Oh I completely agree, I was really pointing that the rationale he used to avoid opposing Article 50 was questionable at best. Corbyn is a Brexiteer, but instead of quitting as party leader and campaigning for Leave openly, or proposing Labour change policy, he basically sabotaged Labour's remain campaign.
- Status
Oh I completely agree, I was really pointing that the rationale he used to avoid opposing Article 50 was questionable at best. Corbyn is a Brexiteer, but instead of quitting as party leader and campaigning for Leave openly, or proposing Labour change policy, he basically sabotaged Labour's remain campaign.
Rolfe
Adult human female
In 1979 the Callaghan government refused to implement a 52/48 vote in favour of establishing a devolved Scottish parliament, which is surely much less of a constitutional upheaval than Brexit, on the grounds that the majority wasn't big enough.
So there was precedent.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
It's an unfortunate trait of most current Labour MPs that they sabotage anything they open their mouths about. If you can spot one doing it deliberately instead of by accident you have better eyes than me
I'm not convinced she isn't trying to scare everyone who could make Brexit, if not success then at least not a failure, away from Brexit, in order to prevent it. The tactic might actually be backfiring due to the Traitor though.
McHrozni
It was Camerons' incompetence that brought this about. He should've demanded a 60% majority at a minimum to even start the debate. This is a farce.
McHrozni
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
That's what you get with focus group politics. Policies calculated to win votes rather than represent what you believe in or what you think is best.
Get elected at any and all costs not surprisingly comes with some rather high costs.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
More than three people out of 500000 will be influenced by what they read in the Sun yes. You repeatedly demonstrate that you don't understand the UK media scene but insist you know more than others who do.
More important is not the number influenced anyway but the perception by those who matter of public opinion. If being strongly anti Brexit prompts an outcry they will be less anti Brexit next time.
The Sun is hugely powerful. Not many take it on and win. There aren't many if any in Labour circles who will ignore it. Corbyn may more than others but not to the suicidal extent you seem to think is obviously the right thing to do.
Not really, it's just an observation of the human psyche. There is little to convince your average Brexiteer to change their mind, and there is little that will make a Bremainer change his. By adopting a Bremain stance you anger the Brexiteers and become the hero of Bremainers, if you also do something useful.
Being called an anti-democrat and other such over the top nonsense will be a badge of honor more than they will do damage. There is a simple way to address it too: "Is it undemocratic to stop this power grab by the PM? Explain how that works, please", or something to that effect.
It should be enough to stop any Bremainers from thinking ill of you. Brexiteers are a lost cause anyway. Over the top negativism will do you little harm in the long run, it will destroy their credibility more than your reputation.
McHrozni
Gah! I blame autocorrect!
Yes, the best moment to use it has passed. That doesn't mean the issue of Brexit and actions of parties after the referendum will be irrelevant from this point on. The worse Brexit will be, the more will parties who opposed this farce stand to gain. Labour stands to lose in any case, Tories stand to gaun if Brexit is a success and LibDems stand to gain if it's a failure.
You're certainly in for a rough ride. That said, if you look at something beyond the next election cycle or two, Brexit could have major shifts in British politics, if some parties play their cards right. Tories are at the mercy of Brexit, Labour are screwed no matter what they do, but others could make use of the farce.
McHrozni
You seem to have overlooked the condition in the referendum terms that 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour for it to be implemented.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
You seem to have overlooked the condition in the referendum terms that 40% of the electorate had to vote in favour for it to be implemented.
A complete nonsense requirement that was added to scupper the chance of actually having to listen to the result
The difference was that it was pre specified for the 1979 referendum that there needed to be 40% of the registered voters in favour not just a simple majority. I can think of arguments for and against this type of criteria, but it was not pre specified in the EU referendum so is irrelevant. You are wrong to say it was a precedent.
Last edited:
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
It's precedent in so much as the government didn't implement what the majority voted for. The rules allowed them to do so, as do the rules of the EU referendum since it was only advisory.
It's merely an interesting sidebar though. It's long in the past and there has been another Indyref since then where no such rule applied. The interesting thing would be if the UK Government tries to reinstate such a clause for any future vote - then they should be told to go raffle themselves.
I think there may be reasonable arguments for saying substantial constitutional change should have more than a simple majority. Some places require e.g. 2/3 majority (I think for instance constitutional change in the US needs a 2/3 majority), others a majority of the total electorate. Clearly systems such as this have a disadvantage that one may be left with a majority wanting change but the majority being insufficient for the change.
In the Brexit vote one can see an argument for a vote to begin negotiations, and one to accept the outcome. It is possible that the final outcome e.g. membership of EFTA or not might influence a final view on in or out.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Votes based on % of electorate are a bit of a nonsense where there is no relaiable way to measure the electorate for a start. But in any case the precedent is now set that such supermajorities are NOT needed in the UK so it would be blatant cheating to require them for any future Indyref.
I can only see a point to a vote to accept the outcome if there is the option to cancel the Art 50 declaration and I have yet to see that there is one. There is also huge potential for ongoing chaos if no agreement can be reached that satisfies the Brexiteers, the UK government and the EU.
I just don't see that approach as being practical.
I agree with you.
I was not saying having a second vote was a real option but more in the abstract I could see the argument for a second vote as part of the process of constitutional change.
I think the 1979 referendum was a bad example since the legislation was passed so what people was getting was clear, this should have been a simple majority. In situations such as the EU where one is voting on a principle (I think the phrase is a pig in a poke?) but not knowing what exactly that means a case for a second referendum could be made.
Some legal opinions are article 50 being a notice to withdraw is not irrevocable.
http://verfassungsblog.de/is-article-50-reversible-on-politics-beyond-legal-doctrine/
This I suspect may be a court case to ECJ if an agreement on exit is not achieved at the 2 year point. One could argue if there is not an agreement on exit then the UK remains in the EU. (Just as one remains married until the divorce is agreed at least by the court if not by one's spouse.)
Rolfe
Adult human female
You make my point for me. In that case someone who wanted to make sure the referendum didn't pass took steps in adance to sabotage it. Westminster was full of Remainers, including at least nominally all the main party leaders. Anyone could have put down a similar motion and got it passed last year. Cameron didn't have the nous to make sure that happened.
In fact the 40% rule didn't dictate that the 1979 referendum result should be ignored, simply that there should be further debate in parliament before implementing any resulting legislation. Callaghan could have carried on and set up a Scottish parliament anyway. But he'd been given the lever to get out of it and he used it.
It's all right there, in the archives, in Hansard, in the living memory of a whole bunch of people who were involved at the time. It was an absolutely perfect precedent. But Cameron didn't even have the sense to see it.
- Status