ChatterBank2 mins ago
Listen To This.......
24 Answers
https:/
I'll pass no opinion here but this is legal experts talking about what could/could not happen if the deal is rejected.
I'll pass no opinion here but this is legal experts talking about what could/could not happen if the deal is rejected.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Much as expected. All this talk from remainers about the House not passing 'no deal' is nonsense. The die is cast, there is a deadline, no deal is the default that needs no approval.
It covers the ways that the undemocratic can delay, maybe, but we are agreed that the EU have no intention of agreeing a reasonable arrangement. A GE seems unlikely. There was already one mad attempt to improve the government's majority, as I recall, and look what happened then. As for the undemocratic supporting of a 'last of two' referendum, well no sane parliamentarian should want to try to force their opinion over the stated will of the people. Very poor precedent.
It covers the ways that the undemocratic can delay, maybe, but we are agreed that the EU have no intention of agreeing a reasonable arrangement. A GE seems unlikely. There was already one mad attempt to improve the government's majority, as I recall, and look what happened then. As for the undemocratic supporting of a 'last of two' referendum, well no sane parliamentarian should want to try to force their opinion over the stated will of the people. Very poor precedent.
Parliament is the seat of democracy in this country, and therefore -- by definition -- anything it does is democratic. That could include overturning earlier statute law forcing Brexit day to be on March 29th. In any case, it's almost certain that Parliament will not allow "no deal" exit to happen. Whether that means passing the deal on offer (after much grumbling) or finding some way of delaying Brexit is anyone's guess. But still -- nobody should expect no deal to happen.
This "will of the people" cliche is getting rather worn, and if one reflects how democracy works in this country, a NDE is NOT the will of the people.
When a GE produces a 52% in favour of one party, that party shares power with other parties on a 52/48 basis (more or less), so a 52% Brexit vote should produce a 52% exit more or less.
Or are you suggesting that at the next election, when Labour get 52% of the votes, we should have a Parliament entirely of Labour MPs ? Would not that tie in with your "will of the people" interpretation ?
When a GE produces a 52% in favour of one party, that party shares power with other parties on a 52/48 basis (more or less), so a 52% Brexit vote should produce a 52% exit more or less.
Or are you suggesting that at the next election, when Labour get 52% of the votes, we should have a Parliament entirely of Labour MPs ? Would not that tie in with your "will of the people" interpretation ?
Thanks tora that’s a useful piece.
I also think it may well get through:
Labour could change its mind if it realised there was no prospect of renegotiation or a general election. It has been suggested that the Tory party could, ironically, tear itself apart if the govt was reduced to needing Corbyn’s rescue act tho
I also think it may well get through:
Labour could change its mind if it realised there was no prospect of renegotiation or a general election. It has been suggested that the Tory party could, ironically, tear itself apart if the govt was reduced to needing Corbyn’s rescue act tho
//When a GE produces a 52% in favour of one party, that party shares power with other parties on a 52/48 basis (more or less), so a 52% Brexit vote should produce a 52% exit more or less//
"Shares power", that's what it does, does it? And "52% Brexit"? That's a concept and a half. Where do they find 'em?
Hey, Mr Pedant, over here mate: just another normal day on AB.
"Shares power", that's what it does, does it? And "52% Brexit"? That's a concept and a half. Where do they find 'em?
Hey, Mr Pedant, over here mate: just another normal day on AB.
Canary: "When a GE produces a 52% in favour of one party, that party shares power with other parties on a 52/48 basis (more or less), so a 52% Brexit vote should produce a 52% exit more or less. " -err no, we don't have PR, and I don't think any party has ever won 52% of the vote in living memory in a UK GE. Even St Tony in 1997 was only 47%. In any case the winner governs and does not share power with the opposition unless it has to in a hung parliament situation. So I have no idea what you are on about me old china.
I think the problem with the "will of the people" argument is that it seems to require implementation at any and all lengths. It should stand to reason that, having given Parliament an instruction, they should do their utmost to carry it out -- but, at the same time, the purpose of a representative democracy is that those elected are meant to serve the best interests of the country.
Leaving aside, if it's possible, the specific question of *this* issue, would it not be fair to say that if a referendum had asked Parliament to carry out something that was either impossible or at least highly damaging to the national interest, is it not then incumbent on MPs to say "sorry, but we cannot do as you ask"? And, if not, then why bother having representatives at all?
Leaving aside, if it's possible, the specific question of *this* issue, would it not be fair to say that if a referendum had asked Parliament to carry out something that was either impossible or at least highly damaging to the national interest, is it not then incumbent on MPs to say "sorry, but we cannot do as you ask"? And, if not, then why bother having representatives at all?
Canary's post is maybe a little too blunt but raises what ought to be a reasonable point: if the country is divided, then so too should Parliament be; especially on contentious issues, it is vital that both sides be allowed to contribute to the debate, discussion, and the resulting legislation. Most of the best legislation tends to be made only when there is broad consensus on the issue, and when both sides have had a chance to shape the text to reflect their views.
This isn't about Proportional Representation, either -- although, obviously, I'd argue that a more proportional parliament would be preferable to one where it's perfectly possible for a minority government to command an absolute and total majority in the House.
This isn't about Proportional Representation, either -- although, obviously, I'd argue that a more proportional parliament would be preferable to one where it's perfectly possible for a minority government to command an absolute and total majority in the House.
“When a GE produces a 52% in favour of one party, that party shares power with other parties on a 52/48 basis (more or less),..”
Far more than less. In the last ten General Elections only once (2017) has the difference between the %age of votes gained and the %age of seats won been less than 10%. The average difference is 15%. In 1997 Labour won 64% of the seats with 43% of the votes, in 2001 they won 62% of the seats with 40% of the votes and in 2005 they won 53% of the seats with just 35% of the votes. The Conservatives’ best showing in this respect was in 1983 when they won 61% of the seats with 42% of the votes. Under the FPTP system %age of seats won is always more than the %age of votes gained, usually considerably so. In all of those years I specifically mentioned (and four - arguably five - more out of the ten) there was no “sharing of power” although all governments were formed by parties with considerably less than 50% of the votes cast.
“…so a 52% Brexit vote should produce a 52% exit more or less.”
It was a binary question. Remain or Leave. You cannot be slightly in or slightly out any more than a woman can be slightly pregnant. But more than that, if the result had been 52% to remain how much movement towards being “48% out” do you believe would have occurred? My guess is none whatsoever. There would have been no accommodation for the 48% disappointed leavers. Mr Cameron tried to get a few minor concessions to appease them before the referendum and he failed miserably.
Far more than less. In the last ten General Elections only once (2017) has the difference between the %age of votes gained and the %age of seats won been less than 10%. The average difference is 15%. In 1997 Labour won 64% of the seats with 43% of the votes, in 2001 they won 62% of the seats with 40% of the votes and in 2005 they won 53% of the seats with just 35% of the votes. The Conservatives’ best showing in this respect was in 1983 when they won 61% of the seats with 42% of the votes. Under the FPTP system %age of seats won is always more than the %age of votes gained, usually considerably so. In all of those years I specifically mentioned (and four - arguably five - more out of the ten) there was no “sharing of power” although all governments were formed by parties with considerably less than 50% of the votes cast.
“…so a 52% Brexit vote should produce a 52% exit more or less.”
It was a binary question. Remain or Leave. You cannot be slightly in or slightly out any more than a woman can be slightly pregnant. But more than that, if the result had been 52% to remain how much movement towards being “48% out” do you believe would have occurred? My guess is none whatsoever. There would have been no accommodation for the 48% disappointed leavers. Mr Cameron tried to get a few minor concessions to appease them before the referendum and he failed miserably.
//Canary's post is maybe a little too blunt but raises what ought to be a reasonable point: if the country is divided, then so too should Parliament be; especially on contentious issues//
(Your argument was developed very well by Matthew Parris, by the way, Jim, a few weeks ago in the Spectator using various imagined scenarios along the impossible/immoral/the facts have changed lines. You should check it out - non-subscribers should be able to read a few articles. Very persuasive if you accept the Parris scenarios as valid analogues of Brexit which - no surprise - I don't.)
The point about Brexit is that on this particular "contentious" issue Parliament has always been divided unequally[i. That, and the fact that this is a binary choice, and that the passions on both side are strong, and (let's not forget) the size of the UKIP vote at the time, is why Cameron promised a referendum about remaining or leaving.
Your argument is based on the presumption of a principled concern by our representatives for the national interest. If that concern is genuine rather than contrived then your argument surely constitutes a better case for not promising a referendum in the first place, rather than making the long-term interest of the UK hostage to the whims of the stupid and selfish Brexit half of the electorate, and then, having got the wrong answer, spend the next two and a half years trying to reverse it? So your putative men of principle should have voted [i]against[i] the referendum. In fact they all voted [i]for] it, didn't they?
(Your argument was developed very well by Matthew Parris, by the way, Jim, a few weeks ago in the Spectator using various imagined scenarios along the impossible/immoral/the facts have changed lines. You should check it out - non-subscribers should be able to read a few articles. Very persuasive if you accept the Parris scenarios as valid analogues of Brexit which - no surprise - I don't.)
The point about Brexit is that on this particular "contentious" issue Parliament has always been divided unequally[i. That, and the fact that this is a binary choice, and that the passions on both side are strong, and (let's not forget) the size of the UKIP vote at the time, is why Cameron promised a referendum about remaining or leaving.
Your argument is based on the presumption of a principled concern by our representatives for the national interest. If that concern is genuine rather than contrived then your argument surely constitutes a better case for not promising a referendum in the first place, rather than making the long-term interest of the UK hostage to the whims of the stupid and selfish Brexit half of the electorate, and then, having got the wrong answer, spend the next two and a half years trying to reverse it? So your putative men of principle should have voted [i]against[i] the referendum. In fact they all voted [i]for] it, didn't they?
Yes they did, but then political pressure rather explains that, doesn't it, for how many MPs would want to vote against a referendum? And, in any case, as we've pretty clearly seen before and since, the referendum was called not to resolve the question but to squash it -- otherwise, there would have been far more preparation for the actual outcome than there was.
Even leaving all that to one side, though, it is -- or, at least, should be -- possible to start out on a course, realise that this course is hopeless and damaging, and therefore change tack. There's no obligation to carry a policy out to the bitter end if it's causing too much damage. Sometimes persevering is worth it, sometimes it is not; but, no matter what side of that divide we stand on, it would be nice to at least agree on *that*.
Even leaving all that to one side, though, it is -- or, at least, should be -- possible to start out on a course, realise that this course is hopeless and damaging, and therefore change tack. There's no obligation to carry a policy out to the bitter end if it's causing too much damage. Sometimes persevering is worth it, sometimes it is not; but, no matter what side of that divide we stand on, it would be nice to at least agree on *that*.
// Hey, Mr Pedant, over here mate: just another normal day on AB. //
well there were three elections in 1911
Lords rejected the lloyd george's budget
one of the callaghan admins (not a great success in itself) the Tory share of the vote was greater than Labour.
Callaghan was latterly brought down by the Irish vote
A sinn feiner stayed in his pub in the North instead of making the casting vote - result Thatcher
he went around boasting that he had elected Thatcher which was kinda odd considering he was Sinn Fein.
[ the iranians went around boasting they had defeated Carter and got Reagan elected - a fine lot of good it did them]
well there were three elections in 1911
Lords rejected the lloyd george's budget
one of the callaghan admins (not a great success in itself) the Tory share of the vote was greater than Labour.
Callaghan was latterly brought down by the Irish vote
A sinn feiner stayed in his pub in the North instead of making the casting vote - result Thatcher
he went around boasting that he had elected Thatcher which was kinda odd considering he was Sinn Fein.
[ the iranians went around boasting they had defeated Carter and got Reagan elected - a fine lot of good it did them]
Let me just add to my last post that I want what is best for the UK above all -- and, as the last year or so has made abundantly clear, what is best for the UK is certainly *not* what the government has been able to come up with. Nor is it leaving the EU on a whim, crashing out and tearing Europe and the UK apart in the process.
Latest Posts
News3 mins ago
Your Vote Is Not Confidential.
News5 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
