Topic: Brexit: "Vultus inanis est et mori in fossa ego sum!"

[Zeb]

View from the Tory side. Parris in The Times (paywall).

Spoiler

Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent,” wrote Edmund Burke in 1790, “pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field.”

Enough, then, of chinking Remainer grasshoppers like this columnist — or chinking Leavers like the prime minister’s adviser Dominic Cummings. Enough of Tory rebel resistance to a no-deal Brexit, admirable as it is; or the remnants of the brave little Independent Group. Enough, even, of the wedge of Liberal Democrat MPs and their leader Jo Swinson’s importunate chink this week.

Think, instead, about the cattle. In the one great issue now facing the nation, the grasshoppers are marginal unless the cattle are with them. For a no-deal Brexit to be blocked by parliament, the cattle are Labour MPs. For all our chinking, the so-called “rebel alliance” sits on the shoulders of this confused, demoralised and lumbering giant, elevated only by Labour’s arithmetic.

Remember them, the principal opposition? A distant memory perhaps? But those 247-odd souls, nearly 40 per cent of the total of voting MPs whose party had the support of almost 13 million voters two years ago, constitute the great bulk of potential opposition to no-deal. All calculations must rest on their intentions. Unless the overwhelming majority of Labour MPs stay rock solid behind whatever parliamentary procedure is chosen to stop Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson crashing Britain out of the EU, all is lost. Their solidarity remains a likelihood but not a certainty — and I’m worried that Jeremy Corbyn has this week been trying to muddy the waters.

I cannot dispel a suspicion that in the coming struggle Mr Corbyn, or more importantly the tight-knit group who help steer his leadership, have cloudy intentions. On Brexit they have a history of triangulating and this week, by steering the question away from no-deal and towards who should be prime minister, they’re at it again. Here are two questions to which I fear we cannot be sure of the answer. Do the key little Corbyn gang really want a general election right away? And do they really want to stop Britain leaving the European Union?

On the first question — do they want an election before October 31? — there must be reason for doubt. This would favour Nigel Frottage’s Brexit Party at the expense of both Labour and the Tories, and it’s hard to imagine the result being a working Labour majority. Were I Mr Corbyn my preferred election date would be this winter, after Britain had crashed out of the EU: a time of great national anxiety. Particularly if Mr Johnson had cheated constitutional convention by denying parliament a vote he might well be deeply unpopular by then. And Mr Frottage’s Brexit fox would have been shot.

To my second inquiry — do the Corbyn gang want to impede Brexit? — I reply that if I believed what the most powerful of Mr Corbyn’s team, Seumas Milne, believes, I’d see the European Union as a capitalist club and an impediment to socialist goals. Nor should we forget Mr Corbyn’s spooky silence in the campaign for Remain before the 2016 referendum: it spoke louder than words.

Has this long-term opponent of British EU membership really changed his mind? Has he relegated Mr Milne? Imagine for a moment that as Labour leader, and for fierce ideological reasons, you wanted Britain out but were realistic enough to know that the short to middle-term consequences would prove unpopular with voters. What wish would you be asking your fairy godmother to grant? That a Tory did the irreversible deed, surely, leaving you to build socialism on the ruins of what the Tories leave behind. And Mr Johnson is about to oblige.

So I place the Corbyn gang where I think their interests should place them: keen for the hardest possible Brexit to happen, anxious that Mr Johnson does it for them, and tiptoeing sometimes awkwardly between wanting to appear opposed to Tory plans and secretly trying not to trip him. In which case what does such a Labour leader do? Call for a confidence vote and a general election. And hope thereby (and apparently accidentally) to queer the pitch of the rebel alliance’s bid to take control of government business. In short, triangulate away from Brexit.

This would solve for me the riddle of why Mr Corbyn launched his no-confidence project in a manner careless of support from other parties. There was no consultation beforehand. Had I, in his place, really wanted to topple Mr Johnson in time for a pre-October 31 general election, I’d have made private approaches to potential allies, sounding them out, discussing what conditions they’d want to place on my hoped-for “interim” premiership, and doing my best to turn it into a collegiate, cross-party idea. Instead, the Labour leader has fired off what was essentially an open letter, taking (for example) Ms Swinson so by surprise that she foolishly forgot to feign interest in the proposal and instead called it out for the nonsense that, in just a couple of weeks, it would be.

It’s very possible Mr Corbyn will postpone a confidence vote in early September. The office of “interim prime minister” is unknown to our constitution; who can say what policy issues or political emergencies might arise during Mr Corbyn’s hoped-for few weeks in Downing Street. Weeks could become months; could he be trusted to set aside his personal politics? Other parties will also be wary of any ambition in the Labour leader to detoxify his present, rebarbative image by appearing in the guise of a national unity figure, even if only for a while.

It may, nevertheless, come to a confidence vote, more likely in October; and that might be too late. It is vital that the parliamentary Labour Party sees the promise of a confidence vote — but not yet — as the trap it would be. It must not let Mr Corbyn’s whips fool it: the critical time will be the first weeks of September. These are when the Commons itself could take charge of our European fate.

This columnist’s suspicion is that the bandits in temporary control of the Labour Party want Mr Johnson to crash Britain out of the EU, then crash his own premiership into the buffers of a general election. Mr Johnson appears to want this too. Parliament should beware of getting crushed in an eccentric embrace between a crank and a rascal, both trying to procrastinate.

[close]

Redmark's right about there being limits. Against that, it does rather have everyone over a barrel. "So we put Corbyn in power, yes, we knew he was totally unfit, and guess what? He proved to be totally unfit so we had to 'no confidence' him too! Vote us!"

[Jiminy Cricket]

View from the Tory side. Parris in The Times (paywall).

Has this long-term opponent of British EU membership really changed his mind? Has he relegated Mr Milne? Imagine for a moment that as Labour leader, and for fierce ideological reasons, you wanted Britain out but were realistic enough to know that the short to middle-term consequences would prove unpopular with voters. What wish would you be asking your fairy godmother to grant? That a Tory did the irreversible deed, surely, leaving you to build socialism on the ruins of what the Tories leave behind. And Mr Johnson is about to oblige.

So. Matthew Paris has been reading my posts at RAWK again.

That's it, isn't it. Corbyn and his supporters imagine the rise - phoenix-like - of a great socialist republic from the ashes of Brexit. Being a Tory is bad enough, but fantasists (whatever their political leanings) are the real problem - you simply cannot reason with them.

Though, I am sure I am not the only one here to comment about Corbyn's true intentions all along. Corbyn is transparent. I do not understand why so many - even now - fail to see through him

[killer-heels]

Haven’t been following the news much recently but the chances of us having a Government of ‘National Unity’ is fucking impossible. Of course being the summer, such stories can have traction. Will be consigned to the bin from September.

[Trada]

And this is Yougov saying it. 

George Aylett
🌍
‏Verified account @GeorgeAylett


George Aylett

🌍 Retweeted YouGov

Labour voters want

84% - PM Corbyn with second EU referendum
10% - no deal and no Corbyn

Lib Dem voters want

69% - PM Corbyn with referendum
18% - no deal and no Corbyn

Remain voters want

64% - PM Corbyn with referendum
23% - no deal and no Corbyn

[ShakaHislop]

And this is Yougov saying it. 

George Aylett
🌍
‏Verified account @GeorgeAylett


George Aylett

🌍 Retweeted YouGov

Labour voters want

84% - PM Corbyn with second EU referendum
10% - no deal and no Corbyn

Lib Dem voters want

69% - PM Corbyn with referendum
18% - no deal and no Corbyn

Remain voters want

64% - PM Corbyn with referendum
23% - no deal and no Corbyn

Were Labour voters asked about "PM anyone other than Corbyn with referendum"?

[Zeb]

Here's what Aylett was trying to spin into a positive.

Almost half (48%) of Britons would prefer to see Britain leave the EU and Jeremy Corbyn not become Prime Minister. By contrast, only just over a third (35%) would rather the Labour leader move in to Number 10 and hold a second referendum. The remaining 17% are unsure either way.

Yougov

edit: if you want a comparison, same survey gives 49% saying 'no deal' would be a bad outcome and 38% saying it would be a good one. May give some idea of the scale of Labour's problems that 24% of Labour's 2017 vote would rather 'no deal' than Corbyn become PM and 14% aren't certain.

[TepidT2O]

And this is Yougov saying it. 

George Aylett
🌍
‏Verified account @GeorgeAylett


George Aylett

🌍 Retweeted YouGov

Labour voters want

84% - PM Corbyn with second EU referendum
10% - no deal and no Corbyn

Lib Dem voters want

69% - PM Corbyn with referendum
18% - no deal and no Corbyn

Remain voters want

64% - PM Corbyn with referendum
23% - no deal and no Corbyn

It’s not the public that need convincing ... it’s a handful of Tory MPs

[Lush is the best medicine...]

The number of labour voters is drastically declining tho

[Zeb]

Here's something more tangible, if also unlikely. Plaid Cymru are asking for the Welsh Assembly and Westminster Parliament to be recalled.

PC link

Not sure of procedure at the Assembly, but Westminster requires the Government to request it of the Speaker. If it's Labour's Mark Drakeford who can recall the Senedd then doing it could provide leverage for Westminster's summer break to be cut short (due to return 3rd/4th September). Still. Unlikely.

Luciana Berger and Labour's Stephen Doughty leading the c.115 signatures on a letter demanding a Westminster recall. All the opposition party leaders are also on it bar Corbyn.

Spoiler

[close]

Slim to no chance of Johnson wanting to chat about his plans and risk giving MPs more time to legislate?

[Ghost Town]

So. Matthew Paris has been reading my posts at RAWK again.Though, I am sure I am not the only one here to comment about Corbyn's true intentions all along. Corbyn is transparent. I do not understand why so many - even now - fail to see through him

I don't think anyone has failed to see what Corbyn is up to; it has been abundantly clear for years now. But politics goes on despite that. We tend to have a good idea as to what all the major players' intentions are but we still have to work as if they are all well-meaning public servants without shady agendas.

And regardless of intentions, the matter up for debate at the moment is what is likely to happen if No Deal cannot be prevented via legislation. Sadly, the likelihood is looking like MPs will not put country before party, and will see us crash out, rather than put their parties, pride and butt hurt aside

[Alan_X]

...Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson, who is due to give her own Brexit speech on Thursday, appeared to reject the gambit outright.

She said: "Jeremy Corbyn is not the person who is going to be able to build an even temporary majority in the House of Commons for this task – I would expect there are people in his own party and indeed the necessary Conservative backbenchers who would be unwilling to support him. It is a nonsense..."

That seems a fair assessment of the situation. The criticism of Swinson seem to be based on her cutting to the chase rather than fannying around wasting time on a pointless exercise that was doomed to failure.

The ‘Corbyn as leader of a GoNU’ game requires everyone to play along with the fiction that Corbyn is competent and could actually coordinate a cross party coalition and carry the electorate.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I don't think anyone has failed to see what Corbyn is up to; it has been abundantly clear for years now. But politics goes on despite that. We tend to have a good idea as to what all the major players' intentions are but we still have to work as if they are all well-meaning public servants without shady agendas.

And regardless of intentions, the matter up for debate at the moment is what is likely to happen if No Deal cannot be prevented via legislation. Sadly, the likelihood is looking like MPs will not put country before party, and will see us crash out, rather than put their parties, pride and butt hurt aside

In the main, I don't mean contributors to these threads at RAWK. I mean all those Corbyn supporters out there (including members of my family) who persist in thinking he's playing a blinder, is on their side, and is some kind of 3D chess master. And way many of the PLP for a verity of shitty reasons continue to support him too, all the way from stupidity right through to self-interested cynicism.

I now have little faith that the UK will somehow avoid crashing out of the EU. But as some others have commented, there are some upsides compared to the slower death from May's WA agreement: the problems will be stark, immediate, and without the filtering/clouding effects of being gradual.

[redmark]

That seems a fair assessment of the situation. The criticism of Swinson seem to be based on her cutting to the chase rather than fannying around wasting time on a pointless exercise that was doomed to failure.

Or her preference for a slightly pointless exercise doomed to failure on her terms.

There's been a lot of focus on whether 14 Lib Dems, 5 Change UK, 13 Independents and 8-10 Tories can back a Labour minority government (and in truth, that's what Corbyn was offering - not a GNU) or not. But any GNU led by Clarke or similar is going to need the vast majority of Labour's 247 MPs. A small group of Hoey etc will vote with the government. A Labour led administration would have been the best prospect of keeping Kinnock's group of 30+ onside, and there are plenty of sceptics on the front bench who will now be able to snipe at any other compromise suggestions.

We better hope parliament has some crafty legislative mechanisms in mind. And more importantly, can agree on which one to use.

[Ghost Town]

Could it be that Corbyn, Swinson et al's overwrought bellicosity about potential GoNU line-ups in public might actually be beneficial, if it lets the more thoughtful and technically-minded MPs get on with privately discussing legislatory strategy in the background, so they can knock out Johnson and co with an unexpected southpaw while his eye is on all the GoNU noise?

It's what I would be doing if I was Cooper, Letwin, Starmer, Benn etc. Let the blowhards argue away in public while we formulate a legislatory campaign - what legislation to attempt, in which order, what the fall-backs are etc

[redmark]

Could it be that Corbyn, Swinson et al's overwrought bellicosity about potential GoNU line-ups in public might actually be beneficial, if it lets the more thoughtful and technically-minded MPs get on with privately discussing legislatory strategy in the background, so they can knock out Johnson and co with an unexpected southpaw while his eye is on all the GoNU noise?

It's what I would be doing if I was Cooper, Letwin, Starmer, Benn etc. Let the blowhards argue away in public while we formulate a legislatory campaign - what legislation to attempt, in which order, what the fall-backs are etc

It's absolutely notable that most of those are keeping quiet in public and presumably maintaining the back channel discussions they've been having for months. I'm just not convinced a majority is going to coalesce around any strategy, though.

[filopastry]

Or her preference for a slightly pointless exercise doomed to failure on her terms.

There's been a lot of focus on whether 14 Lib Dems, 5 Change UK, 13 Independents and 8-10 Tories can back a Labour minority government (and in truth, that's what Corbyn was offering - not a GNU) or not. But any GNU led by Clarke or similar is going to need the vast majority of Labour's 247 MPs. A small group of Hoey etc will vote with the government. A Labour led administration would have been the best prospect of keeping Kinnock's group of 30+ onside, and there are plenty of sceptics on the front bench who will now be able to snipe at any other compromise suggestions.

We better hope parliament has some crafty legislative mechanisms in mind. And more importantly, can agree on which one to use.

Kinnock's group of 30 or so supposedly want Brexit with a Deal not a No Deal Brexit, given a GNU would only get an extension to avoid no deal as opposed to block Brexit, there is really nothing there to force them to vote against, unless they really are shallow enough to think about their own election prospects and are happy to go for an option they know will be disastrous just so they can't be portrayed as stopping Brexit.

A few on the more Brexity end of the spectrum in Labour would probably vote against or abstain though, but you are still looking at fewer losses than you gain in the centre ground, but it only works if the Labour leadership is willing to compromise on the PM choice, which I doubt, even if they do I suspect the numbers are very tight.

[redmark]

Kinnock's group of 30 or so supposedly want Brexit with a Deal not a No Deal Brexit, given a GNU would only get an extension to avoid no deal as opposed to block Brexit, there is really nothing there to force them to vote against, unless they really are shallow enough to think about their own election prospects and are happy to go for an option they know will be disastrous just so they can't be portrayed as stopping Brexit.

A few on the more Brexity end of the spectrum in Labour would probably vote against or abstain though, but you are still looking at fewer losses than you gain in the centre ground, but it only works if the Labour leadership is willing to compromise on the PM choice, which I doubt, even if they do I suspect the numbers are very tight.

A GNU will seek an extension pending either an election or a referendum. I think you're significantly underestimating the number of Labour MPs in leave constituencies who want neither of those things to happen any time soon. Rebelling against a GNU which has a large number of vocal people in it who certainly do want to stop 'any Brexit' would be much easier for them than rebelling against a Labour minority administration enacting party policy.

My point is simply that the focus on the relatively small numbers of centrist and Tory wets is in danger of ignoring, or taking for granted, rather larger numbers of Labour MPs who are not at all inclined to stop all forms of Brexit. In doing so, and what we're already seeing, is the opening up of the gaps and disagreements between the varied flavours of anti-No-Deal rather than against the No Deal government.

If we then stumble into No Deal because of a lack of cohesion from it's opponents, we can look forward to plenty of arguments about who is to blame, when the answer will be 'all of the above', to some degree or another.

[Zeb]

It's not just Labour MPs who won't back a specific outcome not their own from the off. The bulk of the Tory revolt will be from MPs who still want Brexit, just not 'no deal'. It's probably similar sized numbers in each party to be honest. 30 - 50 MPs a side (think it's currently 27 Tories who've outed themselves as being opposed to 'no deal' and won't get to stand next election unless/until they do - Tory pro-Johnson press hasn't stopped hammering on them since). Labour ones finding it much easier to justify votes as not supporting the government, of course.

In any case, there's more than one road to Johnson's desired story of "They stole our perfect Brexit".

-----

edit: should really be common sense, but New Statesman's Stephen Bush spelling it out in a column for the Sunday Times (paywall).

Spoiler

Party leaders write letters to one another for two reasons: to communicate or to wound. The quickest way to tell the difference between the former and the latter is the amount of time between the dispatch arriving in the inbox of its nominal recipient and it being released to journalists.

In the case of Jeremy Corbyn’s offer to the various political parties fighting to prevent a no-deal Brexit, the letter calling on them to support a caretaker administration led by him, with the sole purpose of extending article 50 and calling an election, reached journalists only a little more than five minutes after arriving in the inboxes of his fellow party leaders.

As a piece of political theatre, it was well judged — it dominated the coverage of Jo Swinson’s big speech on the threat of no-deal and how to prevent it. The Liberal Democrats naturally suspect this was deliberate, given the letter arrived not long after notice of their leader’s speech was sent to the press.

Labour is unsurprisingly satisfied by the effectiveness of the operation. The party’s MPs, including some of Corbyn’s most vocal critics, took to Twitter to urge the Lib Dem leader to support Corbyn’s attempt to form a government, and attacks on Swinson were Twitter’s No 1 trending topic. The Labour leadership has put a great deal of faith — and, more importantly, finance and staff time — into the idea that its ability to communicate on social media can outweigh the opposition of the traditional press, and that the engines of Corbynite outrage can still fire into full and effective life.

It has also turned the subject of a unity government from a silly summer story that casts Corbyn as the villain in the eyes of remain voters who are already dubious about him into a silly summer story in which Swinson is the one with explaining to do — or, at least, that’s Labour’s hope.

The question of a Labour-led caretaker government is painful for the Lib Dems for several reasons. The first is that, while Swinson’s party has a different position on Brexit from Corbyn’s, they have the same position on no-deal: they’re against it. The issue robs the Lib Dems of their distinctiveness and relegates them to a supporting role in the Labour leader’s orchestra.

The second is that there is no easy way to answer Corbyn’s letter. The Lib Dems’ path to victory runs through Tory voters who dislike Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Labour voters turned off by Corbyn and committed opponents of Brexit. To retain the first two groups, they cannot, in any circumstances, allow a link to be drawn between a Lib Dem vote and a Corbyn government; to hold on to the third, they have to sound open to any measure that would stop a no-deal Brexit.

Swinson confined her reaction to noting that Corbyn’s caretaker plan was doomed from the start. That line has the advantage of being the unimpeachable truth: 11 MPs left the Labour Party to sit as independents because they believe a Corbyn-led government would be a calamity, particularly as far as national security and foreign policy are concerned. There is little hope of that group voting to make the Labour leader prime minister, which means that it would require at least 14 Conservative MPs to vote for Corbyn to deliver a caretaker government.

There is scarcely a prospect of four, let alone 14. While Conservative objections to Corbyn extend well beyond foreign and security policy, it is those concerns that would stop them ever letting him into Downing Street, even on a temporary basis. Several of the most committed opponents of a no-deal Brexit have sat on the national security council, which is chaired by the prime minister of the day, and one of their number claims they feel “sick” over the prospect of letting Corbyn in. They haven’t forgotten that a brutal terrorist attack occurred during the last election campaign and wouldn’t forgive themselves if they put Corbyn’s hands on the wheel during the next.

Those Tory objections give Swinson a way out. Privately, she regards the Labour leader’s ascendancy as part of the dangerous populism that led to Brexit, the rise of Johnson and the success of the SNP — her main rivals in her home-town constituency of East Dunbartonshire. And she believes he is a Brexiteer to boot. She struggles to answer the question of which is worse, a no-deal Brexit or a Corbyn government, but as there is no realistic prospect of a caretaker government under him this side of an election, the problem is academic.

Corbyn’s own political objectives make it impossible for him to give way, either. The Labour leader still sees his path to No 10 as running through leave-voting towns — his latest policy, unveiled this weekend, to revive flagging high streets, is part of that project. He knows there could be few worse ways to kick off his next general election campaign than to collude in making a Conservative or a Corbyn-sceptic Labour MP prime minister to prevent a no-deal Brexit. He would, at a stroke, elevate the objections that his opponents have to a Corbyn government and undermine his hopes of winning over leave voters.

The Lib Dem leadership regards the conversation about a unity government as a distraction from the central question of how a no-deal Brexit will be stopped. More important than cobbling together a majority for an interim prime minister — something that is unlikely to happen — is finding a way for MPs to legislate to force an extension on the executive.

Cabinet ministers, watching the row with a mixture of glee and contempt, see the opposition’s internal squabbles as a sign that there will never be a majority to take the necessary action to prevent a no-deal Brexit. Their confidence may be misplaced: although relations between Labour and the Lib Dems have never been worse, the two parties retain a degree of communication and, behind closed doors, are still working on serious plans to stop no-deal. They are, just about, on speaking terms.

But the jockeying for advantage between Labour and the Lib Dems reveals another truth about the battle to stop no-deal. It isn’t enough to prevent it on October 31. The opponents of no-deal have to do it in a way that stops a no-deal Brexit in this parliament and puts them in a position to win or retain enough seats to keep Johnson from pursuing it in the next.

And that’s the most important Brexit dynamic of all. Opponents of no-deal have to stop every attempt to take the UK out of the EU without a deal. The government only has to succeed once.

[close]

[Trada]

 Brexit Secretary signs order to scrap 1972 Brussels Act - ending all EU law in the UK

The Government has signed into law legislation to repeal the Act of Parliament which set in stone Britain’s EU (EEC) membership in 1972.
Published 18 August 2019

From:
    Department for Exiting the European Union



The 1972 Act is the vehicle that sees regulations flow into UK law directly from the EU’s lawmaking bodies in Brussels.

The announcement of the Act’s repeal marks a historic step in returning lawmaking powers from Brussels to the UK. We are taking back control of our laws, as the public voted for in 2016.

The repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 will take effect when Britain formally leaves the EU on October 31.

Speaking after signing the legislation that will crystallise in law the upcoming repeal of the ECA, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU Steve Barclay said:

    This is a clear signal to the people of this country that there is no turning back - we are leaving the EU as promised on October 31, whatever the circumstances - delivering on the instructions given to us in 2016.

    The votes of 17.4 million people deciding to leave the EU is the greatest democratic mandate ever given to any UK Government. Politicians cannot choose which public votes they wish to respect. Parliament has already voted to leave on 31 October. The signing of this legislation ensures that the EU Withdrawal Act will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on exit day.

    The ECA saw countless EU regulations flowing directly into UK law for decades, and any government serious about leaving on October 31 should show their commitment to repealing it.

    That is what we are doing by setting in motion that repeal. This is a landmark moment in taking back control of our laws from Brussels.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brexit-secretary-signs-order-to-scrap-1972-brussels-act-ending-all-eu-law-in-the-uk

[TepidT2O]

It means nothing in reality.

It the withdrawal date is changed or doesn’t happen then it’s a defunct act..

[The Gulleysucker]

Would a Labour Government not have done the same if enacting its form of Brexit?

[TSC]

Brexit Secretary signs order to scrap 1972 Brussels Act - ending all EU law in the UK

The Government has signed into law legislation to repeal the Act of Parliament which set in stone Britain’s EU (EEC) membership in 1972.
Published 18 August 2019

From:
    Department for Exiting the European Union



The 1972 Act is the vehicle that sees regulations flow into UK law directly from the EU’s lawmaking bodies in Brussels.

The announcement of the Act’s repeal marks a historic step in returning lawmaking powers from Brussels to the UK. We are taking back control of our laws, as the public voted for in 2016.

The repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 will take effect when Britain formally leaves the EU on October 31.

Speaking after signing the legislation that will crystallise in law the upcoming repeal of the ECA, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU Steve Barclay said:

    This is a clear signal to the people of this country that there is no turning back - we are leaving the EU as promised on October 31, whatever the circumstances - delivering on the instructions given to us in 2016.

    The votes of 17.4 million people deciding to leave the EU is the greatest democratic mandate ever given to any UK Government. Politicians cannot choose which public votes they wish to respect. Parliament has already voted to leave on 31 October. The signing of this legislation ensures that the EU Withdrawal Act will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on exit day.

    The ECA saw countless EU regulations flowing directly into UK law for decades, and any government serious about leaving on October 31 should show their commitment to repealing it.

    That is what we are doing by setting in motion that repeal. This is a landmark moment in taking back control of our laws from Brussels.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brexit-secretary-signs-order-to-scrap-1972-brussels-act-ending-all-eu-law-in-the-uk

This relates to what many suspect is the underlying motive for the entire Brexit process, namely to avoid being beholden to the EU Anti Tax Avoidance and Money Laundering regs.

https://www.taxjustice.net/2019/01/23/brexit-and-the-future-of-tax-havens/

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/is-the-anti-tax-avoidance-directive-the-reason-the-rich-want-out-of-eu-1-5669763

[Circa1892]

This whole Barclay signing that Act is red meat to the thicker of the avid Brexit lot and nothing more.

Someone nobody has heard of in a Cabinet role that won’t exist in a few months signing an act that could easily be made obsolete...

[ShakaHislop]

Great look for the Labour party when journalists asking legitimate questions about a caretaker govt, how long Corbyn wants to remain in power, and issues on parliamentary arithmetic, are barely heard over heckles from Corbynistas like it's a football match, not a political event.

https://twitter.com/juliamacfarlane/status/1163401281597313024

[classycarra]

https://twitter.com/juliamacfarlane/status/1163401281597313024

Can't hide in the lift forever, got to have a backup plan

[Jiminy Cricket]

https://twitter.com/juliamacfarlane/status/1163401281597313024

Is there footage?

[ShakaHislop]

Is there footage?

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsPolitics/status/1163409051750981639

.@andybell5news asks whether Jeremy Corbyn would be willing to step aside and let someone else lead a govt of national unity.

Labour members at the speech try to drown him out, one shouting "what a disgrace!" Others heckling.

Incredible hostility towards journalists.

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1163400481936478208

Such behaviour would be appalling at any time but the timing is especially awful during a speech in which Corbyn called Johnson "Britain's Trump" Still the GOP Labour "moderates" are happy to put him into power.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsPolitics/status/1163409051750981639

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1163400481936478208

Such behaviour would be appalling at any time but the timing is especially awful during a speech in which Corbyn called Johnson "Britain's Trump" Still the GOP Labour "moderates" are happy to put him into power.

He asked the question twice you fucking blagger.

Hate the way the bastard just kept quiet so his sycophants would step in,hate him,fucking hate him.

[Zeb]

Don't know who this is. Don't know which part of the Labour party they're from. But if it's ever revealed who's said it, make sure they're responsible for nothing more important than the choice of biscuits at meetings.

Labour MPs are drawing up a plan to reverse Brexit AFTER we have left the EU – if Jeremy Corbyn fails in his bid to lead a national unity government.

A unity coalition of anti-Brexit politicians would need to be formed by early September to have any hope of stopping PM Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson crashing the UK out of the EU without a deal on October 31.

But a senior Labour MP said: “ Brexit has torn up the constitutional rulebook.

So just because something is done it doesn’t mean it can’t be undone.

“So once Article 50 is ­triggered we can pass ­legislation to untrigger it.”

Mirror

In the words of Anand Menon, "WTAF".

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Wouldn’t trust them with the biscuits, they’ll mess up the celiacs in the room

[ShakaHislop]

Journalists booed and heckled as they question Corbyn on Brexit. Not good. Audience reminded to ‘be polite’.

https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1163400484897644546

Sad to see journalists being heckled at @jeremycorbyn event.

Journalists have to be able to ask uncomfortable questions!!!

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1163400770672373760

[Mark Walters]

Don't know who this is. Don't know which part of the Labour party they're from. But if it's ever revealed who's said it, make sure they're responsible for nothing more important than the choice of biscuits at meetings.

Mirror

In the words of Anand Menon, "WTAF".

Makes perfect sense to try to reverse Brexit after leaving the EU if it can't be done before.

[Ghost Town]

Not the first time politicians have shown themselves to be ignorant of the process and terminology of Brexit. Among the many, many reasons why revoking A50 would be the most sensible action going forward is this lack of understanding. You wouldn't let scientists of engineers or doctors meddle with nature or build structures and systems or carry out procedures when they didn't understand what they were doing. It's irresponsible to go ahead with something that is so poorly understood.

Maybe after revoking all politicians could attend a mandatory course to teach them what leaving the EU entails, and how all the steps work, and what effects they have. Maybe some wouldn't so keen to do it then.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Makes perfect sense to try to reverse Brexit after leaving the EU if it can't be done before.

“So once Article 50 is ­triggered we can pass ­legislation to untrigger it.”

[Trada]

https://twitter.com/C4Ciaran/status/1163400484897644546

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1163400770672373760

You have to laugh at the media pretending to act all shocked at the reaction, when they have been trying to bring down Jeremy none stop for 4 years asks Jeremy a question in a room full of Labour activists who have voted for him twice to be Labour leader ask the same question about 3 times, if he should stand down because the Tories and the Dems don't like him.

[redmark]

Still the GOP Labour "moderates" are happy to put him into power.

No, they/we are not.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

You have to laugh at the media pretending to act all shocked at the reaction, when they have been trying to bring down Jeremy none stop for 4 years asks Jeremy a question in a room full of Labour activists who have voted for him twice to be Labour leader ask the same question about 3 times, if he should stand down because the Tories and the Dems don't like him.

I don't find any of this funny.I used to laugh at people in your little gang but now you all just make my piss boil.


Do you have kids Dave ?

[ShakaHislop]

No, they/we are not.

Well they are via the GoNU route, and they won't move to replace him as leader before a GE that is called without there being a GoNU, in which case they would be campaigning for him to become PM.

[ShakaHislop]

You have to laugh at the media pretending to act all shocked at the reaction, when they have been trying to bring down Jeremy none stop for 4 years asks Jeremy a question in a room full of Labour activists who have voted for him twice to be Labour leader ask the same question about 3 times, if he should stand down because the Tories and the Dems don't like him.

Journalists asking questions. What is the world coming to? I blame Nick Clegg.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Journalists asking questions. What is the world coming to? I blame Nick Clegg  the Tory Blairites.

Have you not been paying attention ?