Skip to comments.Jeremy Corbyn just signalled that Labour won't try and block Brexit
Posted on 11/03/2016 4:11:11 PM PDT by naturalman1975
Jeremy Corbyn indicated that the Labour Party will not try and block Britains departure from the European Union after the pivotal High Court ruling in London on Thursday said that Prime Minister Theresa May has to get approval from parliament to trigger Article 50.
Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union, the Labour Party leader said in a statement.
But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament on the terms of Brexit.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com.au ...
Eventually Corbyn will be replaced as Labour Leader, my fear is that his replacement will be Sadiq Khan.
i agree. although something needs to be done regarding a judiciary that refuses to recognize the lawful vote of the populace.
of course, we have that problem here in the usa too.
Is Corbyn playing good cop while the judiciary plays bad cop and blocks Brexit?
ABSOLUTE BS, but it looks like the Labour Party is going to do the right thing. I doubt the Democrats would under similar circumstances.
I've heard Hilary Benn speak a couple of times.I was quite impressed in some ways but didn't hear enough to learn what his position is on various issues of importance...war,peace,taxation,employment,etc.
As somebody who does take a serious interest in the British Constitution, I have to say I agree with the Court decision. Parliamentary sovereignty is at the core of the British constitution and should not be circumvented.
However, I do think the Members of Parliament are obliged by the same constitutional conventions to give effect to the will of the people as expressed in the Referendum and I expect them to do so.
You know damn well that they wouldn't...not in a million years.
No conditions as such, but, yes, he will also use this to push for more of a say from the Opposition in negotiations - he’s likely to want a Parliamentary Committee including Opposition MPs involved - and to be honest, I think he has every right to do so, as long as everybody involved understands that they are discussing details of how to Brexit with the assumption it will happen - not acting with any intent to stop it happening.
Ah! Do you have the feeling that this is all “fixed up”, with all the players playing their roles?
This morning I was pretty disappointed, but this is a bit of a ray of hope.
I was wondering what you might say on the topic. Thanks.
thank you for that explanation.
i just wonder, then, why there was even a vote of the people if there had to be more hoops to jump through?
I plead ignorance on how British law works. :-)
Labour is just as despicable as the Dems.
The Supreme Court’s ruling seems to be correct in law and according to the principle of the British constitution. It doesn’t block Brexit, it just upholds Parliamentary Sovereignty which is the cornerstone of the British constitution.
The Remainers who are celebrating about this, and the Leavers who are upset by it, for the most part show little actual understanding of the legal and constitutional provisions involved and so think the ruling is far more than it is.
I’ve just spent a couple of million pounds buying a house near London precisely because I believe Brexit is inevitable. I’ve held British citizenship for a long time and I love Britain, but I’ve never wanted to live in a United States of Europe. I’m now so confident that the UK will leave the EU that I’m prepared to put almost everything I own on the line based on that confidence.
And part of the reason for that is I do understand how the laws and constitution work.
The court ruling can be seen as a set back as it may delay things a few months and some people are impatient. But I can’t see it doing any more than that.
who the hell are these “journalists”?
how about “won’t try TO block”?
The reason there was a referendum was largely because those opposed to EU membership managed to persuade the government to let the people express their view. I think that's a good idea when you are talking about major constitutional issues but it wasn't required.
The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty states that Parliament cannot be bound to any action by any outside force - so a referendum could not be formally binding. But other basic principles apply as well - once the will of the people has been expressed, Parliament ignores it at its peril. Functionally, Parliament can be expected to give effect to the will of the people on this - but cannot be forced to. It's a fine distinction but it matters.
I expect what will happen now is that when a vote is called, both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party will issue a whip to their Members telling them that they are expected to vote 'Aye' to Brexit and that any Member who goes against party policy can face disendorsement at the next election, or even potential expulsion from the party. They may allow their MPs to abstain without consequence, so nobody will be forced to vote for Brexit, but the vote would pass the House on the Ayes versus a lot of abstentions. A minority of MPs may rebel and vote No, but not enough to put the vote in doubt.
Whatever problems we have, you were exactly right to state what you did about the judge.
The judge has no business whatsoever stepping in here.
The people voted. It’s a done deal.
The judge can go jump off a cliff, and somehow Great Britain will survive.
Very interesting. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.