Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

Pleased to see that Ian Murray was one of the 47 Labour MPs that voted against it, though for why I'm not sure.

[Loud Whispers]

aw my MP voted against it
0/10 doesn't like corbyn and doesn't like brexit, what does the guy like

[Starver]

Rationality.

(There are good things and bad things about Corbyn, but that three-line whip wasn't a good approach. Better to leave it as a matter of conscience, given he knew there'd be rebels against either position, and to reflect his "new type of politics", with him (the arch-rebel himself) at the helm.)

[TD1]

The MPs (or at least a lot of them) already....dislike him. It's a choice between appealing to a few rogue MPs and appealing to the public at large - the voters.

[Starver]

He's lost me, possibly.  (Given that I never vote for* a leader or a party, anyway, but only upon the candidate, in the hope that the flavour of <insert party here> candidate that I prop up influences the direction of their party, or the party of the others, in a more desired leaning than some false-equivalence due to a 'moderate' being punished for being a member of a party that really needs pulling back...)

Right now, I couldn't say who I'd support, but the incumbant isn't as likely to get my vote as before.  Probably nobody's loss, but...


* But maybe against.  I'll reject UKIP and RESPECT, alike, out of hand, for starters.

[Sheb]

What's a three-line whip anyway?

[martinuzz]

A whip can have more than one tail. Another example is 'the cat', a 9-tailed whip.
To inflict more pain and damage, at small metal piece (most often, lead, for it's high weight) would be attached to the end of each tail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_o'_nine_tails

[TD1]

He's lost me, possibly.  (Given that I never vote for* a leader or a party, anyway, but only upon the candidate, in the hope that the flavour of <insert party here> candidate that I prop up influences the direction of their party, or the party of the others, in a more desired leaning than some false-equivalence due to a 'moderate' being punished for being a member of a party that really needs pulling back...)

Right now, I couldn't say who I'd support, but the incumbant isn't as likely to get my vote as before.  Probably nobody's loss, but...


* But maybe against.  I'll reject UKIP and RESPECT, alike, out of hand, for starters.

Oh? Why UKIP? Is it something about Farage, or the new guy?

[MorleyDev]

Clive Lewis MP on the Article 50 vote, gives the point of view of a Labour MP voting for Article 50 but who disagrees with Brexit:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1256644634412341&id=191335640943251

Unless we change where we're heading in the next few weeks on Brexit we're stuffed. We're potentially heading to bargain basement Britain, where the NHS is sold off to the highest bidder, in order to beg for trade agreements with people like Trump. We will have 'taken back control' only to see it handed over to corporate elites across the globe behind closed doors.

When Theresa may said getting 'no deal' with the EU is an acceptable outcome, she waved the white flag and effectively told corporate interests to 'come and get us and do with us what you will'. No one has any faith the Tories are willing or able to protect workers rights,environmental protections or even our NHS.

Sadly Remain lost the referendum. That means the govt will now begin negotiations (via Article 50) to leave the EU. However, the shape of that departure, the negotiations and the end relationship is not up to the govt. Instead Parliament must have a say. The Supreme Court reinforced this opinion and now Parliament is about to debate the degree of say and influence it has in the process.

This is what is called the 2nd Reading of the A50 bill. It is not a trigger vote, but a vote to begin the debate and scrutiny of the Govt's negotiating position. Some of you are arguing that Labour and other opposition parties should ignore the referendum result, not attempt to shape the negotiation process and simply block A50.

Alas the vast majority of Tories in Parliament, even Remainers, will not stop or block the triggering of Article 50. They will just obey Theresa May and do what she says irrespective of the arguments. Some however will vote to change (amend some of the conditions limiting the government's version of brexit. Labour has tabled a series of amendments to this end (see below). That's because a majority of all party's MPs believe Parliament should be allowed to shape the A50 process and negotiations.They also have profound concerns about the kind of Brexit we are being forced to accept

The difficulty now lies in getting all the changes/amendments passed. Labour's amendments (below) attempt to ensure we have the closest relationship to Europe and the Single Market as is possible, protect worker rights, have proper report-back mechanisms on the negotiations and have final say over the eventual negotiated deal.

IF THE GOVT DOES NOT ACCEPT THESE AMENDMENTS, I WILL VOTE AGAINST TRIGGERING ARTICLE 50 AT THE THIRD AND FINAL VOTE.

Bottom line is I'll always do what I think is right for all of the people in our constituency. Not just bits of it - ALL of it. Too many people want to stick two fingers up at the decision made in part by people who'd been forgotten for 40 years.

Whilst middle England revelled in Cool Britannia and an asset bubble boom - these poor souls were being quietly forgotten. Many of them were my friends and family who also voted Leave. I understand why they did it. I don't agree with them but I get it.

And whilst I wont help them pull the trigger of the gun they're holding to their own head I will do my best to coax it down. I wont tell them they're ignorant or stupid and should know better and just let them pull the trigger.

It's grown-up, compassionate politics and I'll stand by it. And if after all of the debate in Parliament we still end up with Tory Hard Brexit I'll vote against.
Labour’s amendments will:
i) Allow a meaningful vote in Parliament on the final Brexit deal. Labour’s amendment would ensure that the House of Commons has the first say on any proposed deal and that the consent of Parliament would be required before the deal is referred to the European Council and Parliament.
ii) Establish a number of key principles the Government must seek to negotiate during the process, including protecting workers’ rights, securing full tariff and impediment free access to the Single Market.
iii) Ensure there is robust and regular Parliamentary scrutiny by requiring the Secretary of State to report to the House at least every two months on the progress being made on negotiations throughout the Brexit process
iv) Guarantee legal rights for EU nationals living in the UK. Labour has repeatedly called for the Government to take this step, and this amendment would ensure EU citizens’ rights are not part of the Brexit negotiations.
v) Require the Government to consult regularly with the governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland throughout Brexit negotiations. Labour’s amendment would put the Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC) on a statutory footing and require the UK Government to consult the JMC at least every two months.
vi) Require the Government to publish impact assessments conducted since the referendum of any new proposed trading relationship with the EU. This amendment seeks to ensure there is much greater clarity on the likely impact of the Government’s decision to exit the Single Market and seek new relationship with the Customs Union
vii) Ensure the Government must seek to retain all existing EU tax avoidance and evasion measures post-Brexit

He also has some good comments in the comments section about how big of a cock-up the referendum was from a start, mixing plebian democracy with representative democracy in a country that doesn't have a system for plebian democracy.

[TD1]

Democracy's a bitch.

[Starver]

* But maybe against.  I'll reject UKIP and RESPECT, alike, out of hand, for starters.

Oh? Why UKIP? Is it something about Farage, or the new guy?

While I never liked Farage (he's also too much of a "great orator" in the way that Trump is too little, but I don't vote for party leaders, like I said), I quickly learnt that every UKIP candidate that I encountered were frankly never going to satisfy my politics, even the most 'moderate' ones.  It has saved time to just skip over them. I've got enough problems dealing with UKIPpy friends (who I try to stay off various subjects, with) and certain forumites of such an (apparent, maybe in part trolling) bent, who know who they are already.

Other than that, I do try to do my research before voting.

[TD1]

You said you'd never vote for a party because of the leader, but you would vote against. You cited UKIP as one of the parties this applies to. You then mentioned something about the past holder of the UKIP leadership being an orator type, then preceded to talk people rather than policies. It just doesn't sound like leadership is your issue.

As an aside, I voted UKIP and Leave. I can assure you that trolling had nothing to do with it.

[Loud Whispers]

Rationality.

Acting like one side has the sole claim to rationality is the kinda smug that got liblab in this mess to begin with

(There are good things and bad things about Corbyn, but that three-line whip wasn't a good approach. Better to leave it as a matter of conscience, given he knew there'd be rebels against either position, and to reflect his "new type of politics", with him (the arch-rebel himself) at the helm.)

Three-line whip was the best approach exactly because he knew party rebels were gonna conscientiously divide the country. Corbyn just did the country a proper virtue by ensuring we go forwards united; all those Labour voters who voted to Leave in Labour strongholds are not gonna forget that. Corbyn putting the country ahead of naughty MPs, being so humble as to work hand in hand with his opponents, it's simply the kinda shit I would not expect possible except with such strong-spined leaders. Moreover from a practical point of view Corbyn now knows exactly who he can't count on to follow him, all according to keikaku

You said you'd never vote for a party because of the leader, but you would vote against. You cited UKIP as one of the parties this applies to. You then mentioned something about the past holder of the UKIP leadership being an orator type, then preceded to talk people rather than policies. It just doesn't sound like leadership is your issue.

Tbh I'd vote for UKIP because of the leader not in spite of it, whilst I'd vote in spite of the party not for it. The party has not produced a lot of skilled statesmen or stateswomen and is still in sore need of some maturity. If for example, UKIP had been pro-EU, I do not think so many would have exactly been inspired to lend their full support to the endless Farage barrage upon Brussels

As an aside, I voted UKIP and Leave. I can assure you that trolling had nothing to do with it.

You disagree with me you trolling fam

[Leafsnail]

Speaking of Nuttall, he admitted in an interview that he's never lived at the address he put on his nomination form. Lying on that form isn't a good idea - it means he faces disqualification and possibly even criminal charges.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-38847939
Honestly I haven't seen very much of Nuttall otherwise, he seems fairly invisible on the national stage.

[Starver]

You said you'd never vote for a party because of the leader, but you would vote against.

I might vote against (by "not voting for") a party for the reasons given.  I have otherwise voted for candidates across the political spectrum because I liked that candidate's approach to their party's nuanced viewpoint on the world.

The incumbant in the seat (given being otherwise favourable, and I've been 'lucky' enough to have had incumbants that are rebellious (in the right way) within the not-so-perfect party) gets a little extra credit, as a known factor compared with their various challengers who might say things but have no track record.

You cited UKIP as one of the parties this applies to.

UKIP has had nothing to offer me, as a party-whole, and it appears that no candidate has had anything they thought worth saying that gives them the 'right side of the UKIP spectrum' aspect to them.

You then mentioned something about the past holder of the UKIP leadership being an orator type,

It's how I tend to experience him, mostly. He toned down a bit by the time of the referendum, but he seemed to always be doing a "soapbox, unplugged" speech-pattern, out-shouting the others, throughout the decade before that. Someone needed to tell him when he had a microphone active, and get him to stop trying to out-project the 'regular' politicians on Question Time, or whatever.

My opinion of him (in this way!) mostly changed when I saw him alongside Trump at that Trump rally. He stuck to his style, totally mismatched to the 'Merkin Hoo-Yah crowd, and for me that put him into perspective.  (Trump's style was just so much worse, no matter how many times I watched his and his opponents' rallies.  I was a glutton for punishment for so many months!)

then preceded to talk people rather than policies. It just doesn't sound like leadership is your issue.

I'm not sure what you're saying, really, but I suppose I do set more store in what I have against the party, in this exceptional case.

As an aside, I voted UKIP and Leave. I can assure you that trolling had nothing to do with it.

You're not the kind of person using "kekekek" and "fam", especially when it is suggested in private that these are annoyingly distracting, and other memes with variously uninteligable/distracting natures. You may not be "my kind of person", but you at least seem to be trying not to obfuscate everything you say in a neo-elitist manner, just for the 'lulz'.