Looks like everything is going to depend on the run up to the Labour Conference. With Remain/Revoke being pushed as one of the big things to be debated at the party level more explicitly than last time, but each council seems to have a FPTP system for nominating a topic to be considered - so R/R on Brexit is being pitted against Momentum's Green New Deal.
They put debating a climate change plan on the same FPTP ballot as averting Brexit? Is there no way they could have split those so debating both was possible?
Looks like everything is going to depend on the run up to the Labour Conference. With Remain/Revoke being pushed as one of the big things to be debated at the party level more explicitly than last time, but each council seems to have a FPTP system for nominating a topic to be considered - so R/R on Brexit is being pitted against Momentum's Green New Deal.
They put debating a climate change plan on the same FPTP ballot as averting Brexit? Is there no way they could have split those so debating both was possible?
The whole point is to try and block debate of Brexit at the conference.
Mij_Europe is Mujtaba Rahman, of Eurasia Group, which is a consultancy for corporations trying to understand political risk (also associated with NYU and LSE). Peter Foster is political editor of the Telegraph.
Unrelatedly, Faisal Islam at the BBC is starting to annoy me by referring to everything as "game theory", when I do not think he knows what that means
The UK food industry has asked the government to waive aspects of competition law to allow firms to co-ordinate and direct supplies with each other after a no-deal Brexit.
Existing rules prohibit suppliers and retailers discussing supply or pricing.
The FDF, which represents a wide range of food companies and trade associations, said: "We asked for these reassurances at the end of last year. But we're still waiting."
The boss of one leading retailer told the BBC: "At the extreme, people like me and people from government will have to decide where lorries go to keep food supply chain going. And in that scenario we'd have to work with competitors, and the government would have to suspend competition laws".
Mij_Europe is Mujtaba Rahman, of Eurasia Group, which is a consultancy for corporations trying to understand political risk (also associated with NYU and LSE). Peter Foster is political editor of the Telegraph.
Unrelatedly, Faisal Islam at the BBC is starting to annoy me by referring to everything as "game theory", when I do not think he knows what that means
So the most likely option here basically involves the Queen stepping in to politics and performing a highly controversial action that would probably lose her the throne?
I know this thread has its hopes up but it's not going to happen. We're going to have no deal this time. Corbyn and the Tory rebels have fucked around and dithered and now it's too late to stop it. The time between now and October will be filled with the Tories running operation "blame EU for everything" which is already in full swing and Labour flapping about exploring means of closing the stable door now that the horse has well and truly bolted. Whatever they discuss in the conference is a meaningless distraction to provide the illusion of action now that there's no risk anything they do could threaten precious brexit.
+4
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
I got a letter yesterday in an envelope stamped with House of Commons, which was exciting. But it turned out to be from my MP, introducing himself and being all chummy because I've just registered to vote in his area. I kind of feel like writing back to him to say that he stands directly against everything I'm for but that's probably a waste of paper.
Mij_Europe is Mujtaba Rahman, of Eurasia Group, which is a consultancy for corporations trying to understand political risk (also associated with NYU and LSE). Peter Foster is political editor of the Telegraph.
Unrelatedly, Faisal Islam at the BBC is starting to annoy me by referring to everything as "game theory", when I do not think he knows what that means
So the most likely option here basically involves the Queen stepping in to politics and performing a highly controversial action that would probably lose her the throne?
I know this thread has its hopes up but it's not going to happen. We're going to have no deal this time. Corbyn and the Tory rebels have fucked around and dithered and now it's too late to stop it. The time between now and October will be filled with the Tories running operation "blame EU for everything" which is already in full swing and Labour flapping about exploring means of closing the stable door now that the horse has well and truly bolted. Whatever they discuss in the conference is a meaningless distraction to provide the illusion of action now that there's no risk anything they do could threaten precious brexit.
The reason for the "might require", as I understand it, is that it gets into issues of the basis on which the Queen can invite an individual to attempt to form a government
It doesn't seem obvious to me that it's constitutionally problematic for her to extend that invitation to an individual with clear majority support following a vonc, but at that point we're into the woods of which conventions have the force of law and which don't, which is something I don't think can/will be determined until it's attempted
+2
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Look, no-one promised adequately priced food. Be reasonable.
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
+8
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I don't know what would be worse, that they're doing this because they see the opportunity to price gouge, or that they're legitimately worried that they need this exemption in order to hit the adequate food baseline.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Mij_Europe is Mujtaba Rahman, of Eurasia Group, which is a consultancy for corporations trying to understand political risk (also associated with NYU and LSE). Peter Foster is political editor of the Telegraph.
Unrelatedly, Faisal Islam at the BBC is starting to annoy me by referring to everything as "game theory", when I do not think he knows what that means
So the most likely option here basically involves the Queen stepping in to politics and performing a highly controversial action that would probably lose her the throne?
I know this thread has its hopes up but it's not going to happen. We're going to have no deal this time. Corbyn and the Tory rebels have fucked around and dithered and now it's too late to stop it. The time between now and October will be filled with the Tories running operation "blame EU for everything" which is already in full swing and Labour flapping about exploring means of closing the stable door now that the horse has well and truly bolted. Whatever they discuss in the conference is a meaningless distraction to provide the illusion of action now that there's no risk anything they do could threaten precious brexit.
The reason for the "might require", as I understand it, is that it gets into issues of the basis on which the Queen can invite an individual to attempt to form a government
It doesn't seem obvious to me that it's constitutionally problematic for her to extend that invitation to an individual with clear majority support following a vonc, but at that point we're into the woods of which conventions have the force of law and which don't, which is something I don't think can/will be determined until it's attempted
Everything to do with brexit is shot through with controversy there's no way to get involved without it being seen as picking a side. You've seen what happened when judges and the speaker have been drawn into the process. Imagine that sort of thing being directed at the Queen? The royals will be doing everything in their power to stay as far out of it as possible.
Mij_Europe is Mujtaba Rahman, of Eurasia Group, which is a consultancy for corporations trying to understand political risk (also associated with NYU and LSE). Peter Foster is political editor of the Telegraph.
Unrelatedly, Faisal Islam at the BBC is starting to annoy me by referring to everything as "game theory", when I do not think he knows what that means
So the most likely option here basically involves the Queen stepping in to politics and performing a highly controversial action that would probably lose her the throne?
I know this thread has its hopes up but it's not going to happen. We're going to have no deal this time. Corbyn and the Tory rebels have fucked around and dithered and now it's too late to stop it. The time between now and October will be filled with the Tories running operation "blame EU for everything" which is already in full swing and Labour flapping about exploring means of closing the stable door now that the horse has well and truly bolted. Whatever they discuss in the conference is a meaningless distraction to provide the illusion of action now that there's no risk anything they do could threaten precious brexit.
The reason for the "might require", as I understand it, is that it gets into issues of the basis on which the Queen can invite an individual to attempt to form a government
It doesn't seem obvious to me that it's constitutionally problematic for her to extend that invitation to an individual with clear majority support following a vonc, but at that point we're into the woods of which conventions have the force of law and which don't, which is something I don't think can/will be determined until it's attempted
Everything to do with brexit is shot through with controversy there's no way to get involved without it being seen as picking a side. You've seen what happened when judges and the speaker have been drawn into the process. Imagine that sort of thing being directed at the Queen? The royals will be doing everything in their power to stay as far out of it as possible.
Sure, but this is an instance where declining to invite a unity candidate to form a government is also an active choice
There is no "not involved" for the Queen in that set of circumstances
If there's a vote of no confidence Johnson will try and find a new majority and Corbyn will probably try as well (presumably just telling everyone to back him as PM). If either of them can present to the Queen a working majority they'll get the nod to form a new government. A unity candidate who was neither of them would also be theoretically able to present a working majority.
If anyone rocks up to Buckingham Palace with a majority in their pocket the Queen will almost certainly say OK, form a government, but I think this all falls under the heading of rubber stamping someone who has the Parliament backing already sorted. She isn't going to be picking and choosing between more than one viable option (viable meaning someone with a majority).
If anyone pulls a working majority out of their sleeve following a vonc there'll be an election very shortly afterwards, so effectively the Queen will be saying hmm yes mind the shop for a bit but don't start rooting through the petty cash drawer. If it's Johnson it might well be after the October deadline, if it's anyone else it might be before or they might try for an extension and then schedule one.
At the moment I am unsure of Labour's ability to pull off a vote of no confidence to kick off any of this.
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I'm sure they don't want to get involved, but Boris' people have been floating the ideas of some serious shenanigans in order to force a no-deal Brexit. It's entirely possible that this whole thing could come down to whether the Queen stays on the sidelines to protect her family's position, or she intervenes because Boris has rules lawyered and/or ignored conventions in order to prevent Parliament from impacting the process. I wouldn't rest my hopes on her using her power to save everyone from Brexit, but things do seem like they might move away from the normal 'Queen rubber stamps the results of the democratic process' situation that's been the norm up until now.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I'm sure they don't want to get involved, but Boris' people have been floating the ideas of some serious shenanigans in order to force a no-deal Brexit. It's entirely possible that this whole thing could come down to whether the Queen stays on the sidelines to protect her family's position, or she intervenes because Boris has rules lawyered and/or ignored conventions in order to prevent Parliament from impacting the process. I wouldn't rest my hopes on her using her power to save everyone from Brexit, but things do seem like they might move away from the normal 'Queen rubber stamps the results of the democratic process' situation that's been the norm up until now.
I don't know what those "things" are that suggest the Queen will get involved in some meaningful way. Johnson may well try to legally finagle his way into delaying an election until after Brexit, but since he's not going to actually break the law to do it what's the Queen going to do?
I guess that's my question: what do people who think the Queen might do something think that something actually is? She'll probably approve anyone who already has a working majority in their pocket in the event of a no confidence vote triggering the 14 day period of everyone scrabbling around to find one, but beyond that, what is the action the Queen could take?
The closest the Queen has come in involving herself in the dealings of Parliament, and use of the royal prerogative beyond her standard duties was sending for Alec Douglas-Home when Harold Macmillan resigned in 1963. There was no formal selection process to replace Macmillan like we saw when Cameron and May resigned. Home wasn't even a "candidate" for the job at the outset. However, after favourites become non-favourites and Home eventually started entertaining the idea, Macmillan gave his recommendation to the Queen, who then sent for Home and asked him to form a Government, which he duly did.
Even that level of involvement caused a commotion back in 1963. The Queen intervening in any way today, with Brexit woven into every political fabric, would be so catastrophic, the ramifications can't even be imagined.
Whilst I understand the sentiment, the notion of The Queen will save us is pretty absurd, and really isn't worth a breathe of discussion. It's just not happening.
+9
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
What things? Well, we've already had the idea of proroguing Parliament until after Brexit floated. Then there were the stories that Boris might stay on as PM after a no confidence vote because I guess that's somehow a thing that can be done. And there's the whole schedule a GE for November. Generally the things are all the gaps in the law or norms that will be ignored that Boris seems hell bent on doing in order to prevent anyone from stopping or even delaying a no deal happening on the 31st. Hell, at this point I wouldn't put it past him to just ignore Parliament if they do something like pass another bill demanding that the government ask for another extension if no agreement is reached by the end of October. What are they going to do, hold him in contempt?
As far as what she could do? I dunno. Her powers seem to extend all the way to being able to kill someone in cold blood and not be prosecuted because she is the source of all governmental power, and as such cannot be touched by said power, while simultaneously being limited to picking out snarky broaches to wear for state visits. Practically, since the main worry at the moment is Boris somehow disabling the government until November, I think that (assuming shenanigans of course) calling up the EU and asking very nicely for an extension until some reasonable point after the GE would be a reasonable move.
None of this even means that the Queen would get involved. Just that her choice about whether or not to get involved will be less about respecting democracy and the role of Parliament and more about protecting it. Which is probably ironic or something. The difference between now and the previous Brexit deadlines is that back then, May and Parliament were working together (barely) and against each other (often) to develop policy (at the last minute). This time around it seems that Parliament is an annoyance that is best avoided or removed from the equation. I think that's a game changer, others might not.
The core problem is that Boris seems intent on breaking the UK government on this, and there's there's a hard deadline in 85 days.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Stumbled over an article about Eton and its influence on ritish politics and the article teaser had a picture of Johnson's football team or something and dear Lord, that picture alone was probably responsible for the invention of the words knob, bellend, and tosser.
I think it's 90% posturing for a general election in which they'll claim the EU refused to negotiate. In the absence of intelligent opposition it'll probably work.
Everything that the Tories and Labour do from now on is entirely for domestic consumption. Both parties are focused on securing the narritive for the election that will be coming after October. The Tories will probably win because Corbyn is a moron and doesn't know how to play the game.
+5
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Corbyn is a moron who is pitching same ambiguous (but not really ambiguous) position that didn't win last time.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The UK food industry has asked the government to waive aspects of competition law to allow firms to co-ordinate and direct supplies with each other after a no-deal Brexit.
Existing rules prohibit suppliers and retailers discussing supply or pricing.
The FDF, which represents a wide range of food companies and trade associations, said: "We asked for these reassurances at the end of last year. But we're still waiting."
The boss of one leading retailer told the BBC: "At the extreme, people like me and people from government will have to decide where lorries go to keep food supply chain going. And in that scenario we'd have to work with competitors, and the government would have to suspend competition laws".
I was wondering how people/companies were expecting to profit off of no-deal Brexit. There it is!
I don't know what would be worse, that they're doing this because they see the opportunity to price gouge, or that they're legitimately worried that they need this exemption in order to hit the adequate food baseline.
The first is arguably worse.
The second is, IMO and considering how this has gone at every step so far, arguably more likely.
The UK food industry has asked the government to waive aspects of competition law to allow firms to co-ordinate and direct supplies with each other after a no-deal Brexit.
Existing rules prohibit suppliers and retailers discussing supply or pricing.
The FDF, which represents a wide range of food companies and trade associations, said: "We asked for these reassurances at the end of last year. But we're still waiting."
The boss of one leading retailer told the BBC: "At the extreme, people like me and people from government will have to decide where lorries go to keep food supply chain going. And in that scenario we'd have to work with competitors, and the government would have to suspend competition laws".
I was wondering how people/companies were expecting to profit off of no-deal Brexit. There it is!
I don't actually think is about profiteering.
This is about rationing. In an environment of extremely constrained supply you can only avoid having areas completely cut off from supply if you can centrally coordinate what goes where.
The UK food industry has asked the government to waive aspects of competition law to allow firms to co-ordinate and direct supplies with each other after a no-deal Brexit.
Existing rules prohibit suppliers and retailers discussing supply or pricing.
The FDF, which represents a wide range of food companies and trade associations, said: "We asked for these reassurances at the end of last year. But we're still waiting."
The boss of one leading retailer told the BBC: "At the extreme, people like me and people from government will have to decide where lorries go to keep food supply chain going. And in that scenario we'd have to work with competitors, and the government would have to suspend competition laws".
I was wondering how people/companies were expecting to profit off of no-deal Brexit. There it is!
I don't actually think is about profiteering.
This is about rationing. In an environment of extremely constrained supply you can only avoid having areas completely cut off from supply if you can centrally coordinate what goes where.
He's talking about the people behind those resources. Like how we put multi-millions into ferrys for no deal, including a company that didn't have ferrys. All those billions being thrown about are ultimately lining the pockets of friends of the administration. Supermarkets asking for competition rules to be just gently pushed aside for instance will ultimately be used for profiteering, the CEO of Tesco doesn't give a shit if you eat unless you're buying food from his store.
If rationing needs to be done it should be directed by the government. On the other hand, the government will probably insist that planning for rationing is unnecessary so...
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
So one thing I am wondering: Article 50 requires a nation leave within procedures following its own constitution.
Should Johnson pull shenanigans like “oh, parliament approved a second referendum/general election, lets schedule it for Nov 1, oops thats after the deadline no deal.” could the EU not just declare that unconstitutional(either though the ECJ or a unanimous vote) and unilaterally move the date?
So one thing I am wondering: Article 50 requires a nation leave within procedures following its own constitution.
Should Johnson pull shenanigans like “oh, parliament approved a second referendum/general election, lets schedule it for Nov 1, oops thats after the deadline no deal.” could the EU not just declare that unconstitutional(either though the ECJ or a unanimous vote) and unilaterally move the date?
It's probably more likely that, the UK not having a written constitution, Johnson can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants if it's not already strictly prohibited. (And even then...)
Given how the Tories (enabled by the right-wing press) have already ridden roughshod over so many rules and norms over the last few years...
So one thing I am wondering: Article 50 requires a nation leave within procedures following its own constitution.
Should Johnson pull shenanigans like “oh, parliament approved a second referendum/general election, lets schedule it for Nov 1, oops thats after the deadline no deal.” could the EU not just declare that unconstitutional(either though the ECJ or a unanimous vote) and unilaterally move the date?
Boris'd just refuse to recognise it, and instruct everyone to behave as if they'd left.
Then ramp up the rhetoric even more.
Looks like everything is going to depend on the run up to the Labour Conference. With Remain/Revoke being pushed as one of the big things to be debated at the party level more explicitly than last time, but each council seems to have a FPTP system for nominating a topic to be considered - so R/R on Brexit is being pitted against Momentum's Green New Deal.
They put debating a climate change plan on the same FPTP ballot as averting Brexit? Is there no way they could have split those so debating both was possible?
The whole point is to try and block debate of Brexit at the conference.
When it comes to picking the topics for debate at the Conference, all the Labour councils get to put forward 'something' - they're not picking from a set list. Whatever gets the most nominations is debated at the conference - so pro-Brexit/pro-"stop rocking the boat" Labour groups are able to keep the debate over Labour's Brexit position at the more senior policy groups rather than having the whole party vote on it. Best way to that is to try to get other big issues to take up time, and to do that you need to make sure that Labour's Brexit Position isn't one of the most popular requests from the constituencies. There's lots of ways things get decided there, but the motions put forward by the councils is one of the major ones, and if it came down to the Labour membership rather than Labour voters (or what the leadership things Labour voters want), pretty sure Remain/Revoke would win.
Posts
They put debating a climate change plan on the same FPTP ballot as averting Brexit? Is there no way they could have split those so debating both was possible?
The whole point is to try and block debate of Brexit at the conference.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Mij_Europe is Mujtaba Rahman, of Eurasia Group, which is a consultancy for corporations trying to understand political risk (also associated with NYU and LSE). Peter Foster is political editor of the Telegraph.
Unrelatedly, Faisal Islam at the BBC is starting to annoy me by referring to everything as "game theory", when I do not think he knows what that means
Food industry seeks no-deal competition waiver
Every supermarket coincidently agreeing bread should be £400 a loaf for example.
So the most likely option here basically involves the Queen stepping in to politics and performing a highly controversial action that would probably lose her the throne?
I know this thread has its hopes up but it's not going to happen. We're going to have no deal this time. Corbyn and the Tory rebels have fucked around and dithered and now it's too late to stop it. The time between now and October will be filled with the Tories running operation "blame EU for everything" which is already in full swing and Labour flapping about exploring means of closing the stable door now that the horse has well and truly bolted. Whatever they discuss in the conference is a meaningless distraction to provide the illusion of action now that there's no risk anything they do could threaten precious brexit.
The reason for the "might require", as I understand it, is that it gets into issues of the basis on which the Queen can invite an individual to attempt to form a government
It doesn't seem obvious to me that it's constitutionally problematic for her to extend that invitation to an individual with clear majority support following a vonc, but at that point we're into the woods of which conventions have the force of law and which don't, which is something I don't think can/will be determined until it's attempted
The threat of adequate food hangs in the balance.
Everything to do with brexit is shot through with controversy there's no way to get involved without it being seen as picking a side. You've seen what happened when judges and the speaker have been drawn into the process. Imagine that sort of thing being directed at the Queen? The royals will be doing everything in their power to stay as far out of it as possible.
Sure, but this is an instance where declining to invite a unity candidate to form a government is also an active choice
There is no "not involved" for the Queen in that set of circumstances
If anyone rocks up to Buckingham Palace with a majority in their pocket the Queen will almost certainly say OK, form a government, but I think this all falls under the heading of rubber stamping someone who has the Parliament backing already sorted. She isn't going to be picking and choosing between more than one viable option (viable meaning someone with a majority).
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
At the moment I am unsure of Labour's ability to pull off a vote of no confidence to kick off any of this.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I don't know what those "things" are that suggest the Queen will get involved in some meaningful way. Johnson may well try to legally finagle his way into delaying an election until after Brexit, but since he's not going to actually break the law to do it what's the Queen going to do?
I guess that's my question: what do people who think the Queen might do something think that something actually is? She'll probably approve anyone who already has a working majority in their pocket in the event of a no confidence vote triggering the 14 day period of everyone scrabbling around to find one, but beyond that, what is the action the Queen could take?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Even that level of involvement caused a commotion back in 1963. The Queen intervening in any way today, with Brexit woven into every political fabric, would be so catastrophic, the ramifications can't even be imagined.
Whilst I understand the sentiment, the notion of The Queen will save us is pretty absurd, and really isn't worth a breathe of discussion. It's just not happening.
As far as what she could do? I dunno. Her powers seem to extend all the way to being able to kill someone in cold blood and not be prosecuted because she is the source of all governmental power, and as such cannot be touched by said power, while simultaneously being limited to picking out snarky broaches to wear for state visits. Practically, since the main worry at the moment is Boris somehow disabling the government until November, I think that (assuming shenanigans of course) calling up the EU and asking very nicely for an extension until some reasonable point after the GE would be a reasonable move.
None of this even means that the Queen would get involved. Just that her choice about whether or not to get involved will be less about respecting democracy and the role of Parliament and more about protecting it. Which is probably ironic or something. The difference between now and the previous Brexit deadlines is that back then, May and Parliament were working together (barely) and against each other (often) to develop policy (at the last minute). This time around it seems that Parliament is an annoyance that is best avoided or removed from the equation. I think that's a game changer, others might not.
The core problem is that Boris seems intent on breaking the UK government on this, and there's there's a hard deadline in 85 days.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Fuel is at 4/1, bread is 16/1
Edit: also offering 11/4 on KFC closing outlets in the UK during 2019 due to a chicken shortage, which seems oddly specific
How would a shortage of actual chickens impact KFC?
I was wondering how people/companies were expecting to profit off of no-deal Brexit. There it is!
The first is arguably worse.
The second is, IMO and considering how this has gone at every step so far, arguably more likely.
I don't actually think is about profiteering.
This is about rationing. In an environment of extremely constrained supply you can only avoid having areas completely cut off from supply if you can centrally coordinate what goes where.
He's talking about the people behind those resources. Like how we put multi-millions into ferrys for no deal, including a company that didn't have ferrys. All those billions being thrown about are ultimately lining the pockets of friends of the administration. Supermarkets asking for competition rules to be just gently pushed aside for instance will ultimately be used for profiteering, the CEO of Tesco doesn't give a shit if you eat unless you're buying food from his store.
Should Johnson pull shenanigans like “oh, parliament approved a second referendum/general election, lets schedule it for Nov 1, oops thats after the deadline no deal.” could the EU not just declare that unconstitutional(either though the ECJ or a unanimous vote) and unilaterally move the date?
It's probably more likely that, the UK not having a written constitution, Johnson can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants if it's not already strictly prohibited. (And even then...)
Given how the Tories (enabled by the right-wing press) have already ridden roughshod over so many rules and norms over the last few years...
Steam | XBL
I would never stop laughing.
Steam | XBL
Boris'd just refuse to recognise it, and instruct everyone to behave as if they'd left.
Then ramp up the rhetoric even more.
When it comes to picking the topics for debate at the Conference, all the Labour councils get to put forward 'something' - they're not picking from a set list. Whatever gets the most nominations is debated at the conference - so pro-Brexit/pro-"stop rocking the boat" Labour groups are able to keep the debate over Labour's Brexit position at the more senior policy groups rather than having the whole party vote on it. Best way to that is to try to get other big issues to take up time, and to do that you need to make sure that Labour's Brexit Position isn't one of the most popular requests from the constituencies. There's lots of ways things get decided there, but the motions put forward by the councils is one of the major ones, and if it came down to the Labour membership rather than Labour voters (or what the leadership things Labour voters want), pretty sure Remain/Revoke would win.