The evidence is mounting in support of Corbyn’s #Article50/#3LineWhip

I have yet to look at today’s papers, so I don’t know what they’re saying about Labour’s strategy today. It’s unlikely to be clearer than this, though.

If you still don’t approve of Mr Corbyn’s plan after reading this, I’ll be interested to know why, and if you really understand what’s happening here.

If the Tories vote Labour’s amendments down, the things that protect the NHS and workers rights etc, it’s easier to explain to working class leavers (who I believe have been duped by Boris, Gove and Farage) what leaving the EU under the tories actually means.

At the final stage, it will be in black and white what a Tory brexit means. If it’s turns out to be the incredibly ropy deal I think it will be, you can vote against it at the final stage, with JUSTIFICATION to leavers, that the Tory’s are using Brexit to hurt their rights and their NHS.

So it makes you wonder about the motives of those in the shadow cabinet (who you have to assume DO understand parliamentary process) who are resigning over this.

Source: If #Article50/#3LineWhip have you stumped, these 2 perspectives may help | The SKWAWKBOX

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

18 thoughts on “The evidence is mounting in support of Corbyn’s #Article50/#3LineWhip

  1. Mike Sivier Post author

    Not in the Skwawkbox article, but part of Tommy Cockerham’s post to Facebook, is this: “What many people don’t realise, is that voting against a bill at the early stages, means that you rule yourself out of the process of tabling amendments, allowing the Tories to dicate all the terms of the deal.”

    Now, why would the Labour MPs who want to vote against this Bill at second reading be trying to rule themselves out of tabling amendments, and trying to let the Tories do just exactly whatever they like?

    1. Lord Sin

      Sorry, that’s not true. That would mean only parties that supported something would be allowed to amend it, which wouldn’t make any sense. Tommy has now put up a corrected version of that original post.

    2. Hannah

      I’ve tagged you in a discussion on the FB page I manage for my labour CLP, where someone says that isn’t the case. I don’t understand it well enough to know who is right so I thought you might like to discuss it directly. I’d love to have some clarity over which of you is correct.
      I suspect, as with so many things in politics, it probably isn’t as simple as either answer is always correct!

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        I think Mr Cockerham has since corrected his post to say that it isn’t the case.
        I’ve mentioned it elsewhere, I think.
        He confused the issue, which is annoying.
        In the light of the information we have now, I think the Bill will pass at second reading, no matter how many Labour MPs rebel against the whip. Whether Mr Corbyn takes action against the rebels will probably depend on their number, and the seniority of those doing the rebelling; my instinct suggests he won’t be too harsh on them.
        Labour will still submit amendments and every member will be able to vote on them. I think if Labour MPs fail to support the party’s amendments, this would be far more serious to Mr Corbyn.
        I’ll check your link and post this on your FB page as well.

  2. Peter Hepworth

    A problem was that backing A50 was presented as feebly rubber stamping May’s skeleton bill, but you are, I think/hope, right in your analysis. I don’t believe much will be made of the ‘disloyalty’ – heartfelt support for Remain, particularly with strong constituency backing, is not the same as opposing Corbyn for not being New Labour.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I tend to agree. I don’t think anybody is going to be penalised if they do vote against the Bill at second reading.

  3. Peter Hepworth

    …and of course there was a lurking fear that perhaps, as alleged after the referendum, the leadership’s heart wasn’t in the Remain campaign, and a Bennite anti-EU line might lie behind the apparent acquiescence.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      The evidence suggests this is a false claim. He got more members and supporters of his party – the largest in Europe – to vote Remain than anybody else (in numerical terms).

      1. Hannah

        Plus which – given his behaviour over the years of supporting what he believes in, and not changing his opinion for political expediency, it seems unlikely – even more so when no-one seems to be able to answer the question of why would he do that?

        I cannot come up with any explanation at all – what would he have to gain by saying he thought staying was a better idea if he really thought we should leave?

  4. Fibro confused

    One wonders if some actually understand the process themselves the rest, well we know why they will vote against their leader, me thinks it could slap them in the face, and course us a lot of unnecessary grief. I don’t think it could be explained any simpler than your post Mike

  5. Gen William Taggart

    Although I support JC in everything else so far, I don’t support him on the 3 line whip issue, I still think it is a contradiction to what he represents.

    He should have voiced his opinion then let it be a free vote.

    As the risk on this is just too high and he is effectively alienating the core of the party that voted him in.

    It really is a make or break for JC and the Labour Party, but this may well be like that one rogue firework that shoots up and fizzled out before it has a chance to reach its full potential.

    The reality is that is does not matter what amendments there are, we can’t call the line on brexit, its stay in or get out. There is no middle ground as far as the E.U is concerned.

    Its all well and good calling for these protections, but without the E.U to support them, the amendments are not even worth the paper they are written on.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      He isn’t alienating anybody who understands how the legislative system works and why he is doing what he is doing.
      Why are you keen to see Labour MPs ruling themselves out of being able to table amendments to this Tory Brexit?
      Nobody is discussing whether we stay or go. That issue has been decided. It’s the manner of our departure that is at issue now.
      It seems you have not understood this matter at all.

      1. Matthew Milnes

        The SNP have tabled amendments, despite saying they’re voting against Article 50, haven’t they?

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        At which stage do they intend to vote against it?
        To be honest, I do have a doubt about whether Mr Cockerham is correct. If anybody has solid information one way or the other, please let us all know.

    2. shaun-128

      I spoke to Thangam Debbonaire this afternoon. She said, and she repeated it several times, that voting against triggering Article 50 does not stop her voting for amendments to its implementation.

  6. Roy Beiley

    This is what real politics is about. Let’s hope that good sense prevails and that the Brexit end-game results in the deluded “Queen” , our unelected PM, being checkmated.

Comments are closed.