radmonger posted:

If the opposition does its minimal job, there is no way Brexit will happen within the lifetime of the current Parliament.Her majority is so tiny she is going to have all her ducks in a row before trying; a minibus full of rebels could bring her government down. Boris Johnson is no doubt already planning his next leadership bid ('I was for Brexit, but not _this_ Brexit'). If May goes for an early election, there could be two before an enabling act passes.

Are Corbyn's supporters planning for him to be lose both elections, or just the one?

R. Mute posted:

Angepain posted:

Xmas Pterodactyl posted:

(whether we would be kicked out after 2 years is probably unlikely, though the deadline approaching really puts more power into hands of the EU)

Darth Walrus posted:

Given her ethnicity, that probably is a racist death threat. 'Drive them into the sea' and all that.

Cerv posted:

wishful thinking. once May's cabinet have decided their exit strategy the Tories will whip for it. Labour MPs with seats that voted leave aren't might abstain but they certainly won't vote against. unless they're feeling suicidal.

One of Corbyn's first speeches as leader posted:

In a seminar with economists, academics and trade unionists in London, the Islington North MP said that his Labour 2020 plan would build a "rebalanced and prosperity-focused" economy, based on growth and high-quality jobs, arguing that "you just cannot cut your way to prosperity".

He called for the establishment of a National Investment Bank to support housing, transport, digital and energy infrastructure and innovation, funded by "large reductions" in the £93 billion bill for corporate tax reliefs and subsidies.

"Labour will close the deficit through building a strong, growing economy that works for all, not by increasing poverty," Mr Corbyn said.

ronya posted:

but since you bring it up... there's certainly a strand of thinker that holds that 1) finance, as an industry, is value-subtracting, 2) triangulation is a lie and the only electoral success can come from awakening a nascent leftist worker consciousness, 3) global financial capitalism is only making the inevitable collapse ever harsher and radical transformation to a wholly different economy must happen now

well if you hold all of those then I'm certainly going to raise an eyebrow if, when given a sniff of power, you suddenly start mumbling about the importance of derivatives clearing houses to the economy

ronya posted:

that aside, the year is 2016. My inclination is that much of Labour internally does not see being pro-business as a concession to the right-wing. If anything, everyone really loves the position of being "for- business" and will go to great lengths to present this message to the public; being "left" just means qualifying it in some localist sense - SMEs, cooperatives, fairtrade, etc.

pumpinglemma posted:

Well, we could probably Brexit and then instantly re-enter if we and the EU wanted it enough. That would take unanimous consent, though, same as delaying the negotiating process.

V. Illych L. posted:

calling a referendum and then ignoring it is seriously bad politics, nobody's going to do it

nothing to seehere posted:

Article 50 might be revocable on change of government or referendum result, depending on the legalities. For one, it would be silly for someone to win an election on a promise to not leave the EU, and then the EU tell them they have to leave because of the previous government. We'll probably end up leaving regardless, but its not a certainly once article 50 is invoked.

Cerebral Bore posted:

This is also sheer fantasy. Once article 50 is invoked anything that the U.K. does is irrelevant, because the EU sure as gently caress isn't going to let you walk it back. There isn't anything silly about this, it's simply how bilateral agreements work. You don't get to unilaterally change the rules just because you as a country change your mind.

Vengeance of Pandas posted:

I agree, in that situation the best we could hope for would be a negotiated rejoin before the end of the 2 year period with most if not all of our current concessions lost.

Cerebral Bore posted:

This is also sheer fantasy. Once article 50 is invoked anything that the U.K. does is irrelevant, because the EU sure as gently caress isn't going to let you walk it back. There isn't anything silly about this, it's simply how bilateral agreements work. You don't get to unilaterally change the rules just because you as a country change your mind.

Professor Wyatt, Oxford law professor and expert in EU law posted:

"There is nothing in the wording to say that you cannot. It is in accord
with the general aims of the Treaties that people stay in rather than rush
out of the exit door. There is also the specific provision in Article 50
to the effect that, if a State withdraws, it has to apply to rejoin de novo.
That only applies once you have left. If you could not change your mind
after a year of thinking about it, but before you had withdrawn, you
would then have to wait another year, withdraw and then apply to join
again. That just does not make sense. Analysis of the text suggests that
you are entitled to change your mind"

nothing to seehere posted:

I'm sorry for taking the word of A House of Lords report on the brexit process over a stranger on the internet.


Whether it is a good idea is another matter, but the legalities are that its definitely an option.

Tesseraction posted:

Someone hates fun.

namesake posted:

Leading to a fantastic stabbed in the back rhetorical club for the far right to use to kick-start their terror campaign against everyone.

It doesn't loving matter how good or bad Brexit is actually going to be, you need to have the masses on your side before you even think of doing anything except a pretty severe Brexit.

nothing to seehere posted:

Whether it is a good idea is another matter, but the legalities are that its definitely an option.

The Select Committee on the European Union posted:

Professor Derrick Wyatt: Yes, very briefly. I think law and politics might not go in the same direction. The reason I think it is possible in law to change the country’s mind before withdrawal is that there is nothing in the wording to say that you cannot. It is in accord with the general aims of the treaties that people stay in rather than rush out of the exit door. There is also the specific provision in Article 50 to the effect that, if a state withdraws, it has to apply to rejoin de novo. That only applies once you have left. If you could not change your mind after a year of thinking about it, but before you had withdrawn, you would then have to wait another year, withdraw and then apply to join again. That just does not make sense. Analysis of the text suggests that you are entitled to change your mind, but the politics of it would be completely different.

Earl of Caithness: If we changed our mind, would we go back in exactly where we left off, with our rebate as we are today? I was a little confused by Sir David, who said that there would be no more opt-outs.

Sir David Edward: I am saying that they might say, “We will let you change your mind, but there will be no more opt-outs”.

Earl of Caithness: At the end of the day they have a veto.

Sir David Edward: It is political. Let us take two businessmen dealing with a contract. There is an agreement that provides the terms on which you can withdraw from the contract. They get into negotiations and then suddenly, after a lot of time and money have been spent, the one who wants to get out of the agreement says, “No, I have changed my mind”. The other one might say, “Yes, all right; I will let you change your mind but I will insist on different terms”.

Lord Davies of Stamford: But you cannot do that because the contract remains valid until it is actually changed.

Sir David Edward: It depends on the terms of the contract.

Lord Davies of Stamford: In this case the contract remains valid until it is actually changed.

Sir David Edward: I began by saying it is a matter of politics. I do not think that the politics are as easy as saying, “The negotiations are over and we are back where we started”.

The Chairman: As if nothing had ever happened, as it were.

Jose posted:

they can probably just defer brexit until everyone forgets about it and nobody gets too upset because other things have come up

Guavanaut posted:

Apparently your vote in the EU Referendum does not correlate as strongly with class as commonly thought, and correlates more with being a vengeful prick.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36803544

goddamnedtwisto posted:

The EU would love that because we'd lose all of the concessions we've carved out over the years. Is Schengen an absolute requirement for entering now or not?

Vengeance of Pandas posted:

Anything other than rainbows and unicorns in a 50's UK that never existed is going to lead to that "stabbed in the back" rhetorical club

ukle posted:

Like Alien invasion, which given the way 2016 is going will probably be some time in the Autumn.

XMNN posted:

theres a brexit plan?

namesake posted:

If you've still somehow got stuck on trying to avert Brexit despite literally everything that's happened you need to start thinking of extra-parliamentary means to make it impossible rather than desperately hoping some party official promises they'll take it back and that the UK didn't mean it to begin with.

Craig Murray posted:

As chief lobbyist for Pfizer, Smith actively pushed for privatisation of NHS services. This is not something Pfizer did very openly, and you have to search the evidence carefully. Footnotes often tell you what is really happening, as in this press release in which Owen Smith says of a Pfizer funded “focus group” study:

We believe that choice is a good thing and that patients and healthcare professionals should be at the heart of developing the agenda.
You have to look at the footnotes to see what kind of choice Owen Smith is actually talking about. Note to Editors 3 includes

“The focus groups also explored areas of choice that do not yet exist in the UK – most specifically the use of direct payments and the ability to choose to go directly to a specialist without first having to see the GP.”
Well, at least it is clear – direct payments from the public to doctors replacing current NHS services. Smith was promoting straight privatisation. As Head of Policy and Government Relations for Pfizer, Owen Smith was also directly involved in Pfizer’s funding of Blairite right wing entryist group Progress. Pfizer gave Progress £53,000. Progress has actively pursued the agenda of PFI and privatisation of NHS services.

Owen Smith went to Pfizer from a Labour Party job, while Labour were in government, and there is no doubt that his hiring was an example of the corrupt relationship between New Labour and big business which is why the Blairites are so hated by the public. It is also beyond any argument that if Pfizer had any doubts about Owen Smith’s willingness to promote the Big Pharma and NHS Privatisation agenda, they would never have hired him.

Owen Smith is a strong supporter of Trident and assiduously courts the arms industry. He is a regular at defence industry events.

Perhaps most crucially of all, Owen Smith joined his fellow Red Tories in abstaining on the Tory welfare benefit cuts.

forkboy84 posted:

Surely that's all the motivation you need to not quit Labour: Do you really want to risk Luke Akehurst getting your phone number?

XMNN posted:

theres a brexit plan?

Junior G-man posted:

Does anyone actually know who's in the driver's seat at the whole #SavingLabour and who the gently caress's paying for it?

Those big ads in the weekend's papers cant have been cheap. Neither is the backbone organisation they seem to have.

Regarde Aduck posted:

Not really. Until they actually press the button I will assume they're all making GBS threads themselves wondering how they get out of this. You think the Tories actually want to see the banks get up and move to Paris? This is a nightmare for them as much as us. They can keep up with the soundbites for the Mail and the Sun but I'll believe it when article 50 actually happens. I'd hope they are all wise enough not to believe the "brexit means brexit" nonesense they keep spouting to keep the plebs happy.

Maybe it is hope on my part but I never did like the "hope is a lie" meme. Hope might be a lie, but it's also free.