Factbox: UK opposition Labour Party sets terms for backing May on Brexit

[webfact]

Factbox: UK opposition Labour Party sets terms for backing May on Brexit

 

Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party gives a speech days after he called a vote of no confidence in Prime Minister Theresa May's government, in Hastings, Britain, January 17, 2019. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has written to Prime Minister Theresa May, offering to support her Brexit deal if she makes five legally binding commitments – including joining a customs union.

 

Below are Labour's five demands for supporting her deal:

 

- A permanent customs union. This would include a say in future trade deals

 

- Close alignment with the EU's single market. This would be underpinned by shared institutions and obligations

 

- A pledge to keep workers' rights in line with those in the EU

 

- Commitments on participation in EU agencies and funding programmes, including in areas such as the environment, education, and industrial regulation

 

- Agreements on the detail of future security arrangements, including access to the European Arrest Warrant

 

(Reporting By Andrew MacAskill; editing by Guy Faulconbridge)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-02-07

[dick dasterdly]

Is he entirely stupid?  Does he not realise that this distances him from the Labour electorate even further??

[tomacht8]

Hard to understand.

With his five points, he can just stay in the EU. 

[Kadilo]

12 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Is he entirely stupid?

Yes

[vogie]

1 hour ago, tomacht8 said:

Hard to understand.

With his five points, he can just stay in the EU. 

For the first time I totally agree with you. 

 

A spokeperson said from the EU "it would keep the UK inside the EU block, though technically outside.

 

Vorstadt welcomed Corbyns letter. Anybody else see where this is going?

[Grouse]

What about second referendum? 

 

IF a deal is agreed, it should be ratified by the people

[SheungWan]

14 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Is he entirely stupid?  Does he not realise that this distances him from the Labour electorate even further??

Almost as stupid as Hard Brexit.

[dick dasterdly]

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

What about second referendum? 

 

IF a deal is agreed, it should be ratified by the people

I agree that if a deal is agreed, there should be another referendum:-

 

1) Accept deal

2) Reject deal, leave immediately.

[vogie]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

What about second referendum? 

 

IF a deal is agreed, it should be ratified by the people

Michael Forsyth made an interesting point on Question Time last night that "people that argue for referendums don't accept the outcome of referendums"

[sawadee1947]

Finally, he has something to say. I doubt, that May would accept, but probably she has to LEARN HER LESSON

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I agree that if a deal is agreed, there should be another referendum:-

 

1) Accept deal

2) Reject deal, leave immediately.

 

Sooo typically Brexiteer democracy. "We won once in a never ever to be challenged advisory vote." Feebly insecure.

[Baerboxer]

2 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

Finally, he has something to say. I doubt, that May would accept, but probably she has to LEARN HER LESSON

 

I doubt most Brexiters, Tories, Labor members, British citizens, EU leaders and MEP's would accept that either.

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Michael Forsyth made an interesting point on Question Time last night that "people that argue for referendums don't accept the outcome of referendums"

 

That's why England and the UK evolved Representative Parliamentary Democracy.

 

To avoid one winning 'referendum" being hailed as something that must be accepted as a never can change, or challenge, rule that must be obeyed; even when most know it's wrong.

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I agree that if a deal is agreed, there should be another referendum:-

 

1) Accept deal

2) Reject deal, leave immediately.

 

10 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Sooo typically Brexiteer democracy. "We won once in a never ever to be challenged advisory vote." Feebly insecure.

I said nothing of the sort, and never have.....

 

But feel free to make things up.

[sawadee1947]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I agree that if a deal is agreed, there should be another referendum:-

 

1) Accept deal

2) Reject deal, leave immediately.

I agree. This described new referendum has nothing to do with the first one. Now people will know what to expect in either case

[vogie]

19 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

That's why England and the UK evolved Representative Parliamentary Democracy.

 

To avoid one winning 'referendum" being hailed as something that must be accepted as a never can change, or challenge, rule that must be obeyed; even when most know it's wrong.

It's wrong because you quite tediously don't agree with it. I know you are never going to stop arguing this point, but please try to understand that parliament voted to allow the electorate to vote on leaving the EU, they sub contracted parliamentary democracy to the plebs and other castes too on the day of the referendum, they promised to impliment the peoples decision. 

We know, should the vote have tilted in your favour, and other anti democratic personel we would not have heard a word from you all.

And also you cannot change rules that as of yet have not been implimented.

But, by the way parliament are performing, you may get your wish after all.

[cleopatra2]

13 minutes ago, vogie said:

It's wrong because you quite tediously don't agree with it. I know you are never going to stop arguing this point, but please try to understand that parliament voted to allow the electorate to vote on leaving the EU, they sub contracted parliamentary democracy to the plebs and other castes too on the day of the referendum, they promised to impliment the peoples decision. 

We know, should the vote have tilted in your favour, and other anti democratic personel we would not have heard a word from you all.

And also you cannot change rules that as of yet have not been implimented.

But, by the way parliament are performing, you may get your wish after all.

The supreme court in the Miller case, explicitly ruled that Parliament did not subcontract out its decision making process to the public when enacting the referendum.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The supreme court in the Miller case, explicitly ruled that Parliament did not subcontract out its decision making process to the public when enacting the referendum.

Have you got a link to that please, I would like to read it. Thanks

[cleopatra2]

On 2/7/2019 at 9:10 PM, vogie said:

Have you got a link to that please, I would like to read it. Thanks

Will be on SC website, will look later time permitting.

 

From the press summary

The 2016 referendum is of great political significance. However, its legal significance is determined by what Parliament included in the statute authorising it, and that statute simply provided for the referendum to be held without specifying the consequences.

 

*Edited for Fair Use Policy*

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-press-summary.pdf

[rixalex]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Sooo typically Brexiteer democracy. "We won once in a never ever to be challenged advisory vote." Feebly insecure.

Pretty insecure is making up straw man arguments to try and make your point.

[evadgib]

8 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Pretty insecure is making up straw man arguments to try and make your point.

More 'Daily' than George Cole!

[vogie]

33 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Will be on SC website, will look later time permitting.

 

From the press summary

The 2016 referendum is of great political significance. However, its legal significance is determined by what Parliament included in the statute authorising it, and that statute simply provided for the referendum to be held without specifying the consequences. The change in the law required to implement the referendum’s outcome must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by legislation. The Government accepts that the resolution of the House of Commons on 7 December 2016 calling on ministers to give notice under Article 50 by 31 March 2017 is a political act which does not affect the issues arising in the appeals [116-124]

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0196-press-summary.pdf

Thanks for that. But am I correct in thinking that Gina Millers case came about because Mrs May tried to bypass Parliament and to trigger article 50 by invoking an ancient crown prerogative power.

 

But there is one thing for sure is that people will still be arguing over the rights and wrongs of brexit a long time after we've left this Earth.

 

Here is another take on it.

 

But some people who support leaving the EU say there’s plenty of evidence that the referendum was politically binding. They say that the referendum process sent clear instructions to MPs that they should support the decision made by a majority of voters—even if the formalities don’t require them to.

They point to the fact that, during one of the debates on the referendum bill on 9 June 2015, the then Foreign Secretary said “decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber”.

 

But thanks again for the link, I will peruse at my leisure.

[cleopatra2]

10 minutes ago, vogie said:

Thanks for that. But am I correct in thinking that Gina Millers case came about because Mrs May tried to bypass Parliament and to trigger article 50 by invoking an ancient crown prerogative power.

 

But there is one thing for sure is that people will still be arguing over the rights and wrongs of brexit a long time after we've left this Earth.

 

Here is another take on it.

 

But some people who support leaving the EU say there’s plenty of evidence that the referendum was politically binding. They say that the referendum process sent clear instructions to MPs that they should support the decision made by a majority of voters—even if the formalities don’t require them to.

They point to the fact that, during one of the debates on the referendum bill on 9 June 2015, the then Foreign Secretary said “decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber”.

 

But thanks again for the link, I will peruse at my leisure.

The referendum can certainly be described as sending a political statement. What is left unclear is did every person who voted leave send the same political statement . To me , As for being politically binding, appears untenable . Politics by its very nature is fluid, hypothetically unforeseen events could occur that cause the public to give a different viewpoint.

With regards to individual statements made by various MPs , these can only reflect their individual or government point of view. They cannot represent Parliament as a whole.

[Loiner]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

That's why England and the UK evolved Representative Parliamentary Democracy.

 

To avoid one winning 'referendum" being hailed as something that must be accepted as a never can change, or challenge, rule that must be obeyed; even when most know it's wrong.

Referendums have nothing much to do with parliament's evolution. We have never held that many of them.

 

Regarding the last one: There's nothing wrong with it at all, other than we gave the 'wrong' result, in the opinion of Remainers. Parliament has legislated on the basis of that referendum. There have been recent challenges, none of which have yet overturned the subsequent Withdrawal Act which gives us an exit day of 29th March 2019.

The only successful proposed Amendment is the Brady Amendment, which is to avoid the Backstop with 'alternative arrangements'. That's where we are today, with Theresa apparently facing a brickwall on some alternatives. If no alternatives are agreed, we slip into the default No Deal. 

49 days and counting............

[wayned]

I'm an American so I really don't care.  But it seems to me that the only way May will get a deal is to incorporate some of Corbyn's ideas regarding a permanent customs union into the agreement to eliminate the "backstop" is her only option.  It was also suggested by the EU.  In either case, I think that her days are numbered, deal or no deal brexit!

[Grouse]

Just maybe, Corbyn is being more clever than I give him credit for.

 

If TM goes with Corbyn's suggestions she will defy the right of her party and maybe divide the CONs permanently 

 

If TM rejects Corbyn's suggestions, he can announce to everyone including the EU and the NI people and the leave side of LAB that he tried. He can then have a better chance with the Cooper amendment or even a second referendum AND retain the moral high ground. Might work.

 

Meanwhile the CONs are trying to pick of individual LAB MPs with bribes of money for their constituencies. That's all the Tories understand.

 

There is still hope

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Just maybe, Corbyn is being more clever than I give him credit for.

 

If TM goes with Corbyn's suggestions she will defy the right of her party and maybe divide the CONs permanently 

 

If TM rejects Corbyn's suggestions, he can announce to everyone including the EU and the NI people and the leave side of LAB that he tried. He can then have a better chance with the Cooper amendment or even a second referendum AND retain the moral high ground. Might work.

 

Meanwhile the CONs are trying to pick of individual LAB MPs with bribes of money for their constituencies. That's all the Tories understand.

 

There is still hope

He might be trying to divide the Cons, but he his dividing Labour even more, he is facing a Labour revolt, his MPs are threatening to leave the party. 

 

[7by7]

12 hours ago, vogie said:

-snip-

And also you cannot change rules that as of yet have not been implimented.

Surely the time to change a disastrous set of rules, or a disastrous decision, is before they have been implemented; before it's too late?

 

15 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I agree that if a deal is agreed, there should be another referendum:-

 

1) Accept deal

2) Reject deal, leave immediately.

Agreed; almost.

 

Many people who voted Leave last time now realise the full consequences of leaving and would now vote to remain; and some who voted Remain have also changed their minds since. So I would have a third choice; withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.

 

Have the referendum run on a single transferable vote system. People vote for their first and second choices and if no first choice has 50% plus 1 of the votes then eliminate the first preference with the fewest votes and transfer the second preference of those ballot papers to give an overall winner.

 

Surely the democratic way of settling this once and for all?

[tomacht8]

I think Corbyn is a remainer.

But he do not know This.

[Loiner]

I think Corbyn is a remainer.
But he do not know This.

There are certainly some parallels between his Marxist ideals and the eventual EU superstate. So many of the left wing are ardent Remainers, he has to toe the Momentum line in Parliament. He probably hates having to side with the Remainer Tories supporting big business interests. But he’ll continue lying in either direction if it could possibly put Labour in power.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app