Corbyn: three-line whip on vote to trigger article 50

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,055
Dear old Jesser has stated that he will impose a three-line whip on Labour MPs on the assumption that the government will lose its appeal to the Supreme Court.

“It is very clear. The referendum made a decision that Britain was to leave the European Union. It was not to destroy jobs or living standards or communities but it was to leave the European Union and to have a different relationship in the future.

“I’ve made it very clear the Labour party accepts and respects the decision of the British people. We will not block article 50.”
And now I think we can start writing obituaries for the British Labour Party.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/19/corbyn-to-impose-three-line-whip-on-labour-mps-to-trigger-article-50
 


Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
55,015
He is correct. BTW the British media reporting the SC ruling may be 7-4.
 

jackryan

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
3,732
Don't know if Corbyn is the best person to be imposing 3 line whips, His own record on voting with his party is abysmal.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
39,552
Man those people take referendum results seriously.
I really don't understand why they called it a referendum in the first place. The ballot paper contained no legislative or constitutional content and the result was non-binding.* It was a plebiscite if anything.

* I am in saying that just stating fact. I am not in any shape or form disputing the outcome and not suggesting that its advisory nature means that the government can ignore it. The people spoke and their wishes must be carried out. I'm just saying that the British could have learned some lessons from our experiences with referendums.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,055
Don't know if Corbyn is the best person to be imposing 3 line whips, His own record on voting with his party is abysmal.

It's rank hypocrisy of the highest order. And it will hand reams of votes to the Lib Dems.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,055
I really don't understand why they called it a referendum in the first place. The ballot paper contained no legislative or constitutional content and the result was non-binding.* It was a plebiscite if anything.

* I am in saying that just stating fact. I am not in any shape or form disputing the outcome and not suggesting that its advisory nature means that the government can ignore it. The people spoke and their wishes must be carried out. I'm just saying that the British could have learned some lessons from our experiences with referendums.
It's non binding. Almost half the electorate voted against it. It is the duty of opposition to oppose.

The fact is that Corbyn was pro-Brexit from way before the vote, barely campaigned on his party's platform, and now this. If you were a Remain voter, would you vote Labour at the next GE?
 

Henry94.

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
1,925
It's non binding. Almost half the electorate voted against it. It is the duty of opposition to oppose.

The fact is that Corbyn was pro-Brexit from way before the vote, barely campaigned on his party's platform, and now this. If you were a Remain voter, would you vote Labour at the next GE?
Well you wouldn't vote Tory and Corbyn is probably more worried about losing working class votes to UKIP than middle class votes to the Lib-Dems. It may be the difference between defeat and obliteration.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,055
Well you wouldn't vote Tory and Corbyn is probably more worried about losing working class votes to UKIP than middle class votes to the Lib-Dems. It may be the difference between defeat and obliteration.

No, it's just Jesser imposing his will on the party, in an attempt to force out more ideologically 'impure' MPs.
 

loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,230
And it will hand reams of votes to the Lib Dems.
And if he did the opposite it would hand reams of votes to UKIP or the Tories.

The party is being squeezed from every angle, and that would be the case whoever were leader.
 

Henry94.

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
1,925
Seven in ten Labour-held constituencies voted to leave the EU. It would be a big risk to defy their wishes. There are no easy options for Corbyn.

What he need most is to have the issue settled as fast as possible.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,055
And if he did the opposite it would hand reams of votes to UKIP or the Tories.

The party is being squeezed from every angle, and that would be the case whoever were leader.
A different leader with a commitment to Remain might have swung the Referendum, avoiding all of this.

That said, oppositions are there to oppose, not to rubber stamp. I hope he faces a huge backbench rebellion on this.
 

Kommunist

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
5,547
Good, destroy the Blairites and drive them out.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
I really don't understand why they called it a referendum in the first place. The ballot paper contained no legislative or constitutional content and the result was non-binding.* It was a plebiscite if anything.

* I am in saying that just stating fact. I am not in any shape or form disputing the outcome and not suggesting that its advisory nature means that the government can ignore it. The people spoke and their wishes must be carried out. I'm just saying that the British could have learned some lessons from our experiences with referendums.

I do. Cameron was trying to face down the Eurosceptics in his own party who had been a thorn in th side of every Tory PM since
Heath. He gambled that they would lose and have to slink off. A previous gamble, Scots Independence, had he thought "put that issue to bed for a generation"/ It did nothing of the kind however.

Traditionally, British politicians had contempt for Referenda, because as you point out they really have no legal status in UK law unless Parliament decrees a specific Referendum is binding - and even then it can only be binding on that Parliament. Plus they were always associated in British political minds with mad demagoguery, Euro-style.

Cameron was an utter fool. Easily the worst PM since Chamberlain.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,055
I do. Cameron was trying to face down the Eurosceptics in his own party who had been a thorn in th side of every Tory PM since
Heath. He gambled that they would lose and have to slink off. A previous gamble, Scots Independence, had he thought "put that issue to bed for a generation"/ It did nothing of the kind however.

Traditionally, British politicians had contempt for Referenda, because as you point out they really have no legal status in UK law unless Parliament decrees a specific Referendum is binding - and even then it can only be binding on that Parliament. Plus they were always associated in British political minds with mad demagoguery, Euro-style.

Cameron was an utter fool. Easily the worst PM since Chamberlain.
History is going to be very, very cruel to him. An utter imbecile.
 

loaf

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,230
Government governs, Opposition opposes.

This is cowardly.
This isn't a failure to oppose the Government - it's a failure to oppose the result of a referendum.

Most of the Tories campaigned to remain as well - so Brexit is not exactly a Government policy in the usual sense.
 

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
5,621
There is an fairly simple solution, the case that guy is bringing Ireland to got to the ECJ rules that article 50 is reversible, the UK toddles off to Brussels come back to the people to approve the deal, which won't be approved, withdraw article 50 , job done.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top