Labour: The Party Of Remain?

[mushroom25]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45316697

what's the chances of:-
a) this being debated at conference?
b) being passed into a change of labour party policy?

[dannyk13]

a) A good chance
b) Iffy

[Zacs-Master]

They’ll have to debate it, which should be very interesting.

[mushroom25]

//They'll have to debate it//

according to the BBC report, whether it gets debated is not as positive as your "have" -

""This is not guaranteed as the conference as a whole would need to decide that this would be a priority for debate.""

maybe they'll have to debate about debate - hence my question (a)....

[Zacs-Master]

Ok, let me phrase it this way......
They’ll have to debate it if they don’t want their credibility to be even further eroded.
I can put myself in the shoes of a labour supporter (I’ll need a shower afterwards, of course) and see that, if such a major current issue isn’t debated at the party’s main event, I’d be pretty disappointed!

[mushroom25]

errrr - what credibility might that be, that's left to be eroded?

[Zacs-Master]

Errrr.....from its party members and MPs. If you’re claiming that there isn’t a shred of belief in the party from its members and MPs they might as well not have a conference and shut up shop.
Your OP asks whether the Labour Party are the party of remain. Isn’t the conference the ideal opportunity to decide this?

[Old_Geezer]

Since the subject splits all parties it can only be a cynical ploy to declare a party for or against. But if one wishes to side with the minority vote, knowing that many who voted to stay will realise it's too late to scramble back now, and so just want to get on with it, then let that party commit political suicide at the voting station, desperately hoping the majority of voters split between their opponents' parties to let them in.

[sandyRoe]

The major parties are deeply divided on this issue. Let the people speak by having a referendum

[mushroom25]

//The major parties are deeply divided on this issue. Let the people speak by having a referendum //

and thereby hangs the problem. in order to facilitate a further referendum, an act of parliament will be required. with all the parties divided, the chances of such an act making it to the statute book are pretty remote.

[dannyk13]

Followed by another referendum demanded by the losers of that referendum followed by----

[Old_Geezer]

The people have already spoken by having a referendum. Pointless asking again. Politicians need to get on with it.

[New Judge]

“…they might as well not have a conference and shut up shop.”

We can but hope.

I think all parties (and individuals) would do well to recall that the decision to leave has already been taken. If the legitimacy of the referendum is questionable then MPs should remind themselves that they endorsed the plebiscite by a majority of five to one. Nothing has changed since June 2016 to suggest that decision should be reversed (other than the vast majority of the prophesies promoted by “Project Fear” have singularly failed to materialise). It doesn’t matter whether “people have changed their minds”. They made a decision, Parliament endorsed it and until that decision has been implemented and the results monitored, talk of “the Party of Remain” is pointless. The UK is a big enough laughing stock on the world stage as it is. To reverse the Brexit decision now would erode our credibility to virtually zero.

[-Talbot-]

sandyRoe
The major parties are deeply divided on this issue. Let the people speak by having a referendum



How long did you spend in the Spanish mountains, Sandy?
We have had a referendum already.

[ichkeria]

If it looks like there is growing support for a referendum and what’s more if parliament cannot decide: for example if there’s no deal and parliament refuses to sanction that course of ‘action’ then a referendum there may well be.
A recent poll showed 100 labour constituencies that voted leave before having now swung the other way

[mushroom25]

//if there’s no deal and parliament refuses to sanction that course of ‘action’ then a referendum there may well be. //

how could there be another referendum without a further act of parliament? if parliament cannot agree there's not much chance of it happening.

[Kromovaracun]

//Nothing has changed since June 2016 to suggest that decision should be reversed //

But we do now know that winning side did win by breaking electoral spending law and using highly dubious data mining. The people who led the campaign are on record saying their victory would not have been possible without. That information surely does put something of a question mark over the legitimacy of 2016.

It's worth remembering that Leave won with a paper-thin majority of 4%.

[dannyk13]

Kromo,A 4% majority is still a majority.

[Markloveslisa]

The people have spoken already.. We are already leaving. What me need is another referendum to decide what kind of brexit we have after we have cut ties from the EU. As a sovereign independent nation with Wesminster making rules and laws. We go to Barnier and say this is the deal take it or leave it. Then we go for another referendum about the type of UK we want to flourish outside of the EU. The trouble we have is finding a united party who will deliver it.

[Zacs-Master]

Danny, I think the point kromo is making is that it was a fragile ‘win’ and there has been a lot of realisation as to the nature of Brexit. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to speculate (as many have) that that fragile win would be a lose now.

[dannyk13]

So what is the answer? Do we want a scenario as outlined in my post at 11.46?