Sunday, July 10, 2016


It's official ... Angela Eagle, shadow business secretary up until when she resigned from the shadow cabinet last week, has confirmed that she will challenge Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour Party leadership.

She said that Corbyn 'had failed to lead an organised and effective Party'.   Eagle was a Minister under Gordon Brown and a contender for the Labour Party Deputy Leadership last year.  She represented the Remain side in some of the EU TV debates and had deputised for Corbyn at Prime Minister's Questions in the House.

It is reported that upwards of 100,000 people have joined the Labour Party in the last few weeks building on the 400,000 that gave Corbyn his decisive win last last year.   One suspects they come from that same ideological base.

If that's right then Corbyn will win at a canter.   Whatever the outcome I think it likely that the Labour Party will split into moderate and left factions.   Not overly good for democracy because the checks and balances provided by an effective opposition is an important component of the democratic process.

Having said that I'm with Corbyn 100%.   Gods gift to the Conservatives.   The Liberal-Democrats too will be grateful for the life-line about to be thrown them by a demoralised and dysfunctional Labour Party.


Paulus said...

I believe she is a member of the Labour Rainbow wing - so she will do well !

Anonymous said...

You are a brave man Veteran. Trying to work out a result in this mares nest is next to impossible. Triggering article 50 before any negotiations take place is like the old NZ program Money or the Bag except all the bags contain dog turds. If there are any tariffs placed on car imports then Honda, Toyota and Nissan will move to Spain or France, that's a given, also a given is that the London Banks will lose their "Euro Passport" and pre-eminence as the financial hub of Europe (one third of all UK taxes emanate from London) This will result in a Labour landslide in any election as there are so many Tories who are so disgusted with the party that they will withhold their vote.

If is not triggered the Tories will sweep back in with room to spare. Trouble is every one now knows this and the problem is how do the Tories extricate themselves from this mess without losing face? The answer is a parliamentary vote in which the referendum will be canned with the Tories crying crocodile tears. Who the hell would want to be the next Tory Prime Minister? Who ever triggers article 50 will in years to come will be mentioned in the same tone of voice and slight curl of the lip as Beeching is today. For those who not know google him.

Lord Egbut

Fairfacts Media said...

Come on Lord, can anyone defy the will of over 17 million, more than any other vote in any other election.
An overwhelming majority of Tories voted Brexit too.
There is a huge establishment of Remainiacs causing all kinds of mayhem.
But it's not help when politics is in such a mess with no leadership from anyone.
We must not forget that UKIP also stands to gain, especially if it is again the only party with a pro-brexit leader.
Theresa May cannot be trusted to deliver, especially as her supporters are already calling for a second referendum.

The Veteran said...

Egbut/Fairfacts ... there will be no second referendum. See this statement from the Government ....

“The EU Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015. The Act was scrutinised and debated in Parliament during its passage and agreed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Act set out the terms under which the referendum would take place, including provisions for setting the date, franchise and the question that would appear on the ballot paper. The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.

“As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 June, the referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history with over 33 million people having their say.

“The Prime Minister and Government have been clear that this was a once-in-a-generation vote and, as the Prime Minister has said, the decision must be respected. We must now prepare for the process to exit the EU and the Government is committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations.”

Brexit presents challenges, do doubt about that, Egbut has already alluded to some of them. But it also presents opportunities.

If Corbyn had backed Remain with even half the enthusiasm he is now showing for clinging onto his job then the result might have been different. If the EU had stuck to the British tradition of proscribing what you couldn't do in developing rules and regulations as opposed to the European penchant for proscribing what you could do (and there's a real difference between the two) then voters may have reacted differently.

However, what's done is done and any attempt to shut the stable gate after the horse has bolted is just that ... wishful thinking.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

A couple of days ago I read on the BBC website that Parliament had debated and rejected the petition calling for a second referendum.

Let them get on with it.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

No, I was mistaken. Parliament has not debated the matter. The petition has been rejected without debate.

Anonymous said...

Agreed Veteran, however it is not up to the Government, it is up to the high court to decide whether triggering article 50 without a parliamentary vote is legal.

Let us wait......

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...

Can 1053 lawyers be wrong??????


9 July 2016

Dear Prime Minister and Members of Parliament

Re: Brexit

We are all individual members of the Bars of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We are writing to propose a way forward which reconciles the legal, constitutional and political issues which arise following the Brexit referendum.

The result of the referendum must be acknowledged. Our legal opinion is that the referendum is advisory.

The European Referendum Act does not make it legally binding. We believe that in order to trigger Article 50, there must first be primary legislation. It is of the utmost importance that the legislative process is informed by an objective understanding as to the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50.

The reasons for this include the following: There is evidence that the referendum result was influenced by misrepresentations of fact and promises that could not be delivered.

Since the result was only narrowly in favour of Brexit, it cannot be discounted that the misrepresentations and promises were a decisive or contributory factor in the result.

The parliamentary vote must not be similarly affected. The referendum did not set a threshold necessary to leave the EU, commonly adopted in polls of national importance, e.g. 60% of those voting or 40% of the electorate.

This is presumably because the result was only advisory. The outcome of the exit process will affect a generation of people who were not old enough to vote in the referendum.

The positions of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar require special consideration, since their populations did not vote to leave the EU.

The referendum did not concern the negotiating position of the UK following the triggering of Article 50, nor the possibility that no agreement could be reached within the stipulated two year period for negotiation, nor the emerging reality that the Article 50 negotiations will concern only the manner of exit from the EU and not future economic relationships.

All of these matters need to be fully explored and understood prior to the Parliamentary vote. The Parliamentary vote should take place with a greater understanding as to the economic consequences of Brexit, as businesses and investors in the UK start to react to the outcome of the referendum.

For all of these reasons, it is proposed that the Government establishes, as a matter of urgency, a Royal Commission or an equivalent independent body to receive evidence and report, within a short, fixed timescale, on the benefits, costs and risks of triggering Article 50 to the UK as a whole, and to all of its constituent populations.

The Parliamentary vote should not take place until the Commission has reported. In view of the extremely serious constitutional, economic and legal importance of the vote either way, we believe that there should be a free vote in Parliament.

Yours sincerely


And 1053 others except Lord I said we wait.