 

If there were only one possible leaving solution, then yes.

But that's not the case, so, in this case, Governmental action requires Parliamentary scrutiny.

Indeed - the implications of this are massive.   

Wenger - the suspicion is about the Bill's provision that allows ministers to change what the raft of imported EU legislation covers (with some exception like tax) by statutory instruments.  It's estimated that about 800 to 1000 statutory instruments (SIs) will be needed. SIs get little parliamentary scrutiny and Labour is mistrustful that the government will use these to remove or weaken many of the protections that citizens and workers current enjoy under EU legislation. 

That said if everything gets debated, picked to pieces....tweaked ect ect ect.... the leaving process will take years...

MDS posted:

Wenger - the suspicion is about the Bill's provision that allows ministers to change what the raft of imported EU legislation covers (with some exception like tax) by statutory instruments.  It's estimated that about 800 to 1000 statutory instruments (SIs) will be needed. SIs get little parliamentary scrutiny and Labour is mistrustful that the government will use these to remove or weaken many of the protections that citizens and workers current enjoy under EU legislation. 

The PM is in no position to do anything other then what's best for the country,  she has such a slim mandate, if she trys not to play by the rules or to deceive,  her position will become untenable 

wenger2015 posted:

That said if everything gets debated, picked to pieces....tweaked ect ect ect.... the leaving process will take years...

It doesn't need to. I suspect that the Opposition will table a series of amendments that restrict the ability of ministers to undo certain protections using the SI route.  If these amendments are accepted they will probably support the Bill and the timetable for leaving is undisturbed (though the Bill needs to navigate the House of Lords too).

wenger2015 posted:

MDS posted:

Wenger - the suspicion is about the Bill's provision that allows ministers to change what the raft of imported EU legislation covers (with some exception like tax) by statutory instruments.  It's estimated that about 800 to 1000 statutory instruments (SIs) will be needed. SIs get little parliamentary scrutiny and Labour is mistrustful that the government will use these to remove or weaken many of the protections that citizens and workers current enjoy under EU legislation. 

The PM is in no position to do anything other then what's best for the country,  she has such a slim mandate, if she trys not to play by the rules or to deceive,  her position will become untenable 

Sorry Wenger. Perhaps I wasn't being clear. Yes, the government has no majority of its own in the House of Commons (relying on the DUP) so if primary legislation is needed, the parliamentary arithmetic means it will be very difficult to get anything controversial through.  But statutory instruments don't go through the full house. The scrutiny they do get, if any, is through the relevant select committee.  Broadly speaking, if no MP on the relevant select committee spots a problem in a SI it sails through and into law largely unnoticed.  

MDS posted:

wenger2015 posted:

MDS posted:

Wenger - the suspicion is about the Bill's provision that allows ministers to change what the raft of imported EU legislation covers (with some exception like tax) by statutory instruments.  It's estimated that about 800 to 1000 statutory instruments (SIs) will be needed. SIs get little parliamentary scrutiny and Labour is mistrustful that the government will use these to remove or weaken many of the protections that citizens and workers current enjoy under EU legislation. 

The PM is in no position to do anything other then what's best for the country,  she has such a slim mandate, if she trys not to play by the rules or to deceive,  her position will become untenable 

Sorry Wenger. Perhaps I wasn't being clear. Yes, the government has no majority of its own in the House of Commons (relying on the DUP) so if primary legislation is needed, the parliamentary arithmetic means it will be very difficult to get anything controversial through.  But statutory instruments don't go through the full house. The scrutiny they do get, if any, is through the relevant select committee.  Broadly speaking, if no MP on the relevant select committee spots a problem in a SI it sails through and into law largely unnoticed.  

Ok, that makes more sense....... It was after listening to the various soundbites on the radio, I had the feeling it was going to be anything but plain sailing 

It cannot be "plain sailing".  How this now plays out is unclear but Parliament and the devolved assemblies must grant it the deepest scrutiny.    It cannot be beyond the realms of possibility that an alliance of MPs of all parties call for a referendum on the final terms of leaving.   

leaving vote is done . no more voting we are out. all that is needed is the best mps to get the best we can,and it cant include jawless may.

If the final deal is unacceptable to a majority of MPs it's their duty to require another vote in parliament; to do otherwise would be an abject failure to carry out their legal duty.  What options are presented at that vote in the house are another matter.

Failure to take that vote in parliament or failure to present an alternative path to exit on unacceptable terms would precipitate a constitutional crisis when the inevitable Judicial Review was spawned.